Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/December 2015

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 via FACBot (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2015 [1].

Wendell Willkie

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a man certainly best known for having lost to FDR in 1940, but there was much more to him than that. Had be been spared and given a full measure of years, he might have done quite a bit for the world. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • having read through I found one word duplicated(fixed) what I found is the term "Assessment" for the last section feels like it should be some WP:OR by the editors, the content isnt though. I did some looking through other republican leader articles and there they tend to use legacy, historical and memorial context which do seem a lot more neutral in tone and stay away from giving the appearance of making a judgement. Legacy memorial & monument lets the article appear to be complete. Gnangarra 12:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Legacy and remembrance", perhaps, for compactness. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yep that sits a lot better than assessment did happy to support Gnangarra 14:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up map size
  • File:Wendell_Willkie_Plaque,_New_York_Public_Library_-_DSC06453.JPG: because this plaque has 3D elements, it also needs a tag for the photographer's copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, as always, for the review. I have requested Daderot, the photographer, to release it appropriately, see here They are at best only semi-active but if there is no action we have the precedent of Bobby131313 that uploading one's own work to Wikipedia or commons is consistent with a desire to release it via the four freedoms.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Did my heavy work on this at the peer review. If Willkie was running for the presidency this year I believe he would walk it, and quite right, too. He is a reminder of the times when politicians were more deservedly respected. I note that Willkie visited Liverpool in 1941, and is thus more than likely to have met Councillor Bessie Braddock; I bet they got on famously. Congratulations on a great article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'm sure they did, and I have no doubt they got on famously.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Meets all FA criteria, and is an enlightening article on an American politician whose name is deservedly known on the other side of the Atlantic. You never know with Wehwalt's remarkable series of biographies of politicians if you're going to get an article on an absolute shocker or on a good 'un, and I am pleased to find that Willkie is in the latter category. I enjoyed this extravagantly, and happily add my support. Tim riley talk 16:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I am glad he is well-remembered there, he is too little thought of here. Possibly that will change if a second businessperson gains the Republican nomination.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
Changed to "journey".--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added something on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder whether any details are available anywhere which explain exactly why he switched. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That was the most specific I could find offhand. I don't have all my sources anymore but can check if necessary at the library on Tuesday.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Google Books for "Wendell Willkie" and "switched" and found this, which I believe is a tertiary source. The key point here is one facet of Willkie's belief system is that he was perhaps nearly reflexively pro-business, and became suspicious of the New Deal from an instinctive (but moderate) anti-statist POV. [I.e., he was a social liberal, but right of center on business and economic issues]. Several details in the existing article text support this, but those details need to coalesce into a clear, concise, well-cited statement summarizing his (presumably) principled opposition to FDR and the New Deal. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there's this source. It's not exactly a historical journal, though. Relevant quote is "A Democrat in the early 30s, Willkie turned Republican because of what he felt to be unwise government restraints on business enterprise" If you think it's good enough, I'll use it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That source ripped it from Encyclopedia Britannica (according to its references). What an incestuous little world academia is! Besides, that's still a bit too vague for my personal taste. I'll try to find a better source tomorrow; no time today. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I said, I'm planning to go to the library on Tues and can review all my sources that I have now returned. If you think of anything else that might be usefully researched there, I'd be grateful. Thank you for your discerning comments..--Wehwalt (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That journal piece is still the best. I've added it for now as well as the other suggestion you made on my talk, but will start looking at contemporary news coverage.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, the library was closed as they close for the university winter break, but I was able to view most of the sources on Google books. It is amazing how difficult this point is. They all either cite the political reason (Roosevelt gonna run, which really wasn't that clear) or pass over it. I saw a couple that discussed Willkie's nuanced beefs with the New Deal, but they never quite drew the connection. Willkie's views on the New Deal really weren't shared in the Republican Party either, but it was the only other game in town. So that journal is the best I have. I have no doubt they are correct, everything I've read points to it (if you disregard the political motive), but it's not an ideal source because it treats Willkie in passing and gets its info from the EB of some time ago. But at this point, I'm prepared to run with it as "best we have".--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found this in the NY Times, June 30, 1940. "Mr. Willkie blames the New Deal for the fact that he is not still a Democrat. He wanted to stay with the party of his first, or perhaps second, choice, but, as he says, it left him. He says he is not against Mr. Roosevelt, as a man. "What I am against is power" (the second bit was because they say he flirted with socialism at Indiana). Link is here, but unless you have an account ...here. But we can't say he switched because he opposed the New Deal as that isn't true, he supported much of it, and said so. Just parts he deemed anti-business, like the breakup of the utility holding companies. He had a point. Regulate them much or little, what utilities want is stability.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if we have adequately emphasized and explained the influence/importance of One World?
I've beefed this up in the Legacy section.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[P.S. just noticed Zipp is too long for inline quote anyhow; should be blockquote]... Are Zipp's comments solely about One World, or about Willkie's whole career? If the former, suggest moving the Wells quote before Zipp as the setup for the spike; if the latter, well, can the Zipp quote be broken up and distributed into chunks, with the One World stuff preceded by Wells and the "whole career" stuff preceded by another laudatory quote? And then of course, does the lede adequately cover this new addition... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's One World but it's a bit unclear. The words "In the end, Willkie's legacy was ambiguous." precede the Zipp quote. I read that as talking specifically about One World (what the article is about, after all) as if Zipp was talking about Willkie's general legacy as a person, he'd be more likely to say "Willkie's legacy is ambiguous".--Wehwalt (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've done more or less as you suggest, shortening the Zipp quote.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:17, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of becoming odious and/or tedious (too late!), I should say that I am really not keen at all on the idea of ending sections (and in fact the whole article) with block quotes. I may be wrong, but IIRC the APA format casts disapproving glances in the general direction of anyone who does this. I know we don't adhere to any standard nor can any one standard be used as a guideline. My point is that there is a reason why the APA (again IIRC) says this: because ending with a block quote creates a dangling, distracting look and feel to the text... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's what I have found through experience works OK on Wikipedia, anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nolo contendere, then. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lingzhi: Just checking whether you wanted to add to your comments above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: On the one hand, I do wanna find the best possible support and wording for the points mentioned above, and have a lingering desire to re-check whether the lede adequately covers things. But on the other hand, I cannot imagine any alternate universe in which I will not Support this after tweaking. I haven't had quite as much time and (more importantly) haven't been in a mood to think hard/focus/concentrate because of Christmas. If there's some sort of a rush for some reason, you can Promote it. I can work on it later, with Wehwalt's blessings. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm always happy to work with anyone on article improvement at any time. I think everyone knows any suggestions brought up will be taken seriously and dealt with appropriately.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, the nom has only been open a couple of weeks -- OTOH if no-one has anything more to add then I would probably promote it by EOM/EOY. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per my previous note, I think it's reasonable to close this now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reading through, but leaning support. Have been reading about the FDR political era recently so this is of interest. Ceoil (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: Did you want to expand on your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Cas Liber

[edit]
  • aaaal-righty then....using this revision for stable referencing numbers....
  • FN 37 has a formatting tag that needs tweaking.
  • FN 146 - formatting
  • Refs otherwise have consistent formatting.
  • Fn 31 used 3 times - material faithful to source.
  • FN 140 - material faithful to source.

Need to sleep now - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need the sleep more in a few days, I suspect ... thank you for the comments. I've done the first two.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 37 checked via JSTOR - material faithful to source.
  • FN 149 - material faithful to source.

Oops...almost forgot...Earwigs ok I'm happy - spot check all clear. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2015 [2].

Todd Manning

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:Flyer22 Reborn, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the groundbreaking character from One Life to Live and General Hospital, played by the incomparable Roger Howarth and Trevor St. John. Flyer22 Reborn and I have worked on this article, on and off, for about two years, as you can see by our long and often contentious (but collaborative and always positive) discussions on the talk page. Todd's article, like the character himself, is controversial and causes lots of arguments, but Flyer22 Reborn and I feel like it's finally ready to go a round or two here at FAC. We welcome your feedback and anticipate much discussion here. We're proud of what we've been able to accomplish, despite the article's complexity and history and look forward to this process. Its first FAC unfortunately failed due to lack of response, so we hope that it's able to go through this time. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: From a first look, article looks great! Let's go through a prose review then source. Images look good, but I'm a bit inexperienced in that area so if another editor could look through those images, that would be great! I will keep going through when I have more time. Just read through and there are no other prose issues with me. Besides the dead sources and dmy/mdy issues, I believe this article should be an FA. MrWooHoo (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is Reference 1 really needed in the lead? Per WP:WHENNOTCITE, references don't really need to be in the lead unless the info isn't in the article body.
We chose to include ref 1 because it supports Todd's full name, Thomas Todd Manning, and because the character goes by his middle name. So yes, we feel that it's necessary. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support After reading through this article, I'm happy to conclude that this meets the FA criteria. I found no major prose issues or inconsistencies with the images. However, I did spot a few minor issues with some of the references:

  • Refs 55 and 56 are dead. No doubt these could be easily archived
  • Ref 25 has an inline tag error
  • Does this article use dmy or mdy date formats? So far I see dmy dates used in the references and mdy dates used in throughout the prose and the infobox.

Other than that, the article looks great. I was expecting to leave a longer review but I couldn't find anything worth mentioning! JAGUAR  14:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed dates in infobox and in article. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this and this, why use British style? I understand that we currently use British style for the dates in the references, though I'd rather that we not since I'm American and prefer American style (I don't like having to remember to use British style), but why use that style in the regular text as well? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaguar, mind offering your opinion since you brought up the date style? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my opinion, even though I'm not Jag: It doesn't matter to me. WP, as a matter of course, uses the British style (ddmmyyyy). I suspect Jag was just asking for everything to be consistent throughout the article, which is fine with me. I tend to follow the suggestions of my FAC reviewers, unless it's crucially important to me (which this isn't), so I went ahead and made the changes. This article discusses a character on an American show, so using the American style of dates makes sense in the body of the article. I'm fine with the consensus. I must admit that this kind of nitpicky-ness used to bug the heck out of me, but now I see it more positively--that Jag was reaching for feedback, which bodes well for this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:ENGVAR it's preferred (especially in GAs and FAs) that an article stays consistent with one date format. I thought that since this article is focused on an American show, I would have thought that American dates would be used throughout (per MOS:TIES). I personally think it's super minor, but I know for a fact that a lot of FA reviewers will always point out a mix up of dmy, mdy and ymd style dates being used throughout the article. JAGUAR  00:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two things about this. (1) VisualEditor uses the British format, so for me, I think WP convention should be followed. (2) I agree about consistency, so I'm for using WP convention/British format in the article's body. If you or any other FA reviewer disagrees, though, I'm happy to make the changes. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jaguar, I've been aware of WP:ENGVAR, but I don't see where it states that we have to use the same date style for the article as a whole that we use for the references. Figureskatingfan and I discussed the date style on the talk page, and I was clear then that I prefer American style. Figureskatingfan didn't seem hard-pressed on either version. All in all, this is a minor issue, as stated. I simply wanted to know where you are coming from on the matter.
Figureskatingfan, American style for American topics is also conventional, which I assume is why Jaguar was surprised that the article uses British style for the references. I would prefer that we at some point change the date style of this article back to American style. But, again, this is a minor issue and does not significantly affect the quality of this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, Jaguar, I do see where the WP:ARTCON subsection of WP:ENGVAR can be taken to mean that everything except the noted exceptions should be consistent. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if there's "set in stone" policy regarding the consistency of one date format, but it's always been from my experience that one date format is recommended in GAs and FAs. It's super minor though, and I was a little surprised to see this use British dates as it's an article focused on a US topic. There is a script you can install that changes all the dates (prose and references alike) into any format with one click. I use it a lot, but honestly I'm neutral on this matter and I think I'll leave it up to you two to decide which date format you prefer! JAGUAR  19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ran the script for date consistency (ddmmyyyy, as per consensus). It should go through the next time it runs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given what Jaguar and I stated above, I don't understand why you view ddmmyyyy as consensus. You prefer British style, and I don't. But I suppose I will worry about that at a later date (no pun intended). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

  • I'm kinda croggled at the size of the article, so I'll probably have to take it in sections.
  • Are these sorts of articles like movie synopses which aren't cited?
  • Should Carol Swift be linked on first use? Otherwise lacking context for her.
  • Link tabloid paper, Mafia.
  • After many difficulties in their marriage, Starr is diagnosed with aplastic anemia Not sure I see a connection between Starr's disease and marital problems between her father and Blair.
  • When Blair falls into a coma, Todd pays lawyer Téa Delgado (Florencia Lozano) five million dollars to marry him so he can keep custody of Starr. When she awakens, he allows her visitation. It's unclear who "she" refers to in the second sentence.
  • As they are about to remarry, Sam reveals Todd staged the hit on their nanny to win Blair's affections. Did I miss something about a hit on the nanny?
  • Move the link for archetype to first use.
  • Done through archetypes and rape. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With this edit, I made changes per your comments. With regard to the plot summary, the show itself is the source; it is a primary source matter. For what I mean, see what MOS:PLOT states about inline citations. I can assure you that what is in that plot section is factual. Carol Swift is not a WP:Notable character, and does not have her own Wikipedia article; I added "a woman named" in front of "Carol Swift" to make it seem more understandable that her name is not wikilinked. I'm not sure what you mean by "Link tabloid paper, Mafia."; I maybe overlooked something there? I tweaked the wording for the aplastic anemia's connection to the marital problems. I thought that the "she awakens" part was clear, since it's Blair who was in a coma, but I tweaked the wording. I added more context for the fake hit on the nanny. I would have moved the "archetypes" link, but the first appearance is in a quote, and, per the Linking aspect of MOS:QUOTE, we should generally avoid wikilinking within quotes; in my opinion, though, wikilinking in this case is an exception to that rule. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More tweaks here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes are fine thus far; I meant that tabloid newspaper and Mafia (capitalized, please) need to be linked.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I guess the word mafia is supposed to be capitalized in this case? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The rest of it looks good; almost tempted to cruise Youtube for some of these scenes. Supporting.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Sturmvogel 66; I'm glad that the article has made you interested in watching some Todd Manning scenes on YouTube. When I read the article or come across some Todd Manning material in the media, I sometimes find myself watching some of the scenes on YouTube. I wish that a lot of the older scenes were in better condition at that site, though; for example, this scene where Todd gets the scar (no one knows how he got the scar on his face by seemingly getting hit in the back of the head, LOL...unless the bar had something on it to scrape the side of his face) or this scene where he terrorizes Marty are not in good shape. This scene, where Todd has his shorter hair style and goes to get the scar removed (but changes his mind) is in somewhat better condition. Some older scenes are in better condition than others, and the newer scenes are usually in good condition. A place people can watch much of Todd's history is The Real Todd Manning channel.
On a side note: What do you think of the dates matter noted above? And do you think I should add a little material to the article from this The Huffington Post source? For the "Rape and redemption" section, I thought about adding the following to the "Hayward categorized" paragraph since it doesn't seem like it would flow well elsewhere in that section: "Tanya D. Marsh of The Huffington Post, when comparing Todd to other evil or troubled male characters that have been redeemed, stated, 'It is a fairly universal theme that tortured bad boys are sexy.'" Or do you think the article is better off without that text? What she states about Todd is already in the article, so I see no need to include her direct commentary on him. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, yes doing research for this article was such a burden! Re: The Huffington Post; it's my understanding that we're to avoid using it because it's self-published and unreliable. I agree, though, that it's not needed, anyway, since the article already states the information about Todd's sexiness coming from his bad-boy-ness (yes, I know, not-a-word). Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Figureskatingfan, The Huffington Post can count as a WP:Reliable source; otherwise I wouldn't have considered it. Of course, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, it's not a reliable source for everything (or for most things). It's been debated enough as a reliable source at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard and WP:BLP noticeboard, as seen in this and this archive search. As for "What she states about Todd is already in the article", I mean what she indicated about him being redeemed, and what she stated about him being a male lead and so on. But I'm not hard-pressed on adding the "bad boys are sexy" piece. I thought about adding it to the aforementioned paragraph, or somewhere else in the section, because the section addresses speculation on why Todd is popular. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jester66, regarding this edit you made, we are currently going by British date style; see what is stated above. So it would be best if you self-revert your edit on the date style. That stated, per above, feel free to weigh in here on what date style you prefer for the article. As noted above, I prefer American style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking I'd think that the date format should be American style, but I honestly don't care one way or another as I'm used to the US military format which is also the European one. I will say that it should use one format consistently, even in the access dates in the cites. I really don't see that the HuffPo bit had anything to offer that was new so I see no reason to add it to what's already a long article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Sturmvogel 66. I went ahead and reverted Jester66 for consistency, but I'm sure that this article will eventually use American date style. I also added a little more to the article (followup edits here and here). That section used to mention Starr's cartoon daydreams, but it was a note back then (tied to Howarth's eyes being hazel rather than blue), and not directly backed up by any sources in the article. Now it's different. I thank you, MrWooHoo and Jaguar for weighing in and helping improve this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything else that needs to be done with this article, or are we stalled due to the holidays? It seems to me that we've successfully addressed all concerns. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We're clearly done and just waiting for this process to close. Thanks for changing the dates to American style. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:57, 22 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2015 [3].

Telopea truncata

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been buffing this article over some years and was pleased to take some more photos that could be useful when I was in Tasmania recently. I've scraped just about everywhere for sources and am satisfied it's comprehensive and engaging....and has some pretty flowers. Let me know what you think and if there is anything I can do to make it more betterer. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some quick comments: Josh Milburn (talk) 21:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • You're inconsistent on whether your provide publisher locations: they're lacking in Crisp and Weston 1995, Crisp and Weston 1987 and Mackenzie 1987, but present in other book sources. You also provide publisher/location for one "journal" (Willis 1959) but no others.
a hangover from editing this article a loooong time ago. aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, strikes me as overkill...removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are those really the only two cultivars out there?
this species is much harder to grow than the others, so little has been done with it WRT horticulture. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I assume yes, but is this describing one of the cultivars talked about in the article? Josh Milburn (talk) 12:35, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - this 'mellow yellow' is 'champagne' and/or 'golden globe'. At this stage it was not named (yes I know the other two were registered in 2006 but they weren't widely advertised till later). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I had my say at GAC. If I was going to quibble, I'd probably find some nitpicks in reference formatting (perhaps there are some unwarranted italics, but maybe we simply have different tastes) and ask for a bit more ecology information. I'd be interested, for example, in a little more about any animal species (and maybe plant and fungi species) which have some kind of ecological relationship with this species, but I appreciate that there simply may not much of a mention in the literature. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thx/Sigh...I've trawled and come up with nada :( Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary comments:

  • "grows as a multistemmed shrub to 3 metres (10 ft)" in the lead: I would explicitly insert the phrase "a height of" before the measurement to make it unambiguous for non-botanical readers.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, you use the figure "10 metres (33 ft)", while in the Description section, you use "10 m (35 ft)". This should be consistent.
wish there was something in the convert template that could convert to multiples of five in feet. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "metres" is spelled out throughout the article; all other units (cm, ft) appear as abbreviations only. Per WP:MOSUNITS, the first instance of each should be spelled out and the other occurrences abbreviated. (Solely as a matter of personal taste, I think all of these are sufficiently common as to require no spelling out, but YMMV.)
abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No subspecies are recognised...", in the lead, feels a bit awkward to me; it implies (IMO) that subspecies are the only valid taxonomic classification below species. I might say something like "Yellow-flowered forms are occasionally seen, but do not form a population distinct from the rest of the species."
yep, an improvement. tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the garden", in the lead, is superfluous.
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, the way "hybrid form" was used initially made me think that these forms were considered T. truncata. I might say "cultivars that are hybrids of T. truncata with..." to make it clear that the cultivars are distinct from all of the parents.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common names of T. speciosissima and T. oreades should be used in the lead, allowing the removal of the common name of T. oreades from "Taxonomy and Evolution". I hit "New South Wales waratah" in "Description" and had to click around to figure out what that was. I'm not sure how frequently you want the scientific names of those two species linked in the article, but it might be best to make that consistent.
they are generally linked at first instance only in both body and lead. tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Taxonomy and Evolution", "for it in 1809" should be changed to make it clear that "it" refers to the species, not the genus Embothrium.
clarified thus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section needs a bit of revision in general, as it's hard to understand what exactly was conserved, illegitimate, and so forth. The situation seems to be this: the species was originally named Embothrium truncatum. Salisbury scooped Brown and published Hylogyne australis, based on the type material for E. truncatum, in 1809. Since he failed to make use of the original species epithet, this name is illegitimate. Brown published the new, valid, combination Telopea truncata in 1810. Because Salisbury published the genus Hylogyne based on material of Embothrium speciosissimum, it represents the oldest name available for the genus Telopea, but everyone ignored it because he acted like a jerk, and long after (1988, ICBN No. 2062) the name Telopea was conserved and Hylogyne formally rejected. The article makes it seem like T. truncata was conserved, and it took me some back-and-forth to figure out why Salisbury's name was illegitimate and what, if anything had to be nomenclaturally conserved.
funnily enough, it was more because some important people were feuding with Salisbury as much as anything else...and they just ignored his work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
added them, but was unsure of best way to format the last one. It's dated 1959-61 on one bit....there is also a simpler web version Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although it's listed in the synonyms, there's no mention of Kuntze's combination of 1891, Hylogyne truncata, which was a valid name and technically the senior one until the rejection of Hylogyne in 1988.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd move the sentence about the meaning of "truncatus" right after the sentence about Labillardière's description; it's sort of floating partway through the synonymy here. I'd also use specific epithet instead of "species name". Use a semicolon rather than a comma after "seed wing".
I perviously used "epithet" but was corrected to "name". "Epithet" is more exacting. moved sentence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider linking New Caledonia and Victoria.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Description" section, I would consider using a colon instead of an em-dash after "altitude".
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Ecology" section, "several metres" is ambiguous; they travel not more than several metres from the parent plant?
this is difficult - the source uses "several" which I know vernacularly what is meant. However it is extremely hard to put in a number without falling into OR. The seeds are heavy so I can understand how they don't go far..not sure what to do else. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good in general. Let me know and I'd be happy to work over the taxonomy section to incorporate the nomenclatural information I've brought up. Choess (talk) 04:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Choess: done everything but the ref for the conserved name...help appreciated... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for tweaking the taxonomy Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, @Choess:? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been away for so long--finals season. Three comments. First, I'm not quite sure what to make of the sentence about Triporopollenites ambiguus. Is the idea to point out that this form taxon includes material that was already like T. truncata in the Eocene, so that it might have begun diverging from other Embothriinae at this point (although macroscopic fossils don't occur until later in the record)? Second, a review article here, per Google Scholar, seems to discuss the cultivation of T. truncata for flowers, but I don't have access to the full text. It, like the CRC Handbook of Flowering (v. 6, pp. 593–596), cites Cooke, S.L., Investigation into the Vase Life of Tasmanian Waratah (Telopea truncata), Report, Fruit and Ornamentals Branch, Department of Agriculture, Hobart, Tasmania, 1985. I don't have access to the full text of any of these; can you get at one or more of them and see if there's anything more to be added to the cultivation or uses sections? Third, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template, "Description" should precede "Taxonomy and evolution". I tried flipping the order, but it pushes the picture of f. lutea under the taxobox. If you want to rearrange in an aesthetically-pleasing fashion, go ahead, but I wouldn't consider the section order a deal-breaker.
Other than that, I'm ready to support. I've thrashed pretty extensively through GBooks, GScholar, and BHL, and I'm confident the coverage is comprehensive and well-researched. It follows the WikiProject Plants template for article structure except as noted above. Styling seems in order to my eye, although I can't claim to have the entire MOS on tap. Choess (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ok, switched the sections. I realise I did that with the other waratahs and banksias Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have added material from the Halevy book, which I suspect has distilled useful information from the sources you mention...which I can't access either. The plant is rarely cultivated, either for the home garden or cut flowers, and the dearth of subsequent web info and guarded nature of info in Halevy makes me think all useful info for general audience has been scraped from sources and added (though the elusiveness of these articles would stop me from betting my house on this presumption!). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Tripollenites....I hadn't thought of it like that, I just thought it was interesting that such pollen had been discovered and was not making any assumptions about relationships or divergence. I mentioned the other taxa as I figured it'd be a misrepresentation of the source to imply that it only resembled T. truncata (by omitting the other two)... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was mainly trying to get a handle on the transition from discussing subtribe Embothriinae to Triporopollenites ambiguus, which feels a bit abrupt. I was trying to sort things just now and wound up going down a palynological rabbit hole, but I found a cool fact for the article and I think smoothed over the transition a bit. See how you like it. I'm ready to support without further quibbles. Choess (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good/thanks Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

Comments from Cwmhiraeth

    • A nice-looking article, but as always, a few niggles.
  • "specific epithet" needs disambiguating.
That target page needs cleanup...anyway now linked to Botanical_name#Components_of_plant_names Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "predating Brown's formal 1810 description and claiming precedence" - surely this didn't matter because the species had been formally described in 1805?
It was the genus name that was the issue - Hylogyne vs Telopea. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "must predate the splitting of Gondwana" - Did the source really say this? I usually prefer "is likely to have" or "probably".
must --> most likely Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is from here that the seed pods then develop." - Is there more than one seed pod per individual flower, then?
no/well-spotted/fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is occasionally found in Leptospermum scoparium-Acacia mucronata forest community of western Tasmania." - Singular or plural, perhaps add one or two "the"s?
It is a type of ecological community, see here for instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Waratah seeds are often eaten—and destroyed—by animals" - is the seed not distributed at all by animals then?
not generally, as far as I know (and have read) they are either eaten...or fall off the plant and are eaten. Just tried to go on the sources is all... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink "Mount Wellington".
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 12 (Rossetto) needs attention.
weird...how'd that parameter sneak in there...fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
lead expanded now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source review All sources seem of appropriate quality and are consistently cited.

Content checks:

  • 39: While the material is generally supported, I'm a bit uncomfortable with saying its principal use has been flowers based on a source from 1905.
  • 11b Supported.
  • 29 Supported.
  • 36b Supported.
Looks good, if you'd shore up the 1905 matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
none of the goddamn contemporary articles specify that use, hence I've removed it and reworked material. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been there ... my sympathy. OK, that's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This one is my fault: I slapped the "Uses" section in there while reviewing for comprehensiveness and poking in odd corners. "Principal" may be an overstatement: there seems to have been more investigation (e.g., Cooke 1985 mentioned above) of its use as a cut flower than for decorative wood, but its use seems rather incidental either for flowers or for timber. Would it be OK to put back an opening sentence in that section to the effect of "flowers were once used for decoration," etc., leaving it ambiguous as to whether that was a major use or whether the practice continued today? It feels a little odd to me starting the section on "use" with a sentence about population loss, but I'll let Cas have his say before mucking up the article further. Choess (talk) 03:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Choess: happy if you wanna tweak it to include the fact but somehow get across the historical nature of the source. I figure these days folks just buy their flowers from the florist anyway.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:25, 28 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2015 [4].

Bristol

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bristol is the largest city in south west England. It has over 1,000 years of history and has become a major centre for trade, business and culture - all of which are reflected in the article. Since its creation in 2002 the article has received over 4,000 edits, four peer reviews and a recent copy edit. The previous nomination (in August 2015) which was archived a few weeks ago, included a lot of discussion about whether a specific image could be included. The issue was resolved however there were few other comments on whether the article meets the criteria.— Rod talk 07:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are now appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reassessing after changes...
  • Quick comments:
  • What happened to the 19th century in the history headings? A couple of mentions in "17th and 18th centuries", but really not much.
  • "Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760)..." - wasn't it that by then Bristol Docks simply couldn't handle the larger ships being built? Worth saying. Avonmouth eventually had the same problem, but was able to solve it - unlike Liverpool.
  • The sport section seems pretty long, and the architecture one rather short, and not very informative; eg the cautious assertion that: "Buildings from most architectural periods of the United Kingdom can be seen in the city", which is just about true, but not very helpful. It's more true if you mean post-1707 architectural periods, but I suspect you don't - use English. Fully 1/3 of the Grade I listed buildings are in Portland Square, Bristol and Blaise Hamlet, so why not mention them? Bristol's surviving significant architecture pretty much all comes from after 1700, except for the Cathedral, and St Mary Redcliffe, which is outstanding and well-known, & worth mentioning. What about Clifton?
  • "Outside the city centre are several Tudor and later mansions built for wealthy merchants".[1] is not covered by the reference, which just talks about one, though certainly true. In fact Bristol has I think no reasonably intact Tudor houses, so it may not be good to raise expectations.

References

  1. ^ Historic England. "Details from listed building database ({{{num}}})". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 27 August 2015.
  • Thanks for your comments. I have attempted to address these by adding a 19th century section to the history and expanding the architecture section - incporating the other issues identified along the way. Could you take another loom and see whether you think these are appropriate?— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Near Support (just waiting to see if there are other comments as much of it is out of my range) Ok, All the above dealt with, though the long lists of unique new references (mostly Historic England) should be rolled up into combined ones to avoid unsightly taxi ranks of citation numbers. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - Well-written article. Iggy488 (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support.— Rod talk 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I may not have time to fully appraise the article, but am opposing based on the Arts subsection which I did review. The subsection is a collection of unconnected facts with no logic governing its flow. The lead sentence is "Bristol was a finalist for the 2008 European Capital of Culture, with the title awarded to Liverpool." How is that the most important take-away from Bristolian culture? Why is See No Evil then mentioned next? Is a street art festival that began in 2011 and seemingly ended by 2013 even notable enough for this article? If it is, why not place it with the bit on Banksy and other artists? Why are the capacities for different theatres listed in brackets, yet capacities for concert halls not? I did not expect such a disconnected passage to make it to FAC. - hahnchen 23:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comment. I have rearranged some of the material in the section. Could you take another look and see whether you feel this is an improvement?— Rod talk 16:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Apart from what Hahnchen said, there's also the problem that Arts is overloaded with names. The point of the section is to give a sense of the city's arts scene, not to list every last actor, comedian, band, museum etc. The worst offender is the last para, which is almost entirely a sea of blue:

Comedians from the city include Justin Lee Collins,[1] Lee Evans[2] Russell Howard[3] and writer-comedian Stephen Merchant.[4] University of Bristol graduates include illusionist Derren Brown,[5] satirist Chris Morris,[6] Simon Pegg,[7] Nick Frost of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz,[8] Matt Lucas[9] and David Walliams[9] from Little Britain.[9] Cary Grant,[10] Dolly Read, Ralph Bates and Norman Eshley were born in Bristol, and Peter O'Toole, Kenneth Cope, Patrick Stewart, Jane Lapotaire, Pete Postlethwaite, Jeremy Irons, Greta Scacchi, Miranda Richardson, Helen Baxendale, Daniel Day-Lewis and Gene Wilder attended the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School[11] (founded by Laurence Olivier). John Cleese attended Clifton College,[12] Hugo Weaving studied at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital School[13] and David Prowse (Darth Vader in Star Wars) attended Bristol Grammar School.[14]

Other Culture sub-sections are guilty of this too, with long lists of names of newspapers and radio stations. The citing is lop-sided; on the one hand over-referenced ("[234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242]", which also severely hampers readability), while at the other end, the entire second half of Sports is uncited. A quick glance through the References suggests that using scholarly-books sources (instead of exclusively web-based ones) might make for a more balanced section.—indopug (talk) 10:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Morris, Sophie (11 December 2006). "Justin Lee Collins: My Life in Media". The Independent. London. Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  2. ^ "Lee Evans Biography (1964–)". Film Reference. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  3. ^ Cavendish, Dominic (1 March 2008). "Russell Howard: Russell who is not a brand". The Daily Telegraph. London: TMG. ISSN 0307-1235. OCLC 49632006. Retrieved 21 July 2011.
  4. ^ Ellen, Barbara (5 November 2006). "Barbara Ellen meets the 6 ft 7in comedy giant Stephen Merchant". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  5. ^ "Derren Brown Info". Derren Brown. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  6. ^ "Chris Morris Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  7. ^ "Simon Pegg Profile". BBC News. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
  8. ^ Hattenstone, Simon (5 February 2011). "Simon Pegg and Nick Frost: Losers in love". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 March 2014.
  9. ^ a b c Viner, Brian (16 December 2006). "Matt Lucas: Pride and prejudice". London: The Independent. Archived from the original on 1 July 2015. Retrieved 5 May 2014.
  10. ^ Biography for Cary Grant at IMDb
  11. ^ "Past Graduates". Bristol Old Vic Theatre School. Archived from the original on 17 June 2008. Retrieved 20 December 2008.
  12. ^ abcd
  13. ^ Biography for Hugo Weaving at IMDb
  14. ^ Biography for David Prowse at IMDb
Thanks for your comments. I have removed some of the "sea of blue" lists of names from the culture section, however I feel that leaving some of the key individuals and venues allows the reader to follow those up in more detail. I have rearranged (and added references) to the sport section. I have made the long number lists of references into one reference for each site, however this is a function of the ways in which Historic England details each site. If there are specific references you feel are not RS (or any other outstanding issues) I will attempt to address them.— Rod talk 13:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • "The most recent city council election was in May 2014.": See WP:DATED.
  • "the fifth highest of any city in the United Kingdom (behind London, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Belfast and Nottingham)": sixth highest?
  • "The 18th- and 19th-century portrait painter Thomas Lawrence, 19th-century architect Francis Greenway (designer of many of Sydney's first buildings). ": ?
  • "Stop motion animation films and commercials (produced by Aardman Animations).": ?
  • " Residential buildings in the Georgian Portland Square[1] and the complex of small cottages around a green at Blaise Hamlet, which was built around 1811 for retired employees of Quaker banker and philanthropist John Scandrett Harford, who owned Blaise Castle House.": ?
  • "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports. Bristol City and Bristol Rovers are the city's main football clubs. Bristol Rugby (Rugby Union) and Gloucestershire County Cricket Club are also based in the city. Bristol has two Football League clubs Bristol City and Bristol Rovers": ?
  • "south west": Check for consistency on hyphenation.
  • I didn't find any hyphenated but did some written as southwest rather than south west. I have changed these except where they are part of URLs or title of references or publications.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The unique feature of this accent is the "Bristol (or terminal) l", in which l is appended to words ending in a or o. Whether this is a broad l or a w is a subject of debate,[1] with "area" pronounced "areal" or "areaw". The ending of "Bristol" is another example of the Bristol l. Bristolians pronounce -a and -o at the end of a word as -aw (cinemaw).: Seems to contradict itself, two or three times.
  • Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by this.— Rod talk 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you're saying. How common is the "Bristol l"? Is it stigmatised? Do some pronounce l and others pronounce w, or is it a consonant that's hard for non-Bristolians to make out, so that people hear it as different consonants? I haven't yet found a source that calls a final w a "Bristol l". - Dank (push to talk) 21:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "service – including": if I'm remembering right, you also use em-dashes. FAC generally requires consistency on this.

Comments ...Arrrr's a big 'un....I'll give Brizzle a read, have a pint of scrumpy and jot some notes below. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for volunteering to take a look but can I just check was that a comment on the West Country English/Culture of Bristol#Dialect and stigmatisation comment above?— Rod talk 13:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I combined these sections as the next two centuries were and it makes for less choppy small sections.
''In 1739 John Wesley founded the first Methodist chapel, the New Room, in Bristol - this sentence just sorta sits there...can we incorporate it somehow?
I've expanded this a little more re the foundations of Methodism in the area.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Competition from Liverpool (beginning around 1760) and disruptions of maritime commerce due to war with France (1793) and the abolition of the slave trade (1807) contributed to Bristol's failure... - Any reason why we have "X and X and X" as the three subjects rather than "X, X and X"?
Changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the first protested against the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge, - reads weirdly - why not just, " the first over the renewal of tolls on Bristol Bridge,"
Changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In 1901 Bristol's population was about 330,000, and the city grew steadily during the 20th century. - wanna align the subjects...how about, "From a population of about 330,000 in 1901, Bristol grew steadily during the 20th century."
Your wording is better so I have used it.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its docklands were enhanced ..."enhanced??" - you mean "renovated" or "rebuilt/enlarged" or something...
Changed to enlarged.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd put it to you that the "Physical" in Physical geography is redundant and can be removed without compromising meaning.
I've always thought of geography as including climate, population, flora & fauna etc while physical related to rocks etc, but changed.— Rod talk 14:49, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I wouldn't have classified population, flora & fauna and climate is just as physical....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By 1867, ships were getting larger and the meanders in the river Avon prevented boats over 300 feet (91 m) from reaching the harbour resulting in the loss of trade. - "the loss of trade"?? "a loss of trade sounds natural to mine own ears..the other...not so much...also it should be rounded to 90 m not 91 I suspect...
Changed to "falling trade" & unit rounded up.— Rod talk 10:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From a population of about 330,000 in 1901, Bristol grew steadily during the 20th century. - yeah so did most cities I suspect - some later numbers would be good to give a clearer picture.
I've added the peak population (in 1971) further detail from each census is available in the demographics section
I think all the docks material might be better all in the one place towards the end of the section.
I'm not quite sure which bit(s) you are referring to here. I've tried to keep the history chronological.— Rod talk 10:24, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a dilemma - I meant the 2nd and 3rd sentences of the section with the last para, but I agree this is difficult as a coherent chronology is good. Nevermind. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The arrangement of the second and third paragraph of the lead is unsatisfactory, starting with history, then geography and going back to history.
  • I would specify in the lead that Cabot was Venetian, as otherwise the description of Weston as the first Englishman looks odd.
  • "Archaeological finds, including flint tools believed to be 60,000 years old made with the Levallois technique, indicate the presence of Neanderthals in the Shirehampton and St Annes areas of Bristol during the Middle Palaeolithic" I am doubtful about this. According to Pettit & White's history of the British Palaeolithic, the Levallois technique is almost never found is 60,000 year old deposits. There is a similar comment in the report by Bates and Wentian-Smith you cite (unpaginated) "Levalloisian technology first appears in England early in the Middle Palaeolithic, probably late in MIS 8 circa 250,000 BP although there may be some earlier manifestations, and does not appear to have been used at the few boutcoupé sites that are dated to after the peak last interglacial (MIS 5e,circa 125,000 BP). Therefore the Levalloisian evidence in the Bristol region probably reflects early Neanderthal occupation in the period MIS 8 to MIS 6. No bout coupéhandaxe finds are known from the region, but the finds from Wales (Coygan Cave), Wiltshire (Fisherton), Somerset (Cheddon Fitzpaine, Pitminster and West Quantoxhead) and Dorset (Bournemouth and Sherbourne) suggest that there was a late Neanderthal population in southwestern England in the later Devensian." The list of late Neanderthal sites does not include the Bristol ones, which may date to the earlier Neanderthal occupation c.180,000 years ago, contrary to the Bristol Council page. If you are going to cover the Palaeolithic, I think you need to delete the council page as not an RS and check the Bates et al paper in detail.
  • I would appreciate further guidance/expertise here. The city council page, which you suggest removing as non-RS is based on the Bates et al paper which they commissioned and does say "There is a predominance of handaxes in the collections, but flake-tool and Levallois technology are present where more extensive collections exist from certain locations, particularly Shirehampton." which I think supports the claim in the article.— Rod talk 21:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This quote does not give a date. The paper also says "Palaeolithic remains are present in Terrace 2 in the Shirehampton stretch, and in Terrace 1 in the Upper Avon, Shirehampton and Severn stretches. Due to the abovementioned problems, we presently have little clear idea of how old these terrace deposits are however, it is likely that they date to the later parts of the Middle Pleistocene". The Middle Pleistocene is 781-126,000 year ago. Similarly the passage I quoted above dates the Bristol occupation as MIS 8 to 6, which is around 300-125,000 years ago. The 60,000 years ago on the Bristol Council page is an error. I suggest changing 60,000 to 300-126,000 and deleting the Bristol Council ref. (It should really be 300-180,000 as there were no Neanderthals in Britain between 180,000 and 60,000 years ago.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "capable of resisting an invasion sent from Ireland by Harold Godwinson's sons". According to Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, it was a raiding party led by three illegitimate sons of Harold.
  • I do not (on checking sources) suggest the word illegitimate - there seems to be some dispute about this. However "capable of resisting an invasion" is different from fighting off a raiding party, which did not necessarily depend on the town's defensive capacity. I would suggest "and in 1067 the townsmen beat off a raiding party from Ireland led by three sons of Harold Godwinson". This is based on Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, 3rd ed 1971, p. 600. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By the 14th century Bristol, York and Norwich were England's three largest medieval towns after London, but one-third to one-half the population died in the Black Death of 1348–49.[30] This checked population growth, and Bristol's population remained between 10,000 and 12,000 for most of the 15th and 16th centuries" I do not see why there is a "but" here. Presumably all three towns suffered similarly. Also it would be helpful to give a population estimate before the Black Death.
  • "including Robert Sturmy's (1457–58) unsuccessful attempt to break up the Italian monopoly of Eastern Mediterranean trade.[" I would leave out the word "up".
  • "A 1499 voyage, led by merchant William Weston of Bristol, was the first English-led expedition to North America.[" Perhaps "the first expedition commanded by an Englishman".
  • "During the 16th century, Bristol merchants concentrated on developing trade with Spain and its American colonies" Did not Spain forbid direct trade between England and the Spanish colonies? If so, I think you need to say so.
  • "the town incorporated neighbouring suburbs, becoming a county in 1373.[" Is anything more known about this? So far as I know it is the only town outside London to become a county.
  • Myers agrees with you that "Bristol was the first provincial town to be given this status" with a charter saying:

We have conceded to our beloved burgesses of our town of Bristol and to their heirs and successors in perpetuity that the town of Bristol with its suburbs and precincts shall henceforth be separate from the counties of Gloucester and Somerset and be in all things exempt both by land and by sea, and that it should be a county by itself, to be called the county of Bristol in perpetuity, and that the burgesses and their heirs and successors should have in perpetuity within the town of Bristol and its suburbs and precincts certain liberties and exemptions and enjoy them fully and use them as is more fully contained in the said charter.Myers, A. R. (1996). Douglas, David C. (ed.). English Historical Documents 1327–1485. Vol. IV (2 ed.). London and New York: Routledge. p. 560. ISBN 978-0-415-14369-1. Retrieved 6 December 2009.

What do you think should be added from this (which is covered on History of local government in Bristol & full text here)?— Rod talk 21:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not disagree with your wording. I just find it fascinating that Bristol was (so far as I know) the only town to become a county before London in 1889, and I would be interested to know why it received that distinction if information is available. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Renewed growth came with the rise of England's American colonies in the 17th century" This implies a previous slowdown, which you have not covered.
  • "Some household slaves eventually purchased their freedom in England." However, the Somersett Case of 1772 outlawed slavery in England.
  • "partially as a backlash to the symmetry of Palladianism" "against the symmetry"?
  • "As air travel grew in the first half of the century, aircraft manufacturers built new factories" Why "new"? Are you saying that manufacture migrated to Bristol from elsewhere. If so, I would clarify.
Finishing comments
  • "At 4 June 2009 council elections the Liberal Democrats gained four seats and, for the first time, overall control of the city council." This is dated. According to Politics of Bristol the Lib Dems are now down to the fourth largest party.
  • The details about Concorde seem excessive.
  • "The round piers predate the hospital, and may come from an aisled hall, the earliest remains of domestic architecture in the city, which was then adapted to form the hospital chapel." What round piers and which hospital? This needs clarification.
  • "Commercial buildings such as the paired Exchange" What does paired mean here?
  • "Bristol has teams representing all the major national sports." This paragraph is unreferenced.
  • It is just an intro to the sport section with the fact that these clubs are in the city referenced in the subsequent paragraphs. Do you want me to duplicate them here or remove the sentence?— Rod talk 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two Football League clubs are Bristol City and Bristol Rovers" This repeats the previous paragraph.
  • Support. A first rate article. However, you might look again at Queen Elizabeth's Hospital. You appear to discuss the hospital, move on to town houses and then go back to the hospital, which is confusing. I would move the piers sentence to before the town houses sentence. You say above that the town houses sentence is about the hospital but it is not clear how. Were they converted to workers' flats for hospital staff and what does the word "then" refer to? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note' -- I saw a discussion of referencing above (resolved I believe) but have we in fact had the usual source review for formatting and reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although various sources have been discussed. I don't think a specific source review has been undertaken.— Rod talk 13:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Kay, I've requested one at the top of WT:FAC (unless one of reviewers already involved above would like to have a go). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Twin Cities" (not a full review)

  • "Bristol was among the first cities to adopt town twinning." should have an immediate source, and needs tweaking. As currently phrased, the statement contradicts Twin towns and sister cities#Europe, which mentions earlier 20th century-twinnings (and yet earlier twinning-like relations between towns back in 836).
  • I've clarified to "after World War II" and added 2 refs - one book & 1 web
  • "first post-war twinning of British and German cities" contradicts the German-language source. The source notes "Als eine der ersten deutschen Städte", loosely translated: "As one of the first", not "As the first". GermanJoe (talk) 13:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK (source improved)

  • No dead links - OK.
  • Consistent formatting and sufficient source details - OK.
  • Sources appear reliable and appropriate for a city-related article. Several books are used in addition to online news, local government information and other reliable web sources - OK.
  • www.bristol.org.uk is used for some, albeit relatively common, information (number of tourists, local dialect). The website states "The Bristol.org.uk website is managed by CSE". Could you clarify please for the foreigner's sake :), is that source considered reliable (and who is CSE)? GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their disclaimer is "The content of the Bristol.org.uk website is provided in good faith but we cannot be held responsible for inaccuracies, omissions or visitors' comments." and the articles lack author details ==> it would be better to find alternate sources. The absolute tourist numbers should be available somewhere else. Regarding "dialect": I am not really sure that the second paragraph is needed to begin with. It's very detailed, and Wikipedia articles should focus on the most notable facts in summary-style. Cities sharing some linguistic features with neighboring regions are pretty common - in fact it would be more notable if the city would not share some of those features. GermanJoe (talk) 14:40, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've replaced the one for visitor numbers with one which supports 7th in list of UK cities and another which supports nine million. 2nd para of dialect removed.— Rod talk 14:50, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the quick fixes. However, I have removed the absolute number of tourists (for now). We'd really need either a government-related source or an independent reliable source with expertise in tourist statistics. All I found were passing mentions, who probably just repeat the number from a yet unknown reliable source. Of course the number can be re-added anytime, once that source is found. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2015 [5].

Murder of Dwayne Jones

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jamaican teenager who was murdered in an act of anti-LGBT violence as a result of his gender non-conformity in July 2013. The event attracted press attention both domestically and in a number of foreign countries, bringing about international scrutiny and condemnation of the state of LGBT rights in Jamaica. Having achieved GA status in December 2013, further improvements have been made to this article, and it now meets the FA criteria. It has previously undergone FAC twice; on the first occassion, in December 2014, it was barely looked at, while on the second in July 2015 it received one statement of support (from User:Johanna) and no oppositions, but unfortunately that wasn't enough for it to pass. Third time lucky? Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Outside my usual editing categories by a longshot, but no one should see a nomination die repeatedly for lack of attention:

Referencing

  • There's really no need for things like "J-FLAG editor" as an author. Some sources, especially some web sources, simply do not have an author byline. There's no need to disguise that.
  • I'm not convinced that Web Pro News is a reliable source. I believe it's an advertising-driven news aggregator with no listed editorial policy. On the other hand, I think this article may have been published elsewhere for the same reason; a version from a reliable source may be available.
    • I've had a look through Google and cannot find any other instance of this particular text. Thus, I do believe that it was originally written for Web Pro News and that that is the only site where this particular article may be found. This being the case, I would suggest that this website does provide original content and thus does constitute an RS. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some misgivings about the Quality of Citizenship Jamaica press release. First, if it is retained, it does have an authorship byline. But second, I'm not sure that this is a statement whose inclusion respects WP:UNDUE; according to the organization's website, it's almost entirely operated by two individuals. Its website is a (heavily skinned) Wordpress blog. I don't want to belittle their efforts, but I'm not convinced that QCJ represents a significant viewpoint. On the other hand, the Lonely Planet guidebook to Jamaica lists both J-FLAG and QCP as relevant organizations, so perhaps this isn't problematic after all...?
  • I'm not entirely convinced this is a comprehensive review of the literature:
  • Is it worth including the passing mention given to Jones in a briefing by US Department of State Acting Assistant Secretary Uzra Zeya here, in the context of "International reaction", a topic otherwise addressed in the article only by LGBT rights groups?
  • This German-language book appears to place the murder of Jones into a wider context of events. Perhaps there's some background here worth mining?
  • There's nothing here post-May 2014:
  • Reporting on the August 2015 gay pride celebration in Jamaica indicates some of the legacy of this murder, and provides a more recent "as of" date.

Other

  • I think the "Early life" section is inappropriately titled; not everything in this section applies to Jones's "early" life.
  • Following up on that, the information buried in the footnote about terminology and choice of gender pronouns is not something that should be buried in a footnote.
    • I felt that the note was the best place for this particular information, given that it reflects a division in the way that Jones' gender identity has been perceived, and thus I didn't want to bring too much confusion into the lede itself. However, I am happy to discuss this issue further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You call J-FLAG "the country's only LGBT rights organization", but I don't think that's true. Despite my misgivings about the weight offered to Quality of Citizenship Jamaica, it also offers itself forward as a LGBT rights organization.

In general, I'm neutral regarding promotion here. This article's really light on background, for one thing. Sure, the context behind the "batty boy" insult is there for readers who follow the link, but there's no context given here. No indication that this event was one that actually got media attention, amidst an environment that Time in 2006 considered potentially "the most homophobic place on Earth" (and then the 2015 [follow-up article] that mentions Jones in passing via link). There are other media sources that place the event in a wider context of violence, too (I'm not 100% sold on the RS-status of that link, but, then again, Time linked to it, so...). And it's not original research to provide a contextual background; even sources you're already citing, like Palesh Ghosh, explicitly draw links between the murder and cultural elements like Buju Banton's "Boom Bye Bye". But all of that is at least a link away from the reader. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments Squeamish Ossifrage; thus far, I have acted upon a number of them and believe that the article is definitely better as a result. A lot of your comments focus on the idea of expanding this article to offer a broader coverage of the problems faced by LGBT people in Jamaica. This was something that I was cautious about doing. On the one hand I tried to set the killing within its wider societal context, while at the other I didn't want to be accused of engaging in Original Research and Synthesis. I'm happy to add in a few further mentions of things like Buju Banton's song, but at the same time I am wary about overloading this article with too much background context. Best for now, Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeamish Ossifrage: I have added a new sub-section on "Anti-LGBT sentiment in Jamaica" in which I have covered much of the background information that you believed to be deserving of inclusion. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Check for BrEng vs. AmEng spelling; for instance, search for ise/ize and or/our.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 05:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last section, Reactions, there are too many quotations, and a potential issue of tone. I wouldn't go so far as to say there's an NPOV issue ... it's not like there are pro-murder and anti-murder RSs. FAC loves sedate history articles. You can't write an article about a recent murder of a teen and expect that the tone is going to be sedate ... but something could probably be done to take it down a couple of notches. I'm not going to make the call on this though, I don't see that as my job here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:43, 7 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Added: in the last section only. - Dank (push to talk) 14:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to Oppose for now. Sorry to do this to you MBO ... because I love the article ... and I'm even more sorry because we're always looking for new and interesting articles at TFA, and this one qualifies. After reading Wug's comments, your reactions, and the article again, I think my initial assessment was wrong. I think the only reasonable interpretation of the writer's intent in the long Reaction section is to editorialize, not to inform the reader about the aftermath of the murder. It's too long and too loud, and talks about too many things unrelated to the murder, to support any other interpretation. (Knowing that Jamaicans are "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins" doesn't inform us, it merely insults Jamaicans.) As an editorial, it's great, and I applaud your work. But currently, the tone is wrong for a Feature Article. I'll defer to other reviewers on the question of what needs cutting, the only thing I feel sure of is that it's too much. - Dank (push to talk) 16:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dank What do you think some good steps to remedy it would be? After reading through your comment and giving a closer read to the section, I'm inclined to agree with you about the neutrality. I do agree that it would be an interesting FA, so how do you think the neutrality should be addressed so MBO can get the article up to quality soon? I'm personally inclined to reducing the length of the section and more paraphrasing; I don't think every organization that spoke out needs their statement quoted. I'm not a fan of the pull quote but I address that further down. Other ideas? Wugapodes (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer a light touch at FAC since I wear a hat at TFA ... that is, I don't want people to think they have to please me at FAC to earn a fair hearing at TFA. I agree with everything you just said, and I don't like "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins". I'd talk less about how unsympathetic and wrong-headed Jamaicans are, do more paraphrasing, take the tone down a couple of notches, and aim for a summary of the reactions to the murder. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching back to Support, after MBO's great editing job, but the "typically guilty of many other Biblical sins" line really isn't the level of discourse I like to see in any Wikipedia article, much less a FA. When confronting religious intolerance, Wikipedia doesn't generally insult people and offer an argument that their religious beliefs must be wrong, we merely note that other sources reflect a prevalence of different beliefs. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So that's two votes for support and one of neutrality; can we get any other opinions or will this article have to go in for a fourth round of FAC? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig's showing up some false positives due to (correctly attributed) quotes.

Overall, I feel mixed. I think the prose is fine in that there are no deal-breakers or clangers left and it is an engaging read. I too worry about the lack of personal life, however I note that some discussion (and I presume search) has taken place with no success, and that I have seen other homicide cases recently in popular press where the personal/family details are lacking. Hence, do I think there are any specific improvements to be made? Probably not, so its a tentative support from me Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- this has been open a while but given one "tentative" support and one on prose only, I think this needs more eyes before we can consider promotion, so I've re-added to the FAC Urgents list; also you might want to request image and source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes

[edit]

Support In general a very well done article. There are two problems that I think should be fixed but they're minor and honestly I would probably still support if not changed. I'm very glad to see our coverage of LGBTQ+ topics improving and hope this does better than the last two times around. Anyway, my main issues are the subsection headings under the "Background" section and the pull-quote towards the end.

  • Each paragraph gets its own subsection heading which isn't really considered good practice per MOS:Paragraphs.
  • A fair point, but the two paragraphs in question are devoted to quite different subjects. In my opinion, merging them into a single section would present a new problem potentially more serious than that which currently faces us. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second one is I tend to find pull-quotes rather non-neutral. They give a place of prominence to a particular view and since this quote isn't particularly material to the murder itself (it's not something the victim said, it's not something a party to the crime said, not something the police said) I feel like it maybe shouldn't be included. The metric I guess would be why would you choose a pro-LGBTQ+ organization's quote over an anti-LGBTQ+ organization's quote? Not to say you should include the latter, but both sides have particular biases and this pull quote gives one particular view a prominent place in the them in this article.
  • The pull quote used features a statement provided by Human Rights Watch, who are a fairly prominent international organisation and whose analysis of the situation carries some weight and importance. For that reason I do support the quote box's continued inclusion in the article. Were we to have comparable quotes from anti-LGBT voices included in the reliable sources then I would definitely have included them within the article, to ensure a balanced and fair representation of those sources. As it is, however, I was unable to find any such quotes within the reliable sources themselves. In those instances where reliable sources did make reference to anti-LGBT commentary on the murder – for instance through social media – then I did make mention of them in the article body, but these were not quoted sufficiently to warrant their placement in a special quotebox. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck, and if you want to discuss either point, let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments and your support, Wugapodes. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing to neutral. Sorry that this seems like a pile-on, but I do think Dan is right to say the response section is too editorialized for FA. It's compelling prose which is great, but it feels WP:UNDUE perhaps. There's just a lot of quotes from one side of the spectrum that take up half the article length. I suggested above that perhaps if the length of the response section were cut down it would help. And paraphrase the quotes rather than outright quoting them. I also still think the pull-quote should be removed or changed. If you want to talk about how the murder fits into the broader history of LGBTQ+ persons in Jamaica, I think that should be done in the prose not in a pull quote. I don't oppose promotion as I don't think these problems are that large, but I don't think I fully took into account the neutrality of the section before supporting (I'm also willing to say personal bias probably caused me to not notice some issues the first time around). I look forward to these issues being addressed and me being able to support again. Wugapodes (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Wugapodes: I've substantially cut down the use of quotation in the "Reaction" section (by about two-thirds to three-quarters, I reckon), and tried to paraphrase those where possible. However, I have left that quotebox in as I do believe that it definitely adds to the aesthetic appearance and structure of the article. Have a look and see if you would be willing to revert your position to one of support. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support I don't like the quotebox, but at this point I think it's more an issue of personal taste than an FA problem. I'll support. You did a very good job with the prose and in a rather short time, so kudos to you on that. Hope to see this on the front page one day! Wugapodes (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mm40

[edit]

Support: comments addressed Mm40 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB: It's been a few years since I've been involved in the FA review process, so fellow editors should feel free to jump in on any of my comments! Also, here are some copy-edits I made.

Lead

Background

  • "that Jones desired to become a teacher or to work in the tourist industry": something like "that Jones wanted to be a teacher or work in the tourism industry" would sound more natural, but I realized that this language is very close to the source, so either version is fine by me
    • The issue with the suggested wording is that the following sentence also contained the wording "Jones wanted..." and would therefore come across as a little repetitive. As it is, I think that the original prose should remain in place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murder

  • Should the image of Montego Bay be moved up to "Jones' biography"?
  • The WebProNews source says the three roommates arrived at the party around 2 a.m. The article mentions police finding Jones at 5 a.m., and Jones being attacked twice, two hours apart, so the time of arrival should be included to complete the timeline. Perhaps the first sentence of the section?
  • "One of the men used a lighter to examine Jones' feet": the WebProNews source says a lantern was used; for me, I associate "lighter" with a cigarette lighter. Is this just a difference in usage?

Reaction

  • I'm quite satisfied with the content selection and tone of the section. The twin goals of neutrality and comprehensiveness are tricky to achieve here, but IMO, the article does a good job.
  • "also published an article on the subject in The Gleaner, noting his initial reaction was to question...": I think there should be a sentence break here instead of a comma. As it reads now, it might read as if Nelson's article supported "victim blaming," rather than ultimately criticizing it
  • Do you want to take out the last sentence of the third paragraph, on the Gleaner piece by Sheila Veléz Martínez? The second paragraph and the rest of the third all deal with a single article, and the conclusion drawn by Martínez, as summarized in our article, is similar to theirs.
  • The sentence "Another LGBT rights organisation, Quality of Citizenship Jamaica..." is a bit of a run-on, or at least clunky. Perhaps remove the phrases "in dialogue," "in order," and maybe "which could be undergirded by the principle of "true respect for all" which is found in" → "which could be undergirded by the principle of "true respect for all," found in..."

**I've made the suggested alterations here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Are you OK removing the links to queerness and children's literature in quoting the Robinson article? Per MOS:QUOTE, we should avoid linking quotes, and I think both of those phrases are common enough.

I'll be happy to support once these comments are addressed. Thanks for your work on the article, Midnightblueowl – as noted above, not a usual FAC topic, but one we need more of. Mm40 (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mm40: many thanks for your comments! Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! I've left a few things open, in case there are other comments, but I think the article is ready. I will add that, if an investigation is done, or if we learn more about Dwayne's background, etc., then of course the article should be updated to reflect that. For such a recent and hard-to-cover subject, this is very good. Best, Mm40 (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK

[edit]
  • File:Dwayne Jones, Jamaican murder victim.jpg - could you clarify please, who added the "(c)AP" to the photo? Searching Internet Archive, the photo on this archived page doesn't include this copyright notice. And as AP got the photo from "Dwayne Jones' friend Jay", it seems unlikely that they own the copyright. Note, that photos from press agencies are generally not allowed (see WP:NFC#UUI #7) - but this one may be a special case. That's why it would be helpful to know as many details about the image's origin as possible.
  • My assumption would be that Associated Press added the "(C)AP" to the photo, but in truth I don't know for sure who is responsible for the addition. I have uploaded a new version of the image, one which is slightly larger and lacks the "(C)AP" tag. Hopefully this deals with the problem, GermanJoe
  • Well, this archived version of the AP article on the subject has the following to say about the image: "This undated photo provided by Dwayne Jones' friend Jay via the Jamaica Forum for Lesbians All-Sexuals and Gays (J-FLAG) advocacy group, shows Dwayne Jones in an unknown location in Jamaica... (AP Photo/Jay, J-FLAG)". Does this mean that the image is copyrighted to AP, Jay, or J-FLAG? Is it that the copyright was owned by the latter but that it was licensed to the former? This really isn't an area of speciality for me so any advice would be much appreciated, GermanJoe. Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a credit, not a copyright statement - it means Jay of J-FLAG provided the photo to AP, but doesn't specify whether Jay transferred over the copyright or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is, that the current copyright status isn't entirely clear, and we can't know the specifics of "Jay's" photo provision. If AP marked that image with "(C)AP" in the past, it's clear that they did claim copyright of the photo. And as a press agency photo it can't be used on en-Wiki (see WP:NFC#UUI #7). I recommend to remove the image (at least for now, until the situation can be clarified) - but you can use an External link or Template:External media to provide a link to it in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:00, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that the article will pass FAC with an External Media template, because having a picture of the victim in question is pretty crucial. Accordingly, I've replaced the lede image with an alternative which, while perhaps not as clear an image of Jones' face, is not owned by any press agencies (here). Does this work, GermanJoe? Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:36, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This one is better, a quick search didn't find any press agency usage. However, please always add a link to the image's source page, when you upload images from the internet (this one is apparently available from several sites, so I am not sure which source you used). Such links help other editors to research and verify the image's origin, and it's copyright status (see also WP:NFCCP #10). Pending that final nitpick, everything is OK image-wise. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 17:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

[edit]

Ok, in progress....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Refs formatted consistently
  • Earwig's copyvio tool clear.
  • FN 15 used three times - faithful to source.
  • FN 11 used twice - faithful to source.
  • FN 20 used twice - faithful to source.

Brief scan of other news sources suggests all-round faithfulness to sources. good to go. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:01, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So at present we have four expressions of support, one weak support, and one neutral, as well as a completed image review, source review, and spot check. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 29 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2015 [6].

Marilyn Monroe

[edit]
Nominator(s): TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Marilyn Monroe, a key figure in twentieth-century popular culture. I noticed that the article wasn't in very good shape and started working on it in July. It's currently a GA and has been peer reviewed recently. It would be wonderful to see it become a FA! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 13:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]

  • Support all my concerns were addressed during the peer review. Well done, Susie! For the FAC coordinators, I did an image review there and found no copyright issues. I also did a spotcheck there of the references (after initial comments from other users) where I only detected a few verification issues. They have also been resolved. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I gave the article a detailed review before the PR opened, and then read through it again a few days ago. It's very comprehensive, informative, well-written, neutral, nicely illustrated...yep, definitely worthy of being an FA. I commend TrueHeartSusie for taking on one of WP's most visited articles and bringing it to this standard. --Loeba (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provided no problems are identified (I'm watching this page). I had a good look through this article at PR, and it strikes me as excellent; a highly valuable addition to Wikipedia for which Susie should be commended. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- I note that an image review was carried out at PR but given the prominence of this article I'd like to see a double-check here pls, also looks like we need a source review; these can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, will request it tomorrow! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
Ok, I've placed a request now! TrueHeartSusie3 (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)TrueHeartSusie3[reply]
  • 'Support – I wanted to take part in its peer review but I was a bit inactive then. Speaking of the article, it meets the FAC criteria in my opinion and thank you for working on such a figure. -- Frankie talk 19:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All images licenced (nice work getting OTRS with the last one!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:39, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
at least a couple of refs (276 and 282) have titles that are in sentence case rather than title case. Best to align them all. ref formatting looks good otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One issue - Mulvey listed in Sources section but not in References section (though I can see her name and quote in the body of text)
Spot check pending. using this revision for listing of references in case they change. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 296 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
  • ref 206 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
  • ref 22 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
  • ref 1 checks out - material cited and faithful to source.
  • Earwig's Copyvio Detector - triggers a false positive due to the quotes. Looks good otherwise.

In sum, image and spot check all good, just a couple of very minor issues in reference aligning. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Cas, I think we can leave those to be actioned by Susie post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:30, 26 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 22:47, 26 December 2015 [7].

Oppenheimer security hearing

[edit]
Nominator(s): Figureofnine (talk) and Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Robert Oppenheimer's 1954 security hearing, which resulted in his Q clearance being revoked. This marked the end of his formal relationship with the government of the United States, and generated controversy as to whether his treatment was fair, or an expression of McCarthyist anti-Communist hysteria. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if cited again later
  • References need to be alphabetized
  • Notes and References should use the same date format
  • Be consistent in whether you use "DC" or "D.C."
  • Be consistent in whether References entries include locations, and if so when state is included (eg. for University Park) and whether locations are linked (eg. New York). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "was sufficiently hardened Communist": was a sufficiently hardened Communist?
    Had to check the source. Missing "a". Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "blank pad rule": A gsearch and a WP search don't produce anything; what's a blank pad rule?
    The blank pad rule is a legal concept that the court and jury in a criminal case know nothing about the dispute between the two parties involved, and the only way they come to know about it is through evidence that is properly introduced. @Newyorkbrad: Do we have an article on this? Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a criminal practitioner, but that's not a phrase I'm familiar with, and although a search confirms that it exists, I don't think it's that commonly used, at least in the US. To answer your specific question, a search indicates that the only place the phrase currently appears on Wikipedia is this article. So I think explaining or rephrasing makes sense. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I've provided an explanation, also correcting along the way my own earlier misconception that it applies only to criminal matters. (How do I know all this stuff?) Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejoice! Notecardforfree has created an article on the blank pad rule. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Hawkeye7. I hope the article is helpful! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In five "security findings", Nichols said that Oppenheimer was "a Communist in every sense except that he did not carry a party card," and that the Chevalier incident indicated that Oppenheimer "is not reliable or trustworthy, and that his misstatements might have represented criminal conduct. He said that Oppenheimer's "obstruction and disregard for security" showed "a consistent disregard of a reasonable security system."": There are missing quote marks somewhere.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • " A 2002 book by Gregg Herken, a senior historian at the Smithsonian Institution, based on newly discovered documentation, contended that Oppenheimer was a member of the Communist Party.": I need to think about this one. Back later. - Dank (push to talk) 23:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It is awkward, and my adding the name of the book probaly doesn't help. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't say awkward, more like a hard call ... that stuff probably all belongs in one paragraph, but it's hard to fit it in. I'll leave it alone. - Dank (push to talk) 02:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. Great writing. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I have only passing knowledge of the topic at hand but will read it and copyedit as I go (please revert if I inadvertently change the meaning). Queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
can we find a link for anti-Communist hysteria - there must be something relevant somewhere....
The hearing was a product of longstanding doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty, and suspicions that he was a member of the Communist Party and might even have spied for the Soviet Union. - this sentence flows funnily as we have "noun", "noun" "verb" as relating to "doubts". In fact I do wonder whether the sentence is necessary at all - it could be removed and the next sentence be "Doubts about Oppenheimer's loyalty dated back to the 1930s,..."
These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who resented Oppenheimer for his humiliation of Strauss before Congress regarding Strauss's opposition to the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications. - tricky sentence with three "Strauss"s in it. I think we can reword as "These included Lewis Strauss, an AEC commissioner who had been humiliated by Oppenheimer before Congress for opposing the export of radioactive isotopes to other nations, which he believed had military applications." (we already know he's an opponent of Oppenheimer from the previous sentence...
I presume the Eric Goldman you mean to link to is this one and not this one.
  • Support for a fascinating, well written account. There are a couple of prose choices I would have avoided (such as "found himself" and "in the middle of" - embroiled?). I am not expecting any serious issues with the images, but I will recuse on this. I can't understand why this excellent article is not receiving more attention. Graham Beards (talk) 11:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Somewhat unusually for a Hawkeye nom/co-nom, this didn't go through MilHist A-Class Review, so I think I'd like someone from there to have a look over this primarily from a content perspective before we consider for promotion, perhaps Nick-D? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This article is in very good shape, but I think that it currently leaves a few questions unanswered:

  • The material in the final section isn't noted in the lead
    Expanded the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How unusual was it for an academic scientist with an interest in politics working in the US prior to the war to have Communist friends? This would have been unremarkable in the UK and Europe.
    I don't have any sources for this. I added a quote that those in those hauled before the HUAC were mostly associated with Oppenheimer. Many senators and judges felt that nuclear physics required a communist mind set. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oppenheimer chose not to resign, and requested a hearing instead" - why did he do this? (I imagine it was to preserve his reputation and professional career, but in the hysterical environment at the time it would have involved making an at least somewhat difficult decision)
    It was, but he was only given 24 hours to decide. It seems that his lawyers may have convinced him. Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What did Oppenheimer do after loosing his security clearance, and what effect did it have on his life and career?
    Added a bit about this. It was over, but scientists are rarely productive in their later years Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was this an isolated case, or were other nuclear scientists put through the ringer over long-past relationships?
    The article mentions David Bohm, Ross Lomanitz, Bernard Peters and Frank Oppenheimer, and points out that all of them had a worse time than Robert Oppenheimer. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (also, regarding the von Braun quote, the British government did something broadly comparable to its leading scientist-hero, Alan Turing, at this time)
    But Turing was not yet a hero; that would only come much later. Asked in 1954, a Brit would probably think of Barnes Wallis, Frank Whittler and John Cockroft. I personally thought of Mark Oliphant, who was prohibited from travelling to the US. (He did eventually get a knighthood, but only much later. I didn't insert the quote; but it has to be considered in the light of von Braun's Nazi past. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (minor issue no impediment for FA)

Or it's a local problem on my side. Anyway, thank you for checking - I have struck out that point. GermanJoe (talk) 08:26, 22 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 [8].

Hygrophoropsis aurantiaca

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now orange is the new black and Sasata and I have been buffing the false chanterelle. I feel it's come together well and within striking distance of FA status if not over the FA line. Have at it. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... just adding that this article is nearly a decade old, haven grown from this stub started on 10 November 2006! Sasata (talk) 23:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support: the writing seems excellent, and the article appears to be in good form. I gave it a read through but could find no issues. The images are sufficient and well suited to the task. The references look to be properly formatted. From my perspective, the article satisfies the FA criteria. Praemonitus (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review. All sources seem to be of proper quality and properly formatted, with the following exceptions:

Ref 9 (Holden): why is "Names" capped? Ref 35 and 36 do not have a "UK" after London, all other instances in footnotes do. Ref 36 (Desjardin): which Portland?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

locations tweaked. Names lowercased. "oregon" added. thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from delldot ∇.

Support. This article is great, I can't see any problems with the content, just a few very minor copy editing thoughts:

  • to my American ears not particularly worthwhile eating would sound better as not particularly worthwhile to eat
hmmm, former sounds more natural to me, but will defer to @Sasata: if i am outvoted :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:49, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both sound ok to my Canadian ears. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The little para beginning The specific epithet is the Latin word aurantiacus seems kind of weird stuck in the middle of the taxonomy section since it is introductory, might it work at the beginning? Maybe you could rearrange the current first two sentences a bit so it goes, ...commonly known as the false chanterelle. Austrian naturalist Franz Xaver von Wulfen described it as Agaricus aurantiacus in 1781, noting that it could be confused with the chanterelle by the inexperienced, but ... He reported that it appeared in the fir tree forests around... Just a thought, dunno if it works.
I rejigged it like this though I think Sasata preferred to keep all the meanings in the one section. I can see pros and cons either way Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What distinguishes var. nana and var. robusta?
Judging by the names I'd say they were small and big respectively, yet neither is thought significant nowadays. Sasata added it. Will see if I can add something from a source. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this information. Sasata (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the sentence Cystidia are absent, should there be a parenthetical explanation of the word cystidia as there is for basidia?
added...though I wonder about this as we're saying they're not there and hence less relevant to article I suppose....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should not be hyphens here: forked gills that are saffron- to orange-coloured. (I googled this! [9])
ok removed (didn't feel strongly about this anyway) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is a confusing 'its': The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its more orange colour. How do you feel about "the former's"?
Hmm, makes the sentence sound a bit laboured to my ears. The current version doesn't come across as ambiguous to me though Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber Just for easy reference, I'm going to copy the sentence here:
  • The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its more orange colour, brown base to the stipe, velvety cap surface, forked gills rather than gill-like ridges, softer thinner flesh, and lack of the characteristic apricot-smell.
Would you consider this wording (but keep reading before you decide)? –
  • The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its orange colour, brown stipe base, velvety cap, forked rather than gill-like ridges, softer (and thinner) flesh, and lack of apricot smell.
It's a little more concise, and the items are more parallel in structure. The reason I put "and thinner" in parentheses is because I'm trying to get as close to parallel structure as possible. Most of the phrases are now adjective + noun. "Brown stipe base" works because no comma is needed between "brown" and "stipe", and "stipe base" is kind of the noun for the adj. + noun pairing. (I would even like to leave out "rather than gill-like". If someone wants to learn what kind of ridges the true chanterelle has, s/he can read the article. By listing only the distinguishing characteristics of the false chanterelle, it makes it clear that they are different from those of the true chanterelle.) The ideal sentence would be even more concise:
  • The false chanterelle can be distinguished from the true chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius) by its orange colour, brown stipe base, velvety cap, forked ridges, softer flesh, and lack of apricot smell.
(To me, looking at the photo of the true chanterelle, the true chanterelle is yellow, not orange, but if you feel that both could be called orange, then, instead of "more orange colour", I would recommend "more intensely orange colour". "More orange colour" is not particularly clear or elegant.) Corinne (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, went with "deeper orange colour" as despite the photos, the chanterelle has been described as yellow-orange or orange-yellow, also the gills of this species are gills not ridges so "forked gills rather than gill-like ridges" is about as succinct as we can get while keeping accurate. I did the parenthetical bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • The edibility section has a little bit of trouble with flow I think. If I were to rearrange it, I'd put the Extracts made from Nigerian collections sentence after the David Arora speculates (with a 'however'). Then I'd put Some people experience gastrointestinal symptoms after eating it, possibly due to its high levels of the sugar alcohol arabitol. Then finish up with where and how it's eaten.
done...more tomorrow...sleep now.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, excellent work. No serious shortcomings; I have no problem supporting now regardless of how these ideas are handled. delldot ∇. 07:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thanks for the hard work! delldot ∇. 00:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Prose are fine, source check conducted on refs 11, 14 and 17, check out, no issues. Refs are all reliable as far as I can tell ie academic sources that have been peer reviewed. That said, I'm not a botanist, though I sometimes play one on TV. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your changes look ok. thx for support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- promoting but could you guys pls check the duplinks and see if they're really all necessary... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2015 [10].

Andrew Sledd

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Andrew Sledd, an American Methodist minister, theologian, Latin and Greek scholar, and academic administrator who was the founding president of the modern University of Florida. Sledd achieved a large measure of notoriety when, as a young Latin professor at Emory College in 1902, he wrote an article for The Atlantic in which he condemned the all-too-common practice of lynching African-Americans who were accused of crimes or other acts that transgressed the strictly enforced racial segregation of the era. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN, several years ago, and am delighted that Dirtlawyer1 has decided to nominate this here. I think it's a fine article and I expect to support. A couple of minor quibbles first:

  • "declined all such offers": I think "such" is not quite right, since as far as we know there were no others. How about just "declined these offers"?
  • There are more links in the "See also" section than I think are necessary. This is a matter of editorial judgement, so I wouldn't oppose over this, but couldn't some of these be replaced by categories?
  • In the GA review you mentioned a fist-fight Sledd had with another professor, and after some discussion I think you were planning to mention it in a footnote. As far as I can see you haven't done this; any particular reason? I think it's your call, as you're the one looking at the sources, but it's a nice tidbit to add if you can source it properly.

-- That's all I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: In regard to the three issues you raised above --

  1. I made the change you suggested, removing "such";
  2. I pared the tangential "see also" articles for which there are corresponding categories; and
  3. At the time we discussed it, I thought about the inclusion of the purported "fist-fight," but it was based on a second-hand account in an unpublished manuscript by James M. Farr. In my editorial judgment, that was a little too shaky to include.

Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The minor issues I raised have been settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Finetooth

[edit]

I peer-reviewed this article in 2009, and it has improved steadily since then. The prose is of professional quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a short list of suggestions:

  • The bolding of the quotation and Sledd's name in the pull quote is overkill. I'd delete the bolding.
  • The Buckman Hall image is displacing the University of the State of Florida head. The image would look fine if moved down one paragraph and inserted between paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of that section, after the sentence ending with "as the location for the new men's state university."
  • Five portal links in the "See also" section are too many. I would delete the geographic ones, Florida and Georgia, at least, on grounds that they are too general to be useful to the reader in the context of this article. I have doubts about the Christianity and Education portal links as well. Wouldn't readers find related materials easily without these links?
  • For the books in the bibliography that are too old to have ISBNs, I would add OCLCs as in Harriet Tubman. You can generally find these via WorldCat, taking care to choose the edition you are citing. For example, WorldCat lists the OCLC of Andrew Sledd: His Life and Work as 1127786 here.
  • The lead image is good but has a few visible imperfections (dust motes, perhaps) that should be relatively easy to touch up. If you can do that, great; if not, I'd be willing to try, if you like.
-- Finetooth (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Finetooth: In regard to your five suggestions above --

  1. I am strongly in favor of the pull quote -- how would you suggest that I present it? Given the quote's relative brevity, I am afraid it will be lost in the surrounding text. There is an even stronger quote buried in the text, in which Sledd describes lynching as a "diabolical carnival of blood," if we need something longer. The mild-mannered minister did have a gift for words when his anger and indignation were aroused.
My suggestion would be to keep the quote and template as they are but remove the bolding. The fancy quotation marks already draw special attention to the quote. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Finetooth: Per your suggestion, I have removed the bolding from the pull quote text. What do you think? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have moved the Buckman Hall photo to avoid the subheader displacement per your suggestion.
  2. I have removed the Christianity, Education, Florida and Georgia portal links.
  3. I have added the OCLCs for all of the bibliography publications for which an OCLC entry exists.
  4. The infobox head-and-shoulders shot of Sledd is one of my favorites, and was made from a large-format glass negative, with all of the fine resolution and other imperfections of the medium. I do not possess the Photoshop skills to touch up the photo as you suggest, but I certainly would not object if you want to take a crack at it. My only caveat is that I would not want to see any loss of the fine, granular resolution of the original. It's a beautifully representative photo from that era.
I agree. I will tinker with as few pixels as possible, and you'll be free to choose between the two options. Finetooth (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded the retouched version moments ago. I changed one pixel at a time using the eyedrop tool and pencil tool in Paint.net; the largest changes involved a total of about a dozen pixels. You can easily revert to the original if you prefer. Finetooth (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your retouched version appears to minimize the scratches and dust specks, and looks to be an improvement. If MrToes, the original uploader and a University of Florida library employee, turns up in the near future, I will request that the university archive folks re-perform the digitalization of the photo in the hopes of improving the resolution in some of its marginal areas. That's on the wish list, but I have no control over that. Perhaps if this article is promoted we can get the university's attention. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Mrtoes could provide a higher-resolution image as well. His account is still active. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if you have any other comments, suggestions, or questions. Thank you, once again, for your past reviews of this article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, coverage, Manual of Style issues. I defer to User:Nikkimaria on the license questions. All of my other concerns have been addressed. Finetooth (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

[edit]
  • Simply to visually distinguish the photo caption from the surrounding infobox text. IMO, it has always been a defect of our present Infobox person design that it does not already do so in a visually recognizable manner. That said, if it is a condition of FAC approval (or your support), I will certainly remove the italics from the caption. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The truth is I don't know with anything like 100% certainty, but I can make a reasonably educated guess based on my knowledge of Sledd and the University of Florida. Please keep in mind that I am not the uploader of the photo, and I simply accepted a photo from Wikimedia Commons with a valid rationale, which I uncritically accepted at the time because it was on Commons. That said, I am pretty sure the c. 1910 date on the photo is incorrect. Here's the source for the original upload, the University of Florida Digital Collection from the university's Smathers Library: [11]. Please see photo No. 5, which is our subject photo, which the university archivist ambiguously dates to the "1910s". Please note that subject photo No. 5 appears to have been taken at the same time as photos Nos. 1, 3 and 4 (same necktie, same suit, same eyeglasses, same hair color). Now, compare Sledd's appearance in photo No. 2, which includes his wife and young children, and we can date with some accuracy to c. 1906 because it only includes three of his eventual seven children. Compare Sledd's physical appearance in No. 2 (dark hair, appears to be about 35 years old) with his appearance that in Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 (silver hair, and appears to be 50 to 60 years old). Sledd was effectively fired by the state Board of Education in 1909 (see article for details), and to the best of my knowledge only attended one function at the university thereafter, in 1933, when then-president John J. Tigert invited Sledd to give the commencement address. One of the apparently contemporaneous photos, No. 1, shows Sledd in his Ph.D. regalia, apparently dressed for graduation. Given his self-evident age in photo No. 1, it was clearly not taken during his 1905–09 tenure as president, when he was 35 to 39 years old. Assuming the validity of this bit of amateur detective work and photo analysis, it is extremely likely that the four contemporary photos, including No. 5, were taken during graduation weekend 1933. This conclusion is, of course, based on a series of educated guesses by me. That said, the 1933 date should not be a problem for the subject photo being in the public domain because the University of Florida owns the prints and negative, it's a state institution, and there is a specific public domain rationale for the documents and images of Florida state institutions under Florida law. The Commons PD rationale should probably be changed to reflect that, thus making the date of publication moot for PD purposes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton

[edit]

Leaning to support. An interesting article about a man who deserves to be remembered. I have a number of relatively straightforward prose issues:

  • Early life section: "He received his early education..." – as the last person mentioned is Sledd senior, "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
  • Same section: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
  • Emory College section: I am sure that the lynching was indeed horrifying, but you refer specifically to the "horrifying aftermath". Was there some additional horror? Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
  • The highlighted quotation is the same wording as provided in the text. Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
  • University of Florida at Lake City section: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
  • University of the State of Florida section: The following sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
  • Same section: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
  • "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
  • "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
  • I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
  • Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
  • Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
  • Candler section: "volunteered for the additional duty of serving as the board's treasurer" – a trifle verbose. "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
  • In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
  • Death and legacy section: Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
  • Suggest delete the terminal "however" (Third para, first sentence)

I see few problems in dealing with these, and look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Brianboulton: In reply to your comments above --

  1. BB suggestion: "he" had better be specified as Andrew.
    Agreed. Done.
  2. BB suggestion: "Sledd also completed his doctorate" – the word "also" is redundant.
    Agreed. Done.
  3. BB suggestion: Also, however justified the term "horrifying", I believe that encyclopedic neutrality means that emotive descriptions should be avoided.
    Hmm. I think this deserves a moment of discussion. I understand the need to avoid emotive terms per NPOV, however, in this case the scene was truly that and goes a long way to explaining the rage this young Methodist minister felt. They emasculated the victim and burnt him alive. Sledd witnessed the aftermath when men and boys were collecting carbonized digits and kneecaps as souvenirs. The use of the word in this case is neither metaphoric nor exaggerated. Perhaps in lieu of the emotive word, a sentence of factual description would be better?
    FYI, I live in metro Atlanta, about 20 miles from where this horror story unfolded, and it's a dark part of local history.
    That might be better, but I'll go along with what you decide. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Having re-read the entire section, and the footnote with the extended quoted passage describing the scene of the lynching witnessed by Sledd, I have decided to let the man's words speak for themselves. I have deleted the word "horrifying".
  4. BB suggestion: Perhaps the quote box could give us a bit of context, otherwise we are merely reading the same thing twice.
    I'm still contemplating what to do with the quote box in light of your suggestion. Are you suggesting that I add additional quoted text for context? Can you elaborate a bit?
    A quote box should enhance and supplement the text, not simply repeat what's in it. A slightly longer quotation, incorporating the "There is nothing in a white skin" comment, would be appropriate. If you think that nothing useful can be added to the brief quote, then it would perhaps be better to scrap the box. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have expanded the quote and added some additional context material in the quote box attribution.
  5. BB comment: I assume that the "previous president" is the unpopular one referred to in the previous line, though the wording is slightly ambiguous. If that's the case, you could clarify by saying "ineffectual" rather than "previous".
    Good suggestion. Done.
  6. BB comment: Sentence reads rather clumsily: "After a spirited debate, the Board of Control, the new state board charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville, by a vote of six to four, as the location for the new men's state university." I suggest losing the unnecessary intro comment and rephrasing: "By a vote of six to four, the new Board of Control charged with the governance of the consolidated institutions, selected Gainesville as the location for the new men's state university."
    Your rewrite flows better. Done.
  7. BB comment: "Sledd did not anticipate that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and he naturally assumed that Lake City would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." I suggest: "Sledd had not anticipated that the Lake City campus would be abandoned, and had assumed that it would be selected as the location of the newly consolidated men's university..." etc
    Past perfect tense sounds marginally better. Done.
  8. BB suggestion: "Sledd's future as its likely first president" – delete "likely"; his anticipated future was as first president, not "likely first president".
    Agreed: "likely" is redundant. Done.
  9. BB suggestion: "there were other possible candidates to become its first president" → "there were other possible candidates for the presidency" (to avoid close repetition of phrase)
    Agreed. Done.
  10. BB suggestion: I would delete the words "to become the president of the new men's university in Gainesville"; they are clearly implied.
    Tighter, better. Done.
  11. BB suggestion: Albert Murphree could be just "Murphree" after first mention.
    Agreed. Done.
  12. BB comment: Methodist ministry and Southern University section: the final sentence in this section is unnecessary, since the move to Atlanta is fully covered by the first sentence of the next section.
    Brian, how strongly do you feel about this? I think it provides a needed segue; Sledd resigned from the Southern presidency, and was not effectively fired as he had been from his previous Emory and Florida positions.
    What I would recommend is: scrap the final sentence in the "Methodist ministry" section and recast the beginning of the next section as follows: "In the fall of 1914, Sledd resigned the presidency of Southern University and returned to Emory College, by then renamed Emory University and relocated to its new main campus in northeast Atlanta. He became the first Professor of Greek and New Testament Literature at the Candler School of Theology, the newly established seminary of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South." That would maintain continuity and avoid the present repetition. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Done.
  13. BB suggestion: "volunteered to serve as the board's treasurer" would suffice.
    Agreed. Done.
  14. BB suggestions: In the final paragraph of this section I would delete the word "also", the word "bitter" (too subjective) and the first "only" in the last line.
    Agreed: neither is necessary. Done.
  15. BB comment: Death and legacy section -- Do you need to spell out the full Candler name in the first paragraph? Previously it's just been "Candler".
    Brian, I think we may have the problem of confusing "Candler" antecedents here . . . Bishop Warren Candler, wife Florence Candler, Coca-Cola founder Asa Candler, Candler School of Theology. Unless you feel strongly about this, I think a little repetition may be helpful to the reader in this case.
    I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    With your acquiescence, I'm going to leave this minor point as is.
  16. BB suggestion: delete the terminal "however" (last section, third para, first sentence)
    Agreed. Done.

@Brianboulton: Thank you for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. The text is tighter and cleaner as a result. Please see my comments and questions under items 3, 4, 12 and 15 above, which require your responses. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to my outstanding notes I'm happy with your responses. Please re-ping when you're done. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Brianboulton: I have addressed each of the outstanding four points above, making the suggested changes in the first three instances, and leaving the minor repetition in the case of the fourth. Please let me know if you have any further comments, suggestions or questions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my queries/suggestions have been dealt with adequately, and I'm happy to support the article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAC process, general comments, etc.

[edit]

@Graham Beards, Ian Rose, and Laser brain: Gentlemen, I'm new to the FAC process. Is there anything else for me to do here as the FAC nominator? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:32, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just at a quick glance it looks like we may still need a source review for reliability and formatting, and, assuming this is your first nomination, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing. We can request those at the top of WT:FAC, unless any of the reviewers above can undertake. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Please do whatever is required to advance the ball, sir. All online footnote sources were checked and all links were found to be in working condition during the first week of November 2015. Several of the academic publications are offline, but available through JSTOR. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pop round to the British Library to do a spot check if wanted. Tim riley talk 19:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley: I would be grateful for your help. As noted above, most of the academic references are available through JSTOR if they are not linked in the footnotes. Some non-controversial "early life and education" details are provided by three unpublished manuscripts, which were graciously lent to me by the University of Florida and Emory University libraries. The footnote style for newspapers and journals is old-fashioned, straightforward and simple -- and I hope very consistent. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Spot-checks

[edit]

Some preliminary carping before setting out the results of the spot-checks. I'm afraid I found the referencing quite confusing:

  • I can't work out the logic for having the bibliographic information for some books (e.g. Bauman and Lazenby) in the References section rather than in the bibliography. (Bauman lacks its ISBN, too, which is 978-0-8108-1368-7; Lazenby lacks its OCLC, which is 1632564.)
  • Unfortunately, there was no "logic": the omission of Bauman and Lazenby from the Bibliography section was accidental. I have now added both to the Bibliography, and I have added the Bauman ISBN and Lazenby OCLC, respectively. It's been four or five years since I wrote it, but I may also have omitted Bauman from the bibliography because it was relied upon for only one infobox fact: the correct full name of Sledd's wife, who is invariably referred to by one of two nicknames (Annie or Foncie) in other references. The subject of Lazenby's book is Sledd's father-in-law, and if memory serves only mentions Sledd incidentally. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is mildly disconcerting to have authors listed by First Name Last Name in the References and by Last Name First Name in the Bibliography.
  • That's not an accident: the Bibliography is alphabetized by author, as is typical for all bibliographical lists. There is no reason to present the reference authors' last names first in the reference section. The references are presented in the form of "spot references," including the pages where the cited facts may be found in the text of the particular reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are publications listed in the Bibliography that haven't, as far as I can see, been referred to in the text. If I am right about this (apologies if I'm not) I think publications cited in the article should be listed as "Sources", and the rest hived off to a "Further Reading" list below it.
  • I assume you are referring to the three works by Andrew Sledd which are not cited as references in the article text . . . None of these are relied upon for sourcing facts in the Wikipedia article, and I have moved them to a separate "further reading" section per your suggestion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that sources available online such as Lazenby's book and the Warnock article deserve to have url links (with the {{subscription}} tag where appropriate).
  • Tim, I was unaware that Lazenby's book and Warnock's article in The Journal of Southern History were available online. Can you provide links, or provide the names of the services where they can be found? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are url links to paywalled sites (e.g. ref 15) that lack a "subscription needed" tag.
  • There can, I admit, be two opinions about squashing explanatory notes such as refs 17 and 45 in with the citations, and I don't press this point.
  • I would prefer to keep the two explanatory footnotes as part of the inline References. There are only four or five of them, and breaking them out for so small a number strikes me as unnecessary. Several of them also rely on the same source cited for the preceding main body text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing:

  • Drafting is all fine: no hint of close paraphrasing. (On at least two occasions I noticed a much more elegant phrasing in this article than in the original source.)
  • Ref 1 – fine
  • Ref 9 – fine
  • Ref 12a – this source doesn't say what the text says, but as ref 9 covers the information satisfactorily, 12a can safely be ditched.
  • I deleted 12a (ref name=hwarnock251) per your suggestion; please note that footnotes have subsequently renumbered, and footnote no. 12 is now Ralph Reed, and the Henry Warnock article is footnote no. 14. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 14 – fine
  • Ref 18a – fine
  • Ref 18b – fine
  • Ref 35a – fine
  • Ref 35b – fine
  • Ref 35c – fine
  • Ref 35d – fine
  • Ref 35e – fine
  • Ref 35f – fine
  • Ref 36a – fine
  • Ref 36b – the source doesn't mention most of the information in the 82-word sentence ascribed to it.
  • Well, f---, that's embarrassing. I know the information regarding historically black Florida A&M University and the Florida School for the Deaf and Blind to be historically/factually correct, but I have clearly omitted the reference for about half of the facts mentioned in that sentence. I have removed the FAMU and FSDB information from the problematic sentence for now, and will re-add it when I can locate the appropriate reference in my 5-year-old notes. This may have originally linked to an earlier 2010 version of the cited University of Florida webpage. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 36c – fine
  • Ref 36d – fine
  • Ref 36e – fine
  • Ref 36f – fine
  • Ref 36g – the source says that most of the new faculty members were from Lake City but doesn't say (as the article ascribes to it) that Sledd "had previously selected [them] to be professors" at Lake City. But this information is given in Pleasants, p. 9, which should, I think, be added to the citation here.
  • To the best of my recollection, there are multiple sources for Sledd's selection of the new faculty, but the Pleasants citation will correct the problem now. Per your suggestion, I have added the Pleasants p. 9 citation, and I have also partially rewritten the text. Please note the UF Past Presidents bio does support this in part, however, saying in pertinent part: "Sledd oversaw the transfer to Gainesville in 1906 and selected the initial faculty, most of whom were instructors at the Lake City campus." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 39a – fine
  • Ref 39b – fine
  • Ref 40 – I couldn't find any reference to annual appointments on the page cited, though I think I remember seeing it in other sources in passing.
  • Ref 41 – fine
  • Ref 42 is an explanatory footnote which has no citation for the information contained in it.
  • The explanatory footnote (renumbered as no. 43) is now supported by a reference to Proctor & Langley (p. 25) which specifically supports Sledd's authority to nominate all faculty appointments and the Board of Education's authority to approve the nominations. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 43a – fine
  • Ref 43b – fine
  • Ref 43c – I couldn't find any mention of the salary on the page cited.
  • The UF Past Presidents bio states a $2500 annual salary. To the best of my recollection, I found one or more reliable sources that stated the lower salary of $2250. I will track the $2250 amount down or change it to $2500; I suspect that my source was the unpublished Sledd autobiography, which, given the author, I would treated as more reliable than the UF online website bio. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I enjoyed the article, and I have no doubt whatever that every statement in it can be justified from a reliable source, but at present there are rather more failures to name the right source than I feel comfortable with for a featured article. – Tim riley talk 12:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tim riley: I have addressed the first nine points you raised above, with the last three issues remaining to be resolved. I could rewrite and/or delete text in order to eliminate these three problems, but I would prefer to resolve the sourcing and preserve the text in these instances. I will ping you back in a day or so, after I've done the required homework. In the mean time, I would be grateful if you respond to my request for the online links to the Lazenby book and Warnock article mentioned above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. Urls h/w:
  • Ref 9: https://archive.org/details/historyofmethodi01laze -- (Lazenby)
  • Ref 12: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40581859 -- (Reed Jr)
  • Ref 14: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2204439 -- (Warnock)
  • Ref 45: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20700231 -- (Van Ness)
The last three need the {{subscription}} template, being JSTOR articles.– Tim riley talk 17:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim riley: Thanks for the assist, Tim. I have added those four article links provided above and the subscription templates. Now I need to go chase the last three missing/incomplete references, but given Thanksgiving holiday time constraints here, it may be two or three days before I can resolve all three of them. In the mean time, can you review and sign off on the other comments? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tim riley: Okay, Tim, I finally had a long weekend to pull the boxes of all of my University of Florida reference materials out of storage over the weekend. I have added additional footnotes and references for the explanatory footnotes, as noted by you above. I think that should resolve the last outstanding comments. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Been a while since Tim completed his spotcheck -- are those oustanding points mentioned taken care of? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ian Rose: Still hunting down the last of three references that Tim wanted to see. If I can't find the missing ref in the next 24 to 48 hours, I will re-write the text to avoid the necessity of the last reference. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • All now satisfactory from the spot-check point of view. I don't seem to have commented on the candidacy as a whole, and I am happy to remedy that omission, adding my support here. Tim riley talk 12:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your thorough review and support, Tim. Ian Rose, all issues raised have been addressed, no concerns remain outstanding, and editors (1) Mike Christie, (2) Finetooth, (3) Brian Boulton, (4) Nikkimari and (5) Tim Riley have expressed their support for promotion. What, if anything, remains to be done? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ian Rose. This was a surprisingly pleasant process, made more so by the insightful comments and suggestions of Finetooth, Mike Christie, Nikkimaria, Brianboulton and Tim riley. Many thanks for the care and thoroughness of the five reviewers. It is a better article because of their efforts. Merry Christmas, and best holiday wishes to all. Cheers! Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2015 [12].

William Sterling Parsons

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Deak Parsons, the Naval officer who was the deputy head of the wartime Los Alamos Laboratory, and the commander of the mission that bombed Hiroshima. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question from John Why the hard-coded image sizes? Per WP:IMGSIZE we would generally allow readers to set their own display sizes and use the "upright" parameter to enlarge particularly important ones. --John (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the time it was written, WMF was demanding fixed widths to make the Visual Editor's life easier. They later relented, but the article was not changed. I have removed the hard-coded sizes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Sources review

  • In the References, locations should be formatted consistently (compare "New York, New York" and "New York")
  • I suggest you pipelink University Park, as otherwise the location mayn not be clear
  • If you're adding the state to New York, you should add one for Boston

Otherwise, references look of appropriate quality and reliability, and are consistently and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I've added states to all the locations in the references for consistency. I haven't piped any. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just one query.

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 via FACBot (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2015 [13].

Bessie Braddock

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Few people in the UK under about 60 will have any idea who Bessie Braddock was, and to anyone outside the UK she is likely to be entirely unknown. Yet in the 20 or so years after the Second World War she was one of the most immediately recognised names and faces in British public life. Not, perhaps, as one obituarist would have it, on a par with the Queen, but way ahead of most of the mundane politicians who governed us. She was a tough Liverpool lass with a natural affinity for the poorest in society. She made herself their champion, and woe betide those who stood in her way, whether in parliament, the Liverpool council chamber or (controversially) Welsh villages whose land she needed to build a reservoir for her beloved Liverpool. Formidable rather than "nice", I'd say, and I dare say she'd have agreed. A long and thorough peer review has brought the article to what I hope is FA-worthiness. Thanks to all who helped. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support One of the most enjoyable reads I've had on here in a while. A delight to read and digest. Easily meets the FA criteria, and in my opinion, an exemplary article on a politician which should be emulated elsewhere.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Agree with Doc entirely: very enjoyable and informative throughout. I know nothing about Bessie, so cannot comment overly on the ground covered, but support fully on prose, layout, etc. - SchroCat (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I am doubtless the only Liverpudlian visitor to this page who is old enough to have met Bessie Braddock – but I didn't. Nonetheless, to my generation her name was for many years synonymous with the city. This article does her ample and balanced justice, and I am very pleased to add my support. Tim riley talk 15:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Liverpool during my infancy, in Bessie's heyday – though I doubt that my family would wholly have approved of her, given their somewhat traditionalist political attitudes. I'm not surprised that she is largely unknown to the younger generation; her legacy has been strangely muted outside Liverpool. For some reason, the ODNB gives twice as much space to the pedestrian Jack as it does to Bessie, an imbalance of justice if ever there was one. And she is surely worth a full-length biography. Thanks to all the above for the many kind words, and for the various helping hands along the way. Brianboulton (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lingzhi

[edit]
  • Support
  • <strikethrough>Wasn't the libel case worthy of mention?</strikethrough> OK, "sued the newspaper for defamation"
  • The Churchill drunk/ugly thing... I've heard it before somewhere about other political figures... it may be a touchstone to locals, but from all the way across the ocean it seems a bit like fluff...
  • Sadly, this bit of nonsense gets a lot of mileage, as a google search on Bessie Braddock will instantly confirm. It comes up again and again, more so than anything positive she did, alas. So it has to be mentioned; I don't think I've given it undue weight. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, I'm a bit hesitant about the Assessment section as a whole, though I'm open to persuasion. To my mind, "Assessment" implies a scorecard of her political initiatives that won/lost against their relative importance/impact. Maybe "assessment" here means assessment of her personality? But I would prefer to see the former rather than the latter, and if the latter is included (which it very well could be), would prefer it titled something a bit more specific (Personality? Character? Not sure, you can think of a better header than I could)
  • The section is intended as a brief appraisal of her career and personality. I see that in other politician articles the heading "Appraisal and legacy" has been used for similar summing-up sections. "Legacy" is perhaps a bit high-falutin for someone who didn't initiate any major legislation – she's more remembered for how she went about things. I've altered "Assessment" to "Appraisal"; if a better heading suggests itself, or is suggested, I'll be happy to change again. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although she never held ministerial office" wikilink ministerial office please...
  • The link article is pretty dreadful and unhelpful to the general reader. I've changed the wording to "office in government", which i think is self-explanatory.
  • Commons Kitchen Committee... what? Wikilink please
  • I'm looking for a good place to wikilink MP to Member of parliament. A purist would do it up there by "her colleague Silverman", but IMO this is kind of an inconspicuous spot... I suppose it could be done twice, or...
  • "St Anne's, one of the most deprived" The organization of this paragraph doesn't sit well with me, since it goes back and forth from general to specific etc. It seems that perhaps "The Labour party's official policy on workhouses" should be the first sentence.. plus workhouse needs to be wikilinked there in that new first sentence too (currently not wikilinked).
  • I have slightly rejigged the paragraph, but not quite to the extent you suggest is necessary. The paragraph first describes the ward's character, then introduces the specific controversy of the Brownlow Hill workhouse. This controversy split the local Labour Party; the sitting Labour councillor defied the party's official policy, was deselected, and Bessie took her place. That is the broad sequence of events, and I think that any further reworking of the paragraph may affect its clarity. I have added the requested link to workhouse in the first line of the para. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:10, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merseyside Council of Action pls give a little appositive to explain what this is
  • The text explains what the "work or maintenance" campaign was about, so I don't think extra words are necessary.
  • Not sure where to wl Merseyside, bc is Merseyside part of the title of Council of Action, or were there many c of a's and that one was just in merseyside? Anhow, merseyside needs wl. Lingzhi ♦ (talk)
  • In Bessie's time, "Merseyside" was a loose geographical term for the area around the River Mersey estuary. In 1974, after an ill-considered reorganisation of local government, "Merseyside" became a new "metropolitan county", carved out of the historic county of Lancashire, and Liverpool became a unit in the new county. All this happened after Bessie's death; I feel that a link to the current Merseyside article would mislead, so I've changed the wording in the Appraisal section. As explained above, the 1926 Council of Action, despite its grandiose name, was a local workers' committee with no official status. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Class, Culture and Community: New Perspectives in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century British Labour History (Anne Baldwin, Chris Ellis, Stephen Etheridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Nov 15, 2012) has a good quote from an unpublished dissertation by RSW Davies on p. 122, not a feminist, but more interested in womens' health, seemingly significant details given regarding very heavy involvement in Maternity and Child Healthcare issues. Might be worth adding. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps worth a mention. I'll see what I can do.
  • if you look closely at the statue, she's holding an egg. is that because of how she "made sure Britain got safer eggs by the use of the red lion safety stamp"?
  • Alan Dossor musical documentary "The Braddocks' Time", is this worthy of mention?
  • drama bessie

Hi, Ling, it's always good to hear from you. Thank you for these useful points, which I have dealt with as stated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Brianboulton:, hey Brian. As is plain to see, almost everything I changed or commented about is a very minor tweak for clarity or expansion, in particular adding a set of wikilinks. I'm OK with the ugly/drunk story, as it really does seem to be firmly adhered to her legend. There's another small passage I would call "fluff" ("the blind leading the blind"), but it takes up so little space that it's almost more trouble to delete it than it's worth. Having said all that, there are two (related) things I still see as perhaps needing a bit of thought: first, you hit the nail very precisely on the head when you stated above that she was "someone who didn't initiate any major legislation – she's more remembered for how she went about things". Was that point mentioned in the article, particularly in the lede? I'm in a bit of a rush to go to work so I won't look, sorry. The related point is that the one thing I found repeated across a couple of her brief bio entries was the whole chairman of the maternity and child care issue. That topic is explained very neatly in the quote I gave above (unpublished dissertation)... my point was not that the unpublished diss exists, but that that one isolated quote neatly summarizes what others mention... the book and the quote are visible via the internet here. As nearly as I can tell, this maternity/child care issue was one she seems to have pursued for decades, and held chair position, and perhaps even created the committee (?), etc. I have to go now more later. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, two threads that I seem to see mentioned again: first, a "famous quote" on the second reading of the National Assistance Bill which finally brought the poor law to an end. 'I think of what we are repealing more than what we are proposing'. (Hansard,444, 24 November 1947.). Second, some kind of controversy regarding free speech and privacy.. maybe some female reporter published her private remarks or.... something. I haven't quite nailed it down yet. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 07:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have a busy off-wiki few days coming up, but I'll try and consider these points as time allows. Brianboulton (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I suggest that minor points/tweaks etc, which are not critical to the article's promotion or otherwise, could be raised on the article's talk page, to avoid this FAC page becoming cluttered with detail. Brianboulton (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I cluttered your page. Meanwhile, did we mention that she organized a national conference on maternity issues: link.
  • I have added a couple of sentences, with two new citations, referring to her work with the Maternity and Child Welfare subcommittee. My remark about avoiding clutter wasn't referring to this issue, but rather to any other "tweaking" ideas you may have. I'm glad that you raised this point, and I think it's fairly covered now. Brianboulton (talk) 00:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have four more areas of uncertainty: first, as for "she never held office in government," is MP a government office? Isn't it an elected position? Is this assertion then unclear or perhaps even mildly incorrect? Second, I keep seeing her name kind of casually linked to "getting rid of Poor law" or "getting rid of Poor Law hospitals" (and this goes back to her "famous quote" given above), but I can never unearth any actual details. Did she take any level of leadership in this effort, or was she just a voice in the chorus? third, related to above, the article text asserts that hospitals were in shockingly poor condition. Surely that's not all hospitals? is it only "Poor Law hospitals"? Fourth, this whole lion stamp on the eggs thing, is this significant enough to mention, or is it trivial? Each of my questions betrays my lack of knowledge of English government etc., so I defer to you and perhaps Tim Riley on them. Tks. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer these points:
  • Being an MP is not holding a government office; at any one time, about 150 or so MPs (out of 650) hold positions in the administration, the rest are back-benchers or opposition MPs (the same applies in any elected legislature). Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although you say you "keep seeing her name kind of casually linked to 'getting rid of Poor law' or 'getting rid of Poor Law hospitals'", in fact the term "Poor Law relief" occurs just once in the article, and not in relation to hospitals. There is plenty enough information in the article, I believe, to establish that she was a tireless campaigner against poverty, and rather more than just another voice in the crowd. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That knocks away three of the four, but on this last one I obviously am being misunderstood (my fault for being unclear, sorry). I "keep seeing" these references in other sources found online in Google books, etc., not in the article on Wikipedia. I thought it was clear that pretty much all of my potentially substantive comments were based on a modest attempt at online research, looking for gaps in coverage. My quibbles with the existing text of the article as it stood were without exception just nitpicks for clarity... So my questions are: first, is there any meaningful difference between fighting poverty in general and explicitly fighting against the "Poor Laws" (again, my confusion may stem from being under-informed), and if the answer is "Yes", then second, did she explicitly fight against the Poor Laws in a manner extensive enough to warrant explicit mention in the article? Thanks and sorry for being a pain. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the misunderstanding. In fighting poverty generally, Bessie would have inevitably found herself from time to time opposing the provisions of the Poor Laws, which in the guise of providing for the poor did much to perpetuate their plight. That would have been part of her campaigning – anyone in the 1920s and 1930s in this country committed to ending poverty would have fought for Poor Law reform, although this was not Bessie's focus. Indeed, she doesn't mention the Poor Laws at all in her autobiography. My impression is that she was more concerned with initiating direct and immediate action than in the longer-term legislative process. I hope this helps to clear any residual confusion in your mind. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comments on the state of the hospitals do indeed refer to all the city's hospitals – a not unusual condition in the pre-NHS era, in impoverished industrial cities. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, on the egg issue, I believe this is unimportant in the context of Braddock's career. I can't find any mention in the various biographical or autobiographical material of her association with egg marketing; maybe she was on a parliamentary subcommittee or something, but honestly, it's trivia, not worth pursuing. Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ling, for your stimulating commentary, and support. Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support on prose + Comment – From my previous contacts with Brian, I respect him for his pioneering efforts in setting high standards on Wikipedia's articles and as I see it, this is another piece of magnificient work of his. I know almost nothing about British history and politics, except a little bit on very frequently mentioned personalities such as Tony Blair and David Cameron. Hence I can't comment on the accuracy and balance to the content.
I have been following Lingzhi's debate with interest, and as a matter of public interest, I like to point out that just because a point maybe found, even from a reliable source, it does not necessarily needs to be included if that point is of minor significance pertaining to the subject's life or work. Of course, such judgement will need some degree of expert knowledge from the editor. On this note, I would like to direct all interested editors and reviewers in reading this: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong on Wikipedia, regardless of whether it is true or you can prove it, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Hope these helps, for all considerations! Cheers Mr Tan (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes thanks Mr. Tan. Whether or not mentioning these in the article would be WP:UNDUE is precisely the question I am asking Brian. As you may notice, I am deferring to his judgment in every case, but in this case merely rephrased my question for further clarity, and will defer to his honest judgment again in light of the reply which I look forward to reading. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:42, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr Tan, for your kind words and support. Ling is a long-time associate on the WP project, and I'm more than happy to have his input. I have hopefully answered his one remaining concern in the thread, above. Brianboulton (talk) 17:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to be so dim, but I don't understand what I am being asked to do here. Can you enlighten (please assume no knowledge of image adjustment issues). Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd want to download the image, then open it in an image editing software (Microsoft Paint, for instance). In that software, you should resize the image to 300 pixels on the long side (so, in Paint, Resize > Pixels then change the "Horizontal" scale to 300). Our doctrine of fair use only allows images up to a certain size, and right now the current image is much bigger than strictly necessary for the article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Bede735 (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Crisco 1492:Thanks for the image review, but as you can see, I need further help! Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN109 doesn't link properly
  • No citations to British Universities Film and Video Council or House of Commons Catering
  • Sometimes you italicize "The" in The Guardian, other times not - should be consistent
  • Be consistent in whether you include accessdates for online periodicals with publication dates
  • Should truncate GBooks links
  • Several newspaper titles are missing italicization
  • ODNB should be italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this review. All the above attended to. Access dates now shown for all periodicals where the link is other than to s facsimile of the original. Brianboulton (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 03:23, 12 December 2015 [14].

George Mason

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... George Mason, an ornery fellow who hung out in Fairfax County Virginia, and went to Philadelphia once in his life and never went back. Through what he said and wrote in both places, he's had a considerable influence on the basic rules of American law and society, and indeed elsewhere as well. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Support: I read this article very carefully before and after the suggestions below. Everything has been addressed, and it was in fine shape to begin with. Comments: (just getting started and I'll post piecemeal, please bear with me here). Great article, totally FA quality! My only real concern is a number of examples of "fancy language" where ordinary terminology would do. This is important if someone outside the US/UK is reading it, where this sort of language might not be understood.

  • "which served in place of the dying royal government there."

This statement will not be clear to anyone outside the US/UK. This should be clarified, and "dying"...

  • He also penned a constitution for the state; others who sought to have the convention adopt their ideas, like Thomas Jefferson (who wrote from Philadelphia), found Mason's plan could not be stopped.

It is not clear what "Mason's plan" is in this case. Is it the constitution? If so, just say that? And "written" is better than "penned".

I've adjusted this, mostly by avoiding side issues.
  • "the children. In 1736"

Perhaps a para break here?

  • "the guardian's characteristics would appear in his ward"

Perhaps be specific here: "; Mercer appears to have been a strong influence on Miller, who demonstrated the same tendency to voice strong opinions."

The source doesn't go quite that far, though it would likely be a fair statement. I've gone as far as I could.
  • "election as a vestryman for Truro Parish and a place, eventually as a colonel, among the officers of the county militia soon followed"

Perhaps "was elected as a vestryman for Truro Parish, and took a position among the officers of the county militia, eventually rising to the rank of colonel".

  • "one of these, perhaps William Waite or James Wren, constructed Gunston Hall"

I find it unlikely that a book built a house. Suggest "one of these, perhaps by William Waite or James Wren, was used as the basis for the design of Gunston Hall" Actually I have a reaction to "perhaps by", is there any evidence that suggests this is true? I suspect there were many similar books available, and without evidence this seems like name dropping.

These were the possible builders. I'm not sure the books had authors per se, I gather they showed plans and such. I've clarified.
  • "As his forebears had, Mason"

"Like his parents, Mason..."

I'm really trying to imply the three George Masons before him. I've deleted it for now, finding no simple way to express it.
  • "from Pennsylvania all operated to defeat the "

"all conspired to defeat" (or something like that, not that I like that word very much)

  • "Despite the importuning of many delegates"

Despite pressure from many of the delegates

Up to Declaration of Rights so far, ping me when you're ready for some more Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maury Markowitz, thank you for your kind words and for the review. I've done the above, with a couple of things noted. I tend to write in a formal tone, and sometimes it shows. Whenever you like, happy to deal with some more.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mason was elected for Fairfax County, though with great difficulty"

Can you expand on that difficulty? I can imagine a number of definitions of difficulty that might work, even some fun ones.

We don't actually know. This just comes to us from a brief reference in a letter that really doesn't say any more than this, recounting the election results for various people.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:15, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pass a declaration of rights,[50] Due"

Comma in there should be period, or "due" should be lowered?

  • "after the vote, but was appointed"

Suggest splitting this into two sentences.

I'd rather keep it together. I've eliminated a comma.
  • "Wythe, with Mason eventually resigning"

Maybe split this at the with?

I've recast it instead.
  • "financial affairs; the general"

See no reason not to split these.

  • "federal and state rights. He found Mason "

Who is the "he" in this statement? It does not seem clear. I think Madison, and if that's the case I'd suggest re-arranging this statement.

Recast.
  • "ratification, and his age may"

Add his age in parens as an aid to the reader?

And that's it! This is a really fascinating article. I had never heard of Mason before, but clearly he played an enormous role at the time. His character shines through in the article, which is never easy. And I think you've covered the potentially controversial topics perfectly, notably the diametrically opposed views on slavery written post facto. I'm glad I got to review this, I enjoyed reading it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you enjoyed it. He is quite a character. Thank you so much, Maury Markowitz for the review. I've done those except as noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had much to say at the peer review stage, and my concerns were adequately addressed there. I endorse the statement above that this is a fascinating article; it reveals one of the men who were behind the scenes of great events, who get little of the glory but whose contributions are often as significant as those of the lauded giants of history. Brianboulton (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughtful counsel there and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:George_Mason_portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:George_Mason_bas-relief_in_the_U.S._House_of_Representatives_chamber.jpg is tagged as lacking source info - is the given licensing meant to apply to both the sculpture and the photo? (Also, image description page has been vandalized). Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the first, but cut the second as it looks like a federally-acquired copyright so it's no good until 2056. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – another happy peer reviewer. This is a very fine article, and handsomely meets all the FA criteria. Exceedingly pleased to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 17:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you indeed for your thoughtful comments and kind words.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • References all consistent. Nothing to complain about. I'd do a spot-check now but it's after midnight here and I need to get some shut-eye for an early start. will check tomorrow if no-one else has in meantime. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

Based on this version (in case footnotes are changed):

  • FN 148 checks out. material in article is faithful to source.
  • FN 149 checks out. material in article is faithful to source.
  • FN 150 checks out. material in article is faithful to source.
  • FN 147 - err, what line is the quote? I can't see it.... d'oh! found it now. all good.
  • Henriques (1989) - used 4 times - checks out. material in article is faithful to source - no copyvio found.

All spot checking in order. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I appreciate it very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel

[edit]
  • Commas are necessary after George Mason II and George Mason III.
  • and like his father was county lieutenant Doesn't "like his father" need to be set off by commas?
I don't think it's necessary and it would needlessly slow down the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno, seems like a textbook parenthetical sub-clause to me.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which raises the question, what's a county lieutenant?
Piped to the best explanation I could find.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consolidate the Pikcunas refs immediately adjacent to each other in the first para of the ancestry section.
  • Mason family account books show that Ann Mason made purchases on her son's behalf appropriate to his age, for example razors and a beaver hat in 1742, in addition to schoolbooks. why is this worth adding to the article?
  • Clarify that this is nonattendance at court.
  • or later on in newly founded delete the "on"
  • Although the company's failed, Mason Unnecessary possessive here, I think.
  • Who is the Thomson Mason in the burgess to rebel section?
  • The link for Bryan Fairfax goes to the wrong dude.
  • Nicely done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted, all dealt with. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed one typo and added a link to headright. Supporting now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 06:56, 12 December 2015 [15].

Gregor MacGregor

[edit]
Nominator(s): —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gregor I, Sovereign Cazique of the Principality of Poyais, who came out of the Highlands of Scotland and became a king by his own hand. That is not to say he conquered anywhere—while Conan the Barbarian took "by his own hand" to mean that, Gregor MacGregor of the Clan Gregor figured out that in 1820s Europe it was feasible for men with a certain military bearing to return home from exotic faraway adventures and simply claim to have become prince of some made-up country. Why did our hero do this? To con gullible investors out of their savings, of course. But the con went much further than that. The so-called Cazique persuaded hundreds of people, mostly his fellow Scots, to emigrate to what was really an untouched jungle. He persuaded the Bank of Scotland's official printer to produce Poyaisian "dollars" for him, which his victims happily accepted in exchange for their real British money. And about 250 actually made the journey to where Poyais was supposed to be (five more ships followed, but were turned back by the Royal Navy). Of the aforementioned 250, over half died and fewer than 50 ever came back. A 2012 analysis in The Economist suggested that in terms of sheer audacity, MacGregor's con trick outdoes anything modern charlatans have been able to muster, and I'm not inclined to disagree.

This article has received a successful GA review and a very thorough peer review from a pantheon of staid FAC regulars. The GA reviewer, Maile66, gave a thorough source review at the GAN stage, including spot-checks and checks for close paraphrasing. The peer reviewers called the article a "disgraceful tale, [told] in masterly fashion", a "fascinating read", and "an amazing story". I hope you enjoy reading it as much as they did, and I look forward to any new input on it. All comments welcome. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  12:36, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - It was with some degree of fascination that I did the GA review on this unrepentant Scottish scoundrel. Since that review, I have been very closely monitoring the article changes and the Peer Review. Filmmakers have missed a beat by not telling this story. There is nothing left for me to add, except to say this is a tale well told. It is my pleasure to add my support. — Maile (talk) 13:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – One feels guilty for so enjoying this deplorable tale all over again at a second, post-PR, reading. The article meets all the FA criteria, and I gladly support its promotion. – Tim riley talk 13:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. Excellent storytelling. - Dank (push to talk) 14:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Dan for the help with the prose, the support and the kind words. Hope you're well as we approach the festive season. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I am still at a loss to know why, before I did the peer review, I had never heard of this outrageous character. I have a track record in bringing various crooks, mountebanks and suspicious types to the FAC page (Bottomley, the Tichborne Claiment, Tom Driberg etc), and I am cross that I didn't find and write about this monster – I would have really enjoyed the research. But there we are; all credit too you for providing us with one of the most entertaining articles of the year. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian for all your help here, and for your support and the kind words. Hope you're well, —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned: I can't see a reason why the entire "Poyais scheme" section isn't its own article, Poyais. It's about 1/2 of the body, and while MacGregor is mentioned conspicuously, its not about him. I don't think I can support it in this form, it's like writing the main history of Chain Home in an article on Watt. MacGregor is more than Poyais and Poyais is more than MacGregor, and conflating the two in this fashion strikes me as a very bad idea. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. The Poyais scheme was the most outstanding and enduring of MacGregor's chicaneries, and it is right that it should have due prominence within this article. I think that all aspects of his life have been proportionately covered, and don't think a split is justified. If it was split, the Poyais article would require a considerable amount of background and contextual material to be added; likewise a summary of the Poyais scheme would have to remain in the biographical article. So we would end up with a few thousand more words, inconveniently spread spread over two articles. I see no advantage in this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Maury: I take your point, but as Brian says the Poyais scheme is the main thing MacGregor is remembered for and it was entirely down to him. I don't agree that the present layout is like a history of Chain Home in an article on Watt. The narrative here stays firmly on MacGregor apart from one five-paragraph section, "Disappointment", where MacGregor isn't around to be mentioned. I'm also a bit dubious about the idea that "Poyais is more than MacGregor"—if it was, it was not by much as Poyais was nothing apart from something MacGregor made claims about. As Brian says, splitting the article as you describe would save only a few paragraphs here, while necessitating the adaptation of a large chunk of this article to provide proper context in the Poyais article. I'm sorry the article does not receive your support. I hope you enjoyed the article apart from this and that you're well. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Poyais scheme was the most outstanding and enduring of MacGregor's chicaneries", sure, and Chain Home was Watt's most enduring legacy. The parallel seems very strong. Someone looking for a history of Chain Home might be confused by ending up on an article about Watt, but I can say that I was very much confused to end up in an article on MacGregor. Poyais is clearly notable enough for its own article, MacGregor is not a one trick pony, and that has always been the bar to meet when considering issues like these. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:43, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many, many people worked on Chain Home; and more to the point, it actually existed and has its own history. Poyais was something one guy made up. The cases are not the same at all. —  Cliftonian (talk)  16:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, how about the great salad oil swindle? Or the oil sniffer hoax. Or better yet, the Ponzi scheme. All of these are "something one guy made up", but are covered in articles on that topic, not buried in the bios of the guy that did it. Or consider Credit Mobilier, solely the creation of Union Pacific, but it gets its own article too. I don't see anyone arguing there shouldn't be an article on Credit Mobilier because there is an article on UP already. If the topic is notable, it's notable. Generally speaking, if there is an event of historical importance, we write that article, and then argue whether the people involved did anything else interesting enough to warrant an article on them. In this case it seems you are arguing for the reverse of this, which strikes me as odd. This isn't simply because we're afraid, as Brianboulton seems to suggest, of a little work?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have in fact put a great deal of time and effort into this article and 20 existing FAs. Brian has contributed even more FAs than I have to this project. I think for you to apparently accuse us of laziness is obscene. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with the assertion that Poyais is "buried" in the biography here. About two thirds of the lead here is about Poyais. One looking up "Poyais", "Poyais scheme" or any variant thereon will be redirected here and learn at a glance what Poyais supposedly was, who made it up, when, how, etc. I note that the article Ponzi scheme is about Ponzi schemes in general, as it is an extremely common scam merely named after one of its pioneers (see List of Ponzi schemes for many, many examples). For the story of Ponzi's own scheme one needs to look at the article Charles Ponzi. The oil sniffer hoax had multiple protagonists and involved a major oil corporation. The salad oil swindle is a better comparison, but even here we seem to have more information on the scam itself in the article on its protagonist, Tino De Angelis. The article Salad Oil Scandal seems to deal more with the corporate fall-out from the scam's discovery, and the article The Great Salad Oil Swindle is about a book on the scam. —  Cliftonian (talk)  07:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maury has chosen to personalise the issue with his silly and uncalled-for comment. Let it rest there, I say. Mr Tan's remarks, below, provide in my view a much more reasoned judgement. Brianboulton (talk) 10:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, what? Oh well, I've said my bit, I'll leave it at that. Maury Markowitz (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Maury. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A work well done, arguably exemplary.

Concerning the debate about the Poyais scheme, I think that so long as the content is skewed towards MacGregor's role and involvement in it, we should not reject the article's nomination based on (perceived) content irrelevance. We have to think that this is a biographical article on MacGregor. On the other hand, I do not see any reason opposing Maury's proposal to start a new article on the Poyais scheme. If you guys decide to do so, then the focus would be on the "Poyais scheme", and the protagonists involved would become the supporting roles, including MacGregor.

The current article as it stands has a section dedicated to MacGregor's creation and involvement in the Poyais scheme, but as I see it, it conforms to discussing and outlining his involvement in the scheme. Sure, by all means start a new article on the Poyais Scheme if you think that you have sufficient material on it, but I think let us not deviate the discussion on whether we should, or should not start a new article about that. Let's us just focus the discussion to the confines of appraising the quality of this article (ie: Gregor MacGregor) instead. Mr Tan (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the support, Mr Tan. —  Cliftonian (talk)  06:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- have we had a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2015 [16].

Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge

[edit]
Nominator(s): West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article details the history and architecture of a historic Whipple truss bridge on the National Register of Historic Places in West Virginia. This article recently underwent an extensive peer review. I am nominating this article, as I feel it meets the Featured Article criteria. I look forward to your comments and suggestions, and I will be very appreciative of any guidance than can be offered to improve the quality of this article. Thanks! -- West Virginian (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

formerly known as South Branch Bridge and Romney Bridge, - to my ears, "or" sounds more natural than "and" here
''The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge is the oldest remaining example of a Whipple truss bridge in West Virginia, and is the oldest extant metal truss bridge in the state. - should be able to rewrite so we just have one mention of "West Virginia" or "state"
  • I've modified the sentence as follows: "The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge is West Virginia's oldest remaining example of a Whipple truss bridge and its oldest extant metal truss bridge." Let me know if this works better! -- West Virginian (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Whipple truss bridge replaced an 1838 wooden covered bridge - does it refer to the Capon Lake or the larger bridge?
The first four paras of the body of text all start with, "The Capon Lake Whipple Truss Bridge....." - you wanna mix it up a little.

Otherwise looking good/on target.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodw: A few questions from someone who knows nothing of the engineering involved or the geography of this part of the world:

  • I assumed Capon Lake was a body of water until I found it is an Unincorporated area, perhaps this could be clearer on 1st mention (but I'm not sure how) and I wonder why it is Capon not "Cacapon" (but that may be incidental for this article).
  • Capon is just a shorter form of Cacapon; and the two are used interchangeably when referring to the river. Capon Lake refers to the river's lake-like formation near the bridge and from that formation, the unincorporated area has taken its name. In the first paragraph of the lede, I have added: "...thus connecting the unincorporated communities of Capon Springs with Capon Lake." Will this suffice? Thank you for raising this question. -- West Virginian (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the section on South Branch Bridge do we need to be told that T. B. White and Sons was also known as Penn Bridge and Machine Works as this has been covered in the previous section? It is repeated again as a direct quote in the next paragraph.
  • Refs 29 & 30 "Some dates..." & "The new Rt..." seem to have "HistoricHampshire.org" twice - once italicised and once not italicised - any reason?
  • "Munske, Roberta R.; Kerns, Wilmer L., eds. (2004). Hampshire County, West Virginia, 1754–2004. Romney, West Virginia: The Hampshire County 250th Anniversary Committee. ISBN 978-0-9715738-2-6. OCLC 55983178" is included in the bibliography but I can see where it is used as a reference.

I hope these comments make sense.— Rod talk 15:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I peer reviewed this article previously and found it extremely comprehensive and well-written. The fact that it is also on an obscure, local topic makes it much more interesting and is the kind of article that makes Wikipedia great. Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 02:12, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Has there been a source review for reliability/formatting? If not, pls request one at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review All sources seem of encyclopedic quality and are properly and consistently cited, except as follows:

  • The two final sources in the biblio, from the WV Road Commission, have the same OCLC.
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 via FACBot (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2015 [17].

Sheshi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Maaibre Sheshi, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh during the Second Intermediate Period. Sheshi is the best attested king of this time period in terms of the number of artefacts attributed to him and yet Egyptologists cannot agree on any single thing regarding him beyond his name. Hence the dynasty, chronological position, duration of reign and extent of rule of Sheshi are highly uncertain and the object of a strong ongoing debate in Egyptology. These issues are closely intertwined with the arrival of the Hyksos in Egypt and thus of paramount importance in understanding the sequence of events associated with the fall of the Middle Kingdom c. 1700 BCE. Iry-Hor (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from P. S. Burton

[edit]
  • There appears to be an error in the page numbers for the reference "von Beckerath 1999, pp. 180–109." should it perhaps be "108–109" or "180–190"?
Done it is 108-109, thanks for spotting this! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does "king f." mean in the reference "von Beckerath 1999, pp. 116–117, king f..", is this an error?

P. S. Burton (talk) 23:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no error: von Beckerath gives letters to the kings for whom he is not sure of the chronological position. Hence Sheshi is given as "king f." in von Beckerath's XV/XVI dynasty. Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed the article for GAN, and found it thoroughly impressive. The prose is excellent, the balance admirable and, as far as a layman like me can tell, the sourcing is comprehensive. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria and I am very pleased to add my support for its promotion. Tim riley talk 17:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!! Iry-Hor (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I did the image myself from the GPS coordinates of the archeological sites where seals of Sheshi have been found. The list of these sites is found in Ryholt's 1997 book "The political situation in Egypt during the Second Intermediate Period". Only those sites for which I could find the GPS coordinate have been added to the map. Iry-Hor (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Most of the sources are as reliable as they get. A few are not quite so solid but used carefully (Rohl is on the fringes of respectability but is cited here as one end of a range of positions, less contentious than many of his others; old sources are used for uncontentious description of artifacts; and so forth). I spot-checked several citations and found and corrected only one error. I also did some minor copyediting; my only really significant change was to reduce some repetitiveness created by the scholarly back-and-forth. A. Parrot (talk) 02:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the updates! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments reading through now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Over 80 per cent of the seals attributed to Maaibre Sheshi are of unknown provenance, - maybe adding something in note 6 about why their provenance is presumed unknown...?
I am not sure to understand what you mean: seals of unknown provenance are of unknown origin, having typically been digged up illegally and sold on the antiquity market, either directly to museum as in the 19th century, or to private dealers who then donated them. Thus nobody knowns the origin of these seals because the original excavators are (possibly long dead) illegal diggers. I just added a sentence explaining this, let me know if this what indeed what you meant. Iry-Hor (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is exactly what I mean, as I suspect some not familiar with Ancient egypt might not understand this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

support - interesting topic and good at highlighting uncertainty while remaining clear and accessible. I'll take the word of others on comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Iry-Hor (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment reading through, leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support - on prose and sources; happy that someone as versed as A. Parrot is satisfied on comprehensiveness, weight, etc Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can't claim to be a real expert on the Second Intermediate Period and I hadn't heard of this particular king until recently, but I don't see how there could be much more to say about a king this obscure. By including the various hypotheses about his background, the article gives a good idea of the context, which I do generally know—how murky this period was and who the major players were. The possible Nubian alliance, for example, fits in with increasing evidence that Nubia was a major power in the region at the time. A. Parrot (talk) 09:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank Ceoil, A. Parrot for your support. I have found that most articles dealing with the Second Intermediate Period are far from reflecting the totally (or even majority) of scholars opinions about the events of the period, due to the complete lack of consensus on anything beyond mere names in many cases. Thus the date of the Hyksos' arrival, their manner of arrival, if there were vassals etc. are all debated and it is thus difficult to construct encyclopedic articles without either presenting only one point of view or falling in a litany of "this person says this, this one says that". I have tried to strike the right balance for Sheshi, who is, after all, the best attested king of the period (in terms of the number of artefacts). Iry-Hor (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have encountered similar issues on other articles, and think a good balance is struck here. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- @Iry-Hor: I'm going to promote but could you pls review the duplinks in the article and see if all are really necessary. Ping me of you need a link to the duplink checker... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: Yes, could you please give a link to a duplink checker? Thanks in advance! Iry-Hor (talk) 18:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Iry-Hor: Here it is. Once you install, the link to invoke it appears under the Tools section to the left of the article page you're viewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done! Iry-Hor (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2015 [18].

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines

[edit]
Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the greatest RPG games of all time, featuring a level of choice and consequence rarely replicated, and with a loyal fan base that has added content to the game for over a decade. The article is as detailed as can be, with a beefy development section developed with some very generous help from producer David Mullich who corresponded with myself to help clarify things and even provide information in future interviews that I was then able to use as a reliable source! It's thoroughly sourced, well laid out with a bevy of images to compliment the prose, and I believe the article is close to as perfect as it can be.

Of course if you disagree, remember that "I'm a mighty thesaurus. Rawr" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProtoDrake

[edit]
  • A general comment here: the lead is quite large, even compared to the size of the article itself and the lead for Bloodlines. It may be best to find a way of trimming it down.
  • The word "game" was used a lot in the lead's second paragraph. Maybe try cutting the usage down to about half.
  • "Troika's 32-member team began development of Bloodlines in November 2001, as an indirect sequel to the previous years Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption." - You're missing an apostrophe in the word "years".
  • "As of 2014, Bloodlines has been developed for ten years by its fans, who have supplied fixes and restored lost and deleted content." - Your definition in the Release section of it being "post-release support" as opposed to development. I think the lead section should be altered for consistency's sake.
  • "Bloodlines is a role-playing game optionally presented from the first- or third-person perspective." - I think you should specify that it's an action role-playing game as you did in the lead.
  • "Attributes represent physical..." - This sentence looked a little strange. Maybe consider rewriting as "Represented Attributes are physical...".
  • "...four areas of 21st-century Los Angeles: Santa Monica, downtown, Hollywood and Chinatown" - You should link these locations, and perhaps alter "downtown" to something a little more descriptive. The second thing is completely optional.
  • In the first paragraph of the "Setting" section uses an "idealist"-type word in reference to two different vampire clans. Is there a difference in their different idealist tenancies, or is it just a general phrase to describe them without further context being available?
  • Who is Nines?
  • The Honest Gamers review redirects. The live url needs updating.

@Darkwarriorblake: That's everything I can see on a first pass. When these are addressed, I'll have another look through to find anything else. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, always forget that it doesn't automatically add to my watchlist.
  • The lead overall seems fairly in line, but I trimmed the third paragraph which was by far the bulkiest and could survive without all the information present.
  • Changed to "action role playing game"
  • Added apostrophe to "year's"
  • Linked the locations, the game just calls that area "downtown" so I don't think I could link to anything else, it would just be guessing.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by who Nines is. He's introduced in the plot as an Anarch. What do you suggest or think needs adding?
  • Tried to tone down usage of "game" in second paragraph.
  • For use of idealist, this is the reference used as a source which uses the word for both. The difference I guess is that the Brujah are a clan and the source claims they are idealists who fought for change in life, while the Anarchs are a political group. But if that isn't explaining it properly let me know if it needs clarifying more in the article.
  • Changed development to post-release support for fan creations in lead.
  • Fixed HonestGamers link.
  • Changed "attributes represent physical" to "Attributes are represent by physical" Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This article looks alright to me now (though other editors will probably find holes somewhere). I'll willingly Support its promotion to FA status. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @ProtoDrake:. Are you happy with the Nines and Anarchs explanation or would you prefer I change that? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: It's fine. If it was there before, I think I must have missed that or something. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tony1

[edit]

Some nice writing, but it needs scrutiny. Just the start:

  • Hyphen issues ... 21st century Los Angeles. (And does LA need to be linked? There are some reader-valuable links hanging around that might be better off without the dilution, do you think? And "first and third-person perspectives"—needs a hanging hyphen after "first".
  • "The selection of clan affects how the player is perceived in the game world and which powers and abilities they possess, opening up different avenues of exploration, and methods of interacting with or manipulating other characters."—Quite a long sentence, and a few ands. I've tweaked. Is it better? "The selection of clan affects how the player is perceived in the game world, and which powers and abilities they possess; this opens up different avenues of exploration and methods of interacting with or manipulating other characters."
  • "Troika used Valve Corporation's then-in-development Source game engine which was being used to develop Valve's own Half-Life 2." See Chicago MOS for good advice about which and that. (Prefer that normally unless there's got to be a comma before it—previous is a subset, or not?) –> "Troika used Valve Corporation's Source game engine, then-in-development, which was being used to develop Valve's own Half-Life 2." Is that better? The triple-bunger was awkward. But there are still two "develops" (and a third a few secs later). I don't know how to fix this without more field knowledge.
  • "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for its release, and Bloodlines was released in an unfinished state on November 16, 2004."—"its" refers to the budget? "release(d)" twice. "and on [date], Bloodlines was released unfinished"—is that possible?
  • "eighty-thousand"—numerals, please, and in any case surely not hyphenated.
  • Serial comma after "choice" would make the list easier to parse.
  • " As of 2014, Bloodlines has received"—had.

Tony (talk) 07:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changes made
  • "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for its release, and Bloodlines was released in an unfinished state on November 16, 2004."—"its" refers to the budget? "release(d)" twice. "and on [date], Bloodlines was released unfinished"—is that possible? - Any better? - "After three years in development with no end in sight and running over its budget, Activision set a strict deadline for Bloodlines completion, and it was released in an incomplete state on November 16, 2004."
  • I'm not clear if you mean that "21st century Los Angeles" needs a hyphen in it?
  • Thanks for your input! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"no end in sight and running over budget, Activision set a strict deadline for completion, and Bloodlines was released incomplete on"
It does need a hyphen. There's one further down for the same expression.
Are you auditing the whole thing for sentence length (and within that, good rhythm from commas)? Can you pick up any possilbe grammatical simplifications, throughout? Tony (talk) 08:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the first sentence.
Added the hyphen.
It's been copyedited by the guild if that's what you mean? I've just gone through it to try and find missing serial commas as well.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt

[edit]

Comments (having stumbled here from my FAC)

Comments from Cirt (adddressed)
  1. Thank you very much for your efforts to contribute to Quality improvement on Wikipedia, it's really most appreciated !!!
  2. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  3. Copyvio Detector - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Vampire%3A+The+Masquerade+%E2%80%93+Bloodlines&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=0&use_links=1 -- perhaps try cutting down quoted material from source www.rockpapershotgun.com
  4. It divided critics at the time; although they praised the game's writing, full-voice acting, scale of choice, and influence on the game world, they criticized its technical flaws. - sentence seems a little long and overusage of commas. Perhaps break in two here.
  5. Checklinks tool - http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Vampire:_The_Masquerade_%E2%80%93_Bloodlines shows one issue with www.maximumpc.com - what's going on there?
  6. I agree that per WP:LEAD, the lede intro sect size could be trimmed down just a tad bit, perhaps to no more than 4 paragraphs at 4 sentences per paragraph.
  7. Image review: I reviewed all the images used in the article. The fair use images have very good fair use rationale on their image pages. The free-use images all check out upon my image inspection of them at Wikimedia Commons. Good to go here.
  8. Three instances of word "However", could these be removed or phased out for better writing style?
  9. Eleven (11) uses of word "also", this is way too much and these should be trimmed to improve writing quality.
  10. Thirty-one (31) instances of word "but", again, too much use of this, try to improve writing quality and flow for reader by removing these somehow.
  11. I spot-checked cited sources 45, 84, and 93, all check out alright.
  12. Recognition -- suggest change sect name to Accolades.
  13. Surely there was some mention of how Kindred: The Embraced had an impact and influence ?
  14. Plot -- suggest change sect name to Plot synopsis.
  15. Suggest changing Setting to its own two-level sect, and changing Plot to Plot synopsis, and making that its own two-level sect.
  16. Great job on the Setting sect -- I really like how you ground the reader with some background info here, well done !
  17. Development - recommend putting the first material in that sect under a daughter sect, so all material in that sect is under one of its three-level daughter sects. Ideas for names of sects can be found at WP:MOSFILM.
  18. Gameplay -- we're dealing with several large sects here for a large article. Perhaps a couple three-level daughter sects, under this sect? Just an idea?
  19. References -- recommend make sect name of the daughter sect below Bibliography, and make that its own two-level sect.
  20. Summary: Quite high-quality article, most impressive work overall, just a few minor tidbits holding it up, IMHO.
  21. NOTE: Please respond, below entire set of comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!

— Cirt (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. You're welcome
  2. N/A
  3. I reduced the quote slightly but I think it's a really important quote for the article.
  4. Trimmed the sentence.
  5. Fixed the link
  6. Trimmed the lead, 4 or less sentences per paragprah.
  7. N/A
  8. See Below
  9. See Below
  10. Tried to use alternative words to but, however, and also.
  11. N/A
  12. Done
  13. No research I came across mentioned "Kindred: The Embraced" or it having any influence on the gmame, I didn't know it existed til you posted it here. If such evidence exists I'd be happy to add it
  14. "plot" as a title is in line with my other Featured Articles.
  15. If I understand this correctly you mean to basically make Setting and Plot their own individual top level sections rather than subsections of "Synopsis"? I'd rather now, it would be unnecessary and look terrible from a layout perspective.
  16. Thank you
  17. I added some headers and rearranged the section to accommodate them.
  18. It's such a relatively small section that breaking it up into subsections seems counter productive, plus there just isn't much unique information to dedicate a subsection towards.
  19. Changed to "bibliography", but again like plot synopsis, I think you are saying to create two top level sections? For 3 book listings this seems unnecessary.
  20. N/a Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:27, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Cirt! 22:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments from PresN

[edit]
  • "sold fewer than 80 thousand copies" - I think this would read better as "sold fewer than 80,000 copies"
  • "but receive bonuses for intelligence and computer skills which access more information" - unclear; "which" is adjacent to skills, but might also be referring to bonuses
  • "More physical vampires can enhance themselves to become fast and lethal killers or summon spirit allies to attack their foes; others can mentally dominate their targets to force their cooperation or render themselves invisible to hide from detection,[2] and others can boil their opponent's blood from afar." - you split up the three clauses with one semicolon and one comma.
  • The clan descriptions in Setting are slightly-expanded repeats of the same thing in Gameplay; you shouldn't be repeating the information
  • "Each ending has Jack watching from afar with the mummy taken from the coffin, and the enigmatic taxi driver who transports the fledgling between locations who says "The blood of Caine controls our fate... Farewell, vampire"." -> "Each ending has Jack watching from afar with the mummy taken from the coffin and the enigmatic taxi driver who transports the fledgling between locations, who says "The blood of Caine controls our fate... Farewell, vampire.""
  • "In accordance with a suggestion by fellow writer Chad Moore[37] the Malkavian player character has a dialog script distinct from that of the other eight clans, Mitsoda said it was one of the simpler aspects of the development cycle." - should be a semicolon, not a comma
  • "Activision considered that there was insufficient test time, and removing it was a more stable option" - Activision "felt"; considered doesn't work in that context as they're making a decision, not thinking about an option
  • "During the nearly four years of development, he estimated that the team did not work overtime for only two months.[35]" -> "During the nearly four years of development, he estimated that the team worked overtime for all but two months.[35]"
  • "In February 2004, the game was scheduled for release in spring 2005, partially to avoid competing with Half-Life 2 and the competitive Christmas period." - awkward, since you just got finished saying how it was released in February; it would help to throw on the end something like "...Christmas period, before Activision moved up the release date."
  • "The relative failure of Bloodlines‍'​ release contributed to the demise of Troika Games" - at this point in the article, you haven't actually said that the release was a failure, though you were clearly leading up to it and implied it with the Mitsoda quote in the prior paragraph. Maybe "Bloodlines‍'​ release was a relative failure, and contributed to the demise of Troika Games", though you also need to explain what you mean by "relative failure".
  • "Unofficial patches have been created by the game's fans to develop Bloodlines." - to develop Bloodlines? Maybe "to fix problems with Bloodlines and restore missing content."
  • There's not a lot of grammar problems for the length: there's just a general vagueness on occasion- like Tony mentioned, you use "which" sometimes in ways that are slightly off and make it hard to link to the correct subject (look out for those, I've probably missed a couple), and sometimes you have sentences that are not actually wrong but certainly involve a lot of commas, making the sentence a bit tiring to get through
  • Now that I've gone through Reception, the line in the lead "Contemporary criticism has recognised it as one of the greatest games ever made." is completely overblown. A cult classic or a flawed masterpiece, sure, but placing in the 80s or 90s in a few polls doesn't support calling it "one of the greatest ever".
  • Refs look fine, good job on the archives
  • The biggest issue with the article- and it's more a style thing/personal preference- is pretty unfixable at this point, and that is the exhaustive length: it's taken the crown from Anachronox as the longest FA/FAC. It's a lot of detail for a single game, especially without a spinout "Development of" article. It is what it is, though, and its certainly well-done at any length. --PresN 21:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry @PresN:, I had this on my watchlist but didn't notice these comments. Will address them immediately, thanks for commenting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed
  • "but receive bonuses to their intelligence and computer skills, which enables access to more information."? Does that make it better? I don't think I quite understood.
  • Changed the "'" to a ";"
  • I get what you're saying but this is a struggle for me. Stylistically and from a reading perspective I think the setting section does a solid job of providing sufficient and concrete information about the scenario of the game and I want to keep that altogether, so I've tried to give a very broad "type" to the clans in the gameplay just to address that there are different clans (since I discuss differing powersets and such) while using the setting one for a bit of expanded detail. I'm not sure how to rectify that.
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • Changed
  • "In February 2004, the game was scheduled for release in spring 2005, partially to avoid competing with Half-Life 2 and the competitive Christmas period, before Activision moved the date to November 2004."?
  • Ok so I have moved the sales information from the "REception" section to this part about Bloodlines relative failure. It's a bit too much content to post here so I will add a link at the bottom showing all the changes I've made based on your input in a single edit.
  • "Unofficial patches have been created by the game's fans to address Bloodlines' technical problems, and restore missing and incomplete content."?
  • Fair enough, I will take another look through. (This will be after this current pass im doing for you now as I don't have enough time tonight to complete it)
  • Changed
  • Thanks
  • Fair enough, I feel bad it's kinda short tbh and I wish there was more I could add about it. I definitely like to use up that 60kb limit.
  • LINK TO CHANGES Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

[edit]

I've checked out about 50 per cent of the links and they all worked. I'm prepared to accept that the other 50% will, too. The formats look constant throughout. I have a few queries:

  • I'm not well-informed enough to judge whether all the sources cited here are high quality/reliable per FA criteria. On the face of it most look pretty sound. But I'm a bit dubious about a few:
  • Ref 37, "Plot is Gameplay's Bitch".
  • Ref 48, "Tea Leaves"
  • Ref 56, "Destructoid"
  • Ref 79, "HonestGamer"
On what basis are these held to be reliable sources?
  • Ref 40: Among sentences cited to this source are:
  • "The Santa Monica Pier area was to feature playable versions of Activision arcade games such as Pitfall!, though the idea was abandoned due to time constraints"
  • "The licensed tracks were chosen by Activision without input from Troika."
Can you indicate where this information is found in the source?

Subject to the above, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • -
Ref 37 is a blog written by Tom Jubert who has written for several video games (mostly the Penumbra series) and interviewing Brian Mitsoda
I'm not sure that this qualifies it as a high-quality reliable source. It should be replaced. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 48, the interview content itself seemed legitimate and I thought that that kind of thing was allowed.
Above comment applies here, too. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 56 is Destructoid, which is an award winning site.
OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 79 has an ethics policy here, and the review in question is written by Lewis Denby who writes for sites like Rock, Paper, Shotgun.
OK Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Ref 40, the Santa Monica Pier point is in the fourth question down the page, the licensed track part is in the sixth.
The fourth Q and A doesn't match the statement in the article. The wording is very general, and doesn't mention the Santa Monica Pier area. You should reword the statement accordingly. Sixth QandA OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know your thoughts and I'll try to find replacements where possible. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images review

[edit]
  • File:Vampire - The Masquerade – Bloodlines Coverart.png - fair use, cover image; FUR present, size < 100k pixels - Good
  • File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines - Gameplay.jpg - fair use, gameplay shot; FUR present but could be more specific about the purpose of use; license template should be {{Non-free video game screenshot|Windows|image has rationale=yes}}, size < 100k pixels - Good with modifications needed
  • File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines - Changes.png - fair use, gameplay shots; FUR present but could be more specific about the purpose of use; license template should be {{Non-free video game screenshot|Windows|image has rationale=yes}}, size < 100k pixels - This one is a little dicier since it's two images combined and there's already a gameplay shot, but it is illustrating a specific concept that's discussed in the text and it'd be hard to describe the changes in just words. Good, with modifications needed.
  • File:Troika Games' Founders (left to right) Jason D. Anderson, Tim Cain and Leonard Boyarsky.jpg - Free use, Commons; OTRS intact - Great
  • File:Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines - Character Sheet.jpg - fair use, game shot; FUR present but could be more specific about the purpose of use; license template should be {{Non-free video game screenshot|Windows|image has rationale=yes}}, size > 100k pixels - I'm not sold on this one. It adds little to the article other than "the stats are complicated", which is already stated in the text. It's too big, but you already can't read the text at this size, and since it's the stats page being illegible removes even more of the point of having it. Given that you already have 2.5 gameplay images in the article, and this one adds so little, I don't think it should be included.
  • File:Bloodlines E3 2003.jpg - Free use, Commons - a bit decorative rather than informative, but since it's free use no worries

Conclusion: adjust the FUR templates and expand the purpose of use a bit on the two gameplay images, and cut the menu screenshot. --PresN 16:09, 2 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2015 [19].

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret

[edit]
Nominator(s):  ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Britomart Redeems Faire Amoret is a somewhat peculiar 19th century history painting. Probably intended as a moral test for male viewers to view a scene of sex, violence and vulnerability without feeling lust, at least one academic considers BRFA as marking the turning point in art history at which nudity ceased to be symbolic of innocence and instead became symbolic of domination and coercion. BRFA is a very odd-looking work to the modern eye, but that's because The Faerie Queene has fallen out of favour in recent years—at the time, Spenser was as popular as Shakespeare in the English-speaking world, and audiences could reasonably be assumed to understand the references without explanation. ‑ iridescent 09:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:The_Knight_Errant_b_John_Everett_Millais_1870.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little reluctant to amend it, since this version is used on so many articles (15 articles on eight different language Wikipedias) and someone could—conceivably—want to know exactly where the particular upload in use came from. That The Knight Errant is out of copyright isn't in dispute; here's its entry in the Tate catalogue showing that it was first exhibited in 1870 and is credited solely to John Everett Millais, and it's not in dispute that Millais died in 1896. (We do have an alternative upload of it, but the colour balance is slightly oversaturated so I don't really want to use it.) ‑ iridescent 15:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And that doesn't even give a source. "Sources" for old museum paintings are really rather a nonsense - the actual photo is always the museum's (or one of them) as they don't allow anyone else to take the painting down, set up lights, etc. Us worrying about which particular website re-using it that we took it from is rather pointless. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - only found one tweak to do, which I did myself. Only (minor) question is (as I can't tell from the image), did Fuseli also have Amoret unharmed in his image and is that worth noting (as long as we can source it.)? Otherwise looks comprehensive and niceprosive. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stepping to the wrong side of the WP:OR line, Fuseli's version shows Amoret hanging naked and unconscious with her torso in deep shadow, so while there's a clear implication that she's been the victim of violence of some kind, there aren't any visible injuries. Nowadays, Fuseli is a much bigger deal in German-speaking countries as Sturm und Drang went out of fashion very quickly in the London and Paris art markets which tended to drive public taste elsewhere, and I suspect that if there are any modern sources that discuss this painting in detail they'll be German-language. (I wouldn't be surprised if none exist; because this painting hangs in the Goethe House, rather than a major art gallery, it probably doesn't get the level of attention from historians it would receive if it were with in the Kunsthaus Zürich or Tate Britain.) ‑ iridescent 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I basically agree with User:John that "a number of" is to be avoided, though my reason is that my data suggests it's ambiguous in writing (but not necessarily when spoken, when you know your listener). I replaced a couple instances with "several"; please fix that if it's wrong. I really look forward to seeing this one at TFA. - Dank (push to talk) 02:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Citations are consistently and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 11:25, 5 December 2015 [20].

Battle of Kalavrye

[edit]
Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A not very long article about a rather unknown battle in one of the Byzantine civil wars, it is nevertheless one of the few where we have a complete description of its course and the manoeuvrings of the opposing armies. It was also the first major battle of the future emperor Alexios I Komnenos, and hence determined the course of later Byzantine history. The article was created back in 2010 and uses all available sources that deal with the event in some depth. It passed GA and MILHIST ACR easily enough, but for some reason I did not nominate it for FA back then, so I'll try to remedy it now. Constantine ✍ 10:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Diagrams could stand to be scaled up
  • File:Seal_of_Alexios_Komnenos_as_Grand_Domestic_of_the_West.jpg: the seal itself is PD due to age, but we should still say so explicitly. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nikkimaria! On the diagrams, I have left them in this size for smaller screens; I think the gist of the diagrams is evident even at this scale. On the PD for the seal, how exactly would this be done? A seal is not a 2D work of art, so the usual PD-art tags don't apply... Constantine ✍ 09:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nowhere for Halmyros river to link to?
AFAIK no, the river is unidentified with any modern analogue.
It'd be nice then to have a footnote stating that if you can find a source that says its present day analogue is unknown.
Correction, I was able to find an identification, and even the approximate coordinates of the battle. Constantine ✍ 13:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great!
Bryennios's army fell into disorder after having seemingly won the battle, and due to the attack on its camp by its own Pecheneg allies. - this sentence is ungainly, the "and due" is confusing. If "due" remove the "and" but otherwise is odd as there is no reason and then one is added as an additional reason.
I've rephrased that.
who sent 2,000 warriors and promised even more - "even" redundant here I think
I am not sure. If I leave it out, it reads odd... Without the "even", I feel it becomes unclear what this "more" refers to.
Hmm, to me it clearly implies more soldiers, which it would do whether or not there was an "even" there...I must admit I don't feel it's a dealbreaker by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Curiously, and in contravention of established practice, - "contravention" strikes me as breaking a law or something. I think a bit strong for here...
Simplified to "against".
It was then that Alexios realized his position - do you think this sentence adds anything? As "despairs" is in next sentence.
I've merged the two sentences.

Overall a nice, tight article and interesting read. Hope my changes are ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Cas Liber and thanks for your review and your edits! I've fixed most of the points you raised. Is there anything that you feel might be missing or inadequately explained in terms of context? Given the relative obscurity of the topics I write in I am much concerned with understandability for the average reader. Constantine ✍ 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, Support on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cas Liber for your review and support. Best, Constantine ✍ 09:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all refs look like they conform with each other ok. Spot check to follow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check - going through Birkenmeier refs - FN 9, I can't find on page 58 where it says Alexios's forces were far less experienced than Bryennios's veterans. sorry, my bad, I see it in Tobias 198 and 200 now. All Birkenmeier material looks in order. Tobias refs checked as well and support material in article. All good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Meets the criteria, no comments to make. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2015 [21].

Shōkaku-class aircraft carrier

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Shokaku-class carriers were completed just before the beginning of the Pacific War and have been judged to have been the best aircraft carriers in the world at that time. They participated in almost every carrier battle during the war until their loss in 1944. Both ships missed the Battle of Midway and thus, by default, became the core of the IJN's striking forces for the rest of the war. They sank two of the four American fleet carriers lost during the war, plus a British light carrier. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review which included a thorough image review. I'd like reviewers to see if there is any unexplained jargon and look for any infelicities of prose as I believe that this article meets the FAC criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments leaning support. Just a few things:
Background
  • What does "endurance" mean in this context?
Armament
  • Are the guns or the gun mounts grouped in pairs?
  • Both. Each mount had two guns and the 8 mounts were grouped into four pairs, one pair on each quadrant of the ship.
Protection
  • "25-millimeter deck of Ducol steel" English equivalent might be worth adding.
  • converted on first use.
Careers
  • It might be worth knowing where the ships were located in relation to Honolulu at the time of the attack.
  • I don't see a good place to add that without adding a sentence or two to set that up.
  • The second sentence of the second paragraph has the word "attack" four times in close proximity. Suggest synonyms. Struck?
Excellent idea.
  • "on 5 April" the second consecutive "on" phrase. Suggest "5 April" be inserted before "Easter" and the existing words, er, struck.
  • " Following the lesson taught by the Battle of Midway" given that Battle of Midway is mentioned and linked just before, perhaps, "Having learned the lesson taught at Midway" or similar.
  • I like that.
  • "he bulk of their air groups were transferred to Rabaul to bolster the defenses there, just in time to participate in the raid on Rabaul" Two Rabauls and a "there".
  • Reworded.
That's it. Well done as always.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review all sources appear to be of encyclopedic quality and except for possibly below, are consistent in their citation.

  • "Jentschura and Jung" this is the only source to have the publisher be the United States Naval Institute, the others from Annapolis say Naval Institute Press. Are we OK here?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the name was changed after the Jentschura book was published.

Thanks for your thorough review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM67

  • I reviewed this article for Milhist A-class last month and am happy with the prose.
  • all toolbox checks are ok except alt text.
  • the speed in the infobox doesn't match the speed in the body
  • the range in the infobox doesn't match the range in the body

Otherwise, I consider this article meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good catches. I didn't even have the designed speed in the text. Glad you looked at this so thoroughly.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, supporting now. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments above. I'm satisfied that it meets source review standards, too.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2015 [22].

SMS Kaiser Barbarossa

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another article in my series on German warships, this one passed an A-class review about a year ago, and has been waiting in line for FAC since. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2015 (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) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Image review

Support. This article is well-done, and I could find nothing worth bringing up for correction. Good luck! --Coemgenus (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Just a few quibbles:[reply]

  • all toolbox checks are ok except alt text (not an ACR requirement), there is no overlinking, and the article is dash compliant
  • the ihp/kW measures in the body and infobox are slightly different
    • Rounding error - good catch
  • the speeds in the body and infobox are slightly different
    • Fixed
  • the belt armor in the infobox gives a range, but there is no range in the body
    • Corrected
  • if she underwent sea trials in May 1901, wasn't she completed by that point? Just referring to the lead, body and infobox. Perhaps use commissioned rather than completed in the lead?
    • Generally there are final changes made after the sea trials, but yes, by and large ships are essentially complete by the time they go to trials. Commissioned is probably a less ambiguous word.
  • you introduce the term Heimatflotte as if it had been mentioned earlier. Was KB part of the Home Fleet? From what point? There is some assumed knowledge here that needs explication.
    • Good point.
  • I'm not sure about the construction "the V Squadron" and "the I Squadron". If it is consistent with other articles, fine, but it rankles me somehow, I keep thinking it doesn't need "the", but if Dan is happy, I'll shut up.
  • I think Prince Heinrich should be linked
    • Good catch
  • the para commencing "Prince Heinrich" commences abruptly. Suggest tacking the first sentence onto the preceding para.

Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Construction
Tonnes should be linked on first mentioning, same as knots
Good idea
'Marine-type': According to Gröner they were Thornycroft's.
Fixed.
  • Service history
Princess Luise Sofie of Prussia: Her common name seems to be 'Sophie' rather than 'Sofie', although that is consistent with the source given. However, the article fails to mention that she was Willy's sister-in-law. Suggestion: change to 'Princess Luise Sophie, the Emperor's sister-in law' or similar.
Yeah, and I tend to prefer to use the German name rather than the English equivalent (for instance, as with Heinrich instead of Henry). But a good idea to mention the relation
Third paragraph: Kaiser Wilhelm der Grosse is mentioned - cut & paste error?
Yup, good catch.
Decommissioning in December 1903? I am confused. There is surely a difference between in and out of service and commissioning, isn't there?
It was fairly common practice in the KM to decommission ships for lengthy repairs - I'd assume this was because they had chronic manpower shortages and the crew from a temporarily decommissioned ship could be used elsewhere. They frequently had to play a shell game with crews (for instance, after SMS Rheinland completed sea trials, most of her crew were sent to commission SMS Von der Tann, and they were replaced with the crew from SMS Zähringen, which was decommissioned for 2 years until a crew could be stood back up).
Fourth paragraph: '1-pounder' is not a category used by the Imperial Navy. According to Hildebrand et al. those were 37mm machine guns, the German WP speaks of 'revolver guns'. Which?
All three, actually. The 37mm Hotchkiss revolver cannon fired a 1-pound shell.
ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks ÄDA. Parsecboy (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Link and tell the reader what kind of engine a triple expansion engine is in the infobox.
    • Done
  • Link to knots, nautical miles in both infobox and main body; be sure to add range to main body.
    • Done and done
  • Move the note for the gun nomenclature to right after use.
    • Done
  • Cylindrical boilers aren't water-tube boilers; not sure about Marine-type boilers. The former are also called Scotch marine boilers.
    • They were Thornycrofts, fixed per ÄDA above
  • Need an OCLC number for Brassey's and an ISSN for RUSI Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)

Sources review: All sources appear to be of appropriate quality and reliability. Citations are consistently and correctly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2015 [23].

2015 Vuelta a España

[edit]
Nominator(s): Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 Vuelta a España, one of the three most important races in road cycling. It is a three-week race where riders have to deal with hot weather and the mountainous terrain of any cycling race. The race was notable for all the four top finishers in the 2015 Tour de France starting; none of them finished on the podium in the Vuelta. The race was close and competitive throughout and was decided on the final climbs on the penultimate day. This article is relatively short because it has been split out into two articles describing the stages themselves; it's just been through a useful peer review. Relentlessly (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

To preface this, my time is very limited on Wikipedia, but these are a few things that I noticed about the article in a quick glance over it:

  • "These included Caja Rural-Seguros RGA, the only Spanish-registered Professional Continental team. Two French teams, Cofidis and Team Europcar, were also invited. MTN-Qhubeka were invited for the second consecutive year after also securing their first ever entry into the Tour de France. The final team to be invited was Colombia." Each sentence should be sourced, just because the information within it could be challenged.
    • After reading through more of the prose from the favorites section, I'd say go through the prose and cite after each sentence just to be sage - I know this is probably annoying to hear, but it will help as the review goes on longer as reviewers won't have to challenge you on whether it happened and whatnot.
  • Include the two-three sentence body of text just below the team list in the block of text above. It just looks smoother that way in my opinion
  • I would remove the three sub sections in the race overview section
  • Move the part about the first stage being controversial in the route and stages section in its own paragraph

I didn't really have much more time to give the text a thorough read through, but I hope this helps out. I'll try and check this out next time I'm free and able to get on here. Great start. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Disc Wheel. I have done all the above except adding citations after every sentence. I will go back and have another look at citation density; I have attempted to follow WP:CITEDENSE closely. Relentlessly (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of it, you forgot to remove the part about the route of the team trial controversy to the route and stages section. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my mistake, Disc Wheel, I misunderstood what you meant. I've done it now, and you're right: it's an improvement. Relentlessly (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • One thing that jumps out at me is the Classification leadership by stage table. The colours are pretty, but unfortunately don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. The contrast between the background colour and the foreground text colour need to meet WCAG 2.0's AA level; the pastel colours used in most of the table are fine, with the exception of the salmon, which could be lightened, but the darker Final colour at the bottom is a problem for all but the "lightskyblue" and the "offwhite". (Checked with the Colour Contrast Checker). My suggestion would be to just remove the colour entirely. It does add a "wow" to the page, but I think the information is conveyed just as well without it. I'll take a closer look at the rest of the article shortly. Harrias talk 18:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Route and stages section, "with Chris Froome (second in 2014) and" doesn't need to have the bit in brackets, as you mentioned in the previous section that he had finished second in 2014.
  • What is a "third-category summit finish"?
  • What is a "bunch sprint"?
  • "The fourth stage again included an uphill finish, though it was not a categorised climb. The stage was again.." Repetition of "again".
  • "Astana rode hard in the second half of the stage and, with a strong team effort... I think it would improve clarity if this started something like "Aru's Astana team rode hard..." This will help make it more obvious who this benefits.
  • What does "won the intermediate sprint" mean? (Reading the next section, this makes more sense, but I think it needs explaining either here, or in the Route and stages section.
    • I've explained it in Route and stages. Possibly the best solution would be describing the classification section higher up the page, rather than alongside the leadership table. I'm a bit reluctant because this is contrary to general Wikipedia cycling practice, and it's by far the least interesting section. Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Neelix suggests, and you are aware, the prose contains a lot of jargon, and though I have a basic knowledge of how these races work, I still got a bit confused at times. I've highlighted some area's that specifically need changing, but the whole Race overview could still do with "dumbing down" a little bit to be honest if it is possible. Harrias talk 11:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Harrias. I've done my best at dumbing-down! It's tricky, though. I've removed, clarified or linked everything I thought was obscure. Is there any chance you could have a look through and tag anything unclear with {{clarify}}? Relentlessly (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work. On reading through it again, it reads well. The problem seems to be more the quantity of "jargon" rather than any specifically difficult concepts. There are wikilinks provided for anything uncertain, just sometimes it requires going back a bit to find them! Overall, I think what is left is mostly unavoidable, and the article deals well with quite a technical sport. Harrias talk 09:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

[edit]

As usual, my comments are mostly related with phrasal construction. These are only suggestions, although I believe they can improve the article's prose. Still, take them critically since I'm not a native English speaker. Parutakupiu (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Teams

Pre-race favorites

Race overview

  • "Sagan, who came second on the stage, took over the lead of the points classification."
  • "The following stage was a mixed stage, too difficult for the pure sprinters." → "The following stage was a mixed stage, which proved difficult for the pure sprinters."
  • "The final stage before the first rest day was stage 10, which ended in another bunch sprint. This was won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)" → "Stage 10, the final stage before the first rest day, ended in another bunch sprint, won by Kristian Sbaragli (MTN-Qhubeka)".
  • "Landa's teammate Fabio Aru took second place on the stage and moved into the race lead."
  • "... was caught in the final kilometre of the stage."
  • "... putting himself just one second behind Aru. Aru, Majka and Chaves, however..." – Closely repeated instances of Aru.

Classification leadership table

  • "The first of these was the general classification. This was calculated by..." → "The first of these was the general classification, which was calculated by...". Also for the team classification paragraph.
  • Regarding the points classification, you need to explain that the 4th, 5th and 6th riders receive 14, 12 and 10 points respectively, before saying "... down to 1 point for the rider in fifteenth."
    • Done, though I do wonder if the detail is really necessary! A table would be ideal, but there isn't room. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not much a question of detail, but of clarity: if you say that the 3rd rider gets 16 points and then it goes "down to 1 point for the rider in 15th" it doesn't make sense, because you cannot assign 15 individual marks (15, 14, 13.... 1 point) to 12 riders (4th to 15th place) unless some of these marks are skipped, as is the case. Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Parutakupiu, for your very helpful review. I think I've taken care of all your points. Relentlessly (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very satisfied with the state of this article. Again, good job, Relentlessly! Parutakupiu (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Neelix

[edit]

It has taken me longer than I had anticipated to find time to review this article, but better late than never, right? Another great job on this one, Relentlessly! Here are my thoughts, questions, and suggestions for improvement:

  • The 2015 UCI World Tour should be mentioned somewhere early in the lead, preferably in the first sentence, to contextualize the topic of the article.
  • It would be helpful to fully spell out Astana Pro Team in the lead rather than shortening it to Astana. As someone unfamiliar with the world of cycling, I was confused about whether the bracketed term after Fabio Aru's name was his birthplace, his nickname, etc.
  • What does the word "attack" mean in this context? It is used several times without explanation. I assume that the cyclists don't physically assault each other.
  • What does it mean to drop someone? Can this be made clearer somehow for the general, uninitiated public?
  • "Wildcard" is another term that most people are not going to know. You could extend the sentence to clarify the meaning, or you could add a footnote explaining.
  • After the phrase "none of the riders took up the challenge", I would recommend switching the colon to a period. The sentence is already made lengthy by the semicolon, and I'm not convinced that this use of a colon is correct punctuation.
  • What does the following phrase mean?: "it was unclear which rider would be protected". Protected from what?
  • Paragraphs should consist of more than a single sentence; the second-last paragraph in the "Pre-race favorites" section should be merged into one of the adjacent paragraphs.
  • In its first mention, I would recommend expanding "sprinter" to "cycling sprinter" for clarity and in accordance with the linked article's title.
  • In the phrases "stage 2", "stage 9", etc., the "s" should be capitalized because they are proper noun phrases. It is only in phrases such as "sixth stage" and "seventh stage" that the "s" should remain lowercase.
  • Who is Eusebio Unzué? He is mentioned only once and without explanation of his connection to the subject of the article.
  • What is a peloton? It should be both linked and explained, either in the main text at its first mention or in a footnote.
  • The "Race overview" section is quite long. I would recommend splitting it into two subsections, one called "Stage 1 to Stage 11" and the other called "Stages 12 to Stage 21". Then, the "See also" template could be replaced by two "Main" templates.
    • I'm less sure about this one. The division in the two sub-articles is entirely arbitrary. I originally had it divided into three weeks, but changed it as above per Disc Wheel's comments. Not sure what to do with this: to me the three weeks would be the most logical division. I've changed the {{see also}} into a {{main}} for now in any case. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the division of these subarticles is arbitrary, and, consequently, my strong preference would be for the subarticles to not be divided at all; just have one subarticle called "Stages of the 2015 Vuelta a España". The level of coverage outside Cyclingnews.com doesn't seem to justify multiple subarticles anyway. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Cyclingnews.com is the best source, but far from the only one. The Vuelta was covered in depth in lots of European media (especially Spanish and French) and in both cycling-specific and general news sources in English, but Cyclingnews is the most comprehensive and convenient source. The two subarticles total over 70kB of prose, so they should probably stay divided, though I personally would have set it up as stages 1-10 and 11-21. The general setup is very well established practice in Wikipedia cycling articles, including FAs. Relentlessly (talk) 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Four riders were immediately forced to withdraw from the race". It might be helpful to add "due to injuries" to clarify what forced them to withdraw.
  • I would recommend replacing the word "puncture" with "flat tire" or "tire puncture". After all the discussion about injuries, my first thought was that Poppel's body had been punctured rather than his tire.
  • What is the combativity award? I don't understand what being combative has to do with cycling.
  • In the sentence "For the same reason, Tom Dumoulin, second in the combination classification wore the white jersey.", there should be a comma after the word "classification".
  • There should be a comma after the phrases "In stages ten and eleven, Joaquim Rodríguez", "In stage sixteen, Tom Dumoulin", "In stage seventeen, Esteban Chaves", etc.

I hope you find these suggestions helpful! My overall concern is that the article is not currently very accessible to readers who are unfamiliar with cycling. Apart from that, the article looks great. Neelix (talk) 16:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Neelix, that's all really helpful. I very much appreciate the comments from someone unfamiliar with cycling: it's a somewhat jargonish sport and it has been my biggest concern with the article throughout. I've dealt with all your concerns, I think, except for the race overview subsections. I'll continue to think about this one. Relentlessly (talk) 08:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you responding to my concerns so quickly! You have addressed all but two of my concerns. I have responded to your comments above in those two instances. I don't think it's obvious that "sprinter" doesn't refer to runners also trained to cycle, but I won't press the point. Neelix (talk) 13:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Thank you for doing such a thorough job at addressing my concerns. I have considerable reservations about the subarticles of the "Race overview" section; they seem to me to consist solely of intricate play-by-play, providing a level of detail that is unencyclopedic and analogous to articles that solely consist of plot summaries of books. Nonetheless, this is not the forum for such a discussion, as the main 2015 Vuelta a España article is the subject of this FAC and that article is quite encyclopedic. Well done! Neelix (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes -- hi Relentlessly, it looks to me that we still require reviewers to carry out:

  • Image check for correct licensing,
  • Sources check for reliability and formatting, and
  • Because this is, I believe, your first FAC, a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing.

These checks can be requested at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Ian Rose. Obviously Harrias has done the first of these; I will request the others. You're correct that this would be my first FA. Relentlessly (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Thanks, Harrias. I've dealt with all the points you raise. Thank you very much for doing this. Relentlessly (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wugapodes

[edit]

Oppose on sources for now. I agree though that everything else seems great. The good news is that the sources are all consistent and in line with the MOS. My complaints are pretty minor but I don't think the article should be promoted until they are fixed. Support on sources now that the issues I raised are fixed.

  • I did a few checks of random sources and a few sentences don't seem to be fully supported by the source.
    • The article reads "The eleventh stage, the first after the rest day, was the difficult stage in Andorra, with six difficult climbs and almost no flat roads" but the cited source reads "The day had been billed as one of the most epic stages ever put together in a Grand Tour with six climbs and a summit finished packed into the 138km stage."
    • The article reads "[Quintana] performed strongly in the mountains at the Tour" but I don't get that from the source.
      • The source says "The Colombian left it a little too late to try and dethrone Chris Froome at the Tour, saving his attacks for the last two stages in the Alps. He did put time into the Brit..." This seems to me to justify the statement in the article. Relentlessly (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)z[reply]
        • Maybe it's that I'm not familiar with cycling but I don't get "performed strongly" from "attacked in the Alps". I'd suggest a rewording, or if someone else wants to weigh in that would be helpful too. Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • It was more the "put time into" bit that was relevant, but I've added an additional source that hopefully takes care of it. Relentlessly (talk) 19:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • I looked at the new source and—I'm really sorry to keep nitpicking this but—I don't see the sources supporting this line. I believe it's true, putting all the sources and my existing knowledge together but that's the thing, reading the sources I have to come to that conclusion, the sources don't state that conclusion (see WP:SYNTH). To be explicit, what I read from the sources are that Quintana did well in the final two stages, which were mountainous. But were the rest of the stages not mountainous? If there were mountains in other stages (which I presume from the article), then this doesn't support him doing well in the mountains since there were other stages that he maybe didn't do well on (we don't know because it doesn't talk about them, only the last two). Another line of reasoning is that he performs well in cold conditions. Mountains typically have cold conditions. Therefore he does well in mountains. But that's OR per SYNTH.
To be clear, I don't think you're wrong or being deceitful. This is a very well done article with just one flaw. WP:Verifiability is a blessing and a curse in that, when you're knowledgeable in what you're writing about, you need to be careful to stay close to the sources and not include too much of your own interpretations. Perhaps this wording "...he had performed strongly in the final two, mountainous stages at the Tour..." would be better? It sticks closer to the sources but still gets your point across. What are your thoughts? And feel free to still disagree, hopefully being explicit with my concerns helps you address them better. Wugapodes (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Wugapodes, I'm not sure whether I agree or not. I've therefore changed the wording of the article slightly so hopefully it now matches the sources quite closely. You're entirely right to raise the point, of course! Relentlessly (talk) 08:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article describes stage 7 as "the most significant uphill finish of the race so far" while the source calls it "The first serious mountain top [finish]". I feel like "so far" insinuates previous significant uphill finishes which the source doesn't support since it pegs it as the first one.
  • The section "Sources" should be a tier two header, and remain plural, even if it only has one entry. See WP:FNNR

That's all I've found. If anyone takes issue with anything I've said, feel free to let me know since a lot of what I pointed out is individual interpretation. Thanks for the hard work, Relentlessly! Wugapodes (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Wugapodes: very helpful comments. Hopefully I've dealt with all these concerns. Relentlessly (talk) 19:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good on all but one, perhaps a third opinion on it might help. Otherwise really good, and hopefully we can come to agreement on my last concern so this can be promoted. Wugapodes (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (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 via FACBot (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2015 [24].

2006 Subway 500

[edit]
Nominator(s): Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2006 Subway 500 (today called the Goody's Headache Relief Shot 500 for sponsorship purposes), a NASCAR stock car race held at Martinsville Speedway won by Jimmie Johnson. I created this article in January 2015 and it attained GA status that same month. I made a further expansion of the article in August and it had a copy-edit from the GOCE in September. I look forward to any comments regarding this article. Z105space (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
  • The article lead doesn't mention that Labonte took the race lead on lap 406 -- at least, that's how I understand the race section of the article. Johnson led for over 250 laps, right? I can see the lead doesn't need all the details, but I'd either give every lead change or make it clear that some are omitted.
Added mention of Labonte moving into lead on lap 406 in the lead section. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The result advanced him to third in the Drivers' Championship, forty-one points behind Matt Kenseth (who took over the lead when Jeff Burton retired during the race; this caused him to fall to fifth in the championship, one point behind Hamlin)." I don't follow this. Kenseth took the race lead or the Championship lead? Who fell to fifth; Kenseth? If Kenseth fell to fifth, what did he take over the lead of?
Kenseth took over the lead of the Drivers' Championship which I have added into the lead section. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but who fell to fifth? Johnson went to third, so it's not him; Kenseth was in the lead, so it's not him. If it's Burton, make it "this caused Burton". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Burton fell to fifth in the Drivers' Championship after the race. Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "banked at zero degrees" the usual way to describe it? If so, that's fine; to a non-aficionado it would sound more natural to say "not banked", but if this is the usual phrasing there's no need to change it, since it's clear what is meant.
Your suggestion has been taken in. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gordon had the highest speed of the three days, at 175.553 miles per hour": in the fourth session? You don't say so and so it's not clear when he recorded this speed.
Gordon did record the speed in the fourth session of the test. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't make the speed arithmetic work. If the fastest lap is 19 seconds, and a lap is 0.526 miles, then that's about 180 laps an hour, which would be around 100 miles per hour. How come the top speeds are around 175 mph?
I think that would be an answer for more experienced NASCAR editors to answer as I'm fairly new to the sport. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I think it needs to be answered. I see further down the article that the top speeds in the race are around 99 mph, so how could they do 175 in practice? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This test was taking place at Homestead-Miami Speedway, which is a longer track and thus allows for higher speeds. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 11:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
D'oh. My fault; that's in the article. Struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the start weather conditions were overcast, with the air temperature around 48 °F (9 °C) and rain showers (which occurred earlier in the day) forecast." This sentence structure doesn't really work, because if we're at the start the rain showers have already occurred, so they're not forecast any more.
Sentence structure has been amended. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If I didn't misunderstand the earlier form of the sentence, what you now have is factually incorrect -- at the start rain was not forecast; it had already happened. How about something like "Rain showers were forecast for the day of the race, and at the start weather conditions were overcast and some rain had already fallen. The air temperature was around 48F."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above suggestion has been taken in to account Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeff Burton drove to his garage on lap 218 when a carburetor problem (after switching to a second ignition) caused him to run slower than his rivals": another sentence structure problem. Tell us about the second ignition before mentioning the carburetor; it's clumsy as a parenthesis.
I have amended this sentence structure. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the drivers stayed on the track during the caution, allowing Johnson to remain the leader at the restart." Why do other drivers staying on the track allow Johnson to remain leader? Surely it only matters if he stays on the track?
Those drivers chose not to make pit stops which I have included. Z105space (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I meant was that the sentence doesn't make sense -- if Johnson is in the lead, and if nobody can pass him because there's a caution, then if he doesn't pit he stays in the lead. What other drivers do makes no difference. So saying he remained leader because other drivers didn't pit seems like a non sequitur. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the sentence to say Johnson maintained his lead at the restart. Z105space (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think the prose is now FA-quality, and the article seems comprehensive. I have not spot-checked the sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harrias

[edit]

Table comments

  • The sortable Race results table should sort by the driver surname, not first name.
  • When sorting by Points, Kurt Busch sorts of out position, I guess because of the footnote?
I have removed the sortable section in the race results table to fall in line with two other NASCAR race reports which are FA. Z105space (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments

  • The first image, File:Martinsville Backstretch.JPG claims to be from the "2005 Martinsville spring race", but the EXIF data says 2 April 2006, which was the date of the 2006 DirecTV 500 at Martinsville. The description should be updated to reflect this.
Done. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done though the two links are to the same picture. Z105space (talk) 12:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! The second was meant to be File:Matt-kenseth-bristol-2009.jpg. Harrias talk 12:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done

@Harrias: Are there any other outstanding issues? Z105space (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the images are appropriately licensed, and the table meets the guidelines. Harrias talk 15:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

@Giants2008: The issues raised have been rectified. Z105space (talk) 06:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Now that the few issues above have been taken care of, I believe that this meets the FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made one minor copyedit to tweak the date and archive formatting in some background section refs but saw no other outstanding issues. Prose seems okay after the GoCE looked at it and the remaining minor problems have been addressed by others. Looks good to me. --Bentvfan54321 (talk) 23:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; the lead image is very small and even in mediaviewer the text is fairly unreadable, is there not a higher resolution alternate? --Errant (chat!) 22:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK

  • No dead links.
  • Formatting looks consistent with detailed source information.
  • While I am no topic expert, sources appear to be reliable for such a topic (mainstream news, sports news, major websites and magazines).
  • Having skimmed through a few random source texts, no obvious factual problems. GermanJoe (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2015 (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/December_2015&oldid=697515479"