Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/March 2013

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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 Ian Rose 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Prince George of Denmark

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Victoria called him "very stupid and insignificant"; modern historians think he "achieved a major advance for feminism". He was the consort of Queen Anne, and occupied the same position as Prince Albert and Prince Philip. DrKiernan (talk) 20:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I enjoyed reading the article and seeing it grow. I believe this is already a done thing. Congratulations on another one, DrKiernan! Surtsicna (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK I've changed that link, hadn't realised that he was also a Brother in Law via Princess Frederica Amalia of Denmark it might be worth mentioning that. Also it mentions one of George's actions as Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports but his appointment is merely covered in a succession box, I'd have thought it would be logical to mention it at the appropriate point in the article. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in his extra appointments [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Support – A few minor points, none of which affect my support:

  • General
    • Be consistent with capitalising royal and noble ranks: at present you have, e.g. "Anne became queen", but later "from the Queen's bedchamber".
    • Piping of "Sir" – you have "Sir Godfrey Kneller" and "Sir Godfrey Kneller". I strongly prefer the latter – so much easier on the reader's eye, though a bit more work for the author – but consistency wanted either way.
  • Personal traits and portrayal
    • "Winston Churchill said he "mattered very little"" – given the period we are considering I was moved to click on the link to see if this was the WW2 leader or Marlborough's father. I never like luring people away from my own stuff to other pages, and I wonder if a word of two such as "…in 1947 Winston Churchill said…" might be advisable". Merely a suggestion.
  • Personal traits and portrayal
    • Previous husbands of queens regnant had become kings – citation needed. (I can think only of Philip II of Spain with Mary Tudor, and he was a king already.)
  • Titles, styles, honours and arms
    • The reasons for the italics in this section are not clear to me. I find them a bit distracting.
  • Notes
    • Note 2: Not sure why "possibly" here. Is the alternative generally thought more likely?

That's all from me. This is a fine article, a good read, full but not over-full, well illustrated and referenced. Clearly of FA standard in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think there is anything wrong regarding capitalisation of royal titles. In the first instance you mention, the word "queen" is a common noun and in the second, it refers to Anne. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies#Occupation titles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters#Titles of people. As for previous husbands of queens regnant, Philip is not the problem; he was king of Naples when he married Mary I of England but then also became king of England. One might argue that Lord Guildford Dudley preceded George as non-regal husband of a queen regnant. Also, the third husband of Mary I of Scotland was not king of Scotland. Since Anne was queen of both England and Scotland, the sentence should probably be reworded or removed. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, e.g., "George accompanied the king's troops" but "the Queen was devastated" Tim riley (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is an example of inconsistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and support. Changes made [3]. The phrase "was a son or possibly a daughter" is used because Gregg says "stillborn son" (without qualification) whereas Weir says "may have been a daughter" (demonstrating uncertainty). DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article. You've brought it a long way from its former state. One small point: I think "Est il possible?" should have a hyphen ("Est-il possible?"), but I could be wrong. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and the correction, now made. DrKiernan (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On comprehensiveness and prose, I support comments - reading through now- queries below....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In February 1685, King Charles II died, without legitimate issue, - I might remove the comma after the "died", for flow.....
The social and political grouping centred on George and Anne was known as the "Cockpit Circle" after their London residence - were the Cockpit Circle also protestant? I wasn't sure upon reading....

Overall the flow and prose of the bottom 2/3rds of the article is fine - I have a niggling concern that the Early life section is a tad spartan which compromises the flow and engaging nature of the section. Any anecdotal embellishments would help here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've expanded the early life section and removed the comma.[4] The article reads: Protestant opposition to James was therefore increasingly focused around Anne and George ... The social and political grouping centred on George and Anne was known as the "Cockpit Circle". DrKiernan (talk) 13:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support A very few comments:

George's quote in the second paragraph of "Marriage"--did they have to travel a lot?

  • Very nice proper use of heiress apparent! I had to dive into the Act of Settlement to check it, but it's well done.
  • "The House of Commons passed the bill but it was only narrowly passed by the House of Lords." Can the double use of passed be avoided? In addition, something should be said to make it clearer that the Commons passed it more easily than the Lords.
  • Given the influence that she held over Anne, I think the Duchess of Marlborough should get a better introduction. It is rather offhand and then her role is never explained, but only alluded to until after George's death, where it seems a little after the fact.
  • "Anne refused initially to appoint a new Lord High Admiral". Perhaps some clarification is needed here. The reader might think Pembroke was appointed Lord High Admiral, when that office was kept in commission until the 1820s when our friend William had his go at it. I would distinguish more clearly between Lord High Admiral and First Lord of the Admiralty throughout the paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Pls check the duplicate links (you can use Ucucha's script).
  • Is everyone in the Ancestors diagram cited as a relation somewhere in the article?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I prefer to retain the current duplicated links because each article is only linked twice at most, with each of the two links in different sections. In particular, I think it looks odd if one item in a list is not linked (because it was linked in an earlier section) when the other items in the list are linked.
  • The entire tree is from the cite bottom right (Paget, pp. 110–112). DrKiernan (talk) 08:19, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you've considered the dup links and feel they're justified, fair enough.
  • Mmm, might be clearer that the citation applies to the entire table if was on the "Ancestors of..." title at the top -- anyway, can be taken care of after promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Juwan Howard

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the results of the last two FACs has been that there has been a lack of reviewer interest in this candidate period as opposed to any real objection to it. I then noticed that WP:NBA has not had an article promoted to WP:FA since 2009-APR-19 (Magic Johnson). (The same is really true of WP:CBBALL, except it has had articles passed more recently that are tagged by the project, but where the subject of the article is really notable for a sport other than basketball. E.g., Jackie Robinson and Otto Graham or notable for something other than sports). I have also noticed that there are many reviewers who are active with WP, who were involved in seeing NBA articles promoted in the past. I contacted all the active editors who were involved in two NBA FA promotions to see if they were interested in reviewing this candidate. Each replied that they would consider this candidate. Thus, I am hoping that Igordebraga (talk · contribs), Chensiyuan (talk · contribs), Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and Casliber (talk · contribs) all will evaluate this candidate. Basically, in my fifth attempt, I am hoping that a consensus is reached rather than that the review essentially times out. I will also be dropping a note with WP:NBA, WP:CBBALL and WP:CHICAGO. I may also contact some other reviewers who only participated in one of the NBA promotions if I still don't get feeback on this nomination. I may also contact others who have been involved in this aqrticle in the past.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • "A one-time All-Star and one-time All-NBA power forward, he starred as an All-American on the Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team as part of the Fab Five recruiting class of 1991 that reached the finals of the 1992 and 1993 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament." There are too many things crammed into this sentence. It needs to be split up or trimmed.
  • It might be better to combine the All-Star and All-NBA details with the sentence about the draft. I would also move the line about the Heat championship to be closer to the other NBA details. It's better to keep the college stuff together and the NBA stuff together, rather than going back and forth within the paragraph. Zagalejo^^^ 02:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are similar phrases, with just one sentence between them: "reached the finals of the 1992 and 1993 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament" ... "helped Michigan reach the finals of the 1992 and 1993 National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Men's Division I Basketball Championship"
  • Also, you should explain what NCAA stands for the first time you mention it, rather than the second.
  • "while starting a combined 304 of a possible 350 games during their collective freshman and sophomore years" It took me a while to figure out what this means. I was initially confused, because the Wolverines only played about 70 actual games during that time frame. I bet other readers will either stumble over the phrase, or misinterpret it. In any case, I don't think it's an appropriate detail for the lead.
  • I don't know if you were a fan of the game back then, but the thing that made the Fab Five the Fab Five was that they were the starting Five. All the press was about five freshman starting, beating teams and wearing outrageous clothes. We are not talking something like this years Michigan Fresh Five who all play in most games, but sometimes as the 8th or 9th guy. They were five guys who started. That was how they were marketed. It is not like last years Kentucky team where the gimmick was all first rounders after the fact. This was 5 freshman who all started and took their team to the championship game. Imagine if Kentucky had been 5 freshman last year. The fact that they were the starters is no minute detail. If you want to help me phrase it differently that is fine, but we are talking about 5 starting freshman.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:INTRO seems applicable: "avoid ... over-specific descriptions, since greater detail is saved for the body of the article." The 87% seems too specific and not intuitive without explanation. I suggest calling them "significant contributors" or "primary starters" or something similar in the lead. I'm still mulling if the 87% et al is appropriate in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it make more sense to discuss Vocational at the beginning of the second paragraph?
  • Done.--07:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • "In 2010, he signed with the Heat and entered his 17th NBA season, during which he reached the playoffs for the sixth time and made his first career NBA Finals appearance. Howard has developed a reputation as a humanitarian for his civic commitment." It seems strange that the paragraph skips over his championship with the Heat. (I know it's mentioned in the opening paragraph, but for the sake of narrative flow, it would be good to also mention it in the third paragraph.) Zagalejo^^^ 06:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • I noiced that the section never specifically establishes that he was born in Chicago. Also, the first mention of "South Side" should indicate that it refers to the South Side of Chicago.
High school
  • "Chicago Vocational Career Academy (CVS)" - People are going to wonder where the "S" comes from in the abbreviation. I think I might have asked this before, but was the school officially known as a "Career Academy" while Howard was playing?
  • Hmm. It is rarely called anything more than Chicago Vocational in the articles that I see. The wikipedia article says it is still called CVS even though the formal name would suggest CVCA. If the reader click through to the article, they won't be as confused. I am unable to find out when the school officially became the Career Academy. The school calls itself CVCA on its own website, but WP does not seem to acknowledge this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was also chosen for the National Honor Society.[3][7][8] He served as Vocational's homecoming king." - Might be good to combine these two short sentences, to avoid choppiness.
Scouting report
  • "According to Mariotti, he was also regarded as a rock-solid power forward who provided rebounds and defense, in contrast to his flamboyant teammate Webber." It might be better to use an actual quote from Mariotti here. The "rock-solid" part, at least, needs to be in quotation marks, because that is directly taken from Mariotti.
  • OK... but while we're on the subject, I don't think we need to include that much of Mariotti's quote in the footnote. The last two sentences in the footnote aren't used to support anything in the body of the article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a mix of present tense and past tense when describing Howard here. For example, present tense: "NBA analyst Doug Collins described Howard as a player who can 'play with his back to the basket and can shoot from about 16 feet outside' and who 'plays with a lot of energy and emotion'." Then past-tense: "Later Bembry noted that he was a power forward who is able to play center".
  • Well, there's consistency within that one sentence, but there are other sentences in that paragraph that describe Howard's game in the present tense. I'm not really sure what verb tense would be better, but some consistency would be good. The whole section is a bit difficult to read, because it ends up skipping ahead to 1996, then 2001, then 2010, etc. If you try to read the whole article in one sitting, it's jarring. Zagalejo^^^ 05:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team's head coach, Jim Lynam, described Howard as a 'complete player' and noted that 'he can defend you and he can score over you'." Might be good to clarify what team he was coaching, since the Bullets haven't been mentioned in a while. Zagalejo^^^ 23:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As an elder statesman with the Heat, he was regarded as a future NBA executive (coach or general manager)." I think he can drop the "executive" part, and just say, "he was regarded as a future NBA coach or general manager".
Washington Bullets era (1994–96)
  • If we're going to mention the trade rumors, we should probably mention the teams involved.
  • "After Webber joined the Bullets, many thought that the two former Fab Five members would bring success to the team, coached by Lynam." - It's been a while since Lynam was last mentioned. A first name would be useful here.
  • "Howard participated in the February 11, 1995, NBA All-Star Game weekend events as a member of the youth challenge match." - I'm not sure why we call it the "youth challenge match". What was the official name of the game at the time? According to the article on the subject, it was known as the Rookie Challenge, but I don't know off the top of my head if that's correct.
  • "That month, he became the second Bullet (since the award's inception in 1981) and first since Jeff Ruland in January 1982 to earn NBA Rookie of the Month." - This needs to be reworded a bit. You don't earn the "NBA Rookie of the Month". You earn the Rookie of the Month Award. (You could also say he was named Rookie of the Month.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Bullets were expected to be a contender with Webber, Howard, Muresan, Mark Price, and Robert Pack. Webber, Price and Pack missed almost the entire 1995–96 season (65, 75 and 51 games respectively) because of injuries." - It would be good to have a transitional phrase between these sentences. Indeed, the whole paragraph about the 1995-96 season seems a bit choppy, with lots of disparate ideas thrown together.
  • A little bit better, but there's still room for improvement. For example, the part about the Knicks making moves to sign him is an abrupt departure from the narrative. (Did they ever even make an offer to Howard? Nothing more is said about this.) Zagalejo^^^ 20:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Sports Illustrated story presented Howard as if he could dominate games at will during that season." - "presented Howard as if" is awkward.
  • "However, according the NBA league office, the Heat miscalculated its available salary..." - "its" or "their"? Earlier in the article, "Heat" is treated as a plural form. ("The Heat are Howard's eighth NBA team.")
  • "He became the first player in NBA history to sign a contract worth more than $100 million;[156][157] his seven-year contract was worth $105 million. He never reached the level of All-Star status again." - The way these facts are presented together suggestions some degree of causation, which I don't think we should be doing, per WP:NPOV and WP:OR.
Washington Wizards era (1996–2001)
  • "On November 11, 1996, Howard failed a sobriety test when he was caught speeding and was charged with driving while intoxicated." - So, what happened with this? After presenting this fact, we just skip ahead to the coaching change.
  • With DWI, you are sort of guilty once you fail the test so being charged means you have to pay some fine, do community service or if a repeat offender serve some time. It is pretty likely one of these things happened. I also found a story without resolution that he was charged with shoplifting. This is a more grey area type thing. You really assume innocence on that so a story without a resolution has a different impact and in the case of a BLP should be avoided.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He failed to score 30 points in any game." - This seems like a weird thing to say. 30 is kind of an arbitrary cutoff.
  • "During the offseason, Howard's name surfaced in trade rumors that had him going to the New York Knicks in exchange for Pat Ewing with the thinking that the trade would better position the Wizards for the 2001 free agent market." - His name is almost always presented as Patrick Ewing.
  • "On December 31, 2000, Howard, in a game against the Detroit Pistons, posted his career high of 15 free throws." - We should probably clarify that this was 15 made free throws.
  • "Not only did Howard's statistics (approximately 18 points, 7 rebounds and 2.8 assists) compare favorably to both players according to Milton Kent of The Baltimore Sun, but also his role as his team's primary scoring option was a role that neither of the two alternatives had to endure." - "had to endure" doesn't sound right in this context. I think the whole sentence can be restructured to read more smoothly. Zagalejo^^^ 03:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2001-04
  • A lot of the paragraphs here suffer from choppiness and the awkward inclusion of random facts.
  • "Howard provided the Mavericks with a back-to-the-basket player who moved into the starting power-forward position, enabling Dirk Nowitzki to play small forward and Bradley to play center." - Shawn Bradley hasn't been mentioned for a long time. A first name would be useful here.
  • "This was the first time since his rookie holdout season that he did not start every game he played in.[100] All reserve appearances occurred between November 21 and December 11, and eight of them were in consecutive games between November 21 and December 5." - Might be good to explain why he was no longer starting.
  • "During the season, teammate Tracy McGrady successfully defended his scoring championship,[219] while Howard attempted to be a positive influence when the situation arose, such as when he attempted to stop McGrady from kicking the basketball into the stands twice in a row." - This is pretty trivial. Is there a better example of his leadership?
2007-10
  • "Howard agreed to terms with the Dallas Mavericks on October 30, 2007, but was not able to officially sign until the next day, when he cleared waivers.[265][266] Terms of the deal were not disclosed publicly." - Most teams do not publicly announce the specifics of their contracts, but I'm sure the specifics were reported somewhere. (As you do elsewhere in the article, you can say his contract was "believed to be [such and such]".)
  • It looks like they penciled in the veterans minimum. Maybe they had a source and maybe they just guessed. Might be the case that if they don't release anything you assume the veteran's minimum. Regardless, they are a borderline RS for game stats, but are not an RS for salaries.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miami Heat era (2010–present)
  • "By joining the Heat, Howard joined a team that by the time of the 2011 NBA playoffs, included former champion Dwyane Wade as well as a group of players such as LeBron James and Chris Bosh who had not won an NBA championship and combined for 29 All-Star game selections." - That last part (about the 29 combined All-Star selections) seems misplaced. The figure includes players who weren't on the Heat.
  • Yes, Wade had won a championship already. But James, Bosh, and Howard didn't combine for 29 selections themselves. If you look at the source, the number includes players from all over the NBA, like Dirk Nowitzki. Zagalejo^^^ 00:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That March, he was part of the collective subject of the documentary film The Fab Five that reignited controversy and reinvigorated the Duke–Michigan basketball rivalry." - "was part of the collective subject" is unnecessarily wordy. You could just say he was "featured in" the documentary, or something like that. Zagalejo^^^ 05:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ironically, a teammate with the Heat was Shane Battier, who grew up in Detroit as a fan of the Fab Five and idolized Howard." - See here: Isn’t It Ironic? Probably Not
Personal
  • "Howard has remained a Chicago resident throughout his NBA career. In 1996, he bought a 3,116-square-foot (289.5 m2) town home in the South Loop area for $490,000 that he still owns." - The way the sentence is structured, one might interpret it as saying that he still owns the $490,000.
  • New comments from Zagalejo - I'll add to this section as I read through the article once more.
Lead
  • "While he continued to be a productive starter, he was never again selected to play in an All-Star Game." - The lead never clearly establishes when he was named an All-Star. Zagalejo^^^ 02:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • "Helena was working at a Chicago restaurant when she became pregnant with Juwan." - Is there a way to reword this so it doesn't sound like she was impregnated inside the restaurant? (I'm sorry if that sounds silly, but that's the way I initially interpreted things.) Zagalejo^^^ 02:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
High school
*"Taylor Bell of the Chicago Sun-Times noted that Howard was leaning toward playing for either DePaul or for the Illinois Fighting Illini because Thomas, whom Howard admired, had been a member of the team in 1989." - It's not clear whether Thomas was playing for DePaul or Illinois. (Also, why include the nickname for one school, but not the other?) Zagalejo^^^ 02:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Howard was perceived as one of the top prospects in the city of Chicago at that time, the best Chicago-area prospect was Glenn Robinson of Gary, Indiana." - Not sure why we need to bring this up. In any case, the sentence should be reworded to clarify that Robinson was "ranked" as the best player (not that he was the best). Zagalejo^^^ 02:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some tweaks myself. In my experience, Chicago high school basketball players aren't typically grouped with players from NW Indiana, since their schools wouldn't play each other under normal circumstances. But it's not that big of a deal. Zagalejo^^^ 05:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Bagumba
  1. High school and college sections seem too long relative to pro section. Either they need to be shortened (likely) or pro section is lacking details. For example, some of the college game-by-game details would be better summarized at a higher level, with details WP:PRESERVEd at articles like 1991–92 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team or 1992 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament.
    • At FAC4, you encouraged me to expand his high school section. Then, on your talk page you mentioned you were surprised at my resistance to doing so. Currently, high school is 8969 characters, college is 7,524, and pro is 26,988. In a 50479 character article, that may seem a bit off, but keep in mind Howard was only a 1-time all-star with minimal playoff success. Generally, when I write articles, the pro career emphasizes contributions to playoff success performance and great things that make his All-Star qualities apparent. Thus, his article is not going to have a lot of extensive discussion of the types of details that other current FAs will have of perennial All-Stars. He was an All-American high school and college player so several thousand characters for each is reasonable, IMO. Further guidance in this regard would be helpful, but it does not seem actionable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAC4 issue was lack of details before high school, not actual high school. Unfortunately the statistics you cited don't change my subjective opinion. I can invest time to provide actionable items if you've completed your good-faith attempt to condense details. Offhand, the sneakers incident is a full paragraph, and contains full quotes. The fact that it is only sourced to one reference makes me wonder if it is given WP:UNDUE weight.—Bagumba (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The sneaker issue is only 60% of the paragraph and was detailed in response to a request by Acdixon (talk · contribs) to flesh out clarification by at Wikipedia:Peer review/Juwan Howard/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • At TTT's request, I'm dropping in to comment on the sneaker issue. First, I think it is a mischaracterization to say that it consumes a full paragraph. The paragraph also contains details about how Howard performed against a future 12-year pro (who was notable for being one of the tallest players in NBA history) at a camp that was quite notable during that period in NBA history. Second, the sneaker incident undoubtedly bears mention, and per WP:BLP, I think we must be careful to show that the matter was investigated and no definitive proof apparently exists that the theft charges were true. The last quote by Howard, however, can probably be eliminated if length is becoming a concern. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I am having trouble with your request at a good-faith attempt to condense details. PR3 was a several weeks long attempt to refine the content. Back then attending camps was much more of a big deal than it is today in the AAU summer circuit era. I don't see detail in there that does not explain who Howard was. You essentially asked me to read Albom in a good faith attempt to expand the pre-professional section and now are asking me to shorten it. Your FAC 4 statement was "an FA should leverage books for well rounded perspectives. Some candidates are biographies (e.g. ISBN 0766010651 ISBN 0791045757) or on Fab Five (ISBN 0446517348). I wont oppose without them, but I wouldn't pass it either." Although later you said read Albom mostly for pre-high school stuff. I could not in good conscience not at least finish the chapter I was in given that you advocated leveraging the book for a well-rounded perspective. You advocated reading the whole book if possible, which would encompass high school and college. Now you want a good faith attempt to shorten this section. I told you it was already bordering on too lengthy and you fought hard for my to review Albom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sorry if I was not explicit with cautioning you about WP:UNDUE, which I assumed was a policy which you were already aware. Taking that into account now, I hope we can improve the article and provide appropriate breadth and depth of coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am not arguing WP:UNDUE, I am arguing WP:AGF. When a reviewer tells you you have to incorporate a source that covers a certain time period to add breadth in FAC4 and then in FAC5 says that you should endeavor to hatchet that same time period, it is difficult to take him seriously. The only things I added to that period of his life covered by the book are from the book you mandated that I incorporate. I.E., previously you looked at the content and said add stuff from this source. I have done that and now you are looking at the same content with stuff added from that source and saying chop it up. Do you expect to be taken seriously. In terms of understanding balance. I am fairly certain that I am the only person to have taken three high school basketball players to WP:GA (Jabari Parker, Jahlil Okafor and Mitch McGary*) and I would bet I have taken more college basketball players to GA than anyone on WP so I have a better feel for most on this type of content than most.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There are multiple footnotes referring to "Star Sketches of Top 50 High School Senior Basketball Players: Juwan Howard C/F 6–10 230". Is this the same as the Albom 1993 reference under "References"? If so, why the different title? If not, more information is needed on the source.
  3. The double-double totals for each season are reference from a WP:PRIMARY source such as basketball-reference.com. There are many statistics that exist from primary sources; thus, WP:SECONDARY sources should be reference to demonstrate due WP:WEIGHT of statistics bring mentioned. I don't believe season totals for double-doubles, 20-point games, and 30-point games are commonly mentioned. Certain traditional statistics are standard, such as point and rebound averages, and reference to stat sites for those are sufficient.—Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an interesting issue. Should we -- especially for FA articles -- follow what is "commonly mentioned"? I'm not sure. What is common might not be what is best, and what we should strive for. Even if it is what is commonly mentioned in FA articles (that may be what Bagumba is saying; I'm not sure). We're always looking to improve. Then again -- I may personally have a more expansive view of what we should include. I know some people have a narrower view when it comes to infoboxes than I do, for example -- Tony included -- so I'll just raise this as my thought. Also, I can more easily see the desire to keep infobox size limited in this regard than text size, as long as the article is not over-long.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By common, I mean giving it due weight. It's pushing POV if we over-emphasize statistics that are rarely mentioned with Howard, or for that matter, any player. Aside from Kevin Love going on some massive double-double streak, the statistic I believe is rarely mentioned with regards to an entire season. While most casual fans know averaging 20 points is good, it is not so clear what is a good percentage of double-doubles.—Bagumba (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose by Bagumba
    1. Per above my comments regarding balancing added sources for needed breadth of coverage while respecting WP:UNDUE with proper depth of coverage. Opportunities exist to summarize details where appropriate without needing to resort to removing content outright.
      1. I have exhausted his The New York Times archive and gone through a good chunk of his The Baltimore Sun archive. This is the cumulative additional breadth. It is about 4KB of content. It is most of what we can hope for. I will resume the Baltimore Sun review tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 09:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        1. I have now expanded the text from 50551 characters of readable prose to 60148 characters. That is about 9.6KB of content. Of the 9.6KB of new content nearly 8.3 of it is Pro content. Here is diff Mostly from The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, Houston Chronicle and Miami Herald. When the article was 50479, the ratio of Pro text to college plus high school was 26,988:(8,969 + 7,524)=1.636. I have beefed up that ratio to 35,240:(8,942 + 7,714)=2.116. This should satisfy your request that the article be much more broad.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          1. P.S. The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun and Houston Chronicle are newspaper archives I have used on many prior GAs ans FAs. I may be able to beef up other sections, I have to look into newspaper archives with which I am not familiar to do so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Too many references to a WP:PRIMARY-source statistics site, basketball-reference.com, to recreate Howard's professional career in lieu of analysis by WP:SECONDARY sources. This also resulted in repetitive season-by-season breakdowns on arbitrary statistics for double-doubles, 20-point, and 30-point games. Then there is minutia like "appearances had all come from off the bench and lasted between 7 minutes, 3 seconds and 7 minutes, 42 seconds" and analysis of games of "20 minutes".
      1. Statistical databases are considered WP:RS at FAC. That was established during my Tyrone Wheatley FAC nomination. I cited most 100-yard games of his career from a similar football database. 100-yard games in football are analogous to 20- and 30-point games in basketball. The FAC discussed this at length.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • The concern has nothing to do with sources not being reliable. The article overemphasizes statistics that were subjectively chosen by a WP editor, and not representative of ones mentioned in secondary sources. If other articles managed to be promoted to FA eschewing readily-available secondary sources for subjectively-chosen statistics from primary sources, I would suggest they are candidates for WP:FAR instead of propping WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to maintain this article's status quo.—Bagumba (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Season by season sections for High School and College career as opposed to sections for general era reflect a slight undue weight on those eras relative to his professional career, which is (correctly) grouped by eras of multiple years. Not every year is necessarily as important as another.
      1. I don't understand your point. I have divided 8000 character (high school and college) sections into 3 subsections. This is normal arrangement. They are subsectioned just to help the reader. I don't feel it would be helpful to the reader to undifferentiate the text by merging all the subsections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Cleanup needed for occasional name-dropping of tangentially related subjects. Some examples are Nike All-American Camp attendees, All-Big-Ten team, Bill Clinton, etc.
      1. I don't understand your name-dropping point. It is not very often that you play a basketball game and the President of the United States is in the stands rooting against you. Other attendees contextualizes the content for the reader. I am only summarizing secondary sources. I am not pulling this content from out of nowhere.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I usually wait for progress on issues before stating a position, but past instances at Howard's last FAC and this current FAC, compel me to state my current position and taking a break from this FAC. Best of luck.—Bagumba (talk) 20:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I still oppose based on my reasons already enumerated above. Contrary to the nominator's response to my point No. 1 above, the large quantity of text added recently does not address the WP:UNDUE text that should be condensed. It is not constructive for me to continue in light of the nominator's accusation of bad faith and the consistent tone of his subsequent responses in the thread below at 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC). I see no reason to withdraw my oppose as requested by the nominator below. Wikipedia operates on consensus, and I am just one opinion. The FAC director can determine the merits of the arguments.—Bagumba (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Epeefleche
  1. I would suggest breaking up one of the paragraphs in the lede, so that the lede has four paragraphs rather than the current three. Perhaps the first paragraph is the more natural one to break up.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at this issue. I think the first paragraph is a bit small to break up. The second details his amateur career and the third his professional career. Since it is speculated that he may go into coaching or management, we can leave room for a fourth paragraph on that subject and move his humanitarian stuff in with that when and if it occurs. I remain open to your suggestions otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. If I were to split any paragraph it would be the last, but don't see any natural split.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a major issue; just a subjective view. If nobody else feels it would be better as four para, I defer to your view here.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:11, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If I run my "overlink" software, it suggests that we de-link Chicago. (Though not Illinois).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In spans of years (e.g., 2000-02), I always if possible prefer deleting the first two digits in the second year. That is because those digits take up space while adding ZERO information. Repeatedly, in an article like this. That appears to be done in the text, which I applaud. But not in the infobox. I heard a couple of months ago that ... I believe it was a college basketball wikiproject ... likes the extra, needless digits in the infobox. Sort of anti-Strunk-and-White, I guess. Odd. But unless there is a wp consensus to include the needless digits, for an FA article I would urge their removal in the infobox as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I have removed the extra characters from the infobox and section titles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been reverted twice: [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juwan_Howard&diff=543316789&oldid=543295245] and [8].--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ridiculous -- the last revert lacked any edit summary, let alone a reason to include meaningless extra digits. I've reverted, pointing to this FA review. And our MOS clearly states: "sports seasons spanning two calendar years should be uniformly written as 2005–06 season". Perhaps others can keep an eye on such mindless revisions to the article.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. After reading the endless comments on this page (yes; I understand that I am part of the problem), and looking over the article for the 10th time, I think this finally now meets FA.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The third sentence of the lead could do with an introductory clause such as, "He began his NBA career with/at...." as it is a bit confusing talking about the bullets straight after the heat.
How is it now?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
but no more than two seasons for any other team. leaves me scratching my head....not clear why contrastive "but" needed...maybe "plus shorter stints at several other teams"?
Changed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Early life section is a bit abrupt with some short sentences - I was about to join some when I thought that maybe some more facts or anecdotes if available might make this more engaging. If there really isn't much to add I'll have a go at massaging the prose.
Feel free to message the prose. There is not much to add.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - I tried. I think it flows a little better now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The next three sections flow better, FWIW.
Thanks. I made one minor change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He earned his only career (NBA All-Star Game) selection for the February 11, 1996 NBA All-Star Game. - I think we could remove the bracketed bit......?
Done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
alternative works for me too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the clinching moment of the series-clinching game, - try not to have the two adjectives the same - tweak one?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd make the Humanitarianism a subsection of the Personal section..
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, missed the juvenile literature bit - ok, tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
    • " At Michigan he was part of the Fab Five recruiting class of 1991 that reached the finals of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Men's Division I Basketball Championship in 1992 and 1993. He won his first NBA championship with Miami in the 2012 NBA Finals. Howard was an All-American center and an honors student at Chicago Vocational Career Academy. Michigan was able to sign him early over numerous competing offers and then convince others in his recruiting class to join him. The Fab Five, which included Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Jimmy King and Ray Jackson, helped Michigan reach the NCAA finals in 1992 and 1993" -- avoid repeating stuff in the lead?
    • In the "Early life" section, the placement of the references appear random. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I'm probably more divided mentally by this article than I have ever been at FAC. On the one hand, I see the point about overuse of statistics and think that a few of the less significant stats from later in Howard's NBA career (when he saw less playing time) could be cut without taking away from comprehensiveness. On the other hand, we don't require that an article be perfect, only that it meet the FA criteria. Do I think this article is perfect? No; it is a long read and I'm sure that some of the stats could be condensed as Bagumba suggested. The question that is more pertinent here is whether the FA criteria are met. After thinking about it, I'm inclined to think that they are. I recall the prose being okay after copy-editing at the last FAC, and Cas has reassured me there; as for the source he pointed out, that one is also a juvenile book according to Google Books, and I wouldn't consider a juvenile biography to be a high-quality reliable source. The stats are emphasized more than I would like, but I don't think that is a deal-breaker in this case. I'll continue to keep an eye on this FAC for compelling arguments in either direction. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I have veered on the side of a tentative good-faith support is that generally sport records are pretty structured and it is straightforward to cover what needs to be covered for someone's sports career. Furthermore, if there is a genuine dilemma on how to portray someone between hagiography on the one hand and critique on the other, i sorta feel it is safer by default to lean to the former. I don't get the feeling from reading this article that there is alot of interpretation but do agree that using alot of primary sources certainly carries this risk. Anyway, Giants2008 sums up my feelings well, and I will keep an eye out for issues that others might notice. I've seen the exchange above and will try to chase the link above too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"sport records are pretty structured": I don't mind statistics that are commonly mentioned in secondary sources being sourced easily from a primary source. It is not my intention to create work for the sake of work. My objection is to statistics such as double-double being regularly mentioned on a per-season basis, when it is not commonly used in secondary sources to assess a player's season performance. This would be akin to an editor mining financial data taken from a company annual report that is not generally discussed in secondary sources, or extracting arcane facts from a grand jury report that are not discussed in the news. With the wealth of statistics being tracked these days on the web, we need to be discerning about which statistics an FA article presents. PRIMARY and SECONDARY under the WP:NOR policy provides that guidance.—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bag. Its always a changing landscape when it comes to these things in sports, I think. My sense differs from yours -- I find "double-double" appears quite a bit in the media. You might take a glance through some of the 4.2 million ghits, 35,000 gnews hits, and 2,250 gbooks hits, and see if the common usage you see there allays some of your concern.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Epeefleche. I'm not contending that "double-double" is not used in basketball; it's mostly used in game coverage or describing a streak; I rarely see it used as a raw number in describing an entire season. This article for Tim Duncan mentions his 58 in his MVP season, but puts it into context with "including a league-high six 20-plus point and 20-plus rebound outings". Whereas 20pts is a good scoring average, 10 is good for rebound and assists, etc. there is not a general notion of how many double-doubles is a "good" number, and likely is why it's not mentioned often in secondary sources when describing a season. WP:NOTSTATSBOOK says "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." In this case, the average basketball fan—let alone general reader—cannot put Howard's season double-double totals into context. I think it could be justified if it was at least on his "leaderboard" at basketball-reference.com, but it's not.—Bagumba (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. Sources and authors provided. Mostly CC Flickr images, checking their upload history shows no obvious signs of problems regarding image source and flickr uploader - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tentative support - Please understand that I know almost nothing about basketball, but I was asked, so here I am. I've read both this very long article and the comments in FAC5, which is what makes me tentatively support it. I think that the prose is good, with a few minor problems here and there, which I'll discuss below. (If I'm repeating already-resolved issues, please excuse me; I'm coming late to the party. Just explain that it's already been addressed, and I'll be fine.) I'm kinda surprised no one has made the suggestion I'm about to make yet, or perhaps they did, in one of the previous FACs or here and I've missed it. Would it be feasible to fork some of the content here and create new articles, a la High school basketball career of Juwan Howard or College basketball career of Juwan Howard or Professional basketball career of Juwan Howard? Please feel free to shoot down my suggestion as ridiculous, especially if articles like this tend to be long like this one. Your response, by no means, won't change my support to an oppose. I also find Tony's responses here satisfactory, well-reasoned, and acceptable. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article currently stands at 62347 characters (10233 words) of readable prose. Forking does begin to become a consideration above 60KB and necessary up around 100KB. In this case, the high school content (9435 characters) and college content (7814 characters) are not sufficiently overwhelming to necessitate a fork. Not too many articles really get forked at 60KB, but that is where you should start. When something like Jabari Parker gets to 60KB it will be necessary to fork over 40KB of high school content, but in this case there is not that much high school or college content. See WP:SIZE and WP:SPLIT.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I wonder if you should combine the high school/college content into a forked article, like Pre-professional basketball career of Juwan Howard? Would that work? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)We are talking about 17249KB h.s. and college content. Given how famous his college years were, I don't think 7.8 KB is too much. The only question is whether the 9.4KB of H.S. content is more than someone would want to see. There is a consideration that people are not use to seeing that much H.S. content. I would go with High school basketball career of Juwan Howard before anything. I would have to reread SPLIT and SIZE, but I was not leaning in that direction. I have not seen an athlete with a High school career split before. Have you seen one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I don't know if you are aware that the typical WP:NBA FA only has the amount of high school content contained in the first paragraph of this article. I have no intention of forking to prune it that far back.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I haven't seen a split h.s. career article, but as I said before, I'm not familiar with these kinds of articles. However, as my mother used to say, just because something hasn't been done before doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. I know, depending on the type of article, that there are times when they need to be long. As you know, the danger with a long article is that it isn't accessible, and I fear that's the main problem with this one. No other reviewer has seemed to have an issue with the length, so I'll bow to consensus and accept your response, although I suspect the reason you haven't gotten the support you need is that its length has scared reviewers. Personally, I would fork it.
I do think article size is an issue; it takes forever just to save an edit, let alone read the whole thing. However, I can't support the idea of a spinout article. If we were talking about a player of Michael Jordan's caliber, then spinouts could be justified, but Howard simply isn't that important. Though enough material is probably available, most of it wouldn't pass WP:NOTNEWS. I think it would be better to focus on trimming non-essential details and sharpening the language. For example, be more selective when mentioning awards and statistics. Zagalejo^^^ 00:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my thinking on size: First, between 60 and 100 KB is the range where an article is suppose to be evaluated for splitting/trimming. This article currently stands at 61981 characters. We have a very good reviewer who seems to be challenging the writing in a way that is helping to sharpen it. Let's just see where it goes under the current scrutiny.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second, I believe that going forward, 21st century athlete bios should include high school and college content to reach FA. It is out there, especially if your early years are post internet. Even in the case like Howard, it is out there. The question is what proportion of an article should be early life. In this case, we have slightly more than 25% of a full length (60-100KB) bio. For a person who was part of as fabled a college team as this guy, I am not convinced that 25% is inappropriate. I believe that all 5 current FA bios have too small a proportion of pre-professional content.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is acceptable to me. I agree that an article about an athlete like Howard needs to have both his h.s. and college careers. I also agree that this article could be much tighter, and perhaps that could help shorter it significantly. Tony, don't be ashamed if this FAC fails; this is a complicated and groundbreaking article, so there's nothing wrong with it getting the time it needs to be FA-quality. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

Actually, I think that the fact that she kept her baby in a drawer signifies that she was ill-prepared. You state her young age in the next sentence, so I'd just remove the description here.

High school

  • ...necessitating that the team dress for games in a history class. You tend to put phrases and clauses together in awkward ways. How about this: "...which required that the team dress..."
  • I don't think you need the introductory part about Howard's grandmother and her death her. It sounds like all this happened before his freshman year, and then I read later on that she cooked everyone a soul food dinner during his senior year. I suggest that you put this information where it happened.
  • At this camp, Howard established himself as one of the best junior-year big men in the country despite having his shots blocked several times by the much taller Bradley. Awkward wording; how about: "At this camp, even though the much-taller Bradley blocked his shots several times, Howard established himself as one of the best junior-year big men in the country."
  • I think you need to re-write the rest of this paragraph. It's too dependent on quotes, and much of the information isn't really necessary. I think it's enough if you just say Howard was accused of stealing shoes, he denied it, and had to leave the camp early. Of course, if you give me good reasons why it should remain, I'll accept it.
Good solution. My own practice is when there are lots of refs and more than three explanatory notes, I create a separate "Footnotes" section, a la WP:REFGROUP. I don't know about you, but if an explanatory note doesn't look like the refs, I miss it and don't get the information.
  • According to Chicago Sun-Times writers, during the camp, he became ranked as one of the top 10 underclassmen in the country. More awkward phrases. How about: "According to the Chicago Sun-Times, he was ranked as one of the top-10 underclassmen in the country during the camp."
  • Howard attended other camps that summer and had a goal of surpassing Thomas, the reigning Chicago Tribune basketball player of the year,[18] as the best big man in the state. More awkwardness. How about: "Howard attended other camps that summer; his goal was to overcome Thomas, who was the reigning Chicago Tribune basketball player of the year,[18] as the best big man in the state." Did he reach that goal? Either way, you should tell us.
Ok, that's fine, as are the other changes you made. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stop here. I'll be back, either later today or tomorrow. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High school (cont.)

  • Taylor Bell of the Chicago Sun-Times noted that Howard was said to be leaning toward playing for DePaul or, because of his admiration for Thomas, the Illinois Fighting Illini, whom Thomas had chosen to play for in 1989.[20] Too long and awkward. How about: "Taylor Bell of the Chicago Sun-Times noted that Howard was leaning toward playing either for DePaul or for the Illinois Fighting Illini because Thomas, whom Howard admired, had been a member of the team in 1989."
  • During Michigan's in-home visit, Ms. Howard treated Michigan head coach Steve Fisher, his assistants Mike Boyd and Brian Dutcher, Vocational coach Cook, Vocational assistant coach Donnie Kirskey, Lois Howard (Juwan's Aunt) and Juwan to a soul food dinner. You're running into the problem of having to write about lots of people, some of them related to each other. As a result, it's a little hard to keep them all straight. Some of that is unavoidable. This is my suggestion: "During Michigan's in-home visit, Howard's grandmother treated Michigan head coach Steve Fisher, his assistants Mike Boyd and Brian Dutcher, Vocational coach Cook, Vocational assistant coach Donnie Kirskey, Lois Howard (Howard's aunt) and Howard to a soul food dinner." Also, is it necessary to list everyone? This is just a suggestion: I wonder if it'd be better to just state that the guests included Fisher, several other Michigan coaches, the aunt, and Howard.
  • Dutcher served as the main contact person... As a non-basketball fan, I don't know what this means. Remember, not everyone who reads this knows the subject, so please explain. How about not even using the phrase, like this: "Dutcher was given the responsibility to contact Howard, which he did, several times a week."
  • While other coaches, such as Lute Olsen, almost ignored her during the recruiting, Dutcher understood that she was the key influence on his life. Nonetheless, he understood Kirskey had sway too and got Fisher to hire him for a summer basketball camp that served as Juwan's introduction to Ann Arbor, Michigan. Unencyclopedic and awkward. I suggest that you connect the ideas and re-word it: "While other coaches, such as Lute Olsen, almost ignored her during the recruiting, Dutcher understood that she was the key influence on his life, and understood that Kirskey also had sway with Howard. He encouraged Fisher to hire Howard for a summer basketball camp, which became the young athlete's introduction to Ann Arbor, Michigan."
  • I think you should separate the 2nd paragraph, right after Howard moved in with Cook, since the discussion about his decision of which school to sign with is a different topic than his stats that year.
  • He had become friends with Jimmy King when they visited Michigan on the same weekend and is said by Chicago Tribune journalists and Michigan head coach Fisher to have influenced King's decision to enroll there. More awkwardness. You've already mentioned Fisher, so you don't have to identify him again. How about: "He befriended Jimmy King when they visited Michigan on the same weekend; according to the Chicago Tribune and Fisher, Howard influenced King's decision to also enroll there."
  • According to Clyde Travis of the Chicago Sun-Times, Howard's verbal commitment made up for the inability of Fisher to recruit Eric Montross the prior year... How about: "According to Clyde Travis of the Chicago Sun-Times, Howard's verbal commitment made up for Fisher's failure to recruit Eric Montross the prior year..."
  • West MVP Webber posted 28 points and 12 rebounds in the game, and Howard added 16 points as the West won 108–106. I think that using "as", although technically accurate, in this way (other than "same" or "alike") is confusing. Take or leave this suggestion: "West MVP Webber posted 28 points and 12 rebounds in the game; although Howard added 16 points, the West won 108–106."
  • I don't think you need to state when things are announced. It's enough to state that he earned a high SAT score.

Sorry, I have to stop again. I'd think that after five FACs, the prose would've been tighter. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, except for a short late break from RL, I was inactive today. I attended Jabari Parker's IHSA championship game. It is a 2.5 hour drive each way to Peoria, IL. I'll spend some time with this tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested in just stepping in and editing the article, go right ahead. Otherwise, I look forward to more comments.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that probably was a little harsh. As my review has progressed, I'm finding fewer things to complain about. I also have gained a better understanding of an article like this. Let's move forward, shall we? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

College career

  • He was also united with future NBA personalities... Awkward. How about: "He also joined future NBA personalities..."
  • It takes you 4 sentences to introduce the team with th"e link to its article. I wonder if you could put it earlier, like this: "...joined his fellow freshmen in forming a group on his team, the 1991–92 Michigan Wolverines" Then you could change this sentence to: "Early in his freshman season for the highly rated Wolverines, Howard started in some games and came off the bench in others."
  • ...was soon substituted out as the entire team dealt with an accumulation of fouls. There's that word "as" again. ;) I need clarification; do you mean that Howard was substituted out because of the fouls, or while they were dealing with the fouls? This demonstrates the problem with the word! Do you mean "because" or "while"?
  • Since Jannie Mae Howard had been born on Christmas, Howard got a tattoo reading Jannie Mae over his heart during Christmas break. You should remove the repetition here. Was she born on Dec. 25? If so, you can state: "Since his grandmother had been born on December 25, Howard got a tattoo reading "Jannie Mae" over his heart during Christmas break."
  • During the season, Howard had a case of the chicken pox in January. More encyclopedic: "During the season, Howard contracted chicken pox in January."
  • Michigan found itself with a 21–6 (13–4 Big Ten) record... Is it correct that state that a team "found itself"? How about: "Michigan had a 21–6 (13–4 Big Ten) record.."
  • Howard helped Michigan survive with a 78–74 overtime victory... Similar question: Is this basketball-speak? If so, please disregard. If not, perhaps you can state that he helped them "to a" victory.
  • Howard earned the regional MVP award with a game-high 30 points and 13 rebounds in the Elite Eight round, despite collecting two fouls in the first two minutes and being on the losing end against an Arkansas team that had United States President Bill Clinton as a vocal supporter in attendance. More awkwardness and too long. How about: "Howard earned the regional MVP award with a game-high 30 points and 13 rebounds in the Elite Eight round, despite collecting two fouls in the first two minutes and losing against the Razorbacks, which had U.S. President Bill Clinton in attendance as a vocal supporter."
  • 37 credit hours short of University of Michigan requirements at the time of his announcement, Howard said he would keep his promise to his grandmother that he would get his college degree. It's not a good idea to start sentences with a number as the subject. How about: "Howard was 37 credit hours short of University of Michigan degree requirements, but said he intended to keep his promise to his grandmother that he would earn his diploma."
  • Although the Fab Five's games in the Final Four have been forfeited, Howard was not among the players (including Robert Traylor, Webber, Rose, Maurice Taylor, and Louis Bullock) called before a grand jury to testify in the University of Michigan basketball scandal and was not found to have received large amounts of money. Most Michigan Wolverines men's basketball records and accomplishments from 1992 to 1998 have been forfeited because of NCAA sanctions stemming from the scandal, but Howard's status as a 1993–94 All-American has not been. Long, awkward, and mixed tenses. Were their games forfeited at the time of the grand jury? I ask because it that's so, you could say, "have since been forfeited" to solve the conflict in tenses. Did the list of players testify? If so, it's better to say, "Howard was not among the players, which included Robert Traylor, Webber, Rose, Maurice Taylor, and Louis Bullock)..." Then I'd end the sentence after the word "scandal". Did the grand jury find that Howard didn't receive large amounts of money? Perhaps, instead of putting it that way, you could state that the grand jury failed to find him complacent in the scandal. Then I'd do this: "Although the NCAA sanctioned Michigan Wolverines men's basketball by forfeiting its records and accomplishments from 1992 to 1998, Howard's status as a 1993–94 All-American remained intact." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting report

I changed it slightly, "As a Dallas player in 2000-2001..." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Jordan loved: Unencyclopedic. How about saying that he "praised"?
  • By 2001, though, Lacy J. Banks from his hometown Chicago Sun-Times regarded him as a high-priced, under-achieving player. In 2002, he was described by the same journalist as a solid veteran at the four (power forward position). I almost literally have to ban connectors like "though", "however", and "nonetheless" from my encyclopedic writing; they're really unnecessary. How about: "By 2001, Lacy J. Banks from the Chicago Sun-Times regarded him as a high-priced, under-achieving player, but in 2002, Banks described him as a solid veteran at the four (power forward position)."

'Washington Bullets era

Yah, looking at it now, I think you're right. Since there's no direct attribution to the rumor, I can't think of a better way, so I reverted it back to the original. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to do this in spurts for the next few days. Please be patient with me. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wash. Bullets (cont.)

Wash. Wizards era

  • ...there were rumors that Webber had difficulty adjusting to being less of a primary option in the presence of All-Star Howard. What does "primary option" mean? Was he having difficulty being compared to Howard, or did he have issues with not being such an important part of the team? I also think you could cut "All-star".
  • You can cut As the preseason continued', since you mention the preseason at the end of the sentence.
  • I'm restructuring the 3rd paragraph, for the same reason I did it above. Question, though: You state that the lawyers for both parties had different stories, but later on you say that Reed couldn't afford one. Which is it? If the sources are contradictory, I'd remove the 2nd sentence now that it's separated from Howard's lawyer's claims.
    • Remember all that "You have the right to remain silent...if you can not afford a lawyer, one will be provided" stuff. Don't you watch any cop shows.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also source says "Reed did not show up for the proceeding and failed to respond to the lawsuit. She didn't have any money to hire a lawyer in Maryland, lawyer Ned Collier, who represents Reed in Connecticut but is not licensed to practice in Maryland, said during a telephone interview."
  • Who struck and restrained her? I think you could just state that she was struck and restrained.
  • When was Webber traded? I wonder if you could put that sentence in a note, add the date, and state that it happened shortly before the case was resolved.
  • By his sixth season, Howard had become unpopular and a bit of a disappointment in Washington, according to Sam Smith from the Chicago Tribune. It's not a good idea to begin sentences with a preposition. How about: "According to Sam Smith from the Chicago Tribune, Howard had become unpopular and a disappointment by his sixth season in Washington."
  • ...going to the New York Knicks in exchange for Patrick Ewing with the thinking that the trade would better position the Wizards for the 2001 free agent market. Instead of "with the thinking", a less awkward way to word this could be: "because the team [or whomever makes those decisions] thought that the trade..."
  • Five years removed from his only All-Star appearance, Howard was nonetheless the fourth-highest-paid player in the NBA... How a about: "Although it had been five years since his only All-Star appearance, Howard was the fourth-highest-paid player in the NBA..."
  • Along with Strickland and Richmond, Howard was one of the three marquee names on the team that each was under contract to earn at least $10 million. How about: "Howard, along with Strickland and Richmond, were marquee names on the team under contract to earn at least $10 million."
  • According to Milton Kent of The Baltimore Sun, not only did Howard's statistics (approximately 18 points, 7 rebounds and 2.8 assists) compare favorably to both players, his role as his team's primary scoring option made his statistics more significant than those of the two alternative choices. Notice I've copyedited this sentence. My issue with it, though, is that even though you separate the alternates, I don't know who "both players" are. They could be the two alternates. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Rockets era

  • Notice that I've just resorted to copy-editing, since you seem okay with my changes up to now. Please change if you disagree.
  • What do you think about breaking the 1st long paragraph, after "before the trade deadline in February."?
Don't underestimate your readers, even those of us who know nothing about basketball. I think it works because the first paragraph is sort of an introduction to Howard's time with the Rockets. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once the playoffs began, Howard was in a role as a key reserve on the Rockets' short bench rotation... Did Howard have this role at the beginning of the playoffs (which is what this implies), or throughout them? Is is b-ball speak to say he was "in a role as a key reserve"? If not, perhaps we can say, "Howard served as a key reserve".

2007-10: Howard made it clear he was not interested in being part of a youth movement in Minnesota and consequently requested a trade once Garnett had been dealt. More b-ball speak? What does "being part of a youth movement" and "once Garnett had been dealt" mean?

Miami Heat era

  • By joining the Heat, Howard joined a team that by the time of the 2011 NBA playoffs, included former champion Dwyane Wade as well as a group of players such as LeBron James and Chris Bosh who had not won an NBA championship despite numerous All-Star game selections. In order to resolve beginning the sentence with a preposition, I need to ask. Are you saying that the Heat hadn't won a championship or James and Bosh? That's a little unclear. I'm not sure that "by the time of the 2011 playoffs" is necessary; it may be enough that it happened (or hadn't) at the time Howard signed with the Heat.
I think that the current wording is fine, even with the preposition. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion is with me, sorry. Remember what I said about not underestimating your readers' intelligence? It obviously doesn't apply to me. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the season, Howard played 57 games... What season? Up to now, you've linked season years with articles; is there one for this season?
  • ...by stopping situations from escalating to the point of unfavorable actions. Notice that I tweaked this sentence a little. What do you mean by "unfavorable actions"? Were there potential other fines and ejections?
I like that quote, and although it goes against my goal of helping this article get shorter, how about: "Despite this incident, Howard was a maturing influence on the team during the playoffs; according to David Neal of The Miami Herald, [insert quote]." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
added quote.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:13, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal

  • 1st sentence: You don't need that he still owns; if you want to include the information, you can say "that as of 2013, he had not sold"
  • He committed to play for the Western Michigan Broncos men's basketball team, for whom he played his freshman season before deciding to transfer to the University of Detroit Mercy Titans. Do you need to say that Howard, Jr. had "committed to play"? Couldn't you just say that he he played for W. Mich. for his freshman season? "Before deciding" is also too wordy; I'd cut it and say, "and transferred to..."
  • I understand why you're naming Howard's first son, but I suggest that you remove his younger children's names, and just state their ages, as per WP:BLPNAME. And why is it important to state Howard's age and the age of his wife when they married?
  • Even though it'd be a short paragraph, I think you should make a break after "Usher", to differentiate Howard's past efforts with his on-going ones, and to deal with the tenses conflict.
  • His foundation partners with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to reach 30,000 kids annually for a reading challenge; the top 300 readers in the challenge get to attend his basketball camp. By partnering with the Juwan Howard Foundation, CPS, Jordan Brand, Dell Computers, EMI Music, Vitamin Water and the NBA, he is able to maintain the camp at no charge to participants. I think you should introduce his camp first. How about: "He runs a yearly free basketball camp for youth, which is made possible by a partnership between the Juwan Howard Foundation and CPS, Jordan Brand, Dell Computers, EMI Music, Vitamin Water and the NBA. His foundation partners with the Chicago Public Schools (CPS) for a reading challenge; the top 300 readers, out of 30,000 annually, attend his camp.
  • During and after his time as a member of the Heat, Howard was active in South Florida community outreach, fundraising and humanitarian efforts. I think this sentence belongs better earlier in the paragraph, with his past activities. It should also be restructured, like this: "Howard was active in South Florida community outreach, fundraising and humanitarian efforts while he was a member of the Heat and afterwards." Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How should this be phrased now that he is playing with the Heat again? "Howard was active in South Florida community outreach, fundraising and humanitarian efforts while he was a member of the Heat, after he became a free agent and presumably continues after rejoining the team."--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Film and television appearances

  • I don't think you need so much detail regarding Howard's storyline. You could just say that he played a former basketball player who served on Bartlett's Council on Fitness and helped him win a game against his staff. That way, you can avoid having to use the IMDB ref.
  • I get your notes about the non-RS for your refs. I assume that this has been addressed by other reviewers.
  • Who was working on the album, Howard or Ross? If Ross, you could say: "...on Ross' album Full Court Press Volume 1".

Support, with the assumption that these final issues will be addressed as they have been up to now. I'm satisfied with how the issues in this FAC have been explained by Tony. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

About Ohconfucius recent changes: User:Ohconfucius recently made a number of changes to the page [10], and while some of them may be desirable, a number of them seem detrimental, so I've reverted them for now. My concerns:

  • The changes to the NBA year templates produced factual errors - for example, the dates displayed for Howard's tenure with the Orlando Magic were presented incorrectly. (Admittedly, the template is pretty confusing to use.) I'm not going to argue one way or another in terms of how to display the dates; all I care about is that the dates are correct.
  • Zag -- Given that you are not arguing one way or the other in terms of how to display dates, I wonder if you can revert your change which resulted in dates being displayed in conflict with MOS. Specifically, MOS:DATE indicates that the format should be 2010-11 (rather than 2010-2011). That, at least, was in accord with MOS in Oh's version. Your broadside revert changed it to a non-MOS-compliant state (without you meaning to register a view).
It's not just MOS. And common sense. Look at 2011-12 (1.39 billion ghits) vs. 2011-2012 (363 million ghits). As you can see from the ghits, the approach excluding the extra digits (which impart zero info to the reader, and just take up time and space) is standard. If you search NBA.com, the official basketball website for the NBA, you will see that 2011-12 is also the preferred approach (13,500 hits vs. 3,700 hits). If you search the Euroleague basketball site, the same (more than 3-1).--Epeefleche (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't care either way, but right now, I'm trying to do a few different things at once, so I'm not going to do it this second. Feel free to change things yourself (to the version before BeastFromDaEast got involved.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I went back to your version. Zagalejo^^^ 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing "freshman" and "sophomore" to "first year" and "second year", while leaving mentions of "junior" and "senior" intact, results in an odd mishmash that will be confusing for everyone. I realize that not all people are familiar with terms like freshman and sophomore, but there are better ways to address that concern.
  • Changing capitalization and punctuation within newspaper article titles to conform to Wikipedia's own MOS doesn't seem appropriate. Is this common practice? Shouldn't we leave the reference titles as they are? Changing single quotation marks to double quotation marks is something that could possibly alter search results if one wanted to track down a specific article. Zagalejo^^^ 05:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at this again, I was misreading a few things. I don't think any single quotation marks were changed to double quotation marks. So never mind that part. Zagalejo^^^ 06:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for so carefully considering the changes I made. In response to your points:
  1. I was actually trying to correct the form but accidentally messed up the years, and I most sincerely apologise. But I hope you see what I was doing. I also now realise upon studying the year links that Howard may have changed teams in the middle of several of the seasons (if my reading of the infobox data is correct), so that accounts for some of my error; the other was due to my understanding of the template output. However, I still believe that the text as displayed as you had left it is not compliant with WP:YEAR, so that remains to be addressed. I do have another concern about these season links in the infoboxes: by linking to the first and last seasons in any event, it seems that we may be implying all the intervening years, if any, don't exist; or it may imply that there is something ground-breaking in each of his moves. I think it's best if we didn't link to the 'generic' year in NBL articles in the infobox.
  1. The use of big words where little ones do better is just plain silly as they push up cultural–linguistic barriers. I changed 'freshman year' and 'sophomore year' to 'first year' and 'second year' respectively because the former terms are a barrier to universal comprehension. They are used widely in the US, but almost nowhere else. I did not change 'junior' or 'senior' because these are more generic words that can be parsed in their context without resorting to a dictionary or a gloss.
  • Well, think of it this way. For the vast majority of readers, "freshman" and "sophomore" are the most natural words in that context. Americans wouldn't think of them as "big words" at all. Mixing "first year" and "second year" with "junior" and "senior" is going to look awkward to them, and people are going to keep trying to change things back. Again, I recognize that not everyone in the world uses words like "freshman" and "sophomore", but realistically speaking, that won't be a problem for most readers to this article. If you live outside the US, and run into a situation where you want to know more about Juwan Howard, you probably already know a little bit about basketball and the American education system. Zagalejo^^^ 17:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. My capitalisation changes, in line with our MOS, are minor typographical changes as to their effect on titles. No spelling changes were introduced. No punctuation was removed or inserted although I did swap some non-compliant single quote marks with compliant ones (note that there was actually one instance where the title had a compliant one and a non-compliant one). Search engines are not sensitive to capitalisation or the style of single quotes used, so my changes will not affect the result of any search should those terms be copied to the search window.
  • Yes, I eventually figured out what was going on with the quote marks, and I think I changed everything back. I still don't see the need for changing the capitalization, though. Zagalejo^^^ 17:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the way you addressed the display of the years in the infobox is satisfactory as far as my WP:YEAR concerns go. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 06:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MOS discussion regarding linked NBA seasons in infobox

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of this feature article review for Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions used in this article, but in all NBA, MLB, NHL, NFL, and soccer player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Regarding the MOS discussion mentioned, if a resolution occurs before the FAC closes, well and good; if not, the resolution can be applied to this article after the FAC closes, as necessary.
  • Having stepped through the above review comments, while the solitary oppose has reasonable grounds, it seems to me that effort has been made to address those concerns, and a decent number and range of reviewers have since indicated that they believe the article meets the criteria, so at this stage promotion is looking the likely outcome.
  • In the meantime, Tony, there are many duplicate links, including two in the lead; some might be justified owing to the amount of text between them in a large article but all need to be reviewed -- you know the script to check 'em?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Ranavalona I

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the most notorious queen in the history of Madagascar, Ranavalona I, termed the "Female Caligula" in a recent biography. Remembered in Western history (as related by 19th century Christian missionaries) as a barbaric and cruel persecutor of Christians, Ranavalona was the first female ruler of the Kingdom of Imerina (then ruling nearly all of Madagascar) for over 300 years. Once put in historical context, her reign can be understood as an effort to extend the realm and preserve Malagasy traditions against encroaching European influence. I'm nominating the article because it's thoroughly researched and complete, and in my opinion meets FA standards. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Foreign plots images: on my screen, these appear oriented vertically rather than side-by-side, leaving a lot of grayspace on the right and rendering the caption confusing - not sure what's going on with that
  • I'm not sure what was causing the problem - the coding seemed normal and that issue wasn't appearing on my screen - but now that I've removed the Lambert image, there should be no display problems. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ranavalona_I.jpg: if the author died in 1915 as the description dates, the life+100 tag is incorrect
  • File:Queen_Ranavalona_I_of_Madagascar_engraving.jpg: source links are dead, need death date for illustrator, and need US PD tag
  • File:Original_wooden_manjakamiadana_palace_of_Ranavalona_I_of_Madagascar.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Tangena_trial_by_ordeal_Madagascar.jpg: source link is dead
  • File:Christian_martyrs_burned_at_the_stake_in_Madagascar.jpg needs US PD tag and date of death for creator
  • File:Radama_II_with_crown.jpg: source link is dead and need US PD tag
  • File:Joseph-François_Lambert_Charter_Charte.jpg: need US PD tag and date of death for creator.
  • US PD tag added. Couldn't find the death date, so I'll remove the image from this article (it's not necessary) and will claim fair use for subsequent uses as appropriate. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Leaning to support. I had read of her in one of the Flashman books.
Early life
  • "at the royal city of Ambohimanga" is this the assassination attempt or the forcing from the throne? Ambiguous.
  • Both - everything in that sentence happened at Ambohimanga. Is there something about the surrounding sentences that leads the reader to think otherwise? I'm too deep in the material to see it, but if you identify it, I can make the change. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Government
  • "1829 and 1842 in Imerina" You should explain or link Imerina.
  • "Likewise, " Likewise to what?
  • "whose father, Andriantsilavonandriana, was a hova (a free commoner) having exceptionally been accorded the privilege of acting as counselor to King Andrianampoinimerina" I think this material between the dashes is too long for the sentence surrounding it to be effective and it should be spun off into its own sentence, perhaps making it clearer why this was exceptional.
Expansion
  • "at about 160,000 for the period 1820–1853. A further 25–50% of the queen's soldiers " It's difficult to compare these figures due to one being a percentage and the other a number. Can this be adjusted?
  • The source provides the numbers this way (direct count and percentage), and since the number of soldiers in the army varied over time and isn't known with precision, providing precise numbers here based on my own calculations would be original research and not necessarily accurate. I agree numbers would be better to make comparison and interpretation of the numbers easier, but in this case I think I shouldn't do it. Lemurbaby (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preservation of sovereignty
  • " who held several small islands off Madagascar" If these are the Comoros, I would pipe.
  • " a site of commemoration " A site of pilgrimage? A shrine, perhaps?
  • "unwitting observer" That reads very oddly. It's not a question of her observing.
  • "zebu " suggest a link.
  • " Several years later, in the spirit of solidarity " If it took them several years, it does not sound solid to me! The Cameron article says that this was due to pressure on the missionaries, though this is unsourced. So did they jump or were they pushed?
General comments
  • Can at least a paragraph be written on any lasting effects or legacy she had, and something said more comprehensively on the changing historical view of her and the reasons for it?
  • "Extreme Devotion Writing Team (2002). Extreme Devotion: The Voice of the Martyrs. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. ISBN 978-0-8499-1739-4." How is this a reliable source? (note: That just leaped out at me, this is not a source review.)
  • Generally very good, don't see much else to criticize.

Wehwalt (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just checking back in. Will check back gain early next week.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent portrait of a remarkable figure. With all these names, you also get a gold star on the spelling quiz.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is a very good article. Like Wehwalt, I came across Ranavolana in a Flashman book, but I've also read about her elsewhere in passing in a more scholarly manner. The prose is excellent here, but a few points about which I'd like my mind putting at rest before supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "was a sovereign of the Kingdom of Madagascar from 1828 to 1861": Was there more than one sovereign during this period? If not, do we need "a"?
  • "to complete public works projects and build a standing army": "build" an army is a little jarring after the use of "public works" (which presumably would have been built as well). Raised an army? Developed an army?
  • "that European intermediaries leveraged to attempt to hasten": May be better as "in an attempt to hasten" to avoid "to…to"
  • "until Ranavalona's natural death in 1861 at the age of 83": While I understand the use of "natural" here, I think it could be cut. There has been no suggestion in the lead that there were any attempts on her life, and I think the inclusion of her age leaves no doubt that it was a "natural" death.
  • "Recent research, however, has recast Ranavalona's actions as those of a queen…": Has "research" done this, or scholarship/analysis/reinterpretation. It really should only be research if it involved new discoveries rather than new interpretations. Also, see below as there doesn't seem to be much about this in the main body.
  • Changed to "academic research", which encompasses analysis etc. And I agree about expanding on this analysis in a separate section later in the article. I'll work on that over the coming week. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do some names have variants in brackets, with no explanation? E.g. "Andriantsalamanjaka (Andrianavalontsalama)"
  • In the past, Malagasy people would occasionally take on new names over the course of their life, so they were known by several different ones. I'll add "also called..." to all these instances. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article never explicitly states that Andrianampoinimerina died and Radama took over. It is implied by "to secure his succession upon Andrianampoinimerina's death" and "much as Radama had done to the queen's own family upon his succession to the throne", but I had to re-read several times to realise that Radama was king at the time of his death. Could this be explicitly pointed out?
  • Rephrased: "Upon Andrianampoinimerina's death in 1810, Radama succeeded his father as king and followed royal custom by executing a number of potential opponents among Ramavo's relatives, an act that may have strained their relationship." Lemurbaby (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whose family had a stake in succession after Radama": Should it be "the succession"?
  • "in an effort to extend her realm over the entire island": Maybe worth saying to what extent the island was or was not under Merina control?
  • "and harsh traditions of justice under her rule": Again, my inclination would be to leave out "harsh" in grounds of POV, but maybe that's just me and feel free to ignore this one.
  • I want to express that the process of justice as well as the punishments could lead to death (but didn't always). I agree the word "harsh" doesn't seem neutral, but a word like "lethal" is too absolute. I'll keep it until I can find a better word. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the fate of Andriamihaja is a nice story. However, I'm slightly concerned that it is from a missionary account. Given what the article says about the views of Europeans, I wonder how reliable an account this is? Some of the "historians" of this period, particularly ones with a missionary objective, were not above twisting the stories they told to do the job that they wanted. I'd be more comfortable if a modern historian was examining this for its veracity.
  • He's not considered a major enough figure to be captured in more recent histories of Madagascar, which tend to only mention him in passing as the father of Radama II. But at the time, he was a very important person - it's just that there were very few sources written at that time at all, so the only sources with detailed info come from that time. There isn't a better source to use. Instead I provided a second early account that relates the same information in more detail. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last two sentences at the end of "Expansion of realm" are apparently unreferenced.
  • Who made the estimations of army numbers and those killed in the "Expansion of realm" section?
  • "This outcropping has since become a site of commemoration for these early Malagasy Christian martyrs": This seems to come from an 1878 source; does the site remain? If it cannot be determined, this should be reworded to reflect the age of the source.
  • "A conservative estimate places the number executed at between sixty and eighty": Who says it is a conservative estimate?
  • The lead mentions the changing interpretation of Ranavolana's rule by historians. The only mention I can find of this in the main body is: "Ranavalona's foreign contemporaries strongly condemned the queen's policies and viewed them as the actions of a tyrant or even a madwoman, a characterization that persisted in Western historical literature until the 1970s". There is nothing there about "Recent research, however, has recast Ranavalona's actions as those of a queen attempting to expand her empire while protecting Malagasy sovereignty against the encroachment of European cultural and political influence." It is implied in places, but I think a section on "interpretation" is warranted in the article, as this would be interesting in itself.
  • Are there any images (other than that in the lead) from Madagascar itself? The others have a slightly missionary feel, which is not necessarily a problem, but a non-European view might be good.
  • Also a couple of sourcing issues:
    • Ref 1 has no indication of a publisher. What makes it reliable?
    • What makes madatana reliable?
    • Ref 6 needs a page number.
    • As the only modern full-length biography, Laidler seems under-used. It would certainly offset the number of 19th century sources. Is there any particular reason why it was not used more in the article? Sarastro1 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Laidler book is not an objective, factual biography of Ranavalona. He wrote it to sensationalize Ranavalona's reign in order to make some money. He drew from the least objective of the pre-colonial sources to piece together something that is, in my opinion, doing a lot to perpetuate an outdated and prejudiced view of Ranavalona and even of precolonial Madagascar. There is nothing the book offers that can add to the article, except maybe in the eventual discussion about different perspectives on her reign. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm more than happy to support now. This is one of the best articles I've read where I've known something of the subject beforehand. I still wonder about poor old Andriamihaja: the story seems to me to be something put about to discredit Ranavalona by European "historians" in the 19th century. It may benefit from modern (or perhaps postmodern) analysis, but we can only reflect the sources as they are. My only other point is that perhaps the caption for the map could explain that it shows the whole island. Neither of these points affect my support in any way, and this is a great piece of work. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Comment. I very much want to like this article. It's interesting, it reads well, and it is about an historically important ruler whose story (and kingdom!) will be largely unfamiliar to many Western readers. But I am concerned about the source selection. I'm not sure whether I'd formally oppose on that ground, but I do think the article can do better. Even in the lead, you comment that the original European characterization of Ranavalona I has been viewed unfair in modern hindsight. I picked on the sourcing initially, but I think this is a demonstrably stronger article for it. Support, and gladly so, on comprehensiveness and references. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:14, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are still leaning pretty heavily on Freeman and Jones, Oliver, Pfeiffer, and Prout -- all 19th century works.
  • Pfeiffer is her actual account of her involvement in the coup and what happened to her party, so it's the best source for it. Prout has the most detail on the situations where I use his reference. Freeman and Jones are also the first-hand accounts of the first missionaries living and working there under her reign, which later sources draw from. That said, I've tried to use them less, especially where the 2012 Campbell book can substitute, since that book actually is a comparative analysis of the primary missionary sources of the period (very awesome resource!). I've also tried to use Oliver less, but kept it where I haven't been able to find the details in other sources. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can more be taken from Laidler (I don't have this source handy)?
  • (responded below)
  • Ade Ajayi, starting on p.439, discusses the evolution of her government "in the direction of a constitutional monarchy"; is that a viewpoint worth including?
  • I'll add more from Ade Ajayi, although the weakness of that source is it tries to over-compress far too much information into shorthand explanations (saying Ranavalona took the country in the direction of a "constitutional monarchy" is not false, but it's a bit misleading and doesn't add so much as attempt to summarize). Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 2003 Les Ethnies ont une histoire by Chrétien and Prunier briefly discusses some aspects of the familial and ancestral aspects of the political class during the time period.
  • And this 1977 journal article may give some relatively modern insight into her interactions with the missionaries (given that the title is "Ranavalona I and the Missionaries 1828-1840"); unfortunately, I don't appear to have access to it.
  • Possibly also "La première codification africaine: Madagascar 1828-81" by Deschamps in Ideas and procedures in african customary law from 1969, although here I don't even have the article in abstract.
  • Haven't been able to access this either, but I'm working now on expanding the legal aspect of her work. The article "Ranavalona: ancestral bureaucrat" gives a more recent analysis of this aspect of her reign. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncertain the weight I'd give the Stanford Undergraduate Research Journal (and this scan of a 2002 article is of such poor quality to make reading a challenge), but if it isn't useful on its own merits, its bibliography is certainly lootable for further references. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Squeamish, and thanks for the comments. I understand your concern about the sources. Being very familiar with this subject area, I've read widely across current and historic sources and have chosen ones that provide information many later sources draw from in snippets. I like going to the original source because in the cases of the ones I've cited here, they are the most complete descriptions of the events that other sources also reference in less detail. Not all historic sources are created equal and some authors are far more objective historians than others. In addition, many of the more recent sources are actually less credible because they fail to compare historic sources and cherry pick information in a way that leads them to fail to capture the reality that more serious historians and academics have managed to detail from responsible research. The Laidler book is a fantastic example of this problem. It's faux history, written to sensationalize her reign by playing on prejudices and stereotypes (his own as well as those of the historic sources he draws from). That said, I'll have a look at the sources you've tracked down, and if they work better or add something, I'll use them. I do intend to pull a little more from the Ade Ajayi ref because it does go into some detail I've omitted but upon reflection think it would be useful to include. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wondered, given the title, if that might be a problem with the Laidler source. Regardless, he's by no means the only one to try to cast her as a bloodthirsty maniac. So even if that's of dubious historicity, it's probably worth covering as a minority viewpoint (and then citing other sources in refutation). Meanwhile, reading over related Wikipedia articles revealed a 1993 book by Daniel Ralibera, Madagascar et le christianisme, which evidently (p.196) discusses Ranavalona's closure in 1835 of the system of schools created by the London Missionary Society under Radama. Additional details on the closure and her policies restricting the education of slaves are apparently to be found in Francis Koerner's 1999 Histoire de l’Enseignement Privé et Officiel à Madagascar (1820-1995): les Implications Religieuses et Politiques dans la Formation d’un Peuple. Which, thinking about education, actually makes me wonder ... I see the Raison-Jourde source, but is there any other modern Malagasy scholarship available? What sort of treatment of Ranavalona I and her reign might I expect if I cracked open a history textbook in Antananarivo? As an unrelated question, I know that naming conventions during the Kingdom of Madagascar were complicated, but is there any information about whether the later Queen Ranavalona II chose (or had chosen? ... I don't know how this worked) that name in honor of this queen (I know it wasn't her birth name), or was that simply a common enough name for the period and social class as to be a coincidence? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can add the details about restriction on slave education, although I get into the details of the ed system more in the Education in Madagascar article. I've noticed the Christianity section of this is getting really long relative to everything else, which matches the amount of detailed resources on aspects of her reign - the Christianity part has always attracted the most attention from contemporaries and later writers. I really don't want that to overpower everything else because she reigned for 30 years and the Christian issue was actually marginal relative to her foreign relations and especially the efforts to expand and retain control over territories in Madagascar. I think I'll be focusing on expanding those two sections now, and maybe the government section as well, to give better balance to the article. I'm still expanding the Legacy piece, too. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- almost there, check your duplicate links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're right - good catch! I've gone through now and removed the duplicate links I found the old fashioned way since I can't seem to figure out how to make the script work. - Lemurbaby (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay tks. If you'd like to try and make it work, feel free to ask for advice on my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Just one other thing, we generally don't bother listing things under See also if they're linked in the main body, such as Kingdom of Imerina. Anyway, you can look at that after promotion... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Ramaria botrytis

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ramaria botrytis is a widely distributed, common, edible coral fungus. I think the prose and research are up to the standards of other mushroom FAs. Looking forward to your comments, Sasata (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images
Images are good now. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments from J Milburn

Some thoughts- feel free not to go ahead with suggestions you don't think are worthwhile.

  • "The color of the branches is initially whitish but age to buff or tan" Same thing I mentioned the other day. "The branches are initially..." is probably better?
  • "It was given its current name in 1918 by Adalbert Ricken." Could we perhaps have more detail here? Was he the one who split Ramaria from Clavaria?
  • I checked Ricken's publication, but didn't get any sense of why he moved it to Ramaria. I did, however, add that it was a 1933 Donk publication that made this the type species of the genus. Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as is A. A. Pearson's variety Clavaria botrytis var. alba." Potentially confusing; perhaps list this with the other varieties, but note that it is no longer recognised?
  • As it's a word as a word, I think βότρυς should be italicised. An anglicisation may also be useful.
  • MOS:Ety tells us that words in foreign script should not be italicized; I'm not sure if the word as word usage overrides this, but I get the feeling it isn't necessary here. I added an (italicized!) anglicization. Sasata (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terrestrial species" Maybe a silly question, but as opposed to what?
  • Removed word, as I think it's evident from context that the genus is terrestrial.
  • "R. botrytis include its large size, the orange, reddish, or purplish-colored branchlets, striate spores with dimensions averaging 13.8 by 4.7 µm, and a weak amyloid staining reaction of the stem tissue.[7] Ramaria rubripermanens" Feel free to ignore, but would it not make sense to spell out the first but not the latter?
  • "Ramaria lookalikes" - "Ramaria botrytis lookalikes"?
  • "An ectomycorrhizal species" Not keen on the half-linked word
  • "Ramaria botrytis is a "snowbank fungus", meaning it commonly fruits near the edges of melting snowbanks in the spring.[27]" Expand on this? What's the biology/significance of this?
  • Two varieties are mentioned in the taxonomy section. One is described and its distribution is mentioned, but the other is not mentioned again.
  • "green peanuts, or pea hulls" Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you what either of these are. Do we have any suitable links?
  • I glossed an explanation for green peanuts. The hull is the shell. What do you call it? (open to changing it to shells, husks, pods, or skin, if you think any of those would be more universally recognizable). Sasata (talk) 08:21, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe edible and caution may be suitable for the mycomorphbox?
  • "cerevisterol" - Worth a redlink? It has a proper name at least!
  • Categories include "Fungi of Chile", but Chile/South America is not mentioned in the article

I've not looked into the sources or the images. Nothing too serious, but I do think the lack of information on the variety is less than ideal. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on the condition that source and image checks come back OK. Seems to cover all the bases, and well written. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Sasata (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Its robust fruit body can grow up to 15 cm (5.9 in) in diameter and 20 cm (7.9 in) tall, and resembles a marine coral. It is densely branched, and the branches, which originate from a stout, massive base, are swollen at the tips and divided into several small branchlets. The color of the branches... — Seem to be a lot of branches, is it possible to lose at least one?
  • to set them apart — for identification is clearer and avoids repetition of "them" in this sentence
  • nuclear large subunit ribosomal DNA — I'm not totally sure what this means, but should it be "large-subunit"?
  • You have several redundant uses of "color" and its derivatives, eg and white to buff in color with pink to purplish-red branch tips.... Initially white in color, in age it turns pale yellow ... Old fruit bodies can fade to become almost white,[18] or may be ochre colored [should be hyphenated anyway]... the orange, reddish, or purplish-colored branchlets.
  • the toxic compound — arsenic isn't a compound, it's an element
  • Under taxonomy, I agree that the sentence about taxonomic synonyms reads oddly. Perhaps separate the bit about var. alba, and move it after the two extant varieties, giving something like: "A. A. Pearson's 1946 description of Clavaria botrytis var. alba is no longer considered to represent a distinct variety."? Or something along those lines?
  • You may wish to link "large subunit", which is correct without the hyphen by convention, to 28S ribosomal RNA.
  • Anything to say in Description about var. compactospora? I assume there's a difference in spore size, based on the name.
  • Is there any order to the species listed in the Similar Species section? It doesn't feel like there's any logical ordering or progression there. Maybe alphabetize if there's nothing better? It also seems weird that Ramaria is spelled out on its second appearance in this paragraph rather than its first.
  • Not sure what the best way to order that is, either, but there's absolutely no way I would hold up promotion over it.
  • I would reorder the sentences in the first paragraph of Habitat, because it feels like the text is jumping around. I might suggest: 1. "An ectomycorrhizal species..."; 2. "In a study..."; 3. "Records of associations..."; 4. "Fruit bodies grow..."; 5. "It can also grow..."; 6. "Ramaria botrytis is..."; 7. "In Korea...". That keeps the sentences about broadleaf trees together, and keeps the sentences about preferred habitats and growth patterns together. Alternatively, the snowbank sentence could come before sentence 4 in my ordering, if the sources suggest that behavior warrants greater emphasis.
  • Glad I could help!
  • In Distribution, "associates with the tree species Douglas-fir". Cut "the tree species" as superfluous?
  • We know that var. compactospora is Italian from the Taxonomy section, but do Schild and Ricci give anything more specific to add to the Distribution section?
  • I wonder ... should the header of the Similar Species image be "Lookalike Ramaria" instead of "Ramaria lookalikes"? The latter, to me, implies things that look like Ramaria, but aren't, which the former might successfully convey the idea of Ramaria that look like the article's subject. Maybe. Anyway, this isn't an objection, just a curiosity; the article has my full support at this point. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good:

  • Link "marine coral"?
  • The sentence about spores is unlikely to be helpful for a non-expert reader. I suggest mentioning, for example, how often spores are released, or how many spores are released at a time. Maybe these are way off the mark, but that may illustrate my point: if the reader doesn't know what spores are, the current spore sentence is meaningless.
  • Well, spore is linked, so the few people who don't know what a spore is can find out easily enough. I get your point in general though, microscopic details of a fungus are usually the least accessible bits of information (and probably least interesting) to the general populace. I could leave the sentence out completely, but then then lead wouldn't have any material from the Microscopic characteristics subsection of the article, and the spore morphology is important in this species as it helps distinguish it from several similar species. Details about frequency of spore release or numbers of spores released aren't known for this species, or for many of the thousands of fruit body-forming fungi out there.
  • "first described scientifically in 1797" by whom?
  • "Fruit bodies of Ramaria botrytis are edible" Is this used in any cuisine? Is it edible only in the sense that it won't kill you?
  • "laboratory tests show" The rest of the lead does not explain how the information was acquired, so why should this sentence do so? I suggest cutting this phrase, which will help to shorten a somewhat lengthy sentence.
  • "strains of drug-resistant bacteria that cause disease in humans." Examples?
  • I'd rather not put emphasis on on the antimicrobial properties of fruit body extracts in the lead (weighting issues), I think it's covered adequately in the article without undue emphasis.
  • All top-level sections are adequately represented in the lead. Yay!
  • A quick check did noy reveal any lead statements which conflict with or are missing from the body. Yay!

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Support on prose and comprehensiveness by Cwmhiraeth.

  • In the lead, do you need such precision in the conversions when 15 and 20 cm are obviously approximations?
  • "The flesh is thick and white. Its spores, ..." Is it not the fungus that has spores, not the flesh?
  • "13.8 by 4.7 micrometers" - links to wrong page.
  • "... species with coral-shaped fruit bodies." - Since corals come in a great variety of shapes, this description is not ideal.
  • "... can reach dimensions of 7 to 15 cm (2.8 to 5.9 in) wide and 6 to 20 cm (2.4 to 7.9 in) tall." - "can reach" implies a maximum and not a range.
  • First paragraph of description. Is a fruit body a number of branches as illustrated in the adjoining image? If so, you need to think carefully about the description and the use of plural and singular words. Does the fruit body have a single common stem? And what about the colouring, are you talking about the stem or the branches or what? I am confused.
  • From which part of the fruit body are the spores liberated?
Added. Sasata (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the purpose of using Melzer's reagent?
  • When discussing R. araiospora you state that "... it lacks any discernible odor" - I don't believe you have previously mentioned whether Ramaria botrytis has an odor?
  • There is some inconsistency in the use of the Oxford comma. (The one I noticed is "Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)").
  • "Others warn that some individuals may experience laxative effects from consuming the mushroom" - To whom does "others" apply?
  • It is a pity that Wikipedia does not have an article on "nicotianamine".
  • "... their potential health benefits associated with reduced risk of chronic and degenerative diseases." - Maybe this should read "their potential health benefits which are associated with reduced risk of chronic and degenerative diseases.

Delegate comment -- almost there, check your duplicate links... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... how'd I miss those? I removed most (left a couple intentionally in the Similar species section). Sasata (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Mascarene Martin

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from three weeks in Far East and Australia, refreshed and ready to present you with yet another obscure African swallow. As with my last FAC, the article is of necessity short because little more is known. Thanks for reading Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-old-100, own work). Sources and authors provided (tweaked tags and author info ). GermanJoe (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe, thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:01, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Reads well; just nitpicks for now, but I'll try a lit search soon. Sasata (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "bird in the swallow family which breeds" which->that
  • make sure there's non-break spaces in short-form bi- and trinomials
  • still not a fan of starting paragraphs with "This", or with abbreviations
  • link clutch
  • plumage should be linked earlier
  • link vocalisations
  • "The current Association of European Rarities Committees (AERC) recommended practice" think there should be a hyphen before recommended
  • "separated the Madagascar population" used as adjective, so should be Madagascan (or Malagasy)
  • link subspecies, breeding season, Imerina
  • "wings averaging 116.6 mm (4.6 in)" odd to have such a difference in sig figs; check others too
  • Pemba needs disambiguating (but note that Pemba island is linked shortly after)
  • "21.6 x 15 mm (0.85 x 0.59 )" missing units
  • is there a plain English way of saying Homoptera?
  • "Mascarene Martins will mob the Mauritius Kestrel suggesting that" comma after Kestrel?
  • "The population is unknown" ->population size?
  • "More recent cyclones, like one in 1980" any link for this? (would be hard to believe that we don't have an article about a recentish tropical cyclone!)
  • link introduced
  • EU has not been defined, so maybe just write in full

Lit search. Here's some stuff that came up in a combined search of the Web of Knowledge, JSTOR, and ScienceDirect. I'm sure most of the older sources are superceded by ones you've already used, but I list them here on the off chance some might be useful. Sasata (talk) 23:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List moved to talk now resolved Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the first three, more for historical interest than anything else.
  • The last seven mostly have accessible full text or a good abstract. They are either too general, or concentrate on the endangered forest species. Nothing I can see to add to what's there.
  • I've used Diamond as a reference, but I can't access the Horne chapter. Turner is usually pretty comprehensive on vocalisations, so I doubt if I'm missing much
  • I can't access the Gerfaut article. Given that the Berlioz book is only 80 pages and nearly 70 years old, I doubt whether it's worth trying to obtain.

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • FN29: formatting
  • FN45: page(s)?
  • FN49: should be et al, and check page formatting
  • Maggs et al: link is broken
  • You might think about specifying state or country for lesser-known publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review, refs and link fixed. Publisher locations are optional. I decided against countries because only putting them for "lesser known" is US/UK-centric, adding for all gives abominations like London, UK, or Cape Town, South Africa Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mascarene Martin is a small hirundine that has grey-brown underparts.. - "hirundine" is an odd word to throw at a layperson (a good one, mind you!) - I'd link it or maybe replace with an anglo-saxon word of some sort.....
The Phedina species are members of the swallow family of birds, and are classed as members of the Hirundininae subfamily.. - two "members" in the one sentence - a bit repetitive and surely can be folded down to something like "Birds of the genus Phedina belong to the members of the Hirundininae subfamily within the swallow family of birds" or somesuch....

Otherwise looking ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will read the article thoroughly tomorrow, but I'm happy to see that not only extinct Mascarene bird articles are getting some attention! I have made a few edits along the way.
  • At first glance, the synonyms in the taxobox need written authorities and dates. When these are added, I don't think citations are needed there (as in other articles), since the authority listed is already the source.
  • The first external link seems quite redundant. It is a shame that we don't have actual photos in the article, yes, but why then link to another drawing (instead of a photo), if anything? FunkMonk (talk) 03:28, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some further comments. The term "nominate subspecies" will seem confusing to non-experts, especially since it is not even established what the scientific name of that subspecies is until the distribution section. I think the scientific names of both should be mentioned under taxonomy.
  • Done
  • Maybe add slight historical context to the two drawings? I'm thinking year and author.
  • Done
  • Thanks for review and support

Spot check

  • 1a and 1c. OK.
  • 2. OK.
  • 5. OK.
  • 6. OK.
  • 8. I can only see the figures, but they seem to broadly confirm the article text.
  • 13. DOI link doesn't work for me, although I can see at www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.2989/OSTRICH.2007.78.1.8.52 that it's correct. The abstract confirms that Brazza's and Banded martins have similar calls.
  • 14. OK.
  • 15. OK.
  • 29 and 30. OK.
  • 35a and b. OK.
  • 40. Peirce et al. call the bird the Malagasy Swallow? If so, shouldn't this alternative name be mentioned in the article? Is it also called the Madagascar Swallow?
  • 42. OK.
  • 50. This might be clearer if, instead of just quoting the translation directly, the effects of the legislation were summarised -- something like "is is illegal to kill any bird of the species or to take or destroy their nests under section 16 of the Wildlife and National Parks Act 1993". Why is "Species of wildlife in respect.." capitalized?
  • 52. Papazoglou seems to say that there is no European level protection on Reunion rather than no protection at all. I don't know what Maggs says.
  • Changed to European-level, although in practice I suspect that this means little effective protection

I did a second image review and source review and found no problems. DrKiernan (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Madonna in the Church

Nominator(s):Ceoil, Truthkeeper88, Johnbod

Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting by Jan van Eyck. Thanks to Kafka Liz and the incorrigible Cocolacoste for their copyedits and suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Can you add the date of painting to the first sentence? Otherwise there's no way for the reader to get a sense of time.
  • Are you sure our MoS allows lead pics on the left; I think they are mandated to be on the right...
  • "Hubert is now credited with only a very few works"—is this relevant for the lead?
  • I think the prose is underhypenated in several places—jewel studded, earliest known, Near contemporary, and up to date, for eg—but to an extent it may be a preference issue.

I hope to read and review this excellent article in more detail in the near-future.—indopug (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Agree re Hubert and the dates in the lead, working. Im inclined to keep the lead image, not sure is disallowed, and in this instance justified I think because of the orientation of the elements of the painting and because the panel is a diptych wing. Checking out re the caps on the inscriptions, yes MOS:ETY is hard to parse ;) Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree the lead image should look left per Ceoil's reasoning. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eek, TK, not wanting to be Judas, but Ive switched it to right! Two have said it since the nom, it might be an issue with some browsers (eg i-phones and such, dunno dont have one), and it looks fine both ways. So much for principals eh? :) Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay. I hadn't actually noticed it had been moved, so seems to work fine. I could check on my phone but not smart enough to figure out how to look at a previous revisions. Good call. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

In the discussion of the possible diptych I am confused as to whether the existing panel was on the left or on the right hand side. If commentators disagree then this should be clearly stated in the text. The lead states: "Most art historians see the panel as the right wing of a dismantled diptych... " but the section "Copies and lost diptych" starts with "Art historians believe that there are a number of indicators that the panel was created as the left-hand wing of a dismantled diptych." but then states "Harbison believes the panel is "almost certainly only the right-hand wing of a devotional diptych"." Aa77zz (talk) 08:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was likely the left-hand wing, cleared up now. Ceoil (talk) 23:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clarify that "viewer's left" is meant (if it is). That is what causes most of these confusions. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further
  • Lead
  • "As with the pages ascribed to Hand G of the Turin-Milan Hours, the panel was for a time attributed to Jan's brother Hubert van Eyck, originally in the 1875 Gemäldegalerie catalogue and by a 1911 claim by art historian Georges Hulin de Loo." - apart from a caption for Turin-Milan, none of this is in the article body.
There's no reason not to only mention something in the lead. There's probably much more to say. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Im working on this. Ceoil (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't "oil painting" be mentioned somewhere here and in the body? Or is it understood to be so for panel painting of that time period?
  • "two very different left-hand images"—should be right-hand images??
  • Attribution and dating
  • Cite missing + could you resolve and remove the hidden comments (several throughout the article)?
  • You should add JvE's lifespan so that "early" and "late" wrt his life become clear.
  • There's nothing about attribution here, which seems to be dealt with in Provenance. Rename section to just Dating?
  • Description
  • "Her hem is embroidered in gold with gilded lettering that reads "SOL" and "LU",[12] or perhaps SIOR SOLE HEC ES,[13] in all probability, fragments of the Latin words for "sun" (sole) and "light" (lux)."—probably needs to be broken into two sentences (use brackets/dashes instead of commas) to improve clarity.
  • "Their angle is unusually realistic for the time"—clarify that you mean time of day. I wondered if it was time in history (when painted) instead.—indopug (talk) 12:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether short citations end in periods
  • FN17: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Walters Art Gallery or Museum?
  • "Ainsworth, Alsteens et al" for three authors? Would make more sense to use either "Ainsworth et al" or just list all three. And why do you list only Hand for that work?
  • FN57: should specify language. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use [15] for every picture portions of the main painting
Yes; done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note in the file summaries that the picture portions were cut from the actual image
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Crucifix Masaccio.jpg - not much information available. "I got the permissione by the authors of www.wga.hu" and a license is the only things we get to know. Problably needs a JSTOR ticket, if the uploader says that he got the permission. Otherwise, the painting may be in public domain (then the information is meaningless). Consider improving the summary.--Tomcat (7) 12:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously PD, like all these 500+ year old paintings. WGA just use stuff from elsewhere. Why would JSTOR be involved? Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS, but given its WGA, whats the point. Ceoil (talk) 22:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can add info from Crucifixion (Masaccio) if it helps. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't know if JSTOR becomes the new OTRS :).--Tomcat (7) 19:22, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly derived from the Metropolitan exhibition. Possibly a scan from the catalogue, which has a full page illustration, but more likely from the MMA website. Obviously PD in USA like all these. There is an element on nonsense in spending time trying to work out the precise route that all these museum-derived PD images took in reaching Commons. With google art project things are clearer, & I agree your comments. Johnbod (talk) 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not seeing a need. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Border cropped down as far as possible. Very difficult img to source. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both sorted. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Moved to the foot of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness - read this in dribs and drabs over the last couple of days. A nice read. Two minor queries but not dealbreakers per se ....
The dimensions are not given in the body of the text...and I sorta think would fit nicely as an introductory clause before the "The painting's dimensions are small enough.." bit...but I saw them under the top RHS painting.
The second use of the word "provenance " in the provenance section is a tad repetitive. See if you can rephrase. I couldn't come up with one so may not be possible....
Thanks for the support and cmts Cas, I had noticed your earlier edits in the last few days. Good catches, done. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading Cas, and for the support. Truthkeeper (talk) 01:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update sorry for the delay in coming back to this. A quick glance-through indicates that my earlier concerns have been addressed and that the article is easily FA-level; I will hopefully find time for a thorough read in the coming days and support then. In the meantime:

  • "Since discovered in 1851"—seems abrupt. Did it go missing before 1851? (don't see anything about this in the preceding text)
  • "Can the lead have (or preferably end on) a note about the panel's beauty/importance? Like "Universial praised, critics call it an 'Almost supernaturally beautiful panel painting'."
  • I think the meaning of provenance should be given here. There's a entire section about it, but it isn't a very common English word. Something like "The provenance of the work, i.e. the chronology of its ownership, is uncertain". Also consider describing a donor as the person who commissioned the work and hence has his picture painted; I don't think this is evident to lay-readers.—indopug (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TK I can look after the lead statement, I do think it is warranted but was a bit worried re POV. Not sure about provenance, but can prob couch an explination. Thanks again Indopug. Ceoil (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. I stuck one in, [16], but not wedded to it. I think a statement is okay if we attribute. I left provenance to you, but can help if you get it started. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next to the linked term, I added a quick definition of provenance (well-supported by the source as it happens) which I think works. I do agree that unfamiliar terms should have in-text explanation. Hope you're good with this. Truthkeeper (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This has been going on a while now, & as far as I can tell the points raised so far by reviewers have been addressed. If anyone thinks this is not the case, perhaps they could say so here, so we can draw a line at this point. Johnbod (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two supports and from Indopug, who hasnt edited in a few days but who has been pinged, "my earlier concerns have been addressed and [] the article is easily FA-level". Thanks to the deligates for leaving it open, but can you give a few more days pls before an archive. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing now . . .—indopug (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revisit
  • "the painting composed as if these sculptures are intended as the main figures in the panel come to life"—shouldn't that be the other way around? "the main figures are intended to be the sculptures come to life"?
    Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure you aren't overstating MITC's influence on Bening's Virgin and Child? The paragraph talks mostly of how different the latter is from MITC, and that it's informed either by the Cambrai or the Gossaert copy. Further, the Cambrai Madonna article mentions the Bening piece (but no mention of influence from van Eyck) and features several similar-looking portraits that don't seem to have been influenced by MITC.
    Need to pull out the source again on this. 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
    The sequence is that JvE deviated from the Cambrai work, his innovations were copied by Gossaert. Bening (100 years later) took JvE/Gossaert one step further but reinstated some of the anacronisims of the Cambrai, notably the halo, which was well out of fashion even by the early 1400s. The cambrai articel came out of this one, its not yet complete itself. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "While Panofsky expressed some reservations,[18] Pächt felt that it was "probably" accompanied by another wing." —unless you specify what the reservations are, this seems like an expendable sentence.
    Fair enough. Removed. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On several occasions, you've described people as "art historian". This is often unnecessary; it's clear the person is a scholar.
    It was kind of overkill, as everybody mentioned comes underthat description, and there are a few phrases like 'art historian agree..'. agree its clear without stating too often. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Madonna panel contains far fewer indicators of being a pendant" - what is a pendant here?
    Clarified as an accompanying but unattached sister panel. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why was the SmartHistory link removed, I thought it was a pretty useful and well-made summary.—indopug (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now in Ext links. Ceoil (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support regardless of my mostly minor quibbles above.—indopug (talk) 18:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Just a couple of thoughts re. the lead: 1) given Eyck's life date are approximate and therefore a bit of a mouthful, I don't know that you need them in the opening sentence -- he's linked, and the date of the painting is given, so I think there's enough info; 2) since you explain Virgin of Tenderness, I don't think "touchingly" is really necessary in the same sentence -- seems a trifle peacockish to me anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, removed both. Ceoil (talk) 12:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:05, 25 March 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 26 March 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Hurricane Carol

Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC) --12george1 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Hurricane Carol was a hell of a storm. There's a wicked bad stawm up in New England soon, but Carol was a bad one back in the 50's, in fact one of two storms to hit New England in a two week period in 1954. So it's an important storm, and after a lot of work (with some assistance from User:12george1, who I have invited to be a co-nominator), I believe the article is a great representation on the event, including the hurricane's track and what it did. Hope you enjoy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your invitation, Hurricanehink. This will be a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 02:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Hurricane Carol was among the worst tropical cyclones to affect the New England region of the United States." -- Ever or on record?
  • "On August 27, Carol intensified to reach winds of 105 mph (169 km/h), but weakened as its motion turned to a northwest drift." -- 169 km/h needs to be rounded. In the second sentence you say it was moving northwest, but in this one you say it turned to the northwest. Confusing.
  • "A strong trough of low pressure turned the hurricane northeastward, and Carol intensified into a major hurricane." -- The wording of this sentence suggests that the trough prompted the system to intensify into a major hurricane, which I do not believe is the case here.
  • "While paralleling the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States, the storm produced strong winds and rough seas caused minor coastal flooding and slight damage to houses in North Carolina, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Delaware, and New Jersey." -- Caused to causing
  • "Storm surged flooded LaGuardia Airport and inundated Montauk Highway, which left the eastern portion of Long Island isolated." -- Surge, not surged.
  • "Following the storm, Carol was retired, becoming the first name to be stricken from the naming lists in the Atlantic basin." -- I personally don't like the usage of "stricken". How about removed or something more generic?
  • "It moved to the northwest, and intensified into a tropical storm just six hours after forming" -- No need for a comma.
  • "With a large anticyclone persisting across the southeastern United States,[3] the motion of Carol turned to a northwest drift." -- Same as my second comment. You can't start northwest and then turn northwest."
  • "Early on August 31, Carol passed very near Cape Hatteras, North Carolina with Reconnaissance Aircraft intensity estimates between 75 mph (120 km/h) to 125 mph (200 km/h)." -- Comma after Carolina, and I believe it should be "between 75 mph (120 km/h) AND 125 mph (200 km/h)."
  • "The hurricane continued north-northeastward with a forward motion of up to 39 mph (63 km/h),[2] and Carol intensified further to make landfall on eastern Long Island as an upper Category 2 or a Category 3 hurricane" -- Surely the database lists one or the other. Did it make landfall as a 2 or 3?
  • "After quickly crossing the Long Island Sound the hurricane made its final landfall on Old Saybrook, Connecticut." -- Comma after Sound?
  • "Carol was a small hurricane, with the strongest winds near and to the east of the center. The eye remained well-defined as it made landfall, unusual for New England hurricane landfalls; residents in Groton, Connecticut reported clear skies and calm conditions as the hurricane made landfall, which was followed by an increase to hurricane-force winds 30 minutes later." -- What's the purpose of these two sentences?
  • "The powerful extratropical storm continued northward, and after entering Canada it lost its identity over southern Quebec." --> "The powerful extratropical storm continued northward, and after entering Canada, lost its intensity over southern Quebec."

Maybe more to come later, this is the lede and Meteorological history. All in all, though, not too bad. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I replied to each. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. just some cleanup needed:

  • Oppose 1c. I'm not too concerned about the Cotterly references. If his work is good enough for NOAA to recommend, I'll take it here. But I'm certain we can do better than the Grammatico Geocities reference. For one thing, I don't think his biography really places him as a substantive expert in the field (to wit: I don't think he's notable himself), and so I'm a little hesitant to greenlight his Geocities page as reliable by extension, especially at the FA level. That's the definition of material without editorial control. But more to the point, this really was a historic storm system, and there's a lot of literature on the topic. This article leans on that Geocities reference 10 times, and much or all of the claims it supports can be cited elsewhere. Is there really no better source to say that Carol's storm surge covered Montauk highway (what about this) or that the storm largely spared western Connecticut (perhaps page 181 here), for example? A truly comprehensive review of the topic could probably improve on even those sources, the result of < 5 minutes of searching. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I fought to keep the link above, I sorta changed my mind. I fixed your two replacement suggestions above. I will look for ways to remove the remaining 10 usages later.--12george1 (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My next few days look like they might be a little thin on time, but I'll see if I can help a little. If possible, I'd also like to see the Cotterly references replaced. I won't oppose the candidacy if they're still there, but I do think we can do better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I should note, I'm pretty swamped in real life (playing music for three musicals at once, oy...) but I should be freer after Saturday. I hope it won't be a problem if wait until then. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I managed to cut down to only five usages the Grammatico reference. However, I cannot find a replacement for the remaining five usage. Additionally, I am thinking the Grammatico reference can be considered a reliable source. The fact that the webpages are on Geocities is somewhat irrelevant. It is that Michael Grammatico is reliable. As I said above "Michael holds a degree in Physical Geography, with a specialization in Climatology from Central Connecticut State University. Michael has held several positions in climate research and natural hazards, including consulting scientific advisor for the Office of Insurance Services." Due to his work and education, I believe Grammatico publications are reliable.--12george1 (talk) 01:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I disagree. I'm trying to lend a hand here; I've replaced one all but one and a half of the remaining Grammatico references with a Department of Commerce publication already various better things. Furthermore, I'll note that DoC report quoted a different figure for the wind gusts recorded on Long Island than Grammatico did. I've edited the figure (and swapped from manual conversion to the convert template, which really should be used throughout instead of just sometimes) to the more reliable value. Frankly, I see no reason why Grammatico should be considered authoritative whatsoever. He has an unspecified degree from a small college, some weather-related jobs in the insurance industry, and zero scholarly publications. He's simply not a recognized expert in this field. I'm certain that he's passionate about the subject, and put a lot of work into his hurricane website, but it's still a self-published source with no editorial oversight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't think I can do any more with this tonight. There's a claim about the normal behavior of hurricane eyes in New England storms that is almost certainly true, but needs a citation. I've marked it citation needed; it was previously referenced to Grammatico's Geocities page, and while I fixed the other half of that statement, I didn't have time to do that one as well. There's still one other use of that page remaining; I can't find an exact replacement for it, but it should be possible to get the point across with something somewhere else. Meanwhile, someone else with a better eye for brilliant prose should due a read-through to review overall writing quality; I've removed some redundancies and tweaked wordings as I've been adjusting refs, which makes me suspect that's more than can be improved. Regardless of cause, if this FAC winds up getting archived, I'd honestly like to see the Cotterly refs replaced, too. Those are closer to being the work of an established expert; I won't oppose for them, but this article could do better. I'd also like to see more consistent use of the convert template over manual unit conversion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 04:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • I note Rschen's query re. "well-organized" and it also sounds very odd to my ear. If it's a meteorological expression, okay, but that doesn't help the general reader.
  • There are a few duplicate links to review -- you can use this script to check them.
  • Squeamish, Hink, are we getting close to resolving the issue above?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • First, yea, "well-organized" is a very common meteorological term. There are 22,000 links under NOAA that include that term. If it's a huge deal, I can remove it, but I like that it describes the storm's well-defined structure. Secondly, wow, I love that tool! That is so useful for checking for redundant links. I can't believe I never had it before. And third, yea, the above issue with the Grammatico link should be addressed. I talked to him on his talk page about it, so hopefully he gets back here. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • My apologies for the slow turnaround time on this. I've had an unfortunate situation to deal with offline. With Grammatico gone, I'm striking the 1c objection. I'm okay with the conversion template/non-template issue as well, based on the explanation above. I wasn't able to do a thorough prose review, but a quick scan this evening doesn't reveal anything significantly amiss, and I don't want to stand in the way of this further. Amedning to support. (Also, in my opinion, "well-organized" is fine; several of our FA tropical storm articles use the term, and it has wide currency in the field. Honestly, it could probably be an article topic eventually...) Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No prob, thanks for getting back! (hopefully that situation is dealt with - I've been busy myself offline) As for well-organized, I could probably link to here, if that helps? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Heh, perhaps there should be a line on the term in the Wiktionary definition of "organized"... That link didn't seem to spell it out too clearly and might confuse people more -- if it's commonly used in hurricane articles on WP then I think we can live with it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for not actually getting around to review the article... as far as the sourcing, if consensus is that the two sources I noted above are reliable, then that's fine with me; I wasn't sure however, and it seems like those particular sources haven't been discussed before. --Rschen7754 21:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Geocities source was determined not to be reliable, but all of its uses have been replaced. The Cotterly source is self-published, but NOAA includes it in a list of recommended resources, so I, at least, am willing to concede to its inclusion (if NOAA thinks it's reliable on the topic, who are we to argue?). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [18].[reply]

Fusō-class battleship

Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the FAC about the individual battleship, see WP:Featured article candidates/Japanese battleship Fusō/archive1.

Cam took this article to Milhist's A-class review a long time ago, but the current article is a substantial upgrade from that one. Sturm has thoroughly covered design and construction, and I've condensed the service histories from the work I recently did on Japanese battleship Fusō and Japanese battleship Yamashiro. Cam hasn't responded, so here we are. Both ships were sunk in the most dramatic battleship-on-battleship confrontation of World War II during the Battle of Leyte Gulf; one ship was long thought to have remained afloat and ablaze for an hour after splitting in two, defying the laws of physics and good sense, and the other bravely took on 6 battleships and 8 cruisers lying in wait, only to go down to torpedoes a few minutes later, taking her vice-admiral and almost all the crew down with her. I hope this is an engaging read, and we welcome your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WikiCup nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments - the article looks pretty good, just a bunch of nitpicks:
    • They were 4 heavy and 4 light cruisers, not 8 battlecruisers ;) I've fixed this in the article.
    • Might be worth noting these two ships were actually super-dreadnoughts
    • Is there a need to put "decisive battle" and "revolutionize" in quotes in the Background section?
    • Might be worth noting that all-big-gun battleships were known as "dreadnoughts" after the first one - the article talks about Dreadnought a couple of times and then about "Kawachi-class dreadnoughts" - the average reader might be confused by this.
    • Why "armor" and "draught"?
      • Because BritEng looks "normal" to me now and I didn't catch it ... which is sad. Fixed. - Dank (push to talk)
    • "the Miyahara boilers on each were replaced by six new Kanpon" - this is confusing. Did each set of turbines get 6 Kanpons (for a total of 12), or did each shaft get 6 (for a total of 24)?
    • The main guns were a Vickers design, so why did French design patents help with modernizing the guns?
      • They purchased the patents for autofrettage, which was more of a manufacturing advance than anything else. Deleted as pertinent only to the gun article.
    • Why are some guns given in Imperial, but others in metric?
      • Because the Japanese changed their designations from English units to metric in, IIRC, 1917 and I think that we've used metric for everything added after then. Do you think that it would be better to standardize everything in metric?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Might we use any photos showing their original configuration? File:Fuso trial.jpg, File:Yamashiro initial trial.jpg, or File:Yamashiro initial trial.jpg. In addition, the lead photo is pretty fuzzy, and I think it should be replaced with something cleaner looking.
    • File:Yamashiro Sparrow Hawk.jpg might be worth adding to the Aircraft section.
    • In the WWII section - " First Yamashiro, then Fusō, then Yamashiro again (on 4 October) - might it make more sense to simply state something along the lines of "the two ships alternated in the role of division flagship..."
    • "but she had been hit by two to four torpedoes, and after two more hits" - were these 2 more torpedo hits, or were they shell hits? Parsecboy (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Excellent, a nomination by Dank: time to run the red pen over his grammar! (joke!). Seriously, this article is in very good shape, and I have the following comments:

  • "Both patrolled briefly off the coast of China for one year before being placed in reserve at the war's end. In 1922 Yamashiro became the first battleship in the IJN to successfully launch aircraft." - if you're noting when they went into reserve you should note when they came out (presumably before 1922?)
  • On the topic of 'Both patrolled briefly off the coast of China for one year', the body of the article doesn't say that either ship spent a year off China.
  • "both were lost in the early hours of 25 October 1944 to American torpedoes and naval gunfire." - to be pedantic, one of the heavy cruisers which fired on the battleships (I think?) was Australian (HMAS Shropshire). An Australian destroyer (HMAS Arunta) also took part in the torpedo attacks, but I don't think that she scored any hits.
  • "in one big battle" - 'big' is a bit awkward in this context; how about 'major'?
  • Who designed the ships? The design section implies that there was a significant British contribution/influence, but who actually developed the plans is left unclear.
    • Is it clearer now?
      • A bit, but it still doesn't explicitly say who designed these ships (which is a common item of content for article on the BBs of other countries) - did an IJN team design the vessels, or did Japan have naval contractors do the work like the RN often did? (I'd be guessing the former). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another complication was the need to fit extra insulation and air conditioning in the magazines of the amidships turrets to protect them from the heat generated in the adjacent boiler rooms.[21] Mounted amidships along the centerline of the ship, they had restricted arcs of fire,[13] and their position forced the boiler rooms to be placed in less than ideal locations." - the arcs of fire bit doesn't follow on from the previous sentence (about the magazines and boilers), meaning that this all is a bit confusing.
  • "In early 1941, the ship supported experiments with radio-controlled Kawanishi E7K2 floatplanes" - what did this support involve?
  • "the division sortied from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands" - the word 'squadron' is used in the preceding sentence, with a note saying that Battleship Division is also used; please standardise on one or the other.
  • "the division set sail with the Aleutian Support Group,[48][49] commanded by Vice-Admiral Shirō Takasu." - did Takasu command the division (that word again!) or the entire support group?
  • You might want to note why the Japanese had resorted to the unusual practice of using battleships to transport troops around (eg, due to the heavy casualties which American submarines were inflicting on troop convoys)
    • If only the sources actually said that. The transport of the 25th Reg't seems to be a case of coinciding destinations, so I'm not sure that that was entirely true. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know if this helps because it's just one incident and not in general, but Tully, p. 34, says: "Upon hearing of the invasion [of Saipan] on June 13, the Army Section of General Headquarters tried to reinforce the garrison by troop runs. Unfortunately for the Japanese, these were decimated by submarine attacks. Another way to transport the troops and equipment would have to be found." - Dank (push to talk) 11:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't one of the other FAs on Japanese battleships discuss this? There's some material on this topic in Operation Kita, but that was later in the war. It was highly unusual to embark troops on battleships, and this wouldn't have been done only because the battleship happened to be heading in the right direction. The deployments to Truk in August and November 1943 appear to have been transport-only missions anyway (presumably related to the Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign). Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, that one just deals with ferrying oil and a few oil workers. I've added a paragraph for you Nick ... it doesn't answer the question in general, but it does explain why Yamashiro came very close to being sacrificed for troop ferrying duties. It's the paragraph that starts "During the US invasion of Saipan". - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tarakan Island in Borneo" - 'off Borneo' would work better IMO
    • Done.
  • "Yamashiro was ambushed" - 'ambushed' doesn't seem the right word given that Oldendorf was maneuvering in the centre of the straight and not attempting to hide at all. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an extra point, can anything be said about why these ships were moved from training duties to active duties in 1944 (or even just some material explicitly stating this change in role) and how they were manned? (eg, did they keep their trainee crews?). Given that there's little on the IJN after Midway in the English language literature on the war this might not be possible. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There paragraph I just added (mentioned above) answers one question of about how they wound up getting new roles. Tully says that it's not really known what the Leyte Gulf plan was, but Nishimura's wire (which I include) is one of the few clues we have: "We proceed till totally annihilated. I have definitely accomplished my mission as pre-arranged. Please rest assured." - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I strongly suspect that they were activated in '44 because Operation Sho-1 was intended as the decisive battle against the USN that the Japanese had been seeking all war and that every heavy ship was required. But I can't find anything that says specifically why the sisters were included, much less crew make up, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've poked around looking for those details as well, but without any luck (if anyone reading this is a world class naval historian looking for a new project, writing a history of the IJN covering the period June 1942-August 1945 would fill a huge gap in the literature on World War II!). As such, I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support with two minor comments:

Delegate comments

  • As is my standard practice, I'll be leaving this review open to see if we can get someone outside of MilHist/Ships to give it the once-over for accessibility to the wider audience.
    • I'm not sure if i'd qualify as the someone you are looking for, but I have had a bit of input in this/closely related articles and GA reviewed at least one of them from memory, I'm quite satisfied that the article meets all the FA Criteria and I feel it's prefectly accessible to a wider audience, if you have any questions on what I've said, feel free to ask ★★RetroLord★★ 12:44, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re. the footnotes without references, I can see they're not causing too much consternation but clearly they're raising some questions. While I appreciate they're there for the reader's benefit, and are obviously outside the main body of the article, some are, to my mind, a little problematic. #1, for instance, is a well-known fact to most people interested in military history, but the man in the street who doesn't know that might like a reference, and I wouldn't have thought it too hard to find one. In #3, the first sentence is reasonable editorialising for the reader's benefit, and can hardly be cited, but the second sentence's speculation seems less desirable. Similarly, in #4, I'd have thought we could stop after BatDiv, and lose the unreferecned speculation.
  • You have a few duplicate links that may be justifiable if there's enough prose between each, but pls review in any case with the script.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Bob Feller

Nominator(s): User:Zepppep, Wizardman 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our reasons for starting to edit Wikipedia. One of mine was seeing that the article on Bob Feller was, to be blunt, utter crap. It had a paragraph or two on his career as well as several paragraphs about his opinions on various things. It was sad even by standards back then, let alone now. Fast forward to today, and we have an article much more suited for the subject. As an Indians fan myself, I grew up idolizing the guy, and was privileged to have met him shortly before his passing. Suffice to say he's someone I really want to see get on the front page.

As for him, Bob Feller was a baseball pitcher for nearly 20 years. Brought in as a child prodigy, he was a star from the get-go. He missed the peak of his career due to World War II, then came back and pitched another decade. He is part of the baseball Hall of Fame, and remained active in the community for decades afterward.

This article has been through a GA review, a major rewrite by me, a peer review, and another cleanup, and after all that, I think it's as close to FAC as I'm going to get it. Wizardman 02:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue with File:Oliver-bin_261.jpg. It's tagged as lacking a description, but I'm concerned that the licensing is wrong - if this is a sculpture, it is not covered by freedom of panorama. To me it looks more like a mural, but if so it can't be PD-self unless the uploader is the muralist. Please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ask Kingturtle about it. It looks like a mural, but the PD status for now is up in the air whether it's a mural or sculpture. Wizardman 01:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO: I was only vaguely familiar with this guy, so the article is enlightening. Article is comprehensive and has good flow, doesn't come across as apologetic for his latter years as a player, listing his worsening record just before he decided to retire. I just have a few comments...

  • Last sentence, second paragraph of intro..."He helped the Indians won a World Series title"...shouldn't "won" be "win"?
  • In Early life..."From the age of 15, he began to pitch for the Oakviews after a starting pitcher was injured and continued to play American Legion baseball"...who continued to play American Legion baseball?
  • In section World Series champion (1948), first sentence "In 1948, the Indians had one of their finest seasons but for Feller, while Feller's individual season had more ups and downs" Perhaps rewrite it as< In 1948, the Indians had one of their finest seasons, though Feller experienced a season of ups and downs.
  • Please go through the article and remove any issues with overlinking...I removed a few.--MONGO 17:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Went ahead and fixed everything, took out some more overlinking. There's quite a bit in the lead but given the baseball stats there's no way around it. Wizardman 04:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you...the one sentence listed above though now is written as, "In 1948, the Indians had one of their finest seasons but for Feller, though Feller experienced a season had more ups and downs", which still seems awkward. It doesn't have to be written as I suggested, but its still not flowing right.--MONGO 04:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed; forgot to take out the "but for Feller" part, so it should be good now. Wizardman 18:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Excellent. Appears article (as you mentioned) has had a pretty exhaustive GAC and PR...and I read through both and see many issues were addressed. I don't have anything to add, therefore, Support promotion to Featured Article. Thank you for your hard work on this article.--MONGO 20:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Hmm, I seem to have been picking at this one for a long time! I was the GA reviewer, commented at the PR, and have done quite a bit of copy-editing. So when I support, it may have to be provisional until some other eyes take a look. Having said that, I think this is one of the best baseball articles I have read. I think it really gives a flavour of who this man was (and I'd never heard of him until I read this. Sorry!), how good he was, and what he achieved. It flows very well, and is easy enough to understand for someone with limited baseball knowledge like myself. It may get a little stats-heavy at times, but that is unavoidable. And there may be some little prose issues to be ironed out here and there, but I think this is close to, if not already meeting, the criteria. I've just a few last queries or follow-ups to earlier points. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a large number of sentences in the lead beginning "Feller", "He", or "His". Some more variation would be good. And the third paragraph begins "He", which is a big no-no. A new paragraph really should use the person's name.
  • "In 1946, Feller recorded 348 strikeouts on the season": On the season always sounds strange to me, but I suspect it's fine in AmEng. I just wonder how formal it is when used like this?
  • "Baseball Hall of Famer Ted Williams": We have two blue-links next to each other; could this be rearranged?
  • Williams quote: "the fastest and best pitcher I ever saw during my career ... He had the best fastball and curve I've ever seen." We have used best and fast twice in the same quote. Would it work just as well if we cut everything after the ellipsis?
  • Is there anything on his later life which could be added to the lead? It kind of goes from his retirement to his death with only a brief stop along the way.
  • "was signed by scout Cy Slapnicka": Two more links which are next to each other.
  • Perhaps date the Deford quote?
  • "He also pitched in baseball games hosted by the military, which used Feller's likeness in the games in order to help sell war bonds": Still fussing about this part, I'm afraid! Used his likeness how? In the games (which is how is reads now), or in an advertising campaign for war bonds?
  • "During the 1946, he registered career-highs…": Missing word?
  • "though Feller experienced a season had more ups and downs": Something wrong here.
  • 1948 World Series Game 5: This part reads rather like a sports report than an encyclopaedia entry, and almost seems to be trying to ramp up the tension! Perhaps scale back the detail and tone it down a touch?
  • "After this, Feller struggled for the rest of the season. After an argument with an umpire…": Consecutive sentences beginning "after".
  • "thanks to Lopez giving him extra days…": Perhaps "As Lopez gave him…"?
  • "After the season had ended, speculation grew whether or not Feller would retire as a player": Redundancy. And does speculation grow or mount?
  • I'm not sure of the value of the 19 Feller "image". Unless I'm missing something.
  • "The Indians of the 40's and 50's": Why are apostrophes used here?
  • "for over 70-years": And why is there a dash? I know these last two are from a quote, but still…
  • "a No. 19-jersey": Another stray dash?
  • I notice Nikkimaria has raised the mural image issue. I mentioned this way back in the GA review and it was removed; someone subsequently re-added it. So I think it is important to sort out the status pretty quickly, as we may be on dodgy ground. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with copyediting disclaimer: Everything looks fine now. Thanks for your patience. One last little thing I noticed from the last round of tweaks which needs sorting. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After retiring from baseball, Feller continued In 2010, Feller died at the age of 92.": Something wrong here; I would have fixed it, but not too sure what was intended. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I just went and cleaned up a few things in the article, including at least one of Sarastro's points. There are a few other things I think should be taken care of before I offer support, which I plan on doing.

  • A few areas could use some references:
    • The last two sentences of Military service.
    • World Series champion: The one-game playoff sentence.
    • Later life: Feller living with his second wife in Gates Mills, and having the Cleveland Indians Man of the Year Award named after him.
  • Maybe it's just me, but I think it's odd to have international-style date formatting in the references for an American subject. Not a deal-breaker, but a little strange nonetheless. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll address both sets of concerns in the next few days; still trying to figure out the mural image, my copyright sense had been working overtime on it but coming up empty on whether it's good or not. Wizardman 00:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sarastro and Giants' comments now addressed. A few notes on them though: they used his likeness in the games themselves. While it's possible they used him outside of ballgames in advertising, I have not come across evidence of that. I tweaked the game five stuff a bit, but I'm not really sure how to reword it further without making it sound like a game log, which I'd prefer to avoid in the middle of a bio. The retired number addition is standard in major baseball articles; it provides both how it looks in the stadium as well as the visual note for anyone skimming the article. Lastly, I can change the ref dates if needed, only reason I'm not for now is because it would be a timesink and I alas don't have the free time I used to. Wizardman 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. I'll see if I can take care of the dates myself. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed a couple straggler dates I saw, looks like you got the rest. Wizardman 17:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Support – There were a couple of nagging date issues left, but I got them before coming back here. With those little things fixed, I think this comfortably meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Hall of Fame member Ted Williams called Feller "the fastest and best pitcher I ever saw during my career."[1] Hall of Famer Stan Musial believed he was "probably the greatest pitcher of our era. - I think both of these can be written from the third person and de-quoted. Nicer flow.
''World Series champion (1948) - shouldn't this heading be "champions"?
I'd rejig the last little bit - I'd leave the Later life section with just the first two paras, then rename the last two paras plus the museum segment as Legacy, which gives the article a nice ending.

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the second point, that's standard naming, since he was part of a champion team; if I was referring to the team itself then I'd change it. The last point I would do if I didn't already have a legacy section above the later life one (I could always move that down under the museum section). The first point I could try, though if I de-quote and change the persona, it would leave people asking who said that about him, which might be an issue; if you don't see it as an issue then I can try and modify it. Wizardman 02:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah, ummm...what is in hte section marked legacy currently...isn't legacy. I'd rename it Achievements' or records or something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A good point, actually. Fixed. Wizardman 03:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I'm supposed to care that the apostrophe is italicized in Sporting News's, but this glitch has always struck me as more of a failure on the part of the Foundation than the failure of thousands of volunteer writers. Until it's fixed, the kludge is {{'}}.
  • "at the time only three players had a higher percentage of ballot votes": Well, technically, "had ever had".
  • "By the time he was eight years old, he had learned to throw a curveball and when he was nine, could throw a ball ...": ...curveball, and when he was nine, he could throw a ball. Or, if you'd rather not repeat the "he": He had learned to throw a curveball by the time he was eight years old, and could throw a ball 270 feet when he was nine.
  • "switched to grow wheat on his farm, a less labor intensive crop": started growing wheat on his farm, a less labor intensive crop
  • "Due to Feller's pitching speed, Lew Fonseca was commissioned by the Office of the Commissioner to conduct a test, involving a Harley-Davidson motorcycle and Feller, to see at what speed one of Feller's fastballs could be clocked.": How about: "Lew Fonseca was commissioned by the Office of the Commissioner to pit Feller's fastball against a Harley-Davidson motorcycle in a speed trial."
  • "It was calculated Feller's throw reached 98.6 mph (158.7 kph), 104 mph (167 kph) using updated measuring methods.": Maybe "Feller's throw was calculated at the time to reach ..., but later ..."
  • "speak of familiarly": Check the whole quote, please, at least some of it is wrong.
  • "He also pitched in baseball games hosted by the military, which used Feller's likeness in the games in order to help sell war bonds.": in order to -> to. Also, I don't know what this means; did they put his face in the programs, or on posters at the ballpark? Did he appear in advertising outside the ballpark?
  • "to serve combat missions": to serve in combat missions
  • "making ball fields out of coral reefs," Feller said.": The original has a period after reefs, not a comma, so move the "Feller said" elsewhere.
  • "he spent the rest of his time": he spent the rest of the war
  • "to get the Yankees out," Feller said.": Here again ... no comma in the original.
  • "as Feller thought he may be": as Feller thought he might be
  • "At one point during the season (as Feller thought he may be nearing Rube Waddell's AL record for strikeouts), Feller confirmed Waddell's record of 344 strikeouts with the AL office as opposed to 349. In his last appearance of the season on September 29, Feller threw five strikeouts against the Detroit Tigers to set the AL single-season strikeout record. (Nolan Ryan's 1973 total of 383 strikeouts surpassed both Feller and Waddell's marks.) During the 1946 season, he registered career-highs in strikeouts (348), games started (42) and games pitched (48), shutouts (10), complete games (36) and innings pitched (377.1)—all major league bests that season. The strikeout total broke Waddell's record of 344 set in 1949.": Lots of redundancy.
  • "declared "we sink or swim with Feller," and": The comma is in the original ... but the original is quoting someone else, and the someone else probably didn't put a comma there (if they wrote it down). So it's safer to move the comma outside the quote marks.
  • " it was the first time the team won the pennant since the 1920 season.": had won
  • "picked off the Braves' Phil Masi's stolen base attempt": It's common sports jargon so I think it's fine ... but "picked off the Braves' Phil Masi as he ..." is better. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on hitter": another misquote: on one hitter. That's 0 for 3 of the ones I've checked, so it would probably be a good idea to check all the quotes.
  • "The 35-year old Feller": The 35-year-old Feller
  • "it...If" it ... If
  • "being one of "The Big Four" Indians pitching rotation": as one of "The Big Four" in the Indians' pitching rotation
  • "20th century record": "20th-century record" is preferred at FAC
  • "his first year of eligibility": redundant to the next sentence
  • "After Feller had been admitted to hospice": If you keep it: since this is a big jump in time, a little better would be "In 2007, after Feller ...". But personally, I wouldn't keep this; he had already been admitted to hospice, and the interview makes it clear he was not in a mood to talk; it seems a bit unfair to pick this moment to quote him on a characterization of Jackie Robinson. Newspapers may do this to sell newspapers, but it's not likely to reflect what he would have said when he wasn't sick ... unless he did say the same things when he wasn't sick, in which case, that's what should be quoted.
  • "Feller's involvement, as well as other major league players": "Feller's involvement, as well as that of other major league players,", or "The involvement of Feller and other major league players" - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also threw the second fastest pitch ever officially recorded, at 107.6 mph (173.2 kph), in a game in 1946 at Griffith Stadium, and was also once clocked at 107.9 mph (173.6 kph).": So he had both the second fastest and the fastest? Or was the second unverified in some sense ... so should we be reporting it? Maybe we're talking about the second-fastest pitch in a major-league game. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Feller said a 1974 test involving Nolan Ryan would be evaluated when he threw the ball rather than when it reached home plate, and as columnist Milton Richman wrote, Feller said "Sandy Koufax had the best live fast ball he ever saw." Feller wrote "If someone were to ask me who the fastest pitcher in the history of the game was, I'd say Walter Johnson, but he was never clocked.": I don't follow; in your opinion, which of these three people did Feller think was fastest? Or do we not know?
  • Done. - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review, will address over the next couple days. Wizardman 16:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    About 80% done, will wrap up tomorrow. Wizardman 04:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All issues now addressed. For the last note, I believe he's saying that Koufax was the fastest by his own experience. Johnson was retired long before Feller's career began, so that's going by his legacy; I can remove that latter part to make it clearer if desired. Wizardman 03:24, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes ... since you're okay with that, I removed that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 21 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Persoonia linearis

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another day another plant....I am celebrating getting one of these for my garden by writing about it. I've done what I can..have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

forgot the target coding in the two cited texts - fixed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • File:Perslinfruit1 email.jpg needs an information template.
templated. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Albacore (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*Can you link Illawarra?
linked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says in the lead "It reaches 5 m (16 ft) in height" but you say in the description "Persoonia linearis grows as a tall shrub to small tree, occasionally reaching 5 m (17 ft) in height but more commonly around 2–3 m (7–10 ft) tall." Is it 16 feet or 17 feet? I would suggest adding the common height in the lead as well.
mistake rounding. fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new growth is hairy. Forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by "hairy" and where is the new growth?
"new growth" is the term used for new shoots and leaves as a plant grows- when you look at a plant that is actively growing, you can often see flushes of new new leaves and stems generally a paler or brighter green than the rest of the foliage. I guess I could write "new leaves and stems"....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • on the New South Wales mid north coast Should "mid north coast" be in capitals here?
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is an understory component of the widespread Currambene Lowlands Forest community, does "Currambene Lowlands Forest" deserve a red link?
that's a tricky one. It'd be pretty specialised and localised. We could go either way on that one. I think it would be a redlink for a very loooong time though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deficiencies in iron and manganese may occur. In the plant, correct? Can you specify?
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
very hard to find anything that is accessible to the everyday reader...essentially they isolated a compound which appeared to have someactivity against some microbes...and that's about it. Nothing has ever come of it. I am wary of expanding upon it much as it might give it undue weight and not give a full picture of the relevance or lack thereof of the activity. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Albacore (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Casliber's own work, PD-1923). Source and author provided (tweaked 1-2 minor issues). GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not a lot to criticize here, just a few comments:

  • infobox - optional, but a locator map for Australia in the infobox map would be helpful (atleast for readers just looking at the pretty pictures). The infobox has no info, that the plant is actually from Australia.
I will see what i can do - you mean something like this one?. I have added "australia" to the caption. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or the other way around, adding a small australia overview map (maybe in the lower left corner, which is relatively empty) and just marking the large map area there as box. No preference, whatever looks better and is easy to create - it's a minor point. GermanJoe (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, that might be easier. WIll give it a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)damn, I can't make it look nice...sigh. Just comes out looking too "busy"....and then there are a stack of other species articles with state maps I'll have to change :P Will see what the consensus ends up being here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead - "However, it adapts readily to cultivation and is [straightforward] to grow ..." - a bit informal, maybe just "easy"
See, "easy" would strike me as more informal. However I did think of another way so reworded now Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy "Persoonia linearis was [officially] described in 1799 by Henry Charles Andrews..." - would imply, he was authorized to do so by some formal institution. If yes, maybe name the institution or the specific work. The next sentence refers to "... in the book ..." with no book introduced yet.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taxonomy - the whole first paragraph is very hard to digest for an occasional reader. A lot of small pieces of information and the narrative jumps from 1891 back to 1807. Would it be possible and clearer to split that para in 2 separate paragraphs, maybe along "official taxonomy" and "inofficial and erronous taxonomy"?
done - split is (luckily) natural - early and correct and alternatives and later. paras 3 and 4 are then classification within the genus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Description - Again, splitting that paragraph could help occasional readers through the content.
para split now Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distribution "It grows in sunny ..." - is the lengthy list of trees and shrubs here necessary or could it be replaced with a more general statement (what type of trees, what type of shrubs?).
Hmm, there are all sorts of specific associations in plant communities and it can be difficult to generalise. I can add have added common names to make it more accessible. One of the things I like about Australian flora is all these subcommunities and associations of plants. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultivation - "Germination from seed is [low] ...", should that be "slow", referring to a process in time?
There is a low chance of germination, and seeds that do take an insanely long time to do... Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From a layman's view the article has no obvious problems regarding FA-criteria. My only minor concern is, that some parts of the narrative could be a bit more accessible to the average reader. GermanJoe (talk) 12:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN2: suggest using loc parameter rather than page
done. I never knew of the "at=" parameter until about 30 seconds ago.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9 is using a very broad page range, would it be possible to narrow it a bit?
page range reduced Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
got it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It reaches 3, or occasionally 5, m (10–16 ft) in height — I'm not sure why, but this construction looks a bit odd to me, perhaps ''It reaches 3 m (10 ft), or occasionally 5  m (16 ft) in height
me being economical with words - changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • and has thick dark grey papery bark. — comma somewhere?
added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lanceolata — not sure why this is capped when it's P. lanceolata
It's the name applied to the group (Peter Weston didn't rank it, but it'd be a series or something), so isn't the specific epithet as such (though is named for one) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which is now known as Persoonia × lucida — why not P. lucida × levis?
Well, it'd be P. linearis x levis, but it has remained "lucida" with an 'x' signifying hybrid status...who am I to argue with the herbarium...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • geebung, derived from the Dharug language word geebung or jibbong — what does "geebung" actually mean?
It means the fruit of the plant. More than that, I haven't seen sources Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1 to 50 flowers — One to 50?
That looks odd to me - I figure I'd write 1-50 or "one to fifty"...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Persoonia linearis is one of several species of Persoonia that regenerate by resprouting from its trunk — their trunks methinks
tweaked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously not obligatory, but you might want to give the structure of the active chemical. Incidentally, the capitalised H in that formula is wrong, yours is right. I think that there should be a hyphen after hydroxyphenyl though.

Support on prose and comprehensiveness grounds Comments from Cwmhiraeth - A few issues on the prose which I would have thought would have been picked up by previous reviewers:

  • Such a degree of precision in the size of the leaves seems unnecessary in the lead.
I was going to trim that....but they are usually narrower rather than wider, so saying "up to 0.7 cm" I think is misleading. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last sentence in the lead has two "readily"s and I thought the use of "However" to start a sentence was deprecated.
I believe there are conflicting views on that one, and I have certainly done it in most of my articles without being challenged. I really don't want to splice it in as the second word. If you can think of an engaging alternative I am all ears Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the Taxonomy section is too long and convoluted.
split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but the binomial name is an illegitimate name as it postdated Andrews' description and name" - why not just "is illegitimate" so as to avoid repeating "name".
good point - trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He described a variety sericea from the Shoalhaven River region and also noted the discrepancy in a description of the species by Robert Brown, who noted the bark to be smooth, in contrast to Ferdinand von Mueller and others who recorded the bark as layered." - I think this sentence could be subdivided.
split. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bentham wrote in 1870 that the name geebung, derived from the Dharug language word geebung or jibbong ..." - So what do these words actually mean?
see above - the indigenous people used the word for the fruits of this species - I clarified it a bit Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Description section, not all measurements have imperial conversions.
done a couple. I have left one that is in mm and would be too small in inches to make much sense. Unless you think I should do that last one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "each stem may bear 1 to 50 flowers." - I would have thought "up to 50 flowers" would be better.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "provide a landing area for insects attending to the stigma" - It sounds as if the insects are on pollination duty!
changed "attending to" to "visiting" Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • The description section seems a bit unbalanced with a very detailed description of the flowers but relatively little on other parts of the tree and its form.
the problem is reflecting what is written in the sources. The floral parts are by nature more complicated and hence there is more to write about them. I'll have another look but it is very tricky. I can't find anything on seedlings for this species, for instance. Casliber (talk · contribs)
That is understandable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That raised an interesting question for me, a person who’s a south–eastern Australian field botanist, very familiar with Persoonia linearis in the field. So i did a quick scholarly search for scientific papers covering or touching on the subject of this species seedlings. I agree with your implied meaning Casliber, there is a lack of information on this species seedlings (and research on the ecological–function(al) group it is one of: seeder–resprouters –one paper i read explicitly detailed the lack of research of this group). In that context of a known lack of research, i only found one promising paper published by the CSIRO:
—but haven’t gone to the library yet to get and read the electronic full text version, if you have this paper, please check it and also send an e-copy to me.
Oh! Furthermore, you twice mention the paper in the article, on post-fire resprouting; does it not have any information about the seedlings. If not then it appears that is all. ——--macropneuma 00:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC) —clarifying, including adding last sentence—--macropneuma 02:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this tree deciduous?
no. very few plants in Australia are... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link or explain "sclerophyll forest".
I'd forgotten to link it in the body as well as the lead - linked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence starting "It grows in sunny to lightly shaded areas" is too long.
split sentence Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Currambene Lowlands Forest" - Is this a physical location?
it is a local ecological plant community in the area described (around Jervis Bay south of Sydney) - bit too localised possibly for a redlink. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Tambo River".
It is linked at first mention...though the two mentions are almost at opposite ends of the article...I don't mind where the second mention is linked or not. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an adaptation to the fire-prone habitat it grows in." - I would prefer "an adaptation to the fire-prone habitat in which it grows."
not overly fond of that construction, so went with "an adaptation to the fire-prone habitat where it grows." Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The plant can reshoot from the base, but generally only if the stem or trunk is killed; hence it is a back-up mechanism only." - What precisely does "it" refer to here?
"It" refers to reshooting from the base...but it is pretty obvious from what happens that the segment is redundant, so removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "First cultivated in England in 1794 by seed, it was also reportedly propagated by cutting;" - I would prefer "from seed" and "from cutting", and shouldn't "cutting" be in the plural?
done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some inconsistency on the use of the "Oxford" comma.
I must admit I am not a fan of them, but they are convenient to slot in inline ref behind if required. Given that is not needed here, I have removed them Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image placement: You might like to consider rearranging the images; the illustration of flowers and leaves could accompany the Description section; the bark image could be in the Ecology section; you could collapse the synonyms list to give more room for images while not sandwiching the text.
the diversity of screen shapes and sizes makes this a challenge - rearranged a bit. Need to find the collapse thingy for the synonyms... Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
‘We ’ave ’em ’ere!’ (Synonyms collapsed using {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}}): Nauclea orientalis (where i recently encountered ’em and today was inspired by this FA advice to make good use of them, here:) Dysoxylum fraserianum and Millettia pinnata.——--macropneuma 07:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've been looking around for a taxobox with collapsing synonyms without success - know of one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I received instruction on this when I was working on Common toad for FA. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I knew I'd seen it somewhere and I couldn't for the life of me recall where..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you correspondents. Incidentally, here, i learned there is an even higher standard of a way to collapse taxobox synonym lists (a proper 'FA way'), than using {{hidden begin}} … . ——--macropneuma 01:19, 17 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC) [21].[reply]

Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... "Cry Me a River" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Justin Timberlake. Thanks to that, I found a descent amount of information which I placed within the article page. This is the second FA nomination; regarding the first there were some prose issues that thanks to the help from my fellow editors such as Wikipedian Penguin, Dan56 and Mark Arsten I believe they are gone. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. Thank you. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Tomica. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have to agree that the prose was not ready last time, but now that it has been copyedited by Mark Arsten, I have nothing to say about it but good work. I understand how much Tomica has worked on this article, and I am happy so support this time again. — ΛΧΣ21 00:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the respect Hahc, in the last FAC you !voted support without leaving any comments whatsoever, but you have now admitted that there were prose issues with the article at the time. I assume good faith, but I hope this one is reconsidered if you want the delegates to take your vote into account Till 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. I agree with the nom when he says that various issues with the prose have been dealt with since the last FAC. However, various parts of the article have left me baffled and confused. For example, after reading "...about a brokenhearted man who cannot accept the past", I viewed the attributed source and ended up with something completely contradictory to this statement. The source doesn't say he "cannot accept the past", it says that he "refuses to look back" despite being previously broken-hearted, which is the complete opposite of what the article says. I also didn't understand the part which said "who may represent Spears"—I haven't seen the video, so perhaps this was some sort of commentary from the director? I've only looked at the lead, but it appears that some work will need to be completed before the article is going to be considered our best work. Till 11:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Till. Thanks for giving you opinion here. Tbh, I was little worried about "refuses to look back" stuff, so I added in its original form with a reference in the lead. Also, the portrayal of Spears [it's not what the director said but critics commented on it and also Timberlake himself] ... However, I copy-edited the sentence in the lead. I hope it's fine now. Looking forward for other comments before you change your vote [hopefully]. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...was inspired by Timberlake's failed relationship with pop singer Britney Spears..." → "Failed" is a bit odd here. Perhaps there's an alternative such as 'ended' (or any others you could think of)?
  • "some of whom considered it a stand-out track on Justified and praised Timbaland's production". → 'Some of whom' doesn't work here, just write 'who considerd it a...'
  • What's the point in saying 'for shipments of 35,000.....' in the lead. That should just be a summary of the article without going into specific details.
  • "In the video, Timberlake's character spies on his ex-lover – who allegedly portrays Spears – and plots revenge with help from Timbaland and a new lover." → Like I said above this is confusing for me.
  • The first section of the article is glued together with a bunch of quotes. Did you consider paraphrasing any of them?
  • (Generally) a comma should come before 'respectively'
  • "It was released on a CD single in Germany on January 23" → on a CD single? Did you mean 'as a CD single'?
  • "The single contained the album version of the song" → It should be in present tense
  • 'Comprising' should be composing or another alternative
  • "According to Annet Artani, Spears' 2003 song "Everytime", which Artani co-wrote..." → Doesn't read well. I was wondering who it was, but then the sentence tells it too late (in my opinion).

Till 01:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit introduced an error: "who considered it a a stand-out track on Justified". I also have concerns that "breakup" is a bit informal/colloquial. As for the music video bit, the word "his" has been used three times in one sentence. We could come back to these later. Till 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did it now. Removed the double "a", I replaced "breakup" with "former relationship" (I think is the best term we had there to date). And for the music video sentence, I re-worded a bit, although now we have "his" two times again. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are far too many quotes from critics in the composition section. For example, in the first paragraph it has 4 quotes from critics, one after another, reading, 'x from y described...' and 'x from y called...'
  • "...that features clavinet, guitars..." → Surely you mean the instrumentation features '....'. And clavinet is singular, is it not.
  • "Tyler Martin of Stylus Magazine described the song as "surprisingly experimental sounds placed together in thrilling new ways"." → This makes no sense.
  • "Cry Me a River" finishes with a Timbaland vocal sample, which Martin deemed "bizarre"." → How is his opinion even remotely relevant here?
  • Again with many quotes from reviewers in the 3rd paragraph.
  • "Tanya L. Edwards of MTV News was not sure if the song is about Spears..." → What's that point of this? We are already told in the previous sections that the song was about her.

This section needs work :/ Till 12:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the points haven't been addressed. Till 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Cry Me a River" reached the top ten in more than ten countries." → What's the point of this? We don't need a summary for a section
  • "in the December 21, 2002, issue" → in the issue dated December 21, 2002 perhaps? Reads better like that.
  • "On February 1, 2003, the single reached its peak at number three,[42] becoming Timberlake's first solo single to reach that position." → Some redundancy, eg. "reached its peak". And "at" number three? You might have meant "of" number three. Also where is the source for that last statement.
  • The Pop songs info needs copyediting too, it's much like the writing above which I pointed out
  • "For the December 28, 2002, issue, "Cry Me a River" debuted at number 75 on the US Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart.[45] It reached a peak of 11 on March 8, 2003." → Same repetitiveness as before
  • "In Australia, "Cry Me a River" debuted at number two on the Australian Singles Chart on March 9, 2003." → Well, obviously. You don't need to write 'in Australia' if we're being told that it's the Australian chart.
  • "The song stayed at the position for one week" → Why is this necessary? I mean, it's obvious that it stayed there for at least one week.
  • Remove "of more than", it's just 35,000 copies, not anything more
  • "and stayed there for one week" → Again, you don't have to write this because it's blatantly obvious. If it stayed on the position for more than one week then it's okay, but that wasn't the case here
  • "The next week it felt to number three" → "Felt"?
  • The song has sold over 265,000 copies in the country as of 2012, and it stayed on the chart for 13 weeks" → These don't seem to be mutual.
  • There are more redundancies such as "reached its peak". Just say "reached #..." or "peaked at #..."
  • "...and it stayed on the singles chart for 21 weeks" → we're already told that it's a singles chart
  • Umm, there has been information repeated. First we're told, "It also attained top-fifteen positions in several other countries, including France, Germany and Italy." But then we're told the actual positions? Suggest removing this sentence as there's no point in summarising what's immediately following.

I sort of skipped the reception section :/ Might come back to that later. Till 11:36, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I resolved all the the given issues. — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cry Me A River" is one of Justin Timberlake's most iconic works. Other than peaking at number three on the Billboard Top 100, it has amassed over 50 million views on YouTube and become a staple in the music industry as a well-respected song. I think this article is crafted beautifully and deserves to be featured because of it's importance.

Apranam2|Apranam2]](T2ME) 10:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jivesh
This article is very well written. Kudos to the copy-editors who polished the prose. However, there a few comprehensiveness concerns. The references look good at first glance. I am leaning to support but first let me post a few comments.
  • The lead looks great. The first section is also free of grammatical errors and very comprehensive though I think some paraphrasing won't hurt.
  • Are you referring to sentence ""Cry Me a River" is a pop ballad about a brokenhearted man who "refuses to look back".[1]? Well, it was paraphrased, but according to Till the paraphrasation was not good so I restored at the original. However, I will ask Mark to see if he can copy-edit it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the second paragraph of the Release and response section - There was initially a rumor that Britney had written a song in response but there was no confirmation of the song's name, right? She said it was not her style but later in an interview she said she would let the song speak for itself. Isn't she contradicting herself? And I see the other female co-writer has confirmed. Please explain this to me. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 10:20, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the song is obviously about Timberlake, however, she doesn't want to confirm it. So then she denied it, but in a 2009 interview she added the other statement. For to be more specific I added the year for the last quote. :) — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of the composition - it will be best to separate the instruments and what the song is lyrically about and of course fix the usage of "songs", "singles", "it" etc to avoid redundancies after you move these sentences appropriately. To tell you frankly, you have got very interesting composition material but a better re-arrangement is indeed needed. Do not mix the instruments, vocal styles and lyrical meaning together. Are you getting my point? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 07:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this is a reliable source?
  • Rolling Stone ranked "Cry Me a River" at number twenty on their list of the 100 Best Songs of the 2000s - number 20 per WP:NUMBERS. Be consistent. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • VH1 ranked "Cry Me a River" at number fifty-nine on their list of the 100 Greatest Songs of the 2000s - Same as above.

Please fix the above issues before I re-read the article for a last time. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I have read the article a few times now but cannot see any underlying problems. The prose is excellent, the subject matter is comprehensive and I am happy to show my support to elevate to FA status. -- CassiantoTalk 11:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Storch said that working with Timberlake in the studio was easy because of the song's meaning." – If he "said" this, maybe it should be quoted as what he said. If your trying to avoid a quote, swap "said" for something else. -- CassiantoTalk 11:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think elaborate is the wrong word. Storch found working with Timberlake easy because of the song's meaning would be better if you are trying to avoid a quote. Could you not find the quote and quote it? Beware, if you opt for my first suggestion, "the songs meaning" would need a bit of...er...elaboration :-) -- CassiantoTalk 19:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, you now need to establish what is meant by "the song's meaning". The reader is now left asking a question; what was the song' s meaning? Could you add a brief note as to what that meaning is? -- CassiantoTalk 20:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's actually continuing in the next sentence. Reporters believed its lyrics were inspired by Timberlake's romantic relationship with American recording artist Britney Spears,[3] which ended in 2002. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it is, good work! -- CassiantoTalk

Other than that, great job. SnapSnap 19:27, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • On closer inspection of the comments above, I note Till's concern with the accuracy of one of the source citations in the articles -- I'd like to see a few more sources spotchecked for accuracy (and avoidance of close paraphrasing) before we wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly OK (sources and authors provided), just one suggestion and a fair-use issue (FUR tweaked)

  • Hi GermanJoe, thanks for the image review. I replaced the Spears' image with the one from 2003, and also improved the caption of the video shot. The thing is, the shot is important because of the girl who allegedly portrays Britney. I hope it is better now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I expanded the rationale a bit with some more specific details (please double-check). The breakup with Spears and its possible influence on the song and video are given broad coverage in the article, so fair-use should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 21:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck

  • FN03b -- no issues
  • FN15 -- no issues
  • FN24 -- minor point that I dealt with myself
  • FN65b -- no issues

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 24 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

United States v. The Progressive

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I write military history articles, because that is the field of expertise, but for a change of pace, I am submitting a legal article, about a celebrated free speech case in the United States. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose. This is written like a book or a History Channel documentary. It should instead be written as an encyclopedia article. The objective is to inform the reader, not to make the subject seem explosively fascinating. The prose is definitely improving. I should be done with my review soon. After a thorough review, which can be found on the FAC talk page, I am satisfied with the quality of this article. Thank you, Hawkeye, for your diligence both before and during the FAC. May your days be filled with unicorns and sunshine. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article at GAN [23] and MILHIST ACR [24] and consider it is an excellent article which has seen significant improvements since GAN and now meets the FA criteria. Well done Hawkeye7. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:19, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

Not sure this is FA yet, HawkEye. I think if I start with a few comments about the structure. Any given legal case normally has "The Facts", "Arguments" and "Judgment", something like that. As an encyclopedia we add in some background. With that in mind, the first paragraph of "Morland's article" is really background. The next two paragraphs do a better job of describing the facts relevant to the case itself. I realise the problems of moving that first paragraph somewhere else, so I shan't linger on the point. The treatment of the case itself is rather too cursory for FA, I think.

  • "suppress the article" - is this the "temporary restraining order" mentioned? If not, what is it in legal terms? "about to break the law" - what law? "Q clearances" - really interesting - is that in the right place? "However, the court's role was to rule on whether publication was legal, not whether it was wise" - well, of course. If the judge reiterated this, then it would be notable. Maybe if it could be rephrased to sound less editorially.
  • "In attempting to apply the Near and Pentagon Papers standards, the court was concerned about the prospect of publication causing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and potentially a global nuclear holocaust, although the government did not advance such a claim." - it's called the New York Times decision above, pick one. Also seems rather thin: this is a whole hearing?
  • I think the legal timeline could be clearer. I think it is: United States applies for temporary injuction. While that's pending, they for a temporary restraining order. Then the injuction itself is decided. Is that correct?
  • The Legacy section is rather short compared to the case's billing. What was subsequent case law in this area? How did it deal with this case? Where does the case fit into the overall narrative of this area of the law?

I'm going to have to come back to this, I think. I don't feel my comments above have been particularly well expressed and I'd like do better when I can. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm going to have another crack at explaining. From a legal perspective we want to know what the United States wanted (between my comment and your reply I feel like I did have it right, by the way), what was argued by counsel and what the result was. Extra detail about outside-the-courtroom is obviously useful, but at the moment it appears to confuse these key needs and make the overall passage look more detailed than it is in terms of these three things. So for example I think there should be a proper sentence about the temporary restraining order and why United States wanted it that establishes the discussion. So then we move on to arguments, of which the rest of the "In seeking..." paragraph is good for the claimant but not so much the respondents, of which there is little mention. Then I think you should expand on the finding. Which arguments did Warren agree with? What points did he highlight?
Next paragraph I think needs to flag up the fact we're moving outside the courtroom. Then we have the comment I flagged above "However, the court's role was to rule on whether publication was legal, not whether it was wise" - I'm not sure if that applies (or applies best) to the restraining order or injuction - if we had an actor who had impressed the point, then we could identify the context accordingly. It's an odd thing to start the paragraph with; it might more sense to finish the previous paragraph with it because it seems to be a reply to that.
It applies to the injunction. A temporary restraining order is not a legal ruling per se. The court just orders a stay while it hears legal arguments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am I right in thinking the next passage is an application by The Progressive to have the case thrown out as insufficient to merit a hearing? I assume it must be something like that because we haven't had "The parties were back in court again on March 26" yet. If so, this should be clearer (or if not, something else clearer to replace it). Presumably it was also concluded by rejecting The Progressive's argument on the point, if a hearing was called.
The TRO was granted, so the parties had to appear in court to present their arguments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore I am led to believe that the last two paragraphs really capture the discussion over the injunction itself (maybe also some of the next section - see below?). I think the arguments need to be better (more thoroughly) expounded; if they are repeats then I think it would be best to flag them up briefly even if the substance of the argument has been explained above.
Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stopping there, although it seems an odd place to break: I think the section break might make more sense a paragraph later because then that second section would capture the whole republication affair which rendered the point moot; all the arguments regarding the injunction and another (?) application for the case to be thrown out would be better tied to each other, in legal terms.
Done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were concerned about information being leaked, in particular by the government's tacit acknowledgement that Morland's bomb design was substantially correct, something that could not otherwise have been deduced from unclassified information.

Delegate comment -- Grandiose, given that after a month's review the article has undergone the requisite checks and seems to have consensus to promote, is there anything further you wish to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent article, very well written. Doug (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

George Lansbury

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

George Lansbury was a significant figure in British politics from the late Victorian era until the Second World War. Lacking much formal education, he was a loyal working-class conviction politician whose causes embraced social reform, women's suffrage and pacifism. His only experience of government came late in his life, during the Labour government of 1929–31; after that government's immolation in the financial crisis of 1931 he became leader of the Labour Party in opposition. His final years were spent vainly trying to persuade the European dictators to attend a world peace conference. The historian Alan Taylor called Lansbury "the most lovable figure in modern politics", but sadly, if he is remembered at all today it is more likely to be in a footnote, as the grandfather of Angela. The article has been substantially peer reviewed; any further comment or criticism will be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments from Cassianto

Looking good. Here are my offerings at first glance...

  • "the district in which Lansbury would live and work for almost all the rest of his life." The ending sounds muddled. "Almost all of his life" or "for the rest of his life"?
  • "Postgate records..." - This would be the first mention of Postgate, so a brief introduction would be good.
  • Third para in the War, Daily Herald and Bolshevism section, we have an OVERLINK to Albert Hall.
  • Also, ... arisen over Europe", - should it be a comma or a full stop after Europe?
  • "...and to urged his audience to... . " "urged" or "urge"
  • "Defeat duly occurred on 21 January 1924, when the Liberals decided to throw in their lot with Labour." -- "Throw in their lot", is that a technical term?
  • Compare ref 100 to others, for example 157. One has a double pp format, the other has singular p.

Nothing further. This is one of the best political biographies we have without a doubt. Fantastic work. -- CassiantoTalk 07:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All above minor fixes done. Thank you for your complimentary words and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and anything I had to say was thoroughly dealt with then. I think this is a very fine article, of clear FA quality by all the criteria. Tim riley (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your earlier help and for this support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As above, I also had my say at PR and had my say there. Just two very minor points popped out during my subsequent read through. Both relate to punctuation, so I'm sure I'm on shaky ground in raising them, but in the "East End upbringing" section:

  • "Through his progressive-minded mother and grandmother young George became familiar"; should there be a comma betwixt "grandmother" and "young"?
  • "Reynolds News"; I think this should probably be "Reynolds's"? I'll check with the BL when I am back at home with my sources, but I remember reading through some of these at university with an "s's" on the end.
  • According to a search of the British Library catalogue: Reynolds's Weekly Newspaper (5 May 1850 - 9 Feb.1851); Reynolds's Newspaper (16 Feb.1851 - 25 Feb.1923); and finally Reynolds's News (4 March 1923 - 14 Sept. 1924). It was called Reynolds News during its lifetime, but that was between March 1936 - 13 Aug. 1944, so after the period when George was getting his political education from it. Hope that helps! - SchroCat (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry if I've called these wrong: I normally do! An excellent article all round about an individual I knew something about previously, but nothing like with this much depth and colour. - SchroCat (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was yet another peer reviewer, and had my say there. This is an outstanding piece of work, and he seems to have been a very interesting chap. I regret to say that I was unfamiliar with him before reading this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support also peer reviewed, ditto, ditto. Grateful for the opportunity to see the other side of some of the conflicts the rising Neville Chamberlain got in. Excellent article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I've got a couple picayune reference formatting issues that should be able to be fixed before promotion:

  • Because Attlee is a chapter in a longer work, shouldn't there be a page range for its Sources entry?
  • The Lansbury source has a double period after the publisher.
  • For Schneer 1991, my reading of MOS:QUOTEMARKS is that Outcast London should be enclosed in single quotes rather than double quotes, since it is contained within the double-quoted title. Someone that's fought the good fight on the manual of style may wish to confirm my thoughts here.

...and that's pretty much it. I see no reason to withhold support. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Poplar mural caption should end in period
  • Done.
  • File:Metropolitan_Board_of_Works_in_Spring_Gardens_1860_ILN.jpg: possible to be more specific regarding source details?
  • There is now a digital archive for The Illustrated London News, but at the moment it is only available to institutions. It may be possible to get the specific date in due course; I will follow this up, though I don't think the PD status of the image is in question. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Lambertia formosa

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC) + Melburnian (talk · contribs)[reply]

We're nominating this for featured article because it's just come together really well. Neat and concise with just about everything possible to find on it.....and is the equal of other plant Featured Articles. Have at it. cheers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Is a wikicup nomination yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Cassianto

This looks like another promising article co-nom'd by the master of flowers and fungus ;) A few points at first glance...

*Do we need to link Australia?

good point - unlinked Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" Unlike all other members of the genus Lambertia, L. formosa is resistant to dieback (Phytophthora cinnamomi)." -- Could we not pipe a link to Phytophthora cinnamomi, rather than mentioning that and dieback?

used a brief descriptor instead Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*I'm wanting to say " Flowers are seen at any time of the year".

I am just as happy as without the "the" but am not fussed so added Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Endemic to New South Wales, Lambertia formosa is found in on or east of the..." -- in on or east is missing some punctuation I think?

removed one preposition Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" The numbers of flowers..." -- Should there be a double plural here?

no desperate need...singularised Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*" in Hammersmith in west London." -- repetition of "in". Suggest replacing the latter with a comma.

good point - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Andrews wrote in 1799 that it..." -- In 1788, in 1798, in 1799; the list of years sounds a little repetitive. Might I suggest "The following year, Andrews wrote..."

good point - done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"home garden" sounds odd. Suggest "domestic garden"?

hmm, "domestic garden" sounds weird to me. Just changed to "in cultivation"... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*On a side note and purely for aesthetic reasons, could the refs be split into two columns? Not essential, just a thought.

yeah I think I like the two columns better Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I don't see anything here that would encourage me to oppose, although I do see a couple small potential tweaks. The Benson source uses full page numbers for the range, although other places you shorten to two digits where possible. Formatting on the Andrews reference looks funny. Maybe use "at=pl. LXIX" to get rid of that extraneous "pp."? Likewise, is "the author" preferred for the publisher credit in circumstances like this, as opposed to repeating his name? I'm not sure what MOS best practice is in that regard. Should Lambertia formosa be italicized in the title of the Pyke source (and/or the Walters one)? The Carr reference includes the specific publication date while all the other sources are cited solely to year. And finally, while it's doesn't in any way count against the FA criteria, it would be awesome if an image of one of those "mountain devil" souvenir figures was available. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
got the two digits (mistake on my part that one) and the "at" parameter - just racing out the door - will see 'bout others anon. agree about the image Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found one image on Flickr, but unfortunately not licensed such that we could use it. It might be worth trying to contact the uploader and seeing if they'd be willing to switch it to an open license. Those things are adorable in a hopelessly kitschy way! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have italicised the Pyke and Walters references. The Carr reference requires a full date as the Australian Women's Weekly was, as that time, published each week.--Melburnian (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That pretty much blows out all the referencing tweaks I had. I'm still not sure what our MOS says about works where the author and the publisher are the same. We've got "The author" here, APA says "Author" with no article, and I've also seen the author name simply repeated (including, I want to say, in some FA here). Also, I'm not sure whether "plate" should be abbreviated to "pl." or not. But I'll leave the MOS minutiae to folks who have dealt with obscure style points more often. For my part, I'm happy to have helped with some of the other reference formatting and to support this for promotion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll ask about the image too (cool image/nice find BTW) and might keep an eye out at arts and crafts shops in the Blue Mountains as looks like we might be going up for a family gathering this weekend (failing this I might try and make some myself......) - thx for the support Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To my experience, editing it to |publisher=self-published or |publisher=(self-published) is appropriate for authors who publish their own work. I forget where an appropriate part for this is in the MOS. ——--macropneuma 04:56, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from macropneuma: Regarding the lead paragraphs, some suggestions about nuances when reading it; (my two cents; these nuances are not so important; i don’t expect you to agreed/disagree/care about such nuances)
  • "…is a shrub of the family Proteaceae, endemic to New South Wales, Australia."
—one extra comma.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Generally found on in heathland or open forest, …"
—inside the ecosystem (interactions, relationships, etc.), materially inside the soil and inside the heathlands’ and forests’ air filled as it is with biological–chemical–signals.
—for the underlying reasons for grammar change.
  • "It has narrow stiff stiff narrow leaves, …"
—on only my feeling of a subtle inconsequential nuance.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the pink or red pink–red flowerheads …"
—an alternative to perhaps use if pink to red is the intended meaning, as is my field experience of the flower colours, or perhaps simply, literally "pink to red".
done as "pink to red" (i.e. a gradation rather than a dichotomy).--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flowerheads, made up of seven individual tubular flowers, generally appear in spring and summer."
—two extra commas.
done.--Melburnian (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although L. formosa is uncommon in cultivation, it is straightforward to grow in soils with good drainage and a, at least a partly at least partly, sunny aspect."
—of course, the latter is a question about grammar? I'm not 100% sure on that one.
thought I'd try "... a partly shaded to sunny aspect"--Melburnian (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, i agree. That’s a good alternative wording. Consider that done, in terms of my suggestion on that point. ——--macropneuma 08:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In due course, of course (Amusing myself with accidental wordiness, after my pedantic efforts, haha), I am going to give my two cents worth of support. ——--macropneuma 05:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you--Melburnian (talk) 08:06, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick! ——--macropneuma 07:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it grows on growing in sandstone-based soils."
—Just now i had the temerity to put this edit out on trial for you all (see the article itself). What do you all think? If you don’t like it, then, of course, please feel free to undo it. ——--macropneuma 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's two parts to this. The sentence requires a subject so "it" (or a substitute) really needs to be there. Regarding "on soils" or "in soils", I have a preference for "on soils" in this particular context though I have seen both versions used in the literature.--Melburnian (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeh of course, the subject!; alternatively: "Generally it’s found in heathland or open forest, growing in sandstone-based soils."
I say (most) plants grow on substrates / parent materials, and in soils, (of course some of the exceptions are floating aquatics, lithophytes and epiphytes). Cheers! ——--macropneuma 05:19, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're alternative looks good to me, though I would use "it is" instead of the "it's" for a more formal tone.--Melburnian (talk) 06:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh "it is"! Of course, i don’t mind much and i want you two to be happy, with your choices—of all the work you have done on this article. Again, feel free to undo: "in … soils". A dialogue opening comment/question, much broader than this topic and to take away elsewhere: Do any of you here learn the middle ground (i suspect you might too) between E Prime and 'the standard, abstraction–from–reality, language of commercialism …'–ref. I'm in that middle ground and never cease learning more … reality …, particularly in this instance about living plants. Ultimately it depends not on the grammar—just a part of the conveyance—rather it depends on what you two intend in meaning, and not what i intend in meaning, as i’m not writing the article, in the past or present. ——--macropneuma 06:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do any of you here learn the middle ground between E Prime and 'the standard abstraction–from–reality language of commercialism …' The answer for myself is no, looks like I have a bit of reading to do. --Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I've had limited access and look what happens...discussion gets very tangential Lambertia --> E-Prime...wow. but back to the article, I'd say "It is generally found..." but otherwise fine - I've read "in soils" and "on soils"....and think I've written both previously so am happy with either and can't figure which I'd prefer...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe Casliber, yes, dialogue to take away elsewhere. Thanks Melburnian; and small text for such comments as mine is good form as i’ve edited above, thanks. The subject is a big broad one, including quantum physics. Needless to say, i’ve got a bit (more) of reading to do too—'it is huge'!—a huge subject. ——--macropneuma 08:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The flowers hold profuse nectar' ' — reads oddly, surely should indicate profuse amounts/quantity somehow
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bracts cover the bases of the flowers, greenish and reddish. — strange word order
I changed it to "Their bases are covered by greenish and reddish bracts."--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • though tolerates a range of soils and some shade — "it"?
aaaargh, there I go again.... tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Banks' Florilegium — italics?
Done.--Melburnian (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funny, it seems to work for me ..? [[27]] is in the description section Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:07, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That map is sourced to the one I mentioned, which is itself sourced to this, which resolves as "Redirection page: The page you are looking for cannot be found". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah right. I didnt' go that far...time for some archive link then. I'm lousy at formatting them....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided a link to an archived version of the source page and also to the current version of that page.--Melburnian (talk) 00:10, 17 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:50, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Disco Demolition Night

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Balph Eubank (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Disco Demolition Night is famous as a baseball promotion that went very wrong, but it's also had a broader cultural effect, symbolizing the end of disco. While this article is certainly fun, and no doubt there are more than a few laughs, it does carefully examine both the background and aftereffects. There is presently no image; this is because quite possibly no image would satisfy NFCC. If reviewers have other ideas, we'd be delighted to add one. Enjoy. Possible April 1 candidate.Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on prose and images, per my comments at the Peer Review and review of the changes since then. Note that I am not a follower of baseball, so I may have missed some improper use of terms. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I've been interested in the articles process towards FA after I saw talk about it being up for April Fools. And seeing the final result really makes it worthy of hanging that bronze star in its page, imo. GamerPro64 01:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank both of you for your comments and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (1b/c/d) – does not present a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. This topic has been examined in several academic journals which should be addressed.
    • The article currently dismisses the anti-homosexual angle, with an uncited 'some activists suggest it was' countered by cited quotes from a singer and the organizer saying 'no it wasn't'. This is not balanced. Please state who found it discriminatory and why. For example "Discophobia: antigay prejudice and the 1979 backlash against disco by Frank, Gillian. Journal of the History of Sexuality, ISSN 1043-4070, 2007, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp. 276 – 306" provides such an analysis.
    • "Social activists have suggested that the backlash to disco was motivated in part by prejudice against a sound which had non-white origins." – should probably be cited. Did anybody activist in particular say it was racist, or just some people?
    • "widely credited...with dealing disco its death blow" there are much more reliable, respected authorities to cite this notion to other than The Ancient Aliens History Channel. --maclean (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've found that article on JSTOR and one more, I'll work to integrate the info in and then will ask you to revisit. Regarding the social activists, that's what the source said, but I'll see now if I can improve it. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made a fairly major addition to the article to cover these points, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for revisiting that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness.

Got those, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Reaction and aftermath: The spaced em dash in the Gaynor quote could be turned into something more MoS-friendly. We are allowed to make cosmetic changes like this in quotes, if I'm not mistaken.
  • The publisher of reference 19 should be italicized as a print publication.
  • Page number is needed for ref 44. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Now that those little fixes are done with, I think the article comfortably meets FA requirements. I've always considered the topic to be good for laughs, but it was interesting to see the social ramifications behind it. Nice job. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support

  • I think the lead has some redundancies and could do with a once-over (e.g. "With the playing surface damaged both by the explosion and by the rowdy fans, the White Sox were required to forfeit Game 2 of the doubleheader to the Tigers." and " The field was then deemed unplayable, forcing the White Sox to forfeit the second game.")
Tweaked. I think it's impossible to avoid mentioning it twice but I made them as different as possible.
  • "The sound known as disco" - I'm not sure about the word choice; would "genre" or "style" fit better?
Genre.
  • " According to Andy Behrens in his article on Disco Demolition Night for ESPN, Dahl and Meier "organized the Cohos around a simple and surprisingly powerful idea: Disco Sucks"." Is it necessary to say "in his article on Disco Demolition Night"? Why not "According to Andy Behrens of ESPN, Dahl and Meier…"
Done
  • "described disco in profane terms" - any salacious quotes?
The source does not say. Given public profanity was more unusual then, it could have been just "Disco sucks" but there were probably more explicit signs too.
  • Why do the estimates of injuries vary? Some more detail on that would be helpful.
There were definitely injuries, if only from thrown records. Probably because of the lack of a central authority compiling statistics. I could get into the specifics of the (relatively minor) injuries, but it seems a distraction at that point in the article.
Thanks, I've made changes as indicated, or explained otherwise.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All that works for me. Nice work. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks for the review. To delegate: three four supports, image check done by Crisco, source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2013 (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.

This article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [29].

History of Gibraltar

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally wrote this article three years ago but have since expanded it further and got it up to Good Article standard. It's an interesting topic and really demonstrates, I think, the extraordinary impact that this 2.6 sq mi territory has had on the history of Europe. I'm fortunate to have been able to do some on-the-spot research for this article in the course of a visit there (and destroyed a pair of trousers in the process, though the less said about that the better!); I present it here for your consideration as a featured article candidate. Prioryman (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I expect someone will bring up the question of why Devenish has no publisher, ISBN or location listed. The reason is that his book went through all the stages of pre-publication - editing, typesetting and proofing - and was just about to be published when the publisher went bankrupt. There is now only one publicly accessible copy of the book that I know of, a final proof version which he gave to the British Library. Prioryman (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Devenish issue is now resolved thanks to a suggestion from Nick-D below. Prioryman (talk) 08:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Current status
  • Support
    • Dank (on prose)
    • Dr Blofeld
    • Nick-D
    • Tim riley
  • Oppose
  • Comments only
    • DrKiernan
    • HJ Mitchell
    • HueSatLum
    • Nikkimaria

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Possible to avoid text sandwiching in the WWII section?
  • Tower of Homage: grammar in caption
  • Reworded, hopefully it's OK now.
  • File:Location_Gibraltar_EU.png: on what source(s) was this image based?
  • It's clearly someone's compilation of various Commons SVG maps - I recognise several of them. I'd have to do a bit of work to identify which specific ones. Do you think I need to list them all? Prioryman (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Gibraltar_World_Wind_view_annotated.jpg should include a NASA licensing tag, and should make clear that you were only responsible for the annotations (correct?)
  • File:PillarsHerculesPeutingeriana.jpg needs US PD tag. Normally you would want to include date of death for author, but it's not entirely clear whether Millieri is the author or just the editor/publisher - can you verify?
  • File:Original_coat_of_arms_of_Gibraltar.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:George_Rooke.jpg: source link returns 404 error
  • File:The_Sortie_Made_by_the_Garrison_of_Gibraltar.jpg needs US PD tag, source link appears broken
  • File:Bataille_algesiras.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:1883_-_Frederick_William_J._Shore_Arengos_palace.jpg needs US PD tag and has two different authors - please verify. Should also use original rather than upload date
Dr. Blofeld
Comment. My initial feeling is that Modern Gibraltar needs to be made more comprehensive. No mention of 1980 Lisbon Agreement, 1984 Brussels Agreement etc? What date exactly did Marks and Spencers open a branch in Gibraltar?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You wouldn't expect to find any of those things in the Modern Gibraltar section, as it starts at the opening of the border with Spain in 1985. I don't know when M&S opened - the oldest reference I've found dates to 1983 - but again it would fall outside of that section. Prioryman (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1968. 78.144.247.57 (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Post-war Gibraltar then.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added an extra paragraph about the Lisbon and Brussels agreements which I hope resolves your concerns. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think it is pretty sound now, seems to have a good general coverage, well researched and written, well done!.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 16:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HueSatLum
HJ Mitchell
  • Just a note: I own a copy of Jackson (Rock of of the Gibraltarians) and I have Hills (Rock of Contention) and Finlayson (The Fortifications of Gibraltar; though that's only cited once) on order so I'd be happy to do spot checks. I'm also reasonably familiar with the subject matter, so I'll give this a thorough review. Just not necessarily very quickly. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, some comments (these are as far as the "Gibraltar as a colony" section). There are quite a few of them, but most of them are relatively minor or just suggestions for little details you might want to include:

  • The first sentence is rather long and seems to be trying to cram a lot of facts in; perhaps it could be split up? If not, I would be inclined to put the first sub-clause (a small peninsula situated at the western edge) in dashes rather than commas.
  • Captured by an Anglo-Dutch Fleet – if linking is necessary, I'd suggest linking to Kingdom of England and Dutch Republic (the contemporary nations rather than the modern ones)
  • Mention War of the Spanish Succession earlier?
  • Britain had made a Crown colony – Is "declared" or similar better than "made"?
  • fifteen sieges in 500 years? Both Jackson and Hills only record 14 (Jackson discusses the closure of the Gibraltar-Spain border in the 70s as a fifteenth siege, but it wasn't really a siege in the same sense as the other 14)
  • The territory is also now fully self-governing – do we need the "also"? And "self-governing" isn't strictly accurate; it's a British overseas territory, so the UK is responsible for foreign affairs and defence issues, and it still has a British governor (though he "governs" in name only) who theoretically represents the British monarch
  • 4 miles (6.4 km) from the city of Algeciras – is that as the crow flies? I think the overland route is quite a bit longer.
  • Gibraltar is on the far south coast of Spain – minor point, but the definition of "Spain" has changed many times throughout Gibraltar's history; since the section is about geography, would Iberian peninsula be better?
  • Most of the land area is occupied by the steeply sloping Rock of Gibraltar which reaches a height of 426 metres (1,398 ft) – is that from the ground or from sea level?
  • From sea level - does anyone measure heights from the ground? I was under the impression that the standard assumption is that any spot height will be measured from sea level. Prioryman (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The town of Gibraltar lies at the base of the Rock on the west side of the peninsula – the west side is by far the most densely populated, but the south and east sides are also populated
  • Ferdinand also issued a letter patent granting privileges to the inhabitants to encourage people to settle. Is it worth mentioning that people were reluctant to settle in Gibraltar, so Ferdinand had to offer incentives?
  • but were thwarted by a Castilian relief force. Jackson suggests they abandoned the siege when they saw the relieving force approaching, rather than being "thwarted" by it.
  • the two sides agreed to disengage in exchange for mutual concessions. Is it worth mentioning that it was a time-limited (four-year) truce?
  • His decapitated body was hung on the walls of Gibraltar – I'm guessing you're trying to avoid excess detail, but it's not clear how his body came to be decapitated (ie that the Moors recovered it and decapitated it)
  • a small Castilian force under Enrique's son Juan Alonso, who had become the first Duke of Medina Sidonia, launched a surprise attack is concise, but not strictly accurate. The first assault was launched by the governor of Tarifa; the Duke of Medina Sidonia arrived later and only took control after an almighty row over who was to accept the Moors' surrender.
  • Gibraltar became Crown property again in 1501 at the order of Isabella – might be worth mentioning the Duke of Medina Sidonia's displeasure when Henry IV did this and his lack of objection when Isabella did
  • From the 16th century, the modern meaning of the name came to be adopted – specifically referring only to the town of Gibraltar and the peninsula on which it stands. Do we know much about how or why?
  • Although the Spanish and Dutch declared a temporary truce in 1609 (Twelve Years' Truce), in 1621 hostilities were resumed – "although" implies it was something unexpected, but if hostilities resumed after the expiry of the truce, surely it wasn't unexpected?
  • In May 1702, Britain's Queen Anne formally declared war on France. The Act of Union wasn't passed until 1707.
  • Expulsion of foreign troops: might be worth talking about the corruption of some of the early governors and the expulsion of Jews and Moors that was mandated by Utrecht (though never implemented).
  • although Philip V retained the Spanish overseas empire, ceded the Southern Netherlands, Naples, Milan, and Sardinia to Austria; – is there a "he" missing there or have I misread it?
  • The Spanish had learned the lessons of the failure of previous sieges and this time assaulted Gibraltar from both land and sea – I wonder about this; it's not as though this was the first time Gibraltar had been assaulted from both fronts. The De Guzmáns attempted it some 300 years earlier, and a lack of ships seems to have been the reason for the lack of a naval blockade in intermediate sieges rather than Spaniards not learning lessons from them.
  • I remember reading somewhere (probably Jackson) that George III felt that the Floridas and Minorca were too high-a-price to pay for Gibraltar; personally, I would have thought that worth a mention, but, to use Dank's phrase, YMMV.
  • We probably got more use out of Gibraltar! To be honest I think I'd prefer to leave that out, as it raises the question of why George III felt this way - it's getting into the weeds a bit. Prioryman (talk) 23:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need a citation after The steadfastness of Gibraltar gave rise to the expression, which is still current today, of something being as "solid as the Rock of Gibraltar".

I'll continue at the weekend or early next week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming: just a handful of comments on the second half

  • Gibraltar served first as a Royal Navy base from which blockades of the ports of Cadiz, Cartagena and Toulon – do we have articles on the campaigns we can link to?
  • The British fleet returned to Gibraltar for repairs before HMS Victory returned to England – I'd be inclined to make a little more of Trafalgar, given its fame in British naval history and the impact it seems to have had on Gibraltar (there are various monuments to it around the place, including a cemetery); Admiral Collingwood's letter reporting Nelson's death, for example, was sent to the governor of Gibraltar.
  • The outbreak of the Spanish Civil War in July 1936 presented Gibraltar with major security concerns, as it was initially on the front lines of the conflict implies to some extent that Gibraltar was involved in the fighting; perhaps we could make it clearer that the fighting took place nearby but never directly affected Gibraltar?
  • Jackson doesn't elaborate much on why Operation Felix was never implemented; presumably Franco was keen to (re)conquer Gibraltar; any idea what the quid pro quo was that Franco found so unacceptable?
  • Spain couldn't feed itself and relied on grain imports from the Americas. Franco knew that if he went to war with the Allies, Spain would be blockaded, and he demanded replacement grain from Hitler as a condition of joining Felix. This presumably couldn't be done. I've added a mention of this to the article. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gibraltar took decisive steps towards civilian self-rule – the wider context of UN-mandated decolonisation is worth mentioning here; Gibraltar's steps towards self-governance weren't taken in a vacuum. Also, self-rule probably isn't the right term given that Gibraltar is too small to realistically be a sovereign state and its government elected to retain the British association.
I've added some more on this issue. Prioryman (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I worry slightly that you don't give enough weight to the Spanish justifications for the border closure etc; the measures were ostensibly for security and prevention of smuggling

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Harry; I'll go through these over the next couple of days. Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D
  • As an initial comment, I'd suggest tweaking the bibliographic details for Devenish to note that the only copy is in the British library - you could use the approach I took for a work which is only available at the Australian War Memorial in the No. 11 Group RAAF article (not that it's an FA!). Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments It's always good to see an article on a 'big' topic at FAC, and this is in very good shape. I have the following comments and suggestions:

  • The first sentence doesn't really grab the reader - it starts well, but then goes down a narrow track. This sentence should, in effect, summarise the entire article by defining its scope per WP:LEADSENTENCE.
  • The extent to which the article relies on Jackson seems surprising - is this the standard work on the history of Gibraltar and/or are there not many other histories available?
  • Both, really. There are many books with deal with particular aspects of Gibraltar's history (the Great Siege, WW2, the fortifications, the dispute with Spain etc) but there are only a very limited number of general histories of the place – there seem to be about 2 or 3 published each century. Of the recent general histories (Alexander, Hills and Jackson), Alexander is fairly lightweight and doesn't say much that isn't covered in the other two, Hills is extremely heavy going and Jackson probably strikes the best balance between density of detail and readability. In addition, Jackson has the advantage of being a noted military historian (see his bibliography) so he is naturally very good on the military stuff. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since 1985, Gibraltar has undergone major changes as a result of post-Cold War reductions " - the Cold War didn't end until the period 1989-1991
  • "Gibraltar's unique geography" - all geography is in some sense 'unique'; this word could be removed without losing anything (ditto the 'thus' here as well)
  • "The peninsula was surrounded by a fertile coastal plain" - it wouldn't have been a peninsula at that time then ;) (I'd suggest tweaking this to something like 'the current peninsula).
  • Ref #6 needs a page number, and I don't think that the sentence it supports needs to be in parentheses.
  • The 'Geographical background' section says that Gib is "an advantageous natural anchorage for ships", but the 'Prehistory and ancient history' section states that it lacked "a safe natural anchorage". This seems contradictory.
  • I've tried to clarify this. The bay is a good natural anchorage, but the shoreline of Gib itself is not - until it was permanently settled and people built a harbour there, there wasn't really anywhere good to come ashore. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph in the 'Muslim rule (711–1309, 1333–1462)' section needs supporting references
  • "He ordered that a keep and dockyard were to be built to secure Castile's hold on the peninsula." - this is a bit passive and unclear - can you say that these facilities were built on his orders?
  • "apparently as the price for their military support of the Moors of Fez " - this reads a bit awkwardly (the 'of the Moors' in particular)
  • "He visited Gibraltar in 1463 but was overthrown by the nobility and clergy four years later" - the 'but' doesn't seem necessary
  • "the Moorish emirate in Spain came to an end with the Catholic Monarchs' capture of Granada.[47] Gibraltar remained in Spanish hands but lost its Jewish population" - specifying that Gib was Spanish in this context seems unnecessary given that its stated that the Moors were driven out of Spain in the previous sentence, and 'lost its Jewish population' seems a rather colloquial way of putting things.
  • "The second Duke of Medina Sidonia nonetheless sought the town's return and in September 1506" - what's going on here? Did the Duke rebel against the central government? - if so this could be made more explicit.
  • Not really a rebellion against the crown as such, more an attempt to force a local royal garrison to relinquish control. The Spanish kings had persistent problems with excessively powerful nobles at this time. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite continuing external threats Gibraltar continued to be neglected" - repetition of continuing/continued
  • "a major raid in which hundreds of Gibraltar's citizens were taken as hostages or slaves" - is it appropriate to refer to people of this era as 'citizens' given that they had few rights? I'd suggest 'residents' or similar.
  • "Many of the captives were subsequently released when a Spanish fleet intercepted the pirate ships as they were bringing ransomed hostages back to Gibraltar" - this is confusing: if the hostages had been ransomed and were on their way home, why did they need to be rescued?
  • The captives were taken to North Africa and held for ransom; when promises of payment were made, they were brought back. The Spanish fleet rescued the captives before the ransoms were actually paid. Those who weren't ransomed were presumably sold into slavery and never came back. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to order a strengthening of Gibraltar's defences" - bit awkward. How about "to order that Gibraltar's defences be strengthened'?
  • "The town remained an insanitary, crowded place" - this is the first time that living conditions in this era are discussed - the 'remained' is a bit confusing, and can this be expanded upon?
  • I don't really have anything about living conditions before then - I think the source's point was simply that the nasty living conditions from the medieval period persisted. I've replaced "remained" with "was". Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a fleet of 49 English warships manned by 10,000 sailors and soldiers put to sea in the Straits and reconnoitred Gibraltar" - do you know what proportion were soldiers? This seems to be a very powerful force for the time, and 'reconnoitred' might be putting things mildly (I presume that the idea was to grab any lightly defended and defensible locations?). Also, 'put to sea in the Straits' doesn't seem right given that the fleet would have 'put to sea' from somewhere in Britain.
  • No idea about proportions, the source doesn't seem to say. I think you're right about the idea, but as for reconnaissance, it seems that all that happened was that they sailed past the place and (I would assume) looked it over through telescopes before deciding to sail on. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Suicide and desertions were common" - read literally, this implies that most of the personnel sent to Gib committed suicide or deserted, which seems unlikely
  • I don't read it that literally. If you read the original diary by "S.H." quoted in the following line, it records suicides and desertions on a virtually daily basis. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'curtain wall'?
  • "The favoured route to the east was via Egypt, even before the Suez Canal had been built, and Gibraltar was the first British port reached by ships heading there" - this sounds dubious. While it was relatively popular for people heading east to trans-ship in Egypt, I don't think that this was common. Due to the expense and difficulty of overland transport at the time, not much cargo would have been transshiped via Egypt.
  • According to the source, cargoes to India were shipped to Egypt and carried by caravans across what is now the Suez route before being put back on ships on the Red Sea. I've found other references to this route, which extended to Jeddah, where the shipping routes from India traditionally ended in pre-Raj days. Bear in mind that the route around the Cape of Good Hope would have been very long and pretty dangerous in the sailing ships of the time. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if I completely buy that (overland transport of cargo was very slow and expensive in the pre-modern era and sea transport was much more efficient and typically faster; see the first chapter of Tim Blanning's book in the Penguin history of Europe The Pursuit of Glory for a good discussion of this), but it's not a major issue here. And I have been wrong on things in the past ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The French unsuccessfully besieged Tarifa, further down the coast, in 1811–12 but gave up after a month" - the 'unsuccessfully' seems surplus given that the sentence concludes by noting that the seige was a failure
  • "The naval base was heavily used by Allied warships for resupplying and repairs" - 'heavily used' is a bit awkward, as is 'resupplying'
  • "A new and powerful fleet called Force H " - to be pedantic, Force H wasn't a 'fleet'.
  • The lead says that Gib was "repeatedly attacked" but the section on the war says that such attacks only took place "on several occasions". I think that the second version is superior given that the attacks weren't very frequent or effective.
OK, fair enough. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he decided not to join Hitler's planned Operation Felix" - is 'join' an appropriate term here given that Operation Felix could not be conducted without Spanish permission and assistance?
  • I think it is; the Germans had an alternative version of Felix which they could potentially have executed without Spanish assistance – it would have been a de facto invasion of Spain, though not a Yugoslavia-style full invasion and occupation. Obviously Hitler's commitments in the east made that impossible after 1941. Prioryman (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The immediate threat to Gibraltar lessened after the collapse of Italy in September 1943" - this seems a bit of an overs-statement. By this time the Allies had captured all of North Africa and Sicily and were in firm control of almost all of the Mediterranean region. I would have thought that Operation Torch in late 1942 ended any threat.
  • Fairly small scale and ineffective bombing raids weren't much of a threat, and don't really warrant such strong wording - the main threat to Gib was an overland attack. Nick-D (talk) 23:39, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on the Second World War should note Gib's important role in the Battle of the Atlantic.
  • "it was not until as late as February 1951 that all the evacuees were able to return home" - this is a bit vague. Can you say that the last of the evacuees returned home in February 1951?
  • Why was there a lack of civilian housing after the war? Had some of the buildings which housed the pre-war population been demolished?
  • No. There simply wasn't room for all the people. The military had always taken priority for land use, and there were strict controls on things like the height of buildings. I've referred earlier to the extreme crowding in 19th century Gibraltar - it was even worse by the mid-20th century. Prioryman (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be worth noting that Argentina considered raiding Gibraltar during the Falklands War (Operation Algeciras)
  • "a major programme of land reclamation was carried out; land reclaimed from the sea now accounts for a tenth of Gibraltar's land area." - watch for repetition of 'land'
  • "By 2007, Chief Minister Peter Caruana was able to boast that Gibraltar's economic success had made it "one of the most affluent communities in the entire world."" - a more neutral source is needed for such a claim Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "one of the wealthiest parts of the European Union": per capita? And, I'm not sure what a "part of the European Union" is ... other words would be better (even "region", which is only a little better). - Dank (push to talk) 03:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer to avoid "region" as that has specific meanings where the EU is concerned. Gibraltar is unique in the EU in that it's the only overseas territory of a member state that is located in Europe. (France has its overseas departments but they are outside Europe). So perhaps "area" would work better than "part"? Prioryman (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he ended his career in disgrace": raises a question it doesn't answer
  • "decimated": avoid this word; it means "reduced by a tenth" to some readers and "annihilated" to others.
  • I've tweaked the lead. We generally don't use bolded links at FAC, particularly in the first sentence, and WP:LEAD says the title "does not need to appear" verbatim (the language used to be stronger) when the title is descriptive rather than a proper-nounish sort of thing. I struggled with the first sentence for a while, but finally concluded that this provides another example of how hard it is to make descriptive titles work as the subject of the first sentence. I took "Stone Age" out because I think most readers would have taken from the wording that Neolithic habitation followed the Neanderthals (it largely overlapped). You may or may not want to add something like "Stone Age artefacts in the caves of Gibraltar date back 40,000 years", but leads that are too heavy on dates feel a bit dry. I took "before its current transformation into a hub for tourism and service industries" out because it seemed out of context; that stuff follows later in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm continuing ... the article is growing on me. I just tweaked the first sentence so that it's not quite as dull as my previous attempt, but the previous version is fine with me too.
  • "Spaniards 16.5 per cent, Jews 15.5 per cent, British 13 per cent": This is suggestive of the mindset that Jews could never really be Spaniards or British. I know you mean something like "self-identified" or "identified by the authorities as", but be a bit more explicit here about the categories. - Dank (push to talk) 19:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jews weren't Spaniards or British, that's exactly the point. They weren't native to Spain, Britain or Gibraltar - they came from North Africa, either as refugees or as traders. Strictly speaking they weren't supposed to be in Gibraltar at all, as the Treaty of Utrecht forbids their presence. The fact that the British ignored that prohibition was one of the subsequent Spanish grievances. Prioryman (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • San Roque is linked three times. Sometimes there's an implication that it's a new city; it's not. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "St", "St.": It's usually (but not always) better to be consistent. "St" is a bit more common in BritEng (and nonexistent in AmEng).
  • Support – an impressive article. I wondered when I began reading it if was going to turn out to be too long, but you have succeeded in packing a huge amount of information into the text, and I congratulate you. Meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Just two tiny points: in the lead I'm not sure "history of" should be in bold – it looks rather odd. And "reconnoitered" should, I think, be "reconnoitred", but you may like to double-check. – Tim riley (talk) 15:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on 10 web-accessible sources; I see in Harry Mitchell's Just a note comments above that he might do spot checks on published sources:

  • 4: OK.
  • 8: Not found at source, but the material is easily verified by: Finlayson, J.C.; Barton, R.N.E.; Stringer, C.B. "The Gibraltar Neanderthals and their Extinction", Les Premiers Hommes Modernes de la Peninsule Iberique. Actes du Colloque de la Commission VIII de l'UISPP ISBN 9789728662004 pp. 117-122 [30]
  • 97: OK for final sentence of paragraph.
  • 178: OK.
  • 183: OK, but the visitor numbers do include workers as well as tourists (see p. 6 of Tourist Survey Report and p. 71 of the Abstract of Statistics). You could say "over 10 million" as an alternative, since that would seem fair when the worker numbers are removed.
  • 184: OK.
  • 186: I'm not sure "the second most prosperous territory of the European Union" is entirely clear since there is one EU country above it but there are 3 British overseas territories and 2 Crown dependencies above it. Recommend "the second most prosperous country or territory within the European Union" to clarify.
  • 187: OK.
  • 188: OK.
  • 189: OK.

Should In the late thirteen and early fourteenth centuries Castile fought with the Marinids of Morocco and the Nasrids of Granada fought for the control of the Strait of Gibraltar. be In the late thirteen and early fourteenth centuries Castile fought with the Marinids of Morocco and the Nasrids of Granada for control of the Strait of Gibraltar.?

Like Harry, I would expect a citation for The steadfastness of Gibraltar gave rise to the expression, which is still current today, of something being as "solid as the Rock of Gibraltar".? DrKiernan (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the wording and added a source. Prioryman (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence says "off the coast", which I would have thought relates to an entity that is not attached to the coast, like a ship or island. I presume this wording has been chosen to highlight that Gibraltar is not a part of Spain, in which case situated at the western edge of the Mediterranean Sea off the southern coast of Spain could be changed to on the Iberian coast at the western edge of the Mediterranean or at the southwestern end of Europe near the entrance to the Mediterranean Sea.

That's a fair point.

It's a fine article that looks certain to pass. DrKiernan (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2013 (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 GrahamColm 17:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Biscayne National Park

Nominator(s): Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I visited Biscayne National Park briefly in November 2012, and realized that it had a fascinating history and situation. How many national parks in the US are 95% water, have a nuclear power plant just outside the boundary, are regularly whacked by hurricanes, were pirates' lairs, have four distinct ecosystems, and were the playground of the rich and famous? The version I started with [32] didn't tell that story. The developed version has been peer-reviewed by Brianboulton, whose comments were encouraging, and I've had the help and advice of MONGO, an experienced writer of FAs on protected areas. I've done a check for copied public-domain material that was once prevalent in these sorts of articles, and I'm confident that none remains. Acroterion (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

*Comments - I read this through once on my phone while at the gym...will jot any queries below - looking promising....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try to amalgamate the text in the Bay waters section into 2-3 paras. Might rejig the order of some of the sentences to get a good flow. nice work.
I've rearranged it into two paragraphs that move from generalities to specifics. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Coral reef and offshore waters (2 paras this time)
Did that, then the last paragraph looked short, so I've expanded to note that the deeper waters offshore are designated as a marine sanctuary. Acroterion (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try to avoid standalone sentences, like the last one in Climate - can we tack it on somewhere (or expand it?)
I've expanded it, as the subject deserves more attention in the article. I've avoided projections past 2060, as better data will be coming out this year on the rate of rise. Acroterion (talk) 03:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Exotic species section, I'd remove the first sentence and replace it with the second para's first sentence, which repeats the material but is more precise.
Done. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think I am ready to (cautiously) support on comprehensiveness and prose - I don't see any clangers prosewise but I guess we'll see what others find. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Received a request to review this candidacy. Good structure, well referenced. A few suggestions:

  • The official park map should be US Government public domain, right? Would be very useful to see a visual outline of the park's boundaries (linked for convenience, can be modified for article display).
  • The article introduction gives a misleading impression that the only endangered species within the park boundaries are cacti and palms. One of the more interesting and significant things about this park is the variety of endangered species that live there, including the American Crocodile (definitely endangered, and an impressive creature--one of the world's largest crocodilians). Rather than listing specific endangered species, might be better to provide an estimate of the scope and variety.
    • After some thought I went ahead and listed the most common or well-known endangered animals by species in the intro, leaving aside the woodrats, whales (hardly ever seen) and corals for the body of the article, and mentioned crocodiles and alligators. Crocodiles are threatened, not endangered. Acroterion (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I recall correctly, south Florida has the only habitats in the world where alligators and crocodiles coexist. Don't have a source for that unfortunately (learned it many years ago) but should be easily verifiable if true. Worth mentioning even though alligators are relatively uncommon within park grounds.
    • I've mentioned that they coexist and expanded a bit, though I'm cautious of overstating or misstating abundance. There are a lot of gators just inland, like everywhere else in Florida, and there is a fair concentration of crocs at the power plant, which they find congenial. The Park Service describes gators as "uncommon" and crocs as "occasional." Acroterion (talk) 01:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there endangered insects and endangered fish in the park?
  • Might be useful to organize the bird population in terms of migratory patterns. Florida is the winter migratory location for a variety of North American bird species and the summer migratory location for several South American and Mesoamerican species. Since it's one of the few major land masses in this part of the world at that latitude that isn't arid, the variety of species is incredible. Could be good to provide an indication of which season various species would be present, as well as a mention of the nonmigratory species (the Snail Kite comes to mind because it's a common site in the Everglades, although am unsure whether apple snails would be found around Biscayne Bay).
    • A discussion of the tropical/North American/migrant overlap would probably go best in the first section under Ecology. I've got a Park Service checklist [33] that is just that: I'll look for a source that gives a little context. It appears that snail kites aren't present in Biscayne proper, but common eiders, Bahama Mockingbirds and Antillean Nighthawks have been seen. Acroterion (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added a discussion of migrant birds to the beginning of the ecology section, noting the differences between northbound and southbound migration patterns, and noting the overlap of nearctic and neotropical ecozones in South Florida in general. I've stayed away from discussing rare birds. There are lots, and I think it's enough to note that there are unusual opportunities to see rare species. I'm hesitant to discuss who's there and when, as the sheer number of species makes for a very selective list that I think would assume too much weight compared to other fauna. Acroterion (talk) 17:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A handful of phrases could use a little proofreading polish. One of the facts most readers would be unfamiliar with is that "island" and "key" or "cay" are essentially interchangeable terms in this part of the world (the latter two originated from the Taino people of the Bahamas). Might be too much of a digression to give the etymology, so not sure how to rephrase "The largest key or island is..." which is a turn of phrase that could easily give the impression that keys and islands are different. Subordinate commas might solve that dilemma. Another much simpler phrasing that needs minor editing is, "as well as an occasional crocodiles...".
    • Fixed the occasional crocodiles. "Elliott Key is the largest island in the park" is a rephrasing consistent with usage elsewhere, which I think makes clear that it's a local term for islands. I don't see a graceful way to work in the etymology. I've made a few other copyedits and will have another go tomorrow. Acroterion (talk) 02:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, great work. Mainly could use a bit of expansion about the ecology. [Disclaimer: as a basically inactive editor this is more of a list of suggestions rather than a list of conditions for supporting the nomination; can't guarantee a followup here at the FAC but will respond if queried at user talk]. Durova412 03:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking it over. I'll go through each item in detail as I address them, but as a quick appreciative response (back-to-front), I too had some trouble deciding when to use key/cay/island. I'll go back and look them over for improvement. There's surprisingly little data on alligators in the park (as opposed to a mile or so inland), mostly because alligators avoid salty water and are at best uncommon in the park proper, and I removed some material from an earlier version where I was getting a little to far into my personal ideas of what should be gator versus croc habitat and why. I'll revisit the subject and sources. As for endangered flora/fauna, I'll re-review and work over the lead, trying to avoid listiness. The Schaus' Swallowtail butterfly is a fairly big deal. I hadn't considered a discussion of migrants, so I'll see what I can find - there are season-by-season checklists. Acroterion (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the brackish water makes a difference. Am more familiar with the Everglades upstream than with Biscayne Bay in that regard. So some of these suggestions are speculative. Excellent work. :) Durova412 20:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I did do some edits to this article, but 99% of the effort was from Acroterion)...I'm fully satisfied that the article is comprehensive, authoritative and constitutes our best quality of work. This isn't a high profile national park like Yellowstone or Yosemite, so I really appreciate Acroterion bringing a less well known protected area to this level. Thanks!--MONGO 18:27, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per the above discussion. Suggestions addressed. Excellent article. Durova412 02:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

  • Cite 11 - Good
  • Cite 16 - Good
  • Cite 25 - Good
  • Cite 46 - Good
  • Cite 79 - Good

I support on sourcing. LittleJerry (talk) 00:57, 23 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Mother India

Nominator(s): Dr. ☠ Blofeld; Dwaipayan (talk); Redtigerxyz Talk 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A tale of a woman's battle against the world, Mother India (1957) is an epic Indian film which was the most expensive as well as highest grossing Bollywood film at that time and even made it to the Oscars. The article has been GA since last March. The article underwent an exhaustive peer review by User:Crisco 1492, User:Tim riley, User:Bollyjeff and User:Mark Arsten, and was copyedited by User:Rothorpe. We are nominating this article for featured article because in our opinion, it satisfies all FA criteria after the copyedit and the peer review. --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'm leaning support now, but I'm worried that I may be too involved in the text and thus be missing something. As such, I'll wait until another editor does a review before (maybe) supporting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1 b,c,d All issues raised here have been resolved, supported below. The section on Themes is lacking in comprehensiveness and neutrality.

  • An excessive amount of space has been devoted to the identification of Radha with the whole Hindu pantheon, while the connection between the mild–mannered, obedient Ramu and Rama, the transgressive Birju and Krishna is left out.[35]
Added about Shamu too. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The patriarchal overtones of the film have been completely ignored. Not all critics believe that the film broke female stereotypes. Jyotika Virdi alludes to what Tarini Sridharan states rather succinctly in The Hindu, "the film is about ‘Mother India’, not ‘Woman’ India — carrying with it suggestions of patriarchy and male domination via a hitherto unseen route — the cloaking of patriarchy in maternal power." Many aspects of the film like giving birth to two sons to upholding patriarchal notions which oppresses women like honour (izzat) are interpreted as a reinforcement of gender stereotypes by Sridharan and others. In light of this, the emphatic declarations of empowerment of women need to be balanced.
Added. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the protagonist's struggle against feudal oppression depicted in the film, the ending upholds the status quo— the feudal and patriarchal order.[36][37] It is touched upon in Rushdie's quote, but needs to be taken up in more detail.
(updated comment) Borrowed your lines. Added "to protect the patriarchal village structure". "Despite Radha's struggle against feudal oppression depicted in the film, her action of stopping the rebellious Birju and upholding status quo—the feudal and patriarchal order—is seen as "regressive" by various authors". Please let us know if your comment is addressed. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence would fit better into the paragraph about liberation from feudal and colonial oppression. Both the sources above refer to Mother India as a "complicit text", within the "dominant discourse", "regressive" etc. because of Radha's role in preventing a change in the power structure of the society. This needs to be highlighted in the sentence above and contrasted with the existing paragraph. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reorganized. Both views are now stated. --Redtigerxyz Talk 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oedipal elements/symbolism in the relationship between Birju and Radha are covered extensively in almost all the sources I came across. At least a short paragraph on this is due in the themes section.
(updated comment) A para is added. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is still missing a few important aspects. At least a sentence needs to be included on how obsession with Radha's bracelets symbolizes Birju's incestuous longings.[38] Radha's actions at the end of the film also need to be analyzed in an oedipal context, Virdi will be of some help here.[39] Please note how she interprets Birju's sexual advance on a village girl (which is incest in North India) as being a substitute in the plot for the incestuous mother–son relationship and his death at the end as a punishment for violation of the taboo. Perhaps the paraphrase of William van der Heide is saying the same thing, but the implication is not very clear from the sentence. Is the last line, " ...something extremely rare in Hindi cinema." really needed in a themes section? Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Again stealing your lines. :) " ...something extremely rare in Hindi cinema" indicates uncommon theme. Redtigerxyz Talk 06:46, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film scholar Vijay Mishra has seen Nargis's portrayal... being a Muslim, as an allegory of the increasing symbiosis of religions in a multicultural and multi-ethnic society." is not an accurate paraphrasing of the source. First off, Mishra does not claim this. His own argument revolves around the fact that Nargis' "Muslimness" became significant only in post–Ayodhya India when Sanjay Dutt was arrested under Terrorism and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act. Mishra, however, reads an "implicit argument" in Das Gupta's analysis of the movie favouring the theory that a Muslim actor playing a Hindu role is a result of emerging cultural symbiosis. Parama Roy has a different take on this; to Roy, Nargis' acceptance is a result of Hinduization, so to speak, of the role.[40] Besides, multicultural and multi-ethnic society etc. is an exaggeration, only Hindus and Muslims are being dealt with in the reference.
Roy view is also added. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rushdie's comment on Mother India, "In Mother India, a piece of Hindu myth-making directed by a Muslim socialist...", is taken from a passage in his novel The Moor's Last Sigh.[41] I am not sure whether a passage from a fictional work, without contextualization, can be used as a writer's authoritative take on anything. Through the passage, Rushdie explains Khan's Mother India to his readers and contrasts it with his own Aurora Zogoiby. Mishra sees some "metacritical value" in it, but by itself the quote adds little to the section other than supporting the phrases "highly syncretic" etc. which themselves seem superficial. Given that the sources used in the article deal with the presence of Muslims in the movie in depth, the whole paragraph needs to be summarized better to reflect the diverse views on this.
IMO, it is a perfect summary of Mother India, considering diverse views. We are using Mishra (a secondary source), not Rushdie's work. Rushdie talks about status quo as well as redemptive; Oedipal elements as well as loving mother. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have contextualized the quote, so it's alright now. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 21:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A final suggestion about the writing style used in themes section. The section (particularly para 4) currently reads like a collection of loosely connected, paraphrased quotes rather than a coherent elucidation of prominent themes in the film. This style might work for other sections, but frequently jumping from one author/theme to another within a paragraph and using too many direct quotes breaks the reading flow.
When numerous authors have same view, name dropping removed. Also some quotes paraphrased for better flow. Redtigerxyz Talk 08:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On a cursory glance, the other sections look well written and up to FA criteria. However, IMO, the themes section and associated content in the lead require a substantial rewrite. Regards. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 07:33, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, but judging by your swift response here, it seems you were aware of this nomination, not sure why you didn't bring this up during the peer review.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Correct Knowledge, it is good to know that only 1 section may have issues. Will work over it on the weekend. Redtigerxyz Talk 17:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This caught my eye a week ago. I should have stopped you from archiving the peer review. I'm sorry. :) Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 18:08, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for your input.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 18:17, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, that's a really funny sorry video :)
Yeah, all the points you mentioned are pretty much workable, I think. So, will work on those, soon.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Don't include quote-initial ellipses
  • Note b: this seems a bit iffy in terms of OR
  • Any suggestion? How about "The exact year when the loan was borrowed is not mentioned in the film, so the value is given in 1957 (year of release of the film) exchange rate" ? --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN28: page(s)?
  • Fn40, 56: page formatting
  • Asian Cinema: what kind of source is this?
  • This is a journal. So, the citation is incorrectly formatted. The Google book provides a snippet view, and the page number provided in the snippet view matches with the page number mentioned in the article. However, the full citation could not be obtained. So, I have emailed the editor of the journal if they can provide the full citation. Otherwise, this will have to be removed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference removed. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
Removed google book links too as complete page range not available in all. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lall: why is the archive title different?
  • This I could not figure out. The archive name is appearing in that way automatically, whereas the the title of the page is now copy of the title of that piece. Confused!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:51, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges
  • No, we are not abbreviating page range. If we have incorrectly abbreviated page range in any citation, and you see it, can you please notify here, or change it in the article?--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography

Support I peer reviewed and was impressed then. The article has since moved onwards and upwards and seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley for your comments in PR and your support here. Redtigerxyz Talk 13:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article meets FA criteria in my opinion. Just one caveat - the weight given for the comparison with Radha (the lover of lord Krishna) with the central character is a bit heavy. While the mythological character was a lady love, the movie character is devotional to her husband post marriage. A pic of Kali can be appropriate over the current pic of Radha Krishna as the central theme revolves around ultimate self-sacrifice (and good over bad in climax).Ssriram mt (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Ssriram for your support and comment. The protagonist Radha of this film has been said to have shades of different gods and goddesses, as described in the theme section of the article. It's definitely difficult to choose one. However, her husband (in film) has been compared to Krishna, her son Birju has been compared to Krishna; plus she is the namesake of mythological Radha. So many suggestions/indication prompted us to incorporate the image of Radha and Krishna. I still think this is a more appropriate image than Kali.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm... While Dwaipayan's rationale about Radha-Krishna is sound, the romance in the filmy Radha's life is limited. The terrible Kali seems appropriate for a mother who kills her child, but no author found till now gave the detailed explanation of comparison to Kali. Another option will be to replace the Radha-Krishna with a more secular Bharat Mata, explicit comparison with goddess and India as a whole. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kept both images. 2 images look better in this long section IMO. --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by SchroCat

Regardless of whether the minor point of cite bundling takes place or not, this is certainly an FA-standard article. Well done all who have obviously worked hard to get it to such a standard. - SchroCat (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Most of the bundling is addressed. Hope I did not miss any. :) --Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As always, unless I indicate otherwise, please do not take any of the following as prescriptive demands, but suggestions for consideration.

Infobox
  • Any reason why the US release date is in the infobox? No need for it per WP:FILMRELEASE.
  • Removed US release date from infobox.
Title
  • Unless you have a reason not to, I'd suggest moving the citation for the quote to after the quote, rather than before;
  • Placed the citation after the quote.
Script
  • Is there a reason for putting "7,350 US$", rather than "US$7,350", as per MOS:CURRENCY? I appreciate that Indian currency is expressed as 35,000 ₹, but the US currency should appear as it always does, n'est pas? (Feel free to tell me I'm wrong on this—the MOS isn't entirely clear on the point). I'll also point out that the Release section has both rupee and dollar as " ₹ 1,173,000,000 (US$21,348,600)", so one of them will have to change anyway for the sake of consistency!
  • Currency symbols and their usage made consistent (unless I missed any).
Themes
  • The strings of references are slightly off-putting. Have you thought about WP:BUNDLING to make it slightly easier on the reader? (This applies in a couple of other place too, such as Release).
  • I do not know how to bundle footnotes while using sfn. Any suggestions?
SchroCat, we are currently using WP:SFN, where bundling is not possible. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • You'll have to ensure consistent currency format, as noted above.
Reviews
  • Perhaps wikilink New Internationalist?

Aside from those very small points, a very nice article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your comments. All the comments have been addressed and/or replied. I do not completely disagree with the bundling of footnotes; however, I am not sure how to do this technically, and whether doing so would make the result inconsistent with the general referencing/footnote pattern used in the article. Once again, thank you for the review with such details (and apologies for the previous inconsistent use of currency symbols, that should have been taken care of earlier!) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the Skyfall article and the footnotes 121 and 133: both are bundled and the article uses the sfn format throughout. (If you don't like the way it appears, then feel free not to use it - the main thing is that you've looked over it and considered the pros and cons). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike Skyfall, we are using {{sfn}} with which bundling is not possible. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should be able to use {{sfnm}}, which is a companion to sfn, designed specifically for bundling. I've not used this template, so don't know how easy or troublesome it would be to use. - SchroCat (talk) 18:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support based on my peer review. Changes since then look to be for the better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments in peer review helped us a lot. Thanks again. Redtigerxyz Talk 15:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Amazing - the work you've done on this article! One suggestion, in the influence and legacy section, it might be a good idea to bring out the impact of the film more. For example, you could start with kehr's comment about it having set the pattern for the next 50 years of Indian cinema and construct the impact section around that. Also, it's not clear if you mean what influenced the film or what influence the film has had. If the former, then I'd separate the two sections into "Influences" and "Impacts", perhaps even moving "influences" into the "Themes" section. But, none of that is necessary for FA status so they're just suggestions. Great work! --regentspark (comment) 20:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. We will work on integrating the first para into themes and retain the rest as a Legacy section. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not hurry in this aspect. The first paragraph of this section (I just changed the name of the section to "Impact and legacy") has some element that can be moved to Theme section, but not entirely. IMO, most of the content of the first paragraph also go ok in Impact and legacy. Moving content inadvertently may cause break of flow. Plus, Theme section already has large amount of content which belongs exclusively to Theme. So, it may be difficult. Unless strong reasons exist, we need to be very cautious.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:53, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No strong reasons and no hurry. The article is well up to FA standard right now so just something to think about. I'm impressed by the effort the two of you have put into this. Finding references and tying everything up cannot have been easy! --regentspark (comment) 18:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – Sorry it has taken so long. I spent yesterday evening reading this article and it was a shear pleasure. With a cast list such as Tim, Mark, Rothorpe et al, we were always onto a winner with this one. The nominator's have done a fine job. The only thing that stuck out for me a little was the WP:CITECLUTTER in some of the text. It would be best not to go over three IMO. This won't sway my support, just a thought. -- CassiantoTalk 11:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. The clutter is mostly in themes where we wanted to establish that a view is mainstream and not 1 author's view. Now most of it is disappeared due to bundling. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just went through the article and also looked through the looked through the FA criteria and in my opinion this clearly meets the criteria. Amazing work done by the nominators. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and suggestions on the talk. Redtigerxyz Talk 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review (I had done one during the peer review, but some have been changed since)
  • For the above two images, I had a similar doubt. However, Redtiger explained me that these two were in PD in India on URAA date, because Copyright Act 1911 applies to them. The PD India tag in the images explains that stuffs created before 1958 comes to PD in 50 years. So, these images becomes PD in India in 1995 and 1990, respectively. What do you think?--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
India was PD-50 till amendments in 1992. [42], but don't know if changes were retrospective. [43] The Copyright Act, 1957 came into effect from January 1958. (before Mother India). "Prior to the Act of 1957, the Law of Copyrights in the country was governed by the Copyright Act of 1914. This Act was essentially the extension of the British Copyright Act, 1911 to India." Redtigerxyz Talk 18:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see (79 ss. 4) "Where copyright subsisted in any work immediately before the commencement of this Act, the rights comprising such copyright shall, as from the date of such commencement, be the rights specified in section 14 in relation to the class of works to which such work belongs...". I'm reading this as a retroactive extension of copyright. In that case, we would still count 60 years (and thus this would be copyrighted in the US) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rights specified in section 14 also talk about rights defined by copyright and does not act extension to copyright to Pd-60. Clause 22 notes specify that it was amended to PD-60 in 1992. Will check further. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think removing them for now (and reinserting them later, if they are indeed PD) will be most expedient to this article being promoted. I have already nominated one of the images for deletion, while the other I haven't touched yet as it may be a photograph and not a screenshot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added 1 image after talking to Crisco 1492. User_talk:Crisco_1492#Mother_India:_Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.2FMother_India.2Farchive1. Redtigerxyz Talk 09:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
Otherwise everything looks okay. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote from Rushdie includes "that image of an aggressive, treacherous, annihilating mothers" -- is this in fact an exact quote, given the "an" doesn't agree with "mothers"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lastly, although this article has been extensively reviewed, I don't think we've had a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing; I'd like to see a few spotchecks before we wrap this up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a comprehensive and well–written article which meets FA criteria. Fantastic work by the nominators. Correct Knowledge«৳alk» 21:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article:Film scholar Vijay Mishra has pointed out the presence of "highly syncretic hyphenated Hindu-Muslim nature" of Bollywood in the film.[66]
  • Source: "The first ("a piece of Hindu myth-making directed by a Muslin socialist") is the highly syncretic, hypenated Hindu-Muslim nature of Bombay Cinema discourses, production practises, and indeed its very ideology. (p 62)
  • Article: Mishra has noted that although Radha upholds Dharma (the natural law or order) in the film, it is Birju who achieves identification from the spectators; in his rebellion lies the agenda of political action that will usher social change.[65]
  • Source: "However, since the mother in Mother India triumphs (in the form of Mother of Durga) and upholds dharma as law...The political necessity finds its cause elsewhere-in spectorial identification with Birju. (p. 87)
  • Article: Mishra notes that due to such conflicting ideas, the film is very much conforming, and yet "defiantly subversive".[65]
  • Source: "Mother India becomes outrageously "conforming" yet so defiantly subversive. (p. 87)
  • Article: Mishra opines that the crushing of arms of Radha's husband and the mellowness of the older son symbolise castration, which is in contrast with the rebellion of Birju, identified with sexual potency.[60]
  • Source: Indeed those who give in to the Law of the Mother, like her husband and her older son, are symbolically castrated...It is clear that in making the younger son Birju more like his rebellious father, the film connects sexual potency with rebellion against the Mother...
  • Article: Dastagir travelled to India from Los Angeles, stayed in a hotel in Mumbai (then known as Bombay) and received a retainer. However, delays and obstacles in beginning shooting and getting a work permit for Dastagir led to his dismissal from the project.[20]
  • Source: ...Robert Flaherty...flew over from Los Angeles. He was put up in the Ambassador Hotel and paid a monthly retainer of 5,000 rupees. (p. 19)
    • Heh, this one had me puzzled for a second... Just to clarify, appears from the snippet view of the work at GoogleBooks that Flaherty is mentioned in passing as the director of Sabu's The Elephant Boy -- it wasn't Flaherty flying out from LA to India and staying at the Ambassador but Sabu... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: The Hindustan Times states that Nargis symbolised mothers in "which all the mothers [in later films] had the same clichéd roles to play. Representing both motherhood and Mother Earth, who also nurtures and occasionally punishes, Nargis immortalised the Indian mother on celluloid."[112]
  • Source: Nargis symbolised such mothers in "Mother India" following which all the mothers had the same clichéd roles to play. Representing both motherhood and Mother Earth, who also nurtures and occasionally punishes, Nargis immortalised the Indian mother on celluloid.
No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 09:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotchecks. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Graham. Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the image check. Redtigerxyz Talk 11:45, 16 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [44].[reply]

Broken Sword: The Shadow of the Templars

Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 20:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After what I believe was an unfair non-promotion of Broken Sword 1 last time, I once again bring the article to FAC. Khanassassin ☪ 20:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JDC808

  • Done some copy-editing, particularly punctuation issues (I like serial commas). There was also an issue in the lead where "from 2009 to 2012" was at the beginning and end of the same sentence. A couple of typoes as well. Also linked a couple of things for clarity.
  • Reception section, first paragraph. "and it received the award for "Best Quest" from the magazine Quest" The last paragraph has a listing of awards. I'd say make an "Awards" subsection under Reception and put all of its awards/nominations there.
  • Under Legacy>Listings, second paragraph, this is rather random and out of place, "In 2011, remakes of the first two Broken Sword games were downloaded by over four million people."

--JDC808 ♫ 06:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's a difference. The Reception box tells what scores the reviewers gave. In the section itself, it doesn't say "this reviewer gave this score", it summarizes points of their review. --JDC808 ♫ 19:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The table doesn't say "In 1997, Broken Sword was awarded "Best Quest" by the magazine Quest", but "Quest - Best Quest". :P --Khanassassin ☪ 19:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not my point (my point is that it's redundant), but okay. And if you're going to point that out, the other award in the box is repeating what the section says - "Génération 4 awarded it "Best Adventure 1997"" and "Génération 4 Best Adventure 1997" --JDC808 ♫ 19:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Although I disagree with having the awards also listed in the Reception box (as made evident above this post), the rest of the article is pretty good. My other issues were addressed and fixed accordingly. Other than needing a source spotcheck, I don't see much holding it back. --JDC808 ♫ 23:26, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The alternate title for the US version of the game is not sourced anywhere in the article, I can see ref titles in the references saying it but it isn't in the article content itself. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -The ref with this url http://revolution.co.uk/bs1dc/store is a deadlink.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 21:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- image review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are three images on the article. The first is the cover art, used to identify the work in question. The FUR is extensive and appropriate. The second is a screenshot from the game itself, used to depict the art style of the game as well as some of the characters. Neither of these images are inappropriately large. The third image is a free use image of the creator. All images check out. I believe the use of fair use images has been kept to an acceptable minimum. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick review. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Axem. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 16 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 16 March 2013 (UTC) [45].[reply]

Arthur W. Radford

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 13:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 13:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are clear, no problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments:

Support as all my concerns have been addressed where possible. —Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images: fine, as expected: all US Federal Works.

Comment: Is the "Later Life" suitably extensive? That is to say, clear it's short, but is that suitably comprehensive? The man clearly had extensive military experience, and advised two Presidential campaigns... did he support particular schemes of the candidates? Did he have any noteworthy private roles? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In his instance I haven't found a lot to discuss his post-military career. Looked through some of the campaign resources, and nothing specifically attributed to Radford is mentioned. —Ed!(talk) 15:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I could add a line or two about Nixon and Goldwater's campaign ideas related to the military, but none of it is specifically credited to Radford, and I'm afraid it would be SYNTH to imply these were his idea. —Ed!(talk)

Comments

Support the article looks great! Great work! Vazeer Akbar (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Ed, just FYI, I'll leave this nom open a bit longer to give the article a chance to be reviewed by a non-MilHist/Ships person as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review, as a non-MilHist/Ships person. Sandbh (talk) 08:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am also copyediting as I go. Sandbh (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
'With an interest in ships and aircraft from a young age, Radford saw his first sea duty aboard a battleship during World War I."

'…and was a central figure in the "Revolt of the Admirals".'

Early life
'John Radford managed the first steam turbine engines in the United States, at the Fisk Street Generating Station.'

  • Not sure of the relevance of this sentence?

'He gained an interest in aviation during a visit to the World Fair in San Fransisco, California.'

More to follow. Sandbh (talk) 09:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-war years
'…but his appointments were opposed by Fleet Admiral Chester Nimitz, who feared his hard-line stance on the budget would alienate the other branches.'

'Then, in 1949, Truman appointed him as the High Commissioner of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.'

  • I'm not sure what the relevance of this sentence is. Its placement at the end of the paragraph, and its use of an opening 'Then' makes it sound very dramatic, but when I read it I couldn't see the relevance. Does it have something to do with the next paragraph, which says: 'In April 1949, Truman appointed Radford to the position of Commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.' If so, what is the connection?

Copy editing all done. Once the above comments have been addressed I expect I will support FAC status for this well-written article. Sandbh (talk) 02:41, 11 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Big Two-Hearted River

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88, Ceoil

Third time around for this article about an Ernest Hemingway short story written when he was young and in good form, exhibiting his early and best modernist techniques. Many thanks to everyone who has worked on this: most especially to Maralia for helping at the end of the second try, and to Yomangani and Riggr Mortis, unfortunately both no longer editing, for prose help and advice. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support You have done a very good job. The article's prose, structure, and referencing are excellent. My only suggestion is to add an infobox with a picture of the book. DavidinNJ (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reading and for the support. For a variety of reasons I prefer no infobox for this short story; I tried one at some point and it looks odd to have to have the book paired with the article, each with different titles. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks David. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from George Ponderevo

I think this is pretty good. I haven't finished reading yet, but I came across this:

  • "Hemingway's descriptions of the Michigan landscape, which he would have been familiar to him as in his youth he summered at the family's Walloon Lake summer cottage in Northern Michigan". There's clearly something wrong there.
  • "That spring, before he began the story, a series of Cézanne watercolors were exhibited at Berheim-Jeune Gallery, about which Hemingway would write many years later in A Moveable Feast that he had been 'learning something from the painting of Cézanne that made writing simple true sentences far from enough to make the stories have the dimensions that I was trying to put in them.'" I think you need to take a leaf out of Hemingway's book and simplify that sentence/break it up. Not too fond of that "series ... were" either.
  • "Carlos Baker views the stories of In Our Time as a remarkable achievements for a young writer."
  • Hi George, thanks for catching these - I think all fixed now. I've tried simplifying the long sentence; let me know if it works. Whenever I try to take a leaf from Hemingway, I end of up with choppy staccato prose - and then I lose perspective, so ... Anyway, thanks too for taking the time to read and for the copyedits. Much appreciated. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments, leaning to support: I supported promotion at the last FAC, since when the article has been further worked on. My overall impression, that this is a thoughtful and comprehensive account of an important work in 20th century American literature, has not change, but on rereading I gave picked up a few relatively minor issues and quibbles:

  • I am not completely familiar with punctuation usage in American English, but it seems to me that in the first line, a comma is definitely needed after "Hemingway".
  • "He became friends with and influenced by..." reads awkwardly: "was influenced by"?
  • "In 1923, he was first published with a slim volume titled Three Stories and Ten Poems, followed the next year by another collection..." Again there is awkwardness here, chiefly around "he was first published with". I suggest recasting the sentence: "The year 1923 saw his first published work, a slim volume titled Three Stories and Ten Poems, followed the next year..." etc
  • The First World War needs to be mentioned as the context for Hemingway's stint as an ambulance driver. Likewise, "July 8" needs a year (1918, presumably)
  • "When asked her opinion of the draft in October..." This is presumably 1925, which needs to be clear as the last year mentioned was 1919.
  • "waiting for a response from America" sounds a bit portentious; from his New York publisher, presumably?
  • Maybe "repeatedly" rather than "again and again"?
  • He "summered" at the family's "summer cottage". Is there a way that could be expressed without the repetition?
  • "Hemingway is fundamentally an American nature writer according to Hemingway scholar Susan Beegel." Would be better phrased as " According to Hemingway scholar Susan Beegel, Hemingway is fundamentally an American nature writer." Or, if left as it is, place a comma after "nature writer".
  • "more characteristic in Hemingway's early fiction" → "most characteristic in Hemingway's early fiction" (or leave out more/most, and say "characteristic of")
  • In the "Iceberg" section, as you have reintroduced Pound as "Ezra Pound", you might reintroduce Joyce as "James Joyce" to avoid possible identification problems. ("Joyce" could, for example, be a lady friend)
  • A very minor quibble, but I think "minute to minute" should read "minute-to-minute"
  • "observes a detachedly described climactic event": That doesn't sound right. Maybe he "observes and describes with detachment a climactic event"?
  • "that painters work" → "that painter's work"
  • "in shock by his war experience" → "in shock from his war experience"
  • "a bird that in mythology symbolizes "halcyon days, peace and tranquility". If the quoted phrase is Johnson's, perhaps the "Johnson says" should be brought forward?
  • Personally I would prefer "quoted" to "qtd" in the citations.

When these have been addressed I will be happy to reinstate my support. An attractive and engaging article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Brian for the comments. Will get to them after work tonight and tomorrow. I very much appreciate the time in revisiting and finding these. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • These points were all good catches and I think I've fixed them all. Regarding the "qtd" vs. "quoted": the most recent version of The MLA Style Manual – used in the US for humanities – has "qtd" but with a full stop. I like to follow that style as closely as possible for a bunch of reasons, probably not worth detailing here. I'll go through and add the period to the "qtd" throughout but can't get to it immediately because a bit of a vision issue that I have to wait to clear. Thanks again. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed so that "qtd" is now "qtd." Truthkeeper (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Having read through the whole thing now I like this article very much, and the nominators are to be congratulated on producing such a fine piece of work. Some of Brian's points above still need to be addressed of course, but I'm confident they will be addressed and I don't see any of them as show stoppers. George Ponderevo (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and the kind words. Truthkeeper (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

  • File:Ernest_Hemingway_1923_passport_photo.TIF.jpg: source link appears broken
  • File:GertrudeStein_JackHemingway_Paris.jpg: first link is broken again (direct link is fine)
  • Check alphabetization of Sources
  • Be consistent in whether editor comes before or after title for "in..." entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks Nikkimaria. I've fixed these. On my browser the NARA link goes to the permanent record - I though that's how it should be? I removed one link that wasn't necessary and broken. Fixed the JFK Library link again. Truthkeeper (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I also supported at the previous FAC, and am glad to see that the article has been improved further since the last time. I saw a few minor issues and fixed them; otherwise the article appears FA-worthy to me. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: I believe that Truthkeeper has temporarily left the project, and I think Ceoil may have done, too. Whether either will respond to further comments seems rather doubtful. I'm not sure what the protocol is in such cases, but for the record this nomination has four supports and, apparently, no outstanding issues on images and sources. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Brian -- yes, the checks/reviews and level of support are sufficient for promotion; I also note that some prose concerns I had last time have been dealt with. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 15 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [47].[reply]

Sesame Street research

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is the third FAC for this article. I believe that it failed both times mostly due to lack of support. Reviewers, please do not be afraid of this article! It's about Sesame Street, for heaven's sake! ;) Seriously, it needs support to pass and is, IMO, a very interesting article and a good read. Thanks in advance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

General
  • Any chance of adding an image to the lead?
As I've stated in previous FACs, images are a challenge with Sesame Street articles. The SW is fiercely protective of their images, and for good reason. Other editors have suggested adding the SS logo, but it's been rejected for use in the main article (a FA), so I doubt it would fly here. I understand that images in the lead aren't required for FAs, and I don't want to add content to the lead just so we can add an image there. If anyone can come up with a more brilliant idea, then please suggest.
  • Sourcing. - Cite #28 ^ Knowlton, Linda Goldstein and Linda Hawkins Costigan (producers) (2006). The World According to Sesame Street (documentary). Participant Productions. This appears to be a video documetary, but if so, we need an "event location" to pinpoint which part of the doc you are citing to. In much the same way as a book cannot be cited to in general, without a page number, we also need a location for video media.
Ok, since I no longer have access to the documentary, I looked for other sources that back up the same thing and found better ones. Thanks.
  • Sourcing. - Several of your access dates are two or three years old. While not an FAC requirement per se, it would be helpful to know that those links have been checked more recently.
Checked out. Since this article is mostly made up of sources that aren't "accessible", it was easy. ;)
Lead
  • Copy-edit suggestion. - Consider combining these sentences: "The children's television show Sesame Street premiered on public broadcasting television stations in 1969. Unlike earlier children's programming, the show used research to both create the show and test its impact on its young viewers. As of 2001, there had been over 1,000 research studies examining the show's impact on children's learning and attention" into something such as: "In 1969, the children's television show Sesame Street premiered on PBS. The show's producers have utilized over 1,000 research studies in an effort to help them both improve programming and evaluate its impact on children's learning", or similar. The use of "As of 2001", begs the question: did the research stop 12 years ago?
Done, good suggestion. I suppose the year isn't important enough to mention, especially in the lead. It was there because it's the number cited in G is for Growing, which was published in 2001.
  • Prose. - "Children's Television Workshop (CTW, the organization founded to oversee Sesame Street production) had developed what came to be called 'the CTW model'." Consider: "The organization founded to oversee Sesame Street production, Children's Television Workshop, had developed what came to be called 'the CTW model'", or similar.
  • Prose. - "As co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney has stated," consider: "Co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney stated".
  • MOS:LQ. - "'Without research, there would be no Sesame Street'." Should the terminal punctuation point be inside the quote marks?
All the above addressed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background and development
  • Prose. - "Sesame Street's use of research both to create individual episodes and to test its effect on its young viewers". Omit "both" as redundant.
  • Sourcing. - "called the idea of combining research with television production "positively heretical",[1] because it had never been done before." Move the citation to the end of the sentence, unless of course, the source does not support the assertion: "because it had never been done before", in which case, this claim would need to be sourced.
Above two addressed.
  • Vague. - "set it apart from other children's programming" and "other children's television shows were criticized for being cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values". This datum could perhaps use some specific examples for context.
The source doesn't really go into great detail and specifics. Other sources do, however; for example, Morrow and Davis discuss specific shows and how they were violent and commercial. I'm not sure this is the place for that kind of discussion, though, which is why I refer to the fact that Borgenicht made the statement and why I added the "vast wasteline" quote by Cooney in the note. I could just remove the statement if you still think it's too vague.
  • Prose. - "which spelled out how television could be used". "Spelled out" in a bit unencyclopedic, consider a recast such as: "outlined", or similar.
Chose "described".
  • Linking. - "and the creation of CTW". CTW is linked in the lead, but it should also be linked on its first mention in the article body.
Done.
  • Support. - I've read the article several times now, and I think it is well-written, well-researched, and it appears to be quite comprehensive and neutral. Perhaps a few very minor prose issues remain, but there are certainly no actionable objections left to hold up this fine contribution's promotion to FA. Very well done, Christine. Thanks much for all your effort on this important subject. Keep up the great work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC) In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:25, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, waiting for it with great anticipation. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (All points adressed) a nice, informative article on an unusual topic, but it might be slightly too positive at times, taking quotes and info from involved persons without further analysis or commentary from uninvolved, secondary sources. Some points after a first read:

I understand the concern. This is a forked article, from Sesame Street, created when I saw that there was enough information for its own article. It focuses on the research associated with the show, not with the criticism of it, which is better suited for Influence of Sesame Street (a GA). There is some mention of the "negative" studies of the show, but it didn't make a big difference. One of the main sources for this article, G is for Growing was published by the research department at CTW, but it summarizes the major studies they and the ETS conducted. Lesser's book, again published by advocates of SS and the CTW, summarizes the early studies. Morrow is probably the most secondary source available. There really hasn't been a lot of studies conducted on the show's efficacy by outside researchers; most of them have been done recently and the ones I could find I've included. I could, though, put some information here, which I'll recreate here and insert into this article if you recommend it:
The "most important" studies that found negative effects of Sesame Street were conducted by educator Herbert A. Sprigle and psychologist Thomas D. Cook during its first two seasons. Both studies found that the show increased the educational gap between poor and middle-class children. Morrow reported that these studies had little impact on the public discussion about Sesame Street.
Note: The rest of this paragraph and the one that follows it in the Influence article talks about the criticism of some prominent psychologists and policy makers, but IMO they constitute opinion and not the findings of studies.
She [journalist Kay Hymowitz, again opinion] reported that most of the positive research conducted on the show has been done by the CTW, and then sent to a sympathetic press. She charged that the studies conducted by the CTW "hint at advocacy masquerading as social science". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead "Co-creator Joan Ganz Cooney stated, "Without research, there would be no Sesame Street."" - this quote has a number of problems. It's a very poignant, subjective statement of an involved, biased creator - too "strong" for a lead intro. Literally reading the statement, it's also wrong - of course a Sesame Street show (of less quality and impact) would be possible completely without research. The rest of the paragraph elaborates on the relation between research and show, but doesn't really convey its importance. Suggestion: move that quote down to the main text, where you can provide more context to explain, why exactly research was so vital for the show.
Well, I don't know if I agree, but I'm not that committed to one quote, so I followed your suggestion and moved the quote down to the "The CTW model" section.
  • "CTW researchers invented tools (such as "the distractor") ..." - without explanation, which may be too difficult for the lead, the parenthetical is useless here for most readers.
Ok, done; removed.
  • "The producers changed the show and compiled a body of [objective] data based on their findings." - just reading the lead, this is confusing. Wouldn't the compiling be done by some researchers? "Objective" can be trimmed, all data is objective by definition (its statistical analysis may be tainted by subjective views or motivations).
Added phrase "and its researchers"; struck "objective".
  • "The formative research on Sesame Street was the first time children's television viewing was studied scientifically." - needs citation for the "first time" part, even in lead.
Done.
  • "Subsequent studies have replicated these findings." - could you add an example for a notable study here?
Sure, listed the studies discussed in the "Later studies" section. Will address the rest later. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background "According to writer David Borgenicht, other children's television shows were criticized for being cartoons depicting violence and reflecting commercial values." - the source for this critical statement is a book for "a celebration of the first thirty years of Sesame Street contains special interviews with the show's creators, behind-the-scenes glimpses the Sesame world, fun-filled quizzes, reviews of its funniest moments, unique photographs, and more" (WP:RS). Not having read this book, is it neutral and critical enough to trust such a broad statement?
Well, it's not as if the Unpaved book is a major source for this article. But like above, I'm not committed to using it, since there are better sources that basically say the same thing. Done as directed. The Unpaved book is used a few more times, but not for statements as "critical" as this one. Did you want me to change them as well?
  • "Despite her lack of experience in education,[10] her study was well received." - Received by whom? I know, she is linked, but as one of the main "actors" it may be worth to add a brief description about her professional background somewhere near her first mention.
The source doesn't say who received it, so I just removed it and moved the "lack of experience" phrase to her short background as you suggest.
  • "Curriculum seminars prior to Sesame Street's 33rd season in 2002 resulted in changes to the show's structure and format." - what changes? Can you add 1-2 examples?
Instead of using examples, I changed the wording slightly to clarify: "Curriculum seminars prior to Sesame Street's 33rd season in 2002 resulted in changing the show from a magazine-like format to a more narrative format." You can see that I linked the article that discusses the changed format.
  • "Shortly after beginning Sesame Street, its creators developed what came to be called the "CTW model"" - Called by whom?
Again, unclear in the source, so I cut out the offending phrase.
  • "Sesame Street researcher Rosemarie Truglio called it "a healthy tension", adding "I think the reason it works is that everyone who is a part of the model really, truly cares about children"" - Remove completely (NPOV, no encyclopedic content).
Ah, that makes me sad, 'cause it's a great quote. Plus, I'm not really sure why it would be unencyclopedic, but since I believe in accepting the feedback of my reviewers, I'm remove it, anyway.
  • "...gains made by disadvantaged children were "at least as great"[57] as those by advantaged children" - why the quote marks? Seems like a common comparison, so just an inline-citation would be enough.
  • Footnote 1 "Cooney later called the state of children's programming a "wasteland" at the time the show was created, a reference to FCC ..." - Full name and link for FCC needed.
Got previous two comments.
  • Any critical voices about the CTW model? However minor, it would add to the article's overall balance, if some criticism was mentioned (only if notable of course).
Um, there really hasn't been any criticism of the procedures they follow in the model. No one has ever said, at least that I was able to find, that they're mistaken or misguided for using it. There is the fact that very few TV shows have adopted it, something that Morrow has discussed, but that's not really a criticism of their methodology. I don't believe that a simple description of what they did is unbalanced. There is mention of the producers' reluctance to follow it at first, though, but again, that's not really criticism.

Sorry, if some of those points were mentioned already, just noted them, while reading through. GermanJoe (talk) 10:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Evanh2008 - Great article, and the prose has much improved from the last time I looked at it. Very nice work, Christine! Just a few things, and I'll be ready to support:
  • Why link PBS instead of Public Broadcasting Service if the latter is the name of the article?
Fixed.
The policy states that refs in the lead are determined on a case-by-case basis and by consensus. Re: ref 1, a previous reviewer wanted me to support the statement, and I've always been under the impression that you should cite quotations in the lead.
  • Since the lead is meant to summarise the article, I would also avoid giving quotes in the lead that are not in the body of the article.
You're probably talking about the Cooney quote, which I moved to the body as per GermanJoe's review above.
  • Regarding images, there are a handful of public-domain photos here, but, of course, none that are directly prurient to the research angle. There's also a CC-licensed image of Jim Henson, but I'm not sure that's a great choice either. At any rate, if you can find an image, that would be great, but it is not a condition for my support.
Yah, always a problem, and something I've thought a lot about. If it were a perfect world, and we had access to free images of them, I'd think that one of Cooney or a shot of the Sesame Workshop offices in the "Background and Development" section. I don't think that Henson would be a good choice. I've tried to add images of Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch, but other editors have rejected them. An image of Ed Palmer in the "Formative research" section might work, but there's nothing available.

Very, very minor issues now. Great job once again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, appreciate the feedback and kind words. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (above points adressed) some final remarks, but nothing withholding my support for this fine article.

  • The "CTW model" "[They] then convened the experts in a series of meetings ..." - Subject changed previously, better specify, who is "They" here.
  • Borgenicht as source - is OK for other usages (imo), only used for a direct quote and an uncontroversial fact, no need to replace the source there.
  • Lead citations - are required for quotations, and OK/recommended for extraordinary claims.
  • Critical voices - the only point, which probably needs a bit more discussion. I understand, this is a forked article and should not replicate everything. On the other hand it should be able to stand on its own and cover all aspects of its topic including critical voices, even if they overlap a bit with other Sesame Street articles. Suggest 1-2 brief mentions (similar to your examples above) of the most notable critical comments in the appropriate sections (separate "Criticism" is discouraged usually). If the general reaction was vastly positive, more is not needed anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 10:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I made the changes you recommend. I stated that the research was generally positive, and that most are unpublished. I also added a few criticisms from the Influence article as discussed above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at the previous FAC, and this has improved since then. I have done some minor copy-editing, but feel free to revert anything you don't like, or which I have messed up. I've just a few last questions or points to make, but nothing major. My biggest issue is the placement of the "negative comments", but it doesn't require much work and may just be a preference thing, so it does not affect my support. A very good job overall. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The producers changed the show and its researchers compiled a body of data based on their findings.": For flow, it may be better to begin "Based on these findings…". But there is a problem that the previous sentence says what the researchers did, and this sentence also says what the researchers did. What about "Based on these findings, the researchers compiled a body of data and the producers changed the show accordingly". (I'm assuming that the body of data was what the producers used?)
Fine with your suggestion; made the change.
  • "Summative research conducted throughout Sesame Street's history, including two landmark evaluations in 1970 and 1971, demonstrated": Still not too keen on "history" in this sense, and I suspect that the phrase could be replaced with "over the years", "over the course of the program", or even omitted altogether. However, the research presumably still shows this, so perhaps it should be "demonstrates"?
It needs to demonstrate (har-har) that these studies occurred periodically throughout the period the show has aired, I think that "over the years" is a better choice, so that's what I inserted.
  • "She researched their ideas about the viewing habits of young children, writing a report on her findings[8][9] entitled "Television for Preschool Education", which described out how television could be used as an aid in the education of preschoolers, especially those living in inner cities.": I think there may be a little too much going on here. Possibly could be split, but even replacing "writing" with "and wrote" may make it more digestible.
Keeping it simple, I chose to follow the latter suggestion.
  • "The program's creative staff was concerned…": Is this "was" or "were"? I hate these! In the UK it would be "were". But I know these can be a minefield!
It's "was" in 'merican English, because the verb modifies "staff", which for us, is singular.
  • "The most important studies that found negative effects of Sesame Street were conducted by educator Herbert A. Sprigle and psychologist Thomas D. Cook during its first two seasons. Both studies found that the show increased the educational gap between poor and middle-class children.": I'm not too clear on the focus here; is it saying that the most important studies found negative effects, or listing the main studies which found negative effects? And this "negative" section seems slightly tacked on, and may be better placed elsewhere, such as in the research sections.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Both studies found that the show negatively affected the gap between poor and middle-class children. How do you suggest that I change it? The negative section doesn't really fit anywhere else; they're early, so they don't belong in the "Later studies" section, and they weren't conducted by either the CTW or the ETS. Plus, they're more background info, I think.
Not a problem. I'm not too sure what I'm asking myself... Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are issues that have been previously discussed. Another reviewer requested that "efficacy" be linked because it's a term about the effectiveness of something. "Magazine" is linked because it's another specific term that describes how information is presented, an important concept here.
Fair enough. Not too sure I agree, but not an issue for me. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback, and for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the show used research to create the show" - awkward
How so? It's used as a noun here; not common usage, I know, but common in research literature. It's also the subject of the article. I suppose we could say: '...the show used concepts gained from research studies and experiments to..."
No, it's more the concept of the show creating the show that's a bit strange... Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now I get it; thanks for the explanation. Added the word "producers" because you're right that a show can't use research but its producers can.
  • "test its impact" and then "evaluate its impact" in consecutive sentences feels repetitive
I combined the two ideas into one sentence. By doing so, I might have solved the above issue.
  • When full author names appear in text, be consistent in whether middle initial is punctuated
I'm having trouble finding this error? Could you please point it out?
For example, you've got "Louise A Gikow" (no period after A) and later "Shalom M. Fisch" (period after M). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah again! Got it.
  • "They finally meetings"?
Oops, fixed. I have no idea how that got past us.
  • "80—90 percent of the time" - wrong horizontal line, should be endash
Got it.
  • Don't include quote-initial ellipses
Again, would you mind pointing that out?
"Malcolm Gladwell asserted, "... Without Ed Palmer"". When quoting like this it's clear there's material before and after in the source, so you don't need initial or terminal ellipses. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked, and this was the only instance. Fixed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "children retained most of what learned" - missing word?
Oops again; see above. ;)
  • "It solved this problem by selecting control-group households from areas that did not broadcast the show" - I'm not sure how US broadcasting works; would this be rural areas? Certain parts of the country? Depending on answer, did the studies take into account possible differences in early education or upbringing based on geography or demography?
Actually, at the time (the late 60s and early 70s), even some urban areas didn't get PBS because it was on UHF. I don't think that this is a place to explain that. I looked at the source, and found that it doesn't go into a lot of detail.
  • "vocabulary, letter, and printed- and spoken-word identification" - "letter identification/recognition"?
A previous reviewer has worked with me about how to best put this concept, and that's what we came up with. All three items in the list are different.
  • "and the on type of stimulus"? Also check use of stimulus vs stimuli throughout this para
Got it; good catch.
  • FN6: formatting
Fixed, again thanks for the catch.
  • FN30: why is this different from the other references to chapters from this book?
Because it's the only ref from the book. I'm treating G is for Growing as a compilation of articles, since that's really what it is. This is a common practice in citing sources.
Got it, thanks. And thanks for the feedback and support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This is fabulous work. I have only one question:

  1. Why are some of the works referenced in the "Works Cited" while others (fn 27, 30, 70, 71) in the notes? Couldn't they be moved into the "Works Cited" and referenced the same way?
See my response to Nikkimaria above. It's a common way to handle sources from the same book.
  1. Okay, make it two. "The evidence showed that attention span depended both on age and the on type of stimuli children viewed." I think there is a word missing here.
Wow, great catch. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on content. Since actual Sesame Street images are pretty much off the table, is there any chance of a photo of any of the key people in the article (for example Cooney, Palmer, or Lesser)? Is Shalom M. Fisch worth a redlink? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There is an image of Lesser at Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street, but notice that it's never been reviewed, which is probably why it's still there. There was an image of Cooney (can't remember which article, though) that came from the same source (SS's promotional reel), but it was rejected. I suspect that neither would be allowed here. There are no images available of Palmer. I can redlink Fisch if you like; I think he's notable enough for an article, something I'll probably get to eventually. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:07, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cooney has been fairly publicly visible over the years and is still alive, in fact. It's plausible that a free use photo of her might be out there somewhere. It might also be worth seeing if Harvard would permit use of the photo of Lesser that illustrated his obituary (or any other, really; he spent 35+ years as faculty there and they named a professorship after him, so I'm sure they've got a pile of them). I'll agree that there's not much chance of an acceptable photo of Palmer. Regardless, I certainly won't oppose for their lack; if they're possible, it's just a way that the article could be further improved post-FAC. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent a letter and emails to Sesame Workshop, but received no answer from them. I'll see what I can do about this problem in the coming months, at least in regards to obtaining free images of Cooney and Lesser. I think that contacting Harvard is an excellent idea. Cooney's foundation might be able to help, too. I should also put Lloyd Morrisett on this list, and other people involved in SS and other Muppet projects. Working on these articles is a long-term project; there's so much that can be done, and I'm pretty much the only person who's seriously doing it. Mind you, I'm not complaining, since I kinda like the autonomy, control, and lack of drama that brings. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Sesame Workshop itself is famously protective of its image rights, for admittedly good cause. I suspect you'll have better success contacting the educational institutions involved. The nice thing about this topic area is that it has such a universally positive reputation, and the people involved almost all had such long, distinguished, and drama-free careers, that it's likely much easier to convince the rights-holders to license than in more fraught areas. Best of luck with the article improvement in the rest of the topic area as well. You've got pretty close to an unlimited number of potential FAs out there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:11, 12 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [48].[reply]

Omayra Sánchez

Nominator(s): ceranthor 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is the article I am most proud of in my history of content contributions. It is a deeply touching subject: Brianboulton accurately describes Omayra's plight as "harrowing". Somehow in the face of uncompromising misfortune and inevitable death, this spellbinding 13 year old girl remained brave, loving, and innocent. I hope the article does Omayra the justice she deserves. ceranthor 23:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

I'll re-read the article later and give a more detailed review, but off-hand:

  • Avoid terminal punctuation in image captions.
  • Per the MOS it's okay. "Most captions are not complete sentences, but merely sentence fragments that should not end with a period. If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, all sentences and any sentence fragments in that caption should end with a period."
  • I noticed a couple isbn-10s. Use isbn-13 whenever possible.
  • Fixed!
  • Slight inconsistencies between refs #3 and #4 and #28 (there may be others). Make consistent throughout. Also, I don't think BBC News Online should be italicized.
  • What inconsistencies are there? I combined 3 and 28 by the way. My mistake. And the reason it's italicized is due to the template, so it's beyond my control at the moment.
  • Ref #3: "BBC. Retrieved September 3, 2008." Ref #4: "(BBC). November 13, 1985." Also, if you want to avoid italics, then place "BBC News Online" as the publisher. You don't need to say BBC and BBC News. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid use of given name. Unless there is some reason for this I am missing, the article uses Omayra were it should be using Sánchez, except where there is ambiguity such as the kind caused by mentioning several Sánchez family members in a short span of text.
  • I opted to do this since she is a child. I was using that format until Brianboulton suggested only her first name be used.
  • Prose. - "After it hit, Omayra became trapped under her own home's concrete and other debris and could not free herself." "Her own home's" is wordy prose, omit "own" as redundant excess and scan throughout for similar.
General
  • Sourcing. - Villegas, Henry (September 2003) has a redlink, I would avoid that. Same with: "written by Eduardo Santa as a response to the eruption"
Background
  • Prose. - "and killed many (up to 20,000) of its inhabitants". Consider: "and killed up to 20,000 of its inhabitants", or similar.
  • Linking. - You might want to link "scaremongering".
Should all be fixed. Thanks for the review! ceranthor 02:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support
  • "In all, Omayra suffered for nearly three nights (roughly 60 hours) before she died at approximately 10:05 A.M...". Please give the date of death as well.
  • "Controversy broke out after descriptions of the shortages were released, proving what officials had previously indicated: that they had used the best of their supplies. " Released by the government? The description tallied with what officials indicated previously? If it tallied, then where is the controversy (in this sentence)?
  • I think left-aligned image at the start of a section is discouraged (in background section in this version).
  • "Hazard maps showing that Armero would be completely flooded after an eruption were distributed more than a month before the eruption...". Is it coincidental that the hazard maps were distributed merely a month before the eruption? Or, were there signs of a possible eruption there that prompted the distribution of the maps? The maps were distributed among the residents of the town? Also, which agency distributed/generated the maps? If those information are available, can be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All added from the main Armero tragedy article. Wasn't sure how much detail that explanation warranted.
Thanks! All fixed except the one I noted. ceranthor 17:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • when mentioning the page number of cited reference, the article usually uses pg; however on at least two occasions I saw p. being used (author name Villegas). The style should be consistent within this article. While mentioning page range, using pg style, you are writing pgs. I don't know if this is an acceptable style.
I've used pgs before. I will fix that. ceranthor 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page numbers were not used in the short excerpt I used, unfortunately. ceranthor 03:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've meant to replace that rationale for months. Will do. ceranthor 22:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, although "low resolution?" might include an answer. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. ceranthor 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article in some detail at peer review and I'm satisfied with the responses to the issues I raised there. I was hoping that GabeMc would finish the review begun above, but it's 12 days now... I am happy to support its promotion unless some significant fault is identified. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to all three of you for your support; it is highly appreciated! ceranthor 04:03, 2 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [49].[reply]

Russian battleship Rostislav

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the FAC criteria. It had a MilHist ACR two years ago and Dank has been kind enough to give it a through copyedit recently. While I'm in the WikiCup, this article is not eligible.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the images on commons have been relocated to "Rostislav (ship, 1896)". This needs fixing. Can some of those additional images be used on this article? Second remark, there are two portal templates in the article, one in the Notes section and one in the External links section. I think one is sufficient. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons link updated and second portal link deleted. Almost all of those additional images are copied from Russian website and lack a clear publishing history so they cannot be used here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Images A few problems, unfortunately. File:Rostislav battleship.jpg's source does work for me (this one); it has no US copyright tag; it has a PD-70 without any suggestion of who the author is. Since the file is Russian, it's home country (check) + US (no check); PD-70 was probably an abortive attempt at a US copyright tag. If you can show it was published pre-1923 then that would seem like the most obvious possibility (source needed) or find something else which may mean finding original publication. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking on this. The same photo is used in McLaughlin and is credited to the Naval History & Heritage Command with a catalog number so I've amended the copyright info to show that.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to exemplary detailed facts and information being referenced to credible sources. The nominator also appears to be very reliable in terms of dedicating time to further clean-up in the article and appealing to users' comments in regards to the article's contents and any other concerns. Quite an interesting, well-written article. Tayisiya (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I put a citation needed tag in one place but other than that I think the article is great! Good work! Vazeer Akbar (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, cite moved to cover that sentence. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links, Storm; some may be justified owing to the amount of prose between them but they should be reviewed (use this script to check for them). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian, I never knew about that tool. Cleaned everything up except the deliberate duplicates in the infobox and the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [50].[reply]

Flying Eagle cent

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The Flying Eagle cent was the first U.S. small cent. It did not last long, but it had an impact both in ending the common use of foreign coins in the United States and in making Americans more aware of their coins. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: Nothing much:

  • Compare "pp" and "p" formats in refs 7 and 27
  • If you want it, there is an OCLC for the 1904 book; it is 8109299

Otherwise all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the OCLC and corrected ref 27, which should have been pp, not p. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Hi Wehwalt, pls follow the usual routine of checking with a delegate before having two articles at FAC simultaneously. Granted Andrew Johnson was ready for promotion so leave was always likely but we have the same rule for all -- in fact Johnson might have been promoted before now with such a reminder... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's waited 137 years, it didn't hurt him to wait another week. Just trying to get a few extra eyes on the article as I left Wed. on a trip, but I'll respect your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:04, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments, leaning to support: A fairly standard coin article, with a few minorish prose issues:

Lead
  • Second lead paragraph mentions the "large cent" and a decision to replace this with a smaller one, Could we have some indicaton of these sizes? I realise this info is probably in the article's main body, but this lead is quite short and perhaps coule be expanded a bit?
  • In the same spirit, a few words on the origin/nature of the "worn foreign coin" would be helpful.
  • If the coin was struck by the United States Bureau of the Mint, why wasn't it legal tender?
It wasn't made of silver or gold. It as basically a government-issued token, you needed some way to make change.. Legal tender limits on minor coinage survived until 1933. Those British Victorian copper pennies you may have seen--those weren't legal tender in the UK either, at least when they were issued. All because of the gold standard and all that.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Inception
  • What is a "billon"?
  • For clarity, "$.40" neds to be written as "$0.40", since the point is barely discernible.
  • Maybe just "issue" rather than "issuance" which is a mite pompous
Preparation
  • In British English, to "show off" means to flaunt, or make an extravagant display, so "sent to Washington for Treasury officials to show off" reads a bit oddly. Perhaps the nuance is different in American English, but an alternative may be preferable.
  • "So originated the highly-collectable 1856 Flying Eagle cent..." A touch rhetorical? Perhaps "This was the origin of..."? Prosaic, but maybe more encyclopedic.
  • "brought up in the House of Representatives" → "brought to the House of Representatives"
  • Link "planchet"
Release, production, and collecting
  • " In anticipation of large popular demand, Mint authorities built a temporary wooden structure in the courtyard of the Philadelphia facility" Possibly unnecessary detail?
It's color. It's not a long article, I think the reader is interested in the circumstances.
  • " with a new version of the cent with a shallower relief..." The "with ... with" repetition is a bit clumsy
  • "Variety" and "varieties": I think "variation" and "variations" would be better, since "variety" always suggests more than two.
It's a numismatic term and I have linked accordingly.
  • "was extended an additional two years" → "was extended for an additional two years"
  • "With commerce choked with..." "With ... with" again
  • " Snowden on his own continued the practice..." I'm not sure what is implied by "Snowden on his own". As a private individual? Also the practice that he continued needs to be clarified.

That is all. I was half hoping that Ulrich Stonewall Jackson Dunbar would make an appearance but sadly, no. Ah, well... Brianboulton (talk) 17:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those comments which I will work through today, time permitting. Regarding Mr. Dunbar, I shall have to learn more of him, it strikes me he would make a useful DYK.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those matters have been implemented, except as commented above.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to have been so long responding. I was hoping that other reviewers would join in with some comments, but things seem rather quiet here at the moment. No reason for not supporting, so I've upgraded; I hope others willl come along soon. This is a worthy series. Brianboulton (talk) 09:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I probably need to do more reviewing, but I've been traveling, but will be home today. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – this article is part of an impressive set by Wehwalt, and is well up to the prevailing standard of excellence. This comment is not in the least a reservation about my support, and what with laptops, desktops, pads, and overblown mobile phones I suppose there is no standard screen layout. But I mention, for Wehwalt's consideration, that on my newish laptop there is a four inch white gap between the header "Inception" and the start of the text. That really is the only comment I can usefully (I hope) offer on a top-notch article. – Tim riley (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a relatively short infobox I think the problem is. I've filled in with an image of Longacre and will keep playing with it. Thank you very much for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- very nice article, and a good addition to your continuing series on numismatics. The only comment I have regards the size: I understand (I think) that this cent is the same size as the modern Lincoln penny, but I don't think the article ever makes that clear. It just says it was smaller than the large cent. Adding that comparison might help the reader. But, either way, I support. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it in. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. That's interesting about the weight, too. Good luck with the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check. Images look good. All are PD or gov't-produced, except for one CC, which is properly attributed. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Three supports, image and source check done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC) [51].[reply]

Réunion Ibis

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have added practically all known info about, most PD images, and presented all controversies relating to the bird, and it has also been copyedited. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

I think all these issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand why a Good Article review can be compatible with a Featured Article review, so I do not understand your rationale of referring back to your Good Article review. Snowman (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said in my good article review, I felt the article was pretty much ready for FA status then. I find that the best good article reviews point towards FAC, and I try to do that in many of my own reviews; in this case, there was nothing else I could say. I read through the article again, and was happy that it was ready. I was also declaring a possible conflict of interest so that delegates could take that into account, if they felt it important. Do you now understand why I referred back to my good article review? (As an aside, why are you feeling the need to pester those who supported? It isn't like major issues have been dug up in subsequent reviews; a few small pointers have been brought up, along with some suggestions that aren't so great. Certainly nothing that suggests that the article is incomplete.) J Milburn (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw the suggestion that I have pestered those supporting this article. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pestering me... J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh! Why so serious? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have noticed a tendency for you to support FA promotion early in the FA discussion of articles about birds; however, this is generally followed by lists of issues found by subsequent reviewers. Snowman (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, my thoughts about articles are rarely the same as those of other reviewers. I review with content, not style, in mind. As you can see below, interpretation is quite individual and subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that reviewers bring a variety of skills and knowledge hence improvements to articles usually follow. Snowman (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should also consider whether you yourself make FA reviews more nitpicky and tedious than necessary. You frequently confuse guidelines with policy, as well as elevating your own (often eccentric) personal preferences to FA criteria. You also make blanket announcements of wanting "large changes", without actually specifying what it is you dislike. That is useless handwaving. And even when one of your subjective, non-FAC criterion suggestions are rejected, you stubbornly refuse to let them go. Sometimes it appears like you haven't even read the articles to begin with, since what you ask for is often already present, or is a complete misinterpretation. I say this from experience. Compare the length and tediousness of these two FACs where you contributed:[52][53] With these where you didn't:[54][55] FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is welcome to their own views and opinions. I have started discussions on the talk pages of Talk:Rodrigues Solitaire and Talk:Dodo about problems with verification that I think should have been fixed during FA discussions. Snowman (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is always good to take evaluation of one's behaviour into account, especially when the same issues are noticed by many different people over and over again. FunkMonk (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose for now, expect to strike, multiple

  1. The Réunion Ibis (Threskiornis solitarius) is ... if the Threskiornis solitarius is an alternate name, it should be both bolded and italicized.
    This isn't done on other featured animal species articles, see for example California Condor, Lion, Bald Eagle, and Emperor Penguin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I agree. AFAIK all the 100+ bird FAs and the thousands of bird species articles follow this practice Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Alternate common names are emboldened in bird articles, but not binomial names. I understand that this style was thought to be the tidiest by consensus; although, all alternate names might logically be expected to be emboldened. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but then again, I don't see why this article should be the first to break the mold. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that's not right, but not worth dealing with if they've all been doing it wrong for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt you'll find any article about a taxon with a common name that doesn't do it this way. See the guideline here:[56] Scientific names are only bolded if the animal does not have a common name, for whatever reason. See for example Deinosuchus. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    We had a discussion on this very point some time ago (link) and the consensus was to leave the scientific name unbolded in parentheses. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Cas! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Images are facing off the page ... I believe the intent of the MOS guideline applies to both animals and people ... please juggle images so animals aren't looking off the page.
    I don't think that looks good, it creates clutter of images on the right side. Again, it is just a guideline for faces, not an FA criterion. Tons of other animal FAs have images that face away from the text. The problem would be the long synonym list, not the quotes. The guideline specifically says: "It is often preferable to place images of faces so that the face or eyes look toward the text. However, images of people need not be reversed simply to make the person's face point towards the text, and this should not be done if the reversal would materially mislead the viewer (e.g., by making the subject of the article or section appear to have a birthmark on the left side of his face, when the birthmark is actually on the right side)."[57] FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Restore bullet point AGAIN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, sorry, but remember, no one is doing this to annoy you, I've just never dealt with this manner of responding before. FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Move it back if you wish; I'm not going to tangle over one image. But a) there is no such thing as "clutter of images on the right", and b) I suggest the clutter here is the excess number of quote boxes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I added the MOS guideline above. As for quote boxes, I don't see what they have to do with anything? An image can be right aligned even if there's a box. The problem is that the taxobox has a long list of synonyms, which makes it intrude far down. I've fixed it by making the list collabsible and then right aligned the image in question.FunkMonk (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about "clutter" was that images weren't cluttering, but excess quotes might be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree about the quote box clutter. Generally I see them used for 'stand-alone' quotes, whereas most of these seem to follow directly on from the main text -- I think {{quote}} is more appropriate here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The style was implemented by someone else on a FAC I nominated some time back, and I and the reviewers tended to like it, so I've stuck to it since. The general impression was that it separated the article text from the old text in a clear way. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In the mid 19th century, ... missing hyphen, pls review throughout.
    Fixed the single occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. An alternate name is mentioned in the second paragraph; is it not possible to get that mentioned sooner?
    Mentioned a bit sooner. FunkMonk (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The taxonomic history of the Réunion Ibis is very convoluted, ... is there a difference between "very convoluted" and "convoluted"? Please check for redundancy.
    Removed "very". FunkMonk (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It has been claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent a "Solitaire" to France ... weasly ... by whom?
    It is attributed to Billiard, 1822, but I'm not sure who it is. Added the name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just random checks, I stopped there, the article is not in bad shape, but some additional prose review would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose more changes if necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my bullet points (please look at my edit summaries to understand how to preserve numbering on response); I use bullet points so that you can enter one response, referencing numbers, to help avoid insanely long FACs (which seem to be the trend of late). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who removed the bullets, must be in the edit history somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You did: [58] This is how you respond to bullet points: [59] But you can shorten the FAC by adding a one-para response below, referencing my numbers. As in, 1, 3 and 5 fixed. Brief-- no need for FACs longer than articles because of threaded minutaie. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, wasn't my intention then. But note that my FAC's only get longer than the articles themselves when Snowman drops by. He usually has a lot to say (and I personally have no problem with long FACs). See the Dodo and Mauritius Blue Pigeon discussions for comparison, where he did not chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any ready-made statistics on FAC lengths? Snowman (talk) 14:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snowmanradio that this article is hard to follow, and suggest clarity can be added right here in the lead:

  • In the late 20th century, the discovery of a subfossil species of ibis led to the idea that the accounts actually referred to this bird.

The accounts of the Reunion Solitaires? "This bird" equals the Reunion Ibis? Too much confusion about which bird is which, I think can be tightened in this one sentence in the lead. Clarify "the accounts" and clarify "this bird". "The accounts" refers apparently to the previous para. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. All your issues should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I've struck my oppose as I've not got time for further review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snowmanradio

I found this article somewhat difficult to read, so I suspect that the prose needs copy editing and perhaps the article needs reorganisation. Other issues: Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been copyedited already. Feel free to propose changes here. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am anticipating that a number of reviewers will contribute to many improvements. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope so, but since you express you have something specific to mind, might as well brig it up. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly when it is capitalised, it should be clearer that it is a name. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Réunion Solitaire or Rodrigues Solitaire? Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Rodrigues bird is referred to only by its full name, and only in the taxonomy section. I'm not sure who would be confused. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that understanding what is meant by Solitaire (with a capital S) added to my difficulty of reading the article. The heading is "Réunion Ibis" (the IOC and IUCN name) and I am not sure why it needs to be called a solitaire at any time except for saying that it is an alternative common name. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When old accounts that use "Solitaire" are referred to, it would be too presumptuous to write "ibis" in the text. As stated below, the Ibis and Solitaire can never be shown to be the same entity without doubt. See how Birdlife International cautiously terms it: "If the Réunion 'solitaires' were indeed T. solitarius" and "It seems likely that the 'solitaire' known from numerous early accounts from Réunion(Cheke 1987) and Rodrigues, Mauritius, was in fact this ibis" FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, rejected. You have not responded to my arguments above. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is Sand Martin and House Martin. The House Martin is a martin that makes mud nests. Martin is a lower case here. It is Reuniun Solitaire, but why should "Solitaire" be capitalised? Snowman (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Solitaire" was the common name for this species at the time, I don't see what it has to do with "martin", which refers to a type of bird today, and such names are not capitalised. A "solitaire" is not a type of bird. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check and Hume 2004 (one of the main sources) use "solitaire" 46 times in their article. It is all lower case 44 times, all upper case once in a heading, and it is capitalised only once where it is in a quote from 1897. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good precedent. Does this include the full common name "Réunion Solitaire" as well, or is that name even used by them? FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Common names of birds are usually capitalised. Why is solitaire in inverted commas in "connected to the "solitaire" accounts."? The infobox seems inconsistent, because it is headed Reunion Ibis and the image is captioned Reunion Solitaire. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the quote marks. Schlegel did not know of any ibis when he drew the image based on accounts (he placed it in the genus Didus in the same article), so retroactively labelling it a such is not needed. See also the caption at King Island Emu. The original terminology is of historical importance. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that in his review (below) User Casliber thought; "... it might be simpler and less misleading to remove "of the Réunion Solitaire" from the caption of the taxobox illustration", and that it has been removed. Snowman (talk) 11:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the image has simply been replaced with another one. The caption is the same for that image, it's just under description. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to this edit, which removed "Reunion Solitaire" from the caption of the infobox image to reduce confusion. There is now a new image and a new caption. Snowman (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it shouldn't be a problem either way now. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, seems to have been added during copyediting. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction; "Therefore, the Réunion Solitaire was classified as a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae, and even placed in the same genus as the Dodo by some authors." This is like saying "Therefore, the Earth was thought to be flat", without putting it in context. Snowman (talk) 13:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The context is given prior to the sentence you quote. You took it out of its context yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this sentence should clearly say that it is an out-of-date point of view. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to tweak it. But it seems a bit redundant, since the sentence is preceded by "were incorrectly assumed to refer to white relatives of the Dodo" FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the explanation prior to the quote. But I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It see the amendment, but is is clear? Snowman (talk) 21:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not entirely sure how a new reader would see this, because I am aware that "Dod-eersen" can refer to a Dodo in old ship journals. However, I expect that this odd old Dutch word would add to the difficulty in reading the article for many. What about using an explanatory footnote? Snowman (talk) 11:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give it some square brackets then, more likely to be viewed by a reader than a footnote. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't, the taxonomy and evolution sections are always first, here they're just longer than average, since that's basically most there is to say about the bird. Can you show me any bird FAs where these sections aren't first? See also my examples above, which also have the same structure. FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article does not have an evolution section, but a re-organisation to include a section on evolution would probably be helpful. This article has a section headed "Modern identification", before the description heading. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The identity issue is obviously part of the taxonomy. Could as well be called "modern taxonomic interpretation" or similar. I can rename it, or simply merge the sections, whatever you like. Moving it further down wouldn't make sense. We need an explanation and disclaimer before "merging" the entities in the lower sections. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be clearer to separate "historical confusion" from "modern nomenclature and taxonomy". Snowman (talk) 21:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, perhaps with taxonomy as heading, and two subheadings. I'll try something out. FunkMonk (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be worth putting the description section earlier, since the taxonomy section is rather long and complicated. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I think it is a bad idea. The description and behaviour sections are pretty much a scientific synthesis of facts about the fossil ibis and the old Solitaire accounts, a thorough explanation is needed before the reader gets to that section. And a brief description is also given in the taxonomy section, already. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, the redundancy of repeating a description in the taxonomy can be avoided by putting the description section higher up the page. This issue may not affect FA status. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first description featured is in an old quote, so the redundancy is not in the text itself. FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article inconsistency: The article says; "No specimens of the bird were ever collected." It then goes on to say that two were sent to France (but did not survive) and that Billiard claimed that Bertrand-François Mahé de La Bourdonnais sent another to France. Snowman (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were sent, but died on the ship, and the remains weren't preserved. So perhaps it should be "no specimens were ever preserved". "Collected" was used in the source. As for the one bird, the article explains why this was most likely not a Réunion Solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you can see the problem. Snowman (talk) 21:51, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omission: the African origin of this ibis. See the subsection "Madagascar: African affinities" in Cheke and Hume (2008). This could feature in a new subsection headed "Evolution". The Wiki article says a close relative is "... the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." However, Cheke and Hume distances the Reunion Ibis from the Australian ibis saying that they "relate best to African forms.Snowman (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's enough for an entire section, but could be mentioned near the part about its closest relatives in the identity subsection. As for Hume's claim that's it's closer related to the African form, the actual describers of the bird makes no such claim, and Hume doesn't seem to go into detail about why. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Cheke and Hume paper says that the Reunion Ibis clearly has an African origin and is descended from Malagasy forms. Going on this, I think that the article might have the wrong emphasis in saying that its closest relatives are the African Ibis (from Africa) and the Straw-necked Ibis (from Australia). Some of the other Ibises of the same genus are also mainly black and white, so the article's emphasis of the black and white colour of those two ibises does not make sense to me. It is difficult to know what to do when different authorities have different opinions; however, there is no ambiguity in Cheke and Hume, who say "clearly has an African origin", so why ignore it. Snowman (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the actual describers, Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou did a cladistic analysis, where those two species were found to be about equally close to the Réunion bird. Ther Australian one is even closer in one feature: "In T. solitarius the minor and major metacarpals are fused over a longer distance, at both proximal and distal extremities, than in T. aethiopicus, but the same is true in T. spinicollis". I'm not sure what Cheke and Hume base their conclusions on, and they've already been proved wrong with their interpretation of Mascarinus as a psittaculine, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1987) or Cheke and Hume (2008)? What is the preference for a 1987 paper over a 2008 paper? Snowman (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to the 1999 paper. Morphological analysis is more reliable than guesswork and assumptions, I'd say. Only genetic testing can make sure, as the Mascarinus case clearly shows. Should be possible some day, and until then, the African hypothesis doesn't warrant more than the sentence I've given it. Especially since many Mascarene birds actually seem to have an Asian origin. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Mascarene Parrot has an African origin closely related to the Lesser Vasa Parrot from Madagascar (2012 genetic study). Snowman (talk) 22:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whereas Cheke and Hume proposed an Asian origin, only to be proven wrong a few years later. The Dodo and Rodrigues Solitaire, on the other hand, have been shown to be of Asian origin, through genetic analysis. The jury is still out on the Red Rail. In any case, the following should be enough: "The African Sacred Ibis also has similar coloured plumage to that described in the old descriptions of the Réunion Solitaire. It may be closer to that species, and therefore of African origin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the article indicates that "the Straw-necked Ibis (T. spinicollis) of Australia." is its second closest relative and the section that I have read in Cheke and Hume does not imply this. Cheke and Hume indicates that ibises on Reunion are "clearly related to African forms". The only relevant in-line reference is to Cheke and Hume. If you have used information from Mourer-Chauviré and Moutou (1999), then it should be included as an in-line reference here. Snowman (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see, I moved the 1995 reference forward, which says the same. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a spot check on randomly selected text for missing in-line references. Snowman (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't see how the sentence implies more than the Cheke Hume source. It simply lists the two birds, without claiming anything in regard to closest relation. So it was fine even before. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it say in Cheke and Hume specifically that the Straw-necked Ibis is so closely related? The statement in Cheke and Hume "clearly related to African forms" seems to contradict that the Straw-necked Ibis of Australia is very closely related. Snowman (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the box on page 103. But that's irrelevant now, since the citation has been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This box is not used as an in-line reference. Has information for the article been sourced from this box? Snowman (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I replaced the citation. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This ibis is not a white dodo, so why are there so many images of a white Dodo in the article. Two of the images of a white Dodo look similar. I think that the images of the white Dodo are excessive. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two 1600s paintings were directly responsible for the entire white Dodo myth, so I don't think so. The Frohawk image shows how embedded and accepted the idea was in 19th century literature, so it is important too. The latter is also so frequently republished that it is good to finally point out here that it is actually based on nothing, even I thought it depicted an actual specimen before I read up on the bird some years ago. I agree that such images should not be used outside the taxonomy sections, but they aren't anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are four images showing a white Dodo, but the ibis is not a white Dodo. The captions do not explain the confusion over the white Dodo and I think the captions are not adequate. Why does the article need the image captioned; "Frohawk's 1907 adaptation of the Withoos Dodo"? Snowman (talk) 11:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the ibis is not a Dodo, but the Solitaire was thought to be. They were believed to be different entities until recently. We can never be sure if they represented the same bird. But I'll expand the captions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not make another article for Reunion Solitaire (Raphus solitarius)? Snowman (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can never be sure if the "Du" of New Caledonian legend actually is Sylviornis. But I doubt anyone would ever create a separate "Du" article, since the likelihood of them being the same is so large. Same in this case. Remember, there are several entities within the "Solitaire" complex that could warrant articles if we took it that far: The Ibis, the white Dodo, the white Rodrigues Solitaire, and the Réunion Solitaire itself. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give the estimated dates, the 1600s paintings have not been dated exactly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Should be scientifically described. And in any case, no contemporary images of the actual Solitaire exist. The white Dodos are likely just albinistic Mauritius birds, as ther article states. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what members of raphinae are called. There is no other term. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... that does not make it easy-to-underdstand jargon. Snowman (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When it is preceded by "the Réunion Solitaire was long believed to be a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae", what else could it possibly mean? I don't think we need to underestimate the intellect of the readers. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Raphinae" is also jargon. An intelligent person may wonder why the introduction is written by using two different words (which both turn out to indicate the same sub-family). It certainly would make it more difficult to read by some. We are looking for simplification in the introduction, so use anything possible to make it easier to read. Why not write it differently and only use one word for the subfamily. Make the introduction easy to read, clear, and unambiguous. Snowman (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you take a look at our featured dinosaur articles[60][61][62], which use similar terms. There is no common name for this family, unlike many other bird families. This article, and many others about extinct birds, have more in common with those covered by the palaeontology project. FunkMonk (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The readability issue of having two different words of jargon in the introduction and both indicate the same sub-family is unresolved. Snowman (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Raphidae is the subfamily. A "raphine" is a member of that subfamily. Just like a "tyrannosaurid" is a member of Tyrannosauridae. There is no issue to resolve, unless our goal is to dumb down the article. That's what simple Wikipedia is for. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it myself by saying "this subfamily" instead of "raphine". Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is one of the weirdest arguments I've ever read in a FAC. This article is written for English speakers. This is the English Wikipedia. My first language isn't English, yet I don't have a problem understanding what I write here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My only language is English and "wipe out" sounds odd to me as used in the introduction. Of course, I know what wipeout (wikilink to a dab page) means, however I think that "extinct" should be written in instead, because this would be more conventional and precise. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I worded it a bit more eloquently. I think "wipe out" is crude, rather than hard to understand. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I was entirely correct in pointing to this problem and suggesting a sensible improvement. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever the cause, I think the present wording is indeed better. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? You only brought up the intro. The same term is used in the source, so I don't see why it should be replaced throughout. FunkMonk (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an alternative word would be better than wiped out. Did cats wipe out all wildlife in the lowlands? Did they wipe out all animals, birds, fish and reptiles in the lowlands? An added complexity is the wildlife can also mean vegetation. Snowman (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source says both "wildlife" and "wipe out". I don't think it's up to us to reinterpret the sources and give info a potentially different meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather something you don't personally like, which has no relevance to actual FAC criteria. This is getting silly, could we please stick to constructive criticism that is based on actual FAC criteria so this page doesn't get longer than the last one? FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you are on thin ice here. How can feral cats wipe out wildlife in the lowlands? Surely, they must have left some forms of wildlife to exist there. Snowman (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ask Cheke and Hume. Anywhow, just to get the ball rolling, I've written "decimated the wildlife" instead, also sounds fancier. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you see the problem. Personally speaking, I think that "decimated" is not the right word here. Decimate has more than one meaning. It could mean reduce by a tenth (as also used in Roman times) or severely reduce. Snowman (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's more that, at this point, I just want to get on with it. So what do you suggest? FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed it myself using "last stronghold" and "feral cats hunted wildlife". I note that User FunkMonk made an improvement based on my version. Snowman (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the introduction "... merely showed an aberrant Mauritius Dodo." This can not be left like this in the introduction, since readers who only read the introduction are likely to get the wrong impression and have no idea that the white Dodo could be a normal juvenile Dodo (or a normal female). Snowman (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has never been suggested it was white because it was a female. And aberrant merely means different from the norm, which is of course a grey Dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen discussion about the white Dodo including that it could be a normal juvenile. I recall that the discussion also included that it could be a normal female. I think that the introduction gives the wrong impression and needs amending. In many bird species young juvenile birds are a different colour to the adult bird and this does not make the young bird aberrant. See the section on the White Dodo in the Dodo article, which mentions the possibility of a white Dodo being a female or a juvenile. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it. As for the Dodo article, since I wrote it in the first place, I know that you've misinterpreted it. The sex dimorphism theory was to explain why the images showed yellow wings instead of black as in the accounts, it has nothing to do with the white colour. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A white Dodo might be a normal juvenile Dodo. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might, but note also that the Dodo in this[63] painting has been speculated to be juvenile, and it isn't particularly white. FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both images could be correct depending on what age they change colour. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either is really irrelevant now, since the wording has already been changed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you point out exactly what needs to be rewritten. Not all these suggestions are particularly usable. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My point that I am making is that I have found a number of factors in the introduction that make it difficult to read and perhaps some parts could be misleading. I have listed a few problems from the introduction to point authors of the article in what I think is the right direction. Snowman (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing a few words hardly counts as a "complete rewrite". FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few things in the introduction have been improved. However, I think that the introduction continues to have readability issues. I think it may be best for new reviewers to have a look. Snowman (talk) 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the issues are so obvious and striking, they shouldn't be too hard to point out, no? FunkMonk (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have helped to unscramble some of the factual content of the introduction. Some people are really good and quick at copy-editing and I would rather hand over to a copy-editor to handle the complexities of the English language relevant to the introduction at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But note that it has already been copyedited, and that no one else seem to be this confused by the intro so far. FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia has commented on the introduction (or lead); see this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All her suggestions were subsequently fixed, so that is hardly relevant now. But anyhow, let's wait and see, if you don't have more suggestions yourself. FunkMonk (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that she is currently opposing FA status? Snowman (talk) 23:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
She hasn't responded since I fixed the issues, so I'm not sure why it should come as a surprise. FunkMonk (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, what is unresolved? You have not proposed any changes in this section. FunkMonk (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have listed above a sample of issues in the introduction and I am anticipating that editors will be proactive and fix other problems like it in the introduction. I also think that the introduction is too long (see below) mainly because of too much detail on old taxonomy and old nomenclature. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is, the bulk of literature about this bird is about old taxonomy and interpretations, since there is practically nothing else known about the bird. You can't expect this article to have a different focus than all actual published literature about the subject, that is pretty absurd. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since the intro is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, the space given to taxonomic history is appropriate, since more than half of the article itself is about this. FunkMonk (talk) 01:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no perfect introduction, but a suspect few more improvements can be made and I hope more reviewers have a look. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduction length: My impression is that there is too much detail in the introduction particularly on old taxonomy and nomenclature, so I decided to look at WP:LEADLENGTH. It suggests that an article of 15,000–30,000 characters should aim to have two or three paragraphs in the introduction. Currently article readable prose size (text only) is 16 kB (2725 words) and the introduction has four paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the taxonomic history is very important in this case. Unless someone else chimes in and complains about it, I think it's fine. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't suggested anything that is actually in the FA criteria. The intro to article ratio is just a guideline, not a criterion. Likewise, the detail issue is subjective. Drastic changes that are not obvious improvements, like many of those you propose, should at least have more support from other reviewers before I'll consider them. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After actually looking at the guideline, there is only a suggestion of how long the intro should be in relation to the article, not how short. So your demand is misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that the suggested introduction are guidelines, but I suspected that there was too much difficult-to-read detail in the introduction before I reminded myself of the length guidelines. I recall some FA discussions that were the catalyst for editors to go to a lot of trouble to get the introduction to an appropriate size. Snowman (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But what you propose has nothing to do with the actual guideline. The guideline doesn't indicate the intro should be shorter. It is about the minimum length of intros in relation to text, not maximum. FunkMonk (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article". See WP:LEADLENGTH. Snowman (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately followed by "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule", while linking to "Ignore all rules". You're a bit selective with your quotes there. It is by no means a FAC criterion, that should be pretty clear, and has no bearing on whether this article should pass or fail. FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, the introduction is quite a bit longer than the guidelines suggest, so this is a relevant talking point here. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that User FunkMunk has shortened the introduction with this edit. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which should be a good thing, no? FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it is a good that you shortened the introduction. However, I am puzzled why you initially thought the length was fine after I had suggested the introduction was too long. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's just one of those things I do to keep you happy! FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important thing about the lead is that it summarises, in the correct proportion, the key points of the article. Its precise length or paragraph count is secondary to this. It is far better for a lead to be slightly too long than, as in most cases, far too short. In a perfect world the two paragraphs which deal with taxonomy would be merged and slightly shortened while the end of the last paragraph would be split to a new, slightly extended one on ecology, habitat and extinction, but this is a matter of slight sentence-shuffling: FA-class is not reserved for perfect articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
^See, that is a constructive suggestion, with tangible pointers instead of hand-waving. I'll see what I can do. FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now reworked the intro, following the specific and helpful suggestions made by Thumperward. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am grateful for User Thumperward's suggestions, which are very likely to be useful for fixing readability issues that I have raised. I think User Thumperward's has expressed his insight eloquently. Snowman (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The reason why it was impossible to implement it when you suggested it was that you mixed up two unrelated issues, length and content, without actually pointing out anything specific in the text. Please be a bit more concise with your suggestions henceforward. That is the "blanket statement" problem I mentioned above, which you need to take seriously if your reviews are to be of any use. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note your request to be spoon fed. Nevertheless, I think that general comments can be received well by pro-active Wikipedians with an open mind. I make general comments and specific comments. I have a background is science, and I prefer to leave systematic copy editing of the English language and most MoS issues to editors who specialise in these areas. 19:38, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
That statement is a bit incongruent with this[64] edit. Expressing oneself concisely has nothing to do with "spoon-feeding". That is quite an important quality to have on a text based project like this. Again, handwaving is nothing but a waste of time. I won't make drastic changes to an article if your only argument is "I don't like the intro because I don't get it", without any specific suggestions. The problem is that you don't take rejection calmly, but stubbornly attach yourself to every minor suggestion you make, as if it was core Wikipedia policy. FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is entitled to there own views and opinions. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if a change you suggest isn't an obvious improvement, but even a degradation, you have to accept if it isn't implemented, and not just label the issue as "unresolved". It is not "unresolved", it is rejected as not being an improvement, and as being irrelevant to FA criteria and Wikipedia policies. And then we can move on to the next issue, instead of argung in circles for a month every damn time. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no perfect introduction. After recent changes, I think that the introduction may be approaching FA standard, and I hope that more reviewers have a look at it. There seems to be repetition with both "reduced flight capabilities" and "It had difficulty flying" in the introduction, and this seems to be an example of an obvious remaining problem. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is intentional. First instance refers to the old accounts, the second refers to the fossils. I'll clarify it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have been thinking about the length of the introduction, which now consists of four paragraphs including a double-sized second paragraph. The suggested length is two or three paragraphs for an article the size of this one. I think that the introduction needs to be simplified and shortened. I am aware that my suggestion is does not offer any specific copy-editing suggestions and that Wiki guidelines on introduction length are not strict rules, so I would welcome opinions on the length and complexity of the introduction. If there is a consensus, then editors might like to focus on more specific ways to make it easier to read and perhaps shorter. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Thumperward noted above, the issue of length isn't really an FA criterion. So I don't see what would objectively be gained, other than your personal approval. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This introduction = 402 words. Free prose in entire article = 2743 words. About 14.7% of the free prose is the introduction in this article. I think that the length of the introduction is a relevant criteria to discuss in here. I note that the length of introductions is also discussed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Augustinian theodicy/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Aaliyah (album)/archive1. These were the first two examples that I found of long introductions that had been discussed in FA discussions and I expect that there are probably more. Snowman (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we need to know how long those intros were before we can compare. In any case, it is not an FA criterion, and we have already discussed the issue at length, and reached a compromise. At this point, it's just useless ant fucking. Pardon my French. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then rephrase it if you don't like it, don't just remove it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your reply could be written differently. It is jargon and I do not know what it means. Unresolved. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the article? "As contemporary accounts are inconsistent on whether the Solitaire was flightless or had some flight capability, Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles; it was described as being "fat", so perhaps it could not fly when it was so, but could when it was thin." FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds really unusual to me. Are there any other wild birds that can not fly when they are fat and can fly when they are thin? The article says "Mourer-Chauvire suggested that this was dependent on fat-cycles", which has turned into "seasonal fat-cycles" in the introduction. There is therefore information in the introduction regarding the nature of fat-cycles (whatever they are), which is not in the text of the article. Snowman (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal fat cycles is apparently a feature of many Mascarene birds. I think Cheke and Hume go into more detail on this. I'll add "seasonal" to the main text then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The whole sentence is now"; Subfossil wing-bones indicate it had reduced flight capabilities, a feature perhaps linked to seasonal fat-cycles." I think that this sentence will tend to mystify readers. Surely, the most important factor linked to reduced flight capabilities is the absence of predators on the island and hence a reduced evolutionary drive to preserve flight. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, intros are not supposed to go into detail, they're mere summaries. If people are mystified, they can just read the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is old Dutch needed here? Snowman (talk) 23:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For colour. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am mystified. Vogel means bird, but two on-line translators did not translate "walgh" or "walghvogel". Snowman (talk) 12:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then what? Do I need to explain the numerous etymologies for "dod-eers" too? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Settlers, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never encountered a source using these, I think it was only briefly used in the 90s, and will never be used again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See IUCN species page for a reference for the Reunion Sacred Ibis. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but their mere presence there doesn't mean the names are in use. They may have been used a few times each in the literature, but are abandoned now. In any case, wasn't it you who craved a shorter intro? Adding a horde of defunct names won't make it shorter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that readers who arrive on the page via redirects will be helped by including these alternate names in the introduction (which needs simplification in my opinion). Snowman (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt anyone would even search for those names. They could perhaps be mentioned in the article, but again, I know of no literature that use them or explain them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See The Sixth Extinction website, which only uses Réunion Sacred Ibis, Réunion Flightless Ibis as English common names. Snowman (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sacred part could be added, I'm not so sure with "flightless". FunkMonk (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree. Of course, "flightless" may be a misnomer. Snowman (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, the 1611 painting could not have shown a bird from there.[17]"; See in "Flightless Birds" by Clive Roots. 2006. page 189. It says Portuguese saw the ibis in 1613. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is so incorrect that it hardly warrants a comment. First of all, Francois Leguat coined the name for the Rodrigues bird after the Réunion species decades later, the author seems to be misinterpreting or citing outdated sources. Below he gives an equally incorrect account of the Broad-billed Parrot. FunkMonk (talk) 15:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Since Réunion was not visited by Europeans until 1635, ..."; the en-Wiki and fr-Wiki articles on Réunion also says that Portugese visited the island before 1635 and these parts of the Wiki articles are referenced. Snowman (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, the source was a bad summary of another paper which did not make the exact same claim. FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not quote Dubois directly from page 170 of his book? I might be wrong, but it seems to me that there may be slightly different ways to translate certain parts of the quote. For example, his book does not mention a "Turkey-chicks", as far as I can determine. It also seems to say "one of the best game" and not "It is the best game", but I am not very good on the French language and used on-line translators. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check the date issue out. As for the quote, I'd rather use more complete quotes in authorised translations than snipped ones. Differences may be due to editions of the works. For example, only the first edition of Bontekoe's book includes an engraving of a Dodo, later ones don't. In any case, "Poullets d'Inde" is "turkeys", see also:[65] FunkMonk (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If quote boxes are going to be used on this page, then I think that old quotes should have the original source for validation. I am fairly sure that some Wikipedians specialise in translations, so it should be relatively easy to obtain a translation of the short section of the original French book. Snowman (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'd rather use authoritative sources than homebrewed stuff. Verifiability, you know, it's a Wikipedia tenet. And again, there is no problem with that translation, turkeys are mentioned. It is your own oversight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, it will be easier to verify with the original book as one of the sources. Snowman (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and add it as a citation next to the existing one. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two on-line translators say "Poulets d'Inde" (with one "l") means "chickens of India" not turkeys. Walter Rothchild (W.R.) translated it as "Porphyrio", see a quote from the same book on the Réunion Night Heron article. Snowman (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You won't get far with a direct Google translation, that should be pretty obvious. See: http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/poulet_d%E2%80%99Inde It basically means "fowl of India", as in West India. Thus turkeys. See also: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinde "Ramené en Europe par les conquistadors espagnols en 1521, lors de la Conquête du Mexique, que l'on croyait être les Indes, ce volatile a pris le nom de « poule d'Inde », que l'usage a ramené à « dinde ». -- Curieusement, les Anglo-Saxons le désignent sous le nom de « poule de Turquie » ('Turkey Hen')." FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we need a French speaking Wikipedian to help out with translation, because two on-line translators say it mean chicken and Walter Rothchild says it means Porphyro (see above). I do not know much about French, so you are probably correct about the Turkey. I am puzzled by Rothchilds interpretation. Has the meaning of the word changed over the centuries? Snowman (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the article says it means "Turkey-chicks" and you say it means "Turkey" or "Turkey hen" above? See French dictionary, which I think says that "dinde" is an abbreviation for "poulet d’Inde". Where did the "-chick" part come from in the quote featured in the article? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Poulet" can have various meanings, especially since it seems to be archaic. Even in English, "chicken" can even refer to an adult bird, as long as it is food. As for Rothschild, he wasn't exactly known for being cautious with his interpretations of old sources. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but "-chick" in English does imply a young bird or a very young bird. Saying that a bird has legs like a turkey chick is not very descriptive without specifying the age of the chick. I think that the Frenchman was using everyday animal comparisons in his account that people would easily understand. Similarly many anatomy descriptions are based on everyday items; for example a "nutmeg liver". Snowman (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the 1848 translation by Strickland omits "chick", so we could perhaps use his instead. FunkMonk (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another difference is that the 1897 translation says "It is one of the best Game on the Island" at the end (the same as Google translator). I think that translation is a art and subjective, so I suggest providing more than one in-line citation for the sourcing of a translation. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if it pleases you, change it. Again, these things are nitpicks that go beyond FA criteria, but feel free to add what you like. I won't. FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hume and Cheke 2004 call it a turkey in their paper when they refer to Dubois' work. See also note 2 in that paper where they attribute Oliver as the translator and point out another error in Oliver's translation, which appears in the article, helping to prove that the quote is actually from Oliver's work. To me it seems that the translation peculiarities indicate that sections of Oliver's 1897 work appears in long quotes in the article and these are not properly attributed. Attribution is a basic principal on the Wiki that a stub should be compliant with. Snowman (talk) 00:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible omissions; old quotes are sourced from translations in books. Verification would be better if the original version of the quote is also provided as a source. I have recently added one old source for DuBois's description of the ibis, which was known as a solitaire at that time. Snowman (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add what you find. But I won't be doing any searching for such, it isn't necessary, there's no urgent need for us to go past what recent published sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be best source the 1897 translation by Captain Pasfield, which is a little different to the version currently used that is copied from the modern journals and books. Using the 1897 translation, the work of translation can be attributed with certainty and the PD copyright can be assured. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to know what the differences are first. This translation is from 1907. There's a different one from 1848. FunkMonk (talk) 16:35, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have sourced 1907 translations, then that is fine. However, the article's documentation of the 1907 translation including attribution for the translator is incomplete or missing. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that's what citations are for. We don't attribute photos in captions either, unless such info is of interest to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...but the article does not give attribution (to the translators of quotes) in citations or anywhere else. The in-line citations would be a good place to put all the attributions for citations, so that they can be seen under a heading such as "Notes" or "References" towards the end of the article. Of course, images have their attributions on the image file. Snowman (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Réunion Ibis lived alongside other recently extinct birds such as the ... [long list of animals]."; It also lived on the island with creatures that are still present. A broader range of animals would describe the fauna of its time better. It lived with a variety of lizards, geckos, and insects that are likely to be seen as food by ibis. Snowman (talk) 22:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add it if you can source it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listing creatures that have also become extinct does not add much to ecology. Snowman (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you think of the "paleoecology" sections that are present in all dinosaur FAs? They were part of their ecological systems when they existed, so of course they matter. What's left of native wildlife there is so pathetic to not even being an ecosystem anymore. The main point of Cheke and Hume's work is to theoretically reconstruct the ancient ecosystem, by listing such extinct animals. FunkMonk (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A creature that became extinct a few hundred years ago also lived with many creatures that are still living, so a list of extinct animals seems rather limited to me. It might be different creatures that became extinct millions of years ago. Snowman (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your last sentence means. All these animals are recently extinct. If Cheke and Hume find faunal lists of extinct animals useful for understanding the ancient ecosystem, I don't think there's much reason for us to doubt them, or that our doubt even merits action. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snowmanradio (2)

  • Some of the quotes in the article are copies of translations of old PD foreign language works. If the newer English versions are copyrighted, then complete paragraphs of the translation should not be copied to the Wiki. "This is true as well of the translations in the Penguin Classics series. Although faithful translations of public domain works, they each are protected by copyright."; see Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright#Derivative works. It presume that it will be necessary to find out when the translations were published in order determine the copyright status of translated quotes in the article. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 19th century translations. Newer sources simply use those too. Republishing PD stuff doesn't renew its copyright. But even if we assume they were copyrighted, see the long copyrighted quote at: Thylacine FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that translating a PD work gives the newly created translated work a new copyright. I think that the copyright and attribution of all the quotations should be checked systematically in a similar way that the copyrights of images is checked. Snowman (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, irrelevant here, since all the translations are from 1907 and before. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might be correct, but how does anyone know from the current documentation in the article. Snowman (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. But again, how do you explain the quote in Thylacine? It seems to me that quotes come under fair use. They're not hosted on Commons, after all. FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have had a quick look at Thylacine and provisionally I would say the quote from R Dawkins is probably copyvio. Also, I think that it should have been excluded with Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. I do not know if it is fair use or not, but the fair use rules on the en Wiki are strict and I will be surprised if it is fair use. It does not seem necessary or important for the article to me. Snowman (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would be good to know what the actual guidelines say about copyrighted quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original quotes and translations (where necessary) of the quotes may all be in PD by luck rather than judgement, but I think that you will need to make this obvious in the documentation by finding out about the date of the translation. This is a consequence of copying long quotes into the Wiki article, which must not be a copy vio. Snowman (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Quotations#Copyrighted_material_and_fair_use So in theory, a few non-PD quotes could be used, as long they are attributed properly. Luckily, ours are PD. "Fair use does not need to be invoked for public domain works or text available under a CC-By-SA-compatible free license, so in such cases the extent of quotations is simply a matter of style." FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There will not be a copyright problem if the works and translations are all early, as they seem to be. I have done a rather random check on some of the quotes, but I have not done a systematic check on all of the quotes. Snowman (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean who translated it? That's what the citations are for. And in many cases it isn't even stated in the books. Since they're PD anyway, it doesn't really matter, but add if you find out. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, on the Wiki it is much more preferable to attribute PD works, and I presume that this will include the work of translation of PD works. I have found out that Captain Samuel Pasfield Oliver translated Dubois and Leguat. Snowman (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, could give an interesting historical context, if anything. Again, add what you find. FunkMonk (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Giving the proper attributions for the work of translation would be fair. I do not see what this has got to do with historical context. My role here is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since these things go beyond FAC criteria, if you want them added, you must do it yourself. I don't find it particularly important. I don't see any guidelines that say what you propose is necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is a basic principal here. Even Stub articles should have appropriate attribution. I see that you have used Rothchild (1907), as a source for some of the quotes in the article. Sometimes Rothchild says that his quotes are from Dubois (1674) and translated, but he does not say who the translator was, as far as I can see. Snowman (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the quotes themselves have sources, and have been republished by practically all subsequent authors. You need to demonstrate that it is an FA criterion to show who translated a PD text in a published source over a century ago before I'll waste time tracking this down. Or you can do it yourself, if you find it so important. The point of attribution on Wikipedia is for verification, not credit. From this point, suggestions that are not related to actual FA criteria will be ignored, unless feasible. This FAC doesn't need to take a month. FunkMonk (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article had got blocks of texts in quotes from Oliver's 1897 translation. The quotes in the article have the same style, peculiarities, and errors as Oliver's work. I think that Dubois quotes in the article should attribute Oliver for the translation from French and source his book. See Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain_sources, which says "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed.". This is important. Snowman (talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those who wrote that obviously meant material as in original text written by someone, not that we should go and hunt down extremely obscure info on who translated what back in the 19th century. But as I said, please add such info if you find it. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated earlier, it looks to me that Oliver's work of translation is not attributed nor sourced directly from his book in English of Dubois' French book. Snowman (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And as I stated earlier, feel free to add it. No one is holding you back. FunkMonk (talk) 00:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My role with this is as a reviewer. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your role is to give advise that is relevant to the FAC criteria. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't concern this FAC that you just discovered that Walter Rothschild quoted a translation from someone else over a hundred years ago, a fact which has not been mentioned in any of the relevant literature since. It is a mere curiosity that you can add if it so pleases you. It'll take as long as it does for you to reply to this comment. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attribution is important on the Wiki. It would be quite easy to attribute Dobois' translated work to Oliver. This is the Dubois' 1674 book, and this is Oliver's 1897 book, and both should open on the section of the books about birds. However, I have not looked into the translations of the other quotes, and you seem to be more familiar with those than me. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You personally discovered Rothschild quoted Oliver. It is your own pet peeve, not mine. I couldn't care less, and the quotes are already PD and cited to a prominent source, however you turn it. So do it yourself, or forget it. I've done my part. And I repeat: The point of attribution on Wikipedia is for verification, not credit. The article cites a source which includes this text, but it doesn't matter where it appeared first. It is already verifiable, Understand? FunkMonk (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your comment could have been phrased differently. Anybody can see the long translated quotes in the article that are based on Dubois 1674 French book alongside Oliver's 1897 English translation and see similarities. I note that Rothchild's book was published in 1907. The issue is about attribution (including attribution for translated works), not verification. Snowman (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it would had taken you less time to add the citations than writing the above comments. And no, I'm still not convinced it is an FA criterion to clarify whoever published translations of a couple of PD sentences first. But well, if a second opinion could be provided, who knows? FunkMonk (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have attributed one of the quotations by Dubois and translated by Oliver. I provided the sources above, so anyone could have done it quite quickly. Snowman (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool! And on that note, nice you found that Dubois had an article. I've been looking for that. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pigs are mentioned under extinction. As for goats, I'm not sure how they would affect this bird. Many animals were introduced at the time, but their impact was not the same, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The goat Wiki article says that goats remove native scrub, trees, and other vegetation. This probably is not as harmful as pigs, if pigs sniff out and eat eggs in ground nests. Snowman (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. In any case, no sources mention interaction between goats and the solitaire. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is seasonal and systematic, not random. FunkMonk (talk) 12:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presume you imply; "seasonal weight fluctuations". Snowman (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if either is less jargony than the other. Is what you propose more frequently used in the literature? If not, I'd prefer to use what the relevant sources say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently has the jargon and then the explanation of the jargon, which seems to have an element of repetition. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how explanation is repetition. For more info on these cycles, see footnote 47 on page 285 of Cheke Hume 2008. FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what page do Cheke and Hume point this out? And how is explanation repetition? FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have thought about many of your replies, and to me it seems that you sometimes have some sort of tunnel vision that makes is difficult for you to see reviewers point of view or you are reluctant to investigate issues raised by reviewers. I provide this feedback with the hope that it will help you to have a little more insight into your stance, which you might like to think about. Your comment above seems to be a reply to this thread and the thread below, so to me it seems that you have made this page slightly more complicated and difficult to follow by commenting on two topics of discussion in one reply. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that I generally implement the suggestions of other reviewers much faster than yours? That is for reasons I have already outlined. You make some good, relevant suggestions, but bury them in dozens of puzzling suggestions that are not based on FA criteria, you never give those up in spite of counter arguments, and this makes people frustrated and confused. I know it isn't just me, I've seen other reviews you've made that had the same problem, for example this[66] one, where you completely misinterpret the GA criteria (is Abuwtiyuw comprehensive?), and basically mislead the reviewer into failing a GA, without allowing the nominator to address the issues raised prior to this. And it was subsequently listed[67] in spite of your protests, because they were ill-founded. You really need to focus on which suggestions are actually relevant to FA criteria, and then make other suggestions optional. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The issues I raise are always within the scope of FA criteria unless I add that it might not be relevant to the FA criteria. I always raise issues that I think are likely to lead to an improvement in the article. I also attempt to write good edit summaries to show new Wikipedians what is happening and I generally try to help other Wikipedians at all levels. I raise issues in FA discussions and I do not always know where the discussion will go and this has lead to some fascinating additions to articles to fix omissions relevant to FA status. I have commented on many FA articles and I generally find that creative erudite editors tend to run with ideas once I have raised a topic. On-the-other-hand, a minority of the issues that I raise are due to my lack of understanding of something, that I did not follow in the article, and do not lead to an improvement. I think that I tend to think of the "big picture" and I suspect that I may have insights that many Wikipedians do not have, because of my science background. I often check sources where I think something sounds odd. Nominators cannot choose reviewers. Snowman (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, all I'm saying is that you must accept if every minor demand isn't met, because some issues are simply subjective. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there is no perfect article and there are many correct ways of writing about the same information. However, a Wiki article may have lots of things that are wrong, badly written, or not good enough. I note your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine, and I am wondering if this is subjective or not. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course my decision is subjective. But so are yours. Either way, I think we've gotten pretty far in covering your demands. And I implement all your suggestions as fast as those of any others when I find them usable. Just not when they seem arbitrary. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can not translate Dubois's original books from French to English; however, Check & Hume point out that there are errors in the translation of Dubois's book by Caption Oliver. I think that a more accurate translation of Dubois's quote is; "These birds are so-called solitaires because they are always found alone. They are as big as a goose and their plumage is white, with black tips to the wings and the tail. The tail has some feathers resembling an ostrich. They have a long neck and a beak shaped like the wood-cocks but larger. Their legs and feet are like those of the turkey. This bird is caught by running after it, as it flies very little. It is the best game of the island." See Check & Hume and Dodo-solitaire. I think that the errors in Oliver's translation should not be transcribed into the quotes in the Wiki article. The changes would relate to its flight and the description of its legs with a likeness to a Turkey or Turkey-chick so I think that these are rather important. Snowman (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is explained on page 71 of Cheke and Hume 2004. It is very easy to find by searching for Turkey. It might not be the first time Turkey features on the page, but it is easy to find even without being spoon fed the page number. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please cut out the "spoonfeeding" prattle, it is leading nowhere. I fail to see what their comment has to do with the turkey issue, and they only mention a single error, and one ambiguity: "The last sentence is wrongly translated, the original reads “cet oiseau se prend à la course”, meaning “this bird is taken [i.e. captured] by running after it” (as in hare-coursing). Dubois’ “bécasse” has always been translated into English as woodcock (Scolopax rusticola), but oystercatcher (“becasse de mer”, Haematopus ostralegus) is an equally probable gloss; both birds have long straight bills, but the oystercatcher’s is more robust." Therefore, I will add Cheke and Hume's interpretation in the article, not in the translation. We should not meddle with actual sourced content, only comment on it and put it in proper context. FunkMonk (talk) 04:25, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that an FA article can not have a quote that is an incorrect English translation of the French original. I think that this could have been sorted out earlier, but for your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, Wikipedia is about verification, not truth. The quotes are "verified" and part of the established literature, but a home made translation is not. Therefore, explaining the quotes and their inaccuracies can only be done based on already published material, we are not allowed to interpret them ourselves. That's wikipedia policy. Things would be different if we were writing a book, original research would be allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a less concrete and more creative way of looking for a solution to this problem, and at the same time keeping to the principals of the Wiki. It is verified truth that Oliver's translation of the quote contains errors. Oliver's did his translation over 200 years after the original French was published, so I am wondering how important Oliver's translations is or is not. I do not see why the Wiki article needs an incorrect translation and clearly parts of Oliver's translation have been doubted in the literature. I might be wrong, but I do not see anything wrong with a Wikipedian translating the old French text and providing an English version of the quote hopefully without errors. Wikipedians can extract information from all sorts of sources,. I understand that the Wiki does have a translating service, so I would much rather ask a person who can translate French to English about language issues. I have started en-Wiki articles by translating foreign language versions, so language translation by Wikipedians is not out-of-bounds here. I note your strategy of taking up other reviewers suggestions much faster than mine, so I plan to see if I can find out more about language translation on the Wiki myself, when I have some time perhaps within a few days. Snowman (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the translation only has one single downright error (caught by running instead of the bird itself running). The other issue (identity of "becasse") is a matter of interpretation, so there's not really anything we can change it to, other than noting it in the article text. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. There is also different interpretation leading to "Turkey" or "Turkey-chick". Snowman (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if it is described as a problem in secondary sources. This is Wikipedia, not our original research book. You rightly removed my caption that said the white Solitaire image was based on Frohawk's Rodrigues Solitaire. It clearly is, but no sources actually state this, so it does not belong here, no matter how obvious it is. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth.[68] FunkMonk (talk) 07:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are apparently two translation errors in the Oliver translation of the Dubois quote, which I think is a problem for FA status. There are a number of Wikipedians, who have volunteered for translation work. Of course, I am interested in Wikipedia:Translators_available#French-to-English. I have User TrailerTrack, a native French speakers, about the Dobois quote. Snowman (talk) 13:30, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be ignoring the important points about verification. Anyhow, be sure to make the translator read this discussion so he can realise what the problem is. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, Wikipedians can extract and rearrange information from all sorts of reliable sources, even if it is in a different language. Wikipedians can even extract information from maps, and say that town A is y miles from town B, the in-line source being a map. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since you've already made the arrangement, it'll be interesting to see what we get from it. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have left a message with User TrailerTrack to say that translation assistance in no longer needed. Snowman (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no sources mention this, so how could we? FunkMonk (talk) 02:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are too many gaps in the published literature about a topic, then it might not be possible to write an FA article about the topic. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are no gaps, since practically all literature with original research that exists on the subject is cited here. Since when did a FAC have to take hypothetical future literature into account? This is another one of those non-FAC demands that you need to give up if they cannot be met. And to show how random and unpredictable such future studies are, a little anecdote: I asked the lead author of this[69] paper if there would be a future study on a related species. He replied that they only did that study because they happened to have some bones lying around in the lab by chance, and when they requested bones of the related species, they were turned down. So they have no plans on examining the related species. FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See 3c at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. I wonder if the article is ineligible for featured article status owing gaps in knowledge leading to inherent instability of the article. Snowman (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, are you serious? Instability!? There are only three or four people who conduct research on this bird today (this original research is published with about ten year intervals), and they all agree, how can it be "unstable"? As I said earlier, you have some good suggestions, and then you have some very dubious ones, could you please separate the ones rooted in actual FA criteria from the made up ones? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The external link to the video "The Dodo – The merging of myth and reality" has been a dead link on my system for several days. If this is a dead link, then should it be removed or fixed? Has the url changed? Snowman (talk) 10:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's annoying. Perhaps it is only temporary? If it doesn't work, it is useless. I'll wait and see what happens. FunkMonk (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (1). I think that this article has some interesting and well presented parts. It also has some parts that are complicated, which I struggle to follow, partly because there are so many facets, names, and drawings in the history of its taxonomy. I am finding this article difficult to evaluate. For me, slightly different versions of text translated from foreign language sources tend to add the the difficulty in evaluating this article. I wonder if anything can be done to make the article easier to read, perhaps by copy-editing the language, re-organising subsections, or adding extra subheadings. If all the images are kept in the article, I wonder if double images would help organise the two ibis photographs and also the two similar Dodo paintings. Is my provisional impression flawed, because of my limitations and idiosyncrasies, or do others share any aspects of my point of view? Snowman (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, the taxonomic history of the bird is complicated and hard to follow, there's not much we can do about that. As the 2006 book you linked to demonstrates, even modern, professional writers get it utterly wrong. If most details are to be presented and not just glossed over, it inevitably gets convoluted and complex. And even then, there are many details I've left out, to make it even more user friendly. As for old quotes, when the majority of sources use the ones we have here, I think it would be inappropriate to tamper wit them. But if you find more readable, PD translations, sure, be my quest and replace them. And personally, I don't like "double images". The article has plenty of room, no need to stack the images so close to each other. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now broken the taxonomy section up a bit more. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (2). My second provisional impression is that the article has improved. I think that the article is still rather difficult to read, but I am unsure how high the "easy to read" bar is set at in the FA criteria. Nevertheless, I think that readability and article organisation could be improved. I think that progress has been rather slow, and I have yet to raise the possible omission of the scientific culture of the 18th and 19th centuries (when new species were created on little evidence by today's standards) and also the possible omission of the apparent rivalry between some of the personalities involved with the early writings on Dodos. The relevance of both these possible omissions were explained by expert J Hume in his video interview, which is listed in the "External links" section (now a dead link on my system). I think that including these omissions would make the story somewhat more understandable and complete. One of the quotes in the article apparently contains two translation errors and I am hoping that a bilingual French and English speaker will help out. There seems to be a lot of gaps in the science, many controversies, and many inconsistencies in the literature, which all increase the complexity of writing and reviewing this article, which must be based on Wiki principals. Gaps in modern science include missing details of the evolution of this ibis and a heading on evolution is notably absent from the article on this island species. Perhaps, in few years time the evolution of the ibises will have been illuminated by DNA research and other scientific advances will add more understanding to the science and story of this ibis. Snowman (talk) 15:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These are some of your more interesting suggestions, why have you not mentioned them before? I'll see what I can do. As for the rivalry, Hume overstates it a bit in that interview (which I added), since Alfred Newton neither made the connection between the paintings and the solitaire himself, or coined any of the scientific names of the species. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could you list what other unaddressed suggestions you have here? Then we can get this over with. FunkMonk (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what might turn up. Snowman (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now added something about the 1869 Newton paper, which is actually a key event in this history, which I had wrongly summarised, instead of underlined. Some of the info about the paintings has also been rearranged and rewritten, and may need copyediting. As for evolution, the only info I could find was what can be seen in the beginning of the behaviour section. Once genetic studies are published, it will be easy to incorporate. It appears to me that all your concerns have been addressed, apart form the "fat cycle" issue, the faunal list (which was not a problem in four other FACs), and the translation issue. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite recent changes, I think that taken as a whole the article is unnecessarily difficult to read in places, but I say this without knowing exactly how high the "easy to read" bar is set at for Wiki articles. To me the introduction seems to be jumpy, partly because it is not in a logical chronological sequence. Perhaps, the general organisation and headings of the article could be improved as well. What about separating the red herring of the white dodo as much as possible into its own sections in the main text of the article and it own paragraph in the introduction? Snowman (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, my concern is quite the opposite, that we are dumbing down the article too much. I think we're pretty close to a compromise between both extremes. And there is no sense in separating the dodo stuff from the taxonomy section, more than what the article already does. There's a reason why all sources treat it this way. Wikipedia should reflect the published sources, not make up its own structure and chronology, if it isn't obviously and objectively an improvement. And it certainly isn't in this case. As for the intro, what is the problem exactly? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting that the Wiki article makes up its own chronology. The Wiki article can rearrange data from reliable sources, so the Wiki article need not follow the structure of publications. I am concerned that the introduction will put off readers. It what way do all sources present it? Snowman (talk) 11:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems most people are not really that confused by it. And again, the taxonomic history is confusing, and most of the literature is confusing, so I'm more concerned about dumbing it down to an extend where it doesn't really reflect the published sources anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split up, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now fixed. Are there any more like that? Snowman (talk) 10:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (3). I suggest that article is not ready for FA status at this juncture. As far as I can see, I have been the only viewer checking sources and I have found a number of errors and ambiguities after checking a few sources that interest me and reading other works. Most of these issues have been corrected by my own edits or resulting from discussion (above), while some are the topic of continuing discussion; nevertheless, I would recommend that sources are checked more systematically, because I think that it is likely that errors and ambiguities remain in the article. A theme on artwork (including clutter) started early in the discussion, but has not been resolved, as far as I am aware. I think that the article is difficult to read compounded by long sections and images that are put in illogical places. I think that this island species with poor flying ability needs a better account of its evolution. As far as I am aware, the introduction includes a misleading line failing to acknowledge an old classification of the Dididae as a family within the order of pigeons. One of the quotes has translation errors arising when it was translated from French to English by Oliver. Progress has been made, but it has been slow. The nominator has replied with "Lol, are you serious? ", "Have you noticed that I generally implement the suggestions of other reviewers much faster than yours?", and asks lots of questions. I am pessimistic about further progress. Snowman (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1- You've consistently failed to show what the errors you keep mentioning are. Until you do, that argument can be disregarded. 2- The "theme on artwork" and "long sections" is subjective, and your opinion against mine. Therefore, your suggestion is rejected. 3 - Raphinae IS dididae. It is a junior synonym, which was used by some authors simultaneously with others using raphine, simply because they liked the name "Didus" more, but they were well aware it referred to the same thing. 4 - The translation issue should not be changed by making original research interpretations. Request for a new translation is rejected, but Strickland's is implemented instead, to get rid of the word "chick". You have not mentioned other errors. 5 - I say "are you serious" and "I dont want to implement your suggestion" when they are downright baffling, and not an objective improvement. That is my right, as the writer of the article. What you need to do is realise that unless one of your suggestions is straight from the FA criteria, or is mentioned by other reviewers, and is as arbitrary as many of your suggestions, I can take it or leave it as I please. What you like has no bearing on FA status, unless it is actually rooted in FA critera. You need to let such issues go. FunkMonk (talk) 13:48, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (4). I suggest that article is not ready for FA status at this juncture. I think that all significant problems should be sorted out prior to promotion to FA status. As far as I am aware, I am the only reviewer to have done spot checking on extraction of information from sources. I think that it would be particularly unwise to give this article recognition with FA status, because I think that it contains unbalanced criticism of a living author. Also, I think that the complexity of the date of the origin of the volcanic island of Rogregues is not adequately explained or sourced, and I note that the traditional age for the island of about 1.5 million years does not feature in the Wiki article. There have been some recent improvements in the article notably in the selection and logical positioning of images. Also, there has been the correction of an error on the old classification of the Dodo-like birds with an associated fix in the introduction. Nevertheless, I am becoming more pessimistic about promotion to FA status, because of slow progress with significant issues, and I am beginning to think that the article may not reach FA status at this nomination. I note that on 12 March 2012 the article will have been an FA candidate for two calendar months. Time marches. Snowman (talk) 13:05, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues that are relevant to the FAC criteria have long been solved. What remains is that Snowman realises his own personal preferences, as well as suggestions based on misconceptions and outdated literature, have no relevance to the FA process. Everything I add or comply with from this point is simply to be nice to Snowman. I think we need some fresh eyes to look at the article, because this review is going way out of hand. Snowman should not elevate his personal opinions to FAC criterion status. FunkMonk (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suggest that article is not ready for promotion to FA status at this juncture. The article has been an FA candidate for two colander months exactly today. Numerous improvements have been made, but progress seems to have been rather slow at times. I would not expect any FA to be a perfect article, nevertheless, I think that this article retains significant problems that would need amendments prior to promotion to FA status. My review is not complete, because I think more sources need checking; nevertheless, it is time for me to move on. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting the cause and effect wrong. The only reason this has taken so long is because you keep making silly proposals that are not based on FA criteria, but on your own eccentric ideas and misconceptions. If you want to add outdated info as fact, as well as original research, it won't happen on my guard, and hopefully not on anyone else's. Many of your suggestions (that were based on your own misunderstanding of the sources, and apparent skimming of the article) were hardly even worthy of comment, yet I knew from experience that you would never give them up, so I addressed them just to keep this going, and to be nice. You complain about length, but I've demonstrated earlier that the longest spanning of my FACs are the ones you've contributed to, funnily enough, so just perhaps you might be the problem yourself. The "issues" you mention are extremely minor, subjective quibbles, which have squat to do with FA criteria. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Casliber

Right, I will read through now and jot queries below: Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be simpler and less misleading to remove "of the Réunion Solitaire" from the caption of the taxobox illustration (?)
Hi, I explained this to Snowman above, not sure if you saw it, or what you think about the explanation. Schlegel did now know of an ibis, he classified the bird as a species of Dodo in the same article the sketch is from, so retroactively labellingit as the ibis would be kind of misleading, wouldn't it? But I've circumvented the problem by saying "the bird" instead of either. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that the solitaire and the subfossil ibis are identical has only met limited dissent - "met with limited dissent"
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree that "seasonal fat-cycles" needs some extra linking, explaining or something in the lead. I will think about this one and see what I can come up with.
I have not found any usable articles, so I'm not sure what I should link to. Any ideas? FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether the royal menagerie is the one listed at Subsidiary structures of the Palace of Versailles and hence deserviing of a link to the appropriate section.
Possibly, I'll link it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Contemporary accounts described the "Solitaire" as having white and grey plumage merging into yellow, black wing tips and tail feathers - I think I'd say "Reunion Ibis" here, or just "the species".
Alright, I think "species" would be the least misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am musing on this, but I think it might go better if we used its current name in all but a historical bit - e.g. I'd use the current name in Behaviour and ecology and elsewhere, and only use "Solitaire" when explaining why that term was used.
The problem is, that most of the behaviour and description section also refers to the historical accounts. But "this species" and "this bird" may be a good alternative. I'll add that. FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks alright otherwise, but the name issue can be done a bit clearer I think. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC) I think I am happy now with how the name(s) are used in the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One final quibble - in the last para, you have two statements on when the species vanished - in the first and last sentences. It would be good to somehow amalgamate them as it reads a bit funnily otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite what I had in mind but I agree it does read better, so ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So to summarise, I cautiously support on comprehensiveness and prose at this point. I am not seeing any deal-breakers in prose left, I think the use of direct quotes in quote boxes makes the subject alot more engaging to the general reader and I strongly suspect the sources have been investigated thoroughly. I feel the use of "solitaire" has been confined to the area of hte text it is germane to and hopefully is less confusing for the general reader. As a minor formatting issue, it is good to align all refs - so all reference titles should either be in Title Case or sentence case (just choose one and align - given there are German ones Title Case might be better...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as for case, I was under the impression that books were title case, and scientific articles were not? FunkMonk (talk) 03:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback I've got from Sasata previously is that they should all be the same...so I have generally aligned them as title case. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata does it as FunkMonk suggests- see his latest FA. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's important is that they are consistent, not necessarily the same. Like J Milburn points out, I use title case for books and sentence case for articles (but title case for the name of the journal, and sentence case for chapters in books) because that seems logical to me. There shouldn't be any problem with someone using title case for both books and journal article titles either. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. Does what I've used here seem sensible to you? FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's largely sensible. If I were nitpicking the formatting, I might suggest the following trivialities...
  • the "a" after the colon in ref#4 should be capitalized
  • the "official title" (i.e. the Worldcat entry obtained from clicking the isbn) of ref#7 doesn't include ": A synopsis on the fossil Rallidae" and could be left out without hindering anyone's ability to find this source
  • ref#9 is available online here, so one might include a courtesy link; also, if this proceedings publication has an editor(s), their names are typically included in the citation
  • if the translated title is included in ref#14, for consistency it should be included with the other foreign language titles as well
  • I think the "To" in the title of ref#16 should be lower case (there's no set rule about this; see the options at Title_case#Headings_and_publication_titles and be consistent throughout)
… but I'm not, so feel free to ignore :-) Sasata (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heheh, cool, I'll work on it anyway. As for the "fossil Rallidae" title, that's the name of the relevant chapter within the book, but maybe the page numbers are enough? FunkMonk (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, in that case give the chapter title in the "chapter=" parameter of cite book. Sasata (talk) 03:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented the above suggestions, apart form the link, which I couldn't get to work for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the reference a smidge and added a link to where the PDF can be downloaded, which will be useful for anyone chasing up the reference- linking straight to the (very large) PDF is not ideal. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up! FunkMonk (talk) 04:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I think that relatively few of the sources have been checked for accurate extraction of content to the article. I have checked a few sources and found several errors where the article said something different to the in-line reference. The topic is complex and errors in the article are still turning up from time to time. Snowman (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell us what those errors are, instead of this continuous, useless hand-waving. FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Leaving aside the excessive use of quote boxes I've mentioned above, I'm inclined to promote this as it stands given the time it's been open and the evident support. I note some recent concerns from Snowman re. the lead, but having gone through it myself I see no readability issues, just scope for a small tweak/trim that I've already executed. If there is anything else that really needs to be resolved before promotion, pls speak now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are French to English translation issues for the quote from the Debois book. I think that it is preferable that all issues are sorted out prior to awarding FA status. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a single inconsistency, which is "turkey chick" versus just "turkey". That can't be a serious issue, and no sources mention it as a problem. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be more accurate than the sources, they are supposed to reflect the sources. Verifiability, not truth.[70] FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is translated as "turkey" by some. The quote actually contains two translation problems, and it need not show any translation problems. The Oliver translation contains two problems, and there is no need to re-iterate errors of translation of the original Dubois work. Surely the quote should be what Dubois had written translated without errors. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what are the other issues? Two issues are dealt with by paraphrasing a source that deals with them. We shouldn't change historically significant translations, since they have had quite an impact on the understanding of the bird. If people thought it had a woodcock's beak for 150 years because of an unclear translation, this needs to be mentioned in the text. But we sure shouldn't change the translation itself. That is simply not what we're supposed to do here, no original research. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original book was published hundreds of years before the translation. The original book is more significant that its translation, especially if the aim of using quotes is to paint a picture of contemporaneous observations of the bird in life. Snowman (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the great, great majority of literature containing studies and interpretations about the bird are in English, and largely based on these translations. The translations themselves have had an impact on how the bird was subsequently understood and classified. Some authors questioned the accuracy of the translations, and even the original text itself, but that should be mentioned in the article, we should not "correct" an important historical text and retroactively change its context. FunkMonk (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you are correct about the historical importance of Oliver's translation with its mistakes, then perhaps it should be shown alongside a correct translation of the Dubois's important observations; however, I suspect that you are exaggerating the importance of Oliver's translation made hundreds of years after the Dubois's original French version and I think that only a correct translation need be quoted in the article. I have no doubt that Dubois' observations should be translated correctly when quoted. Snowman (talk)
I'm stressing the importance of his mistakes and inaccuracies, which had an impact on how the beak and flight ability was perceived. These are already dealt with in the text. so we don't need two separate translations. What you're proposing is bordering on original research. It is besides the point whether we can crate a more "correct" translation, because what we should do is reflect the sources, not make our own judgements. And again, if we wanted to be more correct than the sources, we should point out that Frohawk's second image is based on a Rodrigues Solitaire. But we shouldn't, know why? Because it's original research, whether it's true or not it irrelevant, as this info cannot be found in the sources. I recommend you read up on "verifiability, not truth"[71], before commenting further on this issue. FunkMonk (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would welcome the opinion of a bilingual French and English speaking person. As far as I am aware, translations are permitted on the Wiki (the foreign language being the source). Snowman (talk) 20:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is irrelevant. Dubois' original French text is open to interpretation, and this is what the sources say. "Bécasse" can mean more than one kind of bird. It doesn't matter if you get a professor in French to do a new translation, the word will remain ambiguous forever, because we will never know what Dubois actually meant. The rest of the issues, "turkey chick" and "betakes itself to running" are minor issues, the former is ambiguous, and the latter is explained in the text. Translations are allowed, yes, but interpretations are not. Some words are just too ambiguous and archaic for a direct, modern translation here, and any choice will be subjective. You really need to let this go, I will not implement original research. FunkMonk (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strickland had the quote translated in 1848 and he uses "turkey" and not "turkey-chick"; see page 59 of his book. What exactly is the historical importance of Oliver's 1897 translation with errors? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we use Strickland's translation. But no original research. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There were two work-arounds that I could think of without asking a translator Wikipedian, and the use of Strickland's translation (or the translation in Strickland's book) is the easiest. I have looked for acknowledgement of translation work in Strickland's book, but I could not find anything. Please note that Check and Hume acknowledge Dutch translation work at the end of at least one of their works, but I recall thinking that it is not relevant for this article. Snowman (talk) 20:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the chosen solution is better within the realm of a Wikipedia article. If it had been a book, we could add as much original speculation as we wanted, and a new "improved" translation would be in order. But Wikipedia is not the place for such. 14:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Why leave aside the excessive use of quote boxes? Surely, this is the time to deal with quote boxes and page clutter. Also, I have suggested using double images to tidy up the clutter a little. Page clutter is an unresolved issue mentioned by three reviewers. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the boxes have not been a problem in four previous FACs. Why now? And where is this clutter exactly? As for double images, how would that minimise clutter? I see no white space. FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an issue here, and i think that it should be resolved prior to awarding FA status. I recall some agreement that there were too many quotes in a previous FA and some were removed. Snowman (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're mixing up the issues. The amount of quotes is unrelated to the issue of boxes. No one has complained about the amount of quotes here. And you have not complained about the boxes yourself, as far as I recall. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I see it, there are two issues. There are many quote boxes and page clutter. Quote boxes and images both contribute to page clutter. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clutter in which way? FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The art work could be improved. In this sense I am using "art work" to indicate the layout of the article and position and quantity of quotes and images. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's just fine. I've seen horrible layout in recent FAs, and no one has pointed out any specific places where "clutter" occurs, or what this "clutter" even is. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have difficulty in understanding reviewers? I think that it is untidy that there are two images of extant ibises, which both are to illustrate close living relatives. I think that these could be combined in a double image. Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is where we step from the realm of FAC criteria into the realm of subjective opinion and taste: I disagree, and that's just how it is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that three reviewers have mentioned "clutter". Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Sandy's specific issue was fixed ages ago, and that no one else has pointed out anything specific. And you only started talking about it after the delegate commented, so it doesn't seem to have been much of a concern for you until then. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested using double images, solely because I thought using one or two would improve presentation. Snowman (talk) 20:45, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But that has absolutely nothing to do with clutter. If we had a lack of room, and a lot of white space, I could understand you. But as is, I really don't see the problem. They are the only images that would be appropriate under the biology sections. FunkMonk (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although, I am not sure where the "easy-to-read" bar is set, I think that improving the readability of the main text of the article is potentially actionable. There are some long complicated sections. Perhaps, article organisation could be improved. Snowman (talk) 15:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you're the only one who keeps pushing the issue, so please present some suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I aim to drive improvements when I see problems. Do you have any idea where the article could be difficult to read? Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's why I'm asking you. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure where to pitch my reply, so can you say where you think there could be parts that are difficult to read? Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm not the one still claiming there are such parts left, so why should I? FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In this earlier edit you stated; "The thing is, the taxonomic history of the bird is complicated and hard to follow, there's not much we can do about that." and "... it inevitably gets convoluted and complex." I thought that you might have something to share about convoluted and complex parts of the text. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said the taxonomic history is complex. If the subject is complex, the article has to be complex. It can not be much more watered down than it already is. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To which parts of the article were you referring as being convoluted or complex. Surely, these parts might be difficult for readers to understand? Snowman (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the taxonomic history of the animal is complex, I'm pretty sure the text that deals with this is/has to be complex too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this complex topic should be supported by clearer page organisation. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now we're discussing in circles again. If you think something specific is in need of reorganisation, point out where this is. And no, this is not "spoon-feeding", you're simply being vaguer than mist. FunkMonk (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally find that nominators have a creative spark and can run with ideas. This issue is not resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "resolved" because you refuse to give constructive criticism instead of vague hand-waving. If you think something is unclear, you need to show wjere it is, or else your request will be ignored. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not see the point of the article showing four images of the white dodo, because the ibis is not a white dodo and some of the images of the white dodo are rather similar and apparently all are derived from the same painting. I think that too many images of the white dodo give the wrong emphasis about the ibis. Snowman (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've already discussed this, and I've explained it several times above. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, I'll explain it in detail, for the benefit of the audience. The Withoos and Holsteyn images are essential because they, along with Bontekoe's writings, is what created the white Réunion Dodo myth in the first place. Frohawk's white Dodo image is essential in showing how accepted the idea was in the early 20th century and onwards. The second Frohawk image is important in showing that, after all, there was some doubt about whether it was a correct identity or not for this bird. Last Dodo image, the one all recent literature refers to when explaining the older images, is essential for that very reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there two images of a white dodo in the "recent classification" section? I think that these images should not be shown in this section, because they are nothing to do with modern classification. I think that these misplaced images show poor article organisation. Snowman (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather that you haven't read the accompanying text. The Savery image is discussed at length in that section, so removing it from there would not make sense. As for Frohawk's image, it is in the beginning of the section, which starts with the fact that only few doubted its validity. I will add that it was the orthodox view. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why the white dodo should be discussed in detail nor illustrated in a section with a title of "Recent classification". I think that the headings are confusing and the sections are too long. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, well, because it is part of the reason why the Dodo identity can be discounted. The recent (2000s) discovery of that painting shows the Withoos and Holsteyn images were not based on a live bird from Réunion. Therefore it belongs under recent classification. Are you in all seriousness suggesting that an image (and attached interpretations) that was unknown until a few years ago should be discussed under "early classification"? Again, it makes it seem as if you haven't even read the section to begin with. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that how the classification of the white dodo lost its credibility and became a myth should be discussed predominantly with the old classification. I think that the sections are too long and a lot could be done to improve page organisation. Snowman (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Again, many of your suggestions are not rooted in actual FA criteria, but in your own personal tastes. If I disregard such suggestions, that's just how it is, and you have to accept it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am aware, readability, page organisation, and all aspects of presentation (including art-work) are all relevant in the FA criterion. Snowman (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. But many of your exact suggestions are not part of the criteria. They're your personal, arbitrary preferences. You think something is too long. You think something should be a "double image". These are optional features that are not required. If I agree, I will implement it. If not, I won't. It's rather simple. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is not resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is resolved. The removal of historically relevant images has been rejected by me, and the text is fine where it is. Case closed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved, the article now has a better range of images. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem with introduction. This book called Island Life by Alfred Russel Wallace says about the Reunion Solitaire; "These birds constitute a distinct family, Dididae, allied to the pigeons but very isolated." The introduction to the article says; "... the Réunion Solitaire was long believed to be a member of the pigeon subfamily Raphinae.", but the famous book appears to show that the article introduction is an oversimplification, because the introduction disregards an old classification of the Reunion Solitaire classified as being in the family Dididae, presumably in the order Columbiformes (pigeons), but not in the family Columbidae. Snowman (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, are you serious? You constantly complain about long, complex taxonomy, and now you want to add even more? What's the point? "Dididae" itself is an obsolete name, a junior synonym of raphinae. It is not "omitted", it is simply not needed, as the senior synonym raphinae is already mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Island Life is a serious book and its author Alfred Russel Wallace was a serious scientist and I think that he was serious when he stated that the Solitaire (of Bourbon) was in the family Dididae in 1881. This is an old classification and Wallace explains that in his time Dididae was placed as a family (presumably in the order of Columbiformes), which is not the same as the modern position of the sub-family Raphinae in the family of Columbidae. I suggest that this part of the introduction is corrected by removing the error. This will shorten the text on taxonomy in the introduction and made the introduction more realistic and more readable. I note that you started your comment with "Lol, are you serious?", so I have become pessimistic about more progress. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, they are synonyms. But I sense you will on beat this dead horse for the rest of our life, so I'll change it, just to make our lives easier. And no, it wasn't Wallace who proposed this classification, it was classified as such the moment it was considered a Dodo. FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how anyone could think that I said the it was Wallaces idea. I just said that Wallace stated it. I think that the article could not ignore Wallace's early account of taxonomy. Wallace wrote about Dididae as a pigeon family, which is entirely different to what the article said about a synonym being a pigeon sub-family. Clearly,the taxonomic ranking has been altered. Snowman (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is because columbidae is regarded as a family, don't know when that view became accepted. In any case, I've now added the outdated taxonomy expressed by Rothschild. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend more spot checking of sources. The topic is complex and errors are still turning up. As far as I am aware, I have been the only reviewer to spot check sources, but I have not spot checked many. I have corrected a few parts of the article by checking a few sources. Also, I have started discussions on problem issues (above) and there turned out to be an error where the article did not reflect the in-line reference accurately or was not consistent with a different reliable source. I am somewhat pessimistic about progress here, because of the slow progress and because of the large volume of checking that would need doing. Snowman (talk) 22:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explain. What errors? In any case, be my guest and spot check the hell out of it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A error I recently found was that the old Dididae taxonomy was wrong in the article (now fixed). Snowman (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is. But we don't know if it will stay that way. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commented on this dead link above on 18 February 2013. I think that it is about time it is removed. Snowman (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. No big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, a 1885 book is not appropriate to explain modern theories. And there is no evolution section because nothing is known about its evolution apart form what is already in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wallace was rather good on the topic of evolution. I think that he explained island speciation rather well with reference to what he called the Solitaire (of Bourbon). Snowman (talk) 08:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But how can it be relevant when explaining the evolution of the ibis, which he was not even aware existed? At most, it can be mentioned under early interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wallace knew that there was a flightless bird on Reunion. He suggested a mechanism by which it evolved into a flightless bird, which depended on an environment without hostile animals. It does not matter if he thought it was an Elephant Bird or Kiwi, the key idea is that he suggested how a flighted bird might have evolved into a flightless bird specifically on Reunion, and that is one of the pieces missing from the article. Wallace was rather good at evolution. Snowman (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if you read the article, you would know that it probably wasn't even flightless after all. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that early reports of the flying ability of the ibis vary, without re-reading the article. I suspect that this is not certain, because the reports are old and unscientific. Yes, Wallace said that the birds were totally flightless. Nevertheless, the article could still use his explanation of evolution of flightless birds (with specific reference to Reunion) and then add that the ibis may not have been as flightiness as Wallace assumed. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No reports mention it was flightless, but one mentions it had difficulty flying. This, combined with the belief that it was a Dodo, is what created the myth that it was completely flightless. So a discussion of how flightiness evolves isn't relevant here. FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have been inadvertently deceived by the number of illustrations in the article all with tiny wings and talk of it feeding-up and getting too fat to fly. I now see that using Wallace's explanation in the article is more problematic than I first thought, if the bird was flighted. Snowman (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... but John Tatton said; "... and so short winged, that they cannot fly, ...". Snowman (talk) 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. But what that means is hard to say. Remember also that the Broad-billed Parrot was long considered flightless and short winged for the same reason, which has been doubted in later years. And what recent sources say (if there is consensus) trumps older, flawed literature. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From 2004. Hume and Check. The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical myth. "This bird roughly matches the earliest report: Tatton’s account in 1613 of an unnamed “great fowl the bigness of a turkie, very fat, and so short-winged that they cannot flie, beeing white." They say Tattow's account "roughly matches", which tends to complement Tatton's account. Snowman (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Complement" is reading too much into it. What it actually says is that itis probably the same bird, nothing else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The bird does not fly. Snowman (talk) 00:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who knows if he just never saw it fly? If it flew with reluctance, as other witnesses said, he might just not have been lucky. The point is, we can never be sure about these old accounts. That's also why it's important to present them unaltered in the article, because any interpretation is just that: interpretation, nothing more. FunkMonk (talk) 01:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter. Whatever is online and stable site goes. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that you are correct; however, there is potential for Wikisourse to have multiple language translations. Snowman (talk) 19:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise this article may need a modern restoration of this bird to become less confusing. Since such are not available for free, I will make one myself, based on the fossils and other modern restorations by Julian Hume. I may remove Frohawk's Dodo image to make room. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That is one of the points that I was wondering about, but have not got around to listing. There is a CC image on the Extinction Website in their equivalent of an infobox. Why not use that one? Snowman (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is non commercial and derivatives are not allowed, which is not compatible with Commons, and could only be used as fair use. But I can make a more accurate image myself (the beak is too long and head too big[72]). I'm an animator, so drawing is my profession. FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I missed the non-commercial aspect of the licence probably because I have not looked at the extinction website for a while. Also, I was thinking about the extinction website image of the Cuban Red Macaw, which is PD, only because it is an old image. Snowman (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something I threw together[73], any thoughts? Based on the fossils, modern restorations, and modern species. Could be coloured. FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has a professional and presentable look about it. I think that the "knees" look too high and perhaps the legs and toes look too broad, but I have not measured the sub-fossils. Perhaps slight webbing between toes? see File:Threskiornis_aethiopicus_-London_Zoo,_England-8a.jpg. Look which way the "knees" bend; see File:Flickr - don macauley - Threskiornis aethiopicus 2.jpg. Can you draw it walking to show "knees" bending? Snowman (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the limbs are are quite robust compared to living species, but Hume restores them even more so in one of his images. As for webbing, Dubois considered them land birds, and their habitat was forests, there is some discussion of this in the article. Modern restorations show the toes unwebbed, and I believe that is the reason. I await your reply on those issues, but I will fix the knees. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dubois says it has feet like a Turkey. See these turkeys which has slightly webbed feet;File:Meleagris_ocellata1.jpg and this one on Flickr. Also, legs should be under centre of gravity. In your first image it looks like it will fall forwards. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about the legs now?[74] It is standing, not walking, so the bend isn't as evident as in those photos, but it should be clear that the ankle is directed backwards, and that the lower leg continues forwards, in a bend. As for leg robustness, you should remember the turkey comparison, which we have discussed at length, I guess it must be an indication of the thickness. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw your reply, and added web and moved the legs forward:[75] FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should continue the discussion of this restoration in the paleoart review page, since it is not exactly about the FAC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cheke, A. S.; Hume , J. P. (2004). "The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical myth". Archives of Natural History 31 (1): 57–79. doi:10.3366/anh.2004.31.1.57+." - doi link is not working on my system. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. Not sure what happened. FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, also what sources it was based on. I have added it now, the former description was preliminary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Resolved. Snowman (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks for the input in the first place. I hope this image will be helpful in the future, because there are not many modern restorations of the bird on the Internet. I had actually thought about making a new restoration long ago, but refrained from it because I thought it would be too speculative. But I think it makes more sense now, especially because it balances the use of older images. FunkMonk (talk) 23:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Want me to elaborate it? FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more clues might help. Is it referring to something Marquis Henri Duquesne wrote? Snowman (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add some more. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Marquis see the solitaire before Leguat? Snowman (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He may have plagiarised it from Dubois, according to the paper. But I think that's going too much into detail. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See 2004 Hume and Check. The white dodo of Réunion Island: unravelling a scientific and historical mytH. note 16. "Dubois (1674) expressly stated that the solitaire did not have a fat cycle: ..." This seems to contradict the article. Snowman (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't contradict the article, but rather the source. It was proposed by one of the original describers, so at most, I can mention it below. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was Mourer-Chauvire who suggested fat cycles. Perhaps, his idea is more controversial than the article implies. Snowman (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Controversial" implies "controversy". But there is no controversy. No one has yet contradicted him, or rather, no one has commented on the claim. All we can do is present the different claims. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC). Snowman (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Dubois observations on the absence of a fat-cycle in the ibis is an omission. Snowman (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added it before I read this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article size = 18 kB (2940 words) "readable prose size excluding quote boxes". An article of 15,000–30,000 characters should aim to have two or three paragraphs in the introduction, but the article has four paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've had this discussion before, It's not an FA criterion. It was resolved when Chris Cunningham's suggestions for the lead were implemented. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to go against the guidelines and use four paragraphs. I have put it into three paragraphs in this version. Snowman (talk) 00:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, please read the old discussions. This is just beating a dead horse. The important issues with the lead have been fixed long ago, and now you're nitpicking beyond the FA criteria, so I have no obligation to act on it. FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the introduction is now in three paragraphs. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trust the sources over Wikipedia and a non-research page. "Finally there are sound geological reasons for believing that no dodo could have reached Réunion. Mauritius (Saddul, 1995) and Rodrigues (Giorgi and Borchiellini, 1998) are volcanic islands eight to ten million years old, whereas Réunion is at most three million years old (Montaggioni and Nativel, 1988)." FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am puzzled why you do not check these facts for yourself. My opinion is that this needs further analysis and I would prefer to source geological data from a geology science books and not ornithology books. I have looked at two geology books on the internet; see Synthesis of Results from Drilling in the Indian Ocean. 1994. Page 94 and The Origin of Volcanic Rocks in the Oceans. 2001. page 94. I have removed the sentences with the errors, because I think they were misleading. Snowman (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paper obviously doesn't cite ornithological papers (Saddul, 1995) (Giorgi and Borchiellini, 1998) (Montaggioni and Nativel, 1988). Did you notice the citations in the quote? They're to geography studies. Also, one of your sources is even older than the sources used by Cheke and Hume. I'll have to revert you. You also seem to be oblivious to what your own sources say. There are older and younger deposits mentioned in the last one. The oldest are consistent with what Cheke and Hume report. FunkMonk (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check and Hume quote one source for the age of Reunion, which is Montaggioni, L. F. and Nativel, P., 1988 La Réunion, Ile Maurice. Géologie et aperçus biologiques. Paris: Masson. page 192. They quote one source for the age of Rodriquez, which is Giorgi, L. and Borchiellini, S., 1998 Carte géologique de l’Ile Rodrigues au 1: 25000. Le schema hydrogéologique. La notice explicative. Paris: Ministère Délégué à la Cooperation et de la Francophonie & Geolab. page 28; maps. They sourced the age of Mauritius from one source, which is Saddul, 1995. Mauritius – a geomorphological analysis. Moka: Mahatma Gandhi Institute. Pp 340. Snowman (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the last source you provided does not seem to give an ultimate age for the islands, only the dates for specific deposits. That is not enough to question anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The later book I quoted above says that present island of Rodriquez (above the sea) was formed on an earlier submarine platform (i.e. below the sea). I have not been able to access the old sources that Check and Hume quote. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 1 of Cheke Hume 2008 has more detail on age, and uses the same dates. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mauritius: a geomorphological analysis 2002. Prem Saddul, Bruce Warren Nelson, Amenah Jahangeer-Chojoo. page 320. Says "Rodrigues is the smallest and geologically the youngest of the Mascarene Islands". Snowman (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the end, we should really only use the sources that directly relate to the bird. Remember, verifiability, not truth. We're not writing a book here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the article can also safely refer to geology references about the age of Rodrigues. Yes, it is discussed in Check and Hume. 2008. "Lost Land of the Dodo". I am not sure which page it is on, because the on-line version does not have page numbers. It might be a different part of the book that you refereed to above. They say that the generally accepted date is that Rodrigues is the youngest island at 1.5 myo. However, they think that the island is probably older than that based on its biology. Note that they use the word "probably". I think that the article does not give a balanced view giving only the older age of Rodriguez and not the generally accepted geological view. My opinion, based mainly on the discussion and debate in the book about the age of Rodrigues, is that that the article should not present the age of Rodrigues at about 8 mya as fact with support from only this book as the source. Snowman (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can't continue with the same erroneous argument. It is not "this book" that made it up, it is citing other sources. And again, it is the beginning of chapter four. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to advance the discussion. The part of the 2008 book I am referring to is chapter 1, which is were the geography of the islands is presented. The age of Rodregues is discussed at the end of chapter 1, where the authors say that the conventional view from geology is that Rodrigues island is 1.5 myo and that the discrepancy between this conventional geological age of the island and the age gauged from its biology remains to be fully resolved. I note that the Wiki article sources from an older work from 2004 by the same authors. The Wiki article presents the age of Rodregeus as about 8 mya as a fact and this it is not stated as an established fact in the 2008 book. Snowman (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I meant chapter one of Cheke Hume 2008. With reference to other works, it says Mauritius is about ten million years old, Réunion about 3, and that Rodrigues is conventionally thought to be 1.5 million years old, but that recent work suggests it is much older. I think you're the one citing outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Suggests". From the Wiktionary; "The guidebook suggests that we visit the local cathedral". This is not the same as saying that a person did visit the cathedral. Also, "The name "hamburger" suggests that hamburgers originated from Hamburg.", and of course this does not say that the hamburgers originated from Hamburg. Please do not remove maintenance from the article tags until the problem has been sorted out. Snowman (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But there is no problem. You have clearly added the tag in error. Look at the recent sources cited by Cheke Hume 2008, I gave you the location in the book. And I repeat "verifiability, not truth". The paragraph is verified. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you have removed the maintenance tag, which I put in the article, but I think that this does not make it any more likely that "suggests" can ever mean "is definitely". The book presents the basic aspects of the geology in chapter 1, so when the topic is featured in chapter 4, the author may have expected the reader to have read chapter 1, where the dates of each of the island formation are discussed in detail and where it says that traditional view is that Rogregues island is 1.5 million years old (myo). Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the tag because you have put it there on questionable grounds. You have not provided a more recent source which argues for your claims. We won't use outdated sources here, unless it is in a historical context. And the word "definitely" is not used in the article, so your argument is a red herring. As for the book chapeter, doesn't matter, because itis not the book, but the 2004 paper, that is cited for the info. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cheke and Hume have dismissed such sentiments as being mere "belief" and "hope" in the existence of a Dodo on the island.[2]". This is a comment on Errol Fuller's 2001 book Extinct Birds, but I wonder if Cheke and Hume's comment is put in appropriate context in the article. Fuller's book was originally published in 1987 and a revised edition was published in 2001. The article is using the 2001 book as the in-line references. The revised book deals with the white Dodo completely differently from the old book. The old book describes it as a white dodo-like bird that lived on Reunion; however, the new book is updated and it says that the white dodo is the most celebrated of the hypothetical species. I think this 2001 book by Fuller, a living author, should not be put in better context, if the Check and Hume's comment is going to be kept in the article. I have only got a few glimpses of Fuller's 2001 book on extinct birds and Fuller's 2002 book on the Dodo on the internet. Snowman (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a response to the Dodo book, not the Extinct Birds book, so the 1987 date is irrelevant, as the former is notthat old. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Check and Hume's remark is about Fuller's 2002 book, then it is totally illogical for the Fuller's view mentioned in line before the Check and Hume's remark to be sourced from the 2001 book. Snowman (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He makes the same argument (page 385), and it is the 2001 version that is used, not the 1987 one, so I really don't see the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fuller's 2001 book on extinct birds is a revised edition of the 1987 book and there are key revisions relevant to the white dodo. As far as I can see from glimpses of the 2001 book, Fuller classifies the white dodo as a hypothetical species, which is consistent with the current evidence. I think that Fuller's point of view is not properly represented in the article and the Check and Humes apparent dismissal appears to be out-of-context to me. Why does the article not say that Fuller classifies the white Dodo as a hypothetical species in his 2001 book? Snowman (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's quite an overstatement to say that he does. In fact, he doesn't. It is in the section about hypothetical species, but so is "Leguatia gigantia", and he does not consider either species valid. What he says is only what I've writtenin the artile: that we can not be sure if the ibis survived into historic times, and that the solitaire could had been anything, even a Dodo. But then again, parsimony would suggest otherwise. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the article has taken Check and Hume's remarks, but has used them out of context or has misquoted. As far as I can see, Check and Hume only dismiss the use of pictures to maintain a hope of the white dodo, and they also quote Gibbs. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is what the Check and Hume says in 2004: "Despite intensive searches in recent years (Moureret alii, 1999) no dodo-type bones have been found, but this has not prevented some authors from using the white dodo pictures to maintain a belief (Gibbs et alii, 2001) or a hope (Fuller, 2001, 2002) that there was also a dodo on Réunion." Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what the Wiki article says; "British writer Errol Fuller agrees the 17th century paintings do not depict Réunion birds, but has questioned whether the ibis subfossils are necessarily connected to the solitaire accounts. He notes that no evidence indicates the extinct ibis survived until the time Europeans reached Réunion.[19] Cheke and Hume have dismissed such sentiments as being mere "belief" and "hope" in the existence of a Dodo on the island.[2]"Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the "misquote" exactly? It is paraphrased. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the misquoting or where the article is not in context seems to be obvious. The article confuses what Check and Hume says about Gibbs and what they say about Fuller. The only thing that Check and Hume say about Fuller is that Fuller has used white dodo images to maintain a hope (not belief - that was from Gibbs) that there was a Dodo (colour not specified) on Reunion. Also, to me, when the article uses the phrase "these sentiments" it completely mixes up the ideas to be a poor reflection of the sources. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There cannot be "misquote" when there is no quote to begin with. It is paraphrasis. The paper says "Despite intensive searches in recent years (Mourer et alii, 1999) no dodo-type bones have been found, but this has not prevented some authors from using the white dodo pictures to maintain a belief (Gibbs et alii, 2001) or a hope (Fuller, 2001, 2002) that there was also a dodo on Réunion" and I have summarised this in a way that hardly even a child could misunderstand it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Above I accidentally used the word "misquote" where I should have said "part of the article that does not reflect what is said in the source". Snowman (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, I've demonstrated you were wrong. It's time to move on. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am correct, but I have accidentally used the word "misquoted" instead of "the article does not appropriately mirror the source". In case of any more misunderstanding, I have written the problem out in full again:
  • To me, where the article is not in context seems to be obvious (see the quote from the souse and the quote from the article that I have put above). The article confuses what Check and Hume says about Gibbs and what they say about Fuller. The only thing that Check and Hume say about Fuller is that Fuller has used white dodo images to maintain a hope (not belief - that was from Gibbs) that there was a Dodo (colour not specified) on Reunion. Also, to me, when the article uses the phrase "these sentiments" it completely mixes up the ideas and the result in the article has become an a inaccurate criticism of a living author. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Wiktionary; Noun parsimony. "... principle of using the least resources or explanations to solve a problem." I think that if the article is to include that one author dismisses what another author has said, then it should be fully sourced and what both authors have said is explained appropriately and with clarity. Also, the article does not say what Gibbs said about the pictures. Also, sourcing from the 2002 Fuller book is not included in the Wiki article, but Check and Hume refer to this 2002 book. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He makes the same argument, but I've added an extra cite, so we don't have to keep discussing this for eternity. As for Gibbs, it is not implied that Fuller is the only person with such views. As for "parsimony", you've completely misunderstood what I meant: the Dodo hypothesis is the least parsimonious one, because no bones have been found. It has nothing to do with which sources the article uses. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If an author uses a brief version in his or her book, then the reader does not know what he or she would have said if the book had been written with a lot more detail. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. And it is irrelevant. Remember, Wiki articles don't give undue weit to fringe theories. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought that adding the white dodo in the hypothetical species section of his 2001 book and saying that the white dodo is "most celebrated of the hypothetical species", as Fuller does, then he is communicating that the white dodo is a hypothetical species. Snowman (talk) 12:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, Leguatia gigantea is there, which is not thought to be valid by anyone. He includes species that have historically thought to be hypothetically valid in that section, even those that are invalid today. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the article uses the Fuller's 2001 book to follow the history of the ideas about birds. The article uses many old books, some hundreds of years old, that use the taxonomy and ideas of the time when they were published. In this case were are interested in what Fuller's 2001 book says about the white dodo and the ibis. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it does say what he thinks. And it is not that the white Dodo is a hypothetical extinct species that he finds valid: that is your own, erroneous interpretation, which is not relevant to the article. And I repeat for the fourth time: by your logic, Fuller thinks Leguatia is potentially valid too, just because he discusses it in that section. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The focus is on the white dodo and the ibis here. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I repeat, you are wrong. He does not consider the white Dodo likely to be valid. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I am saying. I am saying that Fuller in his 2001 book does not consider the white Dodo to be a valid species. He considers it to be a hypothetical species. This is why it seems to me to be illogical for the Wiki article to imply that Fuller believes or hopes that the white Dodo exists as a species. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it would be particularity unwise if this article was to be promoted to FA status, if it contains an unbalanced criticism of a living author. Also see "Provisional impression (4)" above. Snowman (talk) 13:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fuller is not a scientist, so his opinion holds less weight. Remember, "undue weight". FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What difference does that make to writing comments that are out-of-context about Fuller's work? Snowman (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "out-of-context "? FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have transcribed a quote from the article and a quote from Check and Hume's work above and the differences are clear to me. Snowman (talk) 11:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me, or anyone else for that matter. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but he also combined accounts about the Rodrigues Solitaire and a third bird ("Oiseau de Nazareth", now thought to be a Dodo) under the same section.": ".. under the same section." seems to be vague. Nazareth is another former island, see Nazareth Bank. I think that readers would be puzzled. I have looked at the source and it seems that the source says that Buffon may have misunderstood the journey of the Buffon's ship. Snowman (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am less vague than the source itself, which simply says "under the solitaire", so it doesn't really matter what you think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source says that it is thought that the author must have thought that the ship went to Reunion, but he probably did not have a good idea where the ship went and in fact it did not go to Reunion. This is much clearer than the article. Snowman (talk) 21:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comment. This FAC has been open for an exceptionally long time. The consensus is in favor of promotion and I think the later discussions can be concluded on the article's talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 23:44, 12 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC) [76].[reply]

The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

Nominator(s): Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think most of the unresolved issues from the previous FAC has now been addressed, mainly source issues. I believe the article is now ready to be a FAC. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were significant contributors consulted prior to nomination? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do I not count as one? I tried contacting some of them via their talk pages, but they didn't respond :/ Others don't appear to be active on WP anymore.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808

Lead

  • How come Bethesda Game Studios isn't linked in the first sentence?
  • "a package including both Shivering Isles and the official plug-in Knights of the Nine" I was confused by what "plug-in" meant. I know what an expansion pack is (and found out that Knights is that after clicking on it), but wasn't sure what a plug-in was. Is there a page that plug-in could be linked to? You may also want to link expansion pack in case non-gamers don't understand what it is.
  • The rest is pretty good, albeit one question, is there more recent reports of its sales?

Will be back later for other sections. --JDC808 ♫ 03:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All done (lede). The lasted approximate sales figures I found was from November 2011.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:FAC instructions regarding "done" templates (removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new to the FAC process.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay

  • Can you give an example of one of the perks?
  • Wikilink first and third person view.

Development

  • "oversaw a development team of 268." I'm assuming that's the amount of people. I didn't get that on the first read. Clarify with either "268 people" or "268 members".
  • Last paragraph of Game World. "For example, an NPC whose goal it is to find food", remove "it".
  • Under Additional Content. "At E3 2007, it was announced that the Game of the Year Edition for The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion would be released in September 2007.[43] In North America and Europe, the game was released in September 2007, for the Xbox 360 and PC," First thing, E3 is an undefined acronym (a non-gamer got on to me about it in a previous FAC). Second, was the GotY edition announced at E3 (as in there were no previous announcements for it)? If so, I'd say reword the first sentence to "At the 2007 Electronic Entertainment Expo (E3), the Game of the Year edition for Oblivion was announced." That'll remove the redundancy of September 2007.

Soundtrack

All done (Gameplay, Develoment, Soundtrack). For the "perks" part, I didn't provide an example, but I think I clarified the statement, making an example unnecessary. One thing I didn't do however, is the part you said about removing BAFTA from the lede. Is the award not notable enough? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm not saying it's not notable enough. It's a great honor. I'm saying it's not necessary for the lead since he's won more than just the BAFTA award. It would sound more impressive to say "and features the music of award winning composer Jeremy Soule" instead of singling out BAFTA. I won't oppose if you don't remove it, that's just my opinion. I'll let you respond before I give my support. --JDC808 ♫ 22:45, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay I see. I removed it. I suppose it does sound better that way. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support All of my issues have been addressed and fixed accordingly. Good luck with the rest of the FAC and hope it passes. --JDC808 ♫ 23:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Darkwarriorblake

Just some minor things all relating to or around the lede.

  • There is no explanation of what open world is for people not educated on video games, making it useless in the opening sentence and open world isn't a genre. Recommend removing it from there and moving the link to the first instance of "Open World" in the second paragraph where the explanation is present.
  • Also the extensive listing of release dates in the opening prose makes it look messy and is unnecessary, we have the infobox for that, we don't need to know that the PC version, released in 2006, was released through STEAM in 2009, it's not a console its a delivery method, Stick to the earliest release date of different formats
  • JP release dates don't belong in the infobox unless its a Japanese game or the release there is in someway notable
  • There is a mobile release date listed, but I assume this is not strictly the same game but some kind of adaptation? There is no mention of it at all in the article, but while I'm not super up on my phones, I can't imagine it is hte same game. If it is not the game as released on the other platforms then it probably doesn't belong in the infobox about that base game, and should be discussed in the prose either way.
  • Not a major thing and maybe someone else will think different, but similar to above issue, not sure why the Game of the Year release date needs listing in the infobox, its just a re-release of the base game with post-release content, and there are two separate large Game of the Year listings for two different formats.
  • The rest seems OK. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done - I've trimmed the release info in the lede and put most of the infobox release dates under a collapsible list, as was done in Halo 2. I've also added info about the mobile phone release in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, this seems to be the mobile version of the game. I do think that should be described in the prose somewhere, only briefly, even a sentence would do, just saying that type of game it is, since its basically a separate game with the same name. Other than that, I will support this. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is enough, but added some info about the mobile version in the gameplay section: "Oblivion can be played in either a first- or third-person view, except in the mobile phone version, in which the game can only be played in isometric projection." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Nit-picky comments by Hahc21

  • Support I thought this was already a featured article, but I see i confused it with Morrowind. I have read this article several times and, for me, it is up to standard. Anyways, I will do a very thorough read again just in case I overlooked anything. — ΛΧΣ21 04:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • You have a quote with no citations on the third paragraph of the lead ("cutting-edge graphics")
    • " The game was developed with fully voiced characters" I think that "with" is not the right word here. You may want to say that "The game featured fully voiced characters". Also, is this for NPCs only? I don't remember the player character to talk; you have to state that too.
    • "Oblivion was well received" by who? Be a little more specific, Like "Oblivion was critically acclaimed, achievign a score of 94 at Metacritic" or something.
    • I think that mentioning how much copies it shipped in 2006 to then add a newer statistic is a bit of not needed. if I were you, I'd only stick with the 3.5m number on the lead.
  • Gameplay
    • "slay monsters"? I think that "slay" is not a word i'd use at an FA.
    • You explain what si Magicka and health, but not stamina.
    • "including standard fantasy monsters like imps and goblins" You may want to wikilink Imp and Goblin.
  • Synopsis
    • "The Emperor and the Blades head to a sewer that leads out of the city, using a secret entrance that is located in the player's cell." The next sentence doesn't make much sense if you don't state here that the prisoner (a.k.a. the player) was taken with them to the sewers. (Yes, I played the game XD)
    • "the group, joined by the player" I think that if you state (on the previous sentence) that the player followed then, you can avoid saying "joined by the player" here.
    • "had a dream containing the player" I think that containing is not the right word here.
  • More coming...
All done - For the sales number part, I changed the wording to emphasize the huge number sold within a month, rather than removing it. For the stamina part, I changed the term to fatigue (the term used in the manual), to avoid confusion. I also added some more info about alleviating fatigue--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Development
    • "Work began on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion shortly" - I'd prefer "Work on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion began shortly" Also, I think that you can use Oblivion and Morrowind from now on, given that you have used the expanded names in the lead already.
    • "This version includes graphical improvements that had been made since the PC and Xbox 360 release, and the PS3 version was subsequently praised for its enhanced visual appeal." - If "This version" refers to the PS3 version, then you don't need to later state that "and the PS3 version was" because you are already talking about it, and confuses the reader.
    • "a more realistic storyline, more believable characters, and more meaningful quests than had been done in the past" - In my opinion, the first "more" encompasses the entire sentence, so the other two instances of the word are not needed.
    • "The game features improved artificial intelligence (from previous titles in the series) from the Bethesda proprietary Radiant A.I." - I'd consider removing the ()s and changing "from previous titles" to "in comparison with previous titles" and "from the Bethesda proprietary Radiant A.I." to "thanks to the use of Bethesda's proprietary Radiant A.I." or similar.
    • "and enhanced physics with" --> "as well as enhanced physics..." to avoid weird wordings, given that the previous sentence is a bit long. Also, you can use a semi colon and write it like this: "it also includes enhanced physics...", which will read even better.
  • Reception
    • The paragraphs of this section seem to be too long. Would you consider splitting them? You have to big paragraphs that could be better handles as three, same-sized ones.
    • Try to reduce a bit more the use of quotes, if possible.
  • The rest of the article is very good. I have no more nitpicky comments. Good job :) — ΛΧΣ21 01:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done - For the reception section, I've done some reorganizing based on the aspect of the game being discussed, and summarized long and unnecessary quotes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Now it is up to standard. You already got my support, so good luck. — ΛΧΣ21 18:07, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Niwi3

  • Comment: "To achieve its goals of designing "cutting-edge graphics",... " could you just say "To design the graphics,..." and then move the reference to the development section? In my opinion, leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, so quotes are not needed.--Niwi3 (talk) 12:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't move the reference to the development section. Instead, you simply removed it. If the lead summarizes the article (as it should), then all information in the lead is also in the body of the article, so you should be able to use that reference in the body. Also, ref 120 has an inconsistent date format.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fix the date format error. As for the ref, I've added that ref recently because a reviewer noticed that the quote "cutting-edge graphics" (which is mentioned 2 times in the article) didn't have a source. The sole purpose of that ref was to support the quote. There are plenty of other sources in the development section describing the game's graphics development. However, I do agree that removing the ref was a mistake, because there the quote "cutting-edge graphics" is still used in another part in the article (specifically, the caption of an image). I've re-added the ref, and put it in that caption.
Nice work.--Niwi3 (talk) 22:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the parameter for all the WebCite archives, which I've recently added after I hearing the news that GameSpy and 1up are shutting down. However, I'm not sure if I need to add the parameter for the ones that use the Wayback Machine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Add the parameter for all archived URLs, including the ones that use Wayback Machine.--Niwi3 (talk) 09:33, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. I will give it a full read through when I have time.--Niwi3 (talk) 14:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think the development section is not very well-organized and the presentation is unclear/unfocused. Why does the Additional content subsection include the Game of the Year and 5th anniversary editions? I mean, do these editions include bonus in-game content? Also, after reading Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I noticed that the development section does not summarize adequately the article; it focuses too much on the game world and release, instead of focusing on the "overall picture" of development. In my opinion, if there's already an article that talks about the development of the game, then the development section of the game should be similar to the lead of that article. See Template:Main and WP:SS.--Niwi3 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I addressed the other editions issue by creating a new subsection. As for the development section overall, can you be more specific about what kind of things are missing? I can't notice anything significant mentioned in the development article that's not already mentioned here.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are mainly missing the game's marketing (product showings), and the Mobile phone version (despite mentioning it in the game's infobox). I think you should at least mention that the game appeared at E3 2005. Also, I would merge the Game world subsection into the development and then move the release info of the first paragraph to the end of the section. In my opinion, things should be ordered chronologically: development -> marketing -> release (including later editions) -> additional content. If you don't mind, I can help you with this.--Niwi3 (talk) 10:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've done a little reorganization, added info about the E3 and Consumer Electronics Show product showings, and info about the mobile phone version release. What do you think? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. I think it's much better now. Only 2 things: rename the Release section as "Marketing and release", and, if possible, try to merge some paragraphs together to make the Marketing and release section flow better.--Niwi3 (talk) 16:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done There are now 3 paragraphs in the section. One for the product showings, one for the releases of the main game, and one for later editions.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great work. In my opinion, the article is much better organized now.--Niwi3 (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Delegate comment -- As issues were raised at this article's last FAC following Nikkimaria's source review and Laser brain's spotcheck, I've pinged both for follow-ups here (though admittedly the latter hasn't been around for a while). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they will find any significant issues. I've already done an extensive source spot-check on the article and fixed all the problems I found. However, I do agree that an outside party should confirm this for obvious reasons.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (I haven't checked the last FAC, so if I'm reraising something already discussed just let me know)

  • Source for the system requirements table? (And can it be a bit bigger?)
  • Dead link
  • Use a consistent date format, and be consistent in when accessdates are provided
  • Check consistency of GameSpot refs - italicization, capitalization, and inclusion of publisher varies
  • FN9: page formatting
  • Check consistency of wikilinking - for example, GameSpot is only linked in FN10 but appears earlier
  • IGN or IGN Entertainment?
  • FN14: page formatting
  • FN22 should use endash, check for others
  • FN25: this is a big range, can it be narrowed?
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include publisher for web refs
  • Compare FNs 38 and 40
  • FN81 should use endash, check for others
  • Check italicization consistency - for example, 1Up.com is sometimes italicized, sometimes not. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 5 sources found nothing concerning. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to someone from the previous FAC, the source for the system requirements is that official guide, which is right being only being used for the plot section. I don't own the guide, so I can't narrow the page range or verify the system requirements from that. However, I was able to find online sources for the system requirements. I'm not concerned about the large range book source since it's only covering the plot section. If there's something wrong, someone would have noticed it by now. The deadlink you brought up is already archived, and it's working for me. In my opinion, access dates are only needed when the publication date is not available. I'm not sure why you asked me to compare what was FN 38 and FN 40. IGN Entertainment is the owner of the website IGN. As for the rest of the more minor issues, I'll fix those as soon as I can.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've fixed everything except for the inconsistent wikilinking issue and the inconsistent inclusion of publisher for web refs issue. Not sure what you mean by "page formatting".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IGN is owned by J2 Global. --JDC808 ♫ 08:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now fixed all the publisher issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you're citing multiple pages, you should use "pp." rather than "p.", and the range should use an endash not a hyphen. In fact, hyphens vs dashes remains an issue throughout refs. There was a formatting discrepancy between the compared refs (now 41 and 43) which has since been resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I believe I have now fixed all the page format and hyphen/endash issues, which just leaves the inconsistent wikilink problem.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've now made the wikilinks in the refs consistent. For web sources, only the "work" is wikilinked. Is there anything else to do? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple more hyphen/dash issues, ex FN 103, something strange wikilink-wise in FN119 (compare 118) and 128, and a different approach to wikilinking in Further reading than in refs. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the wikilink errors and the Further reading wikilinks. I also fixed one remaining hypen/dash error. However, I purposely didn't change the hyphens for FN 28 and FN 103 because the hyphens are used in the titles of the sources themselves.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All resolved, tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

Image check - still OK (already checked and trimmed in previous reviews, no new images, FURs detailed and specific). GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC) [77].[reply]

Push the Button (Sugababes song)

Nominator(s): Till 08:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe that it meets the FA criteria. It is both well-written and comprehensive in its coverage, and the story of how the song came about is very interesting. The first nomination was closed because nobody commented on it, and I withdrew the second nomination so the whole article could be redone. Till 08:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wikipedian Penguin

Support Oppose Initial comments – the content seems satisfactory and the major information is there. But with regard to prose, it needs work. Choice of words appears problematic in some instances ("crush" is informal writing, and any reason "utilises" is used instead of "uses"?), and why link "teasing", the article for which does not disambiguate the meaning of the word in that context. Do you mean "seducing" (I haven't seen the video)? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I rewrote the section for a second time, I used 'crush' instead of limerence. Should I add that back instead? Also, I changed 'utilise'. As for teasing, I don't feel comfortable in writing 'seducing' instead because that is more persuading somebody to engage in sexual acts. I unlinked it anyway. Till 02:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking "was infatuated with", but that may give the wrong meaning and sounds, shall I say, fancy. For "teasing", I consider "seducing" and "flirting with" as alternatives but if you have something else, that's good; "teasing" is far too ambiguous here. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "teasing" to "flirting". Till 07:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In good conscience, I do not think the article is ready as a potential featured article yet. Work needs to be done throughout. The prose seems a little rushed and reads awkward in places. It needs to be tightened and be more cohesive.

  • "It was composed by Dallas Austin in collaboration with the Sugababes, after group member Keisha Buchanan developed a crush on another artist who collaborated with Austin." – why not just "...Dallas Austin and the Sugababes..."? There is no need for the added words in this context.
  • "...compositionally, it makes use of various computer and electronic effects." – what is the difference between the two?
  • This is something I see pop up in a lot of pop music articles and I don't see it as necessary: you have "music critics" written. Why should the type of critic be noted in a music article? Would a film or video game critic review a pop song?
  • "also" is a needless word in these instances: "Some critics also named it one of best pop singles of the 2000s. The song attained worldwide success and became one of the Sugababes' most successful singles"; "It was also parodied by firefighers in Staffordshire, England."
  • I don't mind this one too much, but a better grammatical construction would be appreciated here: "It features the Sugababes flirting with three men in an elevator."
  • "numerous" – " The Sugababes have performed the song at numerous festivals and events such as Oxegen 2008 and the V Festival 2008." – that's a bit of a hyperbole.
  • There is more redundancy here: "They subsequently composed five tracks for the album, one of which was 'Push the Button'." – why "subsequently"? It's obvious. Likewise, "for the album".
  • The sentence immediately after begins with "Push the Button"... Not pleasant to read.
  • {{cquote}} is not used in lieu of block quotations. It is used for pull quotes that are already given in the article. Stick to {{quote}} or the <blockquote> tags.
  • "Austin produced the song, while Rick Shepphard completed the engineering process." – just "...engineered it".
  • That last paragraph in the development and concept section needs reordering. Typically, recording is done before mixing and engineering.
  • "...the tempo of the song moves at a fast-paced 126 beats per minute" – subjective "fast-paced".
  • A few redundancies here: "while Joe Muggs of The Daily Telegraph noted that Austin's production of the song combines <both electropop and American R&B together." – first "both" is needless here and never say "combine ... together".
  • Content-wise, the composition section feels weak. We are given info about the genre, and musical technicalities, but there isn't enough on things like song structure and lyrical analysis, which I'd expect on an article about a major hit. The song was released over seven years ago; have you considered print sources?
  • Again, why "first" and "for release as" in, "'Push the Button' was first announced for release as the lead single from Taller in More Ways in August 2005."
  • Still there are reundancies: "According to group member Heidi Range, the song was not intended to be the lead single, and it was the last track to be completed for the album."
  • Overlinking: why link "music critics"?
  • First paragraph in Release and reception does not have a smooth flow to it. For example, this is very repetitive: "'Push the Button' was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005.[14][15] The tracks on the CD single and digital download include the single release of 'Push the Button'..."

That's where I stopped. Till, it would be of your best interest to find a good uninvolved writer to give this article a thorough independent copy edit from top to bottom. And have a look at print sources that can strengthen the article's content and comprehensiveness. With a good amount of collaborative effort, this article can succeed. But right now, it is unfortunately not there yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking time to give feedback. For the meantime, I have fixed these issues. Also, I added a source to support the 'fast-paced' claim. Till 02:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I am open to striking out my oppose when I think it is no longer appropriate. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Btw. How do I find information on the song structure? I have searched everywhere online and on Google books and found nothing. Till 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google Books usually doesn't have everything. There are bookstores, e-books and libraries too. But you're more likely to find good information from the 90s, which is unfortunate because the composition section is a little underwhelming. But I only ask of you what's possible to do. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For guitar-based songs, I typically check print magazines like Guitar World,Musician, and the like, who tend to delve into the musical/compositional side of things a lot. For a "non-rockist" pop song, it can be trickier; at most a web publication like Sound On Sound might talk about the production and how elements of the song are arranged. It's very possible you might end up with little information about the song's composition (I doubt you'll end up with a Composition section that looks like the one in "Paranoid Android"), but make all efforts to find any relevant information that might exist--as WikiPenguin said, that involves scouring print resources. Also, I'd recommend refraining from citing the sheet music, which is akin to citing the screenplay of a film; commentary on what's notable in a song should be drawn from independent, secondary sources. Refrain from citing album reviews for factual information about musical structure and composition, as by their nature reviews are opinion pieces. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this information, although Sound on Sound has nothing. Till 08:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit

Lead
  • Lead sentence says just "Sugababes", while following instances use "the Sugababes". I'd probably tweak this sentence to clarify.
  • "It was composed by Dallas Austin and the Sugababes, and was inspired by a crush that group member Keisha Buchanan developed on another artist."—probably "...was inspired by an infatuation that group member Keisha Buchanan developed with another artist."
  • "'Push the Button' is a pop and electropop song with elements of electronic and R&B."—some redundancy here. Electropop is just a subgenre of pop and electronic. Essentially, it's an electropop song with elements of R&B.
  • Likewise, there is redundancy in the infobox too.
  • "It makes use of various computer effects, and is lyrically about a woman's sexual frustration of being unnoticed by a man."—just "uses". In most circumstances, avoid expressions such as "make use of", "make plans to", etcetera, when these can be expressed with one verb.
  • Reword so that we don't have two consecutive paragraphs beginning with the title of the song.
  • "...who praised the conception as clever, as well its production and sound."—clunky.
  • "The song attained worldwide success and became one of the Sugababes' most successful singles."—does not read nicely owing to the repetition.
  • "It features the Sugababes flirting with three men in an elevator. The Sugababes have performed the song at festivals and events such as Oxegen 2008 and the V Festival 2008."—also repetitive. Why not "the group", instead, in the second sentence?
More to come later on. But that work is still needed to be done is evident. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed these issues Till 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more left, the first point. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the name of the group is 'Sugababes', ie. the name of this specific girl group is 'Sugababes', but they are "the Sugababes", as without 'the' it sounds like an adjective Till 08:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "... developed an infatuation on another artist who was also collaborating with Austin."—remove "also" since we have "another".
  • "Austin wrote five tracks on the album..."—"for the album", not on.
  • "Austin gave advice to Buchanan about the misunderstanding between her and the artist, and developed the idea of the man to 'push that button' or she would eventually move on."—just a tad awkward-sounding. Perhaps "advised"?
Composition
  • "...with a tempo of a fast-paced 126..." → "...with a fast-paced tempo of 126..."
  • "The production of "Push the Button" consists of various computer beats and electronic effects."—remove "of 'Push the Button'".
  • "Joe Macare of Stylus Magazine described Buena's delivery of the lyric 'my sexy ass' as "carefree', and noted that the lyrics adapt an 'idiosyncratic approach"' to the English language.[14] Musically, "Push the Button" received comparisons to the sound of pop group Abba."—no need to italicize "my sexy ass".
More to come. I think we can get through the sections quickly. The composition section is also looking better. Good research. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 09:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Fixed these issues for the meantime Till 09:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Release and reception
  • "It was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005. Both release formats also contain a B-side titled 'Favourite Song'..."—the sentences can be merged by removing needless repetition: "It was released as a CD single and digital download on 26 September 2005 with a B-side titled 'Favourite Song'..."
  • "An extended play of 'Push the Button' was also released, which includes..."&mdahs;erroneous grammar and redundancy. You have the title of the song twice in that sentence, so "of 'Push the Button'" can be removed. "Also" can be removed as well. And when you have "which", the noun that it refers to should directly precede it. Otherwise, write "including".
  • "... composed by the Sugababes, Cathy Dennis, and Guy Sigsworth."—use "written" here to avoid repetition.
  • I think the prose in the first paragraph should be varied more. Repetitive prose seems to be an issue in the article and needs to be dealt with. Sentence structures are far too similar. Be a little more creative with the wording (e.g. "Island Records released an extended play", or something like that).
  • "Linda McGee from RTÉ.ie applauded the song's beat and melody, and suggested that it was the best track on the album."—"suggested" doesn't seem like the best word to use. Maybe "wrote" or something similarly simple.
  • There's more repetitive prose here. Every sentence begins in the second paragraph begins with "[Reporter] of [magazine]". It's almost as proseliny in the third paragraph.
  • "Alexis Petridis of The Guardian described the melody of 'Push the Button' as 'sweet and addictive as Smarties'."—well of course it's the melody of "PTB"; what other song would it be? There're many times you write "of 'Push the Button'" when all the words are doing is just fluffing up the prose.
  • I think Observer Music Monthly should be italicized.
More to come. This section needs some copy editing I'm afraid. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did everything except for changing "composed". Allmusic says the writers & producers and I can't tell who did what, whereas 'composed' can refer to both. Till 05:18, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but the general strcture is all too repetitive. Try different ways to open sentences (eg. "according to" and use transitions (eg. "likewise") and play around; experiment with variation. As for "composed", we have to do something about the two side-by-side sentences that end the same way. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did more copyediting Till 23:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still need more work. For example, the copy edit introduced redundancy: "Comparing the song to those performed by Abba" (the subsequent quotation makes this obvious). It's often hard to copy edit sections like these, but repetitive prose = ungainly reading. Let me have a go if you don't mind. Thanks, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks. Till 00:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  • "It became the Sugababes' fourth single to reached number one in the UK."
  • Do not capitalize certifications.
  • "'Push the Button' entered the Irish Singles Chart at number two, and peaked at number one the next week for three consecutive weeks."—a date here to get an idea of when this happened would be nice. Also, trim the prose: "...and was number one the next three weeks."
  • "...and became the Sugababes' best-performing single in Austria."&mdsah;vague. Per source it's the highest-charting single perhaps?
  • The prose here is repetitive too. ("peaked at"..."peaked at"...)
  • "It was Germany's 86th most successful single of the 2000s decade."—"decade" not necessary.
  • "'Push the Button' debuted at number 24 on the Australian Singles Chart for the issue dated 30 October 2005."—"in" the issue, not "for".
  • There's a MOS:NUM problem here. Chart positions are being formatted as both numbers and words; as per the exceptions to the 9+ rule of thumb, you must do either one.
  • You have five of the eight certifications mentioned in this section. This makes me wonder whether a table is even necessary and why wouldn't you just write out all the certification information in the prose. No sense repeating information. At the most, mention the two highest certifications in the prose, and leave the rest for the table. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed '24' to twenty-four Till 12:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this—"It was the group's first number-one single in New Zealand."
Yeah it does, just scroll down until you see "Sugababes in New Zealand Charts" and it shows all of the group's singles that charted there and Push the Button has a 1 next to it Till 22:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music video
  • "The music video for 'Push the Button' was directed by American director Matthew Rolston, who previously collaborated with the Sugababes on the videos for their singles 'Hole in the Head' and 'In the Middle'."—awkward tense. Subsititute "previously" for "had".
  • "It was filmed in Shepherd's Bush, London during July 2005."—insert a comma after "London".
  • "Several models and dancers auditioned to appear in the video, and were selected based on their dancing talent."—even models were chosen based on dancing talent?
  • "Buena described it as a 'really cheeky video', while Buchanan expressed her desire for it to be more suggestive."—this lacks logical flow and has poor connection. Also, it's wordy. Surely by "expressed her desire for", you mean "wanted".
  • "Some clips were removed from the final product due to their sexual content."—"due to" is adjectival. The removal of the clips was "due to" the sexual content, but they were removed "owing to" or "because of" it.
  • "The video features Range, Buchanan and Buena on separate floors of an elevator."—you might not even need this sentence since it's explained in the following sentences.
  • I may be wrong, but do they use "elevator" in the UK?
  • "Three different men separately enter the lift and are taken to three different floors, one for each of the group's members."—repetitive. Try something like "Three men separately enter the lift and are each taken to a different floor, where they meet a member of the Sugababes."
  • "The first man, described by Buena as 'Mr Shy Guy', arrives on the floor where Range is, in which they begin flirting with each other."—ungrammatical. "and they begin" would work.
  • "Meanwhile the second man, 'Mr Too Cool', enters the lift and is taken to the floor where Buchanan is. Buchanan is shown flirting and dancing with him. The third man, known as 'Mr Perfect', enters the lift with an umbrella, and arrives on Buena's floor."—remove "described as" and "known as" (redundancy).
  • "her man" does not sound like an encyclopedic writing style.
  • "Daily Mirror's Gavin Martin wrote that the Sugababes..."—"they" would be good pronoun referencing here. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed these issues, except for the 'models and dancers' one—the source says that both were in it. However, I wrote it wrong, because the source doesn't say that several ones auditioned, it just says that the guys who were in the video are models and dancers. Till 07:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Buena described the video as 'really cheeky' and spoke about her satisfaction with it, saying: 'I thought the video turned out really great in the end'."—infomation is being repeated here, in the form of orignial prose, and a subsequent quotation.
  • "He compared Buchanan's dancing to that of American girl group Destiny Child's in the video for their single 'Bootylicious'."—ungrammatical. Remove "that of", or the possessive "'s" after "Child".
Live performances
  • You don't seem to use the pronoun "they" very often in the article. I think it can help you reduce a lot of the repetition.
  • "It was the gig's closing performance, and according to a critic from MTV UK..."—need a comma after "and".
  • Spot the repetition—"The group performed 'Push the Button' at London's G-A-Y nightclub in November 2006, wearing PVC clothing and rubber gear.'Push the Button' was included in the set list of the group's 2008 Change Tour."
  • "The group performed the song on 28 August 2008 at the Bridlington Spa. A rock version of 'Push the Button' was performed at the 2008 V Festival in Essex, England."—merge these sentences for better flow.
  • No comma after "In November 2008", "In October 2011", "June 2012", etc.
  • "...which included the group's debut single 'Overload', in addition to her solo tracks."—should be "that".
  • "Range wore a red, sparkly cropped top and hotpants for the performance."—fan cruft.
Recognition and popular culture
  • "The video was promoted through the video sharing website, YouTube,[88] which was viewed more than 44,000 times."—who doesn't know what YouTube is? And correct the grammar issue in this sentence: "which" is supposed to directly follow "video", because that is what it's referring to.
  • Peter Dartford's quotation is about 60 words long. Suggest turning it into a block quote.
  • "Andy Kellman of Allmusic described 'Push the Button' as one of the most 'clever and suggestive' pop singles of the 2000s decade,[76] while Cameron Adams of the Herald Sun similarly highlighted it as one of the decade's best pop singles.[77] In October 2008, Nick Levine of Digital Spy called the song one of the best pop singles of the 21st century."—note the repetition of "pop singles".
  • "amongst" is a little too formal. Keep it plain (i.e. "among").
  • You've got to do something about the prose here. It feels repetitive, choppy, and there are some redundancies throughout. I tweaked the wording a little, but it needs more work. Improve the flow of the language. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now???? Till 02:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final note: I've struck my oppose; while my comments were technically addressed, I still don't feel the prose is well up there in terms of criterion 1a. It reads a little rougher in some places than I'd like. The prose feels little bumpy here and there and tweaks are still having to be made. I was not planning to do a top–bottom review, but after the article had been expanded I'd thought it wouldn't be too much. However, the article can still benefit from a copy edit. My main concern is the flow. Parts read a little like a list and that's rather ungainly. It's close, but pay special attention to the cohesiveness and I think the prose will finally be "professional, even brilliant". When you're ready, let me know on my talk page and I'll have a look (probably once Jivesh is happy). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, 2 other editors who commented here said that the prose was fine. An FA doesn't have to be perfect it just has to be a representation of Wikipedia's best work. If I read the article thoroughly and others have said that the prose is satisfactory, then I can't know what to fix sorry. Till 23:20, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps my opinion was a bit rushed and hasty, and I apologize if it came out that way. I just reread the full article and the prose is quite good; it just feels a little rough in some spots. I certainly don't see opposing appropriate at this point and I do plan on eventually supporting. As I'd said, let me know when you've dealt with Jivesh's concerns. There's not really anything to "fix", but maybe places where you can improve the writing. I'll continue to do what I can. It's a short article, so I wouldn't mind. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that we have spent the last 4-5 weeks copyediting and fixing the article, going through each section, sentence by sentence, so I don't see how there could still be things that need editing. To be honest, if the changes are not good enough at this point then the article is a lost cause Till 02:30, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have copyedited some parts of the article, again. Inc. the repetition of "pop singles", and "composed by.." Till 03:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm good with the improvements. I was probably nitpicking a little too much. I agree that not much more can be done with the prose, and you're right: it does not have to be perfect. I've thought about this, and I do think it is very well written and meets FA standards. Some of the recent copy edits were just enough to convince me that this article is ready. And since the FAC has been open for this long, I have to put in a !vote, so I support its promotion. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thanks Penguin, it has been a pleasure working with you on this. Till 12:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 13:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jivesh boodhun

Comment(s)

  • The prose seems satisfactory according to me. My main concern here is the formatting of references. You should be able to differentiate between {{cite news}} and {{cite web}}. The former is used for published newspapers while the latter is used for online as well as published magazines and other websites. This is by far the simplest way I can explain this to you and I sincerely hope it helps. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Legacy the appropriate word to use for titling this section? I do not think this song has very much of a legacy to be honest. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that "cite news" is only for news articles. Also, I renamed the section to 'Impact'. Till 02:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, what about Recognition? Impact and Legacy are two words that should be used carefully. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. Also, I fixed the references. Till 11:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: you could always avoid the cite template mix-ups by forgoing them completely. That's what I do these days. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting approach. Till 08:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? With all the respect I owe to you, I do not think that's a very recommendable thing to do. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 16:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do note that all sorts of reference styles are accepted on Wikipedia, but WP:CITEVAR says not to change an established ref style without consensus. So if Till wants to forgo using cite templates on further articles, they are perfectly able to do so. But if the ref style is to be changed for this article, it's probably not the best idea at this stage--but it can be done. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do what pleases you. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Till, what bothers me next about this article is its composition section. Can it be expanded if possible? Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked everywhere for sources to expand this section but still nothing was found. I guess I will have to make a trip to the library. Till 08:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went to the library but they didn't have anything. Perhaps I haven't... used the sources to their full potential? Till 08:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possibility. :) Jivesh1205 (Talk) 17:04, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I expanded the composition and lyrics section. Till 10:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton comments: I did a partial prose review at the August 2012 FAC. I think the prose is now considerably improved; I have made a couple of minor edits, and suggest you consider a few more:

  • At present, too many sentences begin with "'Push the Button'...", sometimes successively. You should try to vary this more.
  • Some whole sentences are rather repetitiously worded. For example, " 'Push the Button' debuted at number two on the Irish Singles Chart and peaked at number one the following week, becoming the group's first single to top the chart in Ireland" is followed soon after by "'Push the Button' debuted at number one on the Austrian Singles Chart and held the position for five consecutive weeks, becoming the Sugababes' best-performing single in Austria" and then "'Push the Button' debuted at number five on the German Singles Chart and peaked at number two three weeks later". Again, more variation in the prose would improve readability.
  • Delete the word "Synoptically". It's usually a bad idea to begin sentences with adverbs, and this is no exception. The section makes perfect sense without it.

Other than these suggestions, I can't see a great deal wrong with the prose. Editors with better knowledge of popular music than mine will have to decide whether the content is adequate and comprehensive, and I'll keep an eye on the review to see how things develop in that direction. Maybe the other reviewers could summarise, bearing in mind your responses so far, what they think is still lacking in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Fixed these issues pointed out. Reviewers said the composition section was too short but I have since expanded it, they are yet to comment on that Till 02:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At a quick glance the article seems to have greatly improved with regards to comprehensiveness and the composition section seems adequate for an FA. I'll read it more thoroughly when I review the section. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Revisiting - Leaning to Support

  • From the second para of the lead, why is Best British Single in double quotes?
  • From the third para of the lead, "Push the Button" appears on the soundtrack to It's a Boy Girl Thing (2006) and is featured on a commercial for Tassimo coffee machines. The song was parodied by firefighters based in Staffordshire, England. - Why are these two sentences here? Do you really think they need to be mentioned in the lead? Wasn't that parody just a random one or was the song parodied by firefighters from different regions of the world?
  • Buchanan told Jess Cartner-Morley of The Guardian in September 2005 that she made advances towards the man, but he was unaware of her intentions - I think it will be best to either move the date to the beginning of the sentence or simply remove it for a better flow.
  • Joe Muggs of The Daily Telegraph wrote that Austin's production combines "raucous" electropop with "slick" American R&B.[8] - I strongly believe this sentence will fit best directly after the first sentence of the composition section or find a way to join these two sentences so that one sentence does not appear as a repetition of the other one.
  • Critics wrote positive reviews for "Push the Button". - So all reviews were positive?
  • "Linda McGee from *RTÉ.ie applauded the song's beat and melody" - I think commended will be a better verb here.
  • Observer Music Monthly described the song's lyrics as "perfect pop" and recognized it. - American English?

Jivesh1205 (Talk) 18:29, 16 February 2013 (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 list was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC) [78].[reply]

Death of Jimi Hendrix

Nominator(s): GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this because I believe the article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments from a brief glance

Not sure I'll be revisiting. Best of luck with the FAC.—indopug (talk) 05:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Indopug. I appreciate your comments and hope you can find the time to revisit. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evanh2008

Looks like a good article, and I should be supporting shortly.

Lead section:

  • "In the days leading up to his death, Hendrix was fatigued" - I'm pretty sure this, and the next sentence, should be in the past perfect. Others may disagree, and this is probably nothing more than a stylistic decision on my part.
  • "Finding no evidence" - I would use the past perfect for this sentence too. The rest of the lead is fine.

Background:

  • "suffering from poor health" ---> "in poor health", for brevity.
  • "another woman, Kristen Nefer and was" ---> "another woman, Kristen Nefer, and was" - Comma.
  • "'Devon get off my back'" - Does Brown include a comma after "Devon"? If not, I would add one, per MOS:QUOTE.
  • "the show along with three others were" ---> "the show, along with three others, was"
  • "her boss, actor George Lazenby and" ---> "her boss, actor George Lazenby, and"
  • "record producer Alan Douglas discussing" ---> "record producer Alan Douglas, discussing"
  • "Hendrix friend, Sharon Lawrence" ---> "Hendrix's friend Sharon Lawrence"

Final hours:

  • "According to Dannemann, by 3 p.m. they left" ---> "According to Dannemann, by 3 p.m. they had left" - If "by [time]" terminology is used, the past perfect is called for.
  • "to a Chelsea antiques market where Hendrix purchased more clothing" ---> "to a Chelsea antiques market, where Hendrix purchased more clothing" - Comma.
  • "Later, Dannemann and Hendrix were invited by Phillip Harvey, the son of an English lord, to tea; they accepted." ---> "Later, Phillip Harvey, the son of an English lord, invited Dannemann and Hendrix to tea; they accepted." - Active voice. I don't mind, but others will. You might also try to find out what title Harvey's father held, as "Lord" is a form of address and not a formal office.
  • Most likely Phillip's father was a Baron. I'm looking into it right now and will get back to you if I find anything. Otherwise it would probably be best to change "lord" to "nobleman", as "lord" is very rarely used outside formal terms of address. (As per this article, it is "a generic term to denote members of the peerage".) Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:30, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to their arrival at Harvey's they" ---> "Prior to their arrival at Harvey's, they"
  • The sentence on Harvey's affidavit is a little confusing. If he remained silent until 1995, what is he doing swearing an affidavit in '94? Or have I read that wrong?
  • "In his statement he claims" ---> "In his statement, he claims"
  • The word "also" in "to have also been mildly" doesn't seem necessary.
  • "Sometime after returning to the apartment Hendrix" ---> "Sometime after returning to the apartment, Hendrix"

Post-mortem examination and burial

  • "Dannemann later claimed that Hendrix, unaware of the brand's high potency, took nine of her prescribed Vesparax sleeping pills. Intended to be taken in one-half tablet increments, nine tablets of the powerful German sedative amounted to 18 times the recommended dosage." needs to be changed to "Dannemann later claimed that Hendrix, unaware of the brand's high potency, took nine of her prescribed Vesparax sleeping pills, which were intended to be taken in one-half tablet increments. Nine tablets of the powerful German sedative amounted to 18 times the recommended dosage." A participle has been confused somewhere along the line here.

Inconsistencies:

  • "We went to sleep about 7 a.m.." I think an extra full stop has crept in there. Ending it with one full stop is just fine, even if that full stop is also part of an abbreviation.
  • "When I woke up at eleven his face" ---> "When I woke up at eleven, his face" - MOS:QUOTE

Scotland Yard inquiry and allegations of murder:

  • "re-open" ---> "reopen"
  • "The investigation eventually proved inconclusive when in 1993, Attorney General" ---> "The investigation eventually proved inconclusive in 1993, when Attorney General"
  • The paragraph on Wright's book needs some work. The claim that Jeffery held insurance on Hendrix isn't mentioned until its rebuttal, so it should probably be introduced prior to that. I'm not sure the bit on Trixie Sullivan's statement belongs here, as it doesn't appear to be directly connected to accusations of wrongdoing against Jeffery. Maybe find a place for it up in the Final hours section?

Final lyrics:

  • "Dannemann phoned Eric Burdon frantically complaining that she could not wake Hendrix up." ---> "Dannemann phoned Eric Burdon, frantically complaining that she could not wake Hendrix." - Comma. Also, don't end a sentence with a preposition; "wake Hendrix" works well enough.
  • Why isn't "a woman, she claimed his name" italicised?

Very small issues. Once these are resolved, I'll give it another look and will most likely be ready to support. Great job so far! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to provide your helpful review. I believe I've now resolved your above concerns. Please let me know if you catch anything else. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 09:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the speedy response! I'll have some further input shortly. Looks good. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Sarastro1

Oppose: I notice that most comments have been on prose so far. While there are problems with the prose, I think that this article has more troublesome issues. The lead is not great, but the whole article seems to be missing important information and, perhaps more importantly, explanation of and commentary on events. I know bits and pieces about this topic, but I'm far from an expert; even so, there seem to be several important missing pieces. I've commented on the lead and left some other general comments. This oppose is not set in stone, and I would like to see this featured, but I think a lot of work could be needed. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment. As far as "the whole article seems to be missing important information", can you please be more specific. I own 25+ books on Hendrix, so I could find any important information, but I have no idea what you think is currently missing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • I'm not a fan of a one-sentence opening paragraph in the lead.
  • "In the days leading up to his death, Hendrix had been fatigued and in poor health, due in part to severe exhaustion caused by overworking, a chronic lack of sleep and a persistent case of influenza. Insecurities about his personal relationships and frustration with the music industry had contributed to a fragile mental state.": This is all quite clunky, and could be simplified and streamlined. E.g. "In the days leading up to [before] his death…". We have "fatigued … due to exhaustion" (!) and several parts where the relationship between events is unclear. Was the severe exhaustion caused by overworking AND a chronic lack of sleep (third repetition of tiredness here, as well) or was the fatigue and poor health caused by exhaustion AND a chronic lack of sleep.
  • "Though the details of his final hours and death are disputed, Hendrix spent much of his last day with Monika Dannemann, socializing with friends.": The comma after Danneman is odd here, but I'd suggest that "socializing with friends" is unnecessary.
  • "He awoke late on the morning of September 17 at her flat in the Samarkand Hotel, 22 Lansdowne Crescent, Notting Hill and was pronounced dead at St Mary Abbot's Hospital, Kensington, approximately 24 hours later.": I'm really struggling to see what is going on here. On my first reading, I though this meant that he awoke dead at her flat. Then I read it that he spent the whole of his final day at the flat. But this wasn't the case and I doubt that the most significant thing he did on his last day was wake up. This is an odd way to lead into the events.
  • "Intended to be taken in one-half tablet": "One" seems redundant.
  • "unaware of the brand's high potency, took nine of her prescribed Vesparax sleeping pills. Intended to be taken in one-half tablet increments, nine whole tabs of the powerful German sedative amounted to 18 times the recommended dosage." For the lead, this is really over-emphasising that he took too many of a powerful sleeping pill. Way too much detail. And this rather presumes the cause of death, which I understand is under some dispute.
  • Right, the death certificate states: "Cause of Death: Inhalation of vomit, barbiturate intoxication." So yes, technically he died from asphyxia, and not a drug-overdose per se, though Teare concluded that Hendrix accidentally overdosed on Vesparax, which caused the vomitting, which lead to the asphyxia. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is rather sparse on other details. Most readers who come here will, I suspect, be looking for confirmation or refutation of conspiracy theories. Yet the lead does not really go into any of these details other than "Though the details of his final hours and death are disputed". The only events given in the lead are that he woke up and that he died. The lead is not summarising the article as no mention is given to the inconsistencies or the inquiries. And that the coroner (why "the post-mortem inquisitor"? The post is called the coroner) recorded an open verdict is left out in favour of "concluded that Hendrix accidentally overdosed" which even the main body does not say. Sarastro1 (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but above you just said the lead had "Way too much detail" regarding the cause of death. Also, FTR, per your above comment: "which even the main body does not say", the article states: "He found no evidence of violence or suicide and concluded that Hendrix accidentally overdosed", and it did so before your review. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General points: I've only dipped into parts of the remainder, but here are some initial thoughts and suggestions.

  • The prose is lumpy and quite poor in parts. Some examples only (not an exhaustive list):
    • "During the week preceding his death, he was stressed by two pending lawsuits": Why "preceding"? "Stressed" is not encyclopaedic.
    • "he was infrequently examined by doctors": What? They rarely examined him? Why make this point? Or does this mean "occasionally" examined by doctors?
    • "Routinely surrounded by dozens of hangers-on and lacking close, trusting relationships, his insecurities about the future and frustration with the music industry contributed to a fragile mental state.": Why is "hangers-on" (which is also unencyclopedic) linked? I doubt that this was an issue solely in the lead-up to his death, which the other factors presumably were.
  • Why do we have a whole paragraph on his press interview in the background?
  • And the background seems long generally. Why all the detail about Nefer?
  • The background sections never says who Danneman is, and gives none of her background with Hendrix.
  • The background really should have more about Hendrix' drug-use as this would seem to be more relevant to his death than some of the other details here. On a more general level, the whole background sections seems to be tacked on, and quite random in its content.
  • The whole "last day" seems rushed and flits from one thing to another without suggesting a coherent narrative or offering explanations. While I'm far from an expert on Hendrix, I know that the version presented here is slightly one-sided. Devon Wilson played a rather larger part in events than is suggested here. She was not exactly an ex, and she was in London only because he was. And the version of the party seems to be mainly Danneman's version.
    • If "Devon Wilson played a rather larger part in events than is suggested here", then the sources I own do not support this. Again, I've read 25+ books in preparation for this FAC, and none of them implicate Devon as being partly responsible, as you seem to believe. Per: "the version of the party seems to be mainly Danneman's version", 1) that's nto accurate, the account given in the article is based much more on Harvey's statement then Dannemann's. Also, only two people ever gave statements regarding the party, Harvey and Dannemann. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify, the only "source" that I am aware of that casts any aspirations on Devon Wilson in regard to her behaviour that night is Dannemann, the least reliable source possible for information about Jimi's other girlfriends. To address this point further would seem to open the door for more issues related to your below concern: "Lots of things are hinted at, but not explained". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The state of his relationships with the various women at this point could perhaps be made clearer.
  • Lots of things are hinted at, but not explained. Danneman's inconsistencies are pointed out but there is no further comment. There is a section about murder allegations, but it never states who is alleged to have murdered him. The implication is Danneman, but it is never explicitly said, and as I understand it, there are a few other candidates for a potential murderer.
  • Per: "it never states who is alleged to have murdered him", Wright only claimed that Hendrix's manager, Mike Jeffery, admitted to him that he had Hendrix killed, Wright does not say who killed him. Anyway, the story is absolute baseless rubbish and deserves no more attention then this IMO. How could I comment further on Dannemann's inconsistencies and not run afoul of WP:OR? No judgement has been made and this case will never be fully solved. Only two people know for certain what happened that night, and both of them are now long dead. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not seeing anything important that isn't already covered in Brown, Tony (1997). Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days. Omnibus Press. ISBN 978-0-7119-5238-6, which David Comfort lists as a source for his book. Also, looking at Comfort's bibliography I see that I own (and have read) every book he used as a source. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: OK, I've struck the oppose and I'm going to pull out of this one. I'm never a huge fan of the "I've read 25+ books argument", and I can only address what you present here, not what else you have read. I can't provide enough evidence either way for what should or should not be included; certainly not from reliable sources. I'm not convinced that this article is comprehensive enough, but I admittedly do not know enough about the source material to oppose (or support). I suspect that this article will disappoint any readers who come this way, though, even if what they may be looking for confirmation or refutation of "is absolute baseless rubbish and deserves no more attention then this IMO" (I hope the sources support your opinion!). I maintain that things are not fully explained though: the last day in the main body is surprisingly sparse on explanations, and we still have no suspect for the murder allegations, which looks odd. And the prose needs a polish. But I am not opposing, and won't be revisiting. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) There was never a murder suspect named, so there is no way to include a name here unless I make one up. 2) the sources absolutely support my assertion that the murder allegations are "absolute baseless rubbish", 3) How can I explain the unexplainable? The story of Hendrix's death is shrouded in mystery, thus if things don't always seem to add up, its likely because sometimes they don't. 4) What specifically do you think needs further explication? 5) FTR, all I meant by "I own 25+ books", is that I could surely find any important datum that is also verifiable in the reliable sources if you would be more specific. "The whole article seems to be missing important information" is not an actionable objection without some specific suggestions. That's all I meant, not that I remember absolutely everything I read, just that I have at my disposal a large library of books from which to glean information about this subject. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There are images of his gravesite on the internet. It resembles a sculpture or work of art, and so, as far as I am aware, a photograph of it probably is not permitted on the wiki on copyright grounds, because there is no freedom of panorama in USA. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cassianto

Generally agreeable stuff. Here are my thoughts...

Lede
  • Do we need to be told what country London is in? Also, do we need to link London?
  • "Depressed mood" - Why do we mention mood? Depression would be the medically correct term to use. "Mood" seems a little redundant.
  • *Hang on*, depression means mood in this context. I wasn't exactly thinking of this or this. Why do we need to dumb down? Further to that, the lead states "Insecurities about his personal relationships and frustration with the music industry had also contributed to his depression." I would suggest that if Hendrix suffered a series of depressive moods, then depression would be correct here. -- CassiantoTalk 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have yet to establish if Hendrix suffered a series of depressed moods. If so, this would be indicative of depression. GabeMc, could you elaborate please? -- CassiantoTalk ,
  • Samarkand Hotel can do without the link. This does not help the reader to this article and is just another link off the article onto another. We want to keep the reader not loose them by way of an unnecessary link.
I see nothing wrong with a link to another Wiki article. The location of the hotel could be interesting to many UK readers. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, why not link hotel too; this could also be interesting right? Why on earth do we need to provide a geographical link, derived simply from the hotels name, just because Hendrix stayed there. Those clicking on to this article want to find out about Hendrix' death, so want the salient facts and links that help to understand it, not be tempted off onto a completely unrelated article. The point here is to capture the reader and make them want to stay, not tempt them away. As far as this article reads, he never even went to Uzbekistan, so why produce an unnecessary link? -- CassiantoTalk 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dannemann called for an ambulance. He was lifeless on arrival at St Mary Abbot's Hospital." -- Firstly, could we combine these two sentences as it reads a little uncomfortably. Second, was he dead on arrival to hospital? Is this what "lifeless" means? If he was dead, please say he was dead. Lifeless could be assumed to be unconscious.
Hang on. Some things are uncertain. As far as I am aware, there is conflicting views where and when he actually died, so it may be presumptive to say that he arrived at the hospital dead. The doctors at the hospital tried to resuscitate him, and I presume that they would not work on a dead body. What are the facts? "Lifeless" is an undiagnosed state and he was later certified dead. I had used the word "lifeless" intentionally. Sometimes a deep coma can give the outward impression of being dead unless examined very carefully. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Firstly, dead is a neutral word. Secondly, you won't get a doctor saying "It's OK nurse, put him over there he is lifeless. I will pronounce him dead later". We only need to mention the fact he died, not what kind of un diagnosed state he was in. Thirdly, I don't think you will find many people splitting hairs, wanting to know what road it was the ambulance was driving past at the time of JH's last breath. The salient fact is that he died. Wheather it be on the way or whilst at, hospital. I summed up at the end of my review that the article was in danger of producing too much excessive detail; I consider your preferred description of in between life and death to be just that I'm afraid. -- CassiantoTalk 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Where Hendrix died is critical to various peoples accounts of the story. I think that being precise about where and when he died is being presumptive and tends to prejudice various peoples accounts. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does his death location matter? The fact he was pronounced dead is notable. Having seen this reliable source, it appears he may have died in hospital upon in an attempt to resuscitate. Could we not skip the "lifeless" remark, and cut to the chase? "Hendrix was taken to hospital where an attempt was made to resuscitate him; he was pronounced dead at..." -- CassiantoTalk 19:50, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think that something like you said or like this would be fine; "An ambulance took Hendrix to hospital, where an attempt was made to resuscitate him and then he was pronounced dead at...". In UK a doctors might say "flat", "unconscious", "in a coma", or "collapsed", but some if this is jargon, so I suggested "lifeless". I agree with you that "lifeless" can be improved. Snowman (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GabeMc, could you construct this based on this resolution? -- CassiantoTalk 21:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "tabs" - short for tablet, right? Why have we shortened an already short word here?
Background

"During the week before his death, he was dealing with two pending lawsuits, one a paternity case and the other a recording contract dispute that was due to be heard by a UK High Court the following week. He also wanted to leave his manager, Michael Jeffery". -- I can see how two lawsuits could help tip a fragile mind over the edge (if suicide was suspected of course), but wanting to leave a manager? It's placement here looks as if Hendrix was troubled by this desire to leave his manager. If he was troubled, could we say so?

  • "Depressive mood" again. Not for one moment was I thinking of any disambiguated alternatives. Depression would suffice.
Hang on. As above, a depressed mood and depression are different and not can not be assumed to be the other. The article must stick to what it said in the sources. Snowman (talk) 17:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, as per above. Be careful in prompting someone to "stick to what it said in the sources"; a slight variation is always preferred to prevent this. I should very much doubt that the source means this. GabeMc, was Hendrix known for successive episodes of depressed moods? -- CassiantoTalk 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, text form sources should not be copied directly into Wiki articles. To prevent further misunderstanding I would like to make it clear that all text in the article about Hendrix's health should be written in keeping with the principals of the Wiki, be sourced from a reliable sources, and be verifiable. Snowman (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming the source says "Hendrix suffered a depressive mood", then there really is nowhere to go with altering to satisfy the close paraphrasing. That is why I would suggest swapping depressed mood for depression or something similar. I take your point that a depressed mood is a singular form and would suggest an isolated instance of being particularly pissed off. I would be happy to relent if it were proven that this was an isolated instance. However, a series of these would suggest something more underlining and I would elect to say depression so it covers all. -- CassiantoTalk 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, we can write "depressed mood" in the article, if the source says "depressed mood", because the two words are commonly used together and so no hint of a copyright violation occurs. I assure you that we have to be cautious and careful with any diagnosis that might be relevant here. Please note that a depressed mood is not the same as clinical depression. Erudite comments welcome. Snowman (talk) 21:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sources do not support any type of clinical diagnosis of depression, so I've removed the datum as inaccurate and/or unverifiable. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Snowman (talk) 23:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase "i feel depressed" is over used as a self-diagnosis if one is having a particularly bad day. I have heard this on many occasions. However, I have never heard of anyone saying "I feel depressed mood". I feel the parenthesis of "mood" is used to differentiate for the benefit of disambiguation purposes. Nevertheless, it appears to have all been ironed out now. -- CassiantoTalk 23:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • OVERLINK to London.
  • "On September 11, 1970, Hendrix gave his final interview. In his suite at the Cumberland Hotel in London, he talked with journalist Keith Altham of the Record Mirror." -- Why the period after interview? I would phrase this "On September 11, 1970, Hendrix gave his final interview in his suite at the Cumberland Hotel in London, where he talked with Keith Altham, a journalist for the Record Mirror."
  • During the interview, Hendrix confirmed reports that bass player Billy Cox was leaving Hendrix's band." -- Obvious question, what were the band called?
  • Hendrix confidante Sharon Lawrence..." She may well have been, but who was she? Friend? Girlfriend?
  • OK, but we go onto say "Later that afternoon, another girlfriend, Monika Dannemann..." which would suggest Lawrence was a girlfriend as we speak of no other female between Lawrence and Dannemann? -- CassiantoTalk 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inappropriate link to Samarkand again. It plays no part in helping to understand the subject matter.
  • the Animals should be The Animals.
  • "The following day, Hendrix received a phone call from one of his girlfriends, Devon Wilson. She heard rumours that he was dating another woman, Kristen Nefer, and was jealous." -- "The following day, Hendrix received a phone call from one of his girlfriends, Devon Wilson who had become jealous after hearing rumours that he was dating another woman, Kristen Nefer."
  • "Hendrix spent most of the early afternoon and evening of September 14 with record producer Alan Douglas, discussing his career plans." -- Whose career plans? Douglas or Hendrix?
  • "In the early morning hours of September 15, he accompanied Douglas, who was returning to New York, to London's Heathrow Airport." --suggest-- "In the early morning hours of September 15, he accompanied Douglas to London's Heathrow Airport, who was returning to New York."
  • "Hendrix confidante Sharon Lawrence was in London, and she spoke with him that day. -- Redundant use of "she".
Morning and early afternoon
  • OVERLINK to Dannemann
  • "According to Dannemann, by 3 p.m. they had left the apartment on their way to a bank and then to Kennington Market..." -- "According to Dannemann, by 3 p.m. they had left the apartment to use a bank and then followed onto Kennington Market, where..."
  • What are "specialty shoes"?
  • "...who invited Hendrix to a party taking place later that night." Copy editing needed. Perhaps, "...who invited Hendrix to a party that evening".
  • "Dannemann reportedly acted jealous -- jealous is a state of mind and one cannot act so. "Dannemann reportedly became jealous" would be more accurate.
  • " Phillip Harvey, the son of an English nobleman..." -- His lineage is redundant. The fact he was a son of a nobleman has, as far as I can see, no relevance to this at all.
  • This is important to the point made in "Late afternoon and evening": "Harvey, who had remained silent about the incident out of respect for his father, gave a sworn affidavit after his father's death in 1994."
  • Could we not mention the fact he was an English nobleman nearer to that then? "Harvey, who had remained silent about the incident out of respect for his English nobleman father..." It has more of a use there than its current position. -- CassiantoTalk 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...asking him to find a way out of his contracts with his manager Mike Jeffery." Also, why the plural of contract? How many did he have with Jeffery?
  • "...holding a favorite Fender Stratocaster guitar that he called the 'black beauty'" -- "a favourite" or his favourite?
  • "Dannemann reportedly became jealous..." -- Suggest removing "reportedly" as per WP:WEASEL.
Late afternoon and evening
  • "...asked Hendrix and Dannemann to quiet down" -- quieten down.
  • "Harvey, who remained silent about the incident until out of respect for his father..." -- typo I believe of "until".
  • Some may question as to what an affidavit is. Link?
  • "According to Harvey, Dannemann screamed at Hendrix 'at the top of her voice'..." I would do away with this quote. You don't scream quietly do you? This could be incorporated into the text, or better still, be left out altogether.
  • "...before leaving with Dannemann by 10:40 p.m." At 10:40 p.m. would be more accurate.
  • "After stopping at the Cumberland, Hendrix and Dannemann followed Harvey to his luxurious apartment..." -- Did Hendrix and Dannemann go with him? "followed" suggests they did just that without Harvey knowing. Suggest, accompanied if he knew of their company on the way to the flat.
  • "Harvey and two of Harvey's female companions..." -- Repetition of Harvey; I think we could get away with "his" here.
  • "Dannemann claimed to have then prepared a meal for them at her apartment around 11 p.m., when they shared a bottle of wine." -- "Dannemann claimed to have then prepared a meal for them at her apartment around 11 p.m. and shared a bottle of wine.
After midnight
  • "According to guest Angie Burdon, the estranged wife of Eric Burdon of the Animals..." -- Where was Burdon a guest, at Kameron's residence or the party? If its the latter, we havent arrived there yet.
  • Unless I'm missing something, this looks fine to me. "Hendrix asked Dannemann to drive him to the residence of an acquaintance and business associate, Pete Kameron. While there, Hendrix ... According to guest Angie Burdon".
  • We say: "At approximately 1:45 a.m. on September 18, wanting to attend the party Wilson had invited him to earlier, Hendrix asked Dannemann to drive him to the residence of an acquaintance and business associate, Pete Kameron. While there, Hendrix complained to him about business problems, ate some food, and took at least one amphetamine tablet. Approximately 30 minutes later, Dannemann rang the intercom and said she was there to pick him up. Another guest, Stella Douglas, respectfully asked her to return later, which she soon did. According to guest Angie Burdon, the estranged wife of Eric Burdon of the Animals, when Danneman came back, Douglas used an assertive approach with her to the point of being impolite." -- A suggestion is made that he wants to go to a party at the start of the text. We then say he drives to Kameron's house. His attendance at Kameron's house, sounds like it is an unscheduled stop on the way to the party. Is this where the party was? We then go on to call Burdon a guest. Currently, this would suggest that she was a guest at Kameron's house, where I suspect she was a guest at the party. This suspicion makes the whole paragraph confusing. I think we either need to say that Hendrix left Kameron's house and arrived at the party where "...guest Angela Burdon said..." Or, if the party was at Kameron's house, then we need to call it the venue of the party. Sorry, does that make sense? -- CassiantoTalk 05:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At approximately 1:45 a.m. on September 18, wanting to attend the party that Wilson had invited him to earlier at the residence of an acquaintance and business associate, Pete Kameron, Hendrix asked Dannemann to drive him there." -- Seems a bit clunky, suggest: "At approximately 1:45 a.m. on September 18, Dannemann drove Hendrix to a party hosted by Pete Kameron, an acquaintance and business associate of Wilson."
  • "...Stella Douglas, respectfully asked her to return later, which she soon did." -- Redundant use of "soon", unless she returned earlier than expected. "Soon" also sounds as if it is real time. I would use "which she did a little while later."
Post-mortem examination and burial
  • OVERLINK of Washington.

Everything after this looks OK. I will look again tomorrow, but for now this is all I have to offer. If I was to be ultra critical, I would say that there is a bit too much trivial detail in places, like observing the fact that he had a Chinese meal and enjoyed cups of tea in the garden, but this is only minor; I like detail generally. Feel free to discuss any of these at any point. -- CassiantoTalk 23:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed out that the meal was Chinese food as excess detail. I think the tea datum is somewhat important, as he is seen with the tea set in the final photos. I don't feel too strongly about it though, so if you think the article would read better without it, I will certainly remove the point. Thanks for your kind, helpful, and insightful comments. The article is much improved due to your effort. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:28, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I now think the cup of tea is relevent based on the photo. Sorry, I missed that. Answering points only at this juncture you understand, I will take another read through later :-) -- CassiantoTalk 05:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate your comments, thanks! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the meal was a Chinese food is a detail that does not need to be removed. I think that small details can help to set the scene. His stomach contents may have been important to his vomiting, which is discussed. Snowman (talk) 18:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, you are joking right? How is naming a type of food which he had for dinner encyclopaedic? He could have had a custard cream that day and choked on the digested result. Will we be mentioning that too? Are you seriously suggesting we find out that days diet on the off chance that this brought on the vomiting? Did he have an intolerance to Chinese food? If not, may I suggest we leave the conspiracy theories out? -- CassiantoTalk 20:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going off on a tangent here? Snowman (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest taking this to the talk page and keep this FAC squabble free? -- CassiantoTalk 20:17, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your questions: I am not joking about keeping the Chinese meal in the article. I think that what he ate in the last 12 hours of his life is significant and encyclopaedic. I am not suggesting that the meal caused vomiting. I am not sure if he had an allergy nor not, but I have not seen it written down that he had, so I think that it is very unlikely that he had a Chinese food allergy. This has got nothing to do with conspiracy theories that I am aware off, so I am puzzled why you raised that point. I would guess that he was not off his food that day. Snowman (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not suggesting that the meal caused vomiting." *cough* "His stomach contents may have been important to his vomiting." If you are no longer suggesting this, then I resume my initial point that this is redundant information. We do we need to know the contents of his stomach before death, unless it was a primary factor in his demise. None of this articles peers, give this kind of information on the run up to the death. -- CassiantoTalk 21:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To simplify it, I would say that stomach contents and vomiting are associated. The stomach contents may not be the cause of vomiting. Of course, his stomach contents is important and relevant, because he died with vomit in his airways. Snowman (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the stomach contents are not the cause of vomiting, then why on earth are we listing what kind of food he had eaten earlier that day? This is redundant. Please see talk page. -- CassiantoTalk 22:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rice was found in his stomach at post-mortem, so his Chinese meal is relevant and should be included. Snowman (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please format this conversation correctly Snowman. You don't need to put so many space markers at the start of your text as I have to keep outdenting. Right, your insistence here is unintelligable. A lot of countries have rice as a staple diet. Why are we mentioning Chinese specifically? -- CassiantoTalk 15:59, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – per the above resolved comments. The article is comprehensive but not discursive and meets all of the FA criteria. The documentation is thorough and wide ranging and the prose is good. A fine article which I am very pleased to add my support to. Well done! -- CassiantoTalk 22:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snowmanradio

Why was this removed? It says he laughed, which gives a little insight into his mood. Do depressed people laugh? Snowman (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do happy people cry? Do sad people smile? It's not beyond any physical capability to do both. -- CassiantoTalk 20:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being cheerful is not a feature that depressed adults generally show in abundance. I think that the conversation should be kept in. More opinions welcome. Snowman (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell it says nothing about there being an abundance. You don't need to be cheerful to express a smile or laugh. It depends on the situation. -- CassiantoTalk 21:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that Hendrix was to some extent "performing" when he gave interviews, so if he seemed upbeat with that laugh, it might have had something to do with protecting his professional image. FWIW, I've read the entire transcript of the interview and in general, Hendrix does not seem abundantly happy or optimistic. If anything, he comes across as quite tired of the music business in general and mentally and physically exhausted (which he was by almost all acounts). FTR, this analysis of his final interview is my own WP:OR, and nothing of verifiable substance that should be added to the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was this removed? It seems to show at least one unstable relationship. Snowman (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression: I am concerned that the article may not be neutral and has become somewhat presumptive in places. The infobox image of the hotel tends to suggest that there is no doubt that he died at the hotel, which tends to prejudice Dannerman's account. This impression in the infobox may be corrected by a more suitable caption, removing the image, or replacing the image with something else. Where did "depressed mood" come from? Why was "depressed mood" changed to a diagnosis of depression? Why is Dannerman's account frequently followed by someone or something contradicting her in the inconsistencies section? Surely, the events would have been unforgettable to her and she gave an statement to a policeman at 4 pm on 18 September on the day of the tragic events. Can the inconsistencies be interpreted? "... paramedics who responded to the call show that they found Hendrix alone in the flat", so who let them in? Did Hendrix have a diagnosis of depression? if so, then why is it not on the death certificate. I recall a UK TV program on the topic and Dannerman was interviewed, so if it can be sourced it might be helpful. Snowman (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) "The infobox image of the hotel tends to suggest that there is no doubt that he died at the hotel". While there is some dispute regarding where his official place of death was, according to Ian Smith, one of two police officers who responded to the emergency call at around 11:30 a.m.: "The ambulance men were there, but Jimi was dead ... There was really nothing they could do for him."[57][nb 10] Also, ambulance crew member Reg Jones later commented: "We felt his pulse ... showed a light in his eyes. But there was no response at all."[45] Trouble is, the police nor the ambulance crew can officially pronounce someone dead. However, Dr Bannister later commented: "On admission he was obviously dead. He had no pulse, no heartbeat, and the attempt to resuscitate him was merely a formality." I think I originally stated that he was unconscious when transported to St Mary's were he was pronounced dead at 12:45 pm, this has now been removed by someone other than myself. 2) Per: "why is Dannerman's account frequently followed by someone or something contradicting her", because according to the sources, she changed her story nearly every time she told it, right through to 1996 when she was in contact with Tony Brown (who had known her since 1980). 3) Per, "... paramedics who responded to the call show that they found Hendrix alone in the flat", so who let them in? The flat was unlocked, they let themselves in. I'll explicate this further in the article. 4) As far as Hendrix being diagnosed with depression, no, not to my knowledge, I've now removed this as inaccurate and/or unverifiable. 5) Per: "I recall a UK TV program on the topic and Dannerman was interviewed, so if it can be sourced it might be helpful." Again, Dannemann's account changed regularly (almost every time she told it), right through to her death in 1996, so everything she said must be taken with a rather large grain of suspicion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If there are reliable sources for any of that, then perhaps some of it could be added to the article to make it more understandable. Note that pulse can be thready, breathing can be shallow, and pupils fixed in massive barb od. In my opinion, it can be difficult to differentiate between massive barb od, brain death, and a perhaps recent death. As far as I am aware, it is not a formality to try to resuscitate every dead body that arrives in casualty; however, I think that it would be a duty and an obligation to attempt a resuscitation when not entirely certain about a death, especially on a young person. If officials were convinced that JH was dead in the hotel, then would an alternative course of action have been for a policeman or an ambulance man to call a dr (perhaps a police surgeon) to the hotel to certify death and then JH's body could have been taken to a mortuary? Snowman (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Snowman. 1) Per: "If there are reliable sources for any of that ...", I assume you mean something like this. 2) Per: "Note that pulse can be thready, breathing can be shallow, and pupils fixed in massive barb od. In my opinion, it can be difficult to differentiate between massive barb od, brain death, and a perhaps recent death." According to Reg Jones, Hendrix's bowels and bladder had already released and much of the vomit was dry, indicating that he had died before the ambulance arrived at the Samarkand. I could add more detail to that effect if you think its helpful, but I was trying to avoid too much detail about vomit, urine and feces, but perhaps its needed. What do you think? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the observers are reliable, then that is just the sort of information that would be helpful. Dry vomit could indicate the time when he vomited. I have never heard of the empting of bladder or bowels after death, but if it is said to have happened then it might be significant of something. Snowman (talk) 23:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Details added. For the empting of the bladder and bowels post-mortem, please see here. Reg Jones said "all that goes when you're dead."(Brown, 1997, p.136) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He discovered a partially collapsed left lung and 400 ml of fluid in Hendrix's chest". That is interesting. What did the pathologist make of that? What colour was the fluid? Is there any microbiology of the fluid or histopathology of the lung? I am not sure where this will lead, so it might or might not be relevant to FA. Snowman (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, Teare did not offer any conclusions regarding the cause of the lung collapse or the presence of fluid, nor did he indicate the color of the fluid or analyze its chemical contents (I own transcripts and facsimiles of the documents). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:42, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, it does sound significant to me, but it is clearly not the cause of death. I think his post-mortem findings do have a place in the article. Did the coroner ask anything questions about the collapsed lung, pleural effusion, or heart? Was anything said about which chambers were enlarged on the right side of the heart? I wonder if the right heart dilation and liver congestion could indicate pulmonary hypertension (and right heart failure) perhaps secondary to pulmonary pathology. A little atheroma would not be particularly unusual in someone of Hendrix's age. There are lots of causes of pulmonary effusion. All this is my speculation, which can not be included in the article. Can you interpret the post mortem findings? Snowman (talk) 23:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Teare's and Thurston's post-mortem findings suffer from an utter lack of conclusions (other than cause of death). They only state facts and do not speculate, at all. I've included the details I found interesting, but as far as interpretations, your guess is as good as mine. Do you think I should remove the bit about atheroma as inconsequential? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A little atheroma in the coronary arteries is not significant at his age, but obviously the pathologist had to look and state that there was not a blockage there. You could probably omit the atheroma and let it be assumed that, if he an MI, then it would be clearly recorded. It seems to me that he had something else wrong with him in life owing to the 400ml pleural effusion, which I think is significant. This would show up on a chest X-ray and would lead him to have hospital investigations. What other abnormalities were noticed at post-mortem? If you can not understand anything written in the post-mortem report, then note the problems here and will look at it. I would hope to understand a post-mortem report on an adult including reading between the lines to see what the pathologist was thinking. Obviously, the pathologist sent blood for barbiturate levels; nevertheless, if samples were not taken for histopathology and microbiology, then a diagnosis for the pleural effusion and possible lung pathology may not be available. I suspect that you will not be able to improve on simply listing salient post-mortem abnormalities. Incidentally, where did you get a copy of the post-mortem report? Snowman (talk) 14:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now removed the bit about the atheroma. What I assume to be most of the post-mortem report is included in Tony Brown's book, but I have no way of knowing for certain what's not included. The book seems quite thoroughly researched, and its attention to detail is meticulous, so I doubt that much of interest was excluded. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... persistent case of influenza."; can you give this more detail and perhaps more prominence? This sounds an unusual phrase, because influenza is usually an unpleasant illness lasting between one and two weeks only. A common complication is post-viral fatigue, which might be the cause of tiredness and lack of energy for several weeks or longer. However, in his case, I might associate the influenza history, the abnormalities in the lungs, and pleural effusion. Did he have any pain in his last weeks or days? Snowman (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Brown, Hendrix was feeling the effects of a cold/flu as early as 27 August, and right through to his death. No particular pain was mentioned, although Jimi was known for not revealing those types of details. According to Brown, it was influenza, though I am sure that this is his own OR. A viral infection does indeed sound more likely, but there is no evidence of this that I am aware of. My guess is that, in their arrogance, after they concluded his cause of death they did not look further for any evidence of disease or infection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully, this edit resolves the issue. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a pathologist has more than about three post-mortems to do in the morning and more office-related work in the afternoon, then there could be a tendency to concentrate on the major post-mortem findings. I do not think that any arrogance is involved, because pathologists are not known to be arrogant about their work in my opinion and will always double check and discuss findings. I think that doing post-mortems quickly and as efficiently as possible is a reflection of the work load. Of course, the forensic pathologist will go in to a lot of detail when a death is caused by suspected foul play, partly because the pathologist may have to face complex cross examination in courts. I suspect that JH's death was seen as a simple case of overdose at post-mortem. Personally speaking I am disappointed to hear that investigations of the pleural effusion and collapsed lung did not go further (as far as we know); however, I wonder if there are any more clues in the full post-mortem report. To explain the pleural effusion and his persistent "flu" related illness, I suspect that JH had "flu" that caused protracted lung disease and pleural effusion or made a pre-existing lung disease worse. As far as the article is concerned, can you put something like a "persistent illness assumed to be influenza related", if this is consistent with reliable sources. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "arrogance" was a poor word choice. All I meant was that once they viewed his death as "yet another" rock star drug OD, I doubt they felt the need to be more thorough. Also, at the time (1969–70) they dealt with ODs somewhat regularly according to Jones, so Jimi's death didn't seem all that extraordinary at the time. I'm particularly surprised that no attempt was made to determine the time of death, but my understanding is that even today, if its pre-rigor or during rigor, they have a decent chance of an accurate estimate, but post-rigor, ToD is nearly impossible to determine within an accuracy of 8–12 hours (please correct me if I am wrong about this), which would tell us nothing we didn't already know; Hendrix died sometime between 3 a.m. and 12:45 p.m. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If he was already dead at the hotel, to estimate the time of death, I think that they would need to have made forensic observations on the body at the hotel and noted the ambient temperature there. Of course, the body would have been put in a fridge in a mortuary while awaiting post-mortem examination (from 18 to 21 September), so I think that estimating the time of death from the post-mortem examination any more accurately than indicated by the story would not have been realistic. If the body had been in a warm room for a day or two, then there would have been a degree of autolysis, which would be noticeable by microscopic examination of tissues. Snowman (talk) 12:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amounts clarified. Per: "give the drug concentration in terms of units of weight/volume", Teare estimates that Hendrix ingested 20 mgs of amphetamine and 20 mgs of cannabis that night. I've made this edit in an attempt to resolve your concern. I don't think I have the figures in a weight to volume ratio. Thanks again for all the great comments! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, its vague. I put it in a note so that the reader wouldn't think the injury that caused the scar was recent, falsely impling a recent suicide attempt. The speculation is that Hendrix might have cut his wrist during the time he was struggling in New York, before coming to the UK in 1966, but that's all unverifiable heresay. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "After midnight" section, there is nothing between the ambulance arriving at 11.27 am and leaving at 11.35 am. Even saying; "what happened and who was there is unclear", would be helpful, I think. Snowman (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a copyvio expert, but the quoted lyrics are contained in the source, so I'm really quoting Hendrix via Shapiro and Glebbeek. Also, according to Wikipedia:Lyrics and poetry, this would seem to qualify as a legitimate fair use. "Quotations of the work within the analytical framework can fall into the fair use provisions within US copyright law". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shapiro and Glebbeek might have had special permission to use certain material including the lyrics in their book. Perhaps, there is an acknowledgement to the Hendrix estate or something at the end of the book or in the preface. I hope that someone will help out with fair use of lyrics on the Wiki. It might need special demarcation as being fair use rather than the usual CC licence, if it is fair use. Do you need to made a case for far use (similar to a fair use image). I think that this will need attention. I expect that there are Wiki-guidelines that might support fair use here; however, Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources is one guideline that is not in favour of coping copyrighted text into articles. Snowman (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Teare "concluded that Hendrix accidentally overdosed." This sounds odd to me, so I would be grateful if you would double check the exact wording, because explaining a death in this detail is something that the coroner decides after collecting all the evidence including the post-mortem examination report. I think that the pathologist is probably more likely to write down that the post-mortem findings are "consistent with an accidental overdose" if he was to speculate on the cause of the barbiturate intoxication. I note that in this case the coroner opted for an open verdict and not an accidental death. Snowman (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (2). I think that the article has improved a lot. I find it interesting to read, despite its very sad story. I think that the medical aspects are much more understandable. I think that key words and phrases are appropriate for an event that happened in London. I am optimistic, partly because I think that the nominator has been open minded, kept on task, and has maintained a friendly atmosphere, which would be welcoming for more reviewers, who might be thinking about making comments here. Snowman (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heading "Aftermath". This is a new section. Is there a better heading title? I know what you mean, but for me it is not a word commonly used for the time after someone has died. It is usually used after a battle or a storm. It is also a Rolling Stones LP. What about a heading title "In the media" or something like that for the news stories. Snowman (talk) 09:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Provisional impression (3). I have edited parts of the article, so I have a conflict of interest in reviewing the article; nevertheless, I have tried to be objective. As far as I am aware, the article has a good summary of the available sources on medical issues. I have not thought about other parts of the article as carefully, including the important section on "Inconsistencies". I plan to move on and leave it to other reviewers to decide if the article can be promoted to FA status or not. Snowman (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

  • Comments - I read this on my phone while out and about today. The writing is good and prose is engaging. I couldn't see any prose clangers. Concerning the structure, it is generally good but I was unsure about how we have a chronological thread - and then an inconsistencies section, which I am wondering how it relates to para 2 of the After midnight section - if para 2 is assumed to be consensus as most likely version then it needs to be mentioned somewhere there....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking a look, Casliber. Para 2 of the After midnight section is basically the "official" Hendrix family account, sourced to the most recent book published by Experience LLC and another high-quality source (Cross, 2005). How would I go about saying that it "is assumed to be consensus" while avoiding WP:OR? Also, TMK, a chronological thread need not continue throughout an entire article. The chronological portion ends at the conclusion of After midnight, I think that's fine, since the chronology ends with Hendrix's death. To riddle (read bog-down) the chronological portion of the article with mentions of the numerous inconsistencies would be a mistake, IMO. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:51, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused, please forgive me. Are you asking me to preface that particular paragraph with: "According to Jimi Hendrix: An Illustrated Experience (2007), by authors Janie L. Hendrix and John McDermott, and Room Full of Mirrors: A Biography of Jimi Hendrix (2005) by Charles R. Cross ..."? Can you clarify what it is about that particular paragraph that needs in-line attribution to the authors? I've intentionally avoided using Dannemann's book as an unreliable primary source, so what is sourced about her accounts comes only from reliable secondary sources. Can you please clarify what the issue is and how you suggest I remedy it? Thanks again for your insightful comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, my issue is this - this para presents a version as if it were fact, and then further down we have some issues with Dannemann's inconsistencies. It is a bit disconnected and we sorta get ambushed by this new bit of info. It needs some encompassing statement. Ideally it'd be something stating it was the consensus version of the most likely train of events...actually re-reading it it is not as big an issue as I thought initially. The bits note where she claimed X, adn the most definite bits are in. I am wondering then if some teaser about her accounts being inconsistent here would be good, but I can see reasons for not putting it in too. Based on that I'd say it's not a deal-breaker so ..I support on comprehensiveness and prose. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support But I have some questions.
  • Should it be "at" or "in" her flat?
  • Isn't "one of the most influential guitarists of the 1960s" a bit of an understatement? His own article states "he is widely considered one of the most influential electric guitarists in the history of popular music, and one of the most important musicians of the 20th century."
  • Footnote 8 (about tuna) seems to be redundant, as the exact same text is also in the article itself.
  • It is made clear in "Late afternoon and evening" that Harvey is the son of an English nobleman, which was previously introduced earlier, in "Morning and early afternoon" at the first mention of Harvey, but was moved as a response to Cassianto's above review (see "Morning and early afternoon"). GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FunkMonk, yes the above is my doings I'm afraid. The nobleman information was a bit redundant in its former position, so I suggested it be moved to another section where his title had more relevance. His son was keen not to embarrass his highly influential father so the question would have been asked why?. Might I suggest an alternative introduction for his father if you want to press this point; failing that, it could be restored (it won't effect my support). I will leave it to you guys. -- CassiantoTalk 22:44, 25 February 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [83].[reply]

William Robinson Brown

Nominator(s): Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a stable good article which has subsequently gone through additional upgrading with both formal and informal peer review. I believe it meets or exceeds the FA criteria. W.R. Brown was a very interesting individual who contributed significantly to the diverse fields of forestry and horse breeding. I have been the lead editor, though with substantial assistance from others, notably User:Churn and change, who helped me with a lot of cleanup and source locating, but has been inactive in recent months. It was passed for GA by none other than Malleus Fatuorum, who also did some copyediting. Thanks also to several other users for extra eyes, copyedits and helpful commentary. I have previously been part of a team on a number of FA article runs, notably for Appaloosa and Yogo sapphire, but this the first time I have taken the lead on a FAC, so please be patient if I have some awkwardness with the procedure. Montanabw(talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments on this version of the article.
    Now supporting this article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • What makes ref 47 reliable?
      I fixed the URL (not sure how all the stuff got stripped), but the actual ref is to the 1918 stud book, which is in hard copy and difficult to access. The URL is to a faithful reproduction from the original. Is this fix better now? --Montanabw
    • I don't know how reliable the inflationary numbers are after two economics editors on one of my FACs debated it; I ended up removing them. It may be worthwhile to ping Protonk (talk · contribs) or Fifelfoo (talk · contribs) to see if they are appropriate for this article.
      I'll see if I can do a more elegant fix. Basically, at a peer review, someone wanted a dollars/pounds conversion, but I realized that the conversion rate at the time would not have been the same as now, so I'm open to ways to do this better! --Montanabw
      Follow up: I have a version using measuring worth sitting in my sandbox if we need to swap out somthing, it's about 6K different, but it's as of 2010. In my case, I used the WP templates throughout, (Template:Inflation and layered it into Template:International dollars which claim to do all the calculations, which looks like you didn't have to option to do that in 2010, when your article was up. I hope that using the templates makes the calculations work, one of the template cites measuring worth. I could toss the USD calculations if that's the problematic bit. --Montanabw
      If I may butt in, my own view is that the {{inflation}} template is almost always best avoided unless we're talking about fairly recent conversions obviously related to the typical basket of goods, which 20 or so horses clearly isn't. So I've changed the conversion to a historic opportunity cost basis using the GDP deflator, which I think is more realistic. All cited and explained in a note. In general I think that when we provide conversions we should explain the basis for the calculation, another reason to avoid the {{inflation}} template. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm good with that, upon reflection, it sounds like we don't have a good way to actually translate the amount to modern US dollars (or international dollars) either, so I just tossed that bit, though if someone thinks that calculator provides good info, I can restore. The original change came because someone wanted a USD comparison, which appears to be more difficult than I thought. Montanabw(talk) 23:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think it's so difficult; the tricky part is in deciding on what basis to do the inflation calculation. Why not do a conversion from sterling to US dollars for the 2011 equivalent amount of £138,000, which would make it $217,000? That would be about $10,000 a horse, but I've got no idea whether or not that's cheap, which is obviously the point you're trying to make. George Ponderevo (talk) 01:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Hmm. That's the problem with averages: 10K today for a fine breeding stallion is cheap, but for a good saddle horse or a broodmare is on the high end, other than for top of the line. But Brown WAS after the top of the line. He got one outstanding stallion and a bunch of mares in the deal with Blunt. I ran across a thing (blog, not RS, but I suspect is accurate) that said the price he paid for one of the Egyptian mares was equal to what he paid for the whole lot he got from Blunt,so that helps me some. According to this site, at the end of WWI, an "officer's horse" (i.e. a nice trained saddle horse, probably a gelding) was going for about 75 pounds. 2727 pounds for 20 horses breaks out to about 136 pounds per horse, which is already more than the officer's charger. But I don't know how it ranked in the UK to, say, a champion racehorse or something, which might be the best comparison. In the states, Man O'War, a stud colt intended as a racehorse, sold as a yearling for $5000 in 1918 dollars, which was also considered a bargain, considering that he became one of the best racehorses of all time. So, do you think we have it accurate, given context? (I might ping Tigerboy on racehorse prices) Montanabw(talk) 17:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Perhaps it would be best just to state the figures without comment, unless you can find a reliable source for that observation about the Egyptian mare, which would really put the price Brown paid for 20 horses into context. George Ponderevo (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Right now, the text reads " he paid only £2727 for the entire lot." I think it can stand as is, with the "only" being verified in the article citation, and I can find several more sources to verify "only" as a low price in the eyes of Arabian breeder history scholars. I pinged Tigerboy1966 and he pointed me at some racehorse articles where horses, even then,s sold for over a thousand pounds (or guineas, why did they still use guineas in 1918??) each, so by that standard, these horses did sell cheap. I have the basic inflation conversion down in the footnote and as long as you are quite sure we should use opportunity cost and not retail price index (I crunched that in the sandbox and got "This amount would be £104,000 as of 2010, using the retail price index") I'm happy. Montanabw(talk) 22:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      We still use guineas today at horse sales, God knows why. I'm confident about using the historic opportunity cost in preference to CPI/RPI. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Whatever you all decide is fine by me—I just wanted to draw attention to the issue. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the The North Adams, Massachusetts, Transcript and Portsmouth Herald, I don't think publishing locations are needed unless it needs to be dabbed (e.g., why the Times is cited as Times (London)). Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you suggesting that I just remove the redundant "location" parameter or adjust paper titles? The papers themselves are named with their geographic name (The Portsmouth Herald, North Adams Transcript). Does that make a difference? This shouldn't be a difficult fix, just let me know how I should do this --Montanabw
      I've removed the two redundant "|location=" parameters. George Ponderevo (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Groovy Montanabw(talk) 00:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-US-not renewed, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided (tweaked 1 tag to be more specific). GermanJoe (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments - date formatting inconsistent (several different formats in footnotes), spacing on Forbis publisher, remount service linked twice in same sentence, not sure why there's a page number in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed I think. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We're just doing some minor fiddling around the edges while we await further review!  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 22:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Arlene Magid is a highly respected Arabian horse scholar and researcher. She seems to be putting most of her stuff on her own web site these days, but this gives you some idea of how well-known she is. I can probably dig up the info somewhere else, but this was a straightforward, understandable explanation. Let me know what you'd like to see to further demonstrate her reliability as a source. --Montanabw
  • Ref 54 could use page numbers for the relevant content.
  • You're right! I forgot to do that, have to get the book- which is not at the same place where I edit wiki, but can do this in the next day or so, (tie string on finger). --Montanabw FOLLOW UP -- Added pages to the citation. --Montanabw
  • I think I put in an en-dash, at least it was the option in the insert box that was shorter than an em dash. If it's not the correct way, can someone tweak that for me? (My eyesight is not great on this stuff, I also have a lot of typos with [ and { ) -- Montanabw
  • OK, I think I fixed that, let me know if I didn't do it right. (I'm not great at the formatting stuff) --Montanabw
  • Comment The lead is far too long. Three paragraphs will suffice. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Four paragraphs is perfectly acceptable under the FA criteria. George Ponderevo (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the first two paragraphs were merged together at one point, then someone wanted them split apart again, the lead had a lot of work prior to its GA run. If you look at it, we really have a brief summary of each major point, though if you think something in there isn't needed, I am open to suggestions of what could be cut. I'll also take a peek and see if I spot anything that is really too minor for the lead and see what my "eyes have looked at this article too long" brain can cut. Montanabw(talk) 20:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did the more recent peer review and am minded to support. A few comments:
  • "His horses won races … " Suggest reversing this sentence and beginning with "Even though"
    I think it was that way once, and someone changed it when we reworked and trimmed the lede a bit in response to the comments above. To address your comment, I rephrased the whole bit into two sentences to put Brown's efforts first and the comment about the Jockey Club grant in a separate sentence. For one thing, the Jockey Club donation only occurred after the first rides where the TBs got beat, so in time sequence it probably needs to go in that order anyway. Does this change work better? (Can continue to tweak if needed) --Montanabw
  • "Despite the entire Brown family selling personal assets" Suggest "Although Brown family members sold personal assets"
    Done. I think that was the way it was once worded and then it was changed (possibly by me in response to someone else, or else by George, ask him?) Will use your wording, if others object, we can discuss. --Montanabw
  • In Personal Life, there should be a lower case Senator.
    The reference is to "U.S. Senator...John B. Gordon" In that context, isn't "United States (or US) Senator" a formal title to be capitalized? (Will change if you can show me that I'm wrong). Montanabw(talk) 17:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so, though I would link in that case. Wehwalt.
DONE -- Montanabw
  • "and became the largest tree nursery in the United States at its peak." Suggest "and at its peak was the largest tree nursery in the United States". Picky, but I think "was" better than "became" here.
    Done. Another case where I think the "at its peak" language was the way it was worded at some point, and someone changed it. Will change back, if whoever changed it objects, we can discuss further. --Montana
  • "He was partially blind in one eye." This should be in the previous sentence, perhaps with the help of an "as".
    Done -- Montanabw
  • Regarding the image of *Abu Zeyd, it is rather unusual to have an image credit as part of the image. Your thoughts?
    I'd like to keep it, as whoever uploaded it to commons, It's one of the best quality scans of the image I have seen (a different example here). That particular shot is also probably the best image of the horse as far as showing his quality. (examples of the few other images of him can be viewed here) FYI, I do not possess the original stud books, and those who have them rarely lend out the originals, so I also contacted the librarian at the W.K.Kellogg library at Cal Poly Pomona, who verified that the image was published on the frontispiece of the 1918 Arabian stud book. -- Montanabw
    I don't personally care, but just giving you a heads up. If you feel it should stay I'm fine with it. Wehwalt.
  • "only £2727" I don't much care for present day values, but could we at least have the dollar equivalent then? It should not be difficult as rates were fixed.
    See the above conversation. I would gladly do a dollars/pounds conversion in 1918 dollars if I knew where to find what the exchange rate was then and properly calculate and source it, do you happen to know a link? I originally had a present day pounds/dollars conversion, but I dropped it due to the conversation with Ed above. I agree that a dollars conversion would be useful and would be glad to add one, so long as the calculation will meet all FA criteria for such things (HELP!) --Montanabw
    Not sure it is reliable, but it seems very good, here.Wehwalt
I'll root around about it a bit as to RS, and will see if I can toss in a conversion. Thanks for the source. Montanabw
  • Do we have any links that might tell us what a remount agent is?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadly, no, and even the U.S. Army Remount Service article itself is rather new. (I worked on it some, it was mostly Intothatdarkness' project) In the case of Brown, a lot of the original people writing about him did so in a time when apparently they just assumed everyone knew what a remount agent was. I have found info that these remount agents were basically civilians with government contracts to provide horses to the military and/or to stand stallions owned by the military, and that they also had an advisory board of some sort that was organized in cooperation with the Army, but the sources on this are marginal for RS, especially by the standards of WP MilHist. Intothatdarkness and I have both been doing some digging, and what little we've found is interesting but tertiary sources at best. What little we can properly cite is at U.S._Army_Remount_Service#The_20th_century. --Montanabw
Perhaps you might want to redline it then. Wehwalt.
DONE-- Montanabw
  • Support (placed here for delegate convenience). I've looked over the modifications and see no problems, also the new material. Excellent article about an obscure (at least to me!) but interesting individual.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's update: After addressing Wehwalt's comments, and per an email request from an editor I respect, suggesting that I add more about Brown's career with the company, I added three new sources and expanded the personal life, Brown Company career, and legacy sections. In the process, I did some copyediting and fixed a few things I spotted along the way. I apologize for doing a major edit in the midst of an FAC, but the material adds significantly to the article. I welcome any comments, help, or suggestions on both the existing and new edits. Here is the diff from today's work. Montanabw(talk) 20:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Yes, you're very naughty for adding new material mid-FAC, but I've augmented Wehwalt's check of it with a quick browse of my own and it doesn't look like you've done any harm... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thanks to all reviewers, I appreciate your work and effort in reviewing this article! Montanabw(talk) 19:31, 8 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [84].[reply]

Batman: Arkham City

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello kiddies, Joker here, welcome to the last Featured Article nomination of your lives, but as my old pop used to say...if you gotta support one FAC nomination, do it with a smile. At least I think that's what he said, I do prefer to keep my options open after all. Let me tell you allllllllllllll a little story about why you should support this FAC nomination, don't worry about the poison gas or the explosives they're just decorative. Honest. The article as you can clearly see is detailed and fully comprehensive of the material, an oh-so-snug size in terms of prose, uses images effectively and not overzealously, is well-written, and encompasses all available and sourced information, and I do so love sourced information. Reminds me of my first henchman, he was a gas! Or a gun, a knife? Who cares, guy was a loser anyway. Anywayyyy... Oh I can't take all the credit, though I certainly tried, I have to thank User:Grapple X, User:Y2kcrazyjoker4, User:-5-, User:JHunterJ, User:Masem and...Cluebot NG? Hmm... now that's crazy! Read, and hopefully you will love and support! - Joker (really this guy-> Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:48, 22 December 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Source spot-check by FutureTrillionaire

Resolved comments from Futuretrillionaire (talk)
I'll take a look at this. The source used in the infobox for the European Wii U release date does not mention Nov 30, 2012. In fact, the source doesn't talk about Wii U at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 sources[85][86] used for the first few sentences in the Gameplay section do not mention anything related to "stealth", "beat 'em up tactics" or a freely movable "camera".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the gadgets part, the source used does not mention the "grapnel gun". Also the claim "The game incorporates more puzzle elements than its predecessor" is not supported by the source used (I've checked all 3 pages of the source), or the other source at the end of the paragraph. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is referenced as the Batclaw in the source, the writer not paying much attention, in-game it is on-screen labeled as the Grapnel gun, they're the same thing. Removed the second statement about puzzles. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the part about detective vision, the source does not specify that the "navigational element" is toned down compared to the previous game. In the next paragraph, the statement "Batman must rescue a civilian hostage held in one of the Riddler's many death traps" does not seem to be entirely supported by either of the 2 sources at the end of the paragraph.[87][88] Also, for the next paragraph "Primary" and "secondary" missions and "Freeflow combat system" don't seem to be discussed in any of the 3 sources used.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:07, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I didn't write most of the Gameplay section and now I'm paying for it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Freeflow Combat part seems to be covered in the last paragraph of Ref 22, it's just not referred to as Freeflow Combat, sorted the mission problem. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"(Combat map)" and "(Predator map)" should be removed because not only are they unnecessary, those are not terms used by the source provided. In the part about Catwoman, the 2 sources used [89][90] do not seem to mention that Catwoman was included with the original PC version. Also, the statement "Her combat emphasizes agility and allows for the use of unique weapons such as clawed gauntlets, bolas, and the iconic whip" is not supported by either of these 2 sources [91] [92] (except for the part about the whip).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim "Robin has his own main story narrative" is not supported by the source. For the part about the length of the game, the source says the main mission will last for 20-25 hours, not 25. Also, the source doesn't say aynthing about "15 hours for side missions". For the number of Riddler trophies, the source says there's 400, not 440. If there is indeed exactly 440 trophies, and the number used by the source is an approximation, then either another source needs to be added for the 440 claim, or the sentence can be changed to something like "The game contains approximately four hundred Riddler challenges..."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "Rather than relying on maps, the player can mark Riddler puzzles as they are found and return to them later" doesn't seem to be supported by any of the sources used in the paragraph. The statement that says that TriOviz for Games Technology is integrated with Unreal Engine 3 is not mentioned in the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the characters section, "Kane", the guy who got replaced, is not mentioned in the source. Either remove the Kane part, or provide a source that says that Kane voiced for the previous game. "Jack Ryder (James Horan)" needs a citation. Victor Zsasz is mentioned in the source, but the voice actor Danny Jacobs is not. "Poison Ivy (Tasia Valenza)" is in a similar situation, although this one is also using a primary source. Behind the Voice Actors.com, the source used for Alfred, is not a good source to use (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 86#Behind the Voice Actors.com RS?). It looks like all the character source problems here can be solved by using the 2 gamezone sources [93][94]. I also reccommend removing the behind the voice of actors source and that primary source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree on Behind the Voice Actors. The information is not controversial, the site is not user edited and they only add information they can source through contact with the person/their staff/or credits. Sadly the people behind Arkham City thought that having us play a guessing game would be the fun thing to do. I contacted BTVA personally and this is the response I received:
          • "Mark,
          • Thanks for the inquiry! No our content is absolutely not user submitted. We rely on end credits or direct contact with the voice directors, voice actors or people involved with the production of the tv show, movie or game.
          • Now, that being said we have not completed the process of verifying ALL of the 80,000+ credits on the site because well to be honest that takes a lot of time. You can tell which ones we have publicly verified by noticing if the credit has a green check mark on the page like you see here:
          • http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/video-games/Batman-Arkham-Asylum/
          • The person in charge of the Arkham City game has apparently not uploaded the credit images/confirmation at this point but I will contact him so he gets that up so you will be able to see exactly where we got our information from.
          • Thanks, and please let us know if you have any other questions or need further explanation.
          • We also have no problem with you referencing/linking to our pages if you need to for citation reasons.
          • - BTVA Admin Team"Darkwarriorblake (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is reliable for this purpose. The gamezone reference is useful for some information which is reflected elsewhere, but some parts are inaccurate such as it claiming that Quinton Flynn voices Nightwing when Nightwing has no voice, BTVA doesn't have that issue. I'll look at the rest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but for the Alfred part, BTVA does not have a green check mark on Jarvis, meaning it has not been verified. Therefore, for at least that part, this source can not be used.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
K, I changed things but I'll admit I'm not happy about having to remove BTVA, there's no reason to question it's reliability and the information it is sourcing is not controversial or contested. And it's literally the only place on the entire internet that contains the information in one place and isn't user submitted. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like BTVA doesn't have a green check mark for LaMarche voice acting Calender man either, so that source can't be used. Again, the Gamezone source can be helpful here. Kari Wahlgren is not mentioned in the source The twitter source for Killer Croc should be removed because there's already a better source cited. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're breakin' my balls, but fixed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the settings section, I don't see any of the sources used describing Strange as "genius". This adjective should be removed unless a source can be found to support it. There's no citations in the plot section, which I'm guessing is just using primary sources. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Video games, this is discouraged. Here's the GameSpot walkthrough, I think it might help. I'd like to see a citation should be added at the end of each paragraph, even if all the citations come from one source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can, there are no references that cover all or even some elements of the plot unless they are forums and FAC film articles do not need their plots referencing. Is there any chance that this is an RS because it covers a bunch of stuff. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that there are other VG FAs that rely solely on primary sources for the plot, I'm not going to be very strict about this. The section now looks good enough to me. As a side note, I have an big test on Thursday, so I can't continue this review for a few days. Sorry about this.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you've taken time to respond to the FA Nom, that's good enough. You pointed out a lot of issues with Gameplay, almost entirely (apart from the rotating camera) parts that I didn't write and trusted in others to have sourced properly, so it's improved. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm back. Here are some more issues I found. The statement "By the time they had programmed Batman to dive and glide between buildings of the asylum, the adaption of the gameplay to the city was considered natural" doesn't seem to be supported by the source, which says "As soon as we had Batman diving off rooftops and gliding between buildings, we knew that we had made the right decision to take the action to the streets." The claim that the studio "only went forward with [new features] that they felt would be authentic to Batman" doesn't seem to be supported by that source either. I'm not sure why these two sources are being used.[95][96] Both are outdated don't support the statement that Rocksteady Studios denied the rumors concerning multiplyaer. The statement "Rocksteady expanded its workforce from 75 to over 100 people" is not supported by the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only difference between "As soon as we had Batman diving off rooftops and gliding between buildings, we knew that we had made the right decision to take the action to the streets." and what is in the article seems to be the word "natural" and "right decision to take action to the streets", I can change "natural" if you want but it, to me at least, seems to be making the same point.
  • "only went forward with [new features] that they felt would be authentic to Batman" -> in source " The most important thing for us is that players genuinely feel like Batman when they play the game, and so every creative decision that we take is made with that in mind. Then, once we have a feature in place, we ask ourselves, "Does that make me feel like Batman?"
  • The amount of staff was on page 2, fixed the rest. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the marketing section, there doesn't seem to be a source for the Facebook and Twitter take over. There are 4 sources placed at the end of the second paragraph in the Pre-order bonuses section. Are all 4 really necessary? Also, the Joystiq source says that the source for the skin is no-longer exclusive to Best Buy, so Best Buy should be removed from the sentence. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Retail editions section, "Silver Age Batman skin DLC" is not mentioned in the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should've said Bronze Age of Comics (His outfit from 1970-1985), in the source it calls it 70s Batman, similar to the Preorder source which calls it 1970s Batman. I've replaced the existing source for the preorder with a better one, left the retail one but corrected the Silver Age to Bronze Age. If you think it is unfair to call it Bronze Age if the source doesn't explicitly name it that, let me know and Ill change them both over to just say 1970s Batman, just using Bronze Age because it's searchable what he looked like where 1970s Batman is a bit more broad a term. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Downloadable content section, Xbox 360 and PS3 are not mentioned in either of these two sources.[97][98] Also, the claim that originally "the missions were presented as part of the main game" doesn't seem to be supported by the two sources. I can't tell if this statement "Users can also purchase the content separately" is supported by those two sources either.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Robin pack challenge maps and skins are not supported by the source. Also, I'm think some of the info in the Downloadable content section is repeating some stuff in the Gameplay section. The second-to-last paragraph in the Gameplay section is almost entirely about DLC content. I think that paragraph should be moved down to the DLC section, and trimmed to reduce redundancy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Gameplay paragraph very briefly states their role in the game and mentions they are DLC so as to not give the impression they are a part of the game otherwise, it does not cover in the same detail the DLC section. the rest is done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the percentages in the first paragraph of the Reception section and in the reception infobox needs to be updated. Specifically, all 4 GameRankings percentages, and the Wii U Metacritic percentage.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that Games Masters called it "one of the greatest games ever conceived" doesn't seem to be in the source. Also, I can't find where in this source does it say that the reviewer thought the "B.A.T. system made certain battles too easy." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a work conference uintil Friday so I don't know if I can fix this before then but I will try to fit it in. Just letting you know I'm not ignoring the comment. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Take your time. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK think I sorted it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the sales section, I'm not sure why these 2 sources are being used.[99][100] They don't mention Arkham City at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the archived version of those pages, you'll see why. The problem with dynamic chart pages sadly, but I will see if I can find an update for the main links, the info is still supported in the archive however. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced one ref and replaced the other two's base links with their webcites. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might need to check this out again. For this sentence: "During the first week of sales in the United Kingdom, Batman: Arkham City became the number 1 selling game on all available formats, topping the all-format,[168] PS3[169] and Xbox 360 charts,[170] replacing FIFA 12," Ref 169 and 170 takes me to error pages.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:10, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They're working for me at the moment, it's possible WebCite was down when you tried to view them, try again here and here. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it's working for me now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This statement: "It became the fourth biggest launch of 2011 after FIFA 12, Gears of War 3 and L.A. Noire" is not supported by the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Batman becomes the fourth biggest launch of the year to date behind, FIFA 12, Gears of War 3 and LA Noire, and is Warner’s biggest ever UK launch by some distance." Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Opps. My bad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Accolades section, "Best Studio" should be changed to "Studio of the Year" since it's the term used in the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source calls the title "Top Gaming Moment", not "Top Game Moment". The same source also calls this title the "Ultimate Game of the Year" not "Ultimate Game Award". Also, the Digital Spy source said the game won the "Best Action-Adventure Game" title at the Golden Joystick awards, but this source says it has been crowned "Best Action Game". Which is it?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's inconsistent even on the main site, but I've made the refs consistent. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this statement ("This also tied Arkham City for the sixth-highest-rated game ever") accurately reflects what is written in the source, which says "This makes the trio the joint third highest scoring games ever behind the likes of Super Mario galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater 3 and Grand Theft Auto III." The source says the game was tied for 3rd place, not 6th.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fixed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the game is tied for 6th-best ever, it's just the MCV source in question is poorly written. The article says that three games released in 2011 (one being Arkham City) are tied for third-best ever behind Super Mario Galaxy, Super Mario Galaxy 2, Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 3, and Grand Theft Auto III (note that GTA4 is missing). I have absolutely no idea what the publication is trying to convey with this sentence (I don't know if they have ever ranked anything before) but if you look at Metacritic's all-time rankings, you will see that Arkham City is tied with many other titles for a 96 score, with 5 unique titles (if you ignore the repeat GTA4 entry) scoring 97 or above. This would rank Arkham City tied for 6th. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misreading the reference, it says that three titles are joint third at 96, it later says that they are along side a bunch of other games at 96 like Bioshock and Half Life 2, those above it at joint 2nd and joint 1st. The source was right, the info in the article saying it was sixth was wrong. The Metacritic source you added has it at 96, the only numbers higher as 97 and 98, so it would be third. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the way rankings work. If 3 games are tied for 98 and game X has 97, you don't say that game X is in second place. You start by counting down from how many games are ahead of it. Which would mean game X is in fourth place. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 23:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So those at 97 are joint 3rd place and then the next thing is joint 6th? That doesn't seem to make sense, and it will need updating every time a game scores higher than it. Anyway, my original point was that MCV is saying they are joint third, which is true from at least one perspective at least. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 08:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's several ways to rank, but the method I am suggesting is known as "Standard competition ranking ("1224" ranking)". Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 11:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way this statement ("Batman: Arkham City appeared on several lists of the top video games of 2011, including being placed...number 2 by Gamasutra, and the Financial Post (tied with Skyrim)") is phrased in the article is rather misleading. The Financial Times source did not have a one list system. Rather it presented the opinions of several people, each of whom shared what they thought was the 3 best games of the year.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I counted the number of mentions overall, not sure how else to phrase it but open to suggestions. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier to just remove it. This kind of counting is borderline WP:OR.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think it is OK, but I have removed it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source doesn't mention that the game was listed "behind Uncharted 3: Drake's Deception." I also got the impression that this is the UK's version of the magazine per the article's title. If that's the case, then it should be specified.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Technical issues section, the statement claiming that WB "provided a process for users to prove their game was purchased new in order to receive a replacement code" is not supported by the source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Music section, this source doesn't mention "two albums". Also, this source about the Delux edition doesn't list Fish as one of the artists.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check complete - All the issues I've found have been addressed. I support this nomination.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Futuretrillionaire for your extensive input and improvements. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Hahc21

  • If I am able, I will review this candidate after I finish scanning Oblivion below. In the case that more support votes are casted before I conduct my review, and the delegate considers that it is ready for promotion, they can go ahead and promote without awaiting further. — ΛΧΣ21 17:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Hahc21 (talk)
*Lead
    • I feel that you need to expand the critical reception part. You say "The game received critical acclaim" but don't state how or why (leaving the reader in need for more)
  • Gameplay
    • Thumbs up on writing here.
    • Thanks!
  • Awards
    • Given the long list of awards, I think you can write a separate list of it, and leave a summary here. I think it will be best.
    • Hmm, I think given the length of the article as it is the awards aren't taking up too much real estate and I'd rather not send a reader away from the article unless I have to. I definitely would prefer to retain the prose in the core article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General note
    • I see some one-to-two-lines paragraphs here and there. I'd merge them into/to make bigger ones.

Delegate comments

  • There are a few duplicate links that should be reviewed -- use this script to highlight them.
  • Has anyone reviewed image licensing for this article?
  • Checked for myself in any case -- rationales/licences look okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
  • Looks to me that only video game aficianados have reviewed so far -- in addition to their expertise, I'd like to see a review from someone else to help ensure the article's general accessibility/readability. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the Plot section there are five consecutive paras which start, "Batman...."
I had a stab at rewording the openings of the plot paragraphs to reduce the pre-Batmanning. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When he returns to the Joker, Batman finds him completely healthy. - "unharmed" ? "intact" - "in full vigour"? - all these sound more natural than "completely healthy" which sounds funny to me....
Fair enough, but in the context of the game the Joker starts off really messed up and is shown to be restored to his normal state, so I'm not sure "intact" or "unharmed" would fit. I will have a think about a replacement. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"finds him..." "...restored to health"? "...completely cured"? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok - I think either of those are better than my suggestions. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
while the line launcher can now be deployed as a tightrope or alter direction during flight - as a (noun) or (verb)...sounds a bit funny - better as 2 nouns or 2 verbs.
At a press conference held by Bruce Wayne to declare his opposition to Arkham City, Tyger mercenaries arrest Wayne and imprison him in Arkham City. --> "At a press conference held by Bruce Wayne to declare his opposition to Arkham City, Tyger mercenaries arrest and detain/imprison him in Arkham City." (eliminate a Wayne)

Looks pretty comprehensive and I can't see any other prose clangers....

Tks for providing the additional check I was after, Cas. I'll be promoting the article based on the above reviews. For the record, one-word supports (or opposes for that matter), however well-intentioned, don't actually have any bearing on the outcome -- commentary indicating familiarity with FAC criteria carries far more weight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 8 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC) [101].[reply]

Gateshead International Stadium

Nominator(s): Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent about six months working on this article, which describes the host venue of the 2013 European Team Championships. It started as a stub, was promoted to GA in November 2012, was peer reviewed by Giants2008 in December 2012 and was then kindly given a once over for content and prose by Sarastro1 over the Christmas holidays (recorded for posterity on the article talk page). Hopefully it is now ready for a crack at FAC. I will be available to respond to comments and suggestions. Meetthefeebles (talk) 19:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Hi there. This is looking pretty good so far. Prose is largely up to snuff and I've started going through some of the references. There are some issues that need to be addressed (though nothing fatal to the article's FAC, at least upon my first read-through). There are the occasional jargon/unfamiliar reader concerns (ex. in the lead Gateshead F.C. is mentioned without cluing people to what sport they play; same deal with the 3,000m), colloquialisms ("slated"), and redundancies ("The report also noted concerns that the original centrepiece of the proposed village, the ice rink, may have been deterring investors and that a proposal to redevelop land at the Stadium of Light in Sunderland, which also proposed an ice rink as a centrepiece, was detracting from what councillors had hoped to be a unique feature of the proposed village."). The article should try to refrain from citing primary sources as much as possible--this mainly means the sports team websites. Also, much of the Transport section strikes me as problematic, as you are pretty much repeating map directions and primary source info from the Metro website.

Some other items I wanted to bring up:

  • The last sentences of the History and Development section seem to go off the rails a bit, becoming nonsensical. The last sentence even ends on a comma.
I've corrected the grammar problem and slightly reworded to give a bit more cohesion I think. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are concert performances a rarity at the venue? If not, I wonder why single out these particular performances.
Yes, they are indeed, especially since the opening of the Metro Radio Arena just accross the river in 1995. I can't think of any concerts held there at all since around that time (and I live in Gateshead). Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence that starts "While these did not have an immediate positive impact..." what is "these" referring to?
I've reworded slightly to give better context. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes bluesqfootball.com and footballgroundguide.com reliable sources?
The Blue Square site is the official site of the league; It is actually called the 'Blue Square Premier Division' but obviously this is not included in the article. The other one is perhaps not reliable (I'm not sure) so I have replaced with a link to a BBC report. Meetthefeebles (talk)
  • Is there a proper criteria to define "world class" athletes?
This one came up in PR - I thought I'd taken these out. It is now gone. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When inline citing The Brewing Grade Review, since there's no author listed type out the full title instead of writing an acronym, and place the title in italics.
Wasn't sure how to deal with that one. It has been changed as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Journey time by car from Gateshead town centre is approximately five minutes and a further five minutes travel from Newcastle upon Tyne.[110]" This link does not work for me. Also, if you are making calculations instead of citing something that is plainly said, that skirts on original research.
The link didn't work for me, either, so I've added a new one. It is a calculation of sorts; the link is to a bus timetable. Is there a better source that might just stipulate this? If not, I'll just take it out if necessary. Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check back in on this FAC and will add further comments as I review the article further. In any event, good luck, and I hope everything will be taken care of in due course. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to read and leave comments. I've making some small changes as suggested. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – As stated in the nomination, I contributed suggestions for the article at peer review; in addition, I did some copy-editing back then, and tweaked a few things before coming here. My impression back then was that the article would have a strong chance at passing FAC with additional copy-editing, which has been done by Sarastro. My only additional comment is that the note in the bibliography on abbreviations has no purpose now, since the abbreviations were removed after Wesley's review. Otherwise, I think that the article meets the FA criteria, and see no reason to withhold support as I have faith that the note will be fixed prompted. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and for the excellent work at peer review which improved the article. I have removed the superfluous bibliography note. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments on prose and comprehensiveness. I had a squiz at this some time ago, but got distracted and forgot about it (as is the way of things). Anyway, here we are and I'll take another squiz and jot queries below..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since then is has been extensively re-developed, most notably in the early 1970s, 2006 and 2010. - (a) I presume the "is" should be an "it", and (b) is "notably" the right adverb? Do you mean "extensively"? (I wouldn't have thought of renovations as famous....)
Gateshead football club have played their home games at the stadium since their modern inception in 1974. - "modern inception" sounds funny to me ...."modern incarnation" or "reformation" or ...?
However, there are plans to vacate the site when their own purpose-built ground is built. - subjects of two segments ("plans" and "their own...") don't gell - better would be However, the club will vacate the site when their own purpose-built ground is built.
a former schoolteacher turned world-class athlete - I'd drop "world-class" as a bit puffy.
the venue was renamed the "Gateshead International Stadium". - quotes unnecessary here.
and the venues's profile was further raised in the summer of 1983 - too many s's?

Looking good otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to look and comment - 'tis always appreciated. I've made some small amendments per your suggestions (though I think this nomination looks somewhat doomed to failure through lack of interest). Meetthefeebles (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: regarding File:Gateshead_harriers_logo_on_black_background.png, are you sure this is a free image? The given licensing info doesn't seem to make sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is okay. I must confess that I didn't upload or even add this image - I logged into Wiki one day and someone had added it to the article... Meetthefeebles (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with copy-editing disclaimer: This is a (relatively) long article, and its structure does not really flow, but this comes from the subject matter, and the necessary limitations of this type of article, not the writing. I copy-edited and commented on the article before it came to FAC, and the changes made then and since leave me confident that this is FA standard. I would have commented much sooner, but I prefer uninvolved editors to comment first where I have been copy-editing. And, to be honest, I forgot it was here! I'd still be happier if some other editors could check the prose, but I suspect that may not happen, so I will support now. However, I agree with Nikkimaria that the Harriers logo looks suspect, and I would be inclined to remove it to be on the safe side. Otherwise, good work and well done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for taking the time to look over the article prior to this nomination. Both are appreciated. In light of your concern and that of Nikkimaria, I've simply removed the Harriers logo. Hopefully one or two more editors can take a look at the article before it's time is up... Meetthefeebles (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Your first FAC, Meetthefeebles? If so, a belated welcome! That being the case, I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- if none of the reviewers above take care of it, I'll probably do it myself in the next couple of days.
  • You have Harv errors in the Bibliography, though they shouldn't take long to fix -- install this script to see them for yourself in future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. It isn't my first FAC but I am rarely here (most of my time is spent at GAN) and your kind welcome is appreciated nonetheless. I've fixed (I think) the Harv errors in the bibliography and I am available to deal with any other issues. Meetthefeebles (talk) 23:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still see the Harv errors in the Bibliography section -- did you use the script I mentioned above? Looking at the article, you don't appear to be using Harv citations anyway, so the simplest thing is to just remove the "ref=harv" parameter from the templates in the Bibliography.
Done. I tried to use the script but I am hopeless at such things and simply got lost... Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One other thing, however, I couldn't see where Cox was cited in the article. In that case, the book should be removed from the Bibliography section (it could be included in a "Further reading" section if you choose). Pls check for similar instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cox was in an older version of the article but was removed at PR. The others in the bibliography are all fine after a check. Meetthefeebles (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

  • FN13 (c) -- okay
  • FN17 (b) -- okay
  • FN17 (c) -- can't see specific mention of the 1974 "Gateshead Games" on page 1
  • FN79 -- okay
  • FN99 -- okay
  • FN113 -- okay

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I've added a reference to a new source which specifically mentions the "Gateshead Games" at FN17 (c) per your comment above. Meetthefeebles (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 17:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [102].[reply]

Alben W. Barkley

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since my last Kentucky governor FAC was met with a collective yawn, I've decided to see if I can generate more interest with a U.S. Vice President from Kentucky. This article has been through the wringer, from an RFC on its length and number of references, to a successful GAC nomination, to a partial copyedit from Collect (talk · contribs), to a full-fledged peer review. Now, I think it's ready for FAC. I will do my best to respond promptly to comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 21:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAC instructions where it says, "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a delegate; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a delegate will decide whether to remove it. Nominators whose nominations are archived with no (or minimal) feedback will be given exemptions." Have you requested an exemption? Graham Colm (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't, because I misread the instructions. I thought they referred to re-nominating the article that just failed; I didn't see that they referred to any other article. I guess I've been in violation of this rule several times, and no one has ever called me on it, so mine was a sin of ignorance. I assume you would agree that the Stevenson nomination received minimal feedback and should qualify for an exemption? Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. Given the paucity of reviews of your previous nomination, I think it is acceptable to proceed with this one. Graham Colm (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:

  • You describe how he went from "Willie Alben" to "William Alben," but don't say how he came to be "Alben William," unless I missed it.
  • How much did Barkley win his first House election by? Was the primary the main contest, or was his district one of the ones Republicans occassionally won back then?
    • I will try to dig up that source again and see if it says. I'm usually exceedingly diligent about including that when it's available, so I'm inclined to believe it wasn't. Without doubt, the primary would have been the main contest. The First District was the most solidly Democratic district in the state for decades, including this time period. Details here. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The declaration of war in 1917--you say he voted for it when it came before the Senate. Should that be "House"?
  • Under "U.S. Senator", do you identify the Bourbon faction before this point? If not, a link might help, especially in a Kentucky article where it might be confused with the county.
  • Was the Hatch Act specifically a reaction to shenanigans in Kentucky, or were there similar incidents elsewhere that were equally notorious?
    • My impression is that, if there were other instances (and surely there were), they were far from equally notorious. The Barkley-Chandler contest seems to have been a contest of national interest, which put the spotlight on the issues addressed by the Hatch Act. Admittedly, most of my sources are Kentucky-centric, but they read as though the act was a direct response to this particular election. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 16:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I have, other than some minor copyediting I did. Nice article! --Coemgenus (talk) 20:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN84: formatting
  • FN94: page formatting
  • FN141: which Libbey?
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • University Press of Kentucky or The University Press of Kentucky? Register of the Kentucky Historical Society or The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society?
  • Check formatting of quotation marks within quotation marks
  • Lake Barkley: doubled period from template
  • Pietrusza: ISBN?
  • Check page formatting in Further reading
  • External link should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done! Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support I had my say at the peer review, and, for the most part, my concerns were addressed. I'd still like to see a bit more on Barkeley's personal style, which was folksy and distinctive, but that's not enough to stop me from supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK as Public Domain, sources and authors provided, one small problem:

  • The derivative images should be tagged with "self|Cc-by-sa-3.0". "PD-Harris-Ewing" refers to the original copyright situation of the original image (some uploaders add such original tags as secondary tag for information purposes). Derivative works create a new copyright with the need for a license from the creator of the derivative. GermanJoe (talk) 09:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This looks like a very worthy political biography, and I am not far off supporting. I do however have a few issues:-

  • Possible overdetailing: these political articles can be difficult reading for those unfamiliar with the context. One way of making them more accessible is to be sparing on minor detail; I feel that in this article one is sometimes bogged down with trivia. As an example, consider this, (concerning Barkley's run in the primaries for governor in 1922):

"Bingham's campaign forced Barkley to declare his candidacy earlier than planned, but it was not successful outside Louisville; Beckham supporters backed Barkley, more to prevent Cantrill's nomination than because they desired Barkley's.[68] Beckham's law partner, Elwood Hamilton, became Barkley's campaign chairman, and Percy Haly, a political boss in the Beckham faction, was a Barkley advisor.[69] Barkley recruited Wiley B. Bryan, a former Cantrill supporter, as his campaign treasurer, and appointed Mildred Spaulding, who supported Barkley more than Cantrill or Beckham, as head of his Louisville campaign headquarters.[70]"

All very hard to follow, and is this level of detail really necessary, for what was an ultimately unsuccessful campaign and hardly central to Barkley's life and career? This is one example; there are other similar cases.
    • Good point. The idea here is that Barkley attracted support across factional boundaries, which was important in his later Senate run. I've reduced the detail here. I'm more than open to your pointing out additional examples. I've been through this thing trying to reduce it's length so many times that I can no longer effectively identify these things anymore. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reduced text is definitely better, though you need to clarify what is meant by "it" in "it was not successful outside Louisville". The tactic, presumably? I don't have time to suggest specifically in what other areas you might trim detail; this was more by way of advising you to be watchful for any chances to improve readability, which can be something of a problem with political biographies of, shall we say, the non-stellar variety. Brianboulton (talk)
  • In the lead, "Roosevelt" is mentioned with no link or indication as to who he was. Presumably most/all American readers will know, but for the rest of us, well he's been gone many years...I'd specify "President Roosevelt" and link.
  • "Coolidge administration" does not seem an appropriate section heading, as Coolidge's presidency is not discussed in the text.
  • Who says Davis was "lacklustre"? This reads as an editorial judgement.
    • This is Libbey's judgment, although Davis' own article calls him a "dark horse" for the presidency in 1924. I'm not sure "little-known" is exactly correct, but it's clear he wasn't really a competitive candidate. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 13:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barely. You say, earlier, "future prohibition legislation, including the Eighteenth Amendment" which is not very precise. For the benefit of younger and non-American readers I would uses this latter sentence to include a link, thus: "Barkley called for a platform plank directing Congress to repeal prohibition.
  • What was Roosevelt's "court-packing plan"?
    • It's a bit complicated. The law limits the number of Supreme Court justices to nine, and appointments are for life. The Supreme Court struck down some of Roosevelt's New Deal, so he proposed the "court-packing plan", which would allow him to appoint an additional justice for every sitting justice over the age of 70. Ostensibly, the idea was to reduce the workload of the older judges, but as I understand it, most folks, even non-politicos, saw it as a transparent attempt to allow Roosevelt to appoint more justices friendly to the New Deal without having to wait for sitting justices to retire. As such, it was cherished legislation for New Deal supporters and totally anathema to New Deal opponents. The wikilink is on the word "legislation" in the previous paragraph. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain: The New York Times called the race "the Gettysburg of the party's internecine strife over national control in 1940 [at the Democratic National Convention]"? Doesn't seem to make sense in the context.
    • I assume (perhaps wrongly) that most folks know that Gettysburg was a key battle in the American Civil War. The Times was comparing the Kentucky primary to that key battle because it was a challenge to Roosevelt's hand-picked Senate floor leader by a New Deal opponent. If Barkley had lost, it would have been seen as a repudiation of his New Deal agenda. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...all of these candidates won, damaging Roosevelt's image." Wrong use of participle; you could say: "thereby damaging" or "which damaged".
  • "In 1943, Roosevelt refused to appoint Barkley to a vacancy on the Supreme Court". There is no previous indication that Barkley sought such a position. Also, to the general reader this refusal seems eminently reasonable, given Barkley's slender legal training and limited practical experience, yet you make it seem as though Roosevelt was denying Barkley his rightful due.
    • I'm pretty sure Barkley was seeking a patronage appointment. He had been a loyal supporter of Roosevelt, and he thought he was entitled to the appointment if he wanted it. The source doesn't explicitly say that, but it's a political tradition in the U.S. that dates back basically to the country's founding. Usually, it's a cabinet post, a diplomatic mission, or a lower federal judgeship, but this would not have been the first time a president made a patronage appointment to the court, and it would have been less strange still considering Roosevelt's adversarial relationship with the sitting justices. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " making 40 major speeches his first eight months in office" - something missing there.
  • " Illinois Governor Adlai Stevenson (son of the vice-president)..." Grandson, I believe, and "former vice president", without the hyphen.

All in all, highly creditable. I'd never heard of him, but have now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, and sorry about the slow response. Been a busy (but rewarding) couple of weeks at work, and my little girl was sick, but is feeling much better now. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 14:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to support when the final tweaking is done. More importantly, I hope your little daughter is better, and no more sleepless nights. Brianboulton (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the well wishes for Little Miss Acdixon, who was recovered enough to take in the Senior Day basketball festivities at my alma mater this weekend. Thankful for Tamiflu; hope the flu hasn't been as bad where you are as it has been in the States this year. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support after careful attention given to my points raised above. As I said earlier, very creditable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having read about a third of the article so far, this is very really well written, insightful and engaging to the reader. Cmts to follow. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notwith standing, this was a pleasure to read, I have a few quibbles I can sort myself. Re: Read the other two thirds last night, made a few small tweaks, few more to make, its a Support from me anyroads. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Most of your tweaks were fine, but I altered a few of them for various reasons. If you feel strongly about any of the ones I changed, we can discuss. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 15:10, 4 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [103].[reply]

H. C. McNeile

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the forgotten giants of the golden age of British detective fiction, H. C. McNeile is a largely forgotten figure today. Best known for his Bulldog Drummond stories, McNeile created the forerunner to later thriller heroes—Drummond was both a proto-Bond and Biggles—but he also wrote extensively about the First World War, while serving on the front line. Some top-drawer assistance during the peer review has helped immensely in developing this article. – SchroCat (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, where my few quibbles were satisfactorily attended to. The article is comprehensive but not excessive in length, well proportioned, unbiased, well referenced, and in highly readable prose. It meets the FA criteria, in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I have had the joy of following this article from the start and have enjoyed its progression to FAC. Like Tim I played a hand at the peer review where all my comments were addressed. A thoroughly worthy candidate and one that certainly has my support to FA status. -- CassiantoTalk 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check from GermanJoe

- all OK (3 of 3 done). some of the images need clarification regarding their copyright status:

  • File:Sapper_APWatt.jpg has 2 problems: "for representation in Wikipedia articles" would be an invalid license limitation for Wiki-images (it must be completely free except attribution). The other issue is the missing OTRS-ticket tag, making it hard to verify the situation. Is there a similar image of him available with a clearer copyright situation? Either replace or we could try a request to check it on OTRS-noticeboard.
  • I have not found any other images on my searches, but it is possible there are others in books that could be scanned. I thought that the email agreement from the copyright owners for us to use it on Wiki would be sufficient, but I'll ask at Commons for some more clarity on the use. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:No_Man's_Land_-_1ed_ed_cover.jpg - OK, only when the cover was first used for the US edition. Could you clarify, if this was the first published edition and/or other editions used different covers?
  • File:Bulldog_Drummond_Poster.jpg - The source website claims: "The artwork was done by E. William Haemmel.", author info needs to be checked and added. Also the country of origin is unclear, could you verify, that the poster was first published in the US and not in the UK? (if UK, you need a second UK-specific copyright tag).
  • As far as can be ascertained, it was the US only, (although as this is a lost film, there is very little info, including artwork). E. William Haemmel was an American illustrator and the searches I did for him previously show little info, except a few covers of US magazines. - SchroCat (talk) 15:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, F. or E. William Haemmel? This link [[104]] of an old newspaper , and a few others, has F. as illustrator of covers. Either way i'll add a small note with disclaimer to the summary.
  • Other images are OK (PD-1923, geograph project). Sources and authors provided.

Generally, when the work's country of origin is not US, you'll need a second copyright tag for this country (atleast for Commons images, images downloaded on Wiki-servers would be OK with US-copyright only). GermanJoe (talk) 15:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status update, 2 of 3 done GermanJoe (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All images OK - first image deleted via OTRS-team and replaced with fair-use File:(Herman)_Cyril_McNeile_by_Howard_Coster.jpg. GermanJoe (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much GermanJoe, for all your work on this review - as well as going off and dealing with the OTRS team too: it is very mcuh appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from Nikkimaria

- spotchecks not done

  • Page number for pull-quote in Post-war?
  • FN2, 97: possible to format these as single footnotes?
  • FN4: page(s)?
  • Check alphabetization of Journals
  • Where is Westport? Whitefish? Jefferson?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals

Initial Comments from Ceranthor

  • Source 15, 94, 60, 63, 89, and 95 should probably have publishers. Source 5 and 20 also.
  • Some of the citations to Treadwell 2001, p. 111. are unnecessary, making the extent to "m" bothersome. In the bits of text where it is used successively alone after itself, such as in these two sentences ("Few details are known about McNeile's wartime service, as his records were destroyed by incendiary bombs during the Second World War.[7] He spent time with a number of Royal Engineer units on the Western Front, including 1st Field Squadron, 15th Field Company and 33rd Division, where he was the commander.[7]") I don't think it needs to be cited more than once. I think this is most prevalent in "First World War service".
  • There's only two (one of which is your quoted one) which I'm comfortable taking out. The others are not clear cut enough to remove without appearing to be supported by other references. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistency is needed for the footnotes listing for example "The ten Drummond novels are"... I changed them to a prose format, but it is entirely up to you whether or not they should be a list or prose. They just all need to be the same, please!
  • Are sources 94 and 95 ("New Mystery Stories") actually separate articles, or is the difference just a matter of date of publication?

Will come back to look over prose once these comments are addressed. ceranthor 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Few Prose Comments from Ceranthor
  • Early life:
    • he travelled via England - I assume this means through? Can't we just say through? Via is usually not used in this context in my experience.
  • Post-war
    • a member of "the Breed" - could you clarify briefly what the Breed is here? Oops, missed it earlier!
    • He had a loud voice and a louder laugh, who "liked to enliven clubs and restaurants with the sight and sound of military good fellowship"; - The way this sentence is composed makes it sound like you intend to say his laugh "liked to...".
  • Death
    • On his death his estate was valued at over £26,000.[5] - Is on his death proper British English? I've heard the "on something" phrase once, but it was in some sort of poem - I think Walt Whitman, so it could've been an experimental phrase. Just a clarification would be nice if it is grammatically sound.
  • Reception
    • similarly, his thrillers also went well, with Bulldog Drummond selling 396,302 copies between 1920 and 1939, - I don't think books "go well". Sales do!
    • the Daily Mirror estimated he had earned £85,000 from his writing.[91] - Over his entire career I would think. Not quite clear for some reason.

In general, it seems like you're overusing commas a bit throughout the article, but I think it's sound in terms of prose with just a few niggling issues. I'm going to continue running through the article over the next few days, but I'm more than comfortable with its condition.
Support. ceranthor 22:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

Comments leaning to support: I carried out a limited peer review (images and lead prose). Having just read the whole article, I think it is in pretty good shape, though I think one more prose pass would be beneficial. I have done a few fixes myself; in addition, here is a list of some relatively minor points I picked up in the first half of the article. I'd like to be reassured that the second half has been checked over, before fully committing to support:

  • "although he adopted the life-long nickname Mac to his friends" - does not real well. Is "Mac" really a "nickname"? For someone called McNeile I'd say it was a diminutive. And does one "adopt" one's own nickname? I think the phrase should be simplified: "...although he was always known by his friends as Mac"
  • "He spent time with a number of Royal Engineer units on the Western Front, including 1st Field Squadron, 15th Field Company and 33rd Division, where he was the commander". What exactly was he commander of? It reads as though you mean the 33rd Division, but divisional commanders were Major-generals, so I assume you don't mean that. As a captain he may have commanded a company. Needs clarification.
  • "McNeile later admitted...": this phrasing always sounds like a confession to a crime. Perhaps "confided"?
  • I think the capitalisation in "and was Mentioned in Despatches" is dubious. Outside Wikipedia it is not normally written like this. Note: this usage occurs twice in the paragraph.
  • In what sense was Treadwall an "independent" scholar?
  • "was briefly hospitalised, forcing him..." Better: "which forced him..."
  • "there is also an element of The Scarlet Pimpernel too." Last word redundant ("also" encompasses "too")
  • " Later in 1922 he resigned his commission..." "He" is inadequate; you've mentioned two other people since last naming NcNeile.
  • Link tax exile, and also reorder the sentence so that it doesn't imply that McNeile's wife was the tax exile.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Brian: as always your time, effort and thoughts are hugely appreciated and I hope the subsequent edits have done justice to your comments. I'll go over the remainder of the article again tomorrow morning for a further ce. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: thanks Brian. Regarding "Mentioned in Despatches", you're quite right ... I haven't seen "proper verbs" outside of military usage (and the occasional trademark; "Xeroxed" was capitalized many years ago), so however common the phrase is with the military, we lowercase it in Milhist articles, or switch to the noun form, "received a Mention in Despatches". - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Dank: your input is much appreciated and I've dropped it into lower case. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few more quibbles (I've also done some more prose tweaking - see article's edit history):

  • A phrase as subjective (and unidiomatic) as "unremittingly hearty" really should be in quotes and attributed to a source.
  • The two present-day values that you show (£225,337 for £5000 and £1,243,485 for "over £26,000") are both instances of spurious accuracy. These present-day-value formulae, especially the somewhat eccentric ones on which Measuringworth's calculations are based, are never that pin-point accurate, and "over 26,000" is anyway an approximation. Personally I avoid any controversy over present-day values by not giving them; if you want to keep them in I suggest you say "over £200,000" and "about £1.2 million" respectively. That's as much accuracy as is possible or necessary, and should avoid further quibbling.
  • Bibliography" means all sources, not just books, so I would bring the three journal articles into the main alphabetical listing. (That would have saved me time looking for the Bourn source).
  • Sorry! I've always lumped everything in together until a previous article where I was told quite strongly to separate them out—something I've always objected to! (In fact I may go back and try and remember which article it was and merge them all together again...) - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article in good shape now, and eminently promotable. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As always Brian, many, many thanks for all your efforts at sorting out my scribbling. I am deeply in your debt and I'll try not to bother you for anything more (for a little while at least!) Thanks again. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments from Carabinieri:

  • "His thrillers are a continuation of his war stories with the threat to England from foreigners having to be fought by upper class Englishmen" I think I understand that sentence. You're saying that there is an analogy between the struggle between Englishmen and foreign armies in his WWI stories and that between Englishmen and foreigners in his later stories. That could probably be expressed more clearly.
  • I wondered why in the "Style and technique" section the discussion of his work during WWI precedes that of his post-war work.
  • Reading the article, I wondered when and how the collaboration between McNeile and Fairlie started.
  • Having a "biography" section on the one hand but then discussing the man's death in another doesn't really make sense to me. I would suggest merging the "biography" and "personal life" sections. I would move the first paragraph of the later section to the beginning of the "Post-war" sub-section and attaching "Death and legacy" as a its own sub-section.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice. I forgot to mention this in my comments: I enjoyed reading the article. Good job. I'd support, but I don't know anything about the topic, so I don't think I can make that kind of assessment.--Carabinieri (talk) 17:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Many thanks for casting your eagle eyes over this one Dan. (And its got so many copy editors because my bloody awful writing needs it!) many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 17:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [105].[reply]

Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk; Lecen (talk) 04:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the existing article has been recently rewritten with the addition of images and better sources. • Astynax talk 04:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Joaquim José Inácio, Viscount of Inhaúma was born in the Kingdom of Portugal in 1808. He served his entire life in the navy of the Empire of Brazil, leading it in the Paraguayan War that lasted from 1864 until 1870. --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few comments on the lead prose:
  • " After Brazilian independence in 1822, Inhaúma enlisted to serve in the armada (navy) of Brazil." Is it right, in this context, to refer to him as "Inhaúma", when he did not acquire this title until 1867? The same applies to other statements in the lead. I note that in the article itself you call him "Joaquim Inácio" until his title is conferred.
  • "enlisted to serve..." The words "to serve" are redundant.
  • "during the latter half of the 1820s, he engaged in subduing secessionist rebellions". As worded, this suggests a major role which, in view of his youth, is unlikely. Suggest you soften to "participated in the subduing of..." or similar
  • "during that troubled period". In the interests of neutrality I would remove "troubled".
  • "He first saw action in the Sabinada between 1837 and 1838..." This will confuse readers, who have just been told he put down rebellions in the late 1820s, which is presumably where he first saw action.
  • "a couple years" is colloquial American English. It is not encyclopedic.
  • I am somewhat puzzled by the fourth paragraph, which summarises Inhaúma as hesitant, procrastinating, mentally exhausted and diseased, yet then says he is regarded as among the greatest Brazilian navy officers. Perhaps, rather than making so definitive a statement ("Inhaúma's leadership was encumbered by his hesitating and procrastinating behavior") you should qualify this, e.g. "some historians believe that..." etc.

That's all I have time for at the moment. Will return if possible. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian. It's good to see you. Now let's take a look at your comment:
  1. He is called Inhaúma in the entire text of the lead for simplicity's sake. It's the same standard used in other similar articles such as Pedro II of Brazil, Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre, etc...
  2. "enlisted to serve..." Fixed that.
  3. "during the latter half of the 1820s, he engaged in subduing secessionist rebellions". Fixed as per your suggestion.
  4. "during that troubled period". It was a troubled time the regency in the 1830s. It was regarded as such by contemporaries and historians. Don't worry, it isn't a controversial issue. In fact, nothing in the article or related to it it's controversial.
  5. "He first saw action in the Sabinada between 1837 and 1838..." Fixed that by removing "first".
  6. "a couple years" Changed for "two".
  7. "I am somewhat puzzled by the fourth paragraph, which summarises Inhaúma as hesitant..." Merely because he was a brave officer and regarded by a few historians as one of the greatest in Brazilian history doesn't mean that he was devoid of flaws, right? And that is also uncontroversial. Even his superior, the Duke of Caxias complained about his behavior.
I hope you'll find time to take a look at the rest of the article. Thanks for your imput, --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with these responses. As I say, I'll try to find time for a more detailed look. Brianboulton (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (drive-by) - Inline source "Ouro Preto (1894)" lacks a full bibliographic entry in "References". GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, GermanJoe. I added the missing book. --Lecen (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image check - all OK, some more tweaks needed (cleaned up a few summaries):

Two more comments:

  • One repeating problem is the lack of original publication info. I realize, it's probably difficult or impossible to find all details, but a bit more information would help to strengthen the PD-1923 license: are you sure, those images were published pre-1923? Where would such images usually be published, in Brazilian newspapers or books? Even if the original source is lost, it would help to explain, why we believe it's pre-1923. (see additional details below)
  • Reading the article as a complete novice, the portrait captions look a bit repetitive. Just "name, aged, year" for every portrait may be encyclopedic, but doesn't draw the reader into the article. Any more brief details to add to the captions, atleast for a few of them? GermanJoe (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Joe, it's good to see you. The reason to why I used "PD-100" was because I compared with the lifetime of contemporary Brazilian photographers: Revert Henrique Klumb (183? — c. 1886), Alberto Henschel (1827-1882), Augusto Stahl (1828-1877), etc... all active in the 1860s. Marc Ferrez (1843-1923), who was active in the 1880s lived until 1923. I can hardly believe that the photographer who took those photos lived until the 1890s, even less the 1910s. In the specific case of the Viscount of Inhaúma, photographs and lithographys portraying him became common in the 1860s until his death in 1869 after he became Minister of Navy and commanded the Brazilian navy in the Paraguayan War (1864-70). Photos were sold nationwide (just like in the U.S. with Grant and Lee, for example), litographs were published in newspapers, etc... There are no known portraits of Inhaúma after his death. I added a few words to a couple of captions. I'm out of ideas here. If you have any suggestions I'd appreciate. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:40, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional background information. All images should be OK as PD then, based on the available context. A bit of a grey area, but absent time travelling to check this in person the reasoning is good enough for me ;). GermanJoe (talk) 13:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

  • Shouldn't Agriculture Ministry/Minster be capitalized as proper nouns?
  • Link corvette, frigate, schooner, firefighter corps and schooner/brig
  • I think of mate as an enlisted rank, but he was an officer. So what's going on here?
  • Is there any explanation as to why his ships keep suddenly sinking on him? Was there so little maintenance in the armada that this was a common occurrence?
  • Don't hyphenate prime minister--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going through the article. I believe the capitalization of the titles follows WP:JOBTITLES (i.e., they are capitalized only when used in the place of a proper name or immediately before a proper name). I've also inserted the wikilinks. Lecen is looking over the sources to see if they give explanations of the rank and ship sinkings and will respond here. • Astynax talk 09:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works for the title, but not the ministry itself.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I missed that one, and it is now corrected. • Astynax talk 18:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sturmvogel 66. I'm glad to see you here. Let's take a look at your questions:
  1. Neither Barros (1870) nor Sisson (1999) explain why the Duquesa de Goiás sank in 1827. All they say was that he was the last officer to leave the doomed vessel and how noble and brave he was for acting like that. I opted not to mention the "noble" and "brave" parts or we would have written an hagiography, not a biographical article. Frota (2008), however, gives the reason to the sinking: when the ship entered the channel of the Río Negro (Argentina), it made a wrong maneuver, colliding in a bank and water started plumbing in (p.17). Since was neither the commander of the ship, nor its pilot, but merely a member of the crew, I thought it wouldn't be worth the mention since it could look like we were blamming him. Now for the Jaguaripe, the ship lost in 1833: Barros (1870) does not give an explanation to why it sank, but he mentions that the Jaguaripe was an "old schooner of awful construction" (that is, that it had serious flaws in her construction). Frota (1008) does not tell how the ship went down. Sisson (1999) also said that it was old and badly built. He does, however, explain why the ship sank: an increasingly strong wind forced the ship aground in the Brazilian litoral.
  1. OK, good enough for Duquesa de Goias since he was just a passenger. But you should describe how Jaguaripe was lost in a little more detail since he was involved. Ships' bottoms do occasionally rot and allow the ship to sink, q.v. CSS North Carolina, but that's not very common.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regarding the mate doubt: he was the "oficial imediato" of the Pará and Grenfell. According to the Wikipedia in Portuguese, the name given in English is "chief officer" and "first mate". In the Wikipedia in English, the names given in Chief mate are: "Chief mate", "Chief Officer", "First Officer" and "First Mate".
  1. First mate is a title that applies to civilian ships, not military ones. The best translation of the Portuguese would be First Officer or First Lieutenant.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that helps. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed all remaining issues. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment

In the lead I think we could afford to lose "but died before taking office" or possibly change it to "but never assumed office". Reasoning is that when completing the third of what have essentially been three chronological paragraphs with his death, I expected the last to be a general summing up, legacy, etc, but in fact we had more chronological career summation still to go, and it kind of jarred for me. Not a big deal, just something to consider. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To tell you the truth, Ian, I'm not entirely happy with this article. Although he was one of the most important navy officers in Brazilian imperial history, there is little information available about him. As you can see in he bibliography, I had to use a biography published in 1870! What bothers me the most in the article, however, is the legacy section. It's one paragraph long only! Other similar articles (Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias and [[Manuel Marques de Sousa, Count of Porto Alegre], for example) reveal far more of how posterity saw others. What I hope is that I find either a book that I may have missed that gives a better overview of Inhaúma's legacy or that one is published in the next few years. There is an alarming lack of interest in Brazil (my country) regarding military affairs. Unlike other nations such as the USA and the UK, we don't have many books about our military history. If four or five admirals and generals from the imperial era had biographies published in the past 100 years that's a lot. History books about that period focus far more on society and culture, a little on politics (except for the emperors) and almost nothing on warfare. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:07, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Careful, Lecen, if you go much further it'll sound like you're opposing your own nom, which would be a first in my experience... ;-) Seriously though, aside from the support from the reviewers, there appears to me to be quite sufficient detail for a FAC, and if the legacy section is not as full as you'd like it be, you can only go by what sources are available. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 17:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [106].[reply]

Aaliyah (album)

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article candidate because I feel it is well written, its topic is fairly notable, and it fulfills FA criteria. Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment – first and foremost, the lead is a little too long for the article's size. We have around 23 KB of prose, but need 30 for a four-paragraph introduction. Please trim the lead down to three paragraphs, weeding out excessive detail and instead giving a more concise overview of what's to be expected further down. For example, there's quite a bit of unnecessary discussion of the song's chart performance and sales. That needs to be tightened. Overall, this seems to be an engaging article. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless another image check is needed for purposes of this review, this could be looked at as a point of reference. Dan56 (talk) 06:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

I'm not too familiar with this young lady's work, so excuse my ignorance if I get a few things wrong. All comments come in good faith so feel free to disagree.

Lead Section
  • "After releasing her 1996 album One in a Million and raising her profile with hit soundtrack singles..." Such as?
I didnt think it was relevant enough to go into that much detail for the lead, which the previous commentator here suggested I trim to begin with. Those singles are covered well enough at Aaliyah. It's a minor detail being summarizied from the short "background" paragraph of this article. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She started working on the album in 1998 and resumed its recording in 2000" - Did she stop midway then? If so, why was that? There was no mention that she had started recording, only that she was working on it. Two years to record an album does seem a long time.
Revised. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon its release, Aaliyah received very positive reviews..." The adverb offers nothing here and sounds grammatically wrong.
See comment at Critical reception. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aaliyah subsequently shot a music video for the single "Rock the Boat" in the Bahamas, but died returning to the United States in a plane crash on August 25, 2001." - Subsequent to what? What happened prior to this as suggested?
Added a bit of what I previously trimmed from the lead to clarify. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... but died returning to the United States in a plane crash on August 25, 2001." Might I suggest, "but died in a plane crash on a return flight to the United States on August 25 2001."
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her death, the album's sales skyrocketed..." hmm...not sure about "Skyrocketed". It sounds a bit magaziney.
I thought so at first after trying to find a synonym for what the source used (cited in the "commercial performance" section), but it seemed to be legit term used in economic/financial journals after looking through Google Books and News. Seems the most appropriate in this context. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "After releasing her 1996 album One in a Million, Aaliyah graduated from high school the following year and recorded several songs for film soundtracks" - Which soundtracks? Give maybe one example here.
"Are You That Somebody?" is the soundtrack single most mentioned in the sources I researched for background on this album, so I mentioned it in the sentence following this one. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "He found Aaliyah to be ideal for his songwriting style" would be better
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some might not know what "Jet" is, so I would use Jet magazine so as not to force the reader to click off to find out.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyrics
  • "A neo soul album, Aaliyah features midtempo funk songs, hip hop-textured uptempo tracks, and slow jams that draw on older soul influences, including 1970s influences." - Repetition of influences.
Done. Removed "1970s influences". Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section overall appears to be right on the boarder with quote overuse. I does read a bit clunky if I'm honest as there are so many short quotes; for example why does "classic soul" appear in quotes? This is not praise or a view and is merely a descriptive term based on a critics perception of a particular musical genre which he likens it too.
Done. Paraphrased and copy-edited a bit. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""doesn't put up with unfaithful cads ('You Got Nerve'), mind games ('I Refuse'), self-impressed hunks ('Extra Smooth'), gossip and envy ('Loose Rap'), or physical abuse ('Never No More')." - Do the parenthesis appear in the actual quote?
Yes. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Songs

Looks OK.

Critical reception
  • "Aaliyah received very positive reviews from contemporary music critics" - again, "very". It's difficult to compare "very positive reviews" to "positive reviews". Surely, positive is positive isn't it?
The source cited refers to "excellent reviews", which the reviewer at this article's Good-article review suggested should be toned down, so I replaced it with "very positive". Perhaps "highly positive" then? Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  • "The album debuted at number two on the Billboard 200, selling 187,000 copies in the week of August 4, 2001." - Bold claim, citation?
No it's cited, the citation immediately following that sentnce "...Although it was the highest sales week of Aaliyah's career,[4]". I was told in last FAC not to repeat citations, that when the citation finally does appear, it implies that it's covering everything before it. Dan56 (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the correct advice. Is it covered by ref [4] or 55? [4], to me, would suggest that it just covers Aaliyah's highest sales week claim as there is a period after the album sales. 55 would appear to cover everything else. -- CassiantoTalk 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's [4] that covers the highest sales week claim and the debut/sale figure preceding it. Dan56 (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll just cite it twice to avoid any potential confusion. Dan56 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If any one has a cause of complain, feel free to revert; it is not that serious enough for it to effect a support. -- CassiantoTalk 01:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • OK

Legacy

  • OK

These are just minor remarks and overall, the article is in great shape. -- CassiantoTalk 10:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Very well-written, informative, and complete. Seems notable enough as well. Just two minor observations: the year-end charts published by UKChartsPlus are listed at WP:BADCHARTS, and the release history table needs !scope="row"| for consistency with other tables in the article. Other than that, excellent work. SnapSnap 04:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed UK year-end, added row/scope to table. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Wikipedian Penguin

Support Oppose—the article has a few issues, I am afraid, ranging from prose quality to level of focus. It isn't too far, and with a little bit more work, I think we can ultimately reach a support.

Lede
  • "Aaliyah is the eponymous third and final studio album by American R&B recording artist Aaliyah, released on July 7, 2001, by Blackground Records and Virgin Records."—"eponymous" is redundant here.
Removed "eponymous"
  • "Aaliyah started working on the album in 1998 and sought to schedule its recording around her developing film career."—the second part is blurry to me. Please clarify.
Revised to "...in 1998, but rescheduled its recording around her developing film career."
  • "Upon its release, Aaliyah received very positive reviews from music critics, who praised its creative R&B production, Static's songwriting, and Aaliyah's vocal performance."—the "very" modifier does not seem useful to me. You suggested "highly" above; that would work, IMO.
Done.
  • Fused participle—"With Blackground and Virgin wanting a high charting single to increase sales..."
Would this be more correct?: "As Blackground and Virgin wanted a high charting single to increase sales..." ?
Not bad, although I would replace "as" with "because" or "since". It sounds more familiar to most readers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As of December 2009, it has sold 2.6 million copies, according to Nielsen SoundScan."—the tense and use of "as of" in conjunction with the date give the impression that the article has not been updated in a long time.
Rephrased as "By December, it had sold..."
  • "Aaliyah was released during a period of peak activity in R&B in the summer of 2001 and, since its initial reception, has been cited by critics as one of the best R&B albums of its time."—(1) I'm sure to a disinterested reader, "a period of peak activity in R&B" will be an unclear phrase. (2) Avoid references to seasons. Summer means one thing to someone who lives in the US, and something different to someone in, say, Chile.
The source citing the material being summarized here (in the "Legacy" section) refers to it as R&B's "golden age" during "the summer of 2001". I removed "summer" in the lead and replaced "period of peak activity" with "golden age", but could there be something synonymous with "summer" in the "Legacy" section? The timing seems pertinent to the period discussed, not simply 2001.
To be honest, "golden age" is even more unclear. Maybe, "Released in mid-2001, a period when contemporary R&B was popular, Aaliyah has been cited by critics as one of the best R&B albums of its time." I hope that does not modify the meaning of what you're trying to say. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the definition, and the way it's used by the sources in the section this is summarizing, it's not referring to (only) popularity but artistic peak in the genre as well. "A period when..." gives off the impression that mid-2001 was the only such period. English-language readers should understand the phrase "golden age", as it's commonly used enough when discussing the arts & entertainment, and doesnt seem colloquial or too informal. The best I could come up with to rephrase but preserve the same meaning is "period of peak activity", or perhaps "released during an artistic and commercial high point in contemporary R&B"? "Mid-2001" is definitely better though. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should stick to "period of peak activity". Second guessing, I don't think too many people will question the phrase. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:12, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "After releasing her 1996 album One in a Million, Aaliyah graduated from high school the following year and recorded several songs for film soundtracks."—remove "several". It's too vague.
Done
  • Some redundancy here: "...but she postponed the recording process in order to develop an acting career"
Done.
  • "Aaliyah sought to schedule the album's recording around her film career."—likewise per lede.
Removed.
  • "which led to a starring role in the 2000 film Romeo Must Die and her accompanying soundtrack single 'Try Again'."—which led to a starring role in her accompanying soundtrack single "Try Again"?
Is this better rearranged? Dan56 (talk) 04:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recording
  • "but they could not coordinate their respective schedules."—remove "respective".
Done.
  • "Most of Aaliyah was recorded at either Sony Studios in New York City or Sing Sing Studios in Melbourne, including "Loose Rap", which was done at both studios."—odd conjunction of "Most of Aaliyah" and "Loose Rap". I suggest adding "the songs for" before "Aaliah" or add "the track" before "Loose Rap".
Done.
  • "The latter song, written by past collaborator Missy Elliott, was originally recorded by Aaliyah in 1996 for One in a Million, but scrapped after that album's completion."—(1) "latter" refers to the last of two items, not any more. (2) there's a little too much passive voice here. I would rewrite this in active voice (She had recorded...", which brings me to my next point) (3) The tense should be past perfect since this is before the recording of the other tracks.
Done.
  • "Most of the album's lyrics were written by Static of R&B band Playa."—nit-picky, yes, but I strongly suggest active voice here as it sounds more impressive. So "Static of R&B band Playa wrote most of the album's lyrics."
Done.
  • "Static was a part of Aaliyah's close-knit circle of friends..."—that phrase is too colloquial and informal. Write it as something plain and simple. Also, "shared an infatuation with her during their respective careers" seems irrelevant and like unencyclopedic trivia.
Replaced "close-knit circle..." with "close group of friends". The latter would seem relevant to the nature of their working relationship and Static's subject matter/lyrics, providing context.
OK, then probably simply "was infatuated with her then". "During their respective careers" is unneeded. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They were both infatuated with each other, not just him being infatuated with her, or do you mean that it is grammatically incorrect to "share an infatuation" with someone? Removed "during their..." Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the final paragraph, there's a lot of repetitive sentence structure (overuse of "which" nonrestrictive clause).
Rephrased two sentences without "which".
Seemed worthy of a link in a music article. Is it too general a term to link?
I guess it can stay owing to the context. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aaliyah was mastered by Bernie Grundman at his eponymous studio in Los Angeles."—I think you are confusing "eponymous" with "namesake". The former refers to something or someone after which/whom something else is named. Not vice-versa, except if it's a literary/musical work (e.g. eponymous album).
Removed "eponymous".
More to come later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes after the comments above. Dan56 (talk) 04:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Change per most recent comments. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Music and lyircs
  • I think this is more praise than general commentary—"John Mulvey of NME finds the music to be subtle and tasteful, and lacking 'bombast and histrionics.'" "To be" is redundant as well.
Removed "to be" and "tasteful".
  • "The lyrics express fervent passion and melancholic, occasionally ominous feelings about love."—remove "fervent". It's just an unnecessary intensifier here.
Done.
  • Active voice works better here, I would think—"Its themes of heartbreak and eroticism are interspersed by subtle, lighthearted humor and witty sound effects such as comical vocal manipulation."
Like this? Dan56 (talk) 04:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Citysearch a high quality reliable source for music journalism?
It is one of the reviews collected by Metacritic for this album, which they erroneously credited as "Spin Cycle" (the title of City Search's CD review section). Dan56 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bob Waliszewski of Plugged In observes female empowerment songs..."—maybe "female empowerment-related songs".
Changed.
  • "Hyun Kim of Vibe asserts that the album..."—replace "the album" with "Aaliayah". Too much repetition.
Done.
  • Fused participle: "According to Joshua Clover, the more experimental tracks have Aaliyah 'push[ing] notes into strange corners of syncopation's shifty architecture.'" This one's an easy fix. Something like "According to Joshua Clover, Aaliyah 'pushes notes ... ' on the more experimental tracks." However before you make changes, read the next point...
  • Joshua Clover's review does not say anything about those tracks being experimental, much less with resolution.
The 3rd paragraph of his paragraph speaks of the album in this context: "Each structure invites you inside but won't resolve ... The knowingly titled 'We Need a Resolution' holds off resolution indefinitely, dancing back from the hook...". As for "experimental", I just substituted that for what he said about the songs that "take their time finding a shape, which is then constantly defied as she pushes...". "Experimental" seemed like a more general phrase for "shape-defying", which wouldnt be clear even in music parlance.
Considering experimental music is a specific kind of music, inferring that that is what's meant by "shape-defying" is quite a loose interpretation, almost to the point of WP:OR. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I'll just use the quote then, "on the more 'shape-defying' tracks". Dan56 (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Songs
  • Fused participle in second clause—" The song leaves its hook unresolved, and its music plays backwards after Timbaland's rap,[26] with a reversed loop of the vocal "where were you last night" echoing the female protagonist's sentiment."
Revised.
  • "'Loose Rap' features subtle Neptunes-styled electronica, aquatic sounds, and velvety harmonies by Aaliyah, who declares '"it ain't just rhythm and blues.'"—add a comma after "declares".
Done.
  • "... who instructs her lover on how to please her sexually and equates her erotic high to a drug high."—the second part is unclear.
It's being used in the sense of a period of euphoria; the source uses the phrase as it is, so could "high" be linked to the wiktionary page for clarity?
  • "... Aaliyah sings with an emboldened delivery over harsh guitars and aggressive synthesizers."—specifically, "harsh-sounding guitars".
Done.
  • "It developed from a conversation between Aaliyah and Static about how men try to act suave."—this took me awhile to get. Maybe "was inspired be"?
Done.
  • Fused participle—"... with the latter song drawing particularly on Detroit techno and industrial rock."
Revised.
  • "'What If' angrily threatens an unfaithful lover and by extension other men of that ilk."—woah. That's a little direct. I suggest attribution to a critic, because unless it was Aaliyah or a co-writer who said that, it's a very bold assertion. It's either that or just saying "addresses" instead of "angrily threatens". And maybe "and by extension similar men" instead of using the largely unfamiliar word "ilk".
It's not asserting that Aaliyah, but the song's narrator (which the lyrics seem to: "We'll burn you (oh), we'll cut you (oh) / We'll kill you") Yes, woah indeed. Changed it to "The song's narrator angrily..." and "...by extension similar men".
  • One concern I have is that there's quite an overlap between these two sections, in that specific tracks are discussed in the Music and lyrics section as well. Would you be open to a merge, or something to deal with this repetition?
The only overlap is citing a few songs as examples occasionally for more general aspects of the album. This already seems long enough. I used a "songs" section to distribute the information available on specific songs as recommended at MOS:ALBUM and from what I've seen at more recent FA articles like OK Computer, although not as large. Dan56 (talk) 04:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes since. Dan56 (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the responses and will move on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something needs to be done about the general structure. The section reads a bit too list-y and repetitive. Consider connecting sentences and commenting on how one track effectively transitions to another. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sources really discuss the songs in that vein, that is critics, and the interviews are pretty superficial and lack that kind of depth. Merging them with the preceding section would make it overlong and awkward (ex. thought about placing the line about "Read Between the Lines", a song with samba and Latin percussion, after "...particularly on Timbaland's songs, Latin timbres", but that song wasnt produced by him, and timbre is generally unrelated to rhythm), and there isnt enough information to move/create new song articles (MOS:ALBUM#). The only connection is track order :( Dan56 (talk) 11:49, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Bummer! Oh well, consider merging some sentences maybe, talking about two tracks in one statement? That would improve the flow. I do think something can be done, even without introducing information. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This was the best I could come up with. Rearranged the details so that a musical aspect of one song is followed by that of the next, and then that song's lyrical aspect being followed by that of another, and so on. Dan56 (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • I'd briefly mention when the album was released as one sentence as we are not told this and this info is tucked away to the bottom in a less-than-noticeable table.
It's mentioned in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the "commercial performance" section; the opening of that section mentions the chart debut week, which also indicates the time of release; I could work it in there if you still feel it's necessary? Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. Just one line. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "described" is better than "cited" here—"He found the music's textures 'scintillating' and cited the album's 'hallmark' as..."
Revised, as part of the bottom two comments. Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is a bit too repetitive. The sentences all begin the same way (critic + magazine). Please try to vary this a little.
  • Also a problem is the density of quotations. The section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, and as a result, the flow suffers. I recommend you paraphrase and trim out some quotations and not make this section read like an aggregation of review samples.
Done, although you would be a better judge of this. Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better, although I think "examine" is too awkward here. It's hard usually to think of better wording than what's in the source, but perhaps you could think of something. Also, AV Club's Nathan Robin's paraphrase is a little close to the original. You can remove "in her own right" since it's vague. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "commended her for exploring her strengths and fantasies"? For the other one, Rabin seems to be talking about her not being "overshadowed by her collaborators" when he says "in her own right", so could I revise it as "establishes Aaliyah as a significant artist unobscured by her collaborators"? Dan56 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good. Also, in fewer words, would "establishes Aaliyah as a significant independent artist" work? Regarding "strengths and fantasies", that's good. You can implement that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He cited 'We Need a Resolution' and 'U Got Nerve' as highlights and quippedly called Aaliyah 'a slave to her beats, but a proud slave'."—once again, the use of "cited" here is awkward. And "quippedly": is that word really necessary?
Christgau's honorable mention ratings feature a clever, witty remark, following by songs he cites as highlights. Referring to something, especially in praise, is one of the definitions for "cite", although not the primary one, but I dont know if one can "describe" a "hallmark"/characteristic of something. Assuming that these are grammatically correct, this book and this book use either phrase. Removed "quippedly". Dan56 (talk) 04:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will revisit once these comments have been resolved. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Commercial performance
  • "However, after its completion, she and several members of her crew returning to the United States were killed in a plane crash on August 25."—sounds a bit rough. Iron this out and tighten it, so something like, "But after its completion, she and several crew members who were returning to the United States died in a plane crash on August 25."
Replaced with that. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "More than" is usually clearer and better prose than just "over".
Replaced. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is me nitpicking, but in the second paragraph, the use of the word "week" gets very repetitive. I understand however that this is a very difficult issue to ammend (there're hardly any synonyms for the word). If you can amend this, that would be great. If you can't, it's fine.
  • As per one of the exceptions to WP:MOSNUM's rule of thumb, comparable numbers should be expressed consistently as numerals or be spelled out. So, for example, this is inconsistent, "from number 19 to number one". It is suggested that we write out all chart positions with one consistent format.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accolades
  • Fused participle—"Aaliyah was named the best album of 2001 by Slant Magazine, with the publication's editor Sal Cinquemani calling it..."
Separated the two parts. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's very little sentence structure variation in this section. Please do some copy editing to improve the flow and make the prose seem refreshing.
Mixed it up a bit. (diff) Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't we just say "the 2000s" here: "In 2010, Aaliyah was named the 72nd best album of 'the aughts' by Slant Magazine."?
It could be confused as the magazine's premature look at the entire century, which might be why they used that term, but would "...best album of the 2000s decade by Slant..." sound better? Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More to come later on. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
  • "Along with her budding film career, the album was a part of Aaliyah's breakout year in 2001."—need a more formal term for "budding".
"Burgeoning"? Dan56 (talk)
  • "Prior to her death, Aaliyah had planned to embark on the largest concert tour of her career in support of the album."—keep it plain: "Before her death..."
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and mostly left unreleased due to internal conflict and legal complications between the label, Aaliyah's family, and producers."—"due to" is adjectival and does not modify verbs or adjectives ("left unreleased"). You can use "because of", which can be used universally.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence structure gets a bit repetitive in the third paragraph.
  • I see you use present tense when talking about jouranlists' actions "The Guardian cites..." but use past tense in the critical response section. A more consistent usage throughout would be preferred.
Mixed it up slightly, and changed the tense. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think present tense is also used elsewhere, such as in the music and lyrics section. Additionally, in the legacy section, you missed this one: "The Guardian cites Aaliyah as the pinnacle of R&B's golden age at the turn of the century." —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
Track listing
  • Just a question: do track lists need citations?
There's nothing at MOS:ALBUM#Track listing or that Wikiproject's talk page about it. I've always assumed the citation(s) for the credits below the track listing take care of the track listing as well, since they go hand-in-hand. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Year-end charts
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes since. Dan56 (talk) 07:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
General
Removed links. The second mention of Erlewine's name is so far between (13 paragraphs after the 1st mention) that readers might not remember, and the WP:LASTNAME guideline is under the manual-of-style for biographies, so would leaving it be better for clarity? Dan56 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; I agree with you. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:11, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changes. Dan56 (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if/when you're done here, would you like to comment at discussion regarding the ratings template? Dan56 (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have done that. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I'm happy and reread the article a few times, and have just relooked at the songs section. I'm happy with the improvements made and am glad to add my support. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support great job with the article no problems detected. Best, Jonatalk to me 20:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (initial check already done per article talk). Sources and authors provided, just one minor issue:

  • File:Aaliyah_-_More_Than_a_Woman_sample.ogg - Generally ok, but the "purpose of use" is a bit generic. You should try to explain with 1-2 details, why the reader needs to listen to that audio to better understand the article (f.e. mention the style or certain characteristics of the song, that can't be conveyed with text alone).
  • Something odd is going on with the fair-use template for audio samples (showing "Additional" in bold twice), but that's not a problem for your FA here - OK.
  • Other images are OK (fair-use as infobox image, 2 images PD-own). GermanJoe (talk) 08:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 08:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick :), thanks. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 18:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC) [107].[reply]

Hurricane Debbie (1961)

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Debbie in 1961 was one of the most powerful storms to impact Ireland on record. It brought destructive winds in excess of 100 mph to western parts of the country, damaging or destroying many homes and leaving thousands without power. Across the British Isles, 18 people lost their lives and damage exceeded US$50 million. I believe this article qualifies for featured candidate as I have exhausted both free and paid services to obtain the most comprehensive account of this particular hurricane. I hope you all enjoy reading this article as much as I enjoyed writing it! Cheers, Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the caveat that I reviewed it for GA. That being said, here are some last comments.

  • "during September" - in the opening sentence, should that be changed to "in September"?
  • "however, operationally," - remove one of these adverbs.
  • "Once clear of the islands, data on the storm became sparse and it is uncertain what took place with the storm over the following several days as it tracked west-northwestward and later northward." - a comma would be lovely somewhere in here, and maybe change one of the "storm" to "Debbie"
  • "Maintaining this intensity for over a day" - I think "this" should be something like "its peak", or something, given it's the start of a new paragraph.
  • Probably self-explanatory, but I think you should clarify somewhere, perhaps as a note, that all damage totals are in that 1961's currency.
  • "only a handful of which were serious" - handful? :/
  • I think the specifics on the fatalities should be in the same paragraph where you mention the death total.
  • "30,000 trees were felled" - that verb phrasing seems weird to me, but IDK.
  • UK paragraph is pretty long. Perhaps split into two?

That's it. Overall, looks pretty good. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Made all the corrections. Thanks for the review Hink! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any comments by the nominator on these? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting to this earlier. I linked corn to maize since that's the intended link and delinked a few instances of Belmullet and Norway. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I'm aware that in Ireland "corn" often refers to the oats, and I don't have access to the source, so I just wanted to be sure that there wasn't a misunderstanding here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments

  • HURDAT is not good enough to prove that Debby made landfall in Ireland, since the NOAA report says that Debby skirted around the west coast of Ireland. I also note that the supposed point of landfall is less than 2 km away from the sea, which would suggest to me that it didnt make landfall and just passed near the island.Jason Rees (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I don't like supporting articles without bringing up a few comments, but I can't find anything worth mentioning. Nice work. :\ TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Nice job on totally revamping an article that was originally an idea of mine.--12george1 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

Oppose. Am I correct in assuming that the previous three supports are from hurricane editors? Independent review is needed.

  1. Hurricane Debbie was one of the most powerful cyclones to strike Ireland in September on record.
    Opening sentence, I'm left wondering why the most powerful "in September" ... what is special about September?
    Shouldn't "on record" be after "most powerful cyclones"? Unsure ...
    Changed order, but I think the fact that it's the strongest storm to hit a country in a particular month is pretty notable. I'm sure we'd have the same if we had a record storm in April in the US. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, but it reads ... funny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tracking generally westward, the system eventually moved off the coast of Senegal on September 5 ...
    What does "eventually" add here? Redundant?
    This was done. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; not all of them used here seem necessary.
    It's used once now in the whole article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unsettled weather associated with the storm resulted in a plane crash that killed 60 people in the islands during this time.
    What does "during this time" add? Please screen for redundant prose.
    CB removed it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Once clear of the islands, data on the storm became sparse, and it is uncertain what took place with Debbie over the following several days as it tracked west-northwestward and later northward.
    Once clear of the islands, the storm tracked west-northwestward and later northward, but other data for several days is sparse ??? "With Debbie" seems repetitive, perhaps a different construction like this can be used to solve that.
    Changed. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Regardless of which took place, the system deepened as it neared the British Isles, ...
    What does "regardless of which took place" add? Redundant.
    To highlight the uncertainty whether it was tropical or not. I personally feel it adds value. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Throughout the country, 12 people lost their lives in relation to Debbie and damage was estimated at US$40–50 million.
    What does "Throughout the country" add? "To Debbie"? Damage was estimated at US$40–50 million and 12 people died.
    To emphasize Ireland the country, not just the island. I changed the other bit. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is only the lead; prose review is needed ... mostly for redundancy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five days, no response from nominator-- unwatching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the nominator, he and others appear to have dealt with some of your issues but i think he is currently busy in real life dealing with his university stuff. I will double check your comments against the article later.Jason Rees (talk) 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article a few times and made some changes, namely condensing and removing redundancies. Please let me know if there are still issues with the article. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that I have contacted Sandy on her talk page to make sure that it's known I've addressed the issues despite the page unwatch. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've struck my oppose because I don't have time for further review, but did see that extevensive prose changes have been made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD NOAA, own work, NASA). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Comment – Just wondering, any reason why you have travelled instead of traveled, as it appears other words like 'center' are written in American-spelling. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 00:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed all instances of 'center' to 'centre' (except for proper names) Cyclonebiskit (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • I should have asked for a spotcheck of sources earlier in this FAC's existence so have performed it myself:
    • FN03: no issues
    • FN09a: no issues
    • FN17b: no issues
    • FN24: no issues
  • Query: following up on TheAustinMan's comment, is it the convention that hurricane articles are written in AmEng, even when the storm damages the British Isles? Something to do with them being Atlantic hurricanes? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:38, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont think there is such a convention, i believe it just comes down to what the person writing the article is used too.Jason Rees (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mmm. I can't see a comparable FA of an Atlantic hurricane that struck the British Isles, so there seems to be no precedent. ENGVAR's guideline of using the form of English most closely related to the subject might come into play, though I suppose some might question whether a storm can have 'strong national ties'... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice read. Meets criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "the most powerful cyclone on record to strike Ireland in September" sounds strange. Was there a more powerful cyclone in another month? Is September known for it's powerful cyclones? Why is the month important here? Mattximus (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [108].[reply]

British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article, like my previous nomination, is the result of a microgrant from Wikimeda UK, who kindly purchased most of the books used in researching these articles. For nearly ten years, the West refused to get involved in the brutal and incredibly bloody civil war in Sierra Leone, until the rebels reneged on a peace agreement that everybody had hoped meant the end of the war. With the UN peacekeeping force on the brink of collapse in May 2000, the United Kingdom sent an entire battalion of paratroopers and its largest naval task force assembled since the Falklands War, setting in motion a chain of events that finally brought the war to an end.

The article has had a successful GA review and MilHist A-class review, and there might be a few relatively minor issues, but I'm reasonably confident that if it isn't quite at FA standard, it's very close. It's a relatively long article (c. 7,000 words), but I hope people will read it and find it interesting. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SchroCat

Comments by SchroCat
Lead

  • Pipe Sierra Leone Army to Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces?
    • Specifically contra-indicated by WP:R2D, and the SLA could sustain an article of its own if somebody were to create one.
  • Should that be "Sierra Leonean army"?
    • It should be, yes, just like it should be "Sierra Leonean Civil War", but both are the correct proper nouns.

An excellent article in a topic and area of the world often overlooked. Only a couple of minor points, which struck me, but if you're happy with the way you have them I'm not going to argue. Well done on this: it may be long, but it's a very comprehensive and tightly put together article. – SchroCat (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

- spotchecks not done

  • Could we flip the order of general and specific refs?
    • Someone raised this at my last FAC and I don't see the problem, but if the current format really bugs people, I suppose I wouldn't fight over it.
  • FN10, 14, 30: page formatting
    • All fixed.
  • FN56: which Connaughton?
    • 2002.
  • FN67, 99: punctuation
    • Fixed.
  • Abrahamsen: check authors
    • Don't know what happened there.
  • Connaughton 2002: missing location and publisher. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dank

Comments

  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But see User_talk:Dank#However. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just reviewed the nom's edits since I copyedited. I can't support, although it's not bad enough to oppose. If a copy editor wants to give it a look and ping me about anything, ping away. - Dank (push to talk) 13:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dan, you're a great copy-editor and I always appreciate your help with my articles, but not all the edits you made here were an improvement. I know you're trying to solve issues with readability and ambiguity, but some of your edits replaced one issue with another or introduced inaccuracies. Can we meet in the middle somewhere? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know, Harry, I'm sick today (which isn't helping my mood), I'll think about it tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll stay in the "neutral" column. When you reverted some of my changes, you reinstated a number of things that we don't usually allow at FAC, so I can't support, but you've got two supports already so you should be fine. The delegates and many reviewers will spot the problems and help out. I apologize, I've got two huge projects this month and I'm taking a break from reviewing and copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I guess we're on our own here, Harry. I've made the following edits, let me know what doesn't work for you.
  • "The SLA had been confined to barracks and had handed over most of its weapons in accordance with the Lomé Agreement, which led foreign diplomats in the country to estimate ...": "which" dangles, and the causation isn't clear. I went with: "After the SLA had been confined to barracks and had handed over most of its weapons in accordance with the Lomé Agreement, foreign diplomats in the country estimated ...". "After" conveys approximately the right sense and is more common at FAC for this usage.
    • My problem with this is that it seems to suggest that the RUF began their advance, then the SLA handed in it weapons, and that the "within a week" estimate is by the way. What I'm trying to convey is that the RUF were advancing and the SLA had already been disarmed sow ere incapable of stopping the RUF, and that is what prompted diplomats to estimate that the RUF could be in Freetown within a week. -HJM
  • "The ARG en route, the paras": You haven't defined what a "para" is, and "The ARG en route" is called an "absolute construction"; like a WP:PLUSING construction, it's something that makes copyeditors stop and wonder if it might not be better to say explicitly what the connection is between that phrase and the rest of the sentence. I reverted back to my version.
    • That they were paratroopers or members of the Parachute Regiment isn't that important, so that can be changed to "soldiers" or similar; the parentheses suggest to me that they were able to deploy quickly because they were paratroopers rather than because they knew the ARG would be there shortly. -HJM
    • I really don't get the problem with "the ARG en-route". I think it's quite a common construction in British English and it makes perfect sense to me. -HJM
  • "they were picked up by RAF Chinook and flown to Freetown": Constructions like "by helicopter" have more of the sense of an adverbial phrase than a noun phrase. That is, "She left by 4:15 to Paddington" is silly compared with "She left on the 4:15 to Paddington", and different people have different triggers for when it starts sounding silly; the more specific you are after "by", the sillier it gets. To be safe, let's treat it as a noun phrase, and while I'm here, let's get rid of the passive voice, too: "An RAF Chinook picked them up and flew them to Freetown".
    • I'm not wild about that but the meaning is the same so I can live with it. -HJM
  • This reversion re-introduces a lot of problems, Harry:
    • "the only force" seems to be applied to a compound subject (i.e. plural in sense);
      • Precisely. The SLA joined forces with the "Unholy Alliance" and they effectively fought as a single force. -HJM
    • "however";
      • "However" isn't a dirty word; there are legitimate uses for it, and I think he wholesale removal of any individual word is something that should be discouraged. I can live with your re-write, but I preferred it the other way. -HJM
    • "in order" (twice, in close proximity);
      • You seem to have got both instances of "in order"; thanks -HJM
    • conciseness ("allowing re-arming of the SLA" already implies that it needed to be re-armed to effective, so you didn't need to say that separately ... consider using my "To restructure the SLA and allow it to re-arm"): the em-dash isn't wrong, but it adds emphasis that doesn't accomplish anything that I can see;
      • I'm happy enough with your version of this -HJM
    • and the "which" bit is tricky ... it appears to some to be nonrestrictive, but it's actually restrictive, so it needs "that" and no comma.
      • And you've got this as well.

Your best bet here might be to revert back to my version and then change only the things that you're sure need changing ... that will make it easier for me to see what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 15:38, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D

Support I commented on this article's A class review, and think that the FA criteria are also met. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

by FunkMonk (talk) 07:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's a far better map for the infobox:[109]
    • What's better about it?
The resolution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil

Support - Very impressive work. Read half during the week, the rest tonight. My interest was held through-out, though its a long page it does not go off topic and is consistently engaging. Ceoil (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Just one sticking point for me, Harry: I've gathered that Operation Palliser was the code name for the large-scale intervention, especially since Operation Palliser redirects to this article, but the connection could be made clearer. The opening reads "The United Kingdom began a military intervention in Sierra Leone in May 2000. Although small numbers of British personnel had been previously deployed, Operation Palliser was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during the Sierra Leone Civil War." I think it'd help to alter this to "The United Kingdom began a military intervention in Sierra Leone in May 2000 under the code name Operation Palliser. Although small numbers of British personnel had been previously deployed, this was the first large-scale intervention by British forces during the Sierra Leone Civil War." or something along similar lines. Further, the first time Palliser is mentioned in the main body is in a section heading. I think we should be told before that point that the name of the operation was Palliser, with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got this for the most part. I've added an explicit mention of the codename in the "Operation Palliser" section, and suppose I could shoehorn a mention of the codename in earlier in the body, but I don't think it would work very well. "Palliser" was the codename for the original deployment (ostensibly for an evacuation), but not the entire intervention (which is why I redirected it to this article). I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a section heading being the first mention of a codename—the same is true for the sections on Operation Khukri and Operation Barras. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine now, tks Harry. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [112].[reply]

Kareena Kapoor

Kareena Kapoor Khan is an Indian actress who appears in Bollywood films. In July 2008, the article reached a GA status, and subsequently went on to have an unsuccessful FAC. Since then, a lot of hard work has gone into improving the article and bringing it to the place it is today. Now, I think it meets the FA criteria. Please leave your comments, and I'll be more than happy to address any of them. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

TIs is mostly mostly very good, but a few quibbles.

  • Rs. 840 million—please use lakhs and crores, else Indians like me will need to do some mental math to understand. Non-Indians have the millions of dollars right next to it anyway.
Done
  • since we have an abundance of free photos, why not use more? Around one for every sub-section would be nice. Try to add relevant captions, like about her "trademark" lips in Pubic image section.
To be honest, adding "around one [image] for every sub-section" would unnecessarily increase the size of the article; I've only added images that help contribute to the article in some way. For example, the image of Kapoor with her mother and sister in the "Early life and background" section shows that the two women have played pivotal roles in her life. And this has been confirmed by Kapoor in several of her interviews. (I've added a new image in the "Public image and character" section discussing her trademark lips.)
  • surprised there's no mention of her size zero and the ensuing controversy.
There wasn't really a so-called "controversy" about size zero. A lot was written about it by the media but other than that nothing much. Maybe we could say something like: "Kapoor's off-screen life has been subject to wide media coverage in India with frequent press coverage of her weight and diet."
  • "would show more a more thoughtful"—huh?
I took that from the source without realizing the mistake they made. Fixed it.
  • golden-hearted prostitute—I've heard of a hooker with a heart of gold, but is golden-hearted prostitute a common/acceptable phrase?
The description of her character in Chameli is taken from here; it is pretty much the same thing as "hooker with a heart of gold".
  • subject of considerable critical analysis—source doesn't back this, and only talks of intense tabloid interest.
The source states: "While her choice of movies continues to range from interesting to objectionable, Kareena has mastered the art of balancing blockbusters with bloopers". In a way, it is critically analysed, but I'll try finding another source. (A new source was added as well as another one which already exists within the article.)
  • total film count? Worth adding in the lead?
  • over linking—villain, leading lady, Bangladeshi, Netherlands etc. please review throughout, and just these.
IMO, I really don't think we need to add her total film count; the same might apply to the over linking part. I agree that some of the terms like 'leading lady' or 'villain' do not need to be linked but others like 'Netherlands', etc do.
We can't always say "performing with several Bollywood contemporaries"; it might get a bit too repetitive. As you can see that the section combines both (listing actors' names as well as several Bollywood stars).
Thank you for your comments. If possible I would recommend you to get a username—not only will this benefit me but you as well. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
Just a few initial comments now, more to come.
  • In the lead, you should probably say "lesser-publicised independent films".
Done
  • "Her melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham.... What do you mean by "her melodrama"?
Tweaked
  • In the lead, Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham is mentioned as her "greatest" commercial success to date. I don't think "greatest" is the right word to use. Also, I don't see the point of mentioning that, because it was neither her first commercial success nor her biggest.
Tweaked. I agree that K3G wasn't her "first commercial success" but the reason why it is mentioned is because it was her first "worldwide" success. Also, prior to 3I, K3G was still her biggest success to date.
  • The quote in the second line of the career section, "it was probably destined that I was not to be in the film. After all, it was a launch for his son. The whole focus was on the boy. Now I am glad I did not do the movie" would sound better if it were trimmed and written as part of the sentence.
Tweaked; removed the last part of the quote.
  • In "...but these negative reviews motivated her to improve as an actress by accepting more demanding roles." can be changed to "...but these negative reviews motivated her to accept more demanding roles".
Done
  • The sentence " The film depicts an online robbery and the Mumbai underworld in which her character, Neha Mehra, becomes involved." is confusing. What does she get involved in? The robbery or the underworld?
Tweaked
  • "Omkara was embraced by critics...", not sure if "embraced" is the right word in this context for a dictionary.
Tweaked
  • "Following Omkara Kapoor stopped acting for a short time.." does not sound right. How about "she took a short break" etc.
Done
Removed—now that I think of it, it was kind of redundant. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A few quick style comments Support
  • I see very many hacked up modified quotes. For example:
"were never officially divorced ... [but] ... liv[ed] separately."
"[I]n the best performance of her career so far, [Kapoor] leads Mahi's character through the murky labyrinth of ambition, rivalry and self-destructive tricks of survival in the rat race. Though her character is inconsistent [she] furnishes ... [it] with a rare vulnerability and an exceptional inner life"
I think the second one is missing some ... before the [she], but why do this as opposed to either paraphrasing or quoting directly? It may look to the reader that you are trying to bend the quotes to your liking.
One of the main reasons why I "hacked up" quotes was because they were too long. I've made some adjustments (1st quote: Removing the modifications and sourcing it like a regular sentence; 2nd quote: Paraphrasing it and only quoting the last part.)
Good, but there are several others. Please scan the article for more places where the quotes can be simplified. BollyJeff | talk 16:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've simplified wherever it's needed. Let me know if you have any more concerns! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is one more: "[Despite having] the worst success ratio among her contemporaries [...] Kapoor is effortlessly honest in her performances". The first and second parts are 6 paragraphs apart (not necessarily related), and the first two words are yours. Looks like it could be a form of cherrypicking, original research, or synthesis. BollyJeff | talk 02:07, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrote and tweaked it. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article seems to have a more liberal use of parenthesis in the text in places where I normally see commas. Intentional?
While copy-editing the article, User:Miniapolis felt that using parentheses would break up long sentences and hopefully make them easier to follow. I thought that made sense! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also felt in some instances the parenthesis could be removed. Indeed I myself did so in one instance. Minniapolis is a very seasoned copy-editors, so I think we can stick to his/her suggestion unless someone objects.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the release of Heroine, Kapoor married Khan on 16 October 2012" There are some other Khans mentioned in this section, but not Saif Ali Khan (except in the heading). His name should definitely be spelled out fully in this spot.
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may seem picky, but there are only 3 quotations that have the punctuation inside the quote vs around 40 that have it outside. According to the rules in MOS:LQ, it is likely that there should be more than just 3 of the former.
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:05, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the awards and nominations after 3 idiots are not covered by the source; I did not check the awards prior to that date. Maybe it is best not to rely on one source for all the awards. This link may help though: newer BH BollyJeff | talk 15:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was the old BH link and I didn't realize that it didn't cover the newer awards/nominations. I have used the newer BH link to source all her new awards/nominations. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
More comments Support
The article is extremely interesting to read, but I am nitpicking on the prose, as it has to be of an excellent standard.
  • "Kapoor was initially cast to make her debut" ... doesn't sound too encyclopedic. Also, the quote (as mentioned in the previous set of comments) still doesn't sound interesting. Maybe paraphrasing would help.
Tweaked. As for the quote, I've completely removed it and paraphrased it.
  • In the description of Refugee, the part "known simply as Refugee" is redundant. Later, you can write "...girl who falls in love with Bachchan's character".
Done
  • For Mujhe Kuch Kehna Hai, instead of writing " A review of her performance in The Hindu noted that " you can simply say "The Hindu noted that..."
Done
  • In the first paragraph of the critical acclaim section, "However, when the director again approached her a year later she agreed to do the film; she now viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range" can be changed to "However, when Mishra approached her for the second time, she agreed; she viewed it as an opportunity to demonstrate her acting range".
Done
  • In the same paragraph there is a line that says "...study the dress and mannerisms of sex workers". What do you mean by "study the dress"?
Tweaked
  • Same paragraph, "another reviewer". Who?
Tweaked
  • A few paragraphs later, it should be "protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa" and not "in ... Bewafaa".
Done
  • The review by Nikhat Kazmi for Bewafaa has no quotation marks.
That's because we have paraphrased the quote and hence it doesn't require quotation marks.
  • Last line of the same paragraph, " Kapoor's performance was generally enjoyed by critics". Replace "enjoyed" with "well received".
Done
  • In the next paragraph, what do you mean by "portrayed the Desdemona character"?
Tweaked
  • " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was also selected for screening at the Cairo International Film Festival" ==> " It premiered at the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, and was screened at the Cairo International Film Festival".
Done
  • "While shooting Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship". Change to "While filming for Jab We..... three-year long relationship"
Done
  • "During this period, speculation began to surface that she was dating actor Saif Ali Khan" ==> "During this period, there was speculation in the media that she was dating...".
Done
  • A paragraph later, "Set in Los Angeles, it was the first Indian film in history to be shot at Universal Studios and featured cameo appearances by Hollywood actors". The "in history" is redundant here.
Done
  • Same paragraph, "... a woman under house arrest after discovering her husband is a terrorist". Sounds confusing. Needs to be re-worded.
Tweaked
  • Next paragraph, "On acting with Khan, Kapoor revealed that it was "a dream come true" and stated that her journey as an actress was "finally complete"". This sounds like a fan gushing about a star. I don't see any point in including this.
Removed; you do make a valid point.
  • "Kapoor had further success in 2011 as love interest for Salman Khan in the romantic drama Bodyguard". Missing "the" before love interest. And should be "...of Salman Khan's character"
Done
  • Same paragraph. What do you mean by the "most popular film of the year"? Unclear.
It means that it was the highest-grossing film of the year in India. If you take a look at the article, it always says "highest-grossing", "one of the highest-grossing", etc. To change it up a bit, I decided to use the "most popular film of the year".
I understand that you did that to avoid being monotonous. But the term "popular" is vague. How and with whom was it popular? --smarojit (buzz me) 06:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked; now says India's highest-earning film of the year. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "2012-present" section begins with "she followed it". As it is the beginning of a new section, drop the "she" and change the line.
Done
  • "Witty young woman" has been used to describe her character in both Yuva and Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu. Can be modified.
Done
  • The revenue of Ek Main Aur Ekk Tu is unsourced.
I'm unable to find the source that I originally used from BOI for its revenue. However, I found a new source and have modified it to that.
  • "Heroine, a drama revolving around the Bollywood film industry through Kapoor's viewpoint as Mahi Arora, a faded star." Not a good sentence. How about "...the Bollywood film industry; Kapoor was cast as Mahi Arora, a fading star". Or maybe something better.
Tweaked
  • "Kapoor will focus on familiarizing herself with up-to-date global affair issues and watching several news documentaries" ==> "Kapoor will familiarise herself with the latest global affairs and watch several news documentaries".
Done
As of now, that's about it. --smarojit (buzz me) 17:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind works Smaro! I really appreciate you taking the time in giving me your inputs! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 23:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on footnote style There are discrepancies. I see in some newspaper sources, you have mentioned the name of the publisher, while in others you have not. The name of publisher should be present either in all newspaper footnotes, or none (obviously mentioning in none is the easier option). Rediff.com, a website, has not been italicised, but indiatimes, another website, has been italicised (I think most of the websites are not in italics, which is a god style to follow consistently). CNN-IBN, a V channel, should not be italicised. I think Mid Day name should not use the particular style (MiD DAY) of its logo, just mention as Mid Day.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did list the publishers for all newspaper sources befores but User:Legolas2186 mentioned that it wasn't important to add well-known publishers for some newspaper sources. In the case of websites, they shouldn't be italicised; Rediff.com is a website; the reason why I italicised Indiatimes was because I thought it was a newspaper. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Text_formatting#Italic_face, websites may or may not be italicised, and magzine websites are usually italicised. However, what I have seen so far is it is more important to maintain consistency within a given article. Regarding publishers, again, consistency within a given article is more important, since publisher parameter is optional. In the FARC of Kolkata, SandyGeorgia pointed out this. Thi apies for location as well. Also, "well-known"ness may differ among readers. So, consistency is perhaps more important.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. To maintain consistency: a) Rm the publisher parameter for all newspaper sources, b) Left all websites non-italicised, and c) All magazine websites/journals are italicised. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a contributor to the article. I've long believed it is FA standard and seems to have been improved further. I'd use File:Kapoor at Gitanjali launch2.jpg as the main image though.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:23, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Random spotchecking

  • Sentence "According to Kapoor, the name "Kareena" was derived from the book Anna Karenina, which her mother read while she was pregnant with her." Source [113] verifies this; however, source does not indicate this was said by Kareena herself. Also, the sentence seems a copy-paste from the source, it needs to be tweaked.
Replaced back to the original source where Kapoor (herself) says that her name was derived from the book Anna Karenina. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...on her mother's side she is Sindhi". Source verifies.
  • "... inspired by the films of Bollywood actresses Nargis and Meena Kumari.". Source verifies.
  • "her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted..." Source says, "Mum was always doing something, she single-handedly brought us up. She has a real estate business apart from other small businesses.". I would accept that.
  • "...she studied commerce for two years at Mithibai College in Vile Parle (Mumbai), but later confessed that she only studied there because it was close to her family." Source verifies. The word "home' is probably better than 'family" in this case.
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Several days into the filming, however, she abandoned the project; Kapoor later explained that she had benefited by not doing the film since more prominence was given to the director's son". source verifies this.

Will continue later.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing random spotchecks

  • Taran Adarsh quote n Refugee. Source checks out.
  • "...drama Mujhe Kucch Kehna Hai, which became one of the highest-earning films of the year." Source lists the film at 9th position in 25 top-earners. So, although the statement in article is true, perhaps some softer statement would be more suitable, such as ,"...became a hit'.
Tweaked -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with some critics noting a distinct progression from her earlier roles.' (Regarding Fida). Source checks out.
  • "...the BBC describing her as "a pure natural". Source checks out.
  • "While shooting for Jab We Met, Kapoor and Shahid ended their three-year relationship." Source checks out.
  • "...the tantalisingly seductive prostitute, Rosie...". Copied from here. However, it is just a few words, so could be acceptable. At best, this can be put within a quotation, and attributed to the source.
Sourced -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Talaash eventually emerged as an international success with revenues of 174 crore (US$31.67 million)". Source checks out.
  • "...she would be launching her own line of clothing, becoming the first Indian actress to do so" Source checks out.
  • "... the book was well received by critics selling 10,000 copies within its first twenty days" the numbers are verified. Well-received by the critics may be acceptable, too.
  • "... Kapoor has gained a reputation for discussing her public and private life with no reservations". this source verifies.
So does the other source which is also used to support that claim. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her personality has been open to debate and criticism" Source verifies in detail.
  • "she later explained that her honesty and openness was often perceived by the media as arrogance." In the source, she mentions her honesty and openness, but I failed to see that she mentioned her straightforwardness is perceived as arrogance by media.
She explains: "Misquotes and misunderstandings were unfortunate consequences of my attitude, especially when I first entered the film industry [...] But it was a case of forthrightness being misunderstood for a cheeky attitude". -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 21:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kapoor was recognized for her versatility" Sources verify.

So, overall, spotchecks seem to reveal consistent verification, with only minor problem in a very few instances. Copyvio check by this tool revealed statistically insignificant problem. So far, so good.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A few issues with mechanics and style as pointed out above - but once these are resolved I would support it as an FA. I would take heed of Dwai's comments - as usual they are right on target. Great job all. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on lead

  • " During her career Kapoor has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres, from contemporary romantic dramas to comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicisedindependent films". I am not sure if this sentence is a good sentence. I tend to prefer "During her career Kapoor has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres, from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicisedindependent films." (the to has been removed). Again, I am not sure about this. Any comment from anyone else?
  • "Kapoor faced the media spotlight at a young age but did not make her acting debut until the 2000 film Refugee.". This construction also does not sound very good, the "but did not make" part. So, althogh the family had actors, is she supposed to debut at an earlier age? Plus, the overall negative construction does not sound too good.
  • "In addition to film acting, Kapoor is a stage performer and has launched her own clothing line (in association with retail chain Globus). She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles (both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women).". Do we really need those parentheses?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some adjustments to the lead including the ones you pointed out Dwaipayanc. Let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:19, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • one more comment on the lead. The lead says, " Kapoor received media attention from a young age.". But the early life section does not mention the media attention that she got from a young age. I think this needs to be changed in the lead. may be, "...exposed to films from a young age" or something like this? This fits with her being born in the filmy family. --Dwaipayan (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the early life section does not mention the media attention; it is just intended to show how she became interested in acting. However, as a child she used to attend award ceremonies with her family and would also accompany her sister on-set during filming (mentioned in the public image section) - this introduced her to the media from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:03, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so according to your explanation here, Kapoor was introduced to the media (films, awards etc) world at a young age; but that does not mean media was attentive of her when she was young. So, the article still does not mention that she received media attention from a young age. Either that needs to be changed in the lead, or, info on media's attention/coverage of a young Kareena should be added.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've removed the bit about her receiving media attention from a young age. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 20:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Since I copyedited the article in September 2012 it's not my place to assess the prose, but I believe this article meets WP:FA Criteria; it's comprehensive, well-sourced, neutral, stable and properly formatted. Images have alt text and acceptable copyright status. It may be a bit too long for its subject, but that's a judgment call. Miniapolis 02:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is very well written and well sourced. I'm no expert in Bollywood, but have read a few arts biographies, so here goes. I have a few thoughts about the prose, some nit-picky.

  • A colon over a semicolon works better here: "During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres; from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films."
Done
  • "Born into a family where her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor faced the media spotlight at a young age..." – (1) "where" should be "in which". Not a spatial relationship. (20 "faced the media spotlight" seems like a colloquial expression. Try something plain and formal, like "received media attention".
Done
There's a problem with the current sentence—"Born into a family in which her parents, Randhir Kapoor and Babita, and elder sister Karisma were actors, Kapoor's career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee."—it makes it seem that her career was what was born into the family, not her herself. That, and that the two ideas are very loosely relation, thus lacking strong coherence. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taking into account the suggestions you made, I decided to re-write the lead. Please let me know what you think! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One general issue from reading the lead I've found is the odd logical flow. Connect only related ideas using conjunctions. As a result, I find these sentences awkward:
  • "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee and she subsequently featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., which became India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of her biggest commercial successes to date." – the way of connecting the inital idea with the subsequent one with "and she" is odd sounding. I think we may need to break this up with a semicolon: "Her film career began with the 2000 war drama Refugee, after which she featured in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham...; the latter was India's highest-grossing film in the overseas market in 2001 and one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date." Also note that I changed that I changed "became" to "was"; otherwise, the we could interpret that the film was India's highest-grossing one from 2001 until today, but it was only that in 2001.
Done
  • "Her portrayal of a sex worker in Chameli (2004) proved to be the turning point in her career, and she was later noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." – Likewise regarding "and she". It's poor idea integration IMO. This would seem better as one, single, flowing idea. So try something like this: "She portrayed a sex worker in Chameli (2004), which proved to be the turning point in her career, and was noted for her performances in the critically acclaimed films Dev (2004) and Omkara (2006)." And since this sentence now begins with "She", the subsequent one cannot, so "Kapoor" probably.
Done
  • "Her parents reconciled in October 2007[12] and Kapoor explained that they were never officially divorced but lived separately." – more related ideas, but the conjunction doesn't flow well. Just break it up with a semicolon.
Done
  • There's also a bit of borderline weasel wording, as we aren't told who makes assertions such as, "She is known for being publicly outspoken and assertive, and is recognized for her contributions to the film industry though her fashion style and film roles both of which have made her a trend-setter for young women." Anything simple to not make these ideas seem so vague. By whom? Critics, authors, the public, heck fans?
Reworded; it now says "She is known in the Indian media for being publicly outspoken and assertive...". I've left the rest of the sentence the way it is. Let me know what you think!
Much better. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found the "went on to [verb]" wording a little fluffy and never understood why it couldn't simply be written as the infinitive conjugated in past tense. So instead of "went on to play", why not just "played"?
Done
  • "Since 2007, Kapoor has been in a relationship with actor Saif Ali Khan whom she married in October 2012." – need a comma after "Khan", since it's a nonrestrictive clause.
Done
  • As a general note, I like the lead: it's concise, solid and clear, and just what's expected from an overview.
  • A few obvious ideas, such as "Born in Mumbai, India, on 21 September 1980 into the Kapoor film family, Kapoor is the younger daughter of actors Randhir Kapoor and Babita (née Shivdasani)". Of course she's born into the Kapoor family! If you want to say she was born into a film family, just say "a film family". It's less repetitious too.
Done
  • I'm not sure how it is done in Indian English, so forgive my ignorance, but I thought "grand-daughter" and "film-maker" had no hyphens and were altogether single words. They might be interchangeable, so I'm not sure.
Initially, I had it spelled as "granddaughter" and "filmmaker"; however, spell check on my computer stated that it was incorrect. TBH, I don't even know what the correct spelling is.
If it's the wiki spell checker, it is bad. It seems to have rather limited vocabulary and doesn't accommodate for other dialects. I'm sure the way you had it spelled is correct. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 12:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it back to granddaughter and filmmaker. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After her parents' separation she was raised in Lokhandwala by her mother, who worked at several jobs to support her daughters until Karisma debuted as an actress in 1991." – the "After her parents' separation" is a bit repetitive following the previous sentence. Begin with a simple "She was then raised...".
Done
  • "Asked about her relationship with her father, Kapoor remarked 'My father is ... an important factor in my life. [Al]though we did not see him often in our initial years, we are a family now.'" – need a comma after "remarked".
Done
  • Are ellipses in brackets or no brackets when omitting material from a quotation? The latter is recommended per MOS:QUOTE, but either or is fine as long as you use it consistently.
According to MOS:QUOTE, we should use ellipses when omitting material from a quotation. I've added them to remain consistent!

These are general observations from the lead and Early life sections. Bravo on your work; it's well organized and structured, with useful images. What's needed is a fine-tooth comb with which to go over the article, some tweaks and polishing, and we've got the ideal Bollywood biography. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words Wikipedian Penguin! I've addressed all your concerns. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be done. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through most of my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck through all my comments. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Looks good. I have few comments though.

  • "She was then raised in Lokhandwala by her mother..." Is Lokhandwala so prominent that you need a mention and a wikilink? IMHO, No.
Removed
  • "...during this period, she became immersed in law books and developed a long-lasting passion for reading." Is "became immersed in law books" really required?
Removed
  • "Later that year Kapoor played the female lead in Santosh Sivan's period epic Asoka, a partly fictionalised account of the life of Ashoka." need a comma after 'year'. Also, prefix Ashoka with "an Indian emperor of the Maurya Dynasty". Not everyone knows Ashoka.
Done
  • "To prepare for the role, she visited several of Mumbai's red-light districts at night" You may want to link 'red-light districts' to Kamathipura, which is more specific to Mumbai.
The reason why I linked 'red-light districts' in general was because of the word "several" in the sentence. Kapoor didn't specifically visit one red-light district area; she visited "several".
  • "The film (and Kapoor's performance) opened to predominantly positive reviews by critics..." Parentheses not required.
Removed
  • "Kapoor is featured in the third chapter as Oberoi's love interest (Mira, a witty young woman)." 'a witty young woman' probably not required but I am not sure of that.
I see no harm in having it. 'A witty young woman' is used to describe her character, Mira, in Yuva.
  • Too much of Taran Adarsh everywhere and all he says is good-good. Can we have any positive-negative reviews/comments by any other critics?
The article is completely neutral and contains a "balance" of positive/negative comments by a variety of critics from different sources. Taran Adarsh's review is only used 3 times: Refugee, K3G and Dev.
  • "After graduating from Welham she studied commerce" need a comma after 'Welham'
  • "Kapoor then appeared in the Abbas-Mustan thriller Ajnabee." need a comma after 'thriller'.
  • "Kapoor was cast for the first time as a villain in the thriller Fida." need a comma after 'thriller'.
  • "During the filming of Fida Kapoor began a romantic relationship..." need a comma after 'Fida'.
  • "Although the film was unsuccessful at the box office" need a comma after 'box office'.
  • "she was cast as the protagonist of the 2005 drama Bewafaa." need a comma after 'drama'.

I have checked till "2007–11: Jab We Met and commercial success". Rest will check later. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are all those commas needed between the descriptors and film names? This article was copy edited, and another article that I am working on was recently copy edited by someone from the GOCE, and no such commas were deemed necessary. BollyJeff | talk 16:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comma not only is used for separating the clauses, it also indicates where you should take a small pause when you are [loud] reading the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A comma may help, but I don't think it is required. My point was why are we second guessing the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors? You want to tell them that they are not doing an adequate job? BollyJeff | talk 16:39, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GoCE has always helped us in writing the articles in better way. However, there is always a chance for improvement. Also, I am not saying or dont want to say what you've said above for GoCE work. Hyderabad, India has failed four times at FAC, in spite of GoCE edits. That does not mean GoCE did blunders there. A reviewer probably still sees some improvement scope for the article. Obviously, for the betterment of the article. - Vivvt • (Talk) 16:50, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that; just wondering if that's how you felt. Okay BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ, it seems as though you will have to do what Vivvt suggests if you want his support here. If another reviewer comes along and says that there are too many commas, then I don't know what to tell you. BollyJeff | talk 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about this particular comma issue. While speaking, we give a pause on those instances; however, do we always need to use comma in writing? I am not so sure. Moreover, there may be different school of grammar following different ways. Do you have a grammar or some Manual of Style, Vivvt, that recommends such use? Its beyond my knowledge of English. Bollyjeff, you can ask Miniapolis or someone else to opine here. I am sure there will be differing recommendations! --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@BollyJeff: My alone's support or oppose would not matter anyway because article is strong enough to pass for itself. The changes should not be done to please the reviewers but strictly for the betterment of the article. The main contributor need not follow all the review comments, if he/she does not agree to it.
@Dwaipayanc: Ideally, the punctuation matters for the narrative. I believe, we need to have it in the writing as well. However, I may be wrong here and elsewhere. I do not have any guidelines or MoS with me to prove my point. Again, experts may clarify the things. - Vivvt • (Talk) 17:25, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for the commas, I honestly see no harm in having them. While writing the article, I had them, but Miniapolis had decided to remove it when he copy-edited the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:42, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised to see so many supports with a prose issue evident in the second sentence:

During her career, Kapoor has received six Filmfare Awards and has been noted for her performances in a range of film genres: from contemporary romantic dramas, comedies, period films to major Bollywood productions and lesser-publicised independent films.

"During her career"? When else would she receive awards? I didn't read further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If lets say an actor/actress retired, then sometime after their retirement, they receive a lifetime achievement award or something of similar honor. At best, that could have been clarified as "During her film career" as maybe at somepoint she decides to quit film making and move on to a career in broadway or music. --JDC808 ♫ 22:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, what do you mean by "surprised"? Everyone has the right to his/her opinion; some may "suppose", some may "oppose", whilst others may just choose to comment. Ultimately, it is your own prerogative on what you think of the article. I also believe that JDC808 made a good recommendation; will be changing it to "During her film career". -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "n 2008 Kapoor performed in Shahrukh Khan's Temptation Reloaded 2008, a series of concerts in a number of countries. The show (which also featured Arjun Rampal, Katrina Kaif, Ganesh Hegde, Javed Ali and Anusha Dandekar) was staged at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands". The first sentence says it was a multi-city tour; the second sentence says it took place in Rotterdam?--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]

  • Indeed the level of details for all these stage shows seem quite trivial, and seem not to follow any specific criteria. You have mentioned some of the shows, but probably not others. So what was the selection criteria? I don't see mention of any shows that took place in India (unless the world tours included India as well). I have a feeling this section needs tremendous trimming.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to your first point: I meant that "the show [...] debuted at the Ahoy Rotterdam venue in Rotterdam, the Netherlands".
Reply to your second point: IMO, details for all these stage shows are not trivial; all of the shows specifically mention where they took place similar to that of Zinta's article. As far as mentioning the shows that took place in India, the "stage performances" section is intended just for her world tours/shows that took place abroad. If we were to list all of her shows in India, it would unnecessarily lengthen the article. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did significant copyedit in several parts (including the lead) of the article, addressing content and language. IMO, the off-screen activities, particularly the stage performances, are detailed unnecessarily and without any pattern or criteria. The three subsection of that section could be merged into one unbroken section, and excessive details about the random stage shows removed. A sentence like, "she performed in many stage shows in India and some concert tours across the globe, including x (2001), y (2004)" and so on. Please opine.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, thank you for taking the time in copy-editing the article. I agree with most of them, however there are a few of them which I don't really agree with. I'll be changing some of them. As for merging all her other work into one unbroken section, it wouldn't really be a good idea; it would end up looking like a bunch of random activities/thoughts put together. As I mentioned above, her stage shows are listed in chronological order and just mention where they took place. I honestly don't see the harm in having it. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 04:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding concert/stage shows: in that case, the article should explicitly mention that only non-Indian tours are listed. Also, are all the non-Indian tours mentioned (just a query)? In any case, then the paragraph should say that she has done many stage shows in India, and the global ones are mentioned here.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:34, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All her non-Indian tours are mentioned. BTW do you think it would help if we changed the section title? -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 06:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to change the subsection name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More on reference style in general, the titles of the references are in sentence case. There are some discrepancies though. Please read this section and follow the sentence case consistently. The first letter of a word should not be in capital after a colon, for example. Another reference title is "The Most Powerful Actresses in India". This is in title case, not in sentence can. This should be "The most powerful actresses in India". In a given article, one style should be used consistently, irrespective of the different styles used in the actual sources.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Today's featured article, Bastion (video game), uses the same case as the sources. Just saying. BollyJeff | talk 01:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I see that article has mixed sentence case and title case in its source titles. Well, perhaps we are demanding very strictly :) Actually, during a previous FARC, Sandy pointed this out. I believe this is a good thing to follow, for the sake of consistency in a given article, although views tend to differ in this regard, it seems.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the tool that helps build citations, Reflinks uses the source case too. BollyJeff | talk 02:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am retracting this comment for now (sentence case versus title case issue), unless some other reviewer comments on this.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments

  • USD and crore overlinked in many sections.
During Kapoor's first FAC, it was recommended that we put in the Indian rupees converter to avoid confusion for non-Indian readers. By putting the currency converter, it automatically links USD and crore; e.g. ₹200 crore (US$24 million).
  • PDF references needs (format=PDF) filled in.
Done
  • The notes section in filmography section should be unsortable per WP:FILMOGRAPHY.
Done
  • Link genre in the lead.
Done
  • Link the first occurrence of The Hindu in refs; same for "Box Office India".
Done for The Hindu. I see that the Box Office India article is currently nominated for deletion; once the issue is resolved it'll be linked.
  • Pipe-linking "a film family" to Kapoor family seems like WP:EASTEREGG.
Removed
Changed -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:39, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support –No issues for me. The article meets the criteria. —Vensatry (Ping me) 15:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments The article is well-written, complete and meets FA criteria. Good work Bollywood Dreamz But, still has some issues.

  • "after which she acted in the melodrama Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham..., one of Kapoor's biggest commercial successes to date"
Why it is important to use a long sentence which could be replaced by a single word "Hit" or something like that. Since, it is not one of the highest frossing film right now. Then, Bodyguard and golmaal 3 should also be mentioned.
That is because K3G was her first worldwide success. I agree that there were other films of hers like Golmaal 3, Bodyguard, Ra.One that earned more than K3G, but when adjusted for inflation, it has earned more than these films. That is why it is still one of her biggest commercial successes to date.
  • "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000"
So what, the film is 5th grossing film but it is widely considered as critical and commercial failure. Don't you think you are showing it like a blockbuster.
"Widely considered" by whom? The BOI source shows that it was a moderate success and managed to recover some of its profit. No one is "showing it like a blockbuster"; you are just assuming that. All it says that it was the fifth-highest-grossing film of the year.
Change it to moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mujhe Kuch Kehna hai, a romantic drama opposite Tusshar Kapoor, which became one of the year's most successful films"
It was just a "hit" nothing more so, why "most"?
Changed to hit.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • received her first Filmfare Best Actress nomination -> received her first nomination in Best Actress category at Filmfare or something else. No need to use just "Filmfare Best Actress"...a bit confusing, use original name.
Changed to official name.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was in six films"
she was in six films? Maybe "starred" or "featured". It seems these films where unsuccessful because of other and she has no role to play.
"Starred" is reasonable. Changed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was the second Bollywood film with a North American release by a Hollywood studio" why this is important?
Dwaipayanc removed it. I'm fine with that! Maybe if it was the first Bollywod film to get a North American release by a Hollywood studio, then I would have left it.
  • "However, Golmaal Returns was a financial success with international revenues of 79.25 crore (US$14.42 million)"
so what was its domestic gross....you are saying that it is the international gross so where is domestic? Sounds confusing.
Dwaipayanc changed it to say "global revenues".
  • Box office reports says Kambakkht Ishq was commercial failure in India, Why no use complete information.?
What box office reports? You're talking as if I didn't use any sources to support the information. BOI shows that the film was declared "above average". How is that a commercial failure?
Use moderate success or something like that.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is that necessary? The film doesn't say anything about the film being a success. All it says that it grossed x amount. If it said that it was a commercial success, then that would be a different thing. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 05:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reviews says that Kurbaan received "mixed" reviews but I see positive. WHY?
Not according to this. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Kurbaan's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. If majority of the reviews are positive, then we can say that the film received positive reviews.
7 Khoon Maaf received 80% positive and 20% negative; it is described as "mixed". Kurbaan's ratio is about 40 positive and 60 negative. I can give you the links.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kurbaan received by film critics over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For her portrayal of the tomboy Daboo, Kapoor received Best Actress nominations at various award ceremonies"
But, I could see only three.
There are definitely more than three (Apsara, Big Star, Filmfare, Global Indian, IIFA, Screen, Stardust, Zee Cine).
  • You should include Bodyguard received mixed to negative review.
Done by Dwaipayanc
  • Any critical analysis for Ra.One (reviews) ...why her critical acclaims are highlighted and critical failures are covered under garland of "commercial success".
If you take a look at other FA's, you will see that it's not necessary that we have to add a critical review of an actor from every film. No one is highlighting her critical acclaim and covering her critical failures. If you look at the section, you can see that there are negative reviews mentioned as well (Tashan, GR, KI, Bodyguard). Kapoor's role in Ra.One was similar to that of Zinta and Chopra in KMG and Krissh respectively (in which the actress didn't have much to do).
  • "was an economic success, earning 42.17 crore (US$7.67 million) internationally." any domestic datas? Are you saying the film generated good revenues internationally alone?
Tweaked
  • Many reviews says Kapoor received "mixed to negative review" for Heroine but, I could see only praise. Again, why her acclaim is so highlighted.? and criticism has been covered?
Again, we are not hiding anything. Majority of sources (1, 2, 3) show that although the film received negative reviews, Kapoor's performance was well received. These sources are good enough; however, if needed I'm willing to put together an analysis of all the reviews she received for the film, something like what I did for her other films.
I can show you, how she has been criticized. Here's are the links showing "mixed" response from critics for her performance in Heroine [114], [115], [116], [117], [118].This says it all, she got some positive and some negative, which means "mixed". I think it is clear now.Prashant  Conversation  05:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know what to say. Barring the one from OneIndia and to some extent NDTV, the other three are positive. As I said for the analysis of films, which pretty much can be applied to the analysis of her critical reviews, some mixed reviews doesn't mean that the overall reception was "mixed". I think I will have to list all the reviews for you to see. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 05:54, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've conducted an analysis of the reviews Kapoor received for Heroine (including the ones you mentioned) over here. You can see for yourself! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 06:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok...it has been resolved. .Prashant  Conversation  09:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In many places, readers are made to be confused..whether the revenues are from international markets alone or worldwide. That should be used properly. Same for Talaash.
They were changed.
  • Again, you should correct "talaash received mixed reviews."
The word "predominantly" was used. As I said before, just because a film receives some negative reviews, doesn't mean that it received mixed reviews. Plus if you take a look at the reviews listed on Talaash's article you'll see majority of them are positive. Two other sources: 1 & 2. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with talaash. You may use talaash "generally" received positive reviews.

Prashant  Conversation  14:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

  • Again, I can't help myself to point it again. This sentence is misleading the readers over the film performance of Refugee. "Refugee was the fifth-highest-grossing film in India in 2000".
Tweaked
  • This is too much, last time it didn't got my eyes..."Kapoor portrayed Kaurwaki—a Kalingan princess, with whom Ashoka falls in love—and received her first nomination for Best Actress at the Filmfare Awards.[19] While the film received generally positive reviews". Positive review for Asoka, Check the link was a commercial and critical failure.
This shows that film received a 100% rating. I know that wasn't the case completely so I changed it to generally.
  • Her Performance and analysis says ...Despite the least success rate among her contemporaries....[...], I see a complete reversed version as all her hits here, are tagged with "one of the years biggest hits or success". Why it is important to say "one of the years biggest". Can't you use "was a box office success", "major success". Use "one of....." only in the major success's like Golmaal 3.
  • Same for Jab We Met, "The film was received favourably by critics and became one of the year's most successful films, with a domestic box office of 30.25 crore (US$5.51 million)."
Tweaked
  • Again, The film earned over 84 crore (US$15.29 million) worldwide, but was a critical failure. So, Don't tell what it sounds like.(like a blockbuster which was a critical letdown).
It may sound like that to you. As I said before, all it says that the film grossed x amount. Anyways, I just don't know to say anymore. Tweaked
  • The film (which marked the directorial debut of Rensil D'Silva)....who?(Is the director has won 10National Award and is regarded ad India's best director). Every second Director Debuts with first film, doesn't mean...we should highlight.
What? Kurbaan was his directorial debut; your comments don't make sense at all.
Done -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support As I said earlier, the article is well-written, complete and neutral. Hence, I support it. Congratulations to Bollywood Dreamz for his work on the article. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reliability of boxofficeindia.com was established after a long discussion in reliable source noticeboard.--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After the last FAC, all of the unreliable sources were replaced with reliable ones. All of the sources used in the article are well-known and reliable; they are newspapers (The Times of India, The Telegraph), reliable websites (Bollywood Hungama, Indiatimes), magazines (Forbes, Filmfare), etc.
As far as the reliability of Oneindia.in is concerned, it is a mainstream Indian news website operated by B. G. Mahesh, one of the pioneers of the Internet and on-line news in India. TBH, if its reliability is questioned, I don't mind replacing it with a more reliable source. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend removing it--while I'm still iffy on whether BoxOfficeIndia meets the "high quality" threshold of an RS it's evidently treated as such, but I'm not seeing anything to convince me of OneIndia's quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the OneIndia source. I had originally used another source to support the worldwide gross of EMEAT. However, unable to find it, I decided to change it and used the gross from OneIndia. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments inpite of earlier support. Again, the article sounds like a too much for FA.

  • After making her acting debut in the 2000 war drama Refugee, Kapoor's early years in the film industry were successful; she received a Filmfare nomination for Asoka: But the below section of initial years says her initial years were average. Lots of failures and few or 2-3 success. Do this shows her sussess?
  • Getting a nomination at filmfare is what ? She only got this nomination and it doesn't make any thing a success.
If you would you have cared to read the rest of the sentence then you would know what I'm talking about. It later says that "this was followed by a series of commercial failures and repetitive roles, which garnered her negative reviews." By early years, I meant 2001; if you take a look at the sources from BOI and Rediff.com, you can see that the statement is correct. As far as the Filmfare nomination is concerned, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress.
But, this is encyclopedia, leave all this but you should also mention her first supporting nomination. No? I'm just saying for the benefit of the article. Look at Balan's page. Its prose is well written.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I know that this is an encyclopedia. The lead of the article "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." We are not listing all her nominations there; she later received nominations for Omkara, Kurbaan, etc. Are those included? NO! As I said before, the reason why I mentioned it was because it was her first nomination for Best Actress. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the positive reviews for Asoka are giving me a nightmare. The Indian reviews says that the film was worst of the year. I think rotten tomatoes just shows average of foreign reviews.
Please show me the reviews that say "the film was worst of the year". We can see that all the foreign reviews were positive whereas the ones from Indian film critics were mixed. For that reason I used the word generally.
  • Although a poll (conducted by Bollywood Hungama) named it the most anticipated release of the year,[48] the film was a commercial and critical failure. Why this is important to mention. Reality is Tashan is a critical and commercial disasters. Every third film with multistar cast attracts viewers interest but most important is the results which is Disaster.
Yes, and that is mentioned!
My point is why it is necessary to mention about poll? It sounds like the film should have been Blockbuster but it bombed.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely my point! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • believed the screenplay was derivative, concluding: "There is nothing particularly new about a suspicious wife keeping tabs on her husband, and there is nothing particularly new in the way Kareena plays. Why this review is important, she received negative reviews....i can show you. Earlier, you said its not important to mention negative reviews for financially successfull films and then then you are crossing it yourself.
What are you talking about? The review provided is negative.
But, you mentioned she received mixed reviews?Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at the analysis that was done back in 2008. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bodyguard received negative to mixed reviews, though became a financial success ....it received negative reviews. What do you mean by mixed?
If you take a look at the film's article, you will notice that the film had a mixed reception. The critics didn't praise nor did they criticize it too heavily. I know that the film did receive negative reviews too and hence I decided to say "negative to mixed". Okay! I've now changed it to say that the film was not well-received by critics. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know she is your favorite actress, its not mean that you start writing only good things about about her. Sounds like fancruft to me. Prashant  ✉  11:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBH Prashant, sometimes I don't even know what you're saying. It's funny how you contradict yourself. You mentioned before that it was "well-written", "neutral" and "meets FA criteria". And now you go on to say that it "sounds like fancruft" and there are "only good things about her". Don't think for a second that I don't know what you're up to. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 18:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it may be funny to you but I wanna tell you that I'm also a kapoor fan and Chopra fan too but from last few months i Learned that this is encyclopedia and not a blog. I didn't even touched this article because you have handled it so nicely from past few years. But, its no that we should write only garlands and flowers. Also, I supported the article because it is well written and I'm not denying that. You should appreciate other reviewers that they are helping you in FA and not criticizing them.Prashant  ✉  08:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, I did not criticize you. I just stated how you always contradict yourself. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 19:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please move your argument to the talk page, it has no place here. As for supporting and then making those comments, sorry Prashant but that makes your input here a lot less credible.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments came in only because the article's many part was changed suddenly. I guess it should have been stable. When I looked again, it was changed. So, I made my points and hence they are resolved, I'm satisfied with it. I had supported and will always support the article. Congratulations and best of luck. The article don't don't have any oppse, so I guess it would be an FA soon. My points were only for the betterment and not for anything else. Cheers!Prashant  ✉  03:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (for most of the criteria). I am not qualified to judge the article for criterion 1a (prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard), so not commenting on that. The article meets other criteria: 1b (comprehensive), 1c (well-researched, claims are verifiable per the random spot-checking), 1d (neutral, although some comments above questioned this, for me the article is neutral), 1e (stable); also meets criteria 2, 3, and 4. --Dwaipayan (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only one here who would rather dates formatted as 18 February 2013 rather than 2013-02-18 ?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are not. BollyJeff | talk 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems informal, like note form to me, not to mention backwards, I'd rather it be in writing.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 22:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it's probably okay as is. The article should rest and not have so much change now. BollyJeff | talk 00:05, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite web initially had you format the dates 2013-02-18 as opposed to 18 February 2013, but I now see that it is the other way around. I see no problem in leaving it the way it is. If it's absolutely compulsory then I will change it. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not as such necessary. The key is consistency within a given article; in this case, that date style has been consistently used.--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bill william compton has formatted all the dates as 18 February 2013 citing WP:MOSNUM. I guess it was important then! -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 03:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a very good article, constantly up-to-date thanks to the on-going, tireless dedication of this wonderful guy, Bollywood Dreamz, who keeps a close eye on the proceedings and insists on keeping it neutral and well-written. I congratulate all of you guys who've taken part in improving it over time, well done. Shahid • Talk2me 23:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words Shahid! I would also like to take the time to thank each and every individual who participated in this FAC. Thank you for taking the time and offering your inputs; the article has only improved since it was nominated! Cheers everyone! :) -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 01:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, surprised Shahid turned up...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 17:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links; some are for currency, and others might be justified by the amount of prose between them in a decent-sized article, but pls review in any case. Use this script to check for them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for introducing me to that script Ian! I've removed the unnecessary duplicate links. As for the currency, it was automatically linked when I used this template; I never knew you could add the following parameter ("|nolink=yes"), which would then help unlink it. -- Bollywood Dreamz talk 23:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Bollywood. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [119].[reply]

Gravity Bone

Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity Bone is a freeware first-person adventure video game developed by Brendon Chung under his video game studio, Blendo Games, and released in August 2008. The game was developed using a modified version of id Software's id Tech 2 engine—originally used for Quake 2—and incorporates music by film director Wong Kar-wai. Gravity Bone received critical acclaim from video game journalists. It was called "an experience worth playing", and received comparisons to games such as Team Fortress 2 and Portal. The game was praised for its cohesive story and atmosphere and its ability to catch the player's interest over a very short time span without feeling rushed or incomplete. With permission from delegate GrahamColm, I am nominating this article for featured status. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 18:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comments

  • Comment (as semi-involved, while I didn't work on this article, I'm working on its sequel and so sorta helping here). Brendan Chung (the one guy behind Blendo Games) has previously put free screenshots at my request of his other games (eg Atom Zombie Smasher) for purposes of WP. I don't know how much of a line I have to him directly nowadays (now that he's all "important" and stuff :) ) but will try to see if I can get him to do so. I don't expect this to hold up any issues on this FAC, since normally game screenshots are not replaceable with free, but this will probably help if I could. --MASEM (t) 14:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The gameplay section is a bit confusing to me. I don't get a clear sense of what players do beyond the fact that they're not told much. The thumbnail picture is the only place I learn that there is no HUD, certain details are repeated (At the end of the game, the player-controlled spy is killed by an unknown woman after chasing her through the last half of the second level. and Finishing the level triggers a set of final sequences of events and the game ends with the sudden death of the player's character.) and plot and gameplay are interwoven in I think a detrimental fashion; it might be better to go over the scant plot details first and then transition to a more fleshed out explanation of what players do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 01:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by JDC808

Comments by Axem Titanium

  • HUD should be wikilinked and not abbreviated.
  • "The first level of Gravity Bone is disguised as a tutorial system" - I think this is backwards. Isn't the tutorial system disguised as the first level?
    • Hmm, both ways work. I will use yours :)
  • In the lead, "an experience worth playing" is in quotation marks, implying a direct quote, but when this phrase is mentioned in the Reception section, it is not in quotes and the phrase does not appear in Onyett's article. Onyett's article is also specifically not called a review.
    • True, it is a preview or impressions. For grammatical and *makes sense* purposes, I changed it to preview. And, well, ups. I synthesized his comment there in a way I should not have. I have fixed this. Take a look :)
  • What is Game Tunnel and why is it reliable?
  • "Citizen Abel" is not explained anywhere in the article, thus, it is confusing when his name is mentioned later, particularly in the Sequel section where the reader would have to know that the main char of Gravity Bone's name is Citizen Abel in order to understand the significance of the sentence.
    • The main character is not named Citizen Abel. What Citizen Abel is is explained in the Development section: "based on a series of Quake 2 maps entitled Citizen Abel".
      • If that's the case, they you have to explain that in 30 Flights, "Citizen Abel" refers to the main character's name, not a Quake 2 map. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then yes; I'd have to fix that. The developer of the game, Brendon Chung, said that Citizen Abel is not the name of the character. He also said that the character has no name. I think this is pretty easy to understand from the development section. Also, I see that Masem mistakenly wrote that Citizen Abel was the character on the Sequel section. I have fixed that. — ΛΧΣ21 19:25, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great little article about a great little game and I applaud you for attempting to improve it. I would love to support when these comments are addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source Spot-check

I've checked the first few sources in the article, and have already found several problems. In the gameplay section, the source does not mention that the player character is a spy. This source doesn't say anything about chasing a woman, or the player character being killed by her. Also, while the reviewer of that source said he did not understand the plot, this does not support the claim that "The game was designed to keep the plot elements as scarce as possible." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I am still dealing a bit with them to make sure they are accurate. Although, some plot elements don't need to be sourced, per the common guidelines from the Wikiproject. — ΛΧΣ21 03:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source cannot support a statement such as "The game was designed to keep the plot elements as scarce as possible", unless it's actually mentioned in the game what the developers' intentions were.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was not talking about that one. I am looking for the ref that covers that one in the list :) — ΛΧΣ21 04:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — ΛΧΣ21 05:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only as a comment to help (I don't know immediately off the top of my head), some of the sourcing for Thirty Flights may help towards clarifying these. --MASEM (t) 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the development section, in the interview, Chung didn't exactly say he had a "passion for films" in general. He said he liked Wong's films specifically. This should be clarified. Also Wong is the guy's last name, not Kar-wai. All the "Kar-wai"s in the article should be changed to "Wong".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will take care of this after the Grammys are over :) — Hahc21talk 02:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I have taken care of this. Thanks! — Hahc21talk 15:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The part about the sequel's non-linear storytelling being a "novel use of the video game medium" doesn't seem to be supported by the source. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a reliable source that - while it doesn't say that in so few words - has the message. (See third paragraph, the one under the 2nd picture). --MASEM (t) 23:05, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the reference. — ΛΧΣ21 23:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hurricanehink

Support (stumbled here after checking out my FAC)

  • Take care of the unsourced statement.
    • I will, sir :) Unsource statement removed. Don't know from where I took that.
  • Could you explain somewhere what "Citizen Abel" is? I see "and was based on a series of Quake 2 maps entitled Citizen Abel" - but that doesn't explain why it's in the image at the top-right of the article (or does it?!)
    • I will try to better explain what does Chung said about this. I am tired of seeing sources stating that Citizen Abel is the name of the character. I believed it was the name of the character too until Chung explicitly statet that the character had no name, and that Citizen Abel was... well, read it on the article when I fix it :P
  • It was called "an experience worth playing" - by whom?
    • Hmmm *goes and looks at the sources* Fixed.
  • From the description, it seems the game is very short, with two levels. Is that right?
  • "The player controls a spy" - probably add "unnamed" here.
    • Oh gosh, Indeed. Fixed.
      • Err, given what I've read elsewhere, is that correct? Are you sure Citizen Abel isn't the character's name? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Err, Brendon Chung clearly stated on the interview: "It was based on a series of Quake 2 maps I did ten years ago called 'Citizen Abel'." He also stated, when asked if "In Gravity Bone, do you play Citizen Abel, or is that just a reference to your old maps?", that "That doesn't really play a part in the game. You never really see the character, the character never talks, it's just a label I had." With this, it is clear that the character is not named Citizen Abel. — ΛΧΣ21 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have three consecutive sentences starting with "Cheng" in "Development" :/
    • Will take care of this :) Fixed.
  • Given you had " as an experience worth playing" quoted in the lede, it should probably be quoted down in "Reception".
  • Were there any number reviews (aside from The Refined Geek)? Like 9/10? Stars? Thumbs up?
    • Nothing :/ Just positive comments with the exception you noted below.
  • And speaking of The Refined Geek - "awarding them a score of 8 out of 10 " - was that for each game, or for the series as a whole?
  • commenting, "The cohesiveness - should "the" really be capitalized here?
    • No. Will fix that. Fixed.
  • Did the game get any mention in any newspapers? Everything seems to be online. Also, was there any negative reception?
  • I notice, in the entire article, you don't say where the game was released, and how. You say it was released on Windows in the infobox, but there isn't a source or mention of that. Was the game really not available on a Mac? And how did people purchase it? And for what price?
    • The game is free, available on the developer's website, blendogames.com. It was not sent to Steam, not released under a price. It has no Mac version, or any other version but Windows. It's a very indie release that got the attention of the mainstream VG websites for its unique style etc :)

Just some missing details that I think the article needs. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [121].[reply]

Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr.

Nominator(s): – Maky « talk » 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this short article for featured article because I feel that it meets all of the criteria. The article covers every source I can find on the subject. The only known exception is his burial record at Arlington National Cemetery, which would provide an interment date and grave location (section & tombstone number). I will include the information if someone can suggest a proper citation, especially since I cannot link directly to the record, only to the database. (An image of the tombstone may also be in the public domain under PD-USGov, but I'm not certain and cannot get a response from Arlington National Cemetery.) Assistance on these two issues would be most welcome. If any other sources can be located, please send them to me and I will quickly incorporate them.

Lyon was not known for a single, major contribution to the sciences, but contributed about 160 papers over the course of his career. He named two of the slow loris species that were recently elevated to species status, and is the authority on several genera and species of mammals (including a ton of synonyms). In all, this should be a complete, short article about a lesser known naturalist from the early 1900s. – Maky « talk » 16:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is PD and fine. Sources are fine except the title for Just should use an endash instead of a hyphen and there's a doubled period in Layne, so I'll have to strongly oppose because of those tremendously outrageous issues ;-) Apparently Notre Dame has his family papers, not sure if you could access those. There's also "first published plant lists of the Indiana Dunes, then notes on ground squirrels and badgers anticipating his 1936 opus on mammals of Indiana" in American Midland Naturalist (January 2009), 161 (1), pg. 13-44. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source and image review. Fixes made as requested... Lol! Living in Atlanta, I don't have access to the Notre Dame library, and I'm not even sure how I would cite family papers if I could get them to send me digital copies. What kind of information would you like to get from them? Lastly, are you simply wanting a mention of those lists and notes (per this source)? – Maky « talk » 19:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, just mentioned them because you had wondered above about further sources. I don't think it's a big issue either way. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added the stuff from American Midland Naturalist as requested. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Born in 1875 to a military family, he showed an early interest in zoology by collecting local wildlife around the army posts at which his father was stationed - I think the use of by makes this sentence awkward. Show and by don't mix well. Maybe at an early age he began collecting?
I'm not sure I see how this is awkward, but I have attempted to reword it. If the modifications are insufficient, please let me know. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. National Museum (USNM) - Is there a reason US isn't spelled out? Is this the traditional spelling or something?
Good point. Fixed in two locations. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1919, he and his wife, Martha, moved to South Bend, Indiana to join a new clinic. - Why is it a "new" clinic? It's the first mention of a clinic I've seen.
Changed to "newly opened clinic". – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the move, he began to write more medical publications, - he began to write publications on medicine. More medical doesn't make sense as it is.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early
  • His family moved between various army posts across the United States throughout his childhood, although there are few records documenting his early life. - The use of although is improper here; the second half doesn't contradict anything in the first half.
I'm having a hard time rewording this. I will revisit it soon. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to reword this. Please let me know if it's better. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a child, Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and other animals around the army posts,[1] particularly Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts.[4] - This needs to be recast. As is, it reads as he enjoyed collecting Watertown Arsenal (collective noun for a type of insect) near Boston. I think adding an "at" would leave it too wordy. Better to reword this entirely.
I'm also having a hard time with this one, so I used your "at" idea for the time being. I'll revisit it soon. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to reword this. Please let me know if it's better. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time Lyon was in high school, his father had been restationed at Rock Island Arsenal, and the young man graduated from nearby Rock Island High School. - This sentence doesn't proceed logically; it doesn't explain that Lyon moved schools (with his father), rather that he graduated from a different school.
Fix attempted. Please let me know if it is clearer. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, which included training in biology. - Unless I'm mistaken, the degree doesn't include training in biology, his studies did.
Good catch. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • In 1898, he moved to Washington, D.C. and in conjunction with his graduate studies, he became a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the U.S. National Museum (USNM), now the National Museum of Natural History of the Smithsonian Institution.[1] - I can't help but feel the "now" bit would be better as a footnote.
Footnote made. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was sent to Venezuela in 1899 by the USNM, along with Lieutenant Wirt Robinson of the United States Army, to collect mammal specimens. - "He was sent to Venezuela with Lieutenant...Army in 1899 by...to collect mammal specimens." is better.
Thanks for the suggestion. I've used it. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • despite continuing his education and taking on teaching assignments at Howard University Medical School.[1][2] He taught physiology from 1903–1904 and 1907–1909, as well as bacteriology from 1909 to 1915.[2] - No need to separate these sentences. Can be condensed to "and teaching physiology and bacteriology at Howard University Medical School from 1903-1904 and 1907-1909, respectively. The dates can go wherever you want, but the two sentences definitely should be combined.
Done, though the example you gave incorrectly attributed the dates. Because of the complex dates, I've put them in parentheses. I hope that is acceptable. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family - From is not the right word. Because of is better, but not perfect.
I never liked how this sentence started when I first wrote it, and I agree that "Because of..." is not perfect. But as before, I'm at a loss. If I think of something better, I will change it, but for now, I'm using "Because of..." – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • From his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews).[6] He also is the authority for the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew)[7] and two genera of leporids (rabbits and hares), - These sentences should be combined.
Done. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although he was never able to visit the Far East, he acquired a strong knowledge of the fauna and geography from studying the collections that were sent to the USNM.[16] Following the end of his relationship with the USNM in 1912, he not only began publishing basic medical studies, but also continued to publish mammalogy material.[1] - The first sentence here seems out of place, unless it is saying that his publications related to the Far East's fauna. Otherwise I think it's an unnecessary detail.
It does refer to his publications about Far East fauna. I have done my best to fix, but you may not like it. Please share you opinion. I am open to suggestions, too. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite his interest in and occupation with medical science, his passion was for the study of living and extinct mammals, which was reflected in how his contributions to mammalogy outnumbered his medical papers.[16] - "which was" and after reads like original research, and the readers can gather that themselves, anyway, even if it is sourced.
Good point. Deleted. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
  • Lyon criticized poorly managed conservation programs in his paper "Conservation from the Naturalist's Point of View" (1939), and in his final paper, he envisioned life around the Kankakee Outwash Plain before human activities had changed it. Lyon also gave up his cottage in the Indiana Dunes after the wildlife refuge was converted into a vacation destination.[16] - What is his final paper? It's not clear.
Title provided. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose - The prose is rather clunky and needs a copyedit. I can't help but feel that the article is at times a bit redundant to give it length, and becomes choppy. ceranthor 18:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed replies/fixes. I have done my best to attempt the examples you pointed out above. I have also re-read the article but did not notice any other "clunky" prose... but then again, I'm not as good at copyediting as you are. If there are any other problems, please list them. Thanks for the review. – Maky « talk » 05:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they've all been fixed pretty satisfactorily. The article still needs a copyedit of some form, though. ceranthor 21:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Let me know if there are particular places that need work. Suggestions are welcome. – Maky « talk » 04:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support from Ceranthor. The prose has improved greatly, and it is far less choppy than it was. I think it is close enough that I can comfortably support. That being said, the quote "ardent conservationist" under personal life needs to be cited. Otherwise, it looks good to me. ceranthor 19:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kitchen Roll.

  • "Born in 1875 to a military family" --> "Born into a military family" - no need to state the year of his birth again.
Good point. Done. – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, he taught medical classes at Howard University Medical School and later George Washington University Medical School." --> "At the same time, he taught at Howard University Medical School and later George Washington University Medical School." - no need to say medical classes, as they are both medical schools.
Another very good point. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, and his training included biology." --> "He attended Brown University and completed his Ph.B. in 1897, which included training in biology."
Done. – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews), as well as the authority for the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew)" --> "Because of his work as a mammalogist, Lyon is considered the taxonomic authority for the family Ptilocercidae (pen-tailed treeshrews), as well as the genus Anathana (the Madras treeshrew)"
Done. – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Until the move to Indiana, Lyon wrote many papers in the field of mammalogy, and particularly on the morphology, systematics, and zoogeography of mammals." - is the "and" necessary? ("mammalogy, particularly"). If it is the sentence still feels a bit clunky.
Changes made. Let me know if it's a little better. – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the end of his relationship with the USNM in 1912, he not only began publishing basic medical studies, but also continued to publish mammalogy material." - publish and publishing used in the same sentence feels awkward.
Changed one of them to "write". Good enough? – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "articles collected by Lyon and his wife's scrapbook of her life in college." I can't make sense of this. Can it be reworded?
Changes made. Better? – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ceranthor that the article needs a copyedit.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 14:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Within the next few days, I plan to review WP:1A (a long, but helpful page written by a user to help people learn how to copyedit). I review that page about once a year. After that, I'll re-read the article and try my best to clean it up more. However, if you can point out any other issues, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for the reviews and suggestions! – Maky « talk » 04:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant. Thanks for the quick response. I'll give the article another read soon.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 17:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments The article reads much better after the copyedit, but there are still issues. Here are some more comments. I may add more later.

  • "Born into a military family, he demonstrated an early interest in zoology when he began collecting local wildlife around the army posts at which his father was stationed." could be worded better.
I've tried tying the points together better and making parts of it more succinct. Your thoughts? – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyon acquired the rank of Major in the Medical Reserve Corps during World War I, and was appointed to honorary positions during his career, including the position of president of the American Society of Mammalogists from 1931 to 1932." --> "Lyon acquired the rank of Major in the Medical Reserve Corps during World War I, and was appointed to honorary positions during his career, including president of the American Society of Mammalogists from 1931 to 1932."
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last two sentences begin with "he" in the second paragraph of the lead.
Fixed. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father's military career led his family to move across the United States throughout his childhood and adolescence." --> "Because of his father's military career, his family moved across the United States throughout his childhood and adolescence." Also "his" is repeated three times in this sentence.
Done and fixed. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Around each army post, and particularly at Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts, the young Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and other animals." --> "The young Lyon enjoyed collecting insects and animals around the army posts, particularly at Watertown Arsenal near Boston, Massachusetts."
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1898, he moved to Washington, D.C. and in conjunction with his graduate studies, he became a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the United States National Museum (USNM)." --> "In 1898, in conjunction with his graduate studies, he moved to Washington, D.C. to become a part-time Aid in the Division of Mammals at the United States National Museum (USNM)."
I moved the year around to avoid the double "in" at the beginning of the sentence. Otherwise, this is done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He retained his post at USNM until 1912 and taught physiology (1903–1904 and 1907–1909) and bacteriology (1909–1915) at Howard University Medical School." This sentence combines two unrelated points, linking them with "and". I think this sentence should be split up.
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the latter half of 1915, he began teaching at George Washington University Medical School, handling courses in bacteriology and pathology from 1915 until 1917 ... " --> "In the latter half of 1915, he began teaching at George Washington University Medical School, handling courses in bacteriology and pathology until 1917 ... " - no need to mention 1915 twice.
Good catch. Should have been obvious. Fixed. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lyon served in the U.S. Army during World War I, joining in 1917 and serving as a pathologist at the Walter Reed Army Hospital for two years." --> "From 1917, Lyon joined the U.S. Army for two years, serving as a pathologist at the Walter Reed Army Hospital during World War I."
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His wife, Martha, was also extended the same offer, and joined the clinic as an ophthalmologist." --> "His wife, Martha, was extended the same offer, and joined as an ophthalmologist."
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph of the "career" section uses the word "incorporated" three times.
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After moving to Indiana in 1919 ... " --> "After he moved to Indiana ... ". No need to say when he moved there again.
Done. – Maky « talk » 02:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Somehow I missed these comments while I was moving. I will address them tonight. – Maky « talk » 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing these problems. I can now support the article.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 13:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your time reviewing the article and suggesting fixes. – Maky « talk » 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. I'm copyediting the article; please revert anything I accidentally screw up. I'll try to give detailed rationales in the edit summaries for anything non-trivial. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

  • Poking about in Google Books brought up the "Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution" for the year ending 30 June 1906, which shows Lyon as having been appointed Assistant Curator in the Division of Mammals during the prior year. This directly contradicts your source that gives the dates as 1898-1900; I would think the Annual Report is the more reliable source for this. The 1908 report shows him still with that title; I'll see if I can find more examples. Aha! Googling "marcus lyon aid division of mammals 1910" under Google Books brings up a "Guide to the Smithsonian Archives", issue 5, which has this snippet visible in the search: "Other staff members of the Division of Mammals have included Marcus Ward Lyon, Jr., Aid, 1898- 1906, and Assistant Curator, 1906- 1909". For some reason that information doesn't come up inside the book, but I think that's enough to doubt your other source.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I am not having the same luck with your search strings on Google Books. Searching "marcus lyon aid division of mammals 1910" did not pull up "Guide to the Smithsonian Archives", but instead pulled up the Historical Catalogue of Brown University. I did find the snippet you mentioned by searching directly for the volume—here is a link. As you said, your source says "Aid, 1898- 1906, and Assistant Curator, 1906- 1909", whereas the one from Brown University says "assistant curator, U. S. National Museum 1905–12". It seems like every source says something different, and even though I'm inclined to trust a source from the Smithsonian, I'm worried we're getting into original research. Your thoughts before I proceed with any changes? – Maky « talk » 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now finished with the copyedit. I'm ready to support once the issue above with the dates of his assistant curatorship has been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedit! I'm fine with the changes you made. I have made comments above regarding the factual error, but will need your help resolving it. – Maky « talk » 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about changing the text just to indicate that he was assistant curator "for a time", or something neutral like that, and then adding a footnote that gives the multiple sources and the varying date ranges? I would include the "Annual Reports", if you can find them; if not I'd be glad to add them for you. I think those are probably the most reliable source among those we're discussing because they are direct documentation of that year, and they're not really primary -- primary would be a letter from him to the Smithsonian accepting the post, I would say. I don't think it's OR to include sources like this, but unfortunately one can't do much with them other than confirm that he had the post that year -- by their nature it's not going to be easy to identify the end of his term. Though if you can find the annual reports for the years before and after his appointment I think that could suffice -- again, with the situation explained in the note. Do you think this is an acceptable approach? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with the footnote idea, and will implement that now. I found digital copies of the Annual Reports by year at BHL. However, I can't search the content using the web interface, and the PDFs take forever to download, otherwise I would look at every year for a more complete record. Using the OCR to search the volume ending 30 June 1906, I don't see where it says Lyon was appointed Assistant Curator in the Division of Mammals the previous year as you claimed. What page were you on? Anyway, I'll see what I can do. – Maky « talk » 18:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the "about this book" link; the text is on page 50. Let me know if that doesn't work for you and I can give you the exact text. I'll keep digging and see if I can find the announcement of his successor. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. Because the book is for the "year ending June 30, 1906", it's impossible to say if he was promoted in 1905 or 1906, I think. If you could suggest a final sentence for that second note (b), I will use the link you provided as a reference. As it stands, I think the note says what can be said. – Maky « talk » 04:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support, above, while we tweak the wording on this; this is just a detail. I think the note can go into details that would be too tedious for the main text, so how about making this the second sentence of that note: "According to the Guide to the Smithsonian Archives, he was an Aid from 1898 until 1906 and Assistant Curator from 1906 to 1909, and this is supported by the museum's annual report for the year ending June 30, 1906, which recorded his promotion to Assistant Curator during the preceding twelve months." That places the information adjacent to the other source directly related to the Smithsonian, and puts the two most likely to be accurate first in the note. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just made another tweak to clarify that McIntosh and the Brown source don't give dates for his post as Aid; as a result I've moved the McIntosh ref to the end to cover that clause. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the suggestion and tweak. I tweaked it further by showing it start date for the Aid position, and I tried to find an end date for his Assistant Curator position, but those volumes appear to stop reporting personnel changes before 1909. Feel free to tweak the wording further to fit your taste. Also, I was wondering if you had an opinion on the photo of the tombstone at Arlington (mentioned at the top of this page)? I'm pretty sure it was taken by an employee of the US Government, but they are not responding to my emails. It would be nice to add a picture near the bottom of the article to break up the monotony of the text. Regardless, thanks again for the helpful and copyedit review. – Maky « talk » 16:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done looks fine. I looked at the tombstone page but can't figure out whether it is PD, though like you I suspect it is. Sorry, not an expert on that sort of thing. Anyway, nice article; I hope it gets promoted. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:53, 2 March 2013 (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 list was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC) [122].[reply]

Laura Secord

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a comprehensive article on the Chocoloate Lady this War of 1812 heroine, and an important part of early Canadian mythology.

Ideally, I'd like to see it as Today's Featured Article on 22 June 2013, which is the 200th anniversary of her famous walk through enemy-controlled territory to inform the British of an impending American attack. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

This is my first full review of a non-road FAC, so I won't be supporting or opposing until others review.

Personal history
Memory and legend

Review by Dank

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Hi Curly, thanks for bringing this to FAC. The lead needs to be longer; about twice as long would do it, as long as it does a good job summarizing the article. I'll be back with more a little later. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, dear. Oh, deary, deary, dear. Natty10000 doesn't seem to agree, as s/he has gutted the lead not just once (18 January), but twice (19 January) since I've submitted this article for FAC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, don't do anything with it yet, I'll go ask Natty what's up. - Dank (push to talk) 22:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we can compromise here; I agree that it has a bit more detail than it needs, and I'll trim a bit. See what you think. - Dank (push to talk) 22:37, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I certainly don't have any problem with a trimming, but cutting out the info about the chocolate company is a big mistake. It can hardly be understated how strongly Canadians associated her name with chocolates, even amongst those familiar with the historical Secord. The first thing most Canadians think of when you mention her name is chocolates. In fact, I first visited the article myself to find out when she founded "her" chocolate company. I think it's important to emphasize they she is both unrelated to the chocolate company, and that her name is strongly associated with the chocolate company amongst Canadians. Otherwise, Canadians (who will almost certainly be the vast majority of readers) will be confused as to her relation with the company (as I was).
            • I didn't cut the information out of the article, I just reduced the bit in the lead to "Laura Secord Chocolates are named for her." Change it however you want ... but if it feels too much like "product placement", then I'll stop here. - Dank (push to talk) 00:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do undertand the "product placement" concerns, but please keep in mind that a quite significant number (quite likely a majority) of Canadian readers who come to this article will be curious about her realtion to the chocolate company. "Laura Secord Chocolates are named after her" only raises more questions than it answers. The fact that the fame of the chocolate company far overshadows Secord's own has more than one reference in the article, and I'm sure I could come up with more with little effort.
              • How about something like this? —
                Before: "On the centennial of her walk, businessman Frank Patrick O'Connor named Laura Secord Chocolates in her honour; it became the most successful candy retailer in Canada, and though the historical Secord and her family had no relation to it, amongst Canadians her name is most often associated with the candy company."
                After: "Though the historical Secord and her family had no relation to it, most Canadians associate her name with the Laura Secord Chocolates company, which was named in her honour on the centennial of her walk."
              • I'm not really sure it's a good idea to leave out the "Canada's most successful candy retailer"; while I sympathise with the "product placement" concern, it does give context for non-Canadian readers—as in: why would Canadians associate her name with a candy company, and even if they do, why does it have to be in the lead?
          • If you're going to do more more trimming to the lead, there's one more detail I think is important not to lose: that her father fought on the American side in the Revolutionary war. Before I atrarted editing it, the article claimed Thomas Ingersoll was a United Empire Loyalist (uncited, of course). It's a belief held by (or assumed) a certain number of Canadians, and I think it's important to disabuse readers of that notion. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:10, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'm fine with those changes. - Dank (push to talk) 01:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would make "(where she stopped at the home of her half-brother Charles, who was ill in bed)" a note; I think it's a bit tangential and interrupts the flow of that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 00:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two instances of " are said to " in the personal description section leave me a little skeptical ... who said? - Dank (push to talk) 00:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nikkimaria

Sources and images - spotchecks not done. Disclaimer: have previously edited the article

Review by Paul MacDermott

  • Support I have reviewed this article using text-to-speech software, so please note there are aspects of it I haven't checked, such as images, but those seem to have been covered by other reviewers. Having listened to it several times over the last few days I find it reads well and provides a broad coverage of the topic. I like articles where I come away having learnt something interesting, and as someone from the UK I was unaware of Laura Secord and the role she played in history. One suggestion I have (though this is optional) is adding the pronunciation of her surname. My software pronounces it as "Seecord", but I've no idea if that is correct. Paul MacDermott (talk) (disclaimer) 12:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd actually wanted to include a pronunciation, but have been unable to find a reliable source that provides one. Growing up in Canada, everyone around me pronounced Laura Secord Chocolates as /ˈsikɔɹd/; when I took my family to the Laura Secord Homestead last summer, the staff pronounced her name that way as well. The Japanese wiki site for her (jp:ローラ・セコール) has her name pronounced in a pseudo-French style (/sekoːɽɯ/), which made me doubt which was correct (I live in Japan, and looked it up for my wife). There are Japanese sources that give a pronunciation similar to the one I grew up with, though. There's a Yahoo! Answers page, which I'm fairly certain is a prank, that pronounces it /ˈlauɹə ˈsɛkɔɹd/. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/March_2013&oldid=557824955"