Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/April 2013

Add links
From 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, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

William Henry Bury

[edit]
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bury murdered his wife and kept her body in a crate, until admitting to her death a few days later. Circumstantial evidence and superficial similarities between his wife's killing and the Whitechapel murders were used to link him to the crimes of Jack the Ripper. Previous image review and brief spot check at Talk:William Henry Bury/GA1. DrKiernan (talk) 10:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Cassianto
  • "William was raised initially in Dudley by his mother's younger brother, Edward Henley." -- would that make him an uncle? Perhaps it might sound easier saying so.
  • Could we link "Factor"?
  • "...initially in the stable with the horse, but he later moved into the house." -- "later moving into the house"
  • "Ellen had been born..." -- "Ellen was born". Also, why do. We refer to her by Christian name on second mention?
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares, William and Ellen had a week's holiday" -- repetition of Ellen. Would it be safe to call them a couple now?
  • Check spelling of "jewelry"
  • Do we really need to link Australia?
  • ...again with Scotland.
  • Is there a link to "jute"?
  • "... the following morning they rented a room above a bar at 43 Union Street, Dundee." -- We have already arrived in Dundee. Do we need to be reminded of that?
  • Should there be a [sic] after the first Ripper quote pointing out the omitted "the" was intentionally left out?
  • "A more extensive search the following morning yielded blood-stained clothing, the remains of more clothing and..." -- whose is "more clothing"? Is this an add on to the aforementioned blood stained clothing (in which case its mention is redundant) or is it some other clothing belonging to someone else? Also, MoS uses square brackets for a [sic] instead of parenthesis.
  • I dont think the Met were called the "London Metropolitan Police Service" back then (the Victorians were delightfully un-PC). I would use the period title and pipe the link to the articles current name.
  • At the start of the Trial and execution section, can we have a year at the start? "On Monday 18 March..." I had to stop and go back to remind myself of the year.
  • Could the Abberline image face towards the text? IMO, it would look a lot tidier.
  • "...on the night of 4–5 February 1889" -- That reads as two nights. If it was the night of the fourth, then just 4 February 1889 will do.
  • The first para in the Ripper section needs a finishing citation.
  • Why is post-mortem in Itals?
  • OVERLINK to Bow
  • There is either a typo, or an intended mistake with no [sic] next to "What sort of work was this you Whitechapel folk have been about, letting Jack the Ripper kill so many people?"

Generally agreeable stuff, but in a need of a spot of polishing. It's certainly shaping up to be a very nice article! -- CassiantoTalk 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As we have other characters called "Bury" and "Eliot", I think it's clearer to stick with "Ellen".
  • jute is linked at its first mention.
  • The quote "What sort of work was this you Whitechapel folk have been about, letting Jack the Ripper kill so many people?" is accurate. I'm not seeing a typo there. I appreciate that the grammar is idiomatic, but it isn't actually wrong.
  • Changes made on all other points [2], thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment A fascinating and wonderful read. I just have two minor comment:

  • In the lead, the first paragraph tells us about him being the probable Jack the Ripper, "Bury's previous abode near Whitechapel and certain similarities between the crimes led to suggestions that Bury was the Ripper. He denied any connection, despite confessing that he had strangled his wife.". Again in the last paragraph of the lead, "Bury's previous association with the Whitechapel district of London and similarities between the Ripper's crimes and Bury's led the media and executioner James Berry to link the two. Bury protested his innocence in the Ripper crimes, and the police discounted him as a suspect.". It seems same information is repeated here. Won't it be beneficial if that information is told only once, in the way you think is appropriate, in the lead?
  • Just a question. "On 7 April 1888, Haynes caught Bury kneeling on his bride of five days threatening to cut her throat with a knife." You mean he was kneeling for five days continuously? --Dwaipayan (talk) 13:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To me, this reads correctly. "Bury was kneeling on his bride of five days..." As opposed to for five days. This would mean that they were only married for five days up until this point. -- CassiantoTalk 13:30, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support An enjoyable read, concerns already addressed. Meets fa criteria.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: As usual with DrKiernan, this is a high quality article. However, I have some reservations about the prose in several places. I've read to the end of the London section so far, but have found several minor issues; the overall effect of several minor issues is to make this article a little lumpy and lacking polish. There is nothing major, and nothing that can't be quickly fixed, but it may be worth having a quick sweep for similar issues. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Claims later emerged that his education was paid for by a close family friend, but these may be untrue.": I don't quite see why this was an issue, how or why it emerged, or if we need it here.
  • Cut.
  • Childhood and youth: We switch between "William" and "Bury". I have no particular problem with "William" being used in this section as I think several writers follow this practice when more than one member of the same family is mentioned in close proximity, but I think the section should be consistent.
  • Re-written.
  • Also, "William" (or "Bury") seems a little overused in this section, and one or two instances could be cut to avoid the repetition.
  • Re-written.
  • I wonder, though, if "William" is justified in later sections? I don't think there would be confusion with his wife if she is "Ellen" and he is "Bury".
  • I prefer to use William if she is Ellen.
  • "Martin is believed to have run a brothel": A little weak. He either was or he wasn't. If we don't really know, who is it who believes this?
  • Beadle, Eddleston and Macpherson all say the same thing, so, since all sources are agreed, I'm happy to retain the wording.
  • "and found work selling sawdust for James Martin. Martin is believed…" Better to avoid "Martin. Martin" if possible.
  • Re-written.
  • "initially in the stable with the horse, but later in the house": I think we can assume that the reader knows what animal lives in a stable! I don't think we need to mention the horse.
  • Cut.
  • "and was the daughter of publican George Elliot, who died in 1873": Seems a little lumpy. Do we need his occupation and date of death? Maybe just add "Ellen was a publican's daughter, born on…"
  • Re-written.
  • Do we need the address of the public house?
  • Cut.
  • Do we need the perfect tense for Ellen? It makes for harder reading, especially the "had had" which, although it is correct, I always find very cumbersome. We also have "had worked" twice in three sentences, and are getting a little into "In XXXX, she… In YYYY, she…" territory.
  • Re-written.
  • "and Ellen sold one sixth of some shares in a railway company that she had inherited from a maiden aunt, Margaret Barren, to pay William's debt to Martin": Perhaps "her shares" rather than "some shares". And do we need the name of the aunt?
  • Re-written.
  • "and in August they moved to 3 Spanby Road, which was adjacent to where William stabled his horse"
  • Cut.
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares…": Is a one-off sum of money really an income?
  • Re-written.
  • "With Ellen's income from the shares, the couple had a week's holiday in Wolverhampton with a drinking friend of William's and Ellen bought new jewellery.": The jewellery part seems irrelevant and slightly tacked on.
  • I'm trying to imply they were foolish wasters without actually saying so!
  • "William continued to assault his wife,[26] and by the first week of December, Ellen's windfall was nearly spent, and William sold his horse and cart": And…and. Also, not too sure I can see a connection between the first and second parts of the sentence (the assault and the ceasing of funds).
  • Re-written.
  • "and only did so because William told her he had obtained a position in a jute factory there.[29] However, William's claim to have been offered a job by a jute merchant was false": There seems to be some unnecessary repetition in the second sentence, and I wonder could these sentences be combined into one? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Read to the end now. Looking good. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "They arrived at Dundee in the evening of 20 January 1889": Should this be "in" Dundee and "on" the evening? Or perhaps "they arrived at/in Dundee late on 20 January 1889".
  • Changed to "at ... on"
  • "to a squat at 113 Prince's Street": "Squat" reads like a modern word, and seems a little out of place, but not a big deal.
  • It seemed a succinct way to sum up illegal occupation. The OED has the earliest use in 1832 (as a verb; 1946 as a noun). I guess an alternative is "The Burys stayed for only eight days before they moved on 29 January to a basement flat under a shop at 113 Prince's Street. William obtained the key under false pretences by telling the letting agents that he was a viewer interested in renting the property, and then moved in without telling them."
  • "Meanwhile, Ellen had found herself a job…"
  • Done.
  • "but she quit after only a day": Do we need the judgement of "only"?
  • Cut.
  • "also wrote to Lothian asking for a reprieve.[66] The reprieve was rejected on 22 April": Could these be combined to avoid repetition?
  • Re-written.
  • "It was the last execution held in Dundee": Could some context be added here? Why was it the last? Presumably the law changed, but when (and if possible in a word or two, why)?
  • The law changed 75 years later, but Bury was long forgotten by then. As far as I'm aware, none of the sources make a direct connection between outrage at Bury's execution and it being the last execution in Dundee. Beadle, for example, describes the previous Dundee murder cases where juries had recommended mercy or the prisoner had been reprieved but doesn't seem to mention any events afterwards. Consequently, I've left the two somewhat disconnected.
  • Are there any suggestions why he brought up Jack the Ripper at all, or why someone wrote the comments in the flat? It seems odd, and I wondered if any writers offer any explanations short of the unlikely one of him being the culprit. At the moment, the only mention is that he may have imitated the killer, but could we go further? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've strengthened the sentence on suggestions that the writing was that of a child, by also mentioning that the writing was thought to have been written before Ellen's murder. But I can't find anything deeper in the sources on why Bury brought it up. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All the changes look good, and I'm happy with the reasons for not making changes for the other comments. Great work, as usual. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a nice article. I would query "Others contend..." (last para) which looks a little vague. Also, do we need the days of the week? ("Monday 4 February" might be just as good as "4 February".) MOSNUM is silent on the subject but I suspect that unless the day of the week was very significant to the subject it could safely be elided. --John (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Beadle does not say who the others are: he just says "doubters". I've cut one of the days but kept Monday 4 February as that is the date of the murder. However, if someone else chose to remove it, it certainly isn't something I would put back in. DrKiernan (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are fine, spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 14 April 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, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

California State Route 67

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

California State Route 67 has existed in some form since the 19th century, and still serves as an important connection to the San Diego mountains. This is a GA and has passed the HWY A-Class review (Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/California State Route 67), and I feel that it meets the criteria. Rschen7754 05:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is a standard term in US, but not everywhere. A wiki link to Single carriageway or the United States section of that article would be nice.
  • It is a road to Julian, but from where?
  • "...owever, in 1883 it was described as a "disgrace to the county. It could hardly be in a worse condition... and should be repaired immediately." Who told so?
  • Great! Yes, WP:MOSQUOTE does say "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote." So, even without professional English, I could do some improvement for the article :)--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems I came late, but WP:INTEXT puts it explicitly: "In-text attribution is the attribution inside a sentence of material to its source, in addition to an inline citation after the sentence. In-text attribution should be used with direct speech (a source's words between quotation marks or as a block quotation); indirect speech (a source's words modified without quotation marks); and close paraphrasing." Thus, the quotation here needed attribution. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have the expertise to comment on if that is an acceptable way. Usually quotes are immediately followed by citations. Will that by citation overkill in this case?

*"the stagecoach line connected the terminus of the railroad line in Foster to Julian". Which stagecoach line (no stagecoach line was mentioned before)? Connected the rail terminus to what? --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • These two points (this one and the immediately preceding one) arose because the article did not establish the connection between road no 3A and SR 67. Why is 3A important in the history of SR 67?--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, got it.
  • "The "Ramona Road" remained unpaved between the Mussey Grade and the road to Ballena..." What is "Ramona Road"? Not mentioned or explained before. Also, what is the Mussey Grade?
* Road to Ramona from where?
  • "Road to _" is an acceptable convention and has been for thousands of years (i.e. Road to Damascus). And if "from where" is a concern, what other possibilities are there? We're talking SR 67, a road that clearly goes from San Diego to Ramona. Why would we be discussing the road from Escondido to Ramona? That would have nothing to do with the article. --Rschen7754 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • here you say SR 67 goes from San Diego to Ramona, but the article lead says it goes from El Cajone to Ramona!
  • Anyway, coming to the point, in Early days section, the term Julian road has been used and explained in the first paragraph. The term Ramona Road is used within quotes later. From what I read, Ramona Road was the name of a part of the present-day SR 67 at some point of time in history. Ramona Road was not the name of the whole road (the whole road was known as Julian Road, according to the lead and the first paragraph of this section). My question was what was the extent of Ramona Road. Sorry if you misunderstood the question due to my poor wording. The same query applies to Road 3A. Was the whole Julian Road known as 3a? Probably not. So, the history should explain that. If no data is available, that can be mentioned. Additionally, the map in the infobox does not show many towns, such as Santee, Julian, Foster; this contributes to difficulty in comprehension.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know that the sources do not specify the extent of each parts, but the reader does not know. So, this needs to be explained in the article. Otherwise, the question remains that what is the relation between Ramona Road and SR 67, and between Road No 3 and SR 67. This is a content issue, not a prose issue.
  • Since you ask this, no the two statements are not mutually exclusive, but there is a possibility that San Diego to Ramona road may not go through El Cajone, but through some other town. However, this sentence is not in the article, you just casually mentioned it here. So, we can decide not to discuss the logical falacy in the statement.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The road that would become SR 67 was added to the state highway system in 1933, from El Cajon to near Santa Ysabel..." So, all this while (preceding paragraphs), what was being discussed? The general highway system development? And not specifically SR 67?
  • the lead says that Julian road existed, that became legislative route 198, and that became SR 67. In the early history, their are more names, such as Ramona Road, 3A. How would a reader not acquainted with the history would know their relation? Please pardon me if my points here were ill-worded? But, I'd at least anticipate that you assumed good faith.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The road was allocated $830,784 in funding (about $32,417,295 in 2010 dollars) to be realigned, widened, and repaved between Lakeside and Mount Woodson in 1942, due to the construction of the San Vicente Reservoir". Not understanding how did the reservoir affect the road plan.
  • "Grading and paving of the 11.7-mile (18.8 km) part was scheduled for completion on December 15, 1943" Which part are you referring to?
  • "Funding was allocated for traffic signals on the portion between Main Street and Broadway in 1954" Main Streer and Broadway of which town?
  • Honestly, this is a minor point. It is unlikely to affect the outcome of this FAC. Of all the points I have described, many are technical/minor which would have probably eventually come up in the discussion. Almost all of those are taken care of. The minor points that remain might not affect the outcome.
  • However, in my PoV, the major point that remains un-addressed is the one involving Road No. 3, Ramona Road and SR 67. This is vital because early history of this route is dependent on those entities. And the relationship between those entities and the route still remains unclear to the reader. Indeed, you can try to think of a new sentence construction, or, using an explanatory note, or any other strategy to clarify that.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how you expect this to be resolved, since the information you want added isn't available to the nominator. By asking him to clarify or explain it, you're basically inviting him to make a plausible guess, which is not exactly something we want in our featured articles. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 04:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a little bit, but I'm not really sure what else to say. If it's in the article, it's obviously related; believe me, I'd rather not include stuff if I don't have to as I'm averaging 100 newspaper clippings per article I'm writing. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Route 198 also extended onto La Mesa Boulevard and Palm Avenue to SR 94" What is exactly meant by this sentence?
  • Overall, the early history section reads like a collection of random facts, lacking cohesiveness. The section is very difficult to understand for this choppiness. This fails to meet criterion 1a.--Dwaipayan (talk) 04:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have replied to most of the first half; most of your concerns so far are ill-founded. --Rschen7754 04:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've replied to as many as I can, but frankly I'm not very motivated to reply to any more as this seems like copying and pasting random sentences taken out of context and nitpicking at them. --Rschen7754 04:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In regards to the AGF concern above, I'm not quite convinced that the reviewer has enough comprehension of the article; this isn't Simple English Wikipedia, and we can assume that the reader has a basic comprehension of English. I'll address the ones that I can address without "dumbing down" the article, but I don't think the rest of the comments will be actionable. --Rschen7754 05:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not use a professional level of English. I am extremely sorry if that is causing lack of comprehension in this article. Of course, please do not decrease the quality of prose if my queries falls short of professional level of English.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean no offense by this, but if you are unable to use a professional level of English, perhaps FAC reviewing on the English Wikipedia is not the best idea, or at least reviewing prose the way that you are doing. --Rschen7754 07:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not. A google search on "offramp" (the way it is written in the article) does not provide any easily accessible definition. The online version of Merriam-Webster does not have an entry for "offramp". It does have an entry for "off-ramp" which defines what it is. Since I do not use professional level of English, I cannot say if "offramp" is wrong, but certainly suspicious. --Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know that because I have used such a ramp while driving. But is the term "offramp" or "off-ramp"? No problem while speaking, but written form should be the correct one. Both may be correct, in which case there is no problem. But, Merriam-Webster does not have "offramp". May be they prefer off-ramp?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, I have struck through the wikilink point. But the new point is which is grammatically more appropriate? (if both are ok, no problem). Just for convenience (Rschen said he never saw off-ramp), I linked the Merriam-Webster entry above; here is the usage in NY Times. There are many such usage, Chicago Tribune, LA Times etc.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not really a dependable source for this issue. A well-established dictionary is. Merriam-Webster (which AFAIK is a dependable dictioonary for AMerican English) does not list offramp, they list off-ramp. And that NYT article was mentioned merely because you told you never saw "off-ramp" anywhere. There are many more examples. Looking awkard is not the concern, grammatical correctness is. Again, if offramp is academically acceptable (dictionary etc), I have no problem.--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the term reputation properly used here? The road was known as Slaughterhouse alleyway ? Is that considered as reputation ( which usually means fame, although other meanings are possible)
  • access date is missing in citation 29 (the 1944 road map). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any specific reason why "Safety concerns" comes sandwiched between "Freeway construction" and "Further developments"? "Freeway construction" tells the history upto about 1980, and Further development carries the history forward from 1983. Why the "safety concern" comes in between these two chornologically linked subsections?--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Major intersections section, the first sentence "Except where prefixed with a letter, postmiles were measured on the road as it was in 1964, and do not necessarily reflect current mileage." probably needs a citation.
    • That is from a template and is in all California road articles that are FA. In other words, all California highways are like that - it's part of a standard template and we risk overciting here. --Rschen7754 04:51, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the table, under the column Postmile, what does the letter "R" stand for? It has not been explained in the text or the table.
  • Also, at the end of the table (last row) where the color coding is described, there is one item "incomplete access". What does that mean? (an appropriate wikilink/piped link will be great).--Dwaipayan (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deriving from the table, incomplete access junction means a junction where exit/entrance ramps for all direction are not present, right? Is that a standard definition in California state routes, or in general for roads? I did not come across such a definition in my limited google search (I did not go through all the search results). Can you please provide a reference for such a definition, or, such an use of the phrase (incomplete access junction)? It sound like a technical term (like Limited access highway or HOV lane), but it is not a commonly used term, at least according to google search.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on, man, incomplete access means that access is not complete. I will not be changing it, and am quite frustrated at this last-minute response. Rather than risk getting nasty in any future replies, I will not be responding further. --Rschen7754 00:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I did not realise this was last-minute (the FAC delegate recommended copyedit in his comments, so I thought this FAC was still ongoing). It is completely ok if you are unwilling to reply. A Limited access highway is a highway whose access is limited, that is not a definition. The wikipedia article article goes on to describe what things are limited to get access to the highway. We come across terminologies which subject experts know very well, but layman does not know (for example, difficult terms in physics or medicine articles). Those terms are either wikilinked or explained, so that interested reader can understand those. Similarly, "incomplete access" (just like "limited access" or HoV) appears like a technical term. As a subject expert, you might think why won't anyone understand that simple term? But everyone does not have the knowledge and expertise on highways as you do. That is why I was asking for a wikilink or explanation of the term (for example, state highway is wikilinked appropriately in the lead of the article for the ease of understanding of everyone, although it is imperative that highways maintained by the state government is state highway). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be an idea to improve the image captions. WP:CAPTION says, "Different people read articles different ways. Some people start at the top and read each word until the end. Others read the first paragraph and scan through for other interesting information, looking especially at pictures and captions. For those readers, even if the information is adjacent in the text, they will not find it unless it is in the caption—but do not tell the whole story in the caption—use the caption to make the reader curious about the subject." It also says, "While a short caption is often appropriate, if it might be seen as trivial ("People playing Monopoly"), consider extending it so that it adds value to the image and is related more logically to the surrounding text ("A product of the Great Depression, Monopoly continues to be played today."). More, "The caption should lead the reader into the article. For example, in History of the Peerage, a caption for Image:William I of England.jpg might say "William of Normandy overthrew the Anglo-Saxon monarchs, bringing a new style of government." Then the reader gets curious about that new form of government and reads text to learn what it is." Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to make sure that I am reading it correctly, "This portion was signed as the Sign Route 67 highway by 1962, from Campo Road to US 80. In the 1964 state highway renumbering, Route 198 was renumbered as State Route 67; the portion south of I-8 was renumbered as SR 125." That implies US 80 became I-8, right?
  • One question, "By December 1968, the freeway was complete from I-8 to Woodside Avenue; the Woodside Avenue grade was smoothed out during the widening of the road in early 1970." You mean the grade of Woodside Avenue was smoothed out during the widening of SR 67? Do they run parallel and very near to each other, that's why needing the smoothing out?--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on prose based on preliminary sample: what does "however" add in this extract: 'The "Julian Road" had been constructed by 1872, and was used for stagecoaches;[9] however, in 1883 it was described as a "disgrace to the county. It could hardly be in a worse condition... and should be repaired immediately." '? Open to changing my mind, but this was the first thing I looked at and it doesn't meet standards. --MarchOrDie (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (having stumbled here from my FAC)

  • Is there a way to get a more exciting opening sentence?
  • Watch for some redundant linking in the article, such as San Diego River and San Vicente Reservoir.
  • " It runs from Interstate 8" - is "runs" the best word? Seems a tad vernacular. Why not something more basic like "exists"?
  • " the route becomes known as Main Street" - perhaps remove "known as" to make it more concise?
  • "SR 67 begins as a freeway known as the San Vicente Freeway at I-8 and turns to the north near the Westfield Parkway shopping center in El Cajon." - although that isn't too long, I feel like it packs a lot of info, so it might help being reordered a bit to emphasize what's important. Something like "SR 67 begins at exit 17B on I-8 in El Cajon, and known as the San Vicente Freeway, it turns to the north near the Westfield Parkway shopping center." The current wording seems on the bland side, no offense.
  • Why do you call it "the Julian Road", instead of "Julian Road"?
  • "what was known as the Julian road, Road No. 3A" - inconsistent here if it's "road" or "Road"
    • The newspaper was regularly inconsistent about what it called the road, and the capitalization. I've changed everything to the nomenclature of "the Julian road" since that was its definition - a road to Julian. In those days "the Julian road" or the "Oceanside road" etc. usually meant going from the nearest high population city (in this case San Diego) to the named city. --Rschen7754 08:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about $38,610,000 in 2010 dollars" - why not 2013 USD? Also, specify USD.
  • "A contract for construction of a left-turn lane at the Lakeside Avenue intersection was awarded to Asphalt Inc. for $23,645 in 1971 (about $204,156 in 2010 dollars)." - this seems trivial. Is this level of construction work standard in road articles?
  • "complete from I-8 to Woodside Avenue; the Woodside Avenue" - any way to remove the Woodside Avenue redundancy?
  • "Traffic jams were prevalent on October 21 and 22 in 2007, during the 2007 Southern California wildfires" - you should probably pipe the wildfires article, since that doesn't seem like a proper title (nor is it the title of the article anymore).

All in all pretty good! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- I'm afraid I'm not that thrilled with the prose, looking at the lead and few other spots, and suggest it could do with an independent copyedit...

  • For a start, can we avoid using "state" three times in the first sentence? I think we can assume people have heard of California and recast it as "State Route 67 (SR 67) is a state highway in San Diego County, California."
  • "It begins at Interstate 8 (I-8) in El Cajon to Lakeside..." -- I don't follow how it can begin in somewhere to somewhere else...
  • "On October 21, 1885, the county Board of Supervisors agreed to a realignment of the Julian road in what was known as the Bernardo District onto what was private property" -- Do we need two instances of "what was"? If there was a place called Bernardo District that no longer exists under that name, fair enough using it there, but I think it's pretty normal to expect that if a public road goes on private property it will no longer be private property...
  • "Head-on collisions are another source of crashes. Contrary to this, Caltrans did not view the road as unsafe according to official metrics." -- "Contrary to this" sounds odd to my ear, why not "Despite this"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 18 April 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, 27 April 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Zong massacre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Celuici (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a comprehensive and detailed article. It is based on a number of reliable sources. I think it's well-written and interesting. This is my first FA nomination. Celuici (talk) 20:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll post a review of this article over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, I've ended up with a lot less spare time than I thought I'd have and won't be able to review this article. For what it's worth, it looks in very good shape. Nick-D (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've updated the source -- the image is identical to the one on the Boston Museum of Fine Arts's website. Celuici (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Support. In addition to the prose as noted above, high-quality overall and quite thorough. I like the structural formatting and the referencing is meticulous. Excellent efforts on this quality improvement project for an article of such vital value for readers and editors alike. High encyclopedic value. High educational value. — Cirt (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Hi Celuici, a belated welcome to FAC on behalf of the delegates. I usually like to see a spotcheck of sources for new nominees' work but I note that one was performed at GAN. I've also inspected the citations/references and they look fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:17, 27 April 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, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Jane Cobden

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Cobden was a pioneer of women's rights, one of a group of women who emerged in the late Victorian era to exercise considerable influence over early 20th century British domestic politics. Daughter of a great Victorian radical, she was one of the first women to serve on the London County Council, and was a supporter of many causes: women's suffrage, free trade, land reform, Irish independence, and the rights of indigenous peoples in South Africa and elsewhere. She believed in persistence and behind-the-scenes lobbying rather than big, headline-grabbing gestures, and is perhaps less recognised than she deserves to be. This account of her life may raise her profile just a little. Widely peer-reviewed; nevertheless, further comments always welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Support - with just a couple of very minor comments, none of which of course have to be adopted.
  • "who at the time of her birth was Radical MP for the West Riding." -- Did each area have its own Radical MP? If not, "a" is missing from before "Radical".
  • Second para in Sisterhood section: Is it usual to finish a paragraph with a note and not a citation?
  • At the end of the first para in "Social, political and humanitarian activities", could we link Edwardian era?

A very nice little article. -- CassiantoTalk 12:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have made the small fixes required. With regard to ending a paragraph with a note, I would say that's OK if the note contains a ref that covers the preceding text. That was not the case here, so I have added the necessary reference. Thanks for pointing this out, and for your support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image check No problems. All three images are validly published pre-1923 or are art to which the copyright has expired, either by pre-1923 publication or seventy years post mortem.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 19 April 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, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Albatrellus subrubescens

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this mushroom article is close to meeting the FA standards. It's relatively short, but I think I've got criteria 1b (comprehensive) and 1c (well-researched) covered, and the prose reads ok to me. I'll be grateful for any assistance in further refining the article. Sasata (talk) 05:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This article mentions its bioactive qualities, but makes no mention as to human uses of such qualities. I can't imagine that a mushroom with such a notable feature would have no uses within medicine, or scientific research at the very least. This should be covered, assuming the information exists, which again, I have to assume it does. Fieari (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what the "Bioactive compounds" section is about? --John (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Bioactive compounds section already summarizes what is known about the bioactive properties of the compound scutigeral. There are no "human uses" for this chemical. Sasata (talk) 16:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an actionable oppose as it is based on speculation rather than established facts, and it will not be taken into consideration when closing. Graham Colm (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look.

  • "Josiah Lincoln Lowe later identified the species as Albatrellus confluens." Presumably, he incorrectly thought the name was a synonym of A. confluens? This could be clearer.
  • "to the albatrellus clade," Lower case? No italics? I can see why you've done this, but it may stump some readers.
  • "Other Albatrellus species were transferred to segregate genera: A. fletti and A. confluens to Albatrellopsis; A. caeruleoporus and A. yasudae to Neoalbatrellus; A. pes-caprae and A. ellisii to an amended Scutiger." If they were transferred to new genera, why are you linking their old names?
  • "the pores are small (about 2–3 per millimeter), initially greenish-white, but later dark brown." Too listy?
  • When discussing the microscopic characteristics, you link separately to amyloid and amyloid (mycology), not defining "amyloid" but later defining "inamyloid".
  • "Other closely related species include" If they're closely related, perhaps discussion belongs in the taxonomy section? Or were you meaning "similar"?
  • "These differ from A. subrubescens by the hairy" differ by a trait? That sounds like an odd construction to me. Ignore me if you think it's fine.
  • "several (usually between two and eight)" how about "several (typically no more than eight)". This avoids repetition of "usually", and doesn't imply that "several" may include numbers less than two!
  • "It is strictly terrestrial, not found on wood." Sentence feels incomplete
  • "two- and three-needle pines" Can we have some links for context?
  • "writes that Arora "found many clumps of basidiomes in a half hectare area covered mainly by a mixture of Pinus attenuata, manzanita, huckleberry, and a few scattered mandrones."[13]" I don't mind this, but, as a warning, links within quotes should be avoided, according to the MoS.

Images are fine.

Interesting stuff- how odd to have a polypore in mushroom shape. A strong article overall, though I've not delved into the sources. J Milburn (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm happy with the responses, and another quick look through the article reveals no issues. J Milburn (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • bruising reaction — unless this means something more technical than "when bruised", I'd prefer the simpler form
  • bioactive chemical named scutigeral — I don't like "named " scutigeral, a bioactive chemical...
  • mycologist — link?
  • molecularly defined — I know what you mean, but a couple more words might make the meaning more transparent
  • You're missing a location for reference 6, but I'm more concerned that we need to be told what countries London, Milan and Stuttgart are in, but not Boston or Syracuse. Seems US-centric. Personally I've given up adding more than the town, just to avoid making judgements about notability.
No further queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed. It appears to satisfy the featured article criteria so I'm supporting promotion. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Only two concerns:
  • The last sentence in the lede is ambiguous in what subject it is addressing: perhaps precede with a "This".
  • The article is inconsistent in how it labels individuals: some show the nationality and specialty, others not. In particular, Serge Audet and David Arora. Please address these two instances.
  • I try to be circumspect with giving these details, as almost everyone mentioned in these articles is a mycologist, and further details (like nationality) can be found in their respective articles. I usually make an exception, however, for whoever first described the species. I did add these details for Serge Audet, as a link is not available (or forthcoming). Sasata (talk) 06:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I could find nothing to fault with the article. Nice work. Praemonitus (talk) 04:05, 10 April 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, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

George S. Patton slapping incidents

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 12:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article provides an in-depth insight into World War II U.S. military politics at the highest level. It's passed GA and a MILHIST A-class review. —Ed!(talk) 12:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Comments

  • Comments:
  • 1a: The article is well-written overall. A few concerns:
  • Should the dates follow American formatting since the subject is tied to that particular country?
  • We mention how much destruction Patton's forces caused in Sicily, but is it worth mentioning what he lost (troops, vehicles)?
  • This phrase seems odd: "Patton created a larger-than-life personality" Do you really "create" a personality?
  • How was Eisenhower's noting of Patton's colorful leadership style "in spite" of his effectiveness? The "however" that begins the following sentence suggests contrast but, to what?
  • Punctuation should not be inside quotation marks unless it's part of the quoted material (Battle fatigue section, para 1 & 3; 3 August section, para 1, possibly elsewhere). See WP:LQ.
  • 1b: The article seems to be comprehensive.
  • 1c: I did note that a book named Patton: Ordeal and Triumph by Ladislas Farago seems to be well-regarded and makes several mentions of these incidents. Since the majority of your information seems to be from the Axelrod and Blumenson books, did you consider the Farago book for additional insight?
  • 1d: No POV or neutrality issues.
  • 1e: The articles seems stable.
  • 2a: The lead summarizes the article content appropriately.
  • 2b: The structure and headings are appropriate.
  • 2c: The citation style is good.
  • 3: The licensing on the included images is good; each photo is in the public domain.
  • 4: The article is of appropriate length.
Very cool article and an interesting read. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over! —Ed!(talk) 02:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Reviewed this article at A class and believe that it meets the FAC criteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

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 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

James B. Longacre

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. James B. Longacre was an artist who was successful in two somewhat different forms of art, first as a plate engraver, then as a designer of coins as the fourth Chief Engraver of the United States Mint. Liberally illustrated, as is proper in an article on an artist. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "He was on the point of launching this project, having invested $1,000 of his own money (equal to $23,280 today) in preparation, when he learned that James Herring of New York City was planning a similar series. In October 1831, he wrote to Herring, and the two men agreed to work together" - source?
  • "Peale complained to Patterson, who wrote to Treasury Secretary William M. Meredith asking for Longacre's removal on December 25, 1849 on the ground he could not make proper dies. Patterson that day promised the position to engraver Charles Cushing Wright, effective when Longacre was ousted. Meredith questioned whether a competent replacement could be found; Patterson assured him that one could." - source?
  • "Designs and formats varied; at first, Mint authorities considered an annular, or holed, cent. In 1854 and 1855, much experimentation was done, some with a Liberty Head design as featured on the large cent; others with a flying eagle design adapted by Longacre from the Gobrecht dollar of 1836. Gobrecht's design said to have been modeled on Peter the eagle, a tame bird which frequented the Philadelphia Mint in the 1830s until it was caught up in machinery and killed; Peter, in stuffed form, remains at the Philadelphia Mint to this day." - source?
  • Whitman Publishing or Whitman Publishing LLC?
  • Be consistent in how editions are notated. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Some paragraphs got split along the way, I recombined two and migrated a ref over with the other. The others are all done. Thank you for your work, as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon research, they were caused by an IP editor who came through the other day and split a number of paragraphs without doing anything about the referencing, see here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on prose

  • Lead: "but" in first paragraph should be an "and"
  • Early life
  • Longacre's birth year appears as 1894
  • "Also employed at the Murray firm from 1816 on..." the "on" is unnecessary
  • "His work at the company gave Longacre a good reputation..." As you have it, this reads as though Gobrecht's work gave Longacre a good reputation, surely not the case.
  • Patterson/Peale years:
  • "Breen suggested: In the previous section we have "Breen suggests".
  • "Breen suggested that new coin designs were an impediment to the Mint director's desire to eliminate Longacre as a threat to Peale's medal business." That desire has not yet found its way into the story, and has not evidenced itself in the director's behaviour so far towards Longacre, so I think a little rewording is necessary here.
*"whom Patterson had prepare a design" → "for whom Patterson had prepare a design " Sorry, I misread the original, but it might be slightly reworded for clarity. Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Longacre's response..." its needs to be clearer to what/whom he was responding.
  • "...found the director willing only to contract out to have work done elsewhere." To "contract out" and "to have work done elsewhere" are surely the same thing? You could just say "to contract work out".
  • "Meridith"or "Meredith"?
  • Patterson's replacing is reported without comment. Why did he go?
Taxay says "retired" (p. 232) but it's so offhand and he's fairly old fashioned in word use, it doesn't have to mean put up his feet. Peale's misconduct was fairly well known by then, an ex-Mint official had published a pamphlet.
  • Prolific designer
  • "decreased the silver content of the coins from half dime to half dollar" The "from ... to" upsets the meaning, which is, I presume, decreasing the silver content of all coins in the range half dime to half dollar.
  • "so as to be able to" is very verbose. Why not "so that new coins could be distinguished from old"
  • "an Indian princess": I assume this means a princess from India, not a native American. But knowing some people's perceptions, it may be politic to make this abundantly clear. Particularly in view of a later sentence which equates the depictions on coins of native Americans with this depiction of an Indian princess.
  • As it now is: "...a female Native American was often used to represent America in art, and a depiction of Liberty as an Indian princess was in accord with contemporary practices". I don't know the protocol, but is the description "Indian" for Native American accepted. Or should "Indian princess" be in quotes, as this is a false description? Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's still OK, last I checked. I think advocates would prefer Native American, but both seem in widespread use.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just an observation: $2,200 (which unfortunately for him he had to hand in) seems a huge fee for designing one side of a medal to be presented to a single naval officer.
  • "to make smaller the large copper cent." I would have thought the natural form would be "to make the large copper cent smaller".
  • "to this day" is disapproved, as non date-specific
  • "The flying eagle design was adopted for a large issue of patterns to government officials and others in 1856..." I don't know what this means; presumably numismatists will know, but the general reader, like me, may be baffled.
  • Civil War issues
  • "Longacre was hired to redesign five silver and four gold coins..." Hired by the Chileans?
  • "Wharton's interests" sounds slightly disembodied and sinister. Could it not be "Wharton and his associates" or similar?
  • Could this not be clarified? What were these "interests"?
  • I took Taxay to mean business associates of Wharton and others who for economic reasons sought the increased use of nickel. I can research this further if you like as I have an article somewhere on the myth that he pushed for the Flying Eagle cent but did not actually own any nickel mines until 1863.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Death and assessment
  • "representations of the Native Americans" → "representations of Native Americans"

The usual meticulous research has produced a well-informed account with excellent illustrations. I imagine that the above will not involve too much pain in addressing, and I look forward to supporting in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 00:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, that does seem a high sum, especially in gold, I suspect there may be more to the story than meets the eye, perhaps Snowden pulling strings in the government to provide for Longacre's old age. No source that I see picks up on it; when next I go to the ANA library I will peruse the medals volumes to see if they have anything from the other side of things. I will implement your comments within the next couple of days, I am much too tired right now to give them the attention they deserve.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those are done. Thank you for the review and the kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, and for going through the article in detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, can you point me to tweaks in particular? I'm happy to oblige.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its ok, I can sort. Preferences, mostly. Revert if unhappy. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I see a lot of politicing and invested interests in the article, which is well brought across and a hook to keep the reader interested, and the referencing is broad and well chosen. My points re prose were minor, dealing but no big deal. Ceoil (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I cant parse - "Mint authorities took notice and obtained legislation for a bronze cent". The why is left open. Ceoil (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained more fully. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK. Sources and authors provided (PD-age, US-government and coins, OTRS).

Thank you on that. Like to give a shoutout to the staff of the ANA library and museum for allowing me photo access, by the way.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Well researched, nicely formatted and written, and interesting! For some reason I laughed at the Peter the eagle part - who knew? Anyway, a few very minor nitpicks, but nothing to stop me from supporting:

  • Consider linking engraving because that's how he began his career (unless it's linked and I've missed it)
  • Just curious: what exactly is a "die"? Is that something we can link to?
  • "Appointment" section: Peale controlled access to dies and materials, and was close to Director Patterson, the two men later proved to have been skimming metal from bullion deposits. >> after "Patterson" feels as though it needs a coordinating conjunction or semicolon or something to prevent a run-on
  • "1844-1853" section: Longacre's work in the private sector had involved cutting lines into a copper plate which was then used to print reproductions >> was he an etcher? Probably should link.
  • "Prolific designer" section: For the reverse of the coins, Longacre created a wreath of wheat, corn, tobacco, and cotton, blending the produce of the North and the South. >> I don't think of cotton and tobacco as "produce" and was wondering whether "agriculture" might work better here
  • I seem to think that per MoS the "%" symbol is for scientific articles only (although this truly is not a big deal)
  • Consider cutting out a few incidences of "numismatic scholar"
  • Check for dup links. The dup link tool shows some. I can remove but best for you to review and decide which to remove where.
That's all. Great work. Truthkeeper (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks much. I tend to duplicate links in the lede and in image captions, for the convenience of readers, but I've caught a few in the text and removed. I've implemented most but I am inclined to let the percentage stand. After all, we are discussing an alloy of metal so it's sort of scientific. I'm very grateful for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I duplicate in lead and captions too, and I see you got the ones I meant in the text. Agree re the % symbol and was actually thinking that as I mentioned it. Anyway, all looks good. Thanks for the interesting read. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:45, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delegate: I see three supports and checks done.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 23 April 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 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Famous Fantastic Mysteries

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of a series of articles on science fiction and fantasy magazines that I've been working on. Famous Fantastic Mysteries was one of the most popular science fiction pulps. It was created as a vehicle for reprinting old classics, but published a little new material too. It was generally regarded as one of the most attractively illustrated pulps: Virgil Finlay, one of the most popular pulp artists, was a frequent contributor. There's not as much written about this magazine as about some of the others I've worked on, perhaps because it's a reprint, but I've assembled everything I've been able to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

The Day is fixed, assuming that it was just the hyphen that was at issue; the cover has no hyphen but the title page does. For the Knight, see this discussion, which is why it looks the way it does; is there a better way to do this? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What about making the parenthetical "(reprint of 1967 2nd ed.)", which would at least avoid the doubled ed.? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support All issues were adequately addressed.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some story names are within quotes, while others in italic. Example, "...including stories such as Murray Leinster's The War of the Purple Gas and Arthur Leo Zagat's "Tomorrow"...". Any particular reason for this?
    The italics is for novels and quotes for short stories; "Tomorrow" is short, but I'm not sure about the Leinster -- I will have to check my references when I get back home on Sunday. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, got it.
  • Fine.
  • Great.
  • "The first issue from Popular appeared in March 1943, and only two more issues appeared that year. It returned to a bimonthly schedule in 1946 which it maintained with only slight deviations until the end of its run" What happened in the interim? 1944, 1945? Was it bimonthly or irregular?
    Clarified. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.
  • "The first issue included Ray Cummings' "The Girl in the Golden Atom" and A. Merritt's "The Moon Pool", both popular stories that would have attracted aficionados to the magazine.". An opinion. Needs attribution, or, at least, reference.
    Will do when I get back to my refs. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I reworded this to "both popular stories by major names" as when I looked back at the source I felt my wording was a little too close to the original. I also moved the duplicated reference (a couple of sentences further down) so it directly follows this sentence; Ashley makes this point clearly, and to be honest I don't think it's controversial. It would be easy to find multiple sources stating these were significant sf/fantasy authors of the period. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Merritt's sequel, "The Conquest of the Moon Pool", began serialization in the next issue..." Is "from the next issue" better?
    I'm not sure about this. "Serialization" is a noun, so I think it's OK for the beginning of the serialization to be "in" an issue. I think I prefer "in"; do you feel strongly about this? Perhaps this is an AmEng/BrEng distinction? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I do not feel strongly about this, and myself in doubt about my comment. "In" is fine for now.
  • "The first five covers were simply tables of contents, but with the sixth issue pictorial covers began". Was this sixth issue the March 1940 issue? That can be mentioned in this sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mentioned in the very next sentence -- is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, The current version reads, "The first five covers were simply tables of contents, but with the sixth issue pictorial covers began. The first artist, for the March 1940 issue, was Finlay." For me, on a quick reading, it was not completely clear that the first issue with pictorial cover was indeed March 1940 issue. However, on a more concentrated reading, the connection is more clear. Still, something like, "The first five covers were simply tables of contents, but with the sixth issue (dated March 1940) pictorial covers began. The first artist for the cover was Finlay" or something better (without the brackets) can be written. --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, I think something like that would be better. I'm going to wait to fix this till I have access to my references again; I want to move the information around a little bit and want to be sure I'm using the right source for the each bit of information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:32, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • This is my first FA review, so take it with a grain of salt.
  • Three semicolons in the lead seems a little much, consider replacing one or to of them with a full stop.
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The magazine finally folded "Folded" seems a bit informal to me.
    Changed to "ceased publication". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • science fiction (sf) stories were frequently seen in popular magazines In order to avoid the passive voice here, consider something like popular magazines often featured science fiction (sf) stories. Also considering placing a comma after "20th century," I think this would make the sentence flow better.
    I added the comma, but I'd like to leave this in the passive; I think it's better to have science fiction stories as the subject of the sentence. In the active voice the magazines are mentioned first, which gives the wrong emphasis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Munsey Company" while the first section says "Munsey Corporation," are these the same thing?
    I checked a couple of references online and the official name apppears to be "Frank A. Munsey Company". I changed both references to that, but I piped them so it just says "Munsey Company" in the text, which is how it was often referred to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reference saying that Finlay was one of the magazine's most popular artists?
    Yes; I'm away from my references till late tonight so I'll fix this tomorrow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked, and the current reference for those sentences does say this: "Finlay attained his hold upon the devotees of fantasy primarily through his work with FFM", and later refers to his "army of fans". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliographic details sections repeats some of the information from the publication history, and also provides an almost excessive level of detail. Do we really need the sentences describing the history of the page count?
    Well, that level of detail is in the sources, and I think it's of interest to some readers -- for example, Mike Ashley does an analysis in one of his books of the interaction between page count, page format, and price, to determine whether certain changes made a magazine more or less profitable. As for the repetition, I think the bibliographic details section should be complete, and shouldn't omit something that is mentioned earlier. Is there duplicated material earlier in the article that you think is unnecessary? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • remained in that format throughout Should this be "throughout its run"?
    I thought it would be inferred by the reader, but since you're asking, I guess that's not the case. Changed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Bibliographic details," two sentences in a row contain semicolons, I'm not sure if this is problematic or not.
    I'm probably a bit too fond of semicolons. Changed one of them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "References" section, "Inc." is sometimes followed by a period and sometimes not. Also, is there the ISBN for Index to the Science-Fiction Magazines?
    The doubled periods are a consequence of the way that citation template works; glad you spotted that. Fixed. There's no ISBN for the Day; it's pre-ISBN. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really like the way the first paragraph of the publication history provides context on what else was happening with sf magazines when this title was launched; consider doing the same for the end of its run, since the lead says that 1953 was almost the end of the pulp era but the publication history doesn't follow up on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cerebellum (talk • contribs)
    I'll take a look at this when I get back to my refs; good idea. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cautious Support Comments I just scanned it quickly while eating and think this is definitely within striking distance of FA status, though I do think the prose needs a little kneading in places. I'll make some changes and jot some notes as I go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Ultimately, I think the writing might still benefit from a little tweak here and there, but the prose is engaging and in character with the subject matter - it is a nice little read. I think we are just about or just over the FA prose-line pending other issues being resolved (which the delegates do anyway). Sounds like you've done plenty of digging for stuff, so I'll take that on good faith for comprehensiveness too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead you mention both "1939" and "Sept/Oct 1939"...I am thinking it'd be good to somehow meld them into one mention...just not quite sure how yet.
It's a bit tricky because the only to avoid repeating the year is to include "September/October" in the first mention of the year. I don't see how to do that smoothly; I'll think about it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've thought about this one and I don't think it's doable. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That year Munsey decided to take advantage of science fiction's growing popularity by launching Famous Fantastic Mysteries to provide a vehicle for reprinting the most popular fantasy and sf stories from the Munsey magazines - can be trimmed to " That year Munsey took advantage of science fiction's growing popularity by launching Famous Fantastic Mysteries as vehicle for reprinting the most popular fantasy and sf stories from the Munsey magazines" - the meaning is preserved....
Good idea; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we add a descriptor to Mary Gnaedinger at all - was she a novelist, journalist, fan....?
I haven't been able to find anything out about her, unfortunately. Many of the editors of that era get at least a sentence or two in someone's reminiscences, but I've seen nothing at all about her. Searching Google Books for her name and "Popular Publications" brings up a 1934 snippet showing that she edited other magazines for Popular, but I can't see how to usefully work that in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just calling her an "editor" seems a bit tautologous....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The pulps were dying, partially as a result of the success of paperbacks. - flip clauses here...maybe "The success of paperbacks was contributing to pulps' demise." yep, better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about this I decided that the reference to paperbacks was a red herring, particularly since it's not claimed to be the only cause of the decline of the pulps. I've rewritten; see what you think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Fantastic Mysteries changed its policy to begin publishing a complete novel in every issue - this reads ambiguously - i.e. was it "Famous Fantastic Mysteries changed its policy and began publishing a complete novel in every issue" or "Famous Fantastic Mysteries changed its policy of publishing a complete novel in every issue".....
Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - not all OK. Fair-use issue addressed. Needs another check, 1 image seems copyrighted:

Not sure if I'm doing something wrong, but when I do that search I only find volume 9 number 6 and volume 8 number 2; the issue in question is volume 4 number 4. Can you confirm that you found a renewal for that particular issue? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogofcopy19693232libr#page/393/mode/1up - it's on page 393, end of first and start of middle column. GermanJoe (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now. I don't see how to get there from the link you originally posted, and since I would like to upload other magazine covers if their copyrights have expired, I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong. Would you have time to post on my talk page with more detailed instructions so I can search more accurately next time?
As for this cover, it was put in for two reasons: to illustrate the new layout after the change from the all-text covers, and as an example of Virgil Finlay's work. If you think that suffices for a fair-use rationale, I will make the change some time this weekend, otherwise I'll delete the image. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair-use looks like a good option, if the cover shows the standard layout of the magazine. If available, i would add as many details about the cover design as possible to strenghten the FUR, but identification of the article topic is usually an accepted rationale. (more to your talkpage to limit spam). GermanJoe (talk) 12:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. I'll go take a look at what you left on my talk page; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - tweaked the fair-use arguments a bit more ("n.a." is not sufficient, all NFCC-criteria have to be met). New fair-use location is at File:Famous_Fantastic_Mysteries_August_1942_cover.jpg GermanJoe (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I read through the whole article and made one minor punctuation fix. Otherwise, I think it meets FA standards. The article is fairly short, but the writing, sourcing, and other aspects all appear up to the mark. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:28, 22 April 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 10:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC) [10].[reply]

Calostoma cinnabarinum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's a comprehensive review of the literature on this unusual and visually distinctive mushroom, meeting our other featured article criteria along the way. This was my first really significant article development push. I've had some time away from the project for unrelated concerns, but now that I'm back, I figured I'd jump in the deep end with an effort to finish the drive to featured article status. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd like to thank Sasata right off the start for all the time he spent assisting me with this article, especially the thorough GA review that was made with this eventual goal in mind. Thank you! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calostoma cinnabarinum, commonly known as stalked puffball-in-aspic and by several other names,.. - gah! comes across as a bit ungainly. If the other names are really pretty uncommon, I'd leave that segment out. If they are notable, it might be worth breaking this out as a separate sentence after the end of this (i.e. removing the clause from where it is and starting a new sentence, "It goes by several common names..."
Broke the sentence, included the two names that have the most currency. Hopefully that works better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
measuring 14–20 micrometers long by 6–9 µm across. - make 'em the same as each other - either abbreviated or unabbreviated... yep, that'll do just fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked by J Milburn in a way that I think fixes this problem and satisfies the MOS expectations. Thanks! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The overall appearance of the fruit bodies has been compared to... - "overall" redundant here.
Removed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
although some populations are more visibly oval and may be slightly smaller - subject change in this bit (from "head" in previous clause). I'd go with something like "although in some populations it is more visibly oval and may be slightly smaller"
Reformatted that a bit. Let me know if that reads better. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Outermost of these is a yellowish... - sounds odd, why not just, "The outermost is a yellowish"
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
piece of the red membrane become embedded in the remaining gelatinous material --> "pieces"?
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "genus"
Linked. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • naming Scleroderma callostoma, — word missing?
No, just an awkward wording. Does as work better here? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link "cinnabar", more to the point than dragon's blood?
Both the mercury sulfide and dragon's blood (the plant resin) have been historically called cinnabar. References suggest dragon's blood was the intended reference, so I didn't think it was appropriate to link to the mineral. I don't feel extremely strongly about this, if the link is preferred by others. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • shikimate-derived — I'm not clear if this just means derived from the acid, or that they are also present in the flower?
Derived from the acid. Reordered this whole paragraph, which was the cause of some consternation. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the responses to my queries. I've looked at J Milburn's comments below, but there doesn't appear to be anything unfixable, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts-

  • "commonly known as stalked puffball-in-aspic and by several other names" This doesn't make sense
Reworded. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The surface of these spores is covered with a pattern of small pits that gives them a net-like appearance." Odd phrasing. How about "The spore surface features a pattern of small pits, producing a net-like appearance." or something similar?
Agreed. Changed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to say that the taxobox is absolutely useless here. I would not be at all opposed to its removal.
The Template:taxobox or the Template:mycomorphbox? I think the former is useful. I'm personally not at all a fan of the latter, but most (all?) of the FA mushroom articles have used it, so I'd rather not axe it without wider consensus. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the taxobox is definitely useful, I meant the mycomorphbox. I'm sure you've seen that the issue comes up every now and then on the WP:FUNGI talk page; my issue is that it has clearly been created specifically with mushrooms (Boletus, Amanita, Agaricus and so on) in mind, and so is not all that useful here. I certainly don't mind if you'd rather keep it in; I'm just saying I don't think it would be all that bad to do without it! J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to axe it, personally. It was a frustration when I was writing the article in the first place. I only had it there because all the other cool kids article were doing it. Removed it in the hopes that no one will be sad about its absence! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:04, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Schweinitz assigned Bosc's Lycoperdon heterogeneum to Mitremyces under the name M. lutescens in 1822." I'm a long way from a taxonomic expert, but how/why did he change heterogeneum to lutescens?
No clear answer in the sources. Very little of the name game that this species was subjected to should have happened. It just ... did. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "known as hongo orquídea" Spanish, I assume?
Rearranged this, added. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a novel polyene pigment from C. cinnabarinum. This newly discovered compound" Why mention that it's newly discovered? If you're keen to stress how recent it is, perhaps mention a year instead?
Because it's not the pigment they expected. That said, reordered the whole paragraph, cutting the "newly discovered" along the way. I think this is clearer now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "boletocrocins" Worth a redlink?
Sure. Links are cheap. Worth a blue link, actually; stub created. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The effect of this chemotaxonomic investigation on Boletales cladistics is not yet clear." It's not clear if the research has had any effect?
Hopefully the rejiggered paragraph makes more sense. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked through the taxonomy section, I revisited the lead; "However, C. cinnabarinum has had a complex taxonomic history that at various times confused it with each of those groups, until the advent of molecular phylogenetics." This implies that phylogenetic analysis put to bed taxonomic debates that, until then, had been raging. The taxonomy section, by contrast, suggests that there was a consensus on the matter before the twentieth century had begun.
Some of the problem is that there's way more taxonomic craziness than is in-scope for this article. The binomial name may have been static since 1897 or so, but this thing continued to bounce families and orders with some regularity. Most of that belongs in articles for parent taxa, though. Trying to think how to make this more clear... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Piece of the red membrane become embedded in the remaining gelatinous material, giving them the appearance of small red seeds." Pieces?
Fixed. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Electron microscopy or atomic force microscopy reveals the pits to be an elaborate net-like structure called a reticulum, with two to three pores per micrometer, each approximately 400 nanometers deep." I think this sentence should probably be split.
I missed this line in my first pass. Split, and hopefully a little easier to read now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Similar species" section seems to be suffering from a US-centric POV. A large paragraph and two pictures are given to the not-really-that-similar other species in the US, while the Asian species are not even mentioned by name for the most part, and the distinguishing characteristics, which seem to be subtle, are not really expanded upon.
Some of this is a consequence of bias in the literature. The species is more common in North and Central America, and has been subjected to a lot more study here. Even the sources that discuss the Asian species don't spend much time explicitly talking about their similarities to C. cinnabarinum. That said, I'll go back to the sources and see if I can expand that section over the next few days. At the very least, I should be able to name-drop the Asian species more aggressively. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its range extends at least as far west as Texas",[43] with" Some hanging speech marks- are you quoting something?
Fixed. Relic from much earlier in the text's development. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is ectomycorrhizal as well." Ambiguous. How about "like other members of the suborder, it is ectomycorrhizal"?
I thought this proposed wording was awkward in context, repeating "members" and "suborder" in close proximity. Tweaked in a different way. Let me know if this is good. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't think a category for the edibility/non-edibility would be all that appropriate, perhaps consider Category:Medicinal fungi?
Hmm. I'm not sure what the inclusion standards have been for that category. C. cinnabarinum has a history in folk medicine, but there haven't been any pharmacological studies. I'm hesitant to put things in a "medicinal" category without clear evidence they belong there. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've not looked at the sourcing, but the article is overall very strong; the careful taxonomic history is easy to follow, considering its complexity. The "similar species" section is not quite of the quality I'd hope for a FA, because of the balancing, but other than that, it's very close. J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I'm going to read back over the source material over the next couple of days and see if I can't expand that for Asian (and, hopefully, South American) relatives. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on this. Non-encyclopedia stuff has been hurting my available time, but I should be able to get back into the Asian sources in the next couple days at the latest. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went back over some of the sources already in use, and was able to look at some Acta Mycologica Sinica articles I did not previously have access to. Hopefully, things look a little more balanced now. It's hard to expand this too much, because the depth of literature that the American species enjoy just isn't available for them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support assuming the source-check comes back OK. I'm happy with your responses; everything seems to be in order. A very solid article. I'd still prefer to see a little more about the similar species in the east, but I know from experience what an enormous pain that can be, and the details you have currently are sufficient- there isn't the omission that I felt there was previously. J Milburn (talk) 20:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I've really appreciated your input on some of this. I also wish there was more to write about comparisons with the Asian species. I've got descriptions of a few more of the Chinese species, but those sources never actually compare them to anything else, either in text or keys. I considered doing some stare-and-compares with the original species descriptions, but I think that cuts a little too close to OR for my liking. There's actually quite a bit of detailed information available about Australian species of Calostoma, but since cinnabarinum isn't known from there, I didn't think those made sense to include, either. I am continuing to hunt for sources, though. There's at least one more Chinese-language piece that may be useful for a line or two if I can scrape up a copy. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I seem not be finding information about when during the year it emerges as part of the discussion of its life cycle.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:19, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, seasonal occurrence information was absent. I have corrected the oversight. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It seems to be thorough and well organized. My puts are pretty minor:

  • Could the article be favored with a couple more illustrations of the subject species? There appear to be a few here
  • Let me see what I can do. There are no shortage of other images available, but I wasn't quite clear where the line was between "needs more pictures" and "has too many pictures". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 02:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I only see two pictures of the actual fungus; I suppose I was trying to map the written description to the neighboring picture and was having only limited success. Anyway, I think another picture in the Distribution/habitat/ecology section would help with the interest factor. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk)
  • "Quercus oaks": is there another type of oak?
  • There was one element of this article that left me puzzled. Since the oak is only native to the northern hemisphere, and this fungus is only associated with that tree, why is the fungus found in Brazil? Is it because of transplanted oaks?

With those I'll add my support. Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Squeamish, I think you should include your sources for the synonyms in the "synonyms_ref" parameter of the taxobox, as it's not obvious where these are coming from (there's more syns listed here than are at MycoBank and Index Fungorum, for example). Apart from that, I'm supportive of this candidacy being promoted to FA (but with the usual COI's: GA reviewer, WikiProject Fungi member, general fungus fan...). Sasata (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- given this is (I believe) the nominator's first FAC, I;d like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: In 1811, Louis Bosc did not mention the earlier works when describing it as Lycoperdon heterogeneum, although he also suggested it should be placed in its own genus.[7]
  • Source: "Par M. Bosc [1811]...cette espèce dont l'organisation est si singulière mérite bien de servir de type à un noveau genre. (p. 87)
  • Article: In 1897, Charles Edward Burnap published a new description of C. lutescens, making a clear division between the two similar species[14]
  • Source: "These two dried species were the only material of C. lutescens which I was able to examine, but they indacte that Massee was in error in considering the specicies identical to C. cinnabarinuum, and that, while it is probably the globose spored formn to which Schweintz gave the name of M. luttesens, it is, with very little doubt, the form which Corda describes by that name". (p. 188)
  • Article: Calostoma cinnabarinum was long thought to be saprotrophic, and has been described in this manner in both scholarly[41] and popular[18]
  • Sources: On pages, 6,7,20,48,53,59, and 60 of Miller and Miller, and p. 439 of Roody, but I can't see where it supports the statement "long thought to be saprotrophic".
  • I've removed the subjective word "long"; the statement is supported by p. 48 of Miller (1988): "The Calostomataceaeare found in warm-temperate and tropical biomes. The species all appear to be decomposers of roots, buried wood, and other organic matter of plant origin." Sasata (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: Two other species of Calostoma also occur in the eastern United States. C. lutescens has a thinner gelatinous layer and a predominately yellow middle layer, or mesoperidium, with the red color confined to the peristome.[11]
  • Source: I can't find this, but the scan is difficult to read - could you guide me on this please?
  • I've changed the link from a full PDF download to a link to the start of the page range specified in the citation, to make it easier for readers to verify the material. C. lutescens is discussed on pp. 190–191, and the source confirms what is written in the sentence. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article: In 2007, Andrew Wilson and David Hibbett of Clark University and Eric Hobbie of the University of New Hampshire employed isotopic labeling, DNA sequencing, and morphological analysis to determine that this species is also ectomycorrhizal.[59]
  • Source: "Results of isotopic, molecular, and morphological analyses indicate that C. cinnabarinum is ectomycorrhizal". (From the abstract)
Could you please respond to the points above in bold font. Graham Colm (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many tks Graham -- Squeamish, how are we going with responses? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Squeamish hasn't been around for a week, so I hope it's ok that I responded to these queries myself. Sasata (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No remaining issues. Graham Colm (talk) 18:54, 20 April 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, 21 April 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Music for a Time of War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this article for nearly six months and I am so proud to finally be nominating it for Featured article status. I have been upfront about my COI (see article's talk page) from the start, and other contributors have reviewed my work with this in mind. Please see the following timeline:

Please see the article's talk page for additional commentary and history. I am happy to address concerns as they arise. If successful, this article would become the second that I have promoted to FA status, following Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall. Thank you so much for taking time to review this article. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article now includes alt text. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, and my queries were thoroughly dealt with there. Since then, I see, the article has been further polished, to excellent effect. It seems to me to cover its subject comprehensively and in a well-balanced way. The prose is good and the article is admirably referenced. I don't comment on images (WP's policies being too recondite for me) but as to the text, this article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The nominator has reason to feel proud of it, if I may say so. – Tim riley (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words, Tim. --Another Believer (Talk) 14:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As the GA reviewer, I found the article well written and well referenced with a good coverage of the subject. It appears to meet the FA requirements. —Bruce1eetalk 15:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support, Bruce1ee, and for catching this! --Another Believer (Talk) 16:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I helped to peer review this article last December. I think the article is in generally good shape, but it's a while since I looked at it, so I'd like to read it again, dropping any odd comments on the way. Here are a few relating to the lead:

  • Should the beginning not be: "Music for a Time of War is a 2011 concert program..."?
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On May 12, the Symphony debuted..." Not all your readers will understand that "the Symphony" refers to the orchestra rather than to a work of music.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, same sentence, the meaning is not entirely clear from the wording. I suggest you leave out the irrelevant (to this article) information that this was the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut, and simplify to: "On May 12, the Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, at Carnegie Hall".
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In October 2011 the recording was released..." Clarify which recording. You have said that both the Portland concerts were recorded, and I imagine the Carnegie Hall one was, too.
What I am trying to say is that the album recording, which was the product of two audio recordings from separate performances in Portland, was released in CD format by PentaTone. Accordingly, I changed the text to: "In October 2011 the recording of the Portland performances was released on CD by Dutch record label PentaTone Classics. The album marked the orchestra's first release in eight years and Kalmar's first with the Oregon Symphony." I hope that is better. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "among other recordings" reads better as "and other recordings" - and best lose the comma preceding the phrase.
Done. --Another Believer (Talk) 01:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments:

Program
  • I am unsure about the tenses in "The program begins...", "the program continues..." etc. These present-tense formulations suggest that the concert is a fixed entity such as an opera or a symphony, when it is not. It is four distinct musical works which happened to form the program for a specific concert which was then repeated twice. I would be inclined to use the past tense when discussing the program, and the present tense when discussing the individual works.
  • Why are the words "existential" and "ambiguous" in quotes, and how is Ives's work an "existential composition"?
  • I removed the quotes around "existential", and linked the word to Existentialism. I am not sure why the work is considered existential... I am just going by what the source states. I think "ambiguous" should remain in quotes, as this seems more like an opinion than a classification. Please let me know if this concern needs to be addressed further. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpicking, but with regard to the Britten piece, the Oregon Symphony premiered the work on February 26, not February 26–28 (unless it was a very long work indeed)
  • "Approximately 34 minutes in length, it presents three flutes..." Do you think that "presents" is the best word to use here, particularly as you use the word in a different sense at the start of the next section? I think "employs" might be a better alternative in the former instance.
Performances and broadcasts
  • "The Symphony debuted at Carnegie Hall on May 12,[10] repeating the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival..." This is more or less the wording I queried in the lead. Why keep the confusion here?
  • I do think the debut is noteworthy. Accordingly, I have changed the wording to: "On May 12, the Oregon Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, marking the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut. The festival invites orchestras..." This is similar to the updated wording in the lead, but also mentions the debut. Again, please let me know if this needs additional work. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the inaugural festival presented..." - that word again. And is it necessary to list all these orchestras, whose performances at the festival had nothing to do with the Music in Time of War program?
  • Including the other ensembles provides context. Otherwise, how would readers know who the Oregon Symphony was "competing" against. (I say competing, though the festival was not a competition. Point being, readers should know which other orchestras were participating if we are going to include festival highlights in the reception section.) Also, in this sentence I see no problem with the inclusion of the word "presented". --Another Believer (Talk) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find the various broadcast details a bit confusing; is it all necessary? And I wonder whose wording "their own solemn take" is?
  • Are you requesting removal of "their own somber take"... perhaps remove the quotation and replace with "WQXR's Q2 Music provided their own take on the Oregon Symphony's war-themed concert..."? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
  • "The concert program earned positive reception": I don't like "earned" much; perhaps "received"? And it should be "a positive reception".
Should the caption for Carnegie Hall be changed to "a positive reception" as well? --Another Believer (Talk) 21:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second invitation to Spring for Music and cancellation
  • I am wondering what any of the information in this section has to do with the specific subject of this article.
  • Again, I think this section provides additional context. The program earned the Symphony a second invitation to the festival. I assumed the second invitation was worth mentioning if multiple publications did as well. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The invitation is perhaps worth mentioning; it is all the detail that I think is superfluous to this article. The Oregon Symphony wasn't proposing to repeat the "Time of War" program, and in the event didn't go at all; peripheral information diverts attention from the substance of the article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps trim down to just the following?: "The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." The New York Times highlighted both returning orchestras when the publication included Spring for Music on its list of anticipated classical music events for 2013. In October 2012 the Symphony announced it would not accept the invitation for financial reasons." This eliminates the proposed program and the bit about the Detroit Symphony. Would you recommend keeping the section heading, or perhaps combining the trimmed down version with the above paragraph (beings with "Elaine")? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would eliminate the sentence beginning "The New York Times..." to leave you with: ""The orchestra was invited to perform again at the 2013 Spring for Music Festival as one of two returning ensembles. Kalmar said of the return invitation, "To be invited once is a thrill. To be invited twice is clear proof that we are in the artistic big leagues." However, in October 2012 the Symphony announced it was unable to accept the invitation, for financial reasons." Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More when I can. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Album
  • "through the Dutch record label..." → "by the Dutch record label..."?
  • "...were the recording engineers mastering" is confusing, especially with a double link. Why not say: "were responsible for the mastering?
  • "and authoring was conducted by Jesse Brayman." I have no idea at all what this means.
  • Who/what is "Soundmirror"?
  • "The Symphony celebrated the release by hosting a party at The Nines."[48][55] Surely this is trivia, not worth including? And double citation???
Reception
  • You should not have two subsections with the same name. You should distinguish them ay "Reception (concert)" and "Reception (album)"
  • "On November 19, BBC Radio 3's program "CD Review", which discusses and recommends new classical music recordings, included Music for a Time of War." This is not really informative; "included" could mean anything. Do you mean "made positive comments on" or some such?
  • "Contributor" to The Huffington Post doesn't allow us to guage the weight of this chap's opinion. Is he a music critic? I would say that he "questioned", rather than "disagreed with" Kalman's claim. And I don't see how the quoted material offers any counter to Kalman's claim.
  • Doing... (But changed to "Brian Horay, a classical music critic for The Huffington Post,..." and changed "disagreed with" to "questioned".) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In re-reading the article, I think your criticism is of Horay's writing and not my interpretation. Horay "call[s] bullshit", then just after includes the quotation that I provided in the article. I am not sure how to summarize Horay's commentary otherwise. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Horay later continued..." - "later" is redundant
  • Overuse of quotation marks, around commonplace words such as "outstanding", "excellent", "subtle" etc. Quotes should be used for striking phrases; everyday terms should be absorbed into your paraphrase.
  • Removed quotes around outstanding, excellent and subtle. I admit to being paranoid about quoting and close paraphrasing, so you might want to point out other instances of unnecessary quotes or make the changes yourself. Thanks. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alex Ross of The New Yorker included the album on his list of the ten most "exceptional" classical music recordings of the year, offering holiday gift ideas in the process." What have the last seven words to do with anything?
  • I think one critic's suggestion that the album would make a decent Christmas gift is enough; we don't need to have Ross making the same point (if that is what he is doing - the wording is so vague that I can't be sure). It's an unimportant point, but the wording jars in reading and I don't think the phrase is worth keeping.

That concludes my review. Please ping when these points are addressed, and I will revisit. Brianboulton (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your incredibly thorough review. I am happy to continue the discussion until all concerns are addressed. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed almost all my points satisfactorily, and I appreciate the attention you have given them. The two outstanding are the "included" sentence that I mention above, and the "gifts" point just amplified. In the former case, we need to know what you mean by "included": "included excerpts from"? "included discussion on"? etc. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, I overlooked the "included" concern. See reply above. Removed the gift phrase, as requested. Thank you, again. --Another Believer (Talk)
  • Support: I have given this article quite a lengthy review here, partly to make up for not giving it the necessary time at peer review. All my points are now covered, and I am happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am honored and feel grateful for your assistance and kind words. Thanks again. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- like to see image and source spotchecks pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a request for me, or for other reviewers? --Another Believer (Talk) 17:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the reviewers or any other editor. I have completed the (satisfactory) spotchecks. Graham Colm (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: On May 12, the Oregon Symphony repeated the program at the inaugural Spring for Music Festival, marking the orchestra's Carnegie Hall debut.[10]
  • Source:...including Music for a Time of War on May 7 and 8, the weekend before the Oregon Symphony performs the same concert in New York at its Carnegie Hall debut.
  • Article: The Oregon Symphony first performed the work in February 1959 with Bloomfield conducting; prior to 2011, the ensemble had not performed the symphony since October 2001, with James Judd conducting. Approximately 34 minutes in length, it employs three flutes (one doubling piccolo), three oboes (one doubling English horn), two clarinets, bass clarinet, tenor saxophone, two bassoons, contrabassoon, four horns, two trumpets, three trombones, tuba, timpani, bass drum, cymbals, snare drum, triangle and strings.[3]
  • Source: This is the concert programme, all facts verified
  • Article: Kalmar later confirmed that 450 Oregonians traveled to New York City to witness the performance.[17]
  • Source: Nearly 450 Oregonians traveled to New York to be with us that night.
  • Article: According to the organization, his contract was renewed "in recognition of his significant accomplishments", specifically acknowledging the Carnegie Hall performance.[40]
  • Source: The symphony release said Kalmar’s contract “was renewed in recognition of his significant accomplishments,” and then it mentioned the roaring success of the symphony’s springtime Carnegie Hall concert, with its inventive “Music for a Time of War” program.
  • Article: He complimented Sylvan's diction and "emotional engagement", but noted that some words were difficult to make out. Stabler called the timpanist's performance during Britten's symphony "fierce" and the orchestra's playing "clear and intentional."[1]
  • Source: Sylvan's diction was good, but some words were still hard to hear. His vocal colors and emotional engagement with the text mirrored the music's deep compassion...Grounded by nimble yet fierce playing by principal timpanist Jonathan Greeney, the playing remained clear and intentional as it flew by.
  • Article: She also confirmed that the Toledo Symphony Orchestra expressed interest in performing the Music for a Time of War program in the future.[14]
  • Source: Calder also noted that the Toledo Symphony has informed her that they will program Music for a Time of War in a future season.
No issues. Graham Colm (talk) 18:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I have fixed the link to the album cover, but I suggest you move the infobox to the top of the article because you have used a per-prepared template for the FUR that cannot be edited without affecting other articles. Otherwise, you will have to write a new FUR from scratch. I don't see a problem in moving it. I suggest deleting the composite image of the composers. It's causing more problems than it is worth. Graham Colm (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested another possible solution for the FUR above. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to keep the composite, here's what you need to do: first, try to update the source link for Ives - check the source website, Internet Archive, or alternatives to see if you can find the image again. Second, see if you can figure out when/where the image was first published. The source site might have details on that. For the Britten, if you can get access to the source you can find the page number; however, given the dates you've given the image is very likely still under copyright, so a better option would be to sub in a different image of Britten in the composite. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would love to include images of composers, but I am not comfortable completing the above task. Therefore, I have removed the composite image. What a shame. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, someone is welcome to delete the composite image if it no longer serves a purpose (I can't imagine another article would be able to use the same collage). --Another Believer (Talk) 16:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have a left any reviewers' concerns unresolved? Just checking in since the review has been quiet for a few days. --Another Believer (Talk) 06:07, 20 April 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, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Circinus (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC) + Keilana (talk · contribs) [reply]

A couple of us have worked on this and buffed it to what we consider a level equivalent to the other constellation articles, of which there are a growing number to compare with. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I think the prose needs a little more work. I have made a few edits to illustrate my misgivings (which you can revert if not helpful). I find expressions like "NGC 5823 is found in the amateur telescope" odd to my ear. Perhaps "NGC 5823 can be found by using an amateur telescope" might be better. There is also redundancy such as "to the observer", and the use of ugly, technical words such as "visualized" when ordinary words such as "seen" could be used. This is an engaging article, it might be improved by using less astronomy jargon, and not assuming the readers are astronomers. Graham Colm (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Graham, I just looked through the edits you made and they were all quite helpful. I'll give it another pass to tone down the jargon. Thank you! Keilana|Parlez ici 00:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Parutakupiu

[edit]

Comment: The general comment I can make is that the prose needs to be vastly improved so that criterion 1a. is met. The technical jargon is already quite hard to grasp by a non-expert, so the task becomes even more difficult if the prose is not clear and high standard. Although I can point a few things, changes are needed throughout the article.

I concede I find these astronomy articles alot trickier to make prose accessible and engaging than other articles I work on... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I could help here and there, if you want. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that would be great! And please strike everything you are happy with so far.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've copyedited as best as I could. I would ask you to please confirm that with my changes, no reference was misplaced. Parutakupiu (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They look intact at first glance - it becomes tricky when a space is added or subtracted before a para, then monitoring individual changes gets lost....only thing is the 12 light years and 10 arcseconds...I am tempted to swap their positions but maybe not...not sure that is an improvement either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I leave that to your decision. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that "Slightly variable" refers to variable star, but for those that don't know, you should place a link here (the first instance), instead of linked further on in the next sentence.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Supernova". Plus, does a supernova "explode"? Or does it "occur"?
linked - by definition they "explode" which I figure is a more vivid and engaging word than "occur"...do you prefer the latter word? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's awkward, it's like saying "an explosion exploded"... but I guess you can leave as is. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aah ok, yeah I think I might change it...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and was recorded by Chinese observers" → "and this event was recorded by Chinese observers".
changed to ", which.." Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Circinus also has one spiral galaxy of note; discovered in 1977, the Circinus Galaxy is the closest Seyfert galaxy to the Milky Way." → "Circinus also houses one notable spiral galaxy, the Circinus Galaxy. Discovered in 1977, it is the closest Seyfert galaxy to the Milky Way."
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link the second "Milky Way" occurrence.
de-linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see any mythological reference in the "History and mythology" section.
good point - just a standard heading from other constellation articles...which have considerably more.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switch hyphens with minus signs in "-55.43° and -70.62°". Apply throughout article accordingly.
got 'em all (I think...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "Rapidly oscillating Ap (RoAp) star" need to start with a capital letter?
lower case, missed second one... Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the name of the Alpha Circini companion?
I can pretty well guess what it should be...i.e. Alpha Circini B...but I think I'd like to find a source which states that....wil get back soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)I'm a bit stumped by this as I can't find any mention of it at all in any other sources, nor is it clarified in SIMBAD. There are loads of articles covering Alpha circini but they are all examining the pulsations of the main star. I am tempted to remove it but Jim Kaler is a pretty respected writer of astronomy... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made a bit of research myself and found nowhere a name for the companion... apart from "companion". Probably it's the current knowledge status about that dimmer component. No need to remove this portion if it's referenced by a reliable source. I was just wondering if it didn't have a name because the editor forgot to put it... Parutakupiu (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this occasionally - some stars have companions about which little is known and they don't have a name. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discernible by small telescopes[10] with a separation of 5.7 arcseconds.[7]" Place ref 10 as recommended per MOS:REF.
moved Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link light-year, orange dwarf and AU.
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Display meteor shower velocity also in mph within parentheses (use {{convert}})
astronomy articles don't usually use imperial units at all - would look funny having some in some spots... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "long-period comet".
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox shows unmatching data, namely magnitude of brighest star (3.18 vs 3.19 in text) and meteor shower (none vs. Alpha Circinids in lede)
whoops, fixed them Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be sure that date format is consistent in the prose and references.

Parutakupiu (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

took me a while to find the noncomplying date formats....fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the infobox, removing some empty parameters or those with "zero" values (which was reverted in the meantime, ok...), and I noticed that the "best visible month" stated there is June. Isn't it July?
"best visible" is a bit arbitrary given its far southern location....need to think about this Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really kind of arbitrary but I'd go with the month where it culminates at 9pm, so July. Also I think the zero values are important - it's good to know that there aren't any bright or nearby stars and people won't see that if the parameter's removed. Just my 2 cents. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, is it June or July? Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and changed it to July. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:39, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The compass image is nice and all, but not extremely necessary and it just compresses two (already small) sections against the infobox. I'd drop it.
we only stuck it in as a suggestion at GA - happy to lose it as cramming not good.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not define specific width for the images. Let them show the more consistent default size.

Parutakupiu (talk) 00:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. From my assessment on the fulfillment of each of the FA criteria, I believe this article is in a good shape. After making an intervention of my own, I think the prose has been largely improved (1a) , although it lacks the evaluation of further, more professional, reviewers. All the important aspects of this constellation are well covered (1b) and appropriately sourced (1c), and lack of neutrality (1d) and editing stability (1e) were never major factors. Regarding style, the lead does provide a good summary of what's to come (2a) and the content is adequately divided, with separate sections for the history and location of the constellation, for stars and other objects (2b). Regarding the format of general references and inline citations (2c), I noticed no irregularity or inconsistency. The article contains a suitable number of pertinent images, all of which have a correct usage and a proper caption (3). It is not lengthy, but one of its largest and detailed sections ("Stars") has a link to a stand-alone list with all the stellar components of this constellation and related information, thus fulfilling criterium 4. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - base on Parutakipu's review, the article meets all FA criteria, and a cursory reading by myself shows that the prose is well-written and the article has solid, high-quality sources. Congrats to Casliber and Keilana for bringing this up to FA. Wer900 • talk 01:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Parutakupiu had mentioned that he wanted a more professional evaluation. Although not an astronomer myself, I am quite interested in the field and have authored articles related to astronomy, astrophysics, and other space sciences, and I can say with confidence that the article is factually sound. The prose covers the references well, and I think that therefore Parutakupiu's doubts are now resolved. Wer900 • talk 01:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Circinus_IAU.svg: suggested linking IAU
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Beta_Circinus.jpg: possible to translate the file page?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow - they both seem to mention "public domain" in their licencing.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the template on commons is CC-0, so they seem to be consistent. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest links to polygon, Jupiter and Venus
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is visible with an amateur telescope — some idea of typical size would be helpful
I couldn't find anything specific for the dark nebula but did find that the reflection nebula component requires averted vision to see. Generally a "large" amateur telescope has an aperture of more than 12 inches or so, but there's really no specific designation and I don't want to stray over the border into OR. Keilana|Parlez ici 22:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Multiple refs to one sentence should be in numerical order in text
reordered Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 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, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Operation Hardboiled

[edit]
Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My second FAC in the topic area of military deception during the Second World War. A short article, but of interest and importance because it was the first deception attempt by the legendary London Controlling Section. A small operation, reflected in the length of the article, but broadly complete. Errant (chat!) 23:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Celuici

  • "trick the Germans into believing in an invasion threat to occupied Norway" does not read very easily for me. Also, does the fact that Hitler was already obsessed with defending Scandinavia not meant that he already believed that an invasion threat existed? Perhaps something like "convince the Germans that the allies would soon invade occupied Norway".
    • Done, thanks
  • "Hitler did reinforce Scandinavia..." -- use Hitler's full name, with a wikilink, for this first usage?
    • Done, thanks
  • "The Chiefs of Staff approved of this plan, and chose..." -- the "of" is unnecessary here.
    • Done, thanks
  • "unconvinced with" -- with => by
    • Done, thanks
  • "Hardboiled was envisioned as an invasion of Norway" -- in formal British English, I think "envisaged" would be better
    • You learn something new every day :) cheers.
  • "It had no clear objective, Stanley proposed the operation" -- comma splice. You need a "but" or something before "Stanley"
    • Done, thanks (I did quite a bit tweak here, so have a check)
  • "Hardboiled was the first deception..." -- a long a complicated sentence. I'd split it into two sentences -- and the information in brackets is significant enough not to be relegated to a parenthesis.
    • Broke it up slightly - is that acceptable?
  • The formatting of the notes is inconsistent. Each instance of "pg" should be replaced with either "p." or "pp." Celuici (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is an interesting article, but the prose needs some work, and I think that there are some gaps which could be filled:

  • The first sentence ("Operation Hardboiled was a 1942 Allied military deception operation during World War II.") is a bit awkward - the '1942' in the middle of things in particular, but 'military deception operation during World War II' isn't great either)
    • I reworked it, take a look :)
  • 'Allies' should always be capitalised
    • Thanks
  • "but had struggled to make any progress against a military establishment" - this is a bit confusing given that the LCS was targeting the Germans
    • I'm trying to explain that Stanley had difficulty getting anyone to take part in his deception schemes. I've reworded this section to try and put it across better.
  • "The LCS had little guidance in strategic deception, an activity pioneered by Dudley Clarke the previous year, and was unaware of the extensive double agent system controlled by MI5. As a result, Hardboiled was planned as a real operation, culminating in a fictional amphibious invasion." - more context is needed here (what's the difference between a 'strategic deception' and a faked 'real operation')
    • I've added some more detail, related to the expansion later in the article
  • "Adolf Hitler did reinforce Scandinavia" - this is a bit akward
    • Copyedited a little, better?
  • "The operation did provide limited experience" - ditto
    • Reworded this, take a look :)
  • "The department had no access to the double agents of MI5's Double-Cross System, and were unaware that all German operatives in the country had been turned double. This lack of access, and an overestimate of German intelligence capabilities in the UK, rendered a lot of the perpetration work wasteful." - more context is needed here; I doubt that readers who are unfamiliar with the workings of deception operations or the British double agent system will understand what's going on here. I imagine that the issue is that the LCS could have executed this deception mainly through the double agents, and there was no need to force the poor Royal Marines to slog through the snow in order to get the Germans' attention.
    • I've significantly reworked this segment of the article to better explain what insights the LCS lacked and so link things up. Do I go far enough?
      • That helps, but 'and through an overestimate of German intelligence capabilities in the UK' sounds a bit awkward Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This sentence still needs to be tidied up - it's rather wordy, and what's meant by "German intelligence capabilities in the UK" is unclear - the article already notes that Britain had succeeded in 'turning' all the German intelligence agents in the UK, so presumably this is referring to other forms of intelligence collecting, and I'd suggest making this clearer (which should in turn help with the sentence's readability). Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading the article, I'm still unsure what the plan was. Am I right in thinking that the operation basically involved preparing the RM Division for operations in Norway and developing invasion plans in the hope that the Germans would somehow notice and send extra troops to Norway?
    • I've added some information through the article to try and clarify this :) As to the last part of your question.. there was never any clear aim for the operation (i.e. troop reinforcements of Norway). It was deception for the sake of it.I can expand on this if you think it is needed, perhaps in the impact section, which I am considering rewriting.
  • "Despite the LCS being unaware of the double cross system, some of this information was passed on via agents" - did the LCS feed the information to these agents, or did their controllers do this without coordinating the activities with the LCS?
  • "Hardboiled did allow" - this is awkward ('did allow' = 'allowed'/'provided')
    • Rewrote (see below) and this disappeared
  • "Hardboiled did allow the LCS to gain experience in deception planning, however this was of limited use because they were unaware of the techniques refined by Clarke and of the double agent system" - why was this practice of little use because of the other factors?
    • Rewrote this section; based on your comments above I will expand on how this format of operation was considered sub-optimal in the Planning section.
  • "In May 1942, John Bevan took over control of the London Controlling Section. " - was this linked to Stanley's poor performance in preparing this operation?
    • No, I added some comments to explain what happened (without going overboard on detail).
  • There's some extra material on this operation on pages 23-24 of Michael Howard's volume of the official history, and his view that the operation provided "some useful practice" even if it didn't meet its aims seems worth including. Likewise, his explanation of why a deception focused on offensive operations lacked credibility at the time given the dire war situation seems important. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've incorporated Howard's comments on pg. 24, and will work in the other item as well.
      • I think that you should add in the material from Howard about what the war situation meant for planning deception operations on page 23 given that it's pretty important background. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks that's excellent feedback, I'll get onto it ASAP :) --Errant (chat!) 14:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've made some significant progress on these points, could you take another look and see if some of them are addressed? As I mentioned, I think tomorrow some time I will rewrite the Impact section to look at things from the perspective of the mistakes made, and then emphasise the impace (or lack thereof). --Errant (chat!) 22:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed: nice work with this article, and it's great that you've put so much effort into an example of 'bad practice' when the successes in this kind of field generally receive the most attention! Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Comment,,,
  • "...which was unconvinced by the idea of strategic deception and resistant the idea of a central planning authority..." Ae we missing a to? "resistant to"?
  • " the objective for Hardboiled was chosen because the the resources existed..." Two "the"s.
  • " However, notes that it provided experience for the planners in handling deception and for the Twenty Committee in proving the worth of double agents" Seems to be an incomplete sentence.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Page formatting: multiple pages should use pp. not p.
    • Ech. Last FAR someone insisted pp. was never used in this way, I'm inclined to think it's not worth worrying about :) Sorry, was misremembering. Fixed!
  • Page(s) for FN10?
    • Done
  • Date for Levine is given as 2011 in footnotes but 2012 in bibliography
    • Done
  • Be consistent in whether subtitles are sentence or title caps. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from HJ Mitchell: Nice article. Relatively short, but it looks comprehensive and well-researched. Just a few comments and queries:

  • Non-Brits won't know what MI5 is, so a link would be useful
    • Done
  • To what end were the Allies trying to convince Hitler that they were invading Norway? Was it an attempt to distract from a real operation, for example?
    • I've tweaked the intro to that section a little. The point is that there was no point to it :) Does that now read OK?
  • Michael Howard, who authored the official British history of strategic deception, attributes the lacklustre response to the fact that the Allies were, at that point of the war, facing severe setbacks on every front. Could you re-work that to make it more readable (it's a bit long with the two subclauses) and to get rid of the sloppy "the fact that"?
    • Reworded
  • the committee was given much broader powers and heightened respect The idea of a higher authority granting the committee respect n the same way as broader powers seems odd to me. Perhaps reword?
    • I removed the respect bit, it's not really important

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Harry. :) Drunk a glass too much wine this evening to address your comments, but I'll get onto them tomorrow! --Errant (chat!) 20:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK! I think I've looked into all of these points, thanks :) --Errant (chat!) 10:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Couldn't see an image review above but I'm satisfied the licensing is okay.
  • I'm afraid it's a little unclear to me in both the lead and the main body whether Clarke found "real" or "fake" operations wasteful; can we clarify? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:47, 13 April 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, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note, as per a recommendation below, this article has been moved to Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom

In the UK, anatomical science sits uncomfortably atop a fence separating the needs of the living and the expectations of the dead. This uneasy relationship stems from an unfortunate series of events, the ramifications of which are obvious even today.

Early 18th century anatomists had access to about 10 corpses annually, a paltry amount that proved completely insufficient to supply the demands of a burgeoning area of medical science. Even a statute allowing doctors and students access to the corpses of murderers (of which there were many) wasn't enough, so the medical profession simply circumvented the law and got its corpses fresh from the graveyard. The men who did this, resurrectionists, were hated by pretty much everyone except the anatomists, who unsurprisingly, weren't exactly popular themselves. Matters came to a head when, attracted by the significant sums of money fresh corpses were worth, men turned to murder. Parliament created an Anatomy Act, which killed off the illicit trade in corpses by making it legal for anatomists to get their hands on those too poor to object.

I found it all rather fascinating, so here's an article on it. Parrot of Doom 22:50, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from MasterOfHisOwnDomain: I'm with you on it being a fascinating subject, and splendid work on the article so far! A few things:

I've linked United Kingdom, anatomy and cadaver, I've left grave robbery alone as frankly, this article offers a much better description of what was involved than Wikipedia's article on the subject. The Murder Act seems to be known as both (it was enacted in 1752). I think it's best to use 1752 as that was the year the law changed. I don't think resurrectionists requires quotes, it may be uncommon now but it was common enough back then. As for wherefrom, I'm happy to use unusual words, it's how we expand our language. Parrot of Doom 17:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure WP's policy is constructed around whether or not users derive pleasure from using a word… But I won't argue with it for now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • First instance of Murder Act link is redirected to Murder Act 1751 (other is fine).
  • "in 1694, Edinburgh allowed anatomists to dissect corpses …" the quotation that follows is without a citation.
  • "For example, William Shakespeare's epitaph reads" is there a reference that actually suggests that this epitath relates specifically to grave robbery for anatomical purposes? Otherwise seems to be original research.
  • "late 18th century anatomists" — 18th-century.
  • Image caption: "A caricature of John Hunter makes his escape from two watchmen." — 'as he makes his escape'?
  • "A "volley of bullets, slugs, …" is not proceeded by a citation. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a citation to the Edinburgh quote. Shakespeare's epitaph is cited. I've hyphenated the 18th-century bit. The image caption is correct, the image of John Hunter is a caricature. For the "volley of bullets" quote, that's covered by citation 36, which I feel is close enough to the quote. Parrot of Doom 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review and spotchecks

  • There are no problems with the images.
  • I have copies of Richardson and Wise and have checked all the citations to these books and found no issues. I have spotchecked some of the other sources using Google previews and there are no problems with verification or close paraphrasing. Graham Colm (talk) 17:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Italy led Europe in anatomical teaching ... British anatomists often travelled there to study - Harvey, for instance, had studied at Padua." (source)
  • "During the 16th and 17th centuries Italy became a European leader in the study of anatomy, with English anatomists travelling there to study. For instance, William Harvey ... studied at the University of Padua." (article)
  • and
  • "1506, James IV of Scotland gave royal patronage to the Edinburgh surgeons and barbers, which allowed them to dissect the bodies" (source)
  • "1506, when King James VI of Scotland gave royal patronage to the Barber-Surgeons of Edinburgh, allowing them to dissect the bodies" (article)
Sometimes, there's only one way to say something. Close paraphrasing can be unavoidable. Parrot of Doom 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the 16th and 17th centuries English anatomists were attracted to Italy, where the leading anatomy schools were situated. For example, William Harvey ... attended the University of Padua.
  • 1506, when the barber-surgeons of Edinburgh were allowed to dissect the "bodies of certain executed criminals" under the patronage of King James VI of Scotland.

Support. Parrot of Doom and I have worked on a few articles together in the past, and I hope we will again in the future as he's a great researcher, but I've had nothing to do with this one beyond a little bit of copyediting after he asked me to take a look at it. As far as I'm concerned it's well written and meets all the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 21:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I've read it, and can't find any significant problems.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage. Given the name I edit under here, commenting on this FAC seems almost mandatory!

  • There are a few oddities in reference formatting. Several Notes are articles in periodicals, but have the article title in italics and the periodical in standard typeface (see Notes 2, 19, 36, etc.); italicization in the bibliography (Ritchie) looks correct, though. All the ISBN numbers are ISBN-10; if available, these should be replaced with their ISBN-13 equivalents.
  • Also, I have questions regarding the article's title and scope:
  • And, finally, was the practice of grave robbery / body snatching ever criminalized, even after the end of the resurrectionists' era circa 1844? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Body snatching is probably a better title to use. I developed this article from nothing and to be frank, haven't really given the title that much consideration. I'd be happy to move the article but that's probably best done once the FAC process has run it's course. The article is wholly about the shortage of bodies for anatomical research and what people did to circumvent it; therefore, modern issues regarding tissue harvesting aren't relevant. This is purely about men digging up corpses in the dark of night. Malleus has already changed some things in the citations, to be honest there are so many different opinions on what templates to use, I just stick with the simplest I can find. I never even pay that much attention to how they appear, so long as people can read and understand them.Parrot of Doom 16:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the goal is to restrict the topic to the 18th to 19th century practice motivated by the anatomy trade, perhaps a shift in the overall wording in order to facilitate a move to Resurrectionist is in order (or, actually, to some disambiguated version of that title, but that's beside the point)? After ~1844, there are, largely by definition, no more resurrectionists, but there is arguably still body snatching. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with that, probably something like Resurrection in the United Kingdom (it occurred in the US too but I'm not getting involved with that). Changing the article's wording would be a very simple task. Criminalisation of resurrection is a good point, I'll check to see if there's anything out there. I know the Anatomy Act didn't criminalise it.Parrot of Doom 17:30, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the options, I think Malleus's suggestion is the most preferable one. And, yes, even in the short time I've been a regular at FAC, I've seen several in-process title changes; it's important to make sure the lead and tone wordings match the new title. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally: I think there may be more sources that can be included here. I've got partial references for a few, and will try to track down full citations. An 1896 article in The Lancet 147 (3777): 185–187 discusses another method used, involving a 5–6 meter horizontal tunnel, and removal of one end of the coffin, instead of the vertical tunnel and pry method currently described in the article. I think there may be some Scottish sources to include also, based on the slightly different (if largely unenforced) legal status there. The September 14, 1829 issue of the Glasgow Herald apparently has an account of the "prosecution" of a resurrectionist under Scottish law -- I use scare quotes there, because they literally let him off with a warning. There's also an account of a public mass-disinterment to check for stolen corpses (spoiler alert: very much so), given in the March 9th, 1829 issue of the Glasgow Herald. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Lancet article sounds interesting. Regarding the contemporary news reports, be careful, a lot may be based upon heresay. I doubt very much any newspaper proprietor would be happy at any of his reporters writing about resurrection in anything but the most disapproving language. Certainly, few if any of them are impartial, which is why I've included only a few in this article. I guess what I'm saying is, use your nouse and filter out the hyperbole! Parrot of Doom 18:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Naturally. In fact, I can do you one better: a modern article that references those Glasgow Herald reports, with commentary and analysis, plus comparison to the modern debate regarding organ retention, and acknowledgement of what the charge was for prosecuted resurrections in Scotland (violation of the sepulchres of the dead): Lee, K.; McDonald, S. W. (2002). "Not modern day body snatching: The response of the public". Scottish Medical Journal. 47 (3): 66–70. PMID 12193008. Hopefully that can fill in quite a few of the holes! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trifling Comments from Ceranthor

Support: I noticed this article at GA a while ago, but was unfortunately beaten to it. A really unusual and interesting article which answers any questions which I had. Nothing obviously missing, and the prose is excellent. Just a few minor points, which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Corpses and their component parts became a commodity, but although the practice was hated by the general public, since corpses were not legally anyone's property, this clandestine method of securing them for study occupied a legal grey area.": I think this is a slightly long sentence, and perhaps a little too much going on. The "since" is ambiguous: does it refer to public hatred, or the grey area? I read it as referring to the hatred at the moment, but depending on your view of comma usage, it could be either.
  • "The Christian church forbade human dissection until the 14th century, when the first recorded dissection of a human corpse took place in Bologna.": We have "human ... human" and "dissection ... dissection". The second "human" seems a little redundant, but I'm not sure the double dissection is avoidable.
    • How about this? There aren't too many synonyms for these words so I've struggled a few times :)
  • "as were infants who had died in childbirth": Looks a little like the infants were giving birth. Would "stillborn" work?
    • Probably not, I think most people would presume a stillborn child to be dead in the womb (but I'm ignorant of the precise terminology). I've tried this change, is that better?
  • "while bribes were paid to officials present at the gallows, sometimes leading to an unfortunate situation where corpses not legally given over for dissection were taken anyway": Maybe it is a style preference, but does "in which" work better than "where"? Also, is "unfortunate" editorial judgement?
    • I agree, I'll change it to "in which". The use of "unfortunate" is basically a synonym for unintended, I thought it was a simpler way of getting across how distasteful a practice such thefts were, without resorting to a sentence about it.
  • The article mentions resurrectionists a couple of paragraphs before it defines what a resurrectionist is.
  • "There are cases of criminals who survived the short drop, but dissecting the body removed any hope of escape from death's embrace…" So they were dissected alive if they survived the short drop? Or was that public perception? I'm assuming that this is giving the public's view that dissection removed the slim possibility of surviving hanging, but perhaps this could be expressed more clearly. Also, "escape from death's embrace" seems a little too lyrical.
    • Death wasn't entirely understood (neither was birth, for that matter). The short drop method of hanging killed people by strangulation, which is why you'll find reports of relatives and friends pulling on the victim's legs - to hasten death. As some victims of hanging did indeed manage to "come back to life", some people believed that the anatomist removed any hope of that happening. This was important, because someone who'd been hanged and who had lived through the procedure, would essentially be a free man. There were also arguments about the anatomist destroying the body and leaving the soul nowhere to return to, on judgement day. I hacked a lot of that away from the article as it's more to do with anatomy than body snatching. I'm not attached to "death's embrace", I was just trying to find a neat way of ending the sentence.
  • There are few quotes which do not have in-text attribution. My preference is always to include attribution for the ease of the reader, although the MoS does not insist for part of quotes. And the quotes are all partial sentences. So you can ignore this one if you like. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John
  • It's a super article, well done. A few fairly minor suggestions:
  • Lead para
  • "recently deceased"; could we de-euphamise that?
  • "Nevertheless" could be omitted
    • Recently deceased was Malleus's addition, he's a better writer than me so I don't know. I like nevertheless though, as it helps press home the point that even though the resurrectionists weren't breaking the law, they'd still get a good kicking if caught.
      I like "recently deceased", and I much prefer it over what was there before, "recently dead", which just doesn't sound right to me. I don't see it as any kind euphamism anyway – that would be something like "recently passed on" in my mind. But it's your article, so your choice. Malleus Fatuorum 14:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legal background
  • "such an eventuality" A bit wordy
  • "Attempting to bolster the supply" Can you bolster a supply?
    • I've changed the first to "Worried about possible disorder, in 1749". The second, yes you can bolster supplies - I would presume therefore you can also bolster "a" supply?
  • Commodification
  • "The 13th-century polymath Leonardo da Vinci " should read "15th-century"
  • "not because they held any intrinsic value to the anatomist, but rather because they were used to refurbish the living." could be trimmed slightly.

(more to come) --John (talk) 09:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well spotted, I must have been confusing years and clocks :) As for the second point, I could trim it, but there's a good deal to say about prosthetics and the like, I'd rather leave a question in the mind of the reader. I think shortening it may risk glossing over it. Who knows, I may expand upon this point with a new article. Parrot of Doom 13:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This contribution meets all the FA criteria. It is an excellent, and exceedingly well written, synopsis. The prose, IMHO is better than one of the major sources (Richardson). I too liked last sentence, despite the nominators reservations. It was indeed a trade, and there was good money to be made by the perpetrators – and reputations to made by purchasers. These body snatchers actually did a great service to humanity – albeit for the wrong reasons – because much of our early knowledge of anatomy was, in part, derived from their clandestine activities. Although the subject can at first come across as merely macabre, it is an important aspect of the history of medicine. The nominator is an excellent researcher who has done the project a great service by bringing this subject, from scratch, to a featured standard. Please note I contributed to the GA assessment. Graham Colm (talk) 22:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – In the third paragraph of the "Legal background" section, I think "giving judges the ability to substitute gibbeting for dissection" has the punishments in the wrong order? Also, in the "Public view" sub-section, the penultimate sentence of the first paragraph ends with an unlinked "anatomy theatre" and then the first sentence of the second paragraph ends with a linked "anatomical theatre", which I found a bit odd. Anyway, excellent article, though I don't trust myself to review a FAC until I have submitted one of my own. Waltham, The Duke of 16:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for pointing those errors out. Parrot of Doom 23:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on lead by Cwmhiraeth Many readers of articles in Wikipedia never get further than looking at the images (macabre here) and reading the lead. Doing likewise, several things caught my eye in the lead:

You've already stated that the anatomists were their employers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment, I've shortened that sentence. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their role became popular due to a severe shortage of cadavers for anatomical research." Popular with whom?
    Popular with those involved in anatomical research, which is what is implied. Parrot of Doom 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A statement such as "They were useful to the anatomists as there was a severe shortage of cadavers for their research." would remove any ambiguity. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there is any ambiguity. The implication is clear. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gibbeting" is not a commonly used word and most people will not know what it means. Maybe you mean that instead of being executed, a criminal is cut up by anatomists? If so, how did the criminal die, or was he dissected while still alive? Or perhaps your meaning is that that gibbeting followed by dissection could be substituted for an execution followed by burial? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct, gibbeting isn't a commonly used word, which is why it's linked. I do not understand what is difficult to understand - you substitute one thing for another (replace the 2nd with the 1st) or one thing with another (replace the 1st with the 2nd). The remainder of the sentence makes it clear why I've used the latter. Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Following the discovery in 1831 of Burking in London" is an incomprehensible phrase. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's perfectly comprehensible to me. Is English your first language? Parrot of Doom 18:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I shall not be supporting this article's candidacy. I can only repeat Axl's comment when he failed the article at GA. "You clearly have no intention to collaborate to improve the article." If this article were to become a FA, the dreadful sentence "Following the discovery in 1831 of Burking in London, a bill submitted by Henry Warburton, author of the Select Committee's report, was debated in Parliament" might appear on the Wikipedia front page! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like Axl, you've made suggestions which appear to be matters of personal preference only. And like Axl, your comments aren't particularly helpful; other commentary offers specific advice on how to improve problematic sentences. Your statement, that I don't wish to collaborate to improve this article, is demonstrably untrue. Parrot of Doom 08:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Being a little more specific, I believe the lead section contravenes the MOS guidelines. For example, these say "Where uncommon terms are essential, they should be placed in context, linked and briefly defined", neither "gibbeting" nor "Burking in London" could be called a common term and neither is in any way necessary to be used in the lead. An omission in the lead, in my view, is that you do not explain who anatomists (another uncommon word) were, what they did or why they wanted bodies. Anatomy is not wikilinked in the article as far as I can see.
Gibbeting was a legal punishment. The section mentions the death penalty, Parliament, a Murder Act, a new law and judges. Just how much context do you require? The word is linked, I think that's quite enough. As for burking, that too is linked. Your suggestion that neither is required in the lead is, I can only assume, an opinion borne of ignorance of this subject - the two are quite essential. I've linked anatomy in the lead (it was already linked in the article body so plainly you didn't look far). Parrot of Doom 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adding a wikilink to "anatomist" in the lead. I am unable to find a wikilink for the word "anatomy" or "anatomist" in the rest of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The main body of the text is interesting, engaging and largely well-written in my opinion. I have not studied the text in detail nor considered whether the lead is an adequate summary of its contents, but I did come across this sentence "In London, late 18th-century anatomists may have delegated their grave-robbing almost entirely to body snatchers, or as they were commonly known, resurrectionists" and I wondered in what other ways the anatomists succeeded in removing corpses from graves? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and I wondered in what other ways the anatomists succeeded in removing corpses from graves?" - didn't you read the preceding section, which explains that anatomists used to do the job themselves? Parrot of Doom 22:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't see that stated in the article. Merely the suggestion by a historian that students might have been "involved in exhumation" and not that anatomists might have dug up the corpses themselves. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. I don't think you'd be happy with any changes I might make because I think you have a lazy understanding of the subject, and wish everything to be explained to you in great detail. I shall therefore pay no more attention to your criticism. Parrot of Doom 09:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have changed my opinion above to oppose. The nominator has not responded positively to constructive criticism I have made and has made little effort to address my concerns. My view of his lack of cooperation with other editors is reinforced by his reply to DrKiernan below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor comments I see no reason to use the obscure lanthorn (which requires linking) in preference to the more usual lantern (which need not be linked). The footnote on the different meanings of the word "mort" drifts off on a tangent that is not related to the subject matter of the article. It should be shortened or cut. DrKiernan (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source material uses lanthorn. I'm always curious as to why people don't like obscure or unusual words. Don't people enjoy their vocabulary being expanded? Parrot of Doom 08:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The fact that "the source material uses lanthorn" indicates that the parts of the article with an unusual or poetic turn of phrase have been lifted from the sources and leads me to suspect that the issue of close paraphrasing is more widespread than the two cases I've already identified. This would not be concerning if the sources were out of copyright but the sources for both my examples above and the sentence using "lanthorn" are modern.
The claim in the lead that the practice was "popular" is not supported by the sources. DrKiernan (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So basically, you're accusing me of plagiarising material. Go and fuck yourself. And fuck anyone else who agrees, I don't give hours of my time to have to face revolting accusations like this. Parrot of Doom 13:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, there's no need for that -- I strongly suggest you redact it now. Evidently you were not so upset by DrK's examples of close paraphrasing as by his suggestion that it might be more widespread. If you found his wording harsh, you can say so in other ways. I haven't seen this sort of response when I've pointed out similar things in articles and also suggested the writers review for other occurrences. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done to you both, nice work. Since when has it been permissible to extrapolate from the fact that a nominator chooses to employ an archaic word used in the source to suggest that plagiarism must therefore be widespread in the article? I find that exceedingly disagreeable and not a little dishonest, as I do your support of DrKiernan's outrageous accusation. If there's any "redaction" required it's from you two jokers. Malleus Fatuorum 14:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated [15] my comments were minor points only. I pointed out that two out of five footnotes examined were closely paraphrased, but also implied that this was minor (by saying "minor comments") and stated directly that no action need be taken on them at this article ("should watch for close paraphrasing in future"). The comments would have passed unnoticed if Parrot of Doom had either ignored them or addressed them. Instead he chose to be rude and dismissive, and admitted "close paraphrasing can be unavoidable", even though I demonstrated above that it was easy to avoid it. As I've already pointed out my concerns are easily addressed by changing half a dozen words. Given the trivial nature of my comments, I suspect that Parrot of Doom's disenchantment stems from other causes. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not party to what has triggered Parrot of Doom's reaction other than what I've read here. He certainly has a slight tendency towards colourful phrasing that I'd be reluctant to employ, and a love for using the same archaic words such as "wherefrom" and "lanthorn" that the sources do, but I think it's going too far to suggest that as prima facie evidence of widespread plagiarism, so I can understand why he would be upset. If I had access to the sources I would offer to take over this nomination, but although I can get hold of some I don't have access to Richardson. So we'll just have to let the nomination wither away quietly now I suppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we'll see. That PoD feels frustrated is clear enough but there's a difference between questions of close paraphrasing and wild accusations of rampant plagiarism. I don't blame PoD for wanting to be treated with respect for the hard work he's put into this; the reviewers are just as entitled to respect for the effort they put in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition could be reversed if the points I raised on the lead wording were addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've been bold and attempted to address your comments. And I'll attempt to address DrKiernan's as well later, assuming total war hasn't erupted by then. Malleus Fatuorum 13:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The points I raised about making the lead more accessible to general readers have now been addressed and I no longer oppose its promotion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to "lanthorn", the source (Richardson) says: "The bulk of the work was done at night, using wooden shovels where noiselessness was crucial, and a 'dark lanthorn' - a device commonly used by burglars: designed to shed light where necessary, but not attract attention". I don't think "lantern" has quite the same meaning.Graham Colm (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A dark lantern is a specific type of lantern: it has a flap with which the light can be obscured. DrKiernan (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A reliable source (the OED) agrees: "Dark-lantern". 1650. A lantern with an arrangement by which the light can be concealed" So why not use dark-lantern in the article and define it within emdashes. "Lantern" alone, does not convey the full meaning. Graham Colm (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. Or any similar solution. DrKiernan (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be accurate to say that reviewers have achieved a consensus on solutions to these recent objections? Graham Colm (talk) 20:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly happy with what's been done. I don't think there's any doubt that the accessibility of the article for the general reader has been improved. Malleus Fatuorum 20:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems we got there in the end -- thank you all. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 19 April 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 10:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Japanese battleship Fusō

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dank, Sturmvogel 66

Yes, another article covering Fusō. In the Construction and service section, this one focuses on what happened to the ship; the article on the two-ship class is also currently was recently at FAC, and hopefully that will make reviewing easier for the reviewers who have already been through the material, at FAC and elsewhere. Let us know if you'd like more or less detail, please. We essentially rewrote the previous article and recently got it promoted as a Good Article. - Dank (push to talk) 01:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WikiCup nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Done, sorry you had to point out "DC" twice. - Dank (push to talk) 00:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --John (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John. - Dank (push to talk) 00:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, I'm used to more commentary from you -- does this represent a comprehensive review and support across all the FAC criteria? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a short but seemingly complete article. The sourcing looks good (though I haven't done any spot-checks) and as always I've focused on prose, which looks fine. Hope that makes more sense. --John (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, just wanted to confirm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Fusō was modernized in two stages, in 1930–35 and in 1937–41, - I think the first "in" should be changed to during to prevent repetition of in.
    • How about this? "Fusō was modernized in 1930–35 and again in 1937–41" - Dank (push to talk)
Propulsion
  • During her trials, Fusō reached a top speed of 24.7 knots (45.7 km/h; 28.4 mph) from 76,889 shp (57,336 kW).[1] - Because of the placement of this sentence, it is unclear which trials you are referring to.
Armanent
  • −5/+30 degrees - Is this a military custom, or do you mean to suggest the range is between -5 and 30, in which case an endash should be used here?
World War II
  • Fusō, captained by Obata Chozaemon, and the rest of the 2nd Battleship Division set sail on 28 May 1942 with the Aleutian Support Group at the same time that most of the Imperial Fleet began an attack on Midway Island (Operation MI).[33][34 - Just a niggling concern. Captained by Obata Chozaemon slightly interrupts the flow of the sentence, and I think it might read better in parentheses. However this is just my personal preference, and by no means is it a deal breaker. :)
  • and provided cover for the abortive attempts to reinforce Biak Island at the end of the month. - It cannot really provide cover for the attempts, just the fleeing ships, right?
    • Changed to "for the convoy that failed to ..."
Surigao Strait
  • One or two torpedoes, possibly fired by the destroyer Melvin, hit Fusō amidships - Might be nice to put in a footnote clarifying what "amidships" actually means.
  • Fusō sank between 03:38 and 03:50 - UTC or local time?
    • I don't see why we would switch to UTC this late in the article. Historical narrative on Wikipedia generally gives local time. - Dank (push to talk)
References
  • Jentschura, Hansgeorg; Jung, Dieter; Mickel, Peter (1977). Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869–1945. Annapolis, Maryland: United States Naval Institute. ISBN ISBN 0-87021-893-X Check |isbn= value (help). - The isbn value is screwed up for this source.

Support - Seems there in my opinion, in terms of references and prose. Awesome work. ceranthor 18:08, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All my comments have been (summarily) addressed. ceranthor 02:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review: all images are freely licensed or in the public domain. There is a map published by the US government (PD), a drawing published under GNU/CC-by-SA 3.0, and three images of the ship are in the public domain under the old Japanese copyright system (all images taken before 1946 and/or published before 1956 = PD) and in the US (based on Wikipedia_talk:Non-U.S._copyrights#Japan; additionally the images would not have received more copyright protection under the URAA, and it's very unlikely that the individual photos' copyright would have been registered and renewed in the US Copyright Office). The latter do need US public domain tags to satisfy Commons' dual-licensing requirement, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:37, 15 April 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 10:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Kosta Pećanac

[edit]
Nominator(s): PRODUCER (talk) and Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because it successfully went through MILHIST A class review in January 2013 and has been incrementally improved since then. Pećanac was a Serbian Chetnik vojvoda who fought in four wars, but came unstuck when he began collaborating with the German occupation forces during the internecine guerilla warfare that dominated Yugoslavia during World War II. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kosta Vojinović is a red link in the lead section, but Special:WhatLinksHere/Kosta Vojinović nothing else links there. Maybe that's a sufficient indicator that perhaps he's not lead section material? I see now that Toplica insurrection links to Kosta Vojnović. OTOH, that's ambiguous because Konstantin Vojnović was also referred to that way. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've dab'd this one as (soldier) here and in the uprising article. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks

Comments supportI will start reviewing this article, here my first comments. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The German Wiki states date of death (see de:Kosta Pećanac claiming 25 May 1944). Could you check into this?
    • There was no reference added to support that when the date was edited in. [18] I looked into it and could find anything to support 25 May 1944.
  • suggest you convert all ten digit ISBNs to 13 digit per WP:ISBN.
    • Done.
  • the image in infobox could use alt text

Comments –

  • World War II: "With the formation of the communist Yugoslav Partisans, Pecanac gave up attempts at becoming a resistance force...". Pecanac himself wasn't going to be a resistance force; his group was. That needs a bit of rewriting.
  • "who were legalized in November 1941. In November 1941...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to the next.
  • "and his continuing collaboration ruined what remained of the reputation he had developed in the Balkans Wars and World War I." "Balkans" → "Balkan"? That's the phrasing the lead uses. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- nearly there but you have dablink for Čelopek and I'm not sure which one is correct. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solved. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 16:51, 18 April 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, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Zaian War

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am renominating this article after its previous FAC was closed due to lack of participation (with no opposes). You can find the previous nomination here. I tend to be quite busy during the week but will try to answer any queries as soon as possible, at the weekend if necessary, so please bear with me. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 11:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, as previously. - Dank (push to talk) 16:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally an enemy of the French following their deposing ... - I'd say "Naturally" is redundant here. It also threw me - it took me a couple of reads to take the sentence in.
Removed - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the "most powerful religious personality of the south east". - the quotation marks are jarring to read - re-write without the quote marks.
I think I prefer to leave the quote in here as it is directly attributed to de Segonzac in the same sentence - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see your point and that is a good reason. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
doing so would "finish him off definitively" and cut the Zaian off from support of other tribes - re-write without the quote marks.
Again because I have directly attributed this in the same sentence I prefer to leave the quote - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
as preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After suffering some sniping attacks in Teguet, - Maybe "After suffering some casualties from sniping attacks in Teguet," or "After enduring/withstanding some sniping attacks in Teguet," (suffering attacks sounds weird)
Replaced with "endured" - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The columns suffered repeated, strong attacks by Zaian tribesmen that day - as preceding...
Replaced with "experienced" - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
owing to their "extraordinary stubbornness and tenacity" - re-write without the quote marks.
Removed quote - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
stating that the "fate of Morocco will be determined in Lorraine". - re-write without the quote marks.
Once more I prefer to leave the quote here as it is a direct statement from the French government of the time and is attributed - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
''Henrys determined to "strike hard and fast" to prevent the "Laverdure disaster" j - re-write without the quote marks (x2)
Removed quotes - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He imposed a "war penalty" - I don't think this needs quotation marks
Removed - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
without risking "an extremely painful mountain war" - here "painful" is quite a vivid adjective not really captured by another word, I'd reword this to "without risking "an extremely painful" mountain conflict '" - or somesuch.
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lyautey returned to his former position in Morocco at the end of May and immediately decided on a new strategy, concentrating his forces in the Moulouya Valley, convinced that the submission of the tribes in this area would lead to the collapse of the Zaian resistance - long sentence - split please
Split sentence - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
to have "almost annihilated" his foe re-write without the quote marks...."have nearly wiped out his foe??
Reworded - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking fairly good and from what I can make out, on target for prose and comprehensiveness requirements. I did wonder whether a further sentence at the bottom on their being peace until independence (if this is the case) was warranted, thus settling the place of the conflict in Moroccan history? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and edits, I have edited the article and commented above. With regards to the three quotes that I left I believe they are warranted but am open to further discussion on the matter. I will have a look at the sources to see if I can find something about peace in the area. I believe Morocco as a whole was fairly peaceful until the riots during the campaign for independence in the 50s but it is possible that there was some local trouble in the Atlas mountains - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a little to the end about continued resistance to French rule culminating in independence - Dumelow (talk) 09:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good - I think that last tiny bit really cements it in Morocco's timeline for the reader, and really works well to give the article a conclusion. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • Can we get a map that shows where Taza and Khenifra are in Morocco, as well as the Middle Atlas?
I will have a look round and see if I can find something on commons later today or else create something - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a map that shows almost all the locations mentioned in the article and replaced the map in the infobox - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date ranges in captions, etc., require a ndash.
I got the one in the caption, I think the others have already been done (I can't tell the difference between a hyphen and an n-dash myself but a ctrl-f search shows no hyphens in date ranges for me now) - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The license of File:Sureda glaoui painting.jpg needs to be filled out properly
Think I got the missing parameters - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images appropriately licensed.
  • Lyautey overlinked
I could only find three links to Lyautey (in the lede, main body and infobox), have I missed one? - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's linked in the lede, I don't link it in the main body, but maybe that's just me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should there be a plural s here? markets were closed to the Zaian. This is a recurring problem, or is there something that I'm missing about this?
You would be correct. I think I must have assumed that it didn't pluralise but a check of the sources reveals it does, I have fixed this - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Henri Gouraud, I have tried to clarfiy this in the article. Thanks for your review - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything has been resolved to my satisfaction.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support. This is really excellent. It's beautifully written, engaging, thoughtfully illustrated, and well researched. Clearly a lot of effort has gone into this. I made a few very minor copy-edits, but the article clearly deserves its star. I had just a couple of queries:

  • Any idea why the remaining forces were ordered to withdraw to coastal enclaves rather than just remaining where they were or joining the rest on the Western Front?
They were more easily defensible, I have added this to the sentence - Dumelow (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20 battalions of legionnaires (mainly German and Austrian)? It seems odd that German and Austrian nationals would be serving in French forces while their nations were at war with France
Germans historically made up a significant portion of the foreign legion - it was around 34% German in 1904. Though this had dropped to 16% by the start of the war (and to 12% for 1914-18) the French were left with a significant component of their best light infantry unit who might be reluctant to fight against the country of their birth. The French government did not expect their German and Austrian soldiers to fight on the western front and so they were kept in the colonies, mostly North Africa (though German and Austrian soldiers who had earnt naturalisation through long service or were Français par le sang versé (by spilled blood) did fight against their former countries). As a result the legion forces for much of the Zaian war had a majority German/Austrian presence. I have added a footnote that tries to clarify this - Dumelow (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I have commented above and will try to get around to your image queries later or maybe on Saturday, cheers - Dumelow (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that clarifies things. The footnote about the Germans and Austrians is particularly interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images are fine (queries below are resolved)
    • File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-00721, Marokko, Fremdenlegion.jpg: I'd be somehwhat sceptical that the German Federal Archives would own a photo of the French Foreign Legion, especially if they don't know who the author is. It's likely that the author of a photo taken in 1920 has been deceased for 70+ years and the copyright would have expired, but Commons is inconsistent on that, and the prevailing opinion seems to be that we can only make this assumption when the image is >100 years old.
I was under the impression that the German Federal Archives had checked they owned the license to each image before releasing them? I would think that if they cannot identify the author then no-one else can, as they are unable to ascertain to do so by reasonable means they would be able to claim Template:Anonymous-EU, I think. [I know very little about image copyrights so might well be wrong] - Dumelow (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I asked about this on Commons and apparently the Archives acquired the estate of the original copyright holder, which would indeed give them the ability to release it as CC-By-SA. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent news, thanks for looking into that HJ - Dumelow (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No idea I'm afraid. The author is not identified in the original publication and I haven't been able to find them by searching the net - Dumelow (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • More information on File:German POWs in morocco WWI.jpg would be nice so its copyright status outside the US can be properly evaluated, but again, it's locally uploaded and PD in the US, so it's fine for enwiki's purposes.
According to the source page it was printed by the Schmitt brothers. I searched about a bit and they seem to be Philippe and George Schmitt who had a postcard business in Rabat at this time. I could find no birth/death dates or, indeed, proof that they took every photo themselves so cannot prove it is PD enough for commons - Dumelow (talk) 07:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Switched the one cite template to citation and standardised to "Frank Cass", cheers - Dumelow (talk) 16:25, 14 April 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, 19 April 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Song of Innocence

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is written well enough and comprehensive enough on the topic to be promoted. Dan56 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk
  • Oppose I can't support yet on prose. One beautiful example: "Song of Innocence was one of many concept albums recorded as rock music was developing in various directions during the late 1960s, following in the wake of the Beatles' 1967 album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Is that a good sentence? Is it brilliant prose? Also, what does "however" mean here: "It received exposure on both AM and FM radio stations, who played songs such as the title track and "Holy Thursday", which became the album's best-known song. However, the album was not a commercial success, and by October 1969, had only sold 75,000 copies."? There are more, and probably others I haven't seen yet. --John (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, It may have some errors, as John says, but those can be easily polished in a matter of minutes. Beyond that, it's a fairly comprehensive article which has all the relevant. It deserves rank of a featured article. Best regards, Chrishonduras (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "was one of many concept albums..." line was a recommended revision by Crisco 1492 from a previous version here, which was slightly rearranged. "However" is used because promotion and sales usually have a direct relationship. Here, it didn't sell well in spite of this. Dan56 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found these after a quick search for "direct relationship" and "promotion": [21], [22]. Although I assumed this to be a common belief: more promotion = more sales. Is "however" really this argumentative? It seems like the prose wouldn't flow as well without the conjunctive to connect the two ideas. Otherwise, why would the radio bit be followed by the line about the album not being a commercial success? Dan56 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, conjunctive adverb. But WP:EDITORIAL says that words such as however "may imply a relationship between two statements where none exists". There's a relationship between marketing and commercial performance. Dan56 (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're not getting this, are you? For it to appear on this article, we would need a source making the connection in relation to the subject of this article. For you to bring together stuff about Song of Innocence and other stuff and put them together like this is classic synthesis and out-and-out isn't permitted. At this point we aren't talking about Featured Article status any more but about a fundamental tenet of editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - all OK

Source review - spotchecks not done

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, 15 April 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Doom Bar

[edit]
Nominator(s): WormTT(talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is interesting, well written and meets all the Featured article criteria. The Doom Bar is a bank of sand in Cornwall, responsible for many shipwrecks due to the difficulty of navigating it. There aren't a lot of harbours on the north coast of Cornwall, a lot of ships tried to get past to the nearby harbour of Padstow during poor weather. I've been playing round with this article for 4 years, and I've always been a little apprehensive about nominating it here, primarily because I'm so unfamiliar with the process. Go easy on me, please! WormTT(talk) 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

  • "has also given its name to the flagship bitter beer from Sharp's Brewery": "bitter beer" isn't a natural phrase, though I understand that "bitter", even linked, is going to baffle most non-British readers. How about "flagship ale" instead?
    Done. I'm still linking through to bitter (beer) though, as I'd have though the pale ale article deals more with international ales WormTT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; I agree on the link. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest cropping the infobox picture -- there's more grass and sky than is needed. It's fine width-wise.
    Now looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this, because of the changes in size and position over the years, but is it possible to give any dimensions? Approximate length of the visible spit, for example? It wasn't until I clicked through on the low tide picture and realized that the tiny dots were people that I understood the size of the bar.
    I've managed to use maps to estimate the size, though noting the fact that it is dynamic. I'm still looking at possibilities of a map, but that should at least help. WormTT(talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The only warship reported wrecked on the Doom Bar was HMS Whiting. She was a 12-gun schooner, originally Arrow, a cargo ship which travelled from the United States to France, until she was captured by the Royal Navy on 8 May 1812 and renamed." How about: "The only warship reported wrecked on the Doom Bar was HMS Whiting, a 12-gun schooner. The Whiting was originally a cargo ship named Arrow which travelled from the United States to France; she was captured by the Royal Navy on 8 May 1812 and renamed." Done
  • "owing to the sheer number of ships that have been wrecked there": I'm not sure "sheer" does what you want it to here. How about something more direct, such as "large" or "great"; or even "because so many ships had been wrecked there"? Done
  • For a couple of the pictures perhaps you could identify the point from which the photo was taken? I'm particularly thinking of the low tide picture, which if I understand the local topography was taken from around Stepper Point. Also, you mention Daymer Bay in a caption but not elsewhere -- would a more detailed area map be useful? I poked around on Google Maps and was eventually able to figure out what corresponded to what, but it took me five or ten minutes, so I do think more detail would help. The infobox map doesn't go down to fine enough detail to really locate the bar. Perhaps a map showing Padstow near the bottom, and Polzeath and the cape north of it at the top, with Daymer Bay, Stepper Point, and the bar, all marked? Or else add Daymer Bay to the 1825/2010 map?
    I quite like the idea of a good map, and will have a look at ways to do this. WormTT(talk) 12:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Combined with the capstans, the bollards and the mooring rings, the Doom Bar posed much less of a risk." Needs to be rephrased; the Doom Bar wasn't combined with the capstans.
    Done, but would appreciate it if you could have another look WormTT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I tweaked it a little. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and to reduce the number of ships wrecked". Probably better to say that the dredging was intended to reduce the risk, not the number. Done
  • I'm guessing here, but is it the case that the intention of the dredging was to create the neat straight channel that appears in the 2010 map? That might be implied by the comments about two channels appearing by the 1930s, and the original channel disappearing. If so, can we say that?
    From my reading, the primary intention of the dredging was for collection of sand and to this day the sand is removed for fertilizer. I believe that it was also manipulated for the secondary purpose of created the new channel, but I haven't found any sources which confirm it. I'd appreciate any thoughts as to how it could be reworded without becoming original research. WormTT(talk) 12:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how to avoid OR here, so I'll strike my comment. It's a pity because I think it's likely it was intentional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In other versions of the tale, the mermaid would sing upon the rocks and a youth shot at her with a crossbow, or a greedy man shot her with a longbow." I think the tenses need to be consistent here: you have "would sing", but the unconditional "shot". "Sings", and "shoots" would work. Done
  • "Illustration of Tristam Bird when he first met the Mermaid of Padstow": no real need to say it's an illustration; plus I think it would be good to reference Tregarthen in the caption. How about "Tristam Bird and the Mermaid of Padstow, from Enys Tregarthen's North Cornwall Fairies and Legends"? Done
  • Is the poem The Coastguard really notable enough to include?
  • I think there's a little too much about the beer -- it's certainly worth mentioning, but details such as the countries it's exported to, and the years it was a finalist for an award it didn't win, are probably more than is needed. The reader can follow the links to find out those details if they're interested.
    Done have dropped those two points.
    I removed one more sentence; hope that's OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any particular reason for citing the soil quality on Bodmin Moor as a note rather than a direct citation? It doesn't seem relevant enough to the article to use that format; one of the values of the separate note system is that the reader knows that lettered notes are likely to have interesting text, whereas the numbered notes are simply sources. In this case there's nothing relevant to the article topic in the note.
    Done Most of the dredged sand was used locally, and one thing I'd been trying to pinpoint is where. However, I've never found a source that I was particularly happy with to confirm, and the note was the solution that I'd come up with over time (other solutions were too close to OR or synthesis). I think the real answer is to remove it all together WormTT(talk) 11:41, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; I agree it would be nice to know where the sand was used, if you ever come across that information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd drop the external link to the beer -- that link belongs on the Sharp's Brewery page. Done
  • I was surprised to see no separate list of referenced sources. I don't think this is a formal requirement of criterion 1c, but it's certainly a useful feature for the reader.
    This is something I've been struggling with a lot, the sources are varied and so rarely used more than once, Diannaa recommended this format for them. I'm happy to go with whatever's best though. WormTT(talk) 13:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's not a requirement, so I won't be opposing on that basis, but I find it useful, as a reader. I tend to include books and journals in the reference list, but not webpages, newspapers or magazines. Not a FAC issue, anyway, so I've struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you so much for the suggestions. I'll go through them as soon as I can. WormTT(talk) 12:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I struck a couple more, and have switched to support. Nice job on this article; lots of detail on a subject that can't have been easy to research. The three remaining points are really just suggestions, so I'm happy to support; however, I do think it would be good, at a minimum, to label Daymer Bay on the 1825/2010 map, if you don't come up with another local map you like. I can probably add that label for you if you don't have the tools to do it. There's an editor with access to a maps database who does very good quality maps on request; I'll try and remember his name -- he might be willing to do a local map. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little slow on images, so if there's someone who's good at it, I'm sure I'd appreciate the help. I think a map would be a really good idea, as it would be able to show the scale as well as key areas mentioned in the article. I will certainly get one on there, sooner or later. Thanks so much for the comments, I really do appreciate them. WormTT(talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J3Mrs

[edit]
  • Comment Interesting article about somewhere I know well. I learned a lot but is it necessary to use the words Doom Bar so frequently? I think we know it's about the Doom Bar and four times in one four-line paragraph is way too many. I counted more than 30, some of which are essential but it makes the prose repetitive and prevents it flowing.J3Mrs (talk) 12:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it that much? I'll see if I can trim. WormTT(talk) 12:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed about a dozen. As you say, a fair few are essential - do you think more should be removed to help flow? WormTT(talk) 13:02, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having looked more closely I think it needs a good copyedit. Just a couple of examples that grate from the lead.
  • ...and the gusting winds over the surrounding cliffs. and the winds gusting over the cliffs (The Doom Bar isn't surrounded)
  • There have been numerous shipwrecks there through the centuries. Awkward There.....there
  • There are records of the sand in the bar Records show that sand from the bar....?
    I've fixed all three mentioned above and would be happy to tweak further if you have any suggestions. The article's been copyeditted by a number of editors, it's certainly beyond my personal ability, but if you know of someone who might be able to help out I'd be happy to ask them. WormTT(talk) 11:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of copyediting the lead, please undo anything you disagree with. If it's ok I could do a bit more. I now want to clarify whether "and many more ships have risked being wrecked on the coast rather than negotiate the entrance to the harbor" should be "negotiate the channel leading to the harbor".J3Mrs (talk) 13:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another query, you say in the lead it was formed in the 16th century ansd subsequently "It is unclear exactly when the bar formed, but the nearby port of Padstow was prosperous in Saxon times." So which is it and is Saxon Padstow relevant? J3Mrs (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do, I appreciate it. My qualifications are in mathematics... it's surprising I can string a sentence together, let alone an article! You are right, it should be the channel they are negotiating, not the entrance. The only source I have for it being formed in the 16th century is Dickens (and as Smalljim says below, he's not known to be a historian) - The Saxon Padstow comment was to show that it hasn't been there for a significant period in "geological" terms, but it's certainly been there for a few hundred years. It's quite possibly redundant and I'd have no problems with it being taken out. WormTT(talk) 13:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a useful reference here and yes I think you should ditch the Saxon]] J3Mrs (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've ditched the Saxon, and clarified the distance to Padstow. I've also fiddled a little bit more, to show that it was formed in one go (thanks for that source, I hadn't found anything that mentioned it like that) WormTT(talk) 11:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks (and sounds) very odd without the definite article in front of Doom Bar, feel free to disagree. J3Mrs (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to put it back, as I've always called it "the Doom Bar" myself. However, looking at the sources, only one refers to it with the definite article, the rest don't include it. I suppose it's like any other named geographical feature, you don't say "the Hawkers Cove", "the Stepper Point" or "the Land's End". WormTT(talk) 11:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Goodwin Sands, Motherbank, Nore and Varne Bank all use the definite article, others such as Dogger Bank don't. It seems to me that what sounds right is best but I'm no expert. I have walked to Stepper Point and I have walked to the Doom Bar. You would say the Camel Estuary though. J3Mrs (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've put it back. It didn't sound natural to me either and having looked further there are more sources which use "the Dunbar", and my offline sources include a definite article in some cases. Thanks for prodding me on that! WormTT(talk) 12:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ιων

[edit]

OpposeI disagree with making this article a featured article because it is smaller than I think it must be.--Ιων (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's response - This is not a valid rationale for opposing, and it will not be taken into consideration. Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Smalljim

[edit]

Hi WTT. Looks like a great piece of research to me. I too have little experience of FA: I've only attempted one other review so far, which wasn't very successful, so go easy on me too, please :)

I agree that a map showing the position of all the relevant geographical features is essential. I also agree that some copyediting is needed. Some of the bits that jumped out at me were:

  • In your nomination above you said "There aren't a lot of harbours on the north coast of Cornwall, a lot of ships tried to get past to the nearby harbour of Padstow during poor weather." This is an essential piece of background information explaining why the bar is so significant, yet it's not clearly stated in the article. A clear statement that Padstow is a couple of miles up the estuary is needed too (you mention "nearby" a couple of times).
    I'm working on getting a map of the area which will include a scale and should provide a bit more context, but will make sure I add this information into the text. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if it was a conscious decision, but you use sand bar and sand bank, whereas shoal has these as single words. Also, the lead uses sand bank four times, but the first sentence of the first section says sand bar. Although they're synonyms, I think these uses, at least, should be the same.
    I've used sandbar in the lead for sandbank, which should give this consistency. WormTT(talk) 11:55, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, 1st para: "it represented a significant hazard" - "it was a..." is shorter and just as good. Fixed by J3Mrs's edit.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead, 2nd para: "Modern dredging" - it's not clear whether this means recent dredging or dredging using modern methods. Fixed by J3Mrs's edit.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st section, 1st para: "sand from the Celtic Sea" - this is a bit vague, isn't it sand transported by longshore drift?
    I was under the impression that longshore drift was the name for the process of sand moving along a coast, rather into a coast from the sea. My reading suggested that Doom Bar included sand from the Celtic Sea bed. I will double check my sources.WormTT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that estuary sandbars were created as a result of longshore drift, rather than being dragged up somehow from the seabed, but the processes are certainly complex and I'm not sure how much info is available about this estuary, as opposed to generic detail. I need to look into this further too.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The CISCAG pdf says that although the source of the sand "is not described within the literature", it's likely that most of it comes from "offshore sources" (p.31), so you were (probably) right, though maybe the uncertainty ought to be expressed. Where did the Celtic Sea mention come from - not the Journal of Fluid Mechanics ref?  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the journal ref was generic about how sandbars form, though as I've said below I haven't read it in a while. The Celtic Sea reference was from my understanding, it can be removed certainly. I'll have a look at re-writing it to include the new source. WormTT(talk) 16:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the waves from the sea deposit sand" - do they? Aren't the waves on the surface and doesn't sand get deposited underwater when the current carrying it drops? See deposition (geology). Sorry - I withdraw this after properly reading the abstract of ref 1. This is also obviously a complex process, not warranting detailed discussion in this article.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scattering the sedimentary deposits" - to me "scattering" doesn't give the impression of accumulation.
    I considered "the scattered sedimentary deposits accumulate at the river mouth", but I'm not sure that gives the right impression either. Have you any thoughts to a better word? WormTT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the sediment held by the river whilst it is flowing along the channel is deposited..." - maybe "the sediment held in suspension by the river flow is deposited..." is a clearer wording. Done
  • Is wave shoaling an important factor worthy of a mention? It sounds like the reason for small boats capsizing. (OR alert!)
    You're almost certainly right, but I've seen no sources that mention wave shoaling and would think it best not to include it. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you're right - please ignore this.  —SMALLJIM  23:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st section, 2nd para: "in the 19th century, analysis showed..." might be more accurate as "a 19th-century analysis showed..." Done
  • I think the sentence starting "The high calcium levels..." would be better moved to become the penultimate sentence of the last para of this section, after "...agriculture in Devon and Cornwall" to keep together the two mentions of this use of the sand. Done
  • Same sentence: "combined with the natural sea salt" - I thought soil salinity was a bad thing.
    Not exactly. Excessive soil salinity is a bad thing, but sea salt has an alkalizing effect and is useful for fertilizing acidic soil. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st section, 3rd para: "It is unclear exactly when the bar formed" is rather at odds with "began to form ... during the reign of Henry VIII (1491-1547)". Henry's reign was actually 1509-1547 and that's a pretty narrow timeframe for a geomorphological process - if that Dickens ref is reliable: I'd have doubts about his accuracy as a historian.
    Based on new sources provided, I've removed the "unclear" when formed statement. WormTT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've fixed this to my satisfaction (hope you agree) by replacing the Dickens ref with the earlier Paris one on which the Dickens is pretty clearly based. Paris includes "according to tradition", which I've added as a nice compromise. I'll add the bit about the buried forest tomorrow.  —SMALLJIM  23:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1st section, 4th para: this is 'toponymy', not 'Composition and formation' - worth its own section if it could be expanded a bit? Also, a later source would be preferable to Polwhele: we know that antiquarians' theories weren't always accurate.
    I don't think there's much more that can be said about the toponomy, but I will have a look for further sources and see if I can replace Polwhele. Who knows, I might find some more to be said! WormTT(talk) 12:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As for Polwhele, there's also Borlase (1769) which confirms confirms both "dun" and "bar" along with The handbook of Cornish Language which confirms "bar". Not sure if either would be better than Polwhele WormTT(talk) 16:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at it now, the problem I see is that bar is an ordinary word with a Middle English derivation (see wikt:bar, etymology and use 22), and to attempt to give it a Cornish derivation in the absence of a source that specifically does this for its use in the compound word dunbar is too much like OR/synthesis. The same is true for dun, which Paris (1863) p.215, for instance, simply says is derived from dune. So I think we should follow the simpler derivation.  —SMALLJIM  22:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last sentence: it would be nice to know what's done with the sand nowadays.
    I don't have any firm sources, though I believe it's still used as fertilizer, especially on Bodmin moor. WormTT(talk) 13:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    In what sense is sand a fertilizer? Do you mean it's added to give the soil on Bodmin moor some additional body? Malleus Fatuorum 17:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's me being imprecise, the sand is an alkalizing agent and when mixed with manure, it makes an excellent fertilizer for Bodmin's acidic soil. The explanation is mentioned in the second paragraph of the composition section. WormTT(talk) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Having spent some time labouring over Chat Moss, where locally available marl was used for the same purpose, I thought that was what you meant; I was just being pedantic. I think this is a nice article and I'm leaning towards supporting its promotion, after I've had another good read through. Malleus Fatuorum 17:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping to 'Legend':

  • 4th section, 2nd para: "Betjeman, who lived in the area as a child" - he only holidayed here as a child. May be better as "... who was well-acquainted with the area". Done
  • 4th section, last para: "Williamson explained" - something like "declared" might be better. Done
  • "storms in the area supposedly sound like..." - is this what the source actually states? - it's usually said that such cries are heard while a storm is raging.
    The exact quote is in a quote box in that section, Enys Tregarthan specifically states it's after the storm, though I agree during would make much more sense. WormTT(talk) 12:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, there's this in the same book - "The wind was quiet, but the sea was still breaking and roaring on the back of the Doombar, and as the waves thundered and broke, a wailing cry sounded forth, like the wail that Tristram heard when the Mermaid disappeared under the water; it sounded like the distressful cry of a woman bewailing her dead, and all who heard shivered and shook, and both old and young looked down on the Doombar with dread in their eyes, but they saw nothing but the dead bodies of the sailors and their broken ships." - Again, no wind, no storm, just the wail. WormTT(talk) 12:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these are helpful - if you don't reject most of them, I've got some more for the other paras. Best,  —SMALLJIM  22:04, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • A new source? Not sure if you've seen this pdf from the Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly Coastal Advisory Group. On p. 36 there's a particularly interesting suggestion that the main channel moved to the east side of the estuary in 1929. There's also more detail about dredging on p. 39, and also a note that the flow of the R. Camel is very low and most of the small amount of sediment that it contributes is dropped higher up the estuary (p. 40). Other possibly relevant documents from CISCAG are listed here. HTH.  —SMALLJIM  23:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Helps? Helps? It's fantastic, thank you so much. I'll see what I can do for the rest of the article and get as much reading done as possible. WormTT(talk) 13:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've read that CISCAG pdf document again today, and remain convinced that its incorporation as a source would greatly benefit the article - particularly in correcting the generic detail presently in the 1st section about the means of sedimentation (refs 1 & 2) - it seems that there's very little suspended sediment and bedload is the most important process (p. 41 of the pdf); also regarding the source of the sand (see new comment above). Thanks for dealing with the other bullet points on the 1st & 4th sections - more soon...  —SMALLJIM  00:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Smalljim comments 2
[edit]

Regarding your request below for a suggested rewrite of the 1st para of the Composition and formation section, I'd rely much more on CISCAG (the refs here are to those on the page, not the pdf numbering), and weave something together around sentences like these:

The Doom Bar is a sandbar across the mouth of the Camel estuary on the north coast of Cornwall... The bar is mostly comprised of coarse sediment that is carried up from the seabed by bed load processes, and it has been shown that there is a net inflow of sediment into the estuary.<CISCAG 41-2> This inflow is known to be aided by wave and tidal processes, but the exact patterns of sediment transport within the estuary are complex and have not been fully elucidated.<CISCAG 41-2> ... There is only a very small sediment contribution from the River Camel itself: most of it is deposited much higher up the estuary.<CISCAG 40>
...
The Doom Bar is one of three persistent sandbars in the Camel estuary; the others are the Town Bar, at Padstow and the Halwyn Bank, just upstream of Padstow, where the estuary changes direction.<CISCAG 35> All three bars are of similar composition; a large proportion of their sediment is derived from marine mollusc shells,<CISCAG 39> and as a consequence it includes a high level of calcium carbonate, measured in 1982 at 62%.<Merefield abstract> ... The high calcium carbonate content of the sand has meant that it has been used for hundreds of years to improve agricultural soil by liming. This use is known to date back to 1602,<per lead but needs a ref> and an estimated ten million tons of sediment was removed from the estuary between 1836 and 1989, mostly for agricultural purposes and mostly from the Doom Bar.<CISCAG 39>

I'm still not happy about the use of that Dickens ref<it's on page 453> as the only source for the bar forming in the reign of Henry VIII: my feeling (totally unverified) is that it was then that the main channel may have moved from an easily-navigable easterly one like it is now, to the awkward cliff-hugging one on the west side. The estuary is known to be "dynamic" and I think that's far more likely than the whole thing coming up out of the sea in just a short time, which is what the current wording apparently claims. The wording of Lewis (1848) <current ref 4>: "Previously to the sixteenth century, the harbour was deemed one of the finest on the western coast of England; but from the accumulation of sand, the driving of which was so violent as, in the course of one night, to cover several houses on the coast, it became of less importance." isn't at odds with this interpretation.

In fact (just spotted this) the use of another interesting snippet that should be included - that there is a submerged forest beneath the Doom Bar [27] (see p.3) - favours a long existence for sandbars here since submerged forests don't survive if they're exposed. There are several such forests around the Cornwall coast and others have been dated to the time of the last major rise in sea level:

In the period from approximately 5000 to 2000 BC., Cornwall seems to have been surrounded by a coastal plain offshore from the present line of cliffs, with a shoreline probably in the form of a beach backed by a line of dunes. On this plain grew a luxuriant forest of oak, hazel, birch and alder. As the sea level continued to rise, this forest was submerged beneath the dunes and then covered in a protective layer of beach sand ... The most famous example ... is in Mount's Bay ... [others] are found in the Hayle Estuary, beneath the Doom Bar ..., Porthleven, ...

— Bristow, Cornwall's Geology and Scenery (1999) p.133. ISBN 1-900147-01-7

I know that what I suggested above about the channel moving is OR and can't be used, but I think some judicious rewording to the effect that there is evidence that the bar changed shape and/or increased in size in the early 16th century would be a better way of dealing with the available sources.

We also need to mention the move of the main channel to the east side that perhaps happened in 1929,<CISCAG 36> and I'd like to see something about the bar being the main source of the adjacent sand dunes, with a note that they are more extensive on the east side because of the prevailing SW winds.<CISCAG 42>

In the "Shipwrecks" section, it ought to be mentioned early on that it was the NW gales that presented the greatest danger, because of the topography.<Harbours of Refuge Report 1859 p. xiii> Also that bit about ships preferring to stay out at sea in a storm isn't a "report" as such, as far as I can see: it's a set of four replies made by just one witness (Hellyer) during the Select Committee evidence collection:<Harbours of Refuge Report 1859 p. 302> If that's right, then unless there's a better reference, I don't think it warrants mentioning in the lead, impressive though it sounds.

We still don't have anything in the article about why ships needed to get into Padstow in poor weather, per my very first bullet above.

Regarding referencing, since you have a number of references to different pages in the same books/pdfs, I think a change to some form of references/sources format would be beneficial - see Help:Shortened footnotes for instance.

A bit long, sorry - hope it (still) helps.  —SMALLJIM  12:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Antoinette: I've just discovered that the large piece of the wreck that was exploded with gelignite by Pope and which reappeared in 2010 lies on the Town Bar, right opposite Padstow. See text and map, pp.11 & 12 here. I don't want to have to say this, but I'm being forced to think that this article isn't as close to FA standard as it first appeared.  —SMALLJIM  17:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need to double check the sources, but I've seen 2 to 3 which state that Antoinette was the largest ship to ever wreck on Doom Bar. It might well be that part of the ship drifted after wrecking and was destroyed at Town Bar - which would make a lot more sense with the blowing in the windows. I'll find out. WormTT(talk) 17:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly looks like the wreck happened on Doom Bar, after ship foundered at Lundy. The ship broke up and the largest portion ended up on Town Bar. French (pg 176) "Broke Tow in gale off Pentire and beached on Doom Bar ... Wreck split up; large bit travelled to Town bar. Blown up by a miner Pope. Blew out windows in Padstow houses" It's also got a clipping from the Royal Cornwall Gazette on 2 Jan 1895, which explains that Antoinette was sighted without a mast offshore from Padstow. A steam tug Princess May took them in tow, but as they entered the harbour a severe NW squall struck and the tow rope had to be released. The barque then struck the Doom Bar and became a total wreck. One crewmember suffered a broken leg. There's another clipping from 12 Sept 1895 describing the costly efforts made to blow up the large piece of wreck on the Town Bar. I'll update the article to reflect this in the morning. WormTT(talk) 21:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dave. I'm sorry that I was a bit tetchy there, but after spending several hours on the first set of comments today, I was disappointed to find such a glaring error as soon as I started looking at this new section. I suppose it puts the real value of all these reviews (GA, peer, pre-FA) into perspective: reviewers seem to be happy to suggest improvements to the grammar, punctuation, referencing, etc., but evidently assume that there are no major errors of fact. :(  —SMALLJIM  22:27, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite alright, you've done a fantastic job helping out here and I'll just be pleased that the article is in a much better position, even if it's not successful. I've not been able to dedicate as much time as I'd have liked to either, since every time I sit down to look at it something else comes up, it's absolutely infuriating. If it's not successful, I'll be leaving it until the end of my term as an arbitrator, I've got no chance of doing the two in conjunction. WormTT(talk) 22:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're understandably busy, Dave, I've corrected the fate of the Antoinette. Would you mind if I made further edits to implement some of my other comments?  —SMALLJIM  11:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mind? My god no! For one thing, you've got a lot more understanding of the geographical parts, which every time I try and get my head around something comes in from left field. Please do anything you feel would improve the article, I'd really appreciate it. WormTT(talk) 11:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK will do. It was right to ask, though, I think. As an admitted novice FAC reviewer, the whole process strongly suggests to me that it's a breach of etiquette to start substantively editing someone else's FAC article without asking, or being asked. I don't think I've seen that actually written down, but that is the case, isn't it - anyone?  —SMALLJIM  15:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A BOLD reorganisation
[edit]

I see that after I added a lot of content about Stepper Point etc. to the "Partial removal" section, that header was no longer very accurate. Sorry! I've made a few bold changes: I've renamed that section to "Danger to shipping" and moved it above "Shipwrecks". With some jiggling, I think that's given a better flow to the article, and enabled the removal of some redundancy - particularly the eddying winds, which were discussed in three separate places. I've rewritten the lead too to match the revised text. Please revert if you think this is a step too far.  —SMALLJIM  17:13, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedits, J3Mrs and Malleus. I'll take them as tacit approval of these changes.  —SMALLJIM  10:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly looks good to me! WormTT(talk) 07:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn

[edit]

Great to see you finally bringing something FACwards; looks like a really interesting topic. I'll take a look through now.

  • I realise that this is perhaps a difficult question, but my immediate question about the formation is how long it is. Is this a question that can be coherently asked?
  • "In 1879, four of his grand-daughters along with their friend, were rowing on the Doom Bar and saw a craft go down." Commas aren't right here.Done
  • "In May 2010, ProMare and the Nautical Archaeology Society, with the help of Padstow Primary School, mounted a search to find the ship." What's ProMare? And did they manage to find it? Done
  • "The largest ship wrecked on the Doom Bar is believed to be the 1874 barque, Antoinette." Either lose the comma, or rephrase to "Antoinette, an 1874 barque". Done
  • "Without the removal of the sand, such ships could only use the harbour in emergencies at high tide." Ambiguous. Does this mean that during high tide, the harbour could be used only in emergencies, or does it mean that the harbour could only be used at all when it is a high tide and there is an emergency?
    I've clarified - "Without the removal of the sand, ships in distress could only use the harbour at high tide." WormTT(talk) 11:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some ambiguity on how you used initials; "Commander H E Turner" vs. "J.R. Merefield", for instance. I'm also not keen on "Sir Henry".
    I was always taught that a knighthood modified a first name, whilst a lordship modified the surname. No matter though, I've updated the name to "De la Beche". WormTT(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ballad of Pentyre Town" and "The Doom-Bar" - Are these poems? If so, "Speech Marks". Italics are reserved for longer works. Done(Also, perhaps quote the relevant section of the poems/a poem in a quotebox? That would perhaps add something to the article.)
  • "Arthur Hansen Bush" Worth a redlink? The play itself sounds notable, too.
    I've redlink'd Bush, as I had when I first wrote that section. The play though, I've never found anything that it's notable except these stories of a curse. WormTT(talk) 20:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "America's actors' union" Do we have a link to this organisation?
    The source says unions plural (fixed). I'm guessing one is Equity, but I don't know for sure. WormTT(talk) 21:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You currently have a cite error. Done

Hope these thoughts are helpful! I'll take another look through the article once you've seen this initial review. J Milburn (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot the comments J Milburn. The question of size is something I'm currently working on, I should be able to get a decent map up by the weekend for scale. I've not seen sources which actually measure it though. I'll hopefully address these issues within the next day or so. WormTT(talk) 09:49, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now given an approximate size WormTT(talk) 15:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments from HJ Mitchell

[edit]

Hi Dave, glad to see this finally made its way here! You've got some good comments on content so far, so I won't do a detailed review right now, but I have a concern about verifiability. I see your point about Harvard-derived referencing systems not being suitable in this case, but you lack page numbers for many of the footnotes, which makes them difficult to check. For example, FN1 cites a 33-page journal article; I have no idea where in the source I can find the fact from the article. The same problem exists in several other footnotes, like 2, 4, 7, 13, and that's just the first column. Most of these are only cited once, so the format like FN14 should work. (This version, to avoid any confusion). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Harry, and Nikki above. I'll be trying to get it sorted as soon as possible. As you know things are fairly hectic on Arbcom at the moment which is really slowing me down. WormTT(talk) 20:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, I've been looking for ways to sort this, but I'm struggling. My other half graduated last year, so I no longer have access to her university library. That means that I'm struggling with exact pages for the bits of information. I also have the issue I mentioned to Nikkimaria above, the Brian French book has about 50 pages which are all relevant, so I'm not absolutely certain how to reference them. I'd appreciate any thoughts. WormTT(talk) 11:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate. The only thing I can suggest for the books you don't have access to is your local library (who might be able to get them via inter-library lone) or Amazon and eBay (WMUK might extend the microgrant if you ask nicely). As for the issue of page numbers, cite the page(s) on which the information can be found, or the most appropriate page(s) if there's a large chunk of pages on the same topic. I have a train to catch, but Nikki might have more advice, or I'll check back later in the week. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to all the books still, it's the journals I don't have access to. I'll do what I can. WormTT(talk) 08:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well that in some ways is easier. You just need to ping someone with access to the relevant journals. Perhaps try Andrew Gray at the British Library. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned above that the CISCAG document indicates that the two journal articles (Mei et al.) about sandbar formation probably don't accurately describe the situation in the Camel estuary: could they not simply be omitted? The details you included from the third one (Merefield) is covered in its abstract.  —SMALLJIM  20:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the CISCAG document could well replace the generic journals that was my plan to sort out the problems. I thought I wrote that, but obviously deleted it because I needed to look further. If you've got any suggestions about how the formation paragraph might be re-written, I'd be very interested. WormTT(talk) 12:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I'll reply in my section above.  —SMALLJIM  21:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]

File:Stepper Point Lithograph.jpg: the license given at the source is by-nc-sa, i.e. non-commercial only. That license is not acceptable at commons. Do you know the year of publication? It looks PD-Scan, PD-old or PD-1923 is more appropriate. I have added a US tag to File:Tristam Bird and Mermaid.jpg. All other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've a copy of the lithograph in the Brian French book, which states it is a "19th century print of Padstow showing Stepper Point before the bluff was quarried away". It was part Padstow Harbour Association's report for funding in 1827, so that would put it squarely in the PD-old range. It hadn't occurred to me to update the license on commons, I'll do that now. WormTT(talk) 18:30, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

[edit]
  • FN 3. OK.
  • FN 4. OK.
  • FN 5. and 6. The source does not actually seem to say that the bar formed in one night. It says some houses were covered over one night, but obviously that happened on land. (It also says Padstow lies "embosomed in a richly-cultivated vale", which struck me as a splendid turn of phrase!) Dickens says the harbour began to silt up in the reign of Henry VIII but not that it all happened overnight.
    You're right, of course. I was just pleased with actually seeing a source which tied it down and went overboard. I've updated, let me know if you have any issues. WormTT(talk) 18:53, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support: The way I'd handle it would be something like: "The port of Padstow, about 1 mile (1.6 km) upstream, was prosperous before the 16th century. The sands of the area are prone to sudden shifts—several houses were buried one night during a single powerful storm[ref]—leading to the formation of the Doom Bar during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–1547).[ref]" or "The port of Padstow, about 1 mile (1.6 km) upstream, was prosperous before the 16th century until the Doom Bar formed during the reign of Henry VIII (1509–1547).[ref] The sands of the area are prone to sudden shifts; several houses were buried one night during a single powerful storm.[ref]" DrKiernan (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've gone for the first one. Thanks for the suggestion, and the support. WormTT(talk) 20:03, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 9. OK.
  • FN 12. OK.
  • FN 17. OK.
  • FN 18. OK.
  • FN 21. OK.
  • FN 24. I recommend removing the clause "the most recent deaths were", since there may be others we don't know about or more in the future that we miss. "In February 1997, two fishermen.." is sufficient. Done
  • FN 25. OK.
  • FN 26. OK.
  • FN 47. Rather than "banned", which implies government action, "its members were banned from appearing in it" seems more in line with the source. Done DrKiernan (talk) 21:07, 27 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, 14 April 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

George Herriman

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a comprehensive, well-illustrated article about one of the core early American cartoonists, who has been a primary influence on some of the best-known American cartoonists. His story has a wide appeal, especially his success at keeping his racial background a secret until decades after his death; its revelation has coloured interpretation of his work in the decades since. It would be nice if the article could be TFA on 13 October 2013, which is the 100th anniversary of the debut of his signature work, Krazy Kat. Curly Turkey (gobble) 16:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

—Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To try and get this review moving, I've been looking at the prose in the early sections, and have a few quibbles:

Lead
  • By "high arts" do you mean Fine art? A piped link would help.
    • According to the article, "fine art" is primarily applied to the visual and performing arts today; Seldes came from a literary background,a s did many of his other prominent admirers (such as Cummings). "High arts" is being contrasted with popular or lowbrow arts here. I'm not sure if Highbrow is the appropriate link here. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to list seven influenced artists in the lead?
    • I know...I've cut McDonnell, but it's hard to choose from the rest. Each of those left on the list are really the cream of the elite amongst cartoonists, cut from each decade of comics since Herriman; and they each claim KK not as an influence, but as a primary influence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
  • In the second sentence, the comma after "Creole mulattoes" affects the meaning. Is it all Creole mulattoes who "were considered free people of color[4] and were reportedly active in the early abolitionist movement", or just Herriman's line? If the latter, the comma should be shifted until after "people of color".
  • Are the ages of Herriman's parents at the time of his birth relevant?
  • "He graduated in 1897, and soon sold a sketch of the Hotel Petrolia in Santa Paula to the Los Angeles Herald." Unrelated facts should not be connected by an "and" in a single sentence. Suggest: "Soon after graduating in 1897, he sold a sketch of the Hotel Petrolia in Santa Paula to the Los Angeles Herald."
Early career in New York
  • "sneaked aboard" - not really encyclopedic? Sounds slangy in British English but maybe OK over there.
  • "Herriman appeared in the November 1902 issue of the literary magazine The Bookman and wrote of his profession self-deprecatingly..." Verbose: "In the November 1902 issue of the literary magazine The Bookman Herriman wrote of his profession self-deprecatingly..."
  • "Another of Herriman's obsessive characters, the Major, traveled the world..." Delete the second comma.

Haven't got any further yet, but will try to give it more attention soon. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. I was afraid people were overlooking this article, thinking it was the George Harrison one below (how can people neglect the greatest American cartoonist, like, ever for just the third Beatle?! For shame!). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no accounting for folks' tastes. Incidentally, the third Beatle isn't getting much attention either. And I've just nominated yet another George... Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments continued

Return to California (1906–1910)
New York again
  • "Critics do not hold regard the strip highly..." Something wrong there
  • "on July 26, a mouse threw a brick at the family cat..." I was slightly thrown by this on first reading; you should clarify that this is a cartoon event, not a real-life occurrence.
  • "undeliberately" is a made-up word. Maybe "spontaneously"? Ah, I see you've used "spontaneous" later; you could make that second one "impromptu" or "improvised".
    • "un–" is a productive prefix in English; grammatically, it can be added to pretty much anything, and thus most "un–" words will never be found in a dictionary. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is generally true, but the prefix doesn't always work. You wouldn't, for example, say "unspitefully" or "unabruptly", to give just two examples. Also, it's not absolutely clear what you intend by "undeliberately". Since "deliberately" means "on purpose", does "undeliberately" mean "by accident", i.e. beyond the creator's control? That does not seem likely. Brianboulton (talk) 09:18, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dropped. There actually are examples in print sources of "unspitefully]" and "unabruptly" (Google Books links). I can see, though, that the meaning of "undeliberately" might not be clear to all readers (the intended meaning was "without deliberation").
  • I'm not convinced by "officemates" as a word. "Colleagues" would suffice, or "office colleagues".
  • "At some point, Herriman visited Monument Valley in Arizona". Needs to be "had visited". Also, "at some point" sounds unnecessarily vague; Perhaps "Earlier in his career, Herriman had visited..."
  • Link Enchanted Mesa
  • "which is the most famous piece of writing about the strip" Does the source say "famous"? Any such opinion should be ascribed to the source.
    • The sources do say it, and so do a lot of them. I just added three more that specifically use the adjective "famous". In comics studies circles, Seldes's essay is considered a key work, partly for historical reasons, but also partly for the quality of the essay itself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its Hall of Fame in their April 1923 issue". Suggest alter "their" to "the"
California again...
  • "Herriman developed ties with members of the film industry, where he knew..." The "film industry is not a location to which "where" can be properly applied. I'd follow "film industry" with a semicolon, then "he knew..." etc.
  • "which Herriman made bold use of." This usage is frowned on in British usage, in favour of "of which Herriman made bold use", but North American perceptions may be different
Personal life
  • "sold his first Hollywood house, which had bought for $50,000..." Needs a small fix
  • This is a side comment, but I'm surprised that Merrifield was so hooked on Ford's "pacifism" that he could ignore his antisemitism.
    • You're surprised that a partially African-American man who drew jolly strips of a black man getting beaten up would be concerned with the plight of the Jews? Besides, antisemitism wasn't really stigmatized in the US until after the Eichmann trials; only retroactively has WWII been painted as the Americans valiantly rescuing the Jews. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Race and identity
Reception and legacy
Work

I have more or less limited my comments to prose issues, as I don't know the subject. My impression is that overall, this is an excellent and very informative article on an important and influential artist. I will be happy to support when the fixes are done. Brianboulton (talk) 12:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: my numerous points have all been addressed, very substantially as I would have wished. I'm happy to support now: I just wish some other reviewers would give the article some attention. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

A few queries about spellings. Ordinarily I'd just change obvious typos, but in this article I hardly dare to. So perhaps you might check:

  • vaudevillean
Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*srtip

Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*comix

This is actually the accepted term for underground comix, as per the article title. Now protected with {{Not a typo}}. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*cirlces

Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*prepares top throw. Tim riley (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why "hardly dare to"? Because it's an FAC? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all! I'm merciless at FAC (in a cuddly kind of way), but I suspected I was out of my depth, as you have proved in re comix. Excellent stuff. Happy to support. Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Whenever I start reading a new FAC article on an unfamiliar subject I wonder if I am going to struggle or if it will make everything clear. This is in the latter category. Clear, full, well proportioned and referenced. Good stuff! – Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Looks good for the most part. I only have a few technical issues to point out:

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I think we need an image review, at least one is missing a source. Graham Colm (talk) 05:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that was the infobox image; I didn't upload it or add it to the article, and I can't find it in any of my books, so I have no idea where it came from. Google image search finds plenty of copies—from wikis in different languages. I've replaced it with another photo: File:George Herriman 1915-12-01.jpg—this one's better anyways, as it shows his face nearly straight-on. Curly Turkey (gobble) 11:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The publication date of this photograph, which is not given, might not be the same as the date when it was taken (1 December 1915). We need clearer evidence of the copyright status. Graham Colm (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've misunderstood a lot about photograph copyrights. Does this mean that the 1902 wedding photo may not be PD if it turns out that it was never published for public consumption until it appeared in McDonnell, O'Connell & Havenon's book in 1986? Do photographs that are never publicly published ever fall into the public domain? Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not something I fully understand because the law is complex. But if a photograph has never been published, I think the copyright expires around 70 years (or more) after the death of the photographer in most jurisdictions. The photographer in this case might have died relatively recently. We need someone with more knowledge on this to comment here. But I suspect the image is problematic in this regard because it is from a book published in 1986. What does it say in the book? If it says "copyright", it almost certainly still is. Also I notice that the source given for the Lead image says "© All Rights Reserved". Graham Colm (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the image is from that book; it just happens to be the only book I have that has that image. I can find no credit for the photo (or any of the photos) anywhere in the book. I'll just go ahead and remove the problematic photos (I think they're just the infobox one, the wedding photo, and the family photo. I've found a self-portrait that was published in a magazine from 1922 to replace the current infobox image. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Krazy Kat: The Comic Art of George Herriman has picture credits on p. 223, according to Amazon [29]. Graham Colm (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Picture Credits" are acknowledgements to those "who kindly provided original Herriman art"; they're credits to collectors who own the original cartoon pages that were reproduced in the book, and not photo credits. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the clarification. Graham Colm (talk) 23:16, 13 April 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, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [30].[reply]

King Island Emu

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it collects practically all known information about this extinct bird (including recent genetic work), and it is doubtful that much more will ever be known about it. The article has been copy edited, and all important historical PD images have been added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

I have some prose and referencing concerns at the moment, and will try to do a closer reading later for additional prose issues. I'm not strictly opposing at this time, but I think this article has the potential for some improvement still. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Probably" reword one of the last two sentences of the lead.
Reworded, better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at this myself. Hopefully, I didn't make it worse. If not, revert away. Either your version or mind, I think, would be better than the original.
I think it's better, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure on the capitalization of emu here when it's not referring specifically to the King Island Emu. It's my understanding that bird species names get capitals, and the Emu is a specific species, but the Emu (the mainland species) is also a type of emu (the category of birds). Regardless, it looks weird the way it currently is.
I thought the same early on, so I guess so too, and I'll fix that now. I've left "mainland Emu" capitalised, since "Emu" is the common name of that taxon, but if anyone objects, I can change it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to leave any further discussion about the emu/Emu debate to someone more familiar with the MOS issues at hand.
  • Update the ISBN-10s to ISBN-13s.
Alright. How can I do that? FunkMonk (talk) 21:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found a nice tool[31], done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references have a closing period, but some are missing it.
Fixed. Why does the "citation" and "cite journal" templates differ in this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand, those were from different generations of reference templates. It's all ancestral wisdom to me, really. I just hunt for misplaced dots! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, seems like the "citation" template should be updated then, that's the only one that causes the problem. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to happen, as some articles use the citation template instead of the cite foo family, and in general any internally consistent referencing style is copacetic.
  • The Mathews 1921 source is fully available online, and you should link to the page.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how useful they'll all be (and I have more limited source access than normal at the moment), but there are quite a few more sources to consider for this topic, especially ones from the Australian ornithology journal Emu:
  • Ashby E (1924). "Notes on Extinct or Rare Australian Birds, with Suggestions as to Some of the Causes of their Disappearance". Emu 23 (3): 178-183. doi:10.1071/MU923178
Nothing new. FunkMonk (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That one had such a promising sounding title, too.
  • Brasil L (1914). "The Emu of King Island". Emu 14 (2): 88-97. doi:10.1071/MU914088
Covered in later sources, but I've added a bit. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legge WV (1907). "The Emus of Tasmania and King Island". Emu 6 (3): 116-119. doi:10.1071/MU906116
Added cite, but it doesn't bring any new info, just another junior synonym. FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Color me weird, but I love documenting short shelf-life junior synonyms. I think it gives a sense of history to the science of taxonomy that other reference works rarely, if ever, have the space to consider.
I like it too myself, which has lead to taxonomy sections being the bulk of some articles I've written in the past. In this case it is of minor importance, because it wasn't really a taxonomic response, it was just a matter of which publication came first. I read earlier today that Legge retracted the name when he learned one had already been published, but I don't remember where... And in any case, the name would be invalid, as it was the youngest at the time. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Morgan AM, Sutton J (1928). "A critical description of some recently discovered bones of the extinct Kangaroo Island Emu (Dromaius diemenianus)". Emu 28 (1): 1-19. doi:10.1071/MU928001
Was covered already by newer sources, but added citation anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing wrong with demonstrating that work on the topic has been ongoing.
I've encountered this book before, it just summarises already cited material, and in some cases it is even wrong. His entries for some species have several errors. FunkMonk (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got to take a look at this myself. Agreed, exclude this one. WorldCat, you failed me here.
It seems to be a summary of Spencer's 1906 paper (which is already cited), and to also have been written by him, so it doesn't add anything new. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix the issues in a moment. As for sources, the older ones are mostly covered by newer sources, but I'll give them an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No further referencing objections. I need to take another pass through the prose when I have the time, but I always like to hit the bottom of the article first because if the references fall apart under pressure, then it doesn't matter if the text sounds pretty. Good so far, though! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and thanks for the sources, I like using original citations whenever I can. FunkMonk (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no further problems with the article, so making my support official. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • extinct sub-species of emu — this invites confusion with the capitalised Emu in line 4, especially as it's referring to that species, better as of the Emu
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The King Island Emu was the smallest of all emu taxa — "taxa" is a bit unfriendly in the lead, especially since it's not linked, smallest of all emus may be better
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bird gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries, grass and seaweed. They ran swiftly
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • kept in Jardin des Plantes — the Jardin?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • King Island likely drove the wild population — "likely" looks American to me, please assure me that it's standard Ozspeak
I'm not sure I follow. You mean the word likely? It should be pretty old English. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that construction, using "likely" where a Brit would use "probably" strikes me as AE, but I don't know if it's also Australian usage. Either way, it's no big deal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "presumably"? FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which has led to some confusion — further confusion?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jouanin and Jean-Christophe Balouet demonstrated that the mounted skin in Paris came from King Island — How?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • nuclear and mitochondrial DNA — links needed
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • alternate genetic or non-genetic, gene/genetic — I think you mean "alternative", also need to link gene or genetic
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • links or explanations needed for intertrochlear foramen, distal foramen, cranium
Added some links, but the second term is not likely to ever get an article, since it is relative to the structure in question (a structure which is found in many bones). Like if we said "distal end of the metacarpus", there wouldn't be anything specific to make an article about, apart from metacarpus itself.

FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I'm happy if you want to lose the redlink since, as you say, the article is unlikely to ever be written Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...foraging, which was exploited by hunters — ...foraging, behaviour which...?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either parent stayed by the nest when the other was incubating — The non-incubating parent stayed by the nest?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • which also brought along naturalists, who described the local wildlife — why the comma?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of your references appear to be in French, but there is no "language = " parameter to tell us that
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Binomials should be italicised even in the references
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I've fixed some issues, and will fix the rest later today. FunkMonk (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to a couple of your comments above, but there is nothing significant outstanding, so I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, the difference is that the former is a typo, good catch! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. "scientific names subsequently being erected for either bird," is an odd use of erected, if that is Biologists jargon, is there an alternative word such as allocated that would be acceptable to scientists and more obvious to lay readers? ϢereSpielChequers 18:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Coined" could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Thanks for your prompt response, signing out now as I don't think that I can contribute much further to this. But for what its worth I think the prose is FA standard. ϢereSpielChequers 18:58, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 05:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Sasata

[edit]

Prose and MoS nitpicks for now; I may have more substantive comments on content after I try a lit check.

I'm satisfied that the article meets the FAC criteria. Sasata (talk) 15:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata (talk) 07:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, as for lit check, be aware that most sources prior to the 1980s are very outdated and usually incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • any reason why sub-species is hyphenated? Our article does not do so, and it is inconsistent with the non-hyphenated version in the taxobox.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The birds gathered in flocks to forage and during breeding time, and fed on berries" weak construction (and ...and)
Split. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in 1804 several live as well as stuffed King and Kangaroo Island Emus" "as well as" -> "and"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why bad weather would have prevented emu encounters
Explained. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no first name for L. Brasil?
Searched, but found nothing. The similarity to "Brazil" also muddles up search results... FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • our article does not hyphenate eggshell
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should ensure short-form binomials have a non-breaking space (also in the range map caption in the taxobox)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link subfossil, invalid, taxon, morphology; subfossil is inconsistently hyphenated in the article (shouldn't be, according to our article)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…was reclassified as a subspecies of Dromaius novaehollandiae; D. n. ater." think a comma works better here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "features which distinguish the taxa." which->that (check throughout article for other instances; "which" generally follows a comma)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the Late Quaternary period" consider adding the dates for this period parenthetically so the reader doesn't have to click out
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximately 100 km" give imperial conversion? (to be consistent with rest of article)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link land bridge, founding, tibia, femur, pelvis; link tarsometatarsus and foramen earlier
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossil emu taxa show an average size, between that" comma not necessary?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • should the cranial comparison image perhaps indicate that the mainland bird is represented by A,B, and C?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a feature which is in fact also seen"
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Péron's interview sheds light" not sure if idiomatic expressions are appropriate for encyclopaedic writing
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They swam well, but only when necessary." so when it wasn't necessary, they swam poorly?
Fixed? FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1800–1804" ->1800–04 per WP:YEAR
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of these survive in European museums today." this could perhaps be interpreted as meaning there are specimens alive today; reword?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference nitpicks:
  • Brasil 1914 should give the full page range
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • is this a suitable link for Viellet 1817?
Seems to be about warblers, so doens't appear so. FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please check the citation for Spencer & Kershaw 1906; this journal is available online at archive.org, but I cannot seem to find the article cited (should have a full page range too)
Fixed range, but not sure how to link to the article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • full page range for Legge 1906 & Morgan and Sutton 1928 (needs issue# too)
Fixed range, but I can't find the issue number. FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mathews & Ireland should be title case to be consistent with the other book sources
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jouanin 1959 has different author format
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • no volume# for Balouet & Jouanin 1990? (check author name format too)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bull. B.O.C. -> why is this journal title abbreviated?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heupink et al. (2011) should be sentence case
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patterson & Rich (1987) available online here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Milne-Edwards & Oustalet (1899) available here
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giglioli 1900 & 1901 should be sentence case
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 11:09, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All issues should be addressed now. FunkMonk (talk) 12:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find anything worthwhile to add from a lit search. I do have a copy of Hume & Walters 2012 Extinct Birds, and thought it might be useful to do a spot-check:
  • according to the cited source, the heaviest birds weighed 45 to 50 pounds, not 40–51 as given in the article
Not sure what happened there, might have been created when the amounts were converted. Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • close paraphrasing:
Source: "It was constructed on the ground of sticks, and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
Article: "It was constructed of sticks and lined with dead leaves and moss; it was oval in shape and not very deep."
Source: "The chicks were striped and left the nest two to three days after hatching."
Article: "… and the chicks left the nest two to three days after hatching."
The part that is closely paraphrased was itself quoted directly from a public domain text from the 19th century (Milne-Edwards & Oustalet 1879, which was itself taken from Péron's even older account), and wasn't actually written by Hume and Walters, so I only modified it slightly. But if it is a problem, I can change it further. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not mention that subfossil remain are in Adelaide?
I know they are in more places than there (the authors of the genetics paper used bones in the Museum Victoria, for example), so it seems a bit odd to point out only that place. But I don't have any comprehensive list either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other than the above, everything else checks out ok from this source. Sasata (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by DrKiernan

[edit]
  • Claiming the birds couldn't run because they were too fat sounds very 19th-century. Surely they were slower because they had shorter legs or had no natural predators?
That's what the source says, but I could specify that it was the sealer's claim? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we know that their eggs were always laid on 25 and 26 July?
Not really, but we don't have other testimony of their behaviour than that of Cooper the sealer. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I would qualify these two paragraphs and put the paragraph on Flinders and Latham either first or last in the section, so that the sealer's testimony is all together. I would also change "documents" and "shows" to something less definite because anecdotal claims from a layperson are not as strong as direct evidence analysed by an expert. So, what I would have is something like:
"Péron's interview describes some aspects of the behaviour of the King Island Emu. He writes that..." (rest of paragraph could remain the same) and
"He claimed that seven to nine eggs were laid always on 25 and 26 July, but the selective ... (rest of sentence the same)" and "Peron gave the incubation period as five or six weeks..." in the final sentence to avoid repetition of "claimed". DrKiernan (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the attribution thing, which I'll implement as you describe it, but not on the order. All the sources mainly quote Péron (and Cooper), and it is not even sure what Latham was referring to. Flinders and his men didn't even observe live emus, whereas Cooper basically lived with them every day. But I've now grouped Péron's stuff in order, just as the first, not last, paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's British spelling throughout FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thank you for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 18:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

[edit]
  • I tweaked the lead a tad, let me know if any issues; suggest however that you clarify who "had arrived on King Island in 1802", Peron or the sealer.
Fixed, it was Péron. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 7 April 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, 13 April 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

George Harrison

[edit]
Nominator(s):GabeMc (talk|contribs) and Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gabe and I first nominated this article back at the beginning of January. During the FAC, the article underwent substantial edits that added content, trimmed content, revised content, and rearranged content. The final product seemed to be a good synthesis of what most of the reviewers (with a few exceptions) thought the article should be. I have spent the last week or so thoroughly evaluating the article, and I am confident that there are no actionable objections left unresolved. If there are any that I've missed, I hope this FAC can clear them up quickly and get the article to where it needs to be. I'm confident that we're at least 95% there already. Thanks for your time in advance, everyone! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

[edit]
I really didn't like four choppy paras for the lead - and have rejigged it to two - the first is for most famous facts and the second more personal. I like the flow and composition this way as I think it grabs the reader more.
His mother was a Liverpool shop assistant.. - unless there is something mysterious about Liverpool shop assistants I think we can lose the discriptor here...
Link tambura and EMI at first instance
Should Live Aid be italicised?
I don't think so. The topical article doesn't use them. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Harrison released no new albums for five years after 1982's Gone Troppo received little notice from critics and the public - err, grammar? word missing here?
Fixed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aargh, my bad - I kept reading "received" as a past tense active verb...was tired when I read it. I think the first way is the best (sorry), but that a comma after "years" helps flow a bit. (d'oh!) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, most of it is in good shape - some bits are a bit choppy (the Early solo work: 1968–70 section - but not sure what to do here, I will think on it) and I wonder whether the guitar and guitar work sections could somehow be combined or segue on from one another. I need to sleep now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now moved the songwriting section to above "guitar work" and "guitars" so that the two later sections are consecutive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:59, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have half a mind that these two sections should be combined and material threaded into chronological order...but not sure...it'd make the guitars section less listy. If you don't think this is a good idea, don't do it - I'm more just musing on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree on this point. IMO, to riddle the guitar work section with mentions of each notable guitar Harrison ever purchased would considerably diminish the quality and readability of the "guitar work" section. If "guitars" seems too listy, then it may need a copy-edit to smoothen it out, although I'm really not sure how we could run-down Harrison's notable guitar purchases in the form of engaging and/or brilliant prose. The section is by nature a bit boring to non-gear-heads. I'm certainly up for alternate suggestions though, and I'm curious what Evan has to say on this particular point. We appreciate your time and respect your opinion, so thanks much for the great comments Casliber! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "Guitars" section is less listy now than when it was a list, so in that department we've seen a lot of improvement. I can see what you mean, though, Casliber. I wonder if it wouldn't help the flow to move the "Guitars" subsection down to the bottom of the "Musicianship" section, directly below "Sitar and Indian music." One downside to that is that we now have "Sitar and Indian music" flowing directly into the "Hinduism" subsection of "Personal life," making for an unbroken discussion of Harrison's life vis a vis Indian culture. It's probably not a big deal, but moving "Guitars" would break this flow. I would say that's not necessarily a bad thing.
I've cleaned up the prose a little and expanded on a few points to hopefully make it a little less listy. Not sure how much I've done, but it does read a little easier to me now. One thing to keep in mind is that the emphasis should be on how the guitars relate to Harrison's career as much as possible, and not simply about the guitars for their own sake. Thanks again for all your input, Casliber! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evan, per: "I wonder if it wouldn't help the flow to move the "Guitars" subsection down to the bottom of the "Musicianship" section": That's where it was before I moved some stuff around in response to Casliber's comment: "I wonder whether the guitar and guitar work sections could somehow be combined or segue on from one another." I agree with your comment about the "'Sitar and Indian music' [section] flowing directly into the 'Hinduism' subsection". I also like the way it currently flows, although I am certainly open to specific alternate suggestions. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose within I am happy with - this bit is not a deal-breaker. I am just trying to figure out some actionable items to address aspects I feel a little uneasy with - I will try to get some specifics up pronto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just tried comparing this article with John and Paul - they do flow better but I can't put my finger on why or how. I need to think on it - my initial concern was that the Beatles section was not George-centred enough, but it is on a par content-wise with the corresponding sections, so I am happy about that. I need to sleep now. Will have another look tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright; I'll give it another look and see if I can find anything to tweak. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the prose is tighter, which is a good thing. I asked Malleus Fatuorum and he replied thus. Looking at the old FAC page I saw notes from JG66 whose comments ring true for mine. I don't know enough about Harrison to know what can still be added, but I feel something still does. It would not need much, as some sections read better than others, but I reckon maybe 6-10 well positioned sentences which embellish or add colour to key points would be a big plus. I'd ask JG66 to prioritise this, particularly in Early life , Early solo work, a bit in his interest in handmade films are all good places to start. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, if you look again at the previous FAC, you might notice that while JG66 wanted more and more detail to be added (to every section), SandyGeorgia opposed promotion based on his long review, and the length of the article, complaining that there was too much excess detail. So, basically, we made a choice to follow SandyGeorgia's advice over JG66's advice; perhaps a compromise middle position is best. I'll go through the article top-to-bottom and try to add detail where appropriate. Thanks again for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this can be tricky. It is a bit like a sliding scale and where we leave the bar. The trick is removing fluffy prose and reducing it to give maximum info in as few words as possible, and then embellishing with some narrative. The article needs some more (concise) on Harrison's ideas, feelings, reflections and point of view - it doesn't need much to carry it over the line, but this would make it massively more appealing to read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per your above comment: "a bit in his interest in handmade films"; are you suggesting that I add detail to this section? There is already a topical article dedicated to the subject, so what summary details are needed? I'm not seeing what you think is missing. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that is a good example - I'd like to see the comments about why he invested, and the quip by Jones is a classic that would make this article more engaging (and this material is as much about Harrison and his interests, as the company). Ultimately an ideal Handmade Films article would concentrate on the course of the company alot more, so Harrison's mention would only be relatively minor. However that is not the case with how the daughter article now stands. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll do my very best to add some appropriate detail to the Handmade Films section, but FWIW, that quip from Jones is unsourced in the daughter article, and I have no idea which book its in (assuming it is verifiable), so I'll have to search my sources for a quote that may or may not be real ... GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I searched and searched, but I cannot find that quote from Jones which you suggested from the daughter article, but I did find nearly the exact same statement from Idle. I think the "Handmade Films" section of the Harrison article is now about as detailed as it should be, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I've also now gone through the article and added some details where appropriate to help flesh-out, "Harrison the man". If you have any more specific suggestions, they would be greatly appreciated. Thanks again for your effort. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Handmade films section reads much much better now. The Early life is still a bit mechanical sounding - if I look at this version, the first three sentences of the last para are great - it is engaging and not trivial (he was a *&(%% guitar player so how he first go interested is integral) - I'd re-add it. Then, even just one sentence of what family life was like (warm/friendly/chaotic/whatever) in the upper half I think would help glue this section together. More later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber, per your above advice, I've now restored the datum: "Harrison sat at the back of the class and would often draw guitars in his schoolbooks. 'I was totally into guitars,' he later said." However; as far as "I heard about this kid at school who had a guitar at £3 10s, it was just a little acoustic round hole. I got the £3 10s from my mother: that was a lot of money for us then", 1) I cannot find this exact quote in any source. 2) According to Babiuk, the guitar being referred to here is one that Harrison broke soon after aquiring, and it sat broken and unused for some time, so its notability is questionable. The Egmond is the first notable guitar Harrison owned, as its the one he learned to play on. Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some additions to "Early years: 1943–57" that might have addressed this concern. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Getting better - I tacked the two sentences reflecting on humour and parents into otherwise dry first para - they might even go better further up the para, not sure. Second para then focuses more exclusively on music. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've now fleshed the section out a bit more, hopefully its not too much. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 06:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
addendum: Solo work: 1968–1987 would greatly benefit from anything HArrison thought retrospectively about it - did he later regard them as mistakes/fun/underrated/overrated/what? Any info on his later feelings about them would just make that bit a whole lot more engaging. It doesn't need to be much at all. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
addendum 2: Actually, given All Things Must Pass is regarded as his best work, a mention of what it meant for him - what was he trying to say - how he felt about it would go nicely at the end of the first para. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Does this edit resolve this specific concern? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that helps. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - reading alot better now.
I would place the Cancer diagnosis, knife attack, illness and death: 1997–2001 subsection at the end of the Personal life section so it is further down the article. It looks odd reading about his dying and then back to handmade films etc.
I'd place the material from para 1 of Later life: 1988–2001 into the travelling wilbury's section as it is really about collaborating with those artists. It slots nicely chronologically at the bottom.
This then allows us to slot the remaining two paras after the beatles anthology section and thus make it all chronological.

To conclude, the extra colour added I think has helped bigtime in giving a narrative and sense of Harrison the man, and I feel we're on the cusp of in FA territory with this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John

[edit]

I was asked to comment; I opposed last time round then started mucking in and editing it and latterly withdrew my oppose. I don't know how ethical it is for me to support or oppose now. I'll note that on this read-through, I still see things that can be tweaked, though it's better than it was. I saw Malleus's critique of it and I am wondering about that too; I don't always agree with him but I always take his opinion seriously. Let me think some more. --John (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May be more to come. I love what you have done and it is definitely getting there. --John (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

JG66

[edit]

I've been asked to comment too, but there's not a whole lot that's changed since my oppose last time around. I'm interested by Malleus's opinion also (and it seems that a splinter discussion has started over there). When Malleus says "you have to have an overall idea of the story you're trying to tell", that's sort of what I meant by the "basic foundations" – which, from my knowledge of the life and music of George Harrison, still aren't here in the article. Personally, I only contribute to Harrison-related articles on wikipedia (but not Beatles articles), and I come to this one and it still doesn't adequately provide an overview of George Harrison's life. As I've said before, there's not enough of a sense of Harrison the non-Beatle – I don't necessarily mean detail, I mean it's not established as part of the foundation of this article. The Lennon article again comes to mind as an example of a biographical page that gives readers a definite idea of the man. To me, this one still reads more like an apology of an article; there's just not that engagement with the subject that's obvious in the Lennon piece and to a lesser extent in the McCartney one. And if this article is part of WP:Beatles (in a way, I wish it wasn't), why is it that the McCartney piece in particular can be so extraordinarily long, even when there are already generous articles covering that artist's musical career, personal relationships and the band Wings, yet this one is being limited to a specific word count? Yes, I know – an oppose at the previous FAC. But, with all due respect to SandyGeorgia, why weren't/aren't you nominees standing up to that oppose by citing the McCartney article as an example?

I'll give some specifics here, again, but I'd hope that my previous comments count for something in the final consideration.

  • Good to see some more text under Early life – this section finally extends beyond the level of the Arnold Grove pic on my screen. There's an interesting detail I'd add about Louise Harrison listening to the BBC's broadcasts of All India Radio while pregnant with George. It's either in Greene or Tillery, I think. I was fascinated to read that.
  • It's the idea of Harrison having possibly absorbed these sounds pre-birth that I think is really significant. I've found the mention in Greene (pp 1–2); here it is in full: "During her fourth and last pregnancy – with George – Louise's favorite program was a weekly broadcast called Radio India. Every Sunday she tuned in to mystical sounds evoked by sitars and tables, hoping that the exotic music would bring peace and calm to the baby in the womb." JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in early life, I think you should add a sentence about his earliest musical influences. We hear about Elvis, brief mention of skiffle, but nothing else. Hoagy Carmichael, etc – loads in Leng, I'm sure.
  • Skiffle's only one part of it. Leng mentions Harrison's "formative childhood years" listening to Cab Calloway, Django Reinhardt and Hoagy Carmichael (p 302), "Harrison heroes Hoagy Carmichael and Big Bill Broonzy" (304), and: "The first music that he heard as a 1940s war baby remained a passion throughout his life, and he often celebrated George Formby, Cab Calloway, and Hoagy Carmichael in his work." (320) Note mention that follows there of Elvis, Carl Perkins, Eddie Cochran and Little Richard being "the music of his teenage years". I hope you'll agree that a sentence covering these early influences is important. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the wording's too fussy about his Indian instrumentation on individual Beatles tracks, as if each instance just has to be mentioned. I remember suggesting "the tabla- and sitar-driven 'Love You To'" rather than mentioning tambura again (after he "introduced" the instrument on "Tomorrow Never Knows"). I'd take that sentence starting "Further examples of Indian instrumentation from Harrison during his Beatles years ..." to sit as an endnote, but place the note following mention of swarmandal on "Strawberry Fields"; plus include the tambura part on "Lucy" as additional text in this note, not as a point made in the main text.
  • Way better. But again, why the standout phrase "Harrison also played sitar on the recording"? Why not: "The tabla- and sitar-driven "Love You To" was the Beatles' first genuine foray into Indian music. According to ethnomusicologist David Reck, the song set a precedent in popular music ..." ? JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like "Think for Yourself" needs to be mentioned in the endnote along with "If I Needed Someone", otherwise implication is that he contributed only the one song to Rubber Soul. The fact that all of Harrison's White Album comps are named makes this more apparent. (Still not sure why they are all named; I would've thought just "While My Guitar", for obvious reasons, and "Piggies", for the unfortunate Manson association, but never mind.)
  • Don't really agree on the Piggies point, but never mind.
  • The meaning in the sentence discussing "If Not for You" is jumbled up. The discarded Dylan take is thought to be the first recording of Harrison on slide (well, there's a glissando or two on "Strawberry Fields"), but that's got nothing to do with the context here.
  • From mention of "Ben Gerson of Rolling Stone described", there's four or so consecutive sentences containing "described".
  • I disagree about the inclusion of that October 1969 quote. It's confusing. Yes, he'd been talking about doing a solo album of songs to get shot of the backlog, since Jan '69; but in the context that All Things Must Pass was made, post Beatles break-up, the album took on a completely different identity from that of a project that might've sat comfortably beside the band's continued existence. He's got Spector in on the job, his mum was dying – there was way more invested from May 1970 onwards.
  • Even if it has been shunted off to an endnote, I'm still confused about why you're so generous with details regarding the My Sweet Lord/He's So Fine suit when subjects like Dark Horse Records, Splinter, Harrison's '70s projects with Shankar, production for Apple acts get barely a mention.
  • I'd say, delete the whole note. Again, so many relevant points don't even rate a mention in the article, and here you are providing excessive detail on this issue. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tom Scott was assistant producer on 33 & 1/3, or more correctly provided "production assistance".
  • I'd cut down considerably the discussion of problems between Harrison and Lennon. Again, I'm thinking of what doesn't get included in the article when detail is being lavished elsewhere.
  • Definitely delete "The omission upset Lennon; Harrison regretted this and left a telephone message for Lennon, but Lennon did not return the call and they did not speak again.", I suggest. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused also not to see mention of Harrison's guest appearances with Dylan in 1987 when Birmingham Heart Beat gets an extended mention, and especially when there's all that stuff in the endnote about the 1992 Jeff Porcaro concert – I mean, what's that about?
  • The LA gig with Taj, Dylan and John Fogerty, yes, but also a couple of appearances Harrison made during Dylan's 1987 European tour with Tm Petty & The Heartbreakers. With the Porcaro benefit, I'm saying delete everything in the endnote. Once again: focus. Two sentences are currently in that note, describing the benefit, yet you give no mention at all in the article of Harrison's '74 tour musicians. (Come on ...) In the George Harrison story, though, it's still a shock to see this 1992 gig even get a mention when his more-celebrated TV appearances with Gary Wright (1971) and Paul Simon (1976) don't. So that's probably why the walk-ons with Dylan feel like they belong too. (You know he made guest appearances with Clapton, Elton and Deep Purple also?) JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list of interviewees in the Scorsese documentary is typical, really, of what I mean by the not-enough non-Beatle-George feel of the article (the unfortunate fact of a WP Beatles focus, I guess). Ono's contribution in the film is minimal; Starr, Clapton and Keltner add far more in the way of insight than McCartney. But most of all, the interviewees who really add something personal about Harrison – the man, regardless of Beatledom – are Olivia and Dhani, Klaus Voormann (especially Klaus) and Terry Gilliam, I suggest. I find the wording in that sentence reflective of the lack of engagement in this article: anything real like family and friends is shunted off into "others" category, while anything Beatle is given pride of place. That list should read something like: Olivia and Dhani Harrison, Voormann, Gilliam, Starr, Clapton, McCartney, Keltner ... (Astrid Kirchherr perhaps also, certainly more worthy of inclusion than Ono.)
Yep. You're spot-on with this point, JG. I should have thought twice before listing the interviewees like that. Thanks for your input! I think if we can get as many specific recommendations from you as possible this FAC should go over without a hitch. You have a valuable perspective to offer to the article, and I apologize if any of my comments during the last FAC made it seem otherwise. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion of JG66's comments
[edit]

All those points are pretty cosmetic though, compared to the real problems in the article. It may be a Good Article currently on the project's quality scale, but it's certainly not a good article on George Harrison – in that it's not a good overview of the subject. So much is missing, for a start. A section discussing his production work for others, on Apple Records and Dark Horse, and his 1970s session work. Right now, some of his '70s session work is mentioned in an endnote or two – part of that "apology of an article" issue, as I put it above. He was the most active of all the Beatles on Apple projects, and he committed to them – he didn't just do a Paul, and roll up with a song and say "Play it like this". Straight after finishing All Things Must Pass, he's repaying favours with session work for the likes of Gary Wright and Bobby Whitlock; then he's producing Ronnie Spector, Badfinger and Ravi Shankar, rather than looking to follow up his own album. The fact is that these projects were as much part of Harrison's career as his own albums; he never stopped wanting to support other artists just because the Beatles split up. This point applies even more with Dark Horse Records, with his dedication to Splinter and Ravi Shankar. The omission of any of this contributes to the article failing to provide any idea of Harrison's development, even generally, through the first half of the 1970s. And the same goes for what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives. I commented on that in the earlier review; you'll just have to go back and find it. (But in short, how can this notorious/ambitious/ill-starred/woefully underrated(?) event not get a brief discussion here when, in the McCartney and Lennon articles, comparatively trivial live appearances or tours do? Without wanting to sound too dramatic, this 1974 tour utterly defined George Harrison's musical career as much as All Things Must Pass and the Concert for Bangladesh did.)

Same with some idea of his duality between deeply spiritual pursuits and more earthly temptations. He was pretty open in discussing this – his Piscean nature – and it's received a lot of comment from his biographers. Such a major part of the subject's character is certainly not ignored in the equivalent article for Lennon, and I think readers deserve to see this sort of defining feature about Harrison. About the subject of any biographical article, particularly if the article's a GA.

There's more that is missing, I'm sure – but as I said, what's missing is only "for a start". I think the main issues are structural, article-wide, the focus of the entire piece. The overall idea – the "over-arching narrative" perhaps that Malleus mentions. These are only encyclopedic articles, okay, but there's no question that they require some creativity at this level. Someone like George Harrison is incredibly hard to sum up adequately in a few thousand words; there hasn't been a biographer yet who's really nailed it, even with 100,000 words at their disposal. (Not even Simon Leng.) I'm sorry to be so discouraging, but I care about an article delivering what it's supposed to, and I really don't think this one belongs in an FAC forum. I'd be going back to a blank sheet almost, taking a look at the Lennon article, and just thinking of a whole new way into this one, to be honest. JG66 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1) Thanks again for your specific comments JG66; I've done my very best to address them. 2) Per: "A section discussing his production work for others, on Apple Records and Dark Horse, and his 1970s session work." Again, this sounds like material for Musical career of George Harrison, maybe not, but the only source that I find that describes Harrison as a "session musician" is Leng (a far from neutral source IMO), and he says: "Harrison was the only ex-Beatle modest or gifted enough to have taken up a second career as a session musician", a dubious claim at best, since a) Macca was clearly the most musically talented of the four, and b) describing Harrison as modest is a bit of a stretch. Furthermore, if we wrote a section detailing Harrison's session work, how would that help us attain "brilliant and engaging prose", as it seems like it would just create another section loaded with list-like details lacking an overarching narrative. Perhaps I am missing something here, but I really don't see how this would help with readability, nor do I consider Harrison a proper "session musician" for having worked on some basic guitar tracks for his friends and clients of Apple. Also, specific session work done for Apple would seem more appropriate at the Apple Records article. 3) Per: "what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives", IMO, there will never be enough detail about Shankar in the article to satisfy you (he is mentioned about a dozen times). How about starting the article, Musical collaborations of George Harrison and Ravi Shankar? Per: "some idea of his duality between deeply spiritual pursuits and more earthly temptations". You have lost me here, sorry. Are you suggesting that we discuss how many women he cheated on his wives with? Or that despite his conversion to Hinduism, he cheated taxes till the end, and hoarded $150 million dollars? Can you please explain further what you mean by this point? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just don't know where to start with a reply to the above. Perhaps you are "missing something here" – yes. Of course, a Musical Career article is needed, but the existence of such an article for McCartney never held you back in the Paul McCartney main article. And you've rather sidestepped discussion of Harrison as a record producer by choosing to focus on whether he was a "session musician" or not. In my comment above, I never said he was a session musician; Jim Keltner, Nicky Hopkins, Klaus Voormann, they're session musicians. I talked about Harrison's session work for others, and about combining that in a section discussing his projects as a producer (more than anything, to ensure that Dark Horse Records at least received some sort of discussion in the article). Your opinion about Leng's book concerns me, but in hindsight explains a lot about the problems with this article. It should be easy to see where Leng's reliable or not, and in most cases, he definitely is. (I'd be wary of other books you use, such as Bill Harry's encyclopaedia and Spitz's Beatles book, both of which are riddled with inaccuracies and/or inconsistency; especially the Spitz book.) And, you say, "describing Harrison as modest is a bit of a stretch" – I mean ... what makes you think that Harrison wasn't modest? Without fail, associates of his, and music writers generally, have pointed out his modesty, his humility. It's the thing that most impressed Ravi Shankar about him; how do you think the Concert for Bangladesh, the Wilburys came together, without that modesty, the fact that all involved knew they could trust Harrison? That doesn't make him perfect by any means, and he was the first to admit that he wasn't perfect. (And in fact, it's that imperfection mixed with the search for the divine that makes Harrison an interesting subject.) But your words there do make me wonder what you're doing championing this article. Also, adding such a section on Harrison's production and session work doesn't in any way distract from the article-wide issue(s) I mentioned. When you say "it seems like it would just create another section loaded with list-like details lacking an overarching narrative" – well, yes, if you want it to, Gabe! (Or, the entire article could be reworked, as suggested, and then, with the addition of a new section such as this, the overview on George Harrison's life would be both more complete and a more impressive read.) I keep finding more things in your reply, bewildering things ... Your choosing to focus on an increased Shankar presence when I mentioned "what little treatment his 1974 tour with Shankar receives". I'm talking about the [beep-beep] TOUR – not seeing a thirteenth mention of Shankar's name. George Harrison's only US tour. The first US tour by a Beatle since their break-up. The tour that launched Dark Horse Records. The tour that crash-landed his solo career. A tour that saw him combining Indian music, jazz, funk and rock – acknowledged by some as a precursor to world music. It's the George Harrison tour, not the association with Ravi Shankar per se, that merits discussion. (Okay?!) Schaffner sets the scene for the build-up and expectations for this tour, with the first Beatlefest event in the US that year; Bob Woffinden's Beatles Apart adds useful insight into how Beatles-obsessed the US still was, whereas the band's mystique had dimmed after 1971 in the UK, where new musical genres (glam, reggae) had been embraced by '74. (Again, compare with the detail afforded Wings' 1972 UK tour in the McCartney article, and the musicians listing for Mac's 1990 tour; same for detail on Rock 'n' Roll Circus in the Lennon article.) And finally there's: "Are you suggesting that we discuss how many women he cheated on his wives with? Or that despite his conversion to Hinduism, he cheated taxes till the end, and hoarded $150 million dollars?" To repeat: I've got to wonder what you're doing championing this article. You seem to have a very shallow grasp of George Harrison, like you've gone sideways from Paul McCartney and looked to apply the same results-results-results template. The Piscean duality marked Harrison's struggle through much of his life, and it was something he became increasingly open about from around 1987 onwards. This is from one of his last interviews: "I'm a Pisces. I am an extreme person. One half is always going down where the other half has just been. I was always extremely up or extremely down, extremely spiritual or extremely drugged. Now there is a bit of maturity. I have brought the two closer to the middle." This duality is reflected most obviously in the 1973 song "Living in the Material World"; he appeared to have reconciled the issue in 2002's "Pisces Fish". Of course it's covered in his biographies, but I can't see that it's worth me going into this point any more here – from my experience with this article, and elsewhere over the last year, it just doesn't do any good trying to get through to you. It seems like this point is news to you. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per "Someone like George Harrison is incredibly hard to sum up adequately in a few thousand words; there hasn't been a biographer yet who's really nailed it, even with 100,000 words at their disposal. (Not even Simon Leng.)" That's exactly what I've been saying; in order to do his bio justice in your eyes, we would need to include so much excess detail that the article would never pass FAC anyway. Please remember, Evan and I are just unpaid voluteers doing our best. I am curious though, as above you say "I'm sorry to be so discouraging, but I care about an article delivering what it's supposed to". Well, you've only ever made 32 edits to the Harrison article, and you havn't improved it since 1 February. Why not help us improve the article, instead of making us read your mind and goose-chase datums from any number of dozens of books. If you think the article needs a "Session work" sub-section, then why not draft one in your sandbox? Lastly, per your above comment: "But, with all due respect to SandyGeorgia, why weren't/aren't you nominees standing up to that oppose by citing the McCartney article as an example?" Have you ever tried to "stand-up" to SandyGeorgia? Do you know who she is? Her oppose alone can stop an FAC in its tracks, as few delegates would pass an article she has opposed, regardless of the efforts the noms make to resolve her concerns. FWIW, I tend to agree with you in principle, I just wish you would help Evan and I with a draft of a "Session work" section, and perhaps a few edits to address your concern: "there's not enough of a sense of Harrison the non-Beatle". I will keep working on it of course, as will Evan, and this article will eventually pass FAC, with or without your help, but I think I speak for Evan when I say that we would much rather work with you. Anyway, thanks again for taking the time to make comments, especially regarding specifc concerns that we can address. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:58, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As alluded to above, I don't find communication with you an easy task. It's a two-lane street, so logically I contribute equally to the problem. In the past, and now here again, you've chosen to focus on "excess detail" when in fact I've been trying to draw your attention to scope and the foundation for the narrative article-wide. I acknowledge that the situation's not as clear-cut as that: sometimes I've been saying "This needs to be included". Detail. But I know in the last FAC I kept trying to bring it to your attention that details I was offering in that forum weren't necessarily for immediate inclusion in the article; they were intended to give some thought to scope for the relevant section. (As mentioned at the start of that FAC, I thought the nomination was very premature. In my mind, the FAC ended up taking the form of a belated workshop of ideas, to some extent.) But your reply here just confuses me more. Why should I be expected to actively work on an article just because I've got some strong opinions on the article? I've been asked to contribute comments, and I've done so. At the risk of sounding arrogant – but I'll risk it – I wouldn't be so opinionated if I didn't consider my opinions well informed. I'm just not interested in working on a bio/overview article that's not close to delivering, when there's Harrison song articles I can create, say, or existing Harrison articles to improve, that might immediately deliver a piece that fulfils the reason for the article's existence. You want to get an FAC over the line, I want to see every article deliver what it should – it doesn't seem to me like the two paths necessarily align. And I have to laugh at your comment "Have you ever tried to "stand-up" to SandyGeorgia? Do you know who she is?" I dunno ... Keith Richards? I mean no disrespect to SandyGeorgia – because I'm sure she's earned such a formidable reputation for the best reasons, and drawing a line on the length of an article to the total exclusion of some important points wouldn't be one of them, surely. But your reverence here in the hallowed chambers of FAC is symptomatic of the problem with this article, I think: no focus on content that delivers something educational and enlightening to a reader; all eyes on the gold-star prize. JG66 (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabe, I think JG66 is making some good points on the colour the article needs - I don't think it is as ambitious as you're worried about - I think 1-3 sentences in each section can take it into much better territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect it's a problem of communication rather than necessarily of disagreement. We had a discussion over mention of Harrison's work with Tom Scott last time, for example, which I suspected was excess detail, but the way you have phrased it more recently, e.g. in your 28 March comments, where you stated generally that we should include discussion of his session work, among other things -- that is actionable and addressable. If you have particular details in mind that we could include, that's great too, but a general statement that the "foundation isn't there" isn't necessarily helpful. I can be exceptionally thick on occasion, so it doesn't hurt to beat me over the head if there's something I don't seem to be getting, but if you can generally keep comments to a "add x, and for example y is a good anecdote that illustrates x" formula, I think it will be better for everyone and for the article. Thanks again for your comments, and thank you, Gabe, for handling all the comments here since I last showed up! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
well, I'm glad to see these receiving some sort of coverage. I'm confused why you've not discussed Harrison as a music producer primarily in that new section; also by the choice of albums on which made guest appearances, eg no mention of Dylan's New Morning and Under a Red Sky albums. I don't mind stepping in to help here now that the section's at least under way, but I can't do anything for at least a week. The 74 tour discussion is surprising. I would be very wary of trusting Inglis' book - his source for negative critical reaction is Fong Torres' Rolling Stone piece (which can't possibly serve as a reliable ref because it was written after show 10 of 45). The tour was not a commercial failure. I'm sure Leng argues against it being a critical failure - he questions the whole Rolling Stone beat up, doesn't he? The only book I have here with me now is Doggett's - no way does he support either of the statements either. Again, I don't mind stepping in here, but I can't do it for a while. JG66 (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some detail about Harrison playing guitar on Dylan's New Morning and Under the Red Sky albums, and a bit on Harrison's producing Splinter, Preston, and Troy. Inglis is the most scholarly source currently available on Harrison, and though far from perfect, few if any sources are. Leng certainly isn't beyond bias. FTR, Fong Torres' Rolling Stone piece was printed in RS 176 on 19 December 1974, the day before the Dark Horse tour concluded. So, how do you know that he wrote it immediately following the 10th show, on 18 November? Further, if you think Fong Torres was the only critic who lambasted the Dark Horse tour, then read Greene, 2006, pp. 213–220. Numerous writers at the time, criticised the tour throughout, with Harrison defending his position against journalists until the very end at Madison Square Garden (Greene, 2006, p.218). Also, Doggett does indeed support that most fans were quite disappointed by Shankar's presence (he demanded silence and no smoking during his sets), and by Harrison's voice, and his inappropriate reworking of Beatles lyrics. Greene and Huntley also support these assertions. To clarify, no one is asking you to "step-in" here. If you have an improvement/s you would like to make then of course, by all means feel free; this is a collaborative project and neither Evan nor myself own the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ever the politician, you rather forgot to mention above that you'd reworded the sentence with Doggett's ref. When I last wrote, I was objecting to Doggett (and Leng) being used to support your statement that the tour was "a critical and commercial failure". That's quite a different claim from the innocuous wording you used above. Once again, your basic skills of comprehension are found wanting: who said anything about Fong Torres being the only critic who savaged the tour? I was objecting to Inglis's viewpoint being trustworthy, because Inglis supports his tour-wide statement with the Fong Torres article. I never said it was Fong Torres and only Fong Torres. From memory, Greene is simply repeating the individual early-tour quotes that Fong Torres does, with a New York one added perhaps (I don't have my books around me, so I'd need to check that). Yes, reviews were negative again on the East Coast. You can always tell which authors have pretty much gone with the Rolling Stone version, without looking elsewhere, by the details they give on the set list. Anyone referring to Shankar opening the concert is going with Fong Torres' description of the opening show in Vancouver; the set was immediately rearranged so that Shankar's (now only) segment sat in the middle of the show, to both improve the pacing of the show and reduce the length of the programme; Harrison dropped Lord Loves the One and Who Can See It after Vancouver - another giveaway as far as being able to spot the "parroters", who may refer to these songs as being performed "during" or even "throughout" the tour. It was the one show only. The issue of Rolling Stone was indeed dated 19 December but it must've come out two weeks before, perhaps more, because in a Michael Gross piece for Circus Raves, Gross and Tom Scott discuss the article and it's straight after one of the Toronto shows (from memory, 6 Dec). If you look at RS dates for All Things Must Pass and Dark Horse album reviews, they're both January or February even though albums were released in last month or two of preceding year, yet the NME reviews for each appear in issues dated December. (I've been meaning to investigate this difference in pub date vs given date, for an article I've been working on for ages, on the Harrison-Shankar tour. Figure this has to have been an RS ref/dating quirk at the time.) The Gross/Circus Raves piece is on Rock's Back Pages but it's (expensive) subscription only. I've got that show 10 of 45 idea from the Gross article, from his description of when Fong Torres was covering the tour for RS (only the West Coast gigs). From everything I've seen about this tour, Leng is actually spot on about this "given"/RS view being both widespread and inaccurate. It's clear, to me at least, that no major critics covered the middle two-thirds of the tour, when reviews were very good - and authors increasingly take the troubled start and the exhausted end (which was all tied up with the Beatles Agreement pressures) and present the bookends as a whole. The reason I really took exception to the way you'd used Doggett as your ref is because, having finally got around to buying his book, but been wary, I was really impressed to see how he'd discussed the tour: uniformly harsh reviews early on, no question, but tying in the Beatles nostalgia issue (and George's refusal to play ball) also. Gotta rush off; as mentioned previously I'm winging this without my books right now. JG66 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - no way were Dark Horse album and single first releases by a former Beatle not to make UK top 30. Ringo's Beaucoups of Blues album didn't, nor did his Snookeroo single, the latter released a week or two before Dark Horse in the UK. McCartney's Back Seat of My Car was another. As mentioned in the previous FAC, I still think you've confused the situation, because Dark Horse was second single from the album in the UK, after Ding Dong, which did chart (though not inside top 30). JG66 (talk) 09:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. JG66, while Evan and I greatly appreciate your comments, your walls of text are quite difficult to follow and reply to. I would really appreciate it if you made some attempt at brevity, and perhaps you could also consider using bullet points.
  1. And those walls of text are difficult to write also. I've tried to write short comments at times, but you misunderstand even the briefest of statements, which then leads to me have to write more in the way of explanation. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Please reel back the rhetoric and insults, many of which are bordering on personal attacks. E.g. "it just doesn't do any good trying to get through to you", "ever the politician", and "your basic skills of comprehension are found wanting". There is absolutely no need to be hostile and abusive, and your comments should pertain to content, not editors.
  1. Well, that's all well and good, GabeMc, but communication being a two-way thing, perhaps it's something you're giving out. Ive acknowledged above that I must have a hand in this problem. Impatience and frustration sets in when I've tried to explain a point, not just here but in the previous FAC, and you often pick up half of it and ignore the rest. Not only that - and this is is related to the above point about brevity - I'm amazed at the level of detailed discussion and debate needed here, quite frankly, regarding some very basic issues to do with the life and music of George Harrison. Going back to January, I've found that you seem to be unaware of a number of these issues, and yet you apparently feel qualified (in the loose sense of the word) to act as editorial control on this article at FAC. While I certainly don't set out to be abusive, you'll have to understand if I'm less than full of respect for your work. I only work on George Harrison articles, and I've never seen you add anything even semi-substantial to a Harrison article. (My apologies if I'm wrong about that, but that's from what I've seen anyway.) I'm tough on myself too: I wouldn't dream of taking an article to FAC unless I was something of an authority on the subject. JG66 (talk) 03:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. In my opinion, stuff like the above comment just isn't helpful. It's perfectly fine to acknowledge the difficulty in communication, but it's not okay for the majority of a comment on a page dedicated to the improvement of an article to be regarding your personal impression of another article's work. It's off topic, and things like that should be avoided as much as possible. Keep in mind that your preferred version of the article is not the only good way for it to be written, nor is implementing every last detail of it the only way to meet the Featured Article criteria. While my knowledge of Harrison's career may or may not be as thorough of yours, I do feel qualified to say that the article's coverage is well balanced. If you disagree, that's something worth noting, but let's keep the particulars of the disagreement as the core of the conversation, and not focus on the simple fact that the disagreement exists. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per you above comment: "Oh - no way were Dark Horse album and single first releases by a former Beatle not to make UK top 30." According to Roberts, David, ed. (2005). British Hit Singles & Albums (18 ed.). Guinness World Records Limited. ISBN 978-1-904994-00-8, neither the Dark Horse album nor the single charted in the UK, and the single, "Ding Dong, Ding Dong" made #38 (I didn't mention "Ding Dong" in-line, as it was yet another critical failure, but I have now added it as a note). Also according to Roberts, Macca's "Back Seat of My Car" peaked in the UK at #39, so it did indeed chart there. However, you're absolutely correct to assert that Starr was the first ex-Beatle who released something that failed to chart, Greene obviously made a mistake there, but really, all he had to add was "other than Starr", or similar. As I said above, I have yet to find a perfect source completely free from errors, especially regarding the Beatles. I think Harrison attributed the name, "the Beatles" to the movie The Wild One, as did the Anthology film, yet we now know that the movie was banned in the UK at the time, so it's nearly impossible that it inspired the name, despite Harrison's claim. Anyway, I've now copyedited the bit for accuracy, so thanks much for the fact check.
  1. I was querying your wording that they were the first releases by a former Beatle not to make the top thirty - I know Back Seat made number 39. JG66 (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Regarding the Dark Horse Tour and reviews: My point is that the negative reviews came-in throughout the tour, and from various sources, not just RS. Greene gives examples from the Los Angeles Herald and the San Fransico Examiner, among others. On 15 December (5 days prior to the tour's conclusion), an East-coast reviewer described the show as "perceptible boredom".(Greene, 2006, p.216) Near the end of the tour, Harrison told a reporter: "There will always be [criticism] ... I didn't force you at gun-point to come and see me. And I don't care if nobody comes to see me".(Greene, 2006, p.217–218) Greene called the tour "the greatest disappointment of [Harrison's] life".(Greene, p.219) As much as Leng attempts to re-write history, the most complementary thing he wrote about the tour is that it was "revolutionary in its presentation of Indian Music".(Leng, 2006, p.177) GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Yes, but Greene is merely quoting from Fong Torres with those LA and San Fran reviewer comments. Alan Clayson, Inglis and Huntley all take that RS article as the basis for their descriptions of tour wide critical reaction, and add some East Coast reviewer comments. For the purposes of this article, at least with the wording as it currently stands, any discussion here is redundant, I suggest. (As mentioned, it was the original wording you had that was unsupported by the refs you chose.) I really think you're wrong about Leng, and certainly wrong to treat Inglis as a reliable source for anything factual about Harrison; I view his claims like those of an Allmusic reviewer - he just hasn't done the research, it's obvious. For the record - because I think others here might need to know if they don't have the book - Leng is not attempting to rewrite history, I believe, and he's the only author that's researched the 74 tour to any degree, which includes accessing a wide range of reviews and interviewing musicians such as Andy Newmark and Jim Horn. A sample of reviews appears across five pages of the book (all this from memory, I don't have the books here right now) and Leng makes the point that the majority of reviews were positive. From the sample he provides, that's definitely so. Leng has way more positive things to say about the tour than you've stated, GabeMc. He discusses a Fort Worth show in some detail and is full of praise for the performance; following Long Beach, Leng states, the tour was very well received. (I can remember all that off the top of my head). New York and East Coast generally, the harsh reviews start again. Leng's the only one to investigate the reception afforded the whole tour, and I find it hard to believe he'd be falsifying the results. And he's dead right that other authors have simply gone with the predominantly RS version of events. To all our relief no doubt, I don't think the matter needs to be discussed further here, because of the current wording. But I feel the need to point out that Leng's contribution to understanding George Harrison is vital, in my opinion, and definitely shouldn't be overlooked in favour of Inglis, or Greene or Huntley. PS That Inglis-attributed sentence about Shankar opening the concerts is incorrect and needs changing; scholarly or not, Inglis just hasn't done the background. (I could give you a list ...) JG66 (talk) 05:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I'm going to have to go double-check Leng's comments on the tour reception. I'll probably have something to say here once I've done that (probably later today). Thanks. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. JG66, are you suggesting that Harrison's friends Andy Newmark and Jim Horn are WP:RSs for the critical reaction to the DH tour? Are you suggesting that Greene, Inglis, Huntley, and Tillery are all unreliable? Is Leng the only reliable source on Harrison IYO? If so, why? Also, you keep blaming all the bad press on the Fong Torres piece, however; Greene uses several sources for his material on the tour (chapter 11), including Mark Ellen from Q, Larry Sloman from RS (30 January 1975), Jim Miller from RS (13 February 1975), as well as 8-10 interviews with Harrison conducted during the tour or shortly after. So, you really can't blame all the bad reviews on Fong Torres, can you? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gabe, I don't keep blaming all the bad press on Fong Torres's piece; I'm saying that those authors base their accounts of the tour primarily on his RS piece (covering the West Coast), spiced with some equally stinging comments from reviewers of the East Coast shows. The middle portion of the tour, close to two-thirds in other words, wasn't reported on by Rolling Stone (or any major music publication, as far as I know), yet critical consensus tour-wide, according to these same authors, was almost entirely negative. Leng's research shows us that the tour received very favourable reviews during that larger, central portion; I was surprised also to see some positive reviews of a West Coast show and a New York one included in Leng's book. (Again, I'm without books, so I'm going from memory right now.) JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Larry Sloman wrote the piece for RS on the New York shows; Jim Miller wrote the RS album review for Dark Horse, and focused a great deal on the tour and Miller's opinion of Harrison. These two pieces combine with Fong Torres' to provide the RS/"given" view on the 74 tour that Leng refers to, a view that makes no mention of this apparently warmly received middle two-thirds of the tour, because it went undetected on the RS radar. Almost every writer - Mark Ellen at Q no doubt, I don't know - has gone with this overwhelmingly negative picture of the tour. But I've yet to find that they've done any active research. Leng has done the research, he makes a claim that challenges this given view, and he provides pages of reviews to support his position. I'll buy that anytime, if it can be seen that an author's done the research. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the other authors you mention - yes, I do believe Leng should be trusted over them. Ingles states at the front of his book that it is not a George Harrison biography; it's commentary and analysis of Harrison's music, and pretty much to the exclusion of projects outside of a defined solo career unfortunately. Inglis at least provides a source for his statement on tour-wide critical reception in 1974; the problem is it's the Fong Torres article on Harrison's W Coast gigs, reproduced in RS Press Harrison tribute book. Huntley: not a reference in sight in his book. And rather than him being a writer who appears to research his subject thoroughly, I'm afraid I've found a lot of examples where Huntley's lifted text from others' work, almost verbatim, and presented it as his own work. (Eg, compare Huntley's discussion of the My Sweet Lord court case with the article by Joseph Self which appears under External Links in the My Sweet Lord article.) JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I love Greene's book, and - like Leng's and to some extent Clayson's - it provides a really important window on George Harrison, IMO. But I don't consider it factually reliable. He separates some of Harrison's comments to Fong Torres, for instance, and states that Harrison "told an interviewer later in the tour" - in fact, all the comments came from the same interview in November. (Again, this off the top of my head, I hasten to add.) Greene, and Tillery too, has indulged in a fair bit of creative non-fiction writing, I think it's fair to say. Greene invents conversations that took place between Harrison and Hare Krishna friends, I'm sure of it (for instance, Harrison's side of a conversation appears to be straight out of the text in I Me Mine in some cases). Tillery gets equally creative with his description of Harrison returning from India in early 1974 and "wondering what to do next", or something similar; same with the description of Harrison wandering around the grounds of Friar Park in a daze after the tour. These points are based on truth to some extent, but they're dramatised, there's no question. Greene especially is one for this style of non-fiction/biography, which one normally finds adopted by authors of more historical-themed texts (I've read biographies of people from the American Civil War era which use this style). In the case of Greene's book, this approach makes for an entertaining read, sort of halfway between a biography and a novel; but much of what I read there I'm reluctant to take on as fact. I'd need to check the relevant chapter, as far as the 74 tour goes, but my feeling about Greene is that he'd be more concerned about the presentation of the overall picture rather than necessarily searching out the facts: he wants to build up a scene dramatically. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gone on and on here and I promised myself I wouldn't ... Plenty more to say on the subject as always, but it's best left for other talk pages. The main thing is, as mentioned last time, the current wording in the article is pretty correct, I believe. JG66 (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting recent comments by Casliber and Spike Wilbury, I do agree that the article's looking much better overall, by the way. I've got a couple more issues to comment on, specific points, but that's going to have to wait a day or two, I'm afraid. JG66 (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I was pretty sure I was remembering correctly, Leng quotes a number of reviews from across the nation. The most favorable of those seems to be John Wenderborn, commenting on the Vancouver show. At least in the bits Leng quotes, he doesn't even mention the vocal problems. Most of the reviews seem to mention either Harrison's singing issues, audience apathy, or both, though not necessarily as the defining elements of the tour. As has been mentioned, Ben Fong-Torres of Rolling Stone says, for example, "He performs 'My Sweet Lord' and out of the silence comes the silence—a still and seated audience with only the front section clapping along." (Interestingly, Lorraine Haacke notes that the Fort Worth audience was "ecstatic" during this encore.) D. P. bond of the Post-Intelligencer says, "Harrison's voice was at best raspy," but goes on to say that, "Harrison's concert tour will be a successful, well-remembered entry in rock history." Jacoba Atlas for Melody Maker called one of the LA shows "a complete delight," and Walter Dawson says that the Memphis concert showed "no evidence of raggedness."
It goes on like that for the next two or three pages. I'm going to go check the article now and see if we might be able to place a bit more emphasis on the positive reaction. While most critical reviews were negative, there seem to be a vocal minority of positive ones. I'll see what I can do. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:16, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And the solution I decided on was to add a quote from one of the reviewers who liked the show. I feel this helps counterbalance the overall account, which seemed primarily focused on the negative (that was at least partially my fault). If anyone thinks this made the section unwieldy or worse overall, feel free to overrule me. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Evan, FWIW, per your above comments: "As I was pretty sure I was remembering correctly, Leng quotes a number of reviews from across the nation. The most favorable of those seems to be John Wenderborn, commenting on the Vancouver show". The title of Wenderborn piece is "Opening Concert by ex-Beatle Harrison left many Listeners Grumbling".(Leng, p.332) Also, where are Leng's notes? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! By Wenderborn, I meant Larry Fleischmann (Wenderborn and Fleischman are each the first review quoted on two sequential left-hand pages; I must have turned the page and not noticed before I checked the name). It does seem to me as though Leng may be selectively choosing positive reviews in order to "stack the deck," as it were, and I do wonder what was between the ellipses in many of these. As I said, if my addition unduly weighs anything down, feel free to undo it. Not sure what you mean by "Leng's notes." Are you asking for a page number? 160-165, if so. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I guess he attributes the reviews in-line, so he doesn't need to add them to his bibliography. It is worth noting; however, that while he includes 20+ excerpts of reviews, a 45-date tour must have produced 10 to 20 times that amount of write-ups. At a conservative guess of 5 to 10 reviews per show, Leng's elided review samples would represent only about 5-10% of the conservatively estimated available reviews. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
[edit]

I've skimmed through the article again, and while it's good to finally see some extended discussion given to Harrison's 1974 tour and his production and session work, the article does feel like it gets bogged down at times. I'd put that down to the lack overarching narrative discussed above; on the other hand, I agree with Spike Wilbury that comparisons with McCartney and Lennon articles are now unnecessary, because now this one actually connects with the subject, which I certainly didn't think was the case until recent additions were made.

I thought it was interesting, Evan, your point about you having been overly negative in the text re the 1974 tour. To me, going back months, this article had quite a negative undercurrent towards its subject - I'm not sure if that's quite the right way to phrase it ... To put it as clearly as possible: I got the impression that neither of you warmed towards Harrison in any way or rated him at all as an artist. Perhaps that's far from the truth, but I guess I'm thinking of recent comments about it being "a bit of a stretch" to describe Harrison as a modest person, that all he did when making guest appearances on others' recordings was provide "some basic guitar tracks". Other points of discussion, in the previous FAC, had brought this home. Of course, a healthy sense of impartiality is a good thing, but the article reflected this attitude, and quite obviously. I was pleased to read below Spike W querying a mention of "flashy" guitar playing equalling "technically difficult", as you had it previously in the article. Most guitarists would agree, I think, that it's actually more difficult to play something simple but effective (as per Petty's quote under Guitar work) than to go crazy on the fretboard. But the implication was there that Harrison somehow wasn't up to it. (Was the "technically difficult" bit in your original source ...?) I don't want to dwell on the issue; it's just that, to me, this negativity (perceived or otherwise) was a major factor in the lack of engagement and lack of "Harrison the man"/non-Beatle George focus in the article previously. Which is probably why I repeatedly drew comparisons with the other ex-Beatle articles. I think the article is now closer to delivering a more rounded and educational overview on Harrison with the latest changes. Much of this is down to an apparently more generous attitude towards the subject.

A number of things I picked up during a quick read through, some of which address remnants of that same issue.

  • I'm sure the lead-in is still a work in progress, but the mention that "By the end of their career" Harrison introduced Indian instrumentation to the Beatles' sound seems both repetitious and not entirely accurate in that context.
  • I realise that the associated acts field went through a rethink per guidelines, but if Badfinger's included, shouldn't Splinter be also? He certainly "joined the band" while producing them, just as he did with Badfinger.
  • "prolific session musician" in the lead-in (kind of what I mean by a "more generous attitude"!). Aside from the terminology, "session musician", seems like Badfinger should be included here?
  • Early years: It is a nice detail about Louise Harrison's loud voice startling visitors, but excess perhaps? I feel cruel for raising it. A more George-centric point might be a point made by Mojo writer John Harris that out off all Beatle parents, Louise H was the only one who championed her son's and the other Beatles' talents. The quote's somewhere in the Deep Blue (song) article, or it was last time I looked. See what you think, I'm certainly not pushing either way.
  • I think it makes the point that his mother was musicaly inclined, which is quite different then merely being supportive of George's music, which is already well-established previously in the paragraph by the Boyd quote. Also, per your comment: "Louise H was the only one who championed her son's ... talents", well, George's father bought him the Egmond, and his father's friend taught George his first chords, so while generally more practical then George's mother, I wouldn't say he was never supportive of George's talents and/or aspirations. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you mean. I didn't mean to suggest that Harry H didn't support Harrison also, just that out of all the Bealtes, Harrison was the only one who had a parent (or two) who was fully supportive of the band's success. Like I said, not pushing for any change on this. JG66 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A thorough copy edit will cover this sort of thing, of course: My Sweet Lord is linked twice within a few paragraphs. Elsewhere, authors are "introduced" (ie description and first name) at subsequent mentions rather than the first one. Ian Inglis is only introduced under Legacy, I think, yet we hear from under All things must pass, if not before. Womack also. And what's the deal with those Oxford commas? Plenty of instances without, plenty with. Would love to see them gone - utterly redundant. (Is a comma really needed in "'If I Needed Someone', and 'Think for Yourself'"?)
  • I've fixed the "MSL" linking, and properly introduced Inglis and Womack on their first mentions, I'll scan the article for similar issues. As far as the Oxford comma, 1) Evan is the one who sort of decided this for the article, so I really don't feel that I should be required to defend his actions, 2) I think this type of choice is typically left-up to the noming editors, and it is not an actionable objection per se. Having said that, I really don't care either way, I just want it made consistent, and I'm more than a little tired of these pointless minutiae-based arguments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, the Oxford comma was essentially my decision. We did form a consensus on Oxford spelling at the talk page, but serial commas aren't really a part of Oxford spelling per se. If others think they should be gotten rid of, I'm fine with it, but I don't see what that has to do with the Featured Article criteria. Losing them doesn't improve the prose in any way. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malleus suggested that we remove the Oxford commas so I have attempted to do just that, but I'm sure I've missed a few and/or removed some that I shouldn't have. Commas are obviously not my strong suit. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solo career: Regardless of my opinion about Inglis's book, his presence in the article is a bit overbearing. He comments on two key songs on All Things; he's again the only contemporary reviewer we hear from re Material World, and at length there; he tells us about Harrison's "sermonizing" during the 1974 tour; we hear from him again about both Ex Texture and "This Guitar". I'll come up with suggestions to vary later examples. Under All Things, is it possible to get a Leng quote to cover discussion of Isn't It a Pity, instead of having Inglis's view on both songs?
  • Concert for Bangladesh: Relevant to suggestions below about cutting down on amount of text afforded Material World and Dark Horse period, I wonder if it might be an idea to include a quote from Rolling Stone online's Harrison bio, the quote says something about Harrison unwittingly being the centre of attention as a result of the Bangladesh aid project. (Sorry to be vague. I'm working on an iPad here, battery's almost gone. You'll find the piece I'm thinking of in the refs section for The Best of George Harrison.) I just think that's a fair observation to add here; also that it would provide something on Harrison's standing at this early point following the Beatles breakup, and avoid a couple of issues that surface in the text covering his next two or three albums.
  • Are you referring to this online bio? If so, can you please be more specific about which quotation you recommend we include? Because I'm not seeing anything there regarding "Harrison unwittingly being the centre of attention as a result of the Bangladesh aid project". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies - it's in fact Bruce Eder's Allmusic bio on Harrison. The sentence I was thinking of is: "In the most towering irony imaginable, the reluctant Beatle became the beneficiary of most of the lingering good will attached to the group." My thinking is that a comment such as that is both appropriate in the text discussing Bangladesh, and also goes towards avoiding the rather bogged-down situation that Inglis' comments create under Material World. This latter issue involves some other changes, which I'll tie up below. I just wanted to give you the correct bio link right now. As mentioned , it might be an idea to hold off with replies, because I'd much rather present you with something that's complete and actionable. JG66 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Material World: The first sentence, discussing chart placing in Us and Uk for single and album seems a bit wordy. The only thing I can suggest is rewording to state that they both topped the US charts, and maybe take mention of UK chart peaks to an endnote (?)
  • The discussion that follows on this album is one of those examples of an unnecessarily negative picture of the situation, IMO. It does seem as though the unfavorable reviews get a lot of focus. I can see why, because of the point from Inglis about the effect of this criticism on Harrison, so I'm not saying its necessarily for the wrong reasons. But Living in the Material World is much admired by many authors (Leng, Greene, Rodriguez, Tillery, Huntley), and it received some amazing reviews on release. The praise heaped on the album by Stephen Holden of Rolling Stone is the most effusive I've ever seen for a Beatle solo album, if not for any album of that era in an RS review. My suggestion would be to quote from Holden's review, but point out that some other critics were less enthusiastic, and forget Inglis's segue altogether. Apart from the issue of balance, currently a lot of text is dedicated to this album, Dark Horse and the 1974 tour, which seems out of proportion with acclaimed works such as All Things and Bangladesh. (Dont you think?) Also worth pointing out that other highly regarded albums such as George Harrison, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed receive no discussion at all regarding critical response; Thirty Three gets a brief line on this issue, no more. I was all for showing some sort of development in Harrison's career through this decade, I know, but the attention afforded this 1973-75 period just can't be replicated for the other releases, I imagine. JG66 (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made an edit that, I think, tightens-up and balances this section nicely. 1973–1979 is by far the most prolific 6 years of Harrison's solo career, and arguably the most notable after ATMP and Bangladesh; therefore, that it seems slightly more detailed then other, less notable sections is I think quite fine. Having said that, I've added some minor, but important details regarding George Harrison, Cloud Nine and Brainwashed, which I believe will go a long way towards improving the article's overarching narrative while respecting brevity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with you at all, I'm just mindful of earlier concerns about article length and a recent comment on that issue from Tim Riley. I worry that more text is being added than is needed perhaps. The discussion on the 74 tour reads very nicely, for instance, but I think the sentence or two that Evan added (from Leng's book) could in fact be removed in the interests of keeping the discussion more concise. As mentioned a couple of times previously, I thought your wording (without that new point from Leng) was absolutely fine: very fair, with the Rodriguez and Leng quotes concluding the discussion. Rather than qualifying the point about critical consensus at the time, if something else is needed it would be mention of this being first US tour by an exBeatle and Harrison's refusal to play ball, I think. If you wouldn't mind bearing with me, I hope to give you some suggestions about cutting down the amount of text needed in this section but still retaining the overall message. Adding that Bangladesh point is the first thing to help achieve this, and I think mention of Harrison's anti-Beatle feelings on the tour might work well with that. For what it's worth, my feeling is that the brief comment on 33 & 1/3 being warmly received is just fine, same for what relatively little there is in the way of reviewers' comments for Harrison's best known release, All Things Must Pass. More soon. JG66 (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Horse: I think discussion on the album has to follow text on the tour. The harsh reviews the album received, particularly from RS, stemmed from the tour, in part. Those that had no problem with the tour (Melody Maker, Billboard, Circus Raves) reviewed the album very positively. The RS quote you've taken actually makes reference to this chronology. Also, that "complete disaster" phrase from Joshuua Greene, it's actually him paraphrasing Jim Miller's RS review. Just seems odd to see it, I suppose, when Miller's words appear straight afterwards.

Sorry, this has been very rushed. I'll come back with part two tomorrow. Might be best if you let me come back, reword, clarify, tie up points, first before getting into heavy discussion. I'm sure much of it doesn't make sense yet. JG66 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for using bullet points, they are much easier for me to follow. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See what you think of this version of the 1973 to '79 solo work section. Not as short as I'd hoped maybe, but then I did add mention of first US tour by ex-Beatle along with quote from Mikal Gilmore on Dark Horse album. The edit history on that page may have some comments/explanations if youre interested. Also, there's a quote under LITMW that's attributed to Greene in the text but Leng in the citation; I think it is Leng, but might be an idea to have input from Greene instead, to avoid too much coming from Leng? To my way of thinking, the text in this version is now tighter, with some repetition removed. Worth adding perhaps that I had second thoughts about doing this; so I re-read the article from midway through the Beatles section down, and I still got that feeling that the discussion got bogged down from LITMW onwards. As I say, see what you think.

1) JG66, as much as I greatly appreciate your effort, I'm not at all a fan of the "copy-paste from my sandbox" method. 2) FWIW, when you edit like this, you often add and/or move material around so that the following source no longer supports the preceeding assertions in the text. E.g., while you listed Preston, Tom Scott, Willie Weeks, Andy Newmark and Jim Horn as DHT musicians, the supporting source, Inglis pp.48–49, does not mention Weeks or Newmark, so one would need to add Leng, p.167 (as I've now done, but as you can see, this method would require a re-check of all the sourcing). 3) I've added a few of the better bits in your draft, but perhaps you could bullet point the other important things that you think should be added or removed, as you had been doing above. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
1) Well, a couple of weeks ago, you did ask/suggest I write a subsection on Harrison's extracurricular music projects in my sandbox. Is this so different? Each change in this 1973-79 section would've taken a sentence or two to explain, so I thought it was easier to present it and save time and space here. 2) Yes, I appreciate that. Sorry, yet again: I'm away from my books so I couldn't check the refs. Seemed important to mention Weeks and Newmark; in fact, Keltner only joined the tour halfway through. 3) Will do. Please note the Dark Horse Tour article you've linked to is not the same tour. Bullet-listed points coming soon. JG66 (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some points that I hope might support more of the changes I suggested yesterday for the subsection covering 1973 to 1979 under Solo Work. I think it might be an idea to first read, even skim-read, the article up to the start of this subsection as it currently stands. Perhaps I'm the only one that thinks this (?), but the article really slows down when we come to this '73-74 period. I've only got time right now to cover the 1973 album, so more to follow soon.
  • Looking at the wording right now under Living in the Material World, the big problem, I think, is that final observation from Inglis. Really, it belongs with Inglis's earlier point about Harrison's despondency at some of the less favorable reviews for LITMW - that's what "it coincided with" relates to. Even then, though, I don't think it would work, because more of Inglis's text would be needed to fully deliver the point (text that was in the article briefly, I think, about Harrison having never known anything but critical praise for the Beatles' work and his own). Not only that, but this observation from Inglis gives the discussion of LITMW an unduly negative tone, when in fact the negativity belongs in discussion of Dark Horse and Extra Texture, because those are the projects to which Inglis refers. Another thing is, I think Inglis is simplifying the situation about Harrison's "despondency"; more so than critics sniping at LITMW (mostly in the UK), I suggest it was continued problems with the Bangladesh proceeds and the new "front" against Klein in 1973, along with the failure of his marriage, that really brought Harrison down. I just made a change to that version I came up with, reinstating Inglis's "self-righteous, maudlin, and clumsy in its execution" comment, which I'd deleted previously. As you'll see, I've now deleted the Inglis "It coincided with ... a mood of gloom and cynicism" point - I think that quote creates too many problems. Maybe this new version appeals.
  • Streamlined and way better, yes. I've just corrected that ref for Greene's point in the article. Only thing I'd question is the inclusion of "overly sentimental" – might be best to leave out unless the ref does support that description? JG66 (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned last time, the quote about LITMW containing many of the strongest compositions of Harrison's career is attributed to Greene in the text, but the ref carries Leng as the source.
  • Talking about Leng, a way to at least touch on the issue that Inglis raises in that quote is to replace the Mikal Gilmore quote about Dark Horse with Leng's description of the 1974 album as "a musical soap opera, cataloguing rock-life antics, marital strife, lost friendships, and self-doubt" (p 159). It doesn't quite have the same tone as Inglis', I know. (And personally I love that quote from Gilmore.) JG66 (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 1974 tour. I think there's some text here that's redundant, and I felt I'd finetuned the discussion in the version I'd proposed. The first example of this is "His 45-date Dark Horse Tour, which extended into late December, received mixed reviews", because later on there's: "Despite numerous positive reviews, the consensus reaction to the tour was negative ..." So the mixed reviews point is handled later on, and in a more informative way. I suggest, remove that earlier sentence ("His 45-date Dark Horse Tour ...") and reinstate December in the first sentence of the paragraph. So much on reviews and critical consensus appears later in the para, I really don't think the situation re critical response needs to be outlined upfront. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The order of musicians I came up with reflected Preston and Scott's roles as featured performers during the shows, but omitted Keltner because he only participated in about half of the tour. I suggest the order should be Preston, Tom Scott, Willie Weeks, Andy Newmark and Jim Horn. Also, link for Scott here rather than later on, in the note under Thirty Three & 1/3. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in my version also avoided mention of these musicians having "worked on the album", because, with discussion of Dark Horse moved down in the article, no album has been mentioned yet. So that needs to be either per my version or reworded somehow. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The description of the various issues that critics had with the tour really goes on, I think, and I'd really tried to streamline this. (More than anything, with all this discussion on what critics thought about the tour and his albums during this period, it highlights the fact that little is offered about the projects, musically. Much could be said about Harrison deliberately paring down the ATMP sound for LITMW and working with a small group of musicians unlike in 1970; Dark Horse sees him embracing funk and soul music genres, going for an obvious American sound. I don't suggest you add these details, with article length where it is, but do you see what I mean – the more text is given to critical reaction throughout this section, the more obvious the omissions regarding content become?) With the '74 tour, I definitely think "complaints about the content, structure, and length; the show's duration of two and a half hours was seen as excessive at the time" should go, seeing as three sentences follow this, all detailing critics' objections. (And if the points about structure and 2.5 hour duration get missed out, does it matter?) I hoped that what I came up with might make the overall picture clear enough to readers without affording the negative reaction too much in the way of detail: "Despite numerous positive reviews, the consensus reaction to the tour was negative.[9] Some fans found Shankar's significant presence a bizarre disappointment, and many were affronted by what Inglis described as Harrison's "sermonizing" as well as his reworking of the lyrics to several Beatles songs.[10] His laryngitis-affected vocals also disappointed fans and critics, who began calling the tour "dark hoarse"." JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dark Horse album. Good to see both the Gilmore and the Leng quotes here after all. I'd lose the "remarkably revealing" portion of Leng's, though, because – and I'm sure Leng says this elsewhere – all of Harrison's 1970s albums are remarkably revealing. Also because the preceding Gilmore quote implies this quality in Dark Horse. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra Texture. You must've made some recent cuts here, which is great because previously this discussion was bogged with comment and opinion about the album. Is it okay that Voormann's linked for a second time, after first appearance under All Things Must Pass? JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thirty Three & 1/3. I'd take the note mentioning Scott's production assistance to sit instead at the end of the paragraph, and bring the note discussing The Best of George Harrison forward to sit at end of first sentence. This latter note needs additional text, I think, something like: "Released during the same month, ..." Otherwise, the Best of note seems tagged on, apropos of nothing in the main text. Also because the aside regarding Scott seems more appropriate following comment on the album's content: "With an emphasis on melody and musicianship, and a more subtle subject matter than the pious message of his earlier works ..." JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • George Harrison. Please note the rewording I came up with previously: "The death of his father in May 1978 and the birth of his son in August that year were transformational life events ..." Otherwise, certainly with no month given for release of the album, it appears that his father died in May 1979. JG66 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments to come, if memory serves me right, about later solo section. JG66 (talk) 12:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments Pt II
[edit]
  • Somewhere in England. As a further culling of the discussion about Lennon's death and his relationship with Harrison up to that point, I think the sentence beginning "Their estrangement had been marked by ..." could sit in an end note. The change would only be a cosmetic one, I realise, but removing this point from the main text would lessen the feeling that the discussion gets bogged down again. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph covering 1985 to early 1987. I know you told Indopug that he should put questions my way about the need for this discussion, but in fact I've never supported it, as far as I can remember. Because of the detail that's there on Birmingham Heart Beat, and especially because of what appeared under 1988–2001 until recently for the 1992 Porcaro benefit – and also because Harrison's walk-on at a 1990 Clapton gig is included – I suggested adding mention of Harrison's 1987 appearances with Bob Dylan. But for no other reason than they're as notable as the Heartbeat, Porcaro and Clapton gigs. On the subject of Harrison's live performances, though, I had also questioned the omission of his guest spot with Gary Wright on The Dick Cavett Show in November 1971 and his performance with Paul Simon on SNL five years later; I've also mentioned that he made guest appearances at concerts by Elton John and Deep Purple, yet they're not mentioned in the article, nor the fact that he joined Clapton on stage in late 1978 at Guildford Civic Hall. (Then there are his Henley Music Mafia knees-ups at various Oxfordshire pubs ...) So I've always been a bit confused about what merits inclusion as far as Harrison's rare live appearances go. It's not clear to readers that Harrison might've played (and did play) at other gigs besides the ones mentioned in these subsections – that's what bothers me actually: it's easy to assume that gigs mentioned in the article right now constitute a definitive list. Anyway, I certainly don't think each and every gig should be mentioned. My first suggestion would be to delete mention of the 1990 Clapton gig under Later life: 1988–2001, because it automatically throws up questions of why guest spots such as Clapton '78 and Elton and Deep Purple (early '80s) are not included. JG66 (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the other hand, I would add, in an end note under Thirty Three & 1/3 that, amid Harrison's major promotional campaign for that album (the first time he'd ever engaged in that level of promotion), he appeared on Saturday Night Live with Paul Simon in November 1976. That's quite an important event in Harrison's musical story, imo. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that the gap between 1982 and 1987 does need filling, and the Carl Perkins special and Prince's Trust concert should certainly be mentioned; probably Heart Beat too, since Harrison was effectively "special guest" by appearing at the show's finale. I'd include the songs performed at the Perkins special and Prince's Trust, but remove mention of songs and fellow performers at Heart Beat. Along with these two, maybe three, live appearances, the most correct way to fill the gap would be to mention Harrison's increased involvement with film, surely – HandMade, of course, but also his "I Don't Want to Do It" single for Porky's Revenge. I don't think that'll interfere with the separate section on HandMade. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still the Dylan '87 gig(s), of course. I'd first reword the start of that sentence "The following year, he appeared at The Prince's Trust concert ..." to introduce Harrison's 1987 comeback after his years away in film: "The following year, marking his public return to music-making, he appeared at The Prince's Trust concert ..." (That'll only work if his time away has been commented on as suggested, obviously.) Then, in an end note, something like: "Harrison also made guest appearances that year at a Palomino Club gig by blues singer Taj Mahal, accompanied by Dylan and John Fogerty, and during two dates on Dylan's UK tour with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers." – and remove Harrison's recollection of the Taj gig. I think the shows with Dylan in 1987 and the SNL appearance in 1976 are important to include. I'll help with refs if you agree. JG66 (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Traveling Wilburys. I've ummed and ahhed about this, but there's a problem here with the para beginning "In 1989 Harrison and Starr appeared in the music video", because the text covering Harrison's 1991–92 concerts through to mention of the Dylan 30th anniversary concert in 1992 doesn't correspond with the subsection heading: The Traveling Wilburys. A simple solution would be to insert a new subheading. I've got a solution that's a little more creative, though; it breaks slightly with the chronological order of events and instead attempts to adhere to a Wilburys theme for these projects through to late 1992:
  • To set up for this, I think you need to avoid leaving the Wilburys era with such finality (which certainly isn't in keeping with Harrison's story, I suggest). I'm talking about that sentence: "The Wilburys never performed live and the group did not record together again following the release of their second album." How about adding/rewording to say something like: "Although the Traveling Wilburys never performed live and the group did not record together again following their second album, Harrison continued to view himself as a Wilbury for the rest of his life." (That's paraphrasing a quote from Petty, the original of which I can dig up.) JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That, hopefully, flows naturally into discussion of Wilbury-ish projects like the Petty album. The current wording for "I Won't Back Down" has traces of that Beatle focus, imo. I suggest, for the whole para: "Harrison supplied acoustic guitar and backing vocals on Petty's hit song "I Won't Back Down" in 1989, and appeared in the video along with Lynne and Starr. The following year, he played slide guitar on Lynne's first solo album, Armchair Theatre, and on the title track to Dylan's Under the Red Sky. In October 1992 Harrison performed at Dylan's 30th anniversary tribute concert in New York, playing alongside Dylan, Petty and others, including Clapton, Roger McGuinn and Neil Young. The year before this, in December 1991, he undertook his first series of headlining concerts since 1974 when he toured Japan with Clapton. On 6 April 1992, Harrison held a benefit concert for the Natural Law Party at London's Royal Albert Hall, his first and only full-length concert performance in the UK as a solo artist. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realise that's pretty bold, but it does at least keep the Wilburys focus intact through (most of) this para. (I don't know if you agree about this point – I just can't see how, logically, the third paragraph can sit under the Wilburys heading otherwise.) Absolutely no problem finding refs for all the above, I hasten to add. Please note that change regarding the Natural Law Party concert: certainly not "his first London performance since the Beatles' 1969 rooftop concert", because he'd played a couple of songs at Wembley in 1987. Also, mention of "Under the Red Sky" could therefore be removed from the Studio collaborations subsection. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know you're keeping compilation albums out of the main discussion, but I wonder if it might be an idea to include mention of "Cheer Down" in the main text, since Petty co-wrote the words. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see Wikipedia:Coatrack. This is yet another of your endless requests for more detail that do not in anyway tie-in with the overarching narrative. The article already says: "Harrison co-wrote songs and music with Dylan, Clapton, Preston, Doris Troy, David Bromberg, Gary Wright, Wood, Jeff Lynne, and Tom Petty, among others.[253]" That's quite enough IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the Natural Law Party gig received excellent reviews – I don't want to be adding any excess detail but it might be an idea to add a very brief mention, this being Harrison's only full UK gig. JG66 (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Beatles Anthology. I find a similar issue – discussion not corresponding with the subsection heading – in the paragraph beginning "His final television appearance was to promote Chants of India ..." It's not ideal, but my suggestion would be to at least segue from Anthology to this non-Anthology text, something like: "Rather than return to a solo career as McCartney and Starr did following promotion for Anthology in 1996, Harrison collaborated with Ravi Shankar on the latter's Chants of India album. His final television appearance was a VH-1 special to promote the album, taped in May 1997." JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think mention of Harrison overseeing the 30th anniversary edition of All Things Must Pass and his promotional work through to February 2001 might be good to include somewhere. (A sentence no more.) By all accounts (eg Huntley), he threw himself into the task, and it was a very successful campaign. Most importantly, it seems that the various interviews and the electronic press kit were pretty much the last that the outside world heard from Harrison himself. JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead through the rest of the article, I'm reluctant to get too involved. I think I'll have to apply Spike Wilbury's approach that there's much I would change but ... and leave it at that. I love that there's a substantial section on guitar work now – as always I'd like to see more on Harrison's solo years, especially his slide playing, rather than Beatles era. I'll keep a respectful distance, but I have noticed that some of the text in that section reads more like Songwriting than Guitar work. For example: "Harrison wrote his first published song, "Don't Bother Me" (1963), almost exclusively in Dorian mode" – it does read like a discussion of compositional style, less so one on his guitar playing. I will take a more active look at Studio collaborations, though. Bit disappointed that albums like Raga, In Concert 1972 and Shankar Family & Friends don't get a mention – I really don't believe there was any Western pop musician other than Harrison producing albums of Indian music or any other "world" music in the early 1970s (let alone also releasing them and promoting them). It's okay, don't reply to that(!); I'm just thinking aloud ... JG66 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • JG66, when you write guitar parts you do so in modes, as with Dorian. Modes do not only relate to the vocal melody, which actually follows the guitar part in the song. Anyway, I'm absolutely done addressing your comments. There is nothing left but your own personal opinions and nitpicks. Also, with five supports from five trusted reviewers, I'd say go ahead and oppose (we always knew you would anyway) so that this tedious and dysfunctional relationship can end asap. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you always knew I would be opposing, you knew more than I did. I had every intention of supporting; in this second FAC, I think I've shown that I've been taking on other reviewers' comments and been mindful of the general progress of this forum. If Casliber shares some of the concerns I had in FAC1, for instance, but feels the required "colour" can be achieved by adding "1-3 sentences in each section", I've respected that at least the issue's being addressed at last and maybe that's the most viable option, rather than the overhaul I'd thought was necessary. If Tim Riley's previously strong support becomes merely mild because of article length, I've tried to incorporate that concern in suggestions I have. It is/has been tedious and dysfunctional; I can't think of anything more tedious than having to keep conversing about Rolling Stone's opinion of the 1974 tour when I'd said, and kept repeating, that balance was now okay – no point in continuing the discussion. (But still you'd come back for more.) Or having to point out on three occasions that Harrison's production work for others should be included in that proposed new section, while you constantly referred to his session playing only. And I've not once read you acknowledge your part in all this miscommunication – which I think is very telling. As is your apparent u-turn from stating that Harrison supplied merely "some basic guitar tracks for his friends and clients of Apple" to immediately agreeing with Spike W's statement days later that "He formed real personal relationships with those musicians ... he did a lot more than just clock in and record some tracks" and your deciding that Harrison was "prolific" in this area. And that's only from this particular FAC.
  • I don't care what letters of the alphabet appear in the article's quality rating, and this popularity-contest approach highlights everything I've always been concerned about regarding FACs. It would be so easy to apply those changes I suggested above – it certainly would've taken me a whole lot less time to just jump in and do them myself than having to itemise each and every change here. I don't believe they're nitpicks (obviously); I think the article would benefit in each case. For example, I can't see how heading hierarchy works, logically, when text that is so obviously non-Wilburys related appears under a heading "The Traveling Wilburys". I know this stuff backwards, I can picture a point made on a verso in Clayson or Leng's books or a recto in Greene or I Me Mine; that dedication to this one subject is going to give me plenty to say in a forum such as this, and win me few friends in the process no doubt. But you've got a majority in the house, Senator, so go for it. JG66 (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spike Wilbury

[edit]
  • Comment: I've been reading through this and will post comments soon, but in the mean time, can you locate a new link for ref 236? The article is gone and I can't find it on the source web site. I'd like to read the text supporting that sentence. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your time and comment. I don't know how to implement the wayback machine, but I'm sure Evan does. Worst case scenario, we could trim-out that first bit, and start the section with the Wenner quote, though I suspect we could also source the sentence with our printed sources, but my eyes are too tired now ... more tomorrow. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Thanks, Spike! I'm looking forward to the rest of your comments. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments:
  • 1a: It is well-written overall. I could find niggles all over the page, but they are largely subjective (not outright errors) and I expect for everything I would find to change, someone else might find reason to change it back. I might perform a light copy edit on a less visible article, but on an article of this scope and visibility, we ought to aim for stability.
  • 1b: I think the chronological sections covering his life and career are very good. I do not say this lightly, as I have spent extensive time reading the comments of JC66 in particular. I'm not convinced that repeated comparisons to Lennon's and McCartney's articles are entirely useful. Even though Harrison shares a lot with them musically, his article is going to look different because he was a much different kind of person with a different path and a different approach to music. I can't even imagine the challenge of creating a comprehensive Harrison article without having the finished product look like an overstuffed armchair. The rest of the article seems comprehensive, with a one exception:
  • I'm not very satisfied with the "Guitar work" section overall. It seems to most mostly a collection of quotations about his playing, but we don't get any real sense of what kind of guitar player Harrison was from a guitarist's perspective. This is a section a real musician will browse to, and he'll leave not knowing much. The article you cite earlier from Acoustic Guitar has some basic information about his technique and use of voicings; that is rudimentary information that should be included in this section.
  • Thanks for your comments, I'm working on it. FWIW, I am a "real musician" and a guitarist of almost 30 years, so I hear you on the content issue. I try to avoid too much jargon-esque language, but I'll do my best to flesh-out his playing in a way more pleasing to musicians. Great comment, thanks. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made some improvements to the Guitar work section that I hope will resolve your concerns. If not, please let me know what I've missed. Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:16, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c: Overall the research looks thorough and well-done. I have the Leng book and did some random checks for accuracy of sourcing. I didn't find any issues there. There are a couple instances where I feel that we could do a better job interpreting the source:
  • In which sources are Harrison's contributions to other projects referred to as "Session work"? In the business, session musicians are more "hired guns"; someone needs a ripping guitar solo, or their touring guitarist sucks, so they hire a highly technical guy to come in and lay down tracks. It's strictly a professional arrangement. I think this term doesn't do justice to Harrison's real contributions to the works you mention in that section. He formed real personal relationships with those musicians and he did a lot more than just clock in and record some tracks.
  • I'm not sure about the sentence "Harrison's guitar work with the Beatles typified the more subdued lead guitar style of the early 1960s, rejecting the technically difficult and flashy playing that had gained popularity by the end of the decade" (Guitar Work), especially the phrase "technically difficult". The source does say that Harrison eschewed "flashy" playing, but, if anything, the source praises his ability to fit difficult voicings and techniques into Beatles tunes. Harrison was shown to be quite a proficient player and "technically difficult" should not be considered synonymous with "fast".
  • I'm not sure what is meant by "incorporating the blues guitar style of Clapton and Indian gamakas". It's clear what he took from Clapton (blues guitar style) but what did he take from gamakas?
  • The source only says that he used them, it does not describe what they are, though from what I can gather, they are akin to an interval on a guitar or piano, only with some special character to it which sets it apart, perhaps not unlike a micro-leitmotif. Do you think we should trim the bit out, or introduce a source that explains what an Indian gamaka is? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1d: The article appears neutral; I didn't not notice any obvious POV.
  • 1e: This is a highly visible article so a lot of editing is to be expected, but I don't see any edit warring that would affect stability.
  • 2a: The lead is rather short considering the breadth of the article. The first paragraph mostly covers his songwriting, while the second paragraph mentions a few key activities. I think the lead could be expanded by at least two decent-sized paragraphs to mention his musicianship, major influences, professional relationships aside from Shankar, and major side projects (Wilburys, etc).
  • 2b: The article is structured well considering the subject. It's been a while since I've really looked at other FA's for guitarists, but this should be a useful structural analog.
  • 2c: Citations and references look good.
  • 3: I checked the media included in the article and didn't notice any licensing issues.
  • 4: I was glad to see that SandyGeorgia's comments from the previous nomination were taken on board regarding the length. I do feel that there is a good comprehensive overview here and that additional detail should be relegated to side articles.

I really like seeing this article here, in this condition. Thank you sincerely for putting so much hard work into it. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley

[edit]

Mild support. The article is very long, and goes into more detail (brands of guitar?) than is ideal in an encyclopaedia article. But the prose is readable and, Heaven knows, nobody could fault the article on grounds of comprehensiveness. If it were two thirds of its present length I'd be more enthusiatic in my support, but I think it meets the FA criteria in its way. Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check

[edit]

All ok (most images and samples were already checked and discussed during the last FA-nom), just one minor question:

Ah, well, no particular reason. I've only ever uploaded two images to Wikipedia, and I'm not particularly good with figuring out licensing and stuff. That was a mistake on my part. Take a look now; I think I fixed it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Just looked odd to downgrade the license version, no big issue. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Joe! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 07:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus Fatuorum

[edit]

I was rather critical of the fragmentary prose when I was first asked to look at this article, but after GabeMc asked me to take another look at it today I can see that it's been greatly improved. Like Tim riley I think it's a little on the long side, but I am now leaning towards support. I need to spend a day or so reading through the whole thing again though. Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Malleus! Your further input will, of course, be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see that a great deal of good work has been done since I last looked at this article, and I'm still leaning towards support, but I have a few reservations about the necessity for some of the detail, For instance, "Soon after, his mother bought him a cheap acoustic guitar that he almost immediately broke. He then hid the guitar in a cupboard, where it remained until his brother Peter fixed it for his own use in the wake of the UK skiffle craze." I'm struggling to see the relevance or significance of that.
  • From the Early years: 1943-57 section: "Harrison developed a dry sense of humour as a youth, influenced by the surreal comedy of The Goon Show." That seems completely out of place and out of context. Would it be better somewhere in the Family, friends and interests section?
  • The early solo work section is written almost entirely in the past tense? Why? Does Wonderwall Music not still blend Indian and Western sounds for instance, or not still contain "Dream Scene"?
  • "... Harrison organized a charity event, the Concert for Bangladesh, on 1 August 1971". That looks like he did the organizing on 1 August 1971, whereas what I think is meant is that the concert took place on 1 August 1971.
  • "... a guitar that featured strings tuned in octaves which produced distinct overtones". It's not at all clear what that "which" is referring to. The guitar? The strings? The tuning? Why can't any old guitar be tuned in that way in any case?

Support. I'm satisfied now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug

[edit]

I find that a particular pet-peeve of mine manifests itself several times in the article—sentences that are just long lists of items separated by commas. The problem with this listy style is that it makes for tedious reading. It also discourages the lay reader, because a sentence like 'He combined gospel music tradition with Hindu bhajan in his compositions: "My Sweet Lord", "Give Me Love", and "It Is 'He' (Jai Sri Krishna)" ' can only be appreciated by somebody who has heard those songs.

  • In the lead, I find no less than five such sentences (for eg: "...George Formby, Django Reinhardt, and Big Bill Broonzy. Chet Atkins, Carl Perkins, Chuck Berry, and Ry Cooder...").
  • Later on too, this problem persists, leading to an unnecessarily detailed coverage of an issue that barely needs mention. For eg: the list of songs he performed at the Carl Perkins show and the ELO-organised benefit. (I find that entire paragraph a bit pointless—musicians play shows, no need to describe every one of them)
  • I don't entirely disagree, but removing the graph would create a 5-year gap in the chronology, leaving the reader wondering if Harrison was active at all during this period, which he was. Speak with FAC reviewer User:JG66 for more detail. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The major culprit, though, is Musicianship, where lists of songs abound in Songwriting and Guitar work. The latter, especially, might be better off as a three-para overview and evolution of his guitaring, rather than the current series of short summaries of several songs.
  • You know as well as I do that if we do not engage in serious critical commentary regarding the songs in-line, then we cannot justify inclusion of an ogg file, which you have more than once insisted I add to FACs. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Studio collaborations: I'd go to the extent of saying delete this section and recast the information as a separate table-based article. The general stuff and quotes about his collaboratory personality can be tucked-in elsewhere.
  • Another example of excessive detail—HandMade Films, which reads like the perfect lead for that article. If you cut down to a summary of Harrison-relevant material (basically a summary of the first and last paras) you can just tuck it in chronologically in his life.
  • I disagree. Harrison was instrumental in salvaging British cinema during the 1980s, his involvement with the company is quite notable, and forcing it into the chronology will only weaken the narrative. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The third point and last point bring me to another major issue of the article--the number of sections after the chronological biography leads to each topic being discussed excessively in detail. For eg: Hinduism, why do we need to know every holy man he met? Or a less-than-accessible paragraph of his thoughts of Lord Krishna (and I say this as somebody born in a Hindu family).—indopug (talk) 03:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I strongly disagree. The point about Harrison's understanding of Krishna was added in an effort to flesh-out "Harrison the man", an important issue that has been repeatedly referred to as an area needing improvement regarding the article's overaching narrative. From ragas in utero to Shankar to his funeral and posthumous album it comes full-circle ala Hinduism. Thanks for your comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1

[edit]

This humungously long review page suggests that this nomination should have been withdrawn a while ago, worked on, and resubmitted. Reviewer resources are limited and shouldn't be squandered thus. Let's take one sentence from the lead:

"He became interested in the Hare Krishna movement, and an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism, introducing it to the other Beatles and to their Western audience, as he came to express and assert himself by incorporating Indian instrumentation in their music."

  • Clunky, long sentence.
  • So he became interested in an admirer of Indian culture and mysticism? Who? ...
  • "introducing it"—should that be them? If not, which of the two does it refer to?
  • Is "as" a causal or simultaneity meaning here? (If causal, "since" or "because" is better.)

I notice you use marked themes (i.e. sentence openings that are unusual, but still grammatical) without checking whether they flow. Just something to watch in your writing. "Also a music and film producer, he founded Dark Horse Records in 1974 and co-founded HandMade Films in 1978." As usual, the additive connector "also" isn't really necessary, so kill two birds with one stone, and start: "As a music and ..."? Here's another marked theme, just two seconds later—this time of a different class, a thematic equative, in which the comma functions as an equals sign: "A prolific recording artist, he was featured as a guest guitarist on tracks by Badfinger, Ronnie Wood and Billy Preston, and he collaborated on songs and music with Bob Dylan, Eric Clapton and Tom Petty, among others." It's ok, but please keep these in conscious mind for a while as you write. You might consider dropping the last "he", which surivives by ellipsis nicely.

Another thing to watch: shoving too much into one sentence. Look at this one: "Harrison was married twice, first to Pattie Boyd from 1966 to 1977 and from 1978 until his death from lung cancer in 2001 to Olivia Trinidad Arias, with whom he had one son, Dhani." Possibly just punctuate it to save the readers' holding on to too much in their working memory: "Harrison was married twice—first to Pattie Boyd from 1966 to 1977; and from 1978 until his death from lung cancer in 2001 to Olivia Trinidad Arias, with whom he had one son, Dhani." But I haven't fixed the reversal of order (person–year-range, then year-range–person) ... that's a crossword puzzle to solve! Tony (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think all these issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 12 April 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, 11 April 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:ColonelHenry, User:DavidinNJ

I am nominating this for featured article because over the last month and about 500 edits, I and User:DavidinNJ have transformed this article into a comprehensive analysis of New Jersey's alcoholic beverage control laws and law enforcement structure, their history, their impact on the industry, licensing, their implementation and legal issues that have developed from them interpretation and enforcement. We believe that this article covers all areas of the topic in an adequate, verifiable, and well-referenced manner. We look forward to any comments and ideas from the FA reviewers and thank you for your time and efforts. --ColonelHenry (talk) 06:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Nikkimaria and Kafziel

[edit]

Image review

  • Check captions against guidelines at WP:CAPTION - some of them seem quite long
  • None of them, as far as I read WP:CAPTION, are violative. Succinctness, according to policy, does not mean brevity. I would assert each of the caption (1) ID the subject clearly, (2) is succinct, (3) establishes relevance, (4) provides context, and (5) succeeds in focusing the reader's attention to draw him/her further into the article. They comport to examples depicted with the guideline. The guideline uses indefinite conditional verbs like "may" and "can", which imply succinctness as subordinate to the other goals of a caption (namely relevance, context, identification). Because I do not see them being violative of the guideline, could you please suggest an alternative you would prefer and/or state how you believe beyond "seem too long" that they are violative of the guideline cited? --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shortened the captions on the images. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. The opening map ends with a period but isn't a complete sentence, Ocean City uses an acronym that isn't explained until much later in the article, "legal drinking age" caption isn't clearly related to its image (the Stone Pony image does this well)
  • Grammar on Atlantic City caption

I changed "24 hours a day" to "24 hours per day." I don't see any other grammatical problems with the caption. DavidinNJ (talk) 22:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Ocean_City_New_Jersey_Ferris_Wheel.JPG is tagged as lacking source info
  • Because I tried to take pictures in liquor stores in New Jersey near me (asking permission first) and I was asked to leave. The Colorado store picture looks like most NJ liquor stores I know of (there isn't much of a difference from one to another really that says "this only happens in Colorado"), it illustrates the concept, and it's a free photo. Will check the other three. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a picture of a NJ liquor store, or none at all. Personally, I say screw asking permission; that's the kind of picture anyone can take with a camera phone in the middle of a slow day. Nobody would even notice. It's the sales floor of a business that's open to the public; they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the image isn't being used for profit. I don't think it would matter for a normal article, but for FA it's a concern. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 05:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that kind of behaviour would be at a minimum quite cavalier and worse potentially reckless. At its best, it could be successful and provide value to material presented here. At its worse, it could expose the photo-taker to arrest (trespassing, criminal mischief, etc.) and Wikipedia to tort liability (even if it was a far-fetched claim, some lawyer would still push the paperwork). Some businesses do not like photo-taking on their premises because of a paranoid but very valid fear of competitors using their model against them or amassing evidence of code violations, etc. In some jurisdictions that is an invasion of privacy or trespass that is considered a "tortious interference" and frequently litigated. There are a host of problems, and I would prefer not to be apart of improper behaviour leading to such problems nor would I be able to condone it. If permission is denied, it's denied. We should be respectful of that. I'd rather get denied permission 100 times and not get a picture than get sued or arrested once. Nevertheless, what does the free, currently-available Colorado liquor store photo lack in terms of content and illustrative merit or that makes it markedly different from a liquor store in any other jurisdiction aside from being in Colorado? If the only issue lodged against a perfectly useful, free, and illustrative photo is a detail that doesn't distinguish it as being any more distinct from a subjectively-favoured, less-available equal alternative, there is no issue. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the difference? The difference is that it's not in New Jersey. Maybe you don't know what the difference is, but there very well may be one. Maybe something subtle, like a brand on a shelf that isn't carried on the east coast. Or a region-specific marketing standee, like a Coors sign specifically meant for display in the Rocky Mountains. And, no, taking a photo could not have any of those legal ramifications, any more than it could have had for whoever took that one in Colorado. I'm far more concerned about respecting the quality of our Featured Articles than I am about respecting some random liquor store owner and his paranoid fantasy about property rights. Still, if you're worried about that, then you could simply remove the photo (which is in fact not very useful, because the article is not about liquor stores in general, and the photo has next to nothing to do with the caption anyway) and the same purpose is served. That's certainly an easy fix. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 06:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kafziel, You are correct that under New Jersey law a person can walk into a liquor store, and take a picture without the owner's consent. However, under state ABC regulations, the owner of a bar or can kick a person out for just about any reason. Legality aside, if a person doesn't want me to take a picture of their establishment, I'm not going to do so. I agree with Colonel Henry that we should be respectful of other's privacy. The location of the liquor store would be relevant if we were using it to showcase something unique to New Jersey. I don't see it as a problem in this case because we are just using it to highlight the fact that New Jersey has a limited number of retail licenses. That being said, I will see if there is a different picture available. DavidinNJ (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I absolutely agree that they could ask you not to; I'm just saying anyone (myself included, next time I'm there) could take a picture without asking in the first place. I apologize if my flippant "screw permission" comment made that unclear. I'm certainly not suggesting anyone slap a store owner in the face and tell him to go to hell if he asks you to leave. I would just apply the old maxim that it's better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. You don't need to draw attention to yourself. Don't ask anyone about it. Don't hang up any signs, don't drag a tripod and a lighting kit in there. This kind of picture doesn't even require a DSLR. Just look at your Android phone for a second, touch the screen, and you're done. For all they know, you're reading a text message. If they get pissed, you just walk out and you still have the photo and the right to use it (because US freedom of panorama includes public areas of private buildings, like lobbies and sales floors). I do that kind of stuff all the time.
That said, the picture doesn't actually illustrate anything about the limited number of retail licenses, or their relation to the population. It's just a picture of a liquor store. It's not completely out of place, obviously, but it's not necessary at all. I don't know what sort of picture could illustrate such a concept; to be relevant, it would have to somehow simultaneously convey the total population of a town and the number of liquor licenses therein. That's a tough photo to take. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 16:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the most desirable picture would be one of a downtown area with a lot of bars. I know of a few such spots in New Jersey. You can use such an image to highlight the fact that some towns have far more liquor licenses than others. I can't guarantee anything, but I'll see what I can do. DavidinNJ (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New Brunswick's Easton Avenue near the Rutgers campus would likely be the best for that. College bars...and it would come close to rivaling South Amboy's per capita stats.--ColonelHenry (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (04MAR13) I believe that I've resolved the issue by replacing the Colorado liquor store photo with an iconic liquor store sign from Wildwood. By the way, Wildwood has an 58 liquor licenses, and 5000 year-round residents, which is much more than South Amboy's ratio. I guess they weren't counting vacation resorts when they listed what town had the most licenses per capita. DavidinNJ (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great! No objection from me. Thanks, guys, and best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Kafziel Complaint Department: Please take a number 19:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Mattximus

[edit]
  • Comment For the Liquor licenses and permits section, the fee for licenses will no doubt change with time, so is it possible to write somwhere that the numbers are "as of February 2013" or something like that? Mattximus (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by IP address

[edit]

Map it may be worth appending ...."within the United states" to the caption 92.41.216.10 (talk) 15:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by FutureTrillionaire

[edit]

What's the source for all the info in the tables under the "Liquor licenses and permits" section. I don't see any citations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Footnotes 31 and 32. The paragraph at the start of the section explains briefy the classes of licenses, and purpose of permits. The table is an extension of that introduction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Casino nightclubs are prohibited from offering full nudity, but the Taj Mahal casino has been granted permission to open a strip club with scantily clad dancers." What does this have to do with alcohol laws? This seems off-topic.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a source spot-check for about a dozen sources and found no issues. As for the article as a whole, I haven't read the article extensively enough to make a judgement on whether it meets all the FA criteria. I'll take a more in-depth look tomorrow.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FN 23 has an inconsistent date format problem. It says "(January 3, 2013). Retrieved 8 February 2013." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

[edit]
General
  • Page size. - There are currently 59 kB and 9,602 words of readable prose in the article. I suggest you attempt to trim it down wherever possible in hopes of bringing that total closer to 8,000 words.
  • WP:AS states that articles should have "30 kB to 50 kB of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words" This article is near the upper end of the limit, but I don't really see any sections that can be removed without reducing the structural comprehensiveness of the article. That being said, I will do what is necessary to make the article easier to read. DavidinNJ (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Bold? - Should this text string be bold: "The state laws governing the control of alcohol beverages"?
  • Negative verb form. - "contain many peculiarities not found in other states". The negative verb form not, needs a preceeding auxillary. Consider: "contain many peculiarities that are not found in other states", or similar.
  • Unnecessary article. - "the availability of alcohol and the regulations governing". Omit the second "the".
  • Vague descriptor. - "vary greatly". Swap out "greatly" for "significantly" or "considerably", or similar.
  • Word choice. - "Today, New Jersey's alcohol industry is experiencing a renaissance". I'm not sure that "renaissance" is the best choice here.
  • Excess parentheticals? - "(i.e. wineries, breweries, distilleries, blenders), wholesalers, retailers (i.e. restaurants, bars, liquor stores, hotels, theatres, clubs)". Are these necessary?
  • Capitalisation. - "rests with the State government" is closely followed by "overseen by the state's Attorney General". Is there any reason why "state" is capped in the first mention, but not the second?
  • Starting sentence with "because". - "Because of the state's adherence", consider: "Due to the state's adherence", or similar.
  • Prose. - "New Jersey law gives individual municipalities substantial discretion". Consider: "New Jersey law allows individual municipalities substantial discretion", or similar.
  • Prose. - "creating ordinances to regulate the sale and consumption". Consider: "creating ordinances that regulate the sale and consumption".
  • Linking. - "issue retail licenses for bars, liquor stores, or for restaurants to serve alcohol to patrons." These terms appear earlier in the lead, in the parenthetical. Link on first mention in lead, and the first mention in the article body. Also, one could argue that terms as basic as bars, liquor stores, and restaurants should not be linked anyway.
  • Prose. - "are subject to high prices and fierce competition". Consider: "are subject to exorbitant fees and fervent competition", or similar.
  • Prose. - "New Jersey has a history of taverns and alcohol production dating to its early colonial history." Consider: "New Jersey's history of taverns and alcohol production dates to its early colonial period.", or similar.
  • Prose. - "dating to its early colonial history. Early colonial winemakers". Consider: "dating to its early colonial period. Colonial winemakers", or similar.
  • Prose. - "for producing quality wine", consider: "for producing high-quality wine", or similar.
  • Prose. - "specifically German and Italians". Consider: "specifically Germans and Italians".
  • Linking. - As with above, "new opportunities for the state's wineries and breweries", these linked terms appear earlier in the lead, and should be linked on their first mention in the lead, and first mention in the article, but I wonder if these common terms should be linked in the first place, per WP:OVERLINK.
Statewide statutes and enforcement
  • Prose. - "As of 2013, the current director of this Alcohol Beverage Control division is Michael I. Halfacre." Swap out "this" for "the".
  • Typo. - "towns in New Jersey began issing liquor licenses" "issing" → "issuing".
  • Prose. - "The 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution, which ended Prohibition, permitted the states to regulate matters related to alcohol. Immediately upon the end of Prohibition in 1933, New Jersey instituted the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which established and granted rulemaking powers to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control." Consider: "In 1933, the 21st Amendment to the United States Constitution ended Prohibition, permitting the states to regulate matters related to alcohol. New Jersey instituted the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, which established and granted rulemaking powers to the Division of Alcoholic Beverage Control." Or similar.
  • Prose. - "The Alcoholic Beverage Control Law also established". Consider: "The law also established", as ABC has already been recently introduced in the prose.
  • Prose. - "alcohol manufacturers only sell to wholesalers, who only sell to retailers, who only sell to customers." Consider: "alcohol manufacturers may only sell to wholesalers, who may only sell to retailers, who may only sell to customers."
  • Overlinking. - "the department was incorporated into the Division of Law and Public Safety under the New Jersey Attorney General's office.[13]" The NJ AG is previously linked in the sub-section.
  • Scare quotes. - "New Jersey's statutes define an 'alcoholic beverage' as". There is no need to put alcoholic beverage in quotes here.
  • Typo. - "established a three-tier alcohol distibution system". distibution → distribution.
Municipal control
  • Prose. - The first two sentences are redundant, rework.
  • Wordy prose. - "Retail (for consumption or distribution) licenses are allocated in proportion to a municipality's population. Licenses permitting on-premises retail sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (i.e. bars and restaurants) are allocated at a ratio of one license for 3,000 residents. A "package goods" license (a distribution license) is available at a ratio of one license per 7,500 residents." Consider: "Retail licenses for consumption or distribution are allocated in proportion to a municipality's population. Licenses permitting on-premises retail sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages (i.e. bars and restaurants) are allocated at a ratio of one license for 3,000 residents. Distribution licenses are available at a ratio of one license per 7,500 residents."
  • Prose. - "Because of the law gives significant latitude in a municipality's regulatory powers", consider: "Because the law grants a municipality significant latitude in regulatory powers," or similar.
  • Template issue. - "regulatory powers, As of 2013, 37 of the state's". Your use of the {{as of}} template is causing a mid-sentence capped letter.
  • Missing preposition. - "565 municipalities are "dry towns" that prohibit the sale alcohol".
  • Update, add context, clarify. - "In 1981, the town had 37, one for every 218 residents". Is this the most recent figure, or the all-time peak?
  • Done (03MAR13) by adding "comparatively" (for the 1981 figures) and "in 2000" (to clarify a when for the 22 license). I do not have enough information to make a claim of "all-time peak" or other superlatives. I am limited by my sources. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague modifier. - "court decisions have generally exempted military bases". Consider replacing or removing "generally" as a vague modifier.
Liquor licenses and permits
  • Punctuation. - "New Jersey law provides for 29 distinct liquor licenses divided into five classes, as follows:" Omit comma following "classes" as excess.
  • with an enumerated series after a nonrestrictive clause, you always set it off with a colon, so the form "...into five classes, as follows: Class A..." was correct. DavidinNJ removed the comma, but the comma-colon usage was entirely correct.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, TMK, "as follows" is a dependent clause, and we should not use a comma to separate a terminal dependent clause from the rest of the sentence. Nevertheless, this is a decidedly minor punctuation issue that certainly isn't an actionable objection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done (04MAR13) Resolved by changing to "divided into the following five classes." DavidinNJ (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2013
  • Gabe...just fyi (since David's revision renders the issue moot)...you would be correct if and only if you were refering to dependent clauses that were restrictive appositives. This isn't one of them, it's non-restrictive. Non-restrictive clauses always are separated by commas.--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation. - "with the spirit of this chapter to issue a license but the contingency has not been expressly provided for". Place a comma before "but", per WP:QUOTE, this minimal change to typographical errors in quotations is allowed/encouraged.
  • Vague modifier. - "ABC licenses are generally issued for one year". As with above, avoid the vague modifier, "generally".
Availability of retail liquor licenses
  • Excess article. - "and at a social events run by non-profit organizations". Omit the indefinate article preceeding "social events".
  • Article use. - "by becoming an sales" "an" → "a".
  • Run-on. - "The sale of a new license is usually conducted by public auction and through the intense competition", add a comma before the coordinating conjuction, "and".
  • One word or two? - "typically obtained from existing licenseholders". Should "licenseholders" be one word?
  • Scare quotes. - "to obtaining only two 'package goods' licenses." 1) if a "package goods" license is the same as a distribution license, then use the later. 2) there is no need for scare quotes around package goods.
  • Prose suggestion. - "Because the number of Class C retail licenses for bars, restaurants, and liquor stores is limited by population and often by municipal ordinances, licenses are typically obtained from existing licenseholders who choose to sell, or when a new license is offered as a town's population grows." Consider: "The number of Class C retail licenses for bars, restaurants, and liquor stores is limited by population and often by municipal ordinances. Licenses are typically obtained from existing licenseholders who choose to sell, or when a new license is offered as a town's population grows."
  • Prose. - "As a result, the price for a retail license is quite expensive and often prohibitively so." Consider: "The price for a retail license is often prohibitively expensive", or similar.
  • Prose. - "usually conducted by public auction and through the intense competition a town can reap the benefit of several hundred thousand dollars of revenue". Consider: "usually conducted by public auction, the intense competition can benefit a town by generating several hundred thousand dollars of revenue ", or similar.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote sentence: "The sale of a new license is usually conducted by public auction. The intense competition can benefit a town by generating several hundred thousand dollars of revenue from the highest bidder." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vague. - "Unlike in many other states, supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages." Many states allow supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations to sell beer. Consider: "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages", or similar.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote two sentences to state, "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages because state law prohibits any person or corporation from possessing more than two retail distribution licenses." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "This is largely because New Jersey limits any person or corporation to obtaining only two "package goods" licenses.[36]" Consider: "This is because New Jersey prohibits any person or corporation from obtaining more than two "package goods" licenses", or similar. Again, if "package goods licenses" is synonymous with "distibution licenses" then I would use the later for clarity and consistency and drop the unneeded scare quotes.
  • Done (04MAR13) Rewrote two sentences to state, "Supermarkets, convenience stores, and gas stations in New Jersey rarely sell alcoholic beverages because state law prohibits any person or corporation from possessing more than two retail distribution licenses." DavidinNJ (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scare quotes. - "to create a separate 'restaurant license' allowing".
Dry towns
  • Subject verb agreement. - "Local ordinances in Ocean City prohibits restaurant patrons". "Prohibit" should be singular.
  • Prose. - "As of 2013, only 37 municipalities in New Jersey remain completely dry towns." Consider: "As of 2013, there are 37 dry municipalities in New Jersey", or similar.
  • Prose. - "For example, the seaside resort town of Ocean City has historically been dry since it was founded". Omit historically as a redundant descriptor.
  • Prose. - "municipal leaders frequently have placed this", consider: "municipal leaders have frequently placed this".
  • Done (04MAR13) I rewrote this sentence: "Because of a desire to attract new businesses and increase property tax revenue, towns that prohibit alcohol sales frequently have public referenda on whether they should remain dry." DavidinNJ (talk) 03:09, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While it is common in colloquial American English idioms, it isn't considered correct to place an adverb (like frequently) betwixt the two verbs being modified (in this case have and placed).--ColonelHenry (talk) 03:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hours of operation and other licensing regulations
  • Dangling modifier. - "Besides prohibiting nudity in bars and clubs,"
  • Wordy. - "Besides prohibiting nudity in bars and clubs, it is illegal to sell liquor below cost, charge a flat fee for unlimited drinks (except for private parties and on New Year's Eve), offer any promotion that is contingent on drinking a certain amount of alcohol, allow patrons to remain after closing time, sell liquor at a drive-through window, or have a 'ladies' night' or any pricing which is regarded as discriminatory."
  • Done (04MAR13). I broke this sentence into 3 sentences: "Licensed establishments may not offer nudity. Because of concerns about excessive drinking and drunk driving, it is illegal to sell liquor below cost, charge a flat fee for unlimited drinks (except for private parties and on New Year's Eve), offer any promotion that is contingent on drinking a certain amount of alcohol, allow patrons to remain after closing time, or sell liquor at a drive-through window. Bars and clubs are prohibited from having a 'ladies' night' or any pricing which is regarded as discriminatory." DavidinNJ (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link/clarify. - "in Newark and Jersey City, no hard liquor package goods may be sold before 9 am and after 10 pm" Has it been previously established what "hard liquor" is? If not, define/clarify.
  • Wordy prose. - "liquor stores are specifically given the right to sell package beer and wine at any time on-premises sales are allowed", consider: "liquor stores may sell beer and wine during any hours that on-premises sales are allowed", or similar.
  • Vague. - "New Jersey regulations for liquor stores and bars are fairly strict."[according to whom?] In relation to what? Establish some context here if possible.
  • Done (04MAR13) I changed this to "New Jersey regulations for liquor stores and bars are extensive." Considering the laundry list of rules that follows, I think "extensive" is appropriate. DavidinNJ (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Words to avoid. - I noticed: three "Howevers", a "Furthermore", and a
  • Prose. - "ABC regulations permit a bar owner or employee to give away a free drink "on the house" as long as it is not advertised", omit "on the house" as an excess scare quote.
  • Clarity. - "Liquor stores are allowed to have beer". "Allowed to have", or "allowed to sell"?
  • Clarity. - "non-profit organizations with a special permit can have both tastings and tasting dinners". Similar to above, "can have" or "can hold/host".

In progress ... more to come. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched, and comprehensive. Perhaps a few minor prose issues remain, but certainly nothing significant enough to delay promotion to FA. Great work. Thanks for this fine contribution to the project Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:20, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by John

[edit]

It's an interesting and seemingly complete article. I was easily able to find typos and spelling errors in it. I was also easily able to take out a lot of verbiage which wasn't really adding anything (eg multiple instances of "years of age"). "However" needs to be used with great care. Images shouldn't be hard-coded without good reason. I am almost ready to support this, but it'd put my mind at rest to see another copyeditor take a pass at it. --John (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Grammarxxx

[edit]
  • Establishments offering BYOB are not allowed to charge "any admission fee or cover, corkage or service charge or advertise inside or outside of such premises that patrons may bring and consume their own wine or malt alcoholic beverages" (missing a period). Grammarxxx (What'd I do this time?) 18:19, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done At the beginning of the drinking age section, I added "21 years old" once. I don't think we need to have "21 years old" or "21 years of age" for every instance of 21. We formerly had that, and it seemed too verbose. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:31, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's largely a matter of opinion, but I agree with DavidinNJ and with John who reviewed it above, the fact that it's 21 years old is firmly established and doesn't need to be repeated ad nauseam.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

[edit]
  • Quite a few dup links according to Ucucha's script -- some may be justified owing to the article's length but pls review and see what can go. Certainly reasonably common terms like fingerprint don't need to be linked twice, perhaps not even once.
  • Do we really need a comma after "e.g."? I generally see it without, or is it an AmEng thing?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Grammatically, it's in that category of clauses like the comma-bearing non-restrictive appositives. But I agree, usage should be consistent one way or the other. Of the six major style guides (Chicago Manual of Style, Blue Book of Grammar and Punctuation, The Columbia Guide to Standard American English, The Guide to Grammar and Writing, Lynch Guide to Grammar, Fowler's Modern English Usage) five advise the comma use. Only Fowler disagrees. Please advise which you would prefer. --ColonelHenry (talk) 11:35, 8 April 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, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Sair Tjerita Siti Akbari

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is a comprehensive look at an obscure piece of pre-Indonesian literature. Lie Kim Hok was one of the earliest Chinese Indonesian writers and is known as the father of Chinese Malay literature, but his oeuvre has been little studied. This, his first major work of fiction, seems to have been the most discussed so far. It's also ironic, in my opinion, that the work which brought him so much fame was also the one which essentially ruined his legacy. Why? Read the article :-). As a side note, if promoted this will be our first featured article on a work of literature from what is now Indonesia. I'd like to thank all the PRers as well: Sarastro, Dwaipayan, Wehwalt, and Arsonal. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support with my own edits. My concerns about article structure were resolved after the peer review. I have one question, though: The lead uses the plural syairs while the last sentence of the Reception and legacy section uses the plural syair. Do we use the plural inflection on Malay/Indonesian nouns when they are written in English? —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 13:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I've managed to scrape up one more question! I think this is the same material (albeit in French instead of Indonesian) as the Zaini-Lajoubert reference you're already citing. However, this journal article is from 1994, and the compilation you're referencing has a 1996 publication date, so I suspect that the French version is the original material. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Zaini-Lajoubert, Monique (1994). "Le Syair Cerita Siti Akbari de Lie Kim Hok (1884), un avatar du Syair Abdul Muluk (1846)". Archipel (in French). 48 (1): 103–124.
  • Personally, I think I'd cite the original French journal article (especially as it is available online), rather than a dead-tree translation. But either one is fine with me so far as the FA criteria go. Nicely done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I commented at the PR and my concerns were addressed there. An interesting, well-written and well-researched article which I followed despite knowing nothing about the subject or backgrounds. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (sources and available authors provided, PD-age), one minor tweak done.

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, 6 April 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Leg before wicket

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LBW is one of those horrible cricket rules many people have heard of but can be heavy going for the non-cricketer. Part of the reason for its complexity is its rather unusual history, and hopefully this article explains both the rule and why it came about. It has had the once-over from some cricketers, it is currently a GA and it had a very useful PR, which included the views of two non-cricketers to check its comprehensibility to outsiders. Any further comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 13:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • for someone who's grown up watching and playing cricket its still a little heavy to read, but I dont have any suggestions on that will read again. The first thing that really stands out are notes 3 & 4 which describe the on/off side for right and left handed batsmen, both use the phrase "from behind the wicket" suggest that maybe it needs to also explain what is "from behind the wicket" or chose a more clearer description of something like "from the batsman' perspective looking towards the bowler".
  • the choice of photos in particular of Bob Wyatt doesnt fit most of the material around that area leaves me asking why Wyatt, what so important about him in particular in relation to the LBW laws. By comparison there's a lot more(more then twice per words used) in that section attributed directly to Bradman, or associated with Bradman(bodyline). Bradman's specific proposal is mention where as Wyatt was identified a just one several critics who wanted the rules to return to the pre-1937 version. Gnangarra 10:27, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have to disagree on this one. Bradman is only specifically mentioned once in the section, and he was not really too vocal about lbw (as opposed to, for example, the front foot no-ball rule). Bodyline is also only a passing mention, albeit important, and I'd really hate to use yet another Bradman image. It seems almost every cricket article (including many of which I am guilty) includes a photograph of him. Wyatt is actually mentioned twice as an opponent, and was a leading critic of the "new" rule. Perhaps that does not quite come across enough, but I think he is as useful an image as any. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm seeing what I can do about this, but it is slow going. My other fear is that a diagram may be even more complicated than the text, unless multiple ones are used. And I have reservations about multiple diagrams. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • just a query, on note 6"... from 2002 both umpires had to be from a neutral nation", what about the third umpire especially given that this article refers to use of technology, should it not also be included in the note. I've had another read since the othwer adjustments have been made, it still a little heavy to read but I thinks that more a factor of the rules complexity than any specific prose issues so I'm happy to Support this one Gnangarra 06:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support and comments. The only reason the neutral umpires are mentioned here is because the study looked to see if their use had impacted on lbws. It did not mention 3rd umpires, so I don't think there is any need. Also, technology is referred to later on in some depth. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – I was one of the non-cricket reviewers at the PR, and I'm satisfied that the writing is clear enough to be understandable for people like myself who don't have great knowledge of the sport. The prose, sourcing, and other elements all meet the FA standards as I see them. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indopug

[edit]
Comments

Reading from below:

  • The "technology" and "trends" sections begin identically.
  • Isn't % discouraged in favour of percent?
  • According to MOSNUM: "Percentages are usually written with figures, e.g. 10 percent or 10%": Either is fine as long as there is no space between the number and the symbol. For the purposes of this article, I think it is sufficiently technical to warrant %. ("The symbol % is more common in scientific or technical articles and in complex listings.") Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "captains of county teams were statistically more likely" - why?!
  • Basically because captains wrote up reports on the umpires after each match or at the end of the season, depending on when we are talking about. An influential captain could instantly end an umpire's career if he disagreed with him. Unfortunately, I cannot find a source which says this apart from one or two specific examples from before WW2, and nothing about more recent times when this rule continued. To me, this makes perfect sense that a captain could have such influence, but it may not to anyone else. Does this work, or would it be better to remove it? I'd like it in, but not if it is just dangling. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it in, and add the WW2 examples as a note. IMO you can be a little more casual in the notes, so you can say that you haven't found anything about today. By the way, does Miller's captains study apply to the present-day as well?—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the pre-ww2 stuff, which also extends a bit beyond. All Miller's statistics go to 2010 as stated in the article. There is some minor variation in the captaincy figures, but as with the other stuff, nothing especially worthwhile if we are keeping it tight. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority of the studies in the last section are about an umpire's biases. For this you need to know what wrong decisions were made in favour of the home team, rather than simply compare the total no of lbws of both teams. Yet, "it is impossible to determine from these studies if any of the decisions were wrong, particularly as the lbw law can have different interpretations". So I'm not sure about how sensible these studies are in showing a correlation. I think you should thus scale down this section, whose claims are trivial at best (all the increases seem to be slight) and illogical at worst.—indopug (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've cut this right back. I think it needs to be there for reasons of comprehensiveness (since people are, however oddly, studying this) but hopefully this is a bit more coherent. Even if it says that the studies don't really say much. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment about comprehensiveness: isn't this article too anglocentric? What of other cricket-playing nations, including the biggest current market of them all? While I agree that the likes of Asia had little influence on the laws game historically, surely there must be some local variations of lbw there? For eg: how do Indian umpires approach lbw in highly turning wickets of the Ranji Trophy? What about bouncy South Africa and West Indies (of yore)? Maybe a general pitch-based study of lbw decisions would be useful. Of course, all this moot if you've exhausted the sources and there's nothing about any of this.
  • The only thing I've got is a sentence on lbws being less likely on the subcontinent. I've added this, but everything else is very anglo-centric. From a historical point of view, it was all England. Unfortunately, there were no local variations that have been reported on and I have rather exhausted the sources. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean more likely in the subcontinent? ("more statistically likely in matches taking place on the Indian subcontinent")—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Yes. The article is correct: more likely. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Development of the law
  • The Wisden Almanack refs should have a "reproduced at Cricinfo", because you aren't really citing directly from the 1936 book.
  • The paragraphs toward the middle of the section are too large and imposing, especially when the text is so technical. I also have a personal preference against single-para subsections, but it's just a preference.
  • Throughout the section there's an (IMO) unreasonable expectation on the reader to understand the laws and proposals based solely on quoted technical text that uses 18th and 19th-century language.

Origins

  • As stated above, could use a detailed explanation of the 1839 law, an understanding of which is necessary for the next two paras.
  • Excellent, I understand it now. Another thing to consider: you can have the full quoted law as a note to keep a record of a bit of history (I think you do this later on). You can then choose to remove the quoted bits from the main prose for further readability.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy and attempted reform

  • To be honest, I can't really see what the big difference between these reform proposals and the 1839 law is. I think you need to explicitly explain what these differences are. Again, interpreting just the quoted text is difficult.
  • "citing as one strand of evidence the growing proportion of wickets which were falling lbw" - I'm not sure I get the logic here, if increasing no of batsmen are getting out lbw, why would you want to make the law even more anti-batsmen?

Alteration to the law

  • The four people in the first para need to be described, esp their nationality, since you're talking of a contest between two countries. Probably add a note explaining Bodyline.
  • Described the four people. I'm reluctant to get into Bodyline here. It's a complicated explanation, even as a note, and is not crucial to the thrust of the argument. I think it is better explained by the link. Again, I'd rather remove it than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "experiment/al" is overused.
  • "Then, in 1935..." this sentence does a good job of explaining how the new law is different. Consider adding "but the ball still needed to hit the batsman in front of the wickets" but I'm not sure it's necessary.
  • Yes. Noticed a couple more things:
  • "and that there were fewer drawn matches" reads oddly (make into new sentence?).
  • The Times quote is a little long; its first sentence can be expunged as we know that already.
  • Yes. Interesting chap. I'd prefer not to use "1839" as the laws changed several times in between those dates, so it would not be quite accurate (even in the law was the same). The sources usually go for "pre-1935". Sarastro1 (talk) 17:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Playing no stroke

  • Those italics aren't part of the original quote. Is that so
  • Correct. It was to emphasise it, but I don't know what the wikipedia equivalent of "emphasis mine" is! So I took these out and added a phrase to draw attention to the difference. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to go back to the previous way: [emphasis here]? Although WP:MOS doesn't seem to address it, it uses this wording throughout the text. I'm sure the MoS is written in compliance of itself. :)—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This wording was adopted from 1972 ... When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980" - confused here. How can you play with rules that aren't in the MCC's Laws? Doesn't this contradict note 1?
  • It was really another experimental rule. There was scope for different parts of the world to have different rules at this time, and this new wording was simply adopted worldwide without being officially added for another 8 years. I've tweaked the wording a little, but such practices (using laws that weren't part of the Laws) was quite common. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The quoted laws are understandable here because the language is contemporary; this isn't so earlier)
  • Try to avoid repetition of "Laws" in the last sentence.

Effects of technology

  • I think the absence of talk of Hawkeye not accounting for different pitch and environmental conditions sufficiently enough is a big miss. I wonder if we should also explicitly mention the BCCI's reluctance to use UDRS.
  • Re India: This came up at PR, and I think I'm sufficiently persuaded that India need a mention. I've added quite a bit (further eyes on it would be appreciated!) on this. I also added something on criticism of the technology (mainly India's arguments) but I'm a little wary here. You mention "different pitch and environmental conditions" but I've never read of this as a criticism aside from in the earliest days, and even then not in reliable sources, or when Ian Botham is opining on Sky Sports. And I tend to take him with a large pinch of salt. I've never seen it convincingly argued by a credible authority that a computer cannot take into account pitch and environmental factors. If the ball has bounced, the technology can show where it would have carried on. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I thought env variations was the reason. To be honest, the newly added stuff is weighted towards DRS rather than lbw. Esp the last two sentences have nothing to do with lbw.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo: if you don't mind fair-use, you should add one of these. For eg: I see a Sachin image that illustrates both Hawk-eye and the UDRS.
  • I would be reluctant to add these. I have no opposition to fair use images, but would have some trouble justifying the use of these, to be honest. And I imagine several people may have a problem with using their images like this. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmm, I actually feel strongly about this one. Here's the image I'm talking about; as you can see the tabs on the left--wickets, pitching, impact--and the trajectory of the ball illustrate very clearly what the text is trying to say about what Hawkeye can do. Also this (Ind v Pak, 2011 WC) seems to have become a notable incident so you can maybe even use it to talk of a controversy (not insisting though).
  • As for having "a problem with using their images", it's clearly just a screengrab of a live broadcast at least watched by one billion people (and this point mostly holds true even if we choose another such image). Of course, we may have to find a better-sourced image than one from a blog to meet standards, but my point is it definitely meets WP:NFCC.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd still prefer not to. As you say, that image comes from a blog; the incident itself could be added to the article to justify fair use, but I think it would be undue. Other images of hawkeye are from some media sites, but I really don't think they would add that much (although on the hawkeye article, it may be another matter) and is not actually necessary. What does it tell us about lbw? If we were to include one, I would prefer it to be a screen-grab which someone took and uploaded directly, but that is beyond my technology! I would have no objection to anyone else adding one. But I think I might be stubborn on this one! :) Sarastro1 (talk) 17:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Photo alt: if you do, you should add this ("Since the 1990s, with the introduction of Hawkeye and UDRS, umpires have been more willing to give batsmen out lbw.") because, uh, this article desperately needs a colour photograph. :)
  • "inconsistency of approach to lbw decisions among umpires and match officials" I don't really understand this; how are match officials relevant in giving lbw decisions? And how can there be inconsistency when all umpires are to be backed up by the same technology?
  • This one is more about DRS than lbw, so I'd prefer to be brief. Match officials meant the 3rd umpire (avoiding repetition) but took this phrase out and tweaked it for clarity. The inconsistency comes from when decisions are referred. And sometimes the officials just get it wrong by applying the DRS rules wrongly. I could source and add this, but to me it is more about DRS and I'd prefer to remove this entirely than get bogged down. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:29, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Definition
  • "even if it would have bounced before hitting the stumps" - why is this necessary to mention?
  • It is quite contentious. For example, a ball spinning sharply would often spin past the stumps; but if the ball, for example, hit the batsman on the full and would have bounced afterwards, it may have missed the stumps. But umpires are explicitly told to imagine that even the sharpest spun delivery would carry on straight. There was a little bit of fan/TV grumbling about this one when it was altered. And as it is explicitly stated that all balls carry on straight. This is kind of implied in the laws, and there are no reliable sources which really make this explicit. So, in short, it's necessary. Sorry, long rambling answer! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section is well-written, but does the last para belong here? It is the most enjoyable bit of the article, and I wonder if it can expanded to a two/three-paragraph "Impact and perception" section (at the end, because even the current text seems like a good concluding para)? I know that in India there have been minor crowd riots due to wrong lbw decisions (Azharuddin in the 1996 Titan Cup in Bangalore against Australia comes to mind).—indopug (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the Azharuddin riot from 1996, thanks for that one! I'm not sure about moving this. I would struggle to expand it beyond a list of riots (!) and, for me, it makes sense here rather than tacking it on the end. But I'm not completely set on this, and could be persuaded if you consider it an improvement. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I remember that well because my brother got a call that night from a friend who claimed "the nick onto pad was audible from the crowd"! ::*While adding more riots is unnecessary, I proposed moving it to the end because 1) it has nothing to do with the defn of lbw, 2) usually on Wikipedia we have receptions to things towards the end, and 3) it has the most flavourful writing (like that completely apt comparison to offside). I'm sure you could find all sorts of experts passing their (witty) judgements on the law. Also, if you can't find stuff to expand this, even sticking it in the last section (renamed "Trends and perceptions"?) is ok. On the other hand, in its current location this stuff gets in the way of a logical progression from understanding the law to reading about how it came to be.—indopug (talk) 05:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's everything now. Again, thanks for the comments so far. I'm not sure there are many FAs about similar topics (i.e. sports rules), so my main worry all along has been to include everything that is needed and to make it comprehensible. Whatever happens at this FAC, your help has been invaluable. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I'm just on a cricket high because of a certain recent whitewash.
Lead

Finally, we come to the beginning. I think the lead generalises too much, to the point that it reads vaguely. For eg: "Suggestions for improvements have included extending or reducing the criteria under which a batsman can be lbw."

  • to mirror the current article, I think everything from misunderstood to the quote should be moved to the end. Add the offside-rule comparison too so other-sport fans can appreciate the complexity.
  • if you agree to that, the now-small defn para can be expanded. "The umpire's decision, however, will depend on a number of criteria, including where it pitched..." I think the cricket-fan reader should get a more thorough explanation from the lead itself.
  • the second para is quite vague ( and I think history stuff should mention the three key dates—1839, 1937 and 1972 alongside the changes made in those years and their effect on the game. This doesn't mean lengthening the lead; the three generalising sentences at the end of this para will be replaced.
  • last para: needs to be something about Ball tracking. Could club with history if you don't mind spreading it to two paragraphs.
  • Since you say "The original caption was", don't modify the quoted caption. Keep "of lbw" outside in brackets.

—indopug (talk) 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a rough draft of what I think the lead should be structured like. I didn't know how to summarise the 1972 changes.—indopug (talk) 03:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that addresses all my major concerns. Thank you for you efforts!
  • Following one last readthrough, since the article has changed a fair bit, I'll be happy to declare my support. (btw you missed a comment of mine above: in Trends, amateur is used thrice in the "Particularly before 1963" sentence.)—indopug (talk) 01:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Final comments
  • "when two prominent umpires disagreed"--was this during a match? Just appears that way to me because "the ambiguity of the wording was highlighted" makes it seem as though the issue suddenly came to the fore (like in the middle of a match).
  • I'd prefer to leave it as it is, to be honest. It was in two separate matches, and each gave a different "ruling" on what the law meant in their games. I think the current wording is enough to get this across without too much detail. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhere early on in Development, you should make it clear that you are talking about English County cricket. Maybe also clarify in the second para of the lead by adding "English County" before batsmen in first sentence? (not sure of latter)
  • Added a little clarity to the main body, but it is tricky as there were few "county" teams in the early part of the 19th century, and the teams would have been rather different. For that reason, I'm reluctant to add that to the lead. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An increase in the size of the stumps..."--is this relevant? (not sure)
  • I think so, as they were looking for ways to curb batting dominance, and lbw was one of these ways. They also tried this in the 1930s, the ultimate experiment being the 1935 lbw law. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the sub-section titles in Development have years to indicate time-frame?
  • "Controversy and attempted reform"--did batsmen using their pads really constitute a "controversy"?
  • Yes! It really was a big deal at the time as it was "unsporting". In a later period, there was a massive scandal when Douglas Jardine, while at Oxford, was praised by a critic for padding up. The critic was lambasted (by 1920s standards) for some time for daring to suggest such a "shot" was ethical. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alteration to the law: the first paragraph seems confused. The fact of the batsmen's increasing pad-play is reiterated several times even though we already know this from the prev section. The order of sentences also isn't right. Root and Allen say the same thing (redundancy? combine in a single sentence?) but in between their sentences is Larwood's response (which should be clubbed with "controversial Bodyline tactics" sentence to explain Bodyline) and another method of batsmen's defensiveness (which we already know from the prev section).
  • Good point. I think my intention got jumbled somewhere along the way, so Root and Allen are now gone altogether. There should be new developments of a) actively kicking the ball away rather than covering up and b) letting the ball pass by harmlessly, both of which were dull, led to bodyline and concerned the authorities. Does this come across better now? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, but Larwood still appears between batsmen being exceedingly negative. You can move it down to the Bradman–Bodyline stuff, but that might create new problems in the flow, as now it becomes divorced from the bowler frustration. So I think this is fine.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Initially there was an increase in the number of lbws, but batsmen became accustomed to the change"--probably belongs to the next para, where it can combine with less-successful batsmen and "Out of 1,560 lbw dismissals" sentences.
  • "including the professional Herbert Sutcliffe, known as an exponent of pad-play, and amateurs Errol Holmes and Bob Wyatt. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack noted that these three particular batsmen improved their batting records"--I think you can drop Errol Holmes, who seems minor.
  • I'd prefer to keep him as he was pretty big at the time, considered a future England captain and the one to lead the amateur renaissance. He was also the ultimate establishment figure, and remained so for many years. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Gerald Brodribb..." para--too many "cricket"s in the beginning.
  • Have you intentionally not linked leg-spin and left arm spin in the Times quote?
  • ""if no stroke is offered to a ball..." on second thought, this law is also wordy. If you can express it more simply in your own words, relegate the quote to the notes.
  • "When the MCC revised the Laws of Cricket in 1980,[41] the revised wording was added;[42] this version is still used as of 2013.[3]" → "The MCC added the revised wording to the Laws of Cricket in 1980;[42] this version of the lbw law is still used as of 2013.[3]"?
  • "when standing further away from the stumps" ambiguous wording; could refer to umpires too.
  • "International Cricket Council (ICC), responsible for running international cricket" any way to avoid the obvious repetition? "the world game"?
  • Second para of Trends: perceived umpire bias towards home batsmen is mentioned thrice.
  • "Controversial aspects of lbw decisions"--what about nicks?

That's it from me. The only major thing is the paragraph with Bodyline. Still I have no hesitation in declaring my

Support: Excellent effort on the article, which is surely a model article for cricket dismissals and perhaps even sports-laws in general. I also thank you for being so responsive to my suggestions.—indopug (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]
  • I don't see anything on the ball hitting the hand / glove as potentially being different from hitting any other part of the body. Maybe add (in Definition) when the hands are considered part of the bat, and contrast lbw with handled the ball (not likely in a game, but the distinction does exist). EddieHugh (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I mention it because "the ball must strike part of the batsman's body" could be taken to include striking the hand, leading the casual reader to think that a batsman deliberately hitting the ball with a free hand (and the other requirements being met) would be out lbw. This is a pedantic point, but it is about the lbw law... EddieHugh (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but I think this is an unlikely conjunction of ideas. I also notice that there is no link between the two dismissals in the Laws of Cricket, so I'm reluctant to include anything on the grounds of OR. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can be bothered to get all the citations to link to the bibliography, if you want me to. Jamesx12345 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see the need. It is not as if there are hundreds of sources to follow. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I was about 30 before I finally got anywhere near understanding the intricacies of the LBW law; if only the nominator had been about decades ago to explain it so cogently! The coverage is clear, comprehensive, objective and first rate. This seems to me to tick all the FA boxes. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- did I miss an image review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I gave one at PR, the images are still the same.
  1. File:Leg before wicket.jpg is fine
  2. File:Cricket - Wickets.svg looks okay, but seems difficult to follow. Perhaps having no text would be helpful.
  3. File:Ranji 1897 page 215 Shrewsbury playing back.jpg - When did Caldwell die (if available?); if he died after 1943 the image would not be PD in the source country
  4. File:Bob Wyatt Cigarette Card.jpg looks fine
Having alt text might be a good idea.
You shouldn't force sizes. Using "upright" will make an image smaller, but still allow them to scale.
I'm afraid that svg file is beyond my technical capabilities, and I would have no idea how to remove the text. Added alt text to the last image. A little bit of OR reveals that Caldwell died in 1915, so we're fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My detailed comments are found in the peer review. I remain intrigued by the sentence: "Batsmen from the subcontinent were less likely to be lbw wherever they played in the world": has any reason been suggested for this? Is there a particular subcontinental style of batting that makes them less susceptible to the law? Most curious. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No reason is given (or suggested) in the source; there were some other vague statistical trends, but nothing really definite and nothing that gives a reason. They were even less likely to be lbw at home, as were Australian batsmen, but subcontinental batsman seem to be lbw less often wherever they play. Thanks for the support and comments at the PR. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review All sources used are of the appropriate levels of quality and reliability. Just a couple of format quibbles:

  • Ref 56: The mdash in the title doesn't appear in the source
  • Ref 58: Page range requires pp.

Otherwise, no problems with sources. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Both done. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:03, 2 April 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 16:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC) [36].[reply]

Common Starling

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak, Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Jim and I have been working on it since the beginning of the year and we think we have polished it up nicely to FA standard. We await your views, or as Jim succinctly put it, "... we'll throw it to the wolves". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Good. Some observations before support:
  • Common Starling (species), starling (family). Yes Brits may use a capitalised Starling to denote the species but this is Wikipedia and we acknowledge more than one species! I've fixed a few instances of this, but you need to check the whole thing carefully, for example at the bottom of voice I found this "When a flock of Starlings is flying together,"
  • The capitalisation of bird names is difficult in articles like this. Where "Starling" is used it is usually to avoid repeating "Common Starling" excessively but it is still referring to the species rather than starlings in general. Do I understand that you think it should then be "starling"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The summer breeding map colours are very hard to distinguish.
  • The feeding technique where the starling shoves its bill into the ground and opens it is called prying in taxonomy and probing in feeding.
  • The bit about the lining of the nest with herbs is way more interesting than the rather perfunctory treatment it gets here, check the abstract. Olfaction in birds is a pretty big deal.
  • Gleaning - I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.
  • Duplication - you repeat the information about the Azores birds raiding terns, and the conservation impact/
  • no mention of this species consuming parasites off large mammals, or the fact that the prying behaviour I mentioned above is subject to learning and that youngsters are initially not good at it. I can add these things from HBW if needed.
  • The taxonomy sections mentions the closest relative being teh Spotless within Sturnus - these are probably the only two species in that genus. This also means that the morphological adaptation for prizing open the ground (the enlarged muscles are called the protractor muscles btw) are not unique to that genus, being shared by the closely related Acridotheres and Creatophora, and indeed several other genera, although it is most developed in this species, the Spotless and the White-cheeked Starling. Notably in these species it is paired with a narrower skull, and, according to HBW, the eye can be moved forward to peer down the length of the bill because of this.
More to follow after my copyedit run. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:Sturnus_vulgaris_map.png: what base map was used to create this image?
  • File:SturnusPorphyronotusSmit.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:MozartStarlingTune.PNG needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative support on prose and comprehensiveness. Comments will be reading through and jotting queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC) all appears in order - prose and layout look good. Big topic so I can't see any glaring omissions and can't imagine we'd be able to include every article on the species.....Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Old English "staer", later "stare" derive from an Indo-European root dating back to the second millennium BC, as does the Latin word. - couple of things here. (i) I find "are derived" (passive) more natural-sounding than "derive" (active) (ii) I thought the practice was to consider Old English as foreign in some ways and italicise the word - (?) (iii) when is "stare" - Middle English etc. do we have dates? (iv) any other discussion on what the indo-european root actually was?
  • The text implies that stare was the form in the Middle English period, becoming scarce in the C17, but doesn't actually say that. The existence of an Indo-European root is implied by the fact that the Latin, OE (and several old Germanic cognates) aree obviously derived from a common ancestor, but Lockwood doesn't speculate on this. Unless I can find another source, this may be as good as it gets. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The songsters are more commonly male although females also sing on occasions. - see I would have said "The songsters are more commonly male although females also sing on occasion." - the last word a sort of collective noun/adverbial thing....

Otherwise looks pretty on-target for FA status....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Snowmanradio

[edit]
  • Should the article refer more specifically to Mycobacterium avium or avian tuberculosis rather than "tuberculosis"? I recall that avian Tb occasionally affects humans, mainly immuno-compromised humans; however, I think that by just using "tuberculosis" Wiki-linked to the Wiki article, which is mainly about human tuberculosis, is misleading. In the absence of a Wiki article specifically about M. avium, then I think that a piped link to the genus Mycobacterium would be more appropriate. Snowman (talk) 13:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Captive birds can accumulate excess iron in the liver, a condition which can be prevented by adding black tea-leaves to the food": I am not sure what emphasis to put on this. Does this imply that haemosiderosis is a common problem in captive starlings? Snowman (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked to make it clear that this is a common problem with starlings (and apparently toucans and birds of paradise too). Low-iron diets have only limited success. The sources are a bit vague as to why it's not a problem with wild birds "In natural environments, iron accumulation varies with seasonal changes and environmental stress levels and is influenced by other dietary constituents." Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The man-made structures are probably over-represented among the images but nests in holes are not so easy to photograph. I have changed one image in the article and added another which I hope covers both the points you raise. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image of the two chicks in the gap in a wall is pleasing. I have removed the other new image of a juvenile beginning to moult and showing some adult plumage and replaced it with an excellent Featured Picture showing a bird of a similar age. I think that the article needs an image of an younger all-brown juvenile. Young juveniles are noticeable in the spring (? summer) when they come into gardens to feed in a family flock. Snowman (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found a place-holder image of an all-brown juvenile and shown it in the article. Snowman (talk)
  • Lets be more ambitious with image selection and placement, because it is a very common species and there are plenty of photographs on Commons and Flickr. There might be a suitable photograph of a nest with eggs, but I would like like to risk disturbing a nest myself, or perhaps a suitable painting of the eggs. I have seen a few images of all-brown juveniles on Flickr, but not one that is quite right for the article yet. The infobox image is an FP and should be shown on the page somewhere; nevertheless, I wonder if an image with the bird facing into the page and on a less distracting perch would be more suitable in the infobox. The latter half of the article has plenty of space for a few photographs. Are there any opinions of showing videos of starlings doing things in the article? Any suggestions to improve the artwork? Snowman (talk) 10:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Common Starlings follow an overall power-law dispersal kernel with an exponent around 1.5 and a 'good-stay, bad-disperse' rule of mobility sensitive to habitat quality.[76]"; jargon. Snowman (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression (1): I may have a conflict of interest, because I have done a little editing to the article and attempted to review it; nevertheless, I have aimed to be objective. I have not done a systematic search for MoS issues. I have not done systematic spot checking of sources, because I am not suspicious of verification problems. The images illustrate a variety of the bird's plumages and activities quite well currently, but I think that it is likely that the artwork will improve after the article has attained FA status. I hope that more reviewers will will look at the article, because there might be MoS or copy-editing issues remaining. I am not suspicious of factual errors, so in-the-round I think that the article has reached FA status, or will do soon after a few more reviewers give support. Snowman (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was surprised and interested to learn a little about the Common Starling in aviculture and keeping it as a pet. Is there anything else on starlings in captivity, that would be relevant to add to the article? Would a pet starling try to stab its keeper's eyes with its pointed beak? Are there parts of the world where keeping starlings is popular? Is it illegal take one from the wild in some parts of the world? Snowman (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it's quite uncommon except for scientific research where its abundance and ease of keeping make it a good subject, there isn't a lot of information otherwise. In its introduced range it's legal to kill a starling, let alone capture it. It the EU, I believe that it's legal to capture starlings, don't know about Asia, but I shouldn't think it's protected anywhere. I don't know if there are any dangers, but I've never heard of starlings being particularly hazardous to handle (I suspect that you wouldn't hold one inches from your face though. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was thinking of a child holding a Common Starling close to its face and the starling stabbing the child's eyes with its beak. I have a footnote in a 1971 reprint of King Solomon's Ring that says that it is illegal to buy and sell a starling (and a list of other native birds) in Great Britain. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legislation has changed since 1971. Buying and selling birds without a licence isn't the same as keeping them, and as I said, most are in labs. You can't legislate for human stupidity, letting a child hold a starling near their face (or a bird of prey, or putting their fingers in a parrot cage) isn't something that can be sourced Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning its CITES status? Snowman (talk) 11:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When there is competition for nest holes, do Starlings fight? If so, how do they fight? It is not immediately obvious to me how a Common Starling could fight off a rosella (medium sized parrot) for possession of a nest hole. Is there anything on this that is relevant to add to the article? Snowman (talk) 10:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starlings are gregarious even in the breeding season, and there's little to suggest fighting (as opposed to the usual squabbling) even for nest sites. Competition for nest holes doesn't necessarily involve fighting, it's often a matter of "finders keepers". Having said that, the source suggest that starling are usually successful (69%) in direct confrontation with the smaller Eastern Rosella, but not Crimson Rosella. The larger, more aggressive, Common Mynas are more of a problem to medium-sized parrots. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:18, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it's even that, it's just jockeying for position in the large groups typical of this species. I've made it clearer now that starling will use almost any holes, but if their is a shortage, as with any other hole-species, some (usually the younger birds) don't breed at that time. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian ethologist Konrad Lorenz described them as "the poor man's friend"; This is a quote, so would it be reasonable to also provide an in-line ref for the work in which Lorenz said this in addition to the existing in-line ref. I am not sure what FA criteria or MoS says about this, but I think that it would help verifiability a little to more easily access what Lorenz wrote and what the context was. Snowman (talk) 11:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book doesn't reference the quote, and I can't find the original source. Another book says "poor man's dog", but doesn't claim to be quoting Lorentz. It's not an MoS or FAC requirement to give primary sources, and secondary sources are preferred where there is a choice. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is from King Solomon's Ring and it is on page 59 in my 1971 reprint published by Methuen & Co Ltd. Lorentz says; "An extraordinarily understanding friend used to describe him [starling] as "the poor man's dog"." There is a picture of what looks like a Common Starling at the foot of the page. It seems likely to me that your secondary source has got something wrong because Lorentz is actually quoting someone else as saying it without saying who said it. I think that the article needs a correction. The point is that Lorentz says that the hand-raised starling appreciates personal contact and "friendship" and that one can not be bought ready made. He gives an account of raising a starling chick and a diet for an adult starling. Snowman (talk) 19:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked to remove the impression that Lorentz was necessarily the first to say this and added your source. I don't want to get too involved in the keeping of starlings since it's a minor part of the topic Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... how adept they are at picking up phrases and expressions, often mixing them up or using them on inappropriate occasions. "; how would a staling know when it is inappropriate to sing a sound? Lorentz goes into this on page 84 of King Solomon's Ring. He says that the starling mimics sounds when singing and that the sounds have no meaning. Hence, I think that Lorentz has a more logical explanation. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Omission: nestling's faecal sacs. Lorentz describes this saying that chicks defecate in the side of the nest facing the light and that the nest inside is kept clean. Snowman (talk) 11:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's true for passerines, even tits and nuthatches have substantial coloured blotches and spots on the white background. Added a journal that says the blue colour is perceived well in poor light Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think that the comprehensiveness. readability, and artwork of the article is up to FA status. I have not checked conformity to MOS systematically. I have not spot checked sources, because I am not suspicious of factual errors. I am not very good at copy-editing English grammar. Perhaps, people who know more about starlings than me will do a better review. Snowman (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Unpaired males begin to build nests in order to attract single females, ..." and the rest of the nesting section follows. I think I know what the section is supposed to mean, but much of this is ambiguous and vague. It could be interpreted that the male digs out the hole in the tree like a woodpecker. It is not clear that the straw and nest material is placed on the floor of a pre-existing nest cavity, or at least that is what I presume happens. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The eggs are 26.5–34.5 x 20.0–22.5 mm (1.04–1.36 x 0.79–0.89 mm).[3]" I know what this is meant to mean, but it seems unscientific or odd describing a 3D structure with 2 dimensions. Are there any conventions about writing egg sizes? Snowman (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good thing you copied those dimensions because it enabled me to notice and correct the error! To answer your question, with a globe you only need to give one dimension and with a cylinder, two will suffice. A bird's egg is equivalent to a cylinder. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well spotted. With a circle it would need to be clear that the dimension is the radius or the diameter. For a right circular cylinder the radius (or diameter) and length could be stated, with clarity about which dimension is the radius (or diameter) and which is the length. Would it be better to say something like "an egg 2 cm long and 1 cm in maximum diameter"? Snowman (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its gift for mimicry has been noted in literature ranging from the Mabinogion to the works of William Shakespeare." I do not know what is included in this range. Pliney the Elder is prior to this range chronologically. Snowman (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- I suppose it was bound to catch my eye, but the Australia subsection begins "The Common Starling was originally introduced into Australia to consume insect pests which the birds were known to eat." Using "the birds" this way suggests you mean the starlings, but that'd mean starlings were introduced to Australia to consume insect pests that starlings eat, which sounds curious. Do you mean simply "birds", i.e. other species, birds in general? BTW, I'd say "originally" is redundant unless at some stage they were all eradicated and had to be reintroduced... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it is a bit convoluted, now "The Common Starling was introduced into Australia to consume insect pests of farm crops", also removed repetition of "important" in next sentence. Thanks for comment Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:39, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well there you go, without mention of the crops that meaning didn't even occur to me (though that may say as much about my comprehension tonight as your expression)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 1 April 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/April_2013&oldid=557824870"