Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

February 2012

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 22:02, 29 February 2012 [1].

Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ben MacDui 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lonely Wikipedian with GSOH, partial to the odd dram and obsessed with remote Scottish islands, seeks the company of like-minded lady, preferably of aristocratic background. Existing marriage to establishment figure no barrier to friendship. Or, if you prefer: I am nominating this remarkable tale, which has been a GA since 2010 and was kindly peer reviewed by the estimable Ruhrfisch in the same year , in honour of the forthcoming Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month. Yours etc., the somewhat ring-rusty Ben MacDui 16:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you back (nudge :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you - I wandered off into list-mania and wondered if I would ever get back. I have just finished reading The Hobbit but I'll look at SitHMA asap - hopefully tomorrow. Ben MacDui 18:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

  • [4] Undiscovered Scotland: doesn't actually say Gladstone's Land was built in 1620.
  • [5] NTS: as above
I think the NTS one used to. I've added another from VisitScotland.Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NTS moved some information to the "What to see and do" button but it is more equivocal than VisitScotland ("the spectacular painted ceiling dating to 1620") so I have left them both. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd remove Undiscovered Scotland to reduce citation clutter in the image caption, and change "built" to "completed" just to be clear. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ben MacDui 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [7][8] thepeerage.com is a self-published enthusiast site; the article says Charles Erskine was the 10th Earl and John was the 11th but the website says Charles was 22nd and 5th Earl; the 10th relates to the title Lord Erskine. The ODNB says John was 22nd and 6th. I'm inclined to cut thepeerage.com sources and all mention of the numbering. We don't really need to know the number.
I'd be happy to avoid getting lost in this genealogical maze if you think it can be bypassed! Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced one peerage.com with the ODNB, but they don't list his dear papa. "Tribe of Mar" may not be much better than peerage.com but I don't think there is anything controversial here. This link may look more prestigious, but there isn't much to choose between them in my view. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I've no qualms about Tribe of Mar. I agree on the Stanford site: leave it out. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [9] Bruce does say 11th Earl [& 1st Duke] (and "Bobbing John")
  • [13] archaeologydaily is reprinted from the Times online. I see the "wild beauty" quote, but not much of the other material. The "superficially uneventful domestic life" and her role as factor isn't covered in the Times, so I would move the cite to the first sentence, keeping/using Maclean and Macaulay suitably for that and the rest.
Done. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [16][17] thepeerage.com: again you could consider dropping this if the material is covered by [15]
It isn't, so I have added corroborating refs of a similar mien. Nothing in ODNB or Keay & Keay (1994). Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to check in Burke's or the Complete Peerage at some point in the week. I agree there's nothing controversial about the material, but I'd prefer to avoid these sites if possible. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced thepeerage.com. I've kept Cracroft as the author is an Honorary Fellow of the Heraldry Society. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [34] NTS: the article says "believe it [the cleit] was rebuilt on the site of a larger black house where she lived" the source says "traditionally said to be the house where she was held prisoner, but this is unlikely to be true".
There are other sources about this I can add. She clearly had a dwelling but I doubt anyone can be certain of its precise location. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a clarificatory note. It is my guess that the NTS mean that it "is unlikely to be true" she lived in the cleit itself. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks great now, thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [35] RCAHM: material supported by source
  • [36] NTS: figures match those given at the source
  • [49] MacLeod: Do you want to add location (Edinburgh) and page (24) as with the other books?
Done. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [54] artoftheprint: not supporting a contentious point but there are better sources than what could be described as a shop.
When you live where I do a shop is something to be treasured. The ODNB has an entry and I have replaced artoftheprint with it. Ben MacDui 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [57] seoras.com: calls itself a "blog" so may not qualify as a reliable source; I couldn't find Norman MacLeod's naming as an accomplice to the kidnapping at this site. If the material is supported by [56], maybe remove this source?
It is the epithet "Wicked Man" that Macauley doesn't use. There are a few refs on the Norman MacLeod article itself I could borrow if I can't find anything better. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ODNB has an entry about him, but whilst noting that "rather uniquely, no praise-poem for him has come down in the oral tradition of the Isle of Skye" remarkably, they fail to mention the name by which he is best known. Happily the Celtic Magazine obliges and I have used this rather than Seoras/George. Ben MacDui 12:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [70] The quote from Scott's edited journal is "became the nearest and most confidential of all his Edinburgh associates." I think it is worth specifying more exactly that these are the words of the editor David Douglas (in footnote 3 on page 40 of the 1891 edition published by Harper of New York) not Scott. I'd format this reference in the same way as the other books.
Done. There is no sign that I can see of the quote being Douglas's on the Gutenberg but I have added this to the text. Ben MacDui 12:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the version at archive.org: [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [71][72] It's a little awkward that the date is given by the BBC and the sonnet title by the critic but the sentence is verifiable taking both cites together. Is there a reason to use https:// for the BBC site rather than http://?
None and done.Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the external links the two PSAS links are identical. Can you link direct to [3] and [4]?
Done. I didn't originally as I get fed up with the ads moving the source files around. Ben MacDui 20:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the above are now attended to. Ben MacDui 12:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

Many thanks. Ben MacDui 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super article.

  • Can I suggest taking Note 7 out of the notes and placing it within the text? Otherwise, I'm left thinking "How did she get the letters off?"
A good suggestion I will look into asap. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - see below. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Lady Grange's sister-in-law Lady Frances Pierrepoint, Lady Mar? Was she also forcibly confined by Lords Mar and Grange on the grounds of insanity? Should/can she be mentioned?
I was aware of her alleged insanity - hardly surprising if one is deprived of delights of Scotland that are highlighted so well by Lady Grange's story - but I don't know much about it. She apparently outlived Mar, but there is a hint of suspicion.Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the subject at ODNB that I can see. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the articles linked in the "See also" section linked to Lady Grange by reliable sources?
I fear they may not be. I may have missed something in MOS - I read that these links are "a matter of editorial judgment and common sense". I am notoriously deficient in the latter and welcome a more active appraisal of their worth - which I confess may have been ever-so-slightly tongue-in-cheek. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the article title be "Rachel Erskine, Lady Grange" or "Rachel Chiesley, Lady Grange"?
This is a good question, which I wondered about at the time. She is almost always referred to as simply "Lady Grange", which doesn't help. She signs both the letter of separation and the letters from St Kilda "Rachell Erskine" (sic) although the heading to the former calls her "Rachell Chiesly". I don't mind and I am rather unfamiliar with protocols for biographical articles.Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have a very marginal preference for Erskine, but I'm not bothered either. I've created redirects instead. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this is a rhetorical question and I apologise for my laziness. Fixed - although the refs/dashes combination looks odd to me. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I'm still cautious over the See alsos; and would like to see note 7 moved, but this is a well-structured, good read complemented by appropriately licensed and positioned images. Sources and style check out. DrKiernan (talk) 18:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your detailed attention. Note 7 has been moved, and I have removed Iris Robinson from the see alsos. It is arguably a breach of BLP protocols for her to remain there without there being some sourced connection. I doubt the remaining two will offend. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I'd have "nine" rather than the numeral since it's less than ten
  • I wonder if there is any way of making it clearer that Village is a place name, otherwise someone will query the cap, or "correct" it to lower case?
Done and many thanks. I also added an invisible comment re the Village. Ben MacDui 19:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I have now carefully read the article again and find it meets the FA criteria. As noted above, I also reviewed this on the talk page and have now found that almost all of my comments there have been addressed. I still think it would help to somehow explain "barracked" - perhaps a wikitionary link to "jeer" (so "For example, she barracked her husband in the street and in church...")? Nicely done (and poor Lady Grange). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks (again) and done. Ben MacDui 19:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentOppose Problem: The prose is compelling, but reading through, I find the following:-

By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several key questions require explanation. Firstly, what drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths? Secondly, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife, and thirdly how was she held for so long without rescue?

This opinion is neither attributed nor cited, and thus reads like the editorial voice loud and clear. Other similar instances:-

  • "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer"
  • "There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor."
  • "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing."

All of these instances, and possibly others, detract from the neutrality of the prose and in my view require rephrasing or direct attribution to eliminate the POV. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my mind there is a clear distinction to be made between an "editorial voice" and a "point of view". The one is simply a device to introduce the text, whilst the latter is clearly a form of bias. I am not aware of any reason why the former cannot be used. Nonetheless, your points are well made and I will attempt to address them.
  • "By any standards… held for so long without rescue?"
One of the problems here is that although the Lady Grange affair is referred to in numerous sources, few of them give the subject more than cursory treatment. For example, Johnson treats it as a humorous aside, Maclean devotes a page or two but relies on the Sobieski Stuart's defence of the Highland aristocracy. In the present era only Macauley provides any real detail and there is therefore not much modern analysis to refer to. She addresses each question although I don't recall a passage in which she lists them. It would be quite possible to remove this para in its entirety and just enumerate the various "motivations" without any kind of framing. This would remove the need to address the "The third question is perhaps the easiest to answer" problem you raise - although I wonder if you think perhaps that it isn't? If I may, I have some questions of my own. Firstly, are any of the questions raised not genuinely worthy of discussion? Secondly, would the prose work better without the framing? Finally, Do you think it would it be less "point of view" to keep the questions but make them less direct? - something like:
"By any standards, Lady Grange's story is a remarkable one and several questions arise. These include, what was it that drove James Erskine to these extraordinary lengths, why were so many individuals willing to participate in this illegal and dangerous kidnapping of his wife and how was she held for so long without rescue?"
I have no issue with the basic material, but we need to get away from the impression that you, individually, are leading and framing the terms of the discussion. Thus, I would expect the paragraph to begin someting like: "Critics have characterised Lady Grange's story as remarkable, and have identified several key questions requiring explanation". After the three questions I would expect to see citations to the critical sources that have raised these questions. Without such attribution, the questions read as the result of your personal analysis, which is OR. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also little doubt that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor." is followed immediately by an example: "Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children."- which is cited. Is the notion in doubt? It has rather been weighing on my conscience that Macauley devotes some thought to the issue of gender that has been rather skipped over - it's easy enough to add a few more bits of information and I'll give this some consideration - although I doubt the modern reader is in any doubt about the importance of the theme.
Done. Ben MacDui 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The notion is not in doubt, but you need to frame it so that it is presented as Macauley's view rather than your own. I don't have access to this source, but something like "In her account of the affair, Margaret Macauley emphasises that 18th-century attitudes to women in general were a significant factor, and that although numerous documents..." etc would be fine. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As for Lady Grange herself, her vituperative outbursts and indulgence in alcohol were clearly important factors in her undoing." Again this is sourced at the end of the following sentence. I will add the same ref to this sentence. Ben MacDui 10:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ben MacDui 11:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but I would still recommend the removal of "remarkably enough", unless the phrase can be specifically attributed. Likewise, "This may become easier to understand..." should be part of the same attribution. I hope I have made myself clear in expounding these issues, which are relatively small in the context of what I think is in general an excellent and star-worthy article. Please ping my talkpage if you are in any further doubt as to my concerns. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We still have the unattributed "By any standards..." and "remarkably enough..." etc, and until these are rephrased to eliminate the editorial voice, I must regretfully oppose. I have indicated how these problems can be resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 10:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly done.
  • Macauley does not really list the second "question" as a question in her preface but states that Grange's "mafia of male friends" helped him "find his own unique solution".
  • "18th-century attitudes to women in general" still needs attention but I think the rest are fixed. Ben MacDui 17:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more, if you would: "The question as to why no successful rescue was ever effected is easy to answer. The Hebrides were very remote from the anglophone world in the early 18th century and no reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]" The "easiness" of the question is a passing comment.; I suggest: "The reason why no successful rescue was ever effected lies in the remoteness of the Hebrides from the anglophone world in the early 18th century. No reliable naval charts of the area became available until 1776.[Note 12]". Brianboulton (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ben MacDui 14:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I think what you've done is reasonable. I intended to come back sooner but got distracted; anyway I've struck the oppose and the article looks ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all and many thanks for your detailed attention to the prose. Ben MacDui 08:58, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Nearly there, however I think a little more could be done along the lines Brian suggested earlier. Bit concerned with the use of "clear/clearly" in Motivations -- the wording suggests the average reader won't understand, which seems condescending. I realise you may be employing it to add a bit of zest to the writing, but it's also repetitive and we could surely lose a couple of instances, e.g. if "It is also clear that he was a philanderer and over-partial to claret" is a fact, why not just say "He was a philanderer and over-partial to claret"? Not sure we really need it in "it is clear that John Chiesley's daughter did not command a sympathetic audience in her home town" either. "Her position was clearly difficult. Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children." might be reworded to "Divorces were complex and divorced mothers were rarely given custody of children, making her position extremely difficult." to retain the emphasis but mix up the wording a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended to these three specific instances - "clearly" still appears once in the section. Happy to look at others if need be. Ben MacDui 19:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all works, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:28, 28 February 2012 [5].

Len Hutton

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Len Hutton was arguably one of the most important cricketers of the 20th century; one of England's best batsmen and the first professional to captain England officially, he also remains the holder of the highest Test innings by an England player. There was also plenty of controversy thrown in, mostly not of his making. I have been working on this article for a long time now. It is currently a GA and received a peer review recently. Brianboulton has also provided excellent comments and performed a copy-edit. I am aware that the article is on the long side but Hutton packed more than most into his career and I'm not sure too much more could be cut down and still keep it comprehensive. All comments gratefully received. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Only had a quick look of this, will post more if I have the time:

Comments – Have reviewed through the Leading batsman sub-section so far...

  • Remove second "the" from "he was the mainstay of the England's batting."
  • "and did so for the remained of his career." "remained" → "remainder". Don't particularly like seeing two glaring prose issues in the lead, where they should have been spotted already.
  • Early life: I see Joseph Verity and Verity's here. Does the name have the 's at the end, or is the latter usage missing a word afterward?
  • Test record score: Excess comma after "Hutton maintained caution throughout".
  • Series against South Africa and West Indies: "two days its conclusion, the Second World War began." Needs an "after" before "its", I believe.
  • First tour in Australia: "Nevertheless, he scored scored 1,552 runs at an average of 48.50." Double word in there.
  • Series against South Africa and West Indies: "Hutton played immediately he arrived against British Guiana". Could perhaps use another "after". Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leading batsman: Add "the" in "followed by 123 in fourth game".
  • Australia 1950–51: "under the captaincy of the amateur Brown. Brown...". Try to avoid this repetition from one sentence to the next.
  • Ashes victory: In "Hutton was retained by English captain", is "by" intended to be "as"?
  • Batting: "He was The official Yorkshire history describes him...". First two words should be chopped.
  • Redundancy in "One such innings was his innings of 37...".
  • For consistency, a space is needed between the page numbers and pp. in ref 26. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to Support: I did a long post-PR review which is to be found on the talkpage, and would like to see what other reviewers have to say before committing myself to full support. My general view is that the article is close to, if not already fulfilling, the FA criteria; maybe a few more brisk prose tweaks (I just did one myself), but not much else required? After further adjustments during this process I am convinced the article is eady for promotion now. The quality of WP cricket articles is definitely on the up, in no small measure due to Sarastro (who with a name like that really ought to be writing opera articles). Brianboulton (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Missing bibliographic info for Hodgson
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for books
  • Be consistent in whether page notation includes a space or not
  • FN 40: ISBN?
  • Check for wikilinking consistency
  • Be consistent in which locations include counties. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Marked out as a potential star from his teenage years, Hutton made his debut for Yorkshire in 1934 and quickly established himself - as a.....damn the sentence just seems to end. I think if we could reword it, it'd read nicer.....
including an innings of 271, and a partnership of 315 with Sutcliffe - does Howat mention the games these came in? Were they the same or different? Mentioning them would be a good way of showing the reader (I also like promoting state/county games :))

Otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "established himself. ... established himself" in the lead is repetitive.
  • "the amateurs who ran English cricket" could be read two ways! Can you clarify who "ran English cricket"?
  • Excellent point, which I fixed, but also made me realise the article did not really talk about the amateur-professional class thing going on at the time. I've added a couple of sentences to clarify this in the captaincy section for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with cricket sociology in the 1950s! --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if it's not too crass to add a link to Test cricket records somewhere in the article?
  • "county batsman" vs "County cap", is there a reason the second county is capitalised?
  • "his first two innings were failures" this may be a little tough for non-cricket types to grasp... can it be quantified?
  • "to prevent his overexposure to Championship cricket" maybe you don't know the answer to this, but what would have been wrong with him playing Championship cricket all the time?
  • The source states that the committee were "nurturing their young plant", but not why; the only other possible source for this is Hutton's first autobiography but there is no real reason here either as I imagine it was obvious to them: to prevent burnout or damage to his confidence or technique. But no source to say this that I can find, unless I've overlooked something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had scored only 73 runs in total" perhaps "scored a total of just 73 runs"?
  • "Selected for a Test trial" quickly followed by "selected for the first Test " is a little monotonous.
  • Perhaps, but I can't see a way around it here. The Test trial needs to be called that to avoid ambiguity, and it needs to be specified that he was selected for a Test match (just saying first game against NZ would not work without some tortuous construction to say it was a match for England, not Yorkshire or anyone else). --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he surpassed the previous highest Test score by an England batsman in a home match." is that referenced somewhere?
  • "On the third day (23 August)" so they had a rest day? Worth noting? Ah, "Next day, the Yorkshire batsmen "... it looks like, according to the scorecard, it wasn't the next day, they had the 21st as a rest day...
  • "in all matches 1,874 runs " if it were me, I'd have "1,874 runs in all matches..."
  • "supposedly "timeless" Test - when he scored 364, that was also "timeless" right? Would consider talking about that earlier?
  • Just out of interest, could you use Cricinfo's Statguru to list out his batting performances being specific about whether they were for Test matches or county matches etc using filters? I find that Cricketarchive page quite unhelpful!
  • All his Test innings are referenced to Statsguru; but that database doesn't cover county games. The Cricketarchive page could be filtered in this way, but there is no way that I know of to link to the results, and so the only way is the complete list page used here. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "high profile" be hyphenated?
  • "which lost the four-Test series 2–0 and failed to win a single match" the second part is obvious from the first unless you're referring to the entire tour (which may have included other matches?), in which case it's not clear.
  • "Miller bowled him " forgive me, can you just ensure you linked "bowled" in this context?
  • Feel free to link Bill O'Reilly!
  • "as astonishing" should that astonishment be in quotes?
  • "in 1951 with " personal preference but "in the 1951 season with..." would be better for me, linking "1951 season" instead of just the year.
  • "against Nottinghamshire and " I believe this to be one of the only (if not, the only) time you link an opposition county cricket club. I was going to ask why you hadn't linked them all, but now I'm having to ask why you'd link just that one?!
  • "a fast rate of scoring." I know that, you know that, but prove it!
  • Note 1 could use reference.
  • Ref 146 could use an author and a publication date.
  • Ref 228 could use a publication date.
  • Never keen on the succession boxes, really don't think they're necessary, but if you're going to keep them, en-dash required for the year range as England captain.
  • Nor am I, took it out.
  • ICC HoF and Wisden COTY awards are mentioned in the categories but not in the text. These are pretty prestigious awards...

The Rambling Man (talk) 11:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • CoY is mentioned (it was early in his career). I would argue that in the context of Hutton's career, HoF is not prestigious enough to include, to be honest. Given the relative quality of players included, I don't think this says much about him. The World XI selection would seem to give more weight to his "position". And as the article is so long, I'm not keen to include the relatively trivial award.
  • Support: TRM brought up most of the issues that I had, saves me the effort, eh! One minor point, more a personal preference really: wouldn't "before and after the Second World War.." be better written as "either side of the Second World War.."? As usual, really nice work on this article. Harrias talk 22:39, 25 February 2012 (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 23:12, 27 February 2012 [6].

Prosperity theology

[edit]
Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions), Mark Arsten 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors and I have been editing and improving this article since the summer. It achieved Good Article status on 21 December and was Peer Reviewed on 29 December; it has been under constant improvement throughout. It has now reached a stage where we believe the article covers everything relevant in appropriate depth. It has undergone a few copyedits for style, neutrality and the like (as well as regular ongoing improvements). The article is now comprehensive in coverage; written neutrally, with numerous reliable sources; and written to a good standard. We now believe that it is ready for Featured Article status. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • SupportComments Nicely written, and an interesting subject. I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them.
"three of the four largest churches". Is that church as in denomination or congregation?
There is a lot of criticism from other branches of Christianity, but not much rebuttal or other response. Surely some theologians have spoken for them? Also as this is now a multinational movement it would be interesting to get say a Buddhist response in Korea.
I was surprised that the Christian responses quoted have not focussed on Jesus clearing the money changers out of the temple or his teachings about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the gates of heaven.
Regards ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, your edits look good to me. I am really bad with capitalization :( I made the first change you suggested, I'll look around for information about the other two. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comments. I have added a short section on the influence of prosperity theology in South Korea, though that is still from a Christian perspective; I shall look out for comments from other beliefs. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a bit of a theological rebuttal, I hope it works there. I didn't find much in the way for criticism from Korea or non-Christian criticisms. I e-mailed a Korean friend of mine about it though, so they might know of something. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes, especially the Korean bit. I'm still just a tad concerned about balance, though I appreciate that is very different in such a context. Any established reliable source on theology is likely to be dismissive of this sort of thing, and I'm consciously restraining myself from asking for success stories. But on the narrow part of the criteria that I check I think it is ready. BTW A lead image other than the default Christian one might be in order, and if MOS doesn't deprecate see also sections I'd be tempted by Plutus ϢereSpielChequers 22:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks a lot for your support and comments. I'll try to take another look at the things you mentioned. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re the above, there is also the Sermon on the Mount, Matt 6:19–21; "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust duth corrupt ... for where your treasure is, there shall your heart be also". I reviewed this article at peer review, and will post further comments here shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Well thought out. I've made what I hope are a few stylistic improvements. Substantively I think it's a fine article.--John Foxe (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Lindberg Carter or Carter Lindberg? van or Van Biema? Time or TIME or Time Magazine? Check for naming consistency
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 36: are you missing a name here?
  • Check italicization in footnotes
  • FN 51: page(s)?
  • Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
  • What is OCMS? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: A thought-provoking article which will be a credit to TFA in due course. I gave a detailed peer review, hence my present comments are mainly fairly minor prose quibbles:-

  • Each of the four lead paragraphs begins "Prosperity theology..." You need to find ways of varying this phrasing. OK for the first and fourth, say, but change the beginnings of the other two.
  • Recommend add the parenthetical words "(reconciliation with God)" after the first mention of "atonement"
  • Theology section, fourth line: replace possibly ambiguous "teaching that" with "and teaches that"
  • Same section, third paragraph: replace awkward "with other teachers portraying..." with "while other teachers portray..."
  • You have introduced Copeland and Dollar without saying who thy are. One can find this information via the links, but that means leaving the article. A very brief description, such as "televangelist" or "Word of Fath teacher" would suffice. The principle should be applied to other first mentions in the text, e.g. T.D. Jakes in the "Practices" subsection
  • Recent US history: "As of 2006" sounds strange when we are in 2012. Not sure how to reword this, but perhaps: "By 2006, three of the four largest congregations in the United States had taught prosperity theology", (or possibly "were teaching")?
  • Author of The prayer of Jabez?
  • Theological criticism: I am confused by this sentence: "In Mark: Jesus, Servant and Savior, R. Kent Hughes notes that some rabbis taught that material blessings were a sign of God's favor, citing Jesus' statement in Mark 10:25 that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (KJV) as evidence to oppose such thinking.[42] I can only make sense of this if a full stop follows "a sign of God's favor", then "He cites Jesus' statement in Mark..." etc
  • "criticizing John Avanzini's teaching → " and criticizies John Avanzini's teaching". Later in the sentence: "...a misrepresentation and noting" becomes "a misrepresentation, noting..."
  • "Jones criticizes the doctrine's view of faith as a spiritual force..." I find that a little confusing. The essence of prosperity theology is surely its belief that faith confers material advantages.
  • What is "negative confession"?
  • Socioeconomic analysis: I recommend you don't use the exclusively American term "exurb", when "commuter town" would be understood by all, not just American readers.
  • Yung Hwa introduced without explanation or link

I will be happy to support when these cleared up. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I have done everything except for clarifying negative confession, which I will do later this evening/tomorrow. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I given a basic clarification of negative confession. If you think further explanation or an example is needed, let me know and I can do so later. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead.

  • Trying to think of synonyms to avoid the jingle here: "part of the path". I can't.
  • "the removal of sickness and poverty"—is there a better word than "removal"?
  • "Some prosperity churches also teach about financial responsibility, though some journalists and academics have"—can the doubling up of "some" be avoided?
  • critics ... criticized. It's OK, but if there's a substitute for one, I'd use it.
  • Logic problem in the timing and the different treatment of the middle class and the poor: "Prosperity theology has drawn followers from the American middle class and has become popular among the poor." Both are in the "gradual" past tense, but one involves popularity, and one has drawn followers. Why are the two social classes treated with different wording? (We assume the poor are American, too.)

It's pretty well-written, although I'm sure I'd nit-pick in the rest. Tony (talk) 06:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

An interesting topic, although not an idea I really agree with. —Andrewstalk 03:11, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Alright, I did the first two. I couldn't find evidence for the date of the third so I removed it. The website it was taken from claimed it was public domain, but didn't give any evidence. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on images —Andrewstalk 19:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Eisfbnore

  • "J. Matthew Wilson of Southern Methodist University compares the movement to Black liberation theology due to its focus on uplifting oppressed groups..." — the adjectival "due to" should be replaced with the adverbial "owing to", as its antecedent is another verb than "to be" ("compare").
  • "...the 19th century belief that the United States was entitled to the West." — "19th-century" should be hyphenated as it is a compound adjective.
  • Re: sources: Please don't mix cite and citation templates as they generate dissimilar punctuation (see Clifton 2009). Eisfbnore talk 14:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had almost forgotten this was open, no comments for two weeks! Alright, I fixed the two prose gaffs and the Cite book template. It's ok that we use Cite News in the References section though, right? Mark Arsten (talk) 14:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks - I did spotchecks on the online sources (numbers based on this revision). I checked 2a, 2b, 5a, 2c, 5b, 2d, 10a, 2e, 10c, 5e, 5f, 10d, 10e, 5g, 36a, 36b, 10f, 5j, 41, 43, 48b, 51, 52, 53, 56, 57, 58, 10g, 10i, 5k, 72, 75, 5i, and all were accurate and did not have close paraphrasing. The following are also accurate and not close paraphrasing, but I do have a few comments:

Based on what I read, I would not anticipate any of the off-line sources would have accuracy or close paraphrasing issues. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One more question/observation. Why did you break up the Assemblies of God source into separate citations that are page-specific (refs 51–55, 75) but you did not do the same thing for source #2? I don't know if it's incorrect, but it is inconsistent. It was easier to spotcheck the Assemblies of God refs, but I don't know if I would generalize that into saying that every reference should be page-specific. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made the references to that source page specific. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't realize you had done this. I formatted them further. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support on Spotchecks — All my comments and trivial pseudo-questions were addressed. This was an interesting read and the sources look good to me. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 17:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • quote marks? "Prosperity theology (sometimes referred to as the prosperity gospel or the "health and wealth" gospel) ..." - Not sure the quotes around "health and wealth" are needed ... anything in bold is a term that is getting defined.
  • Link - South Korea ... first use should be a link.
  • Post-lead definition: I would expect the first sentence after the lead to define PT. The 1st two sentences are: "Teachers of prosperity theology focus on personal empowerment, promoting a positive view of the spirit and body. The doctrine holds that Christians are entitled to well-being and, because physical and spiritual realities are seen as one inseparable reality, this is interpreted as physical health and economic prosperity." Maybe they should be reversed?
  • "They maintain that Christians ..." . The "they" applies to the teachers, but that is 2 sentences earlier. So, should probably restate "The teachers maintain..." or "Proponents maintain .."
  • Add link to caption: "The parable of the talents (as depicted in a 1712 woodcut) is often cited in support of prosperity theology...." Many readers skim captions, and so they should contain links, even if linked in body. Does "parable of talents" have a link? if so, put in caption.
  • Include links: " Frequently quoted verses include: ... " All bible verses in the article should use the {{bibleverse}} template. E.g. {{Bibleverse|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE}} so readers can click on in it and see the verse quoted in the context of the chapter.
  • Add date context: "The early Pentecostal Movement did not embrace prosperity theology. A recognizable form of the doctrine began to take shape within the movement during the 1940s and 1950s,..." - Need a date/year in the 1st sentence to establish timeframe of "early PM".
  • Add "Works" section - If there are a handful of books that are representative of the movement (i.e. well-known, or heavily commented upon by 2ndary sources) the article should have a "Works" section at the bottom, or perhaps just a "Further reading" section, listing them. But only do that if 2ndary sources designate the works as major/representative ... otherwise it may verge on OR if an editor (such as yourself) concocts a list.
  • New Thought movement: Including a sidebar Navbox for "New Thought" carries a lot of weight, yet the text of the article does not seem to support the strength of that. E.g. the article says "Coleman has speculated that modern-day prosperity theology borrows heavily from the New Thought movement, though he admits that the connection is sometimes unclear.". I'd recommend either (a) removing the NT sidebar; or (b) adding more material in the article justifying a strong connection.
  • What other movements? - "As is true of other prosperity movements, there is no theological governing body ..." Not clear what "this" movement is (Word of faith?) and what the "other" movements are.
  • More material? - "Church leaders are often criticized for abusing the faith of their parishioners by enriching themselves through large donations." - Are there more sources, more detail on this? I expected this to be a prominent issue, with more detail in the article.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes, Noleander. I have made most of the changes you have suggested. Since reversing the two sentences in the first section after the lead, the "They maintain that Christians ..." is only a sentence after a reference to the teachers, solving the ambiguity problem. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Bible verses & removed New Thought navbox. I've left the early Pentacostalism for now as I don't have the dates off the top of my head (I expect Mark can fix that quite easily). I'll have a look for any works and add what I find (I'll let you know when I do). ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks good. I changed my "Comments" to "Support", on the premise that the final couple of bullet items I added will be addressed. --Noleander (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I took care of the rest of your comments. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 23:23, 25 February 2012 [8].

Sinking of the RMS Titanic

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the 100th anniversary of the Titanic disaster is coming up on 14/15 April 2012. A number of editors, including myself, have been working on this article to get it up to featured status by the anniversary date, with the aim of having it on the main page on that day. As the anniversary will get a huge amount of coverage (films, television programmes, books, newspaper articles, exhibitions, memorial events etc) there is guaranteed to be a very large number of readers of this article on the anniversary date - it would be likely to be one of the most-read featured articles of 2012. A lot of work has been done on the article to get it up to standard; it's passed a Good Article review and I'm now nominating it for Featured Article status as the final step. Prioryman (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Support Oppose Comments
Dolphin51 X – –
North8000 X – –
Imzadi1979 X – –
Grandiose – – X
Lobo512 X – –
Jimknut X – –
DrKiernan X – –
Sarastro1 X – –
Ealdgyth X – –
The Rambling Man – – X
  • Support: This tragic maritime accident has fascinated the English-speaking world for a century. I agree with Prioryman that media coverage is likely to be huge for the 100th anniversary of the sinking in two months time. I have recently perused our article in great detail as part of the GA Review. It is a worthy account of the events and contains many snippets of information that are not widely known. The article is very well written and, as a result, makes fascinating reading. Dolphin (t) 01:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Imzadi1979

I'm just making some observations on the talk page at the moment. I anticipate supporting the article in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have gone unaddressed by the nominator. In the past, delegates asked that detail review commentary by a reviewer that anticipates supporting the article be placed on the talk page for the individual FAC. I have done so, but they've sat there unaddressed or undiscussed for the last 10 days. I cannot support promotion of the article with some basic changes to the text, and I may have to lodge formal opposition to promotion in the near future. Imzadi 1979 → 07:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I've been working through the comments here and on the talk page but I may have missed yours. I'll address them today. Prioryman (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Media review by Imzadi1979

All images are labeled as being in the public domain. The captions are all appropriate. As a side note though, I'd suggest that several of the images be cropped to remove the internal captions. The removed text should then be placed on the image description page. Imzadi 1979 → 02:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the captions as requested. Prioryman (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Link checks by Imzadi1979

The external links all check out, as does the disambiguation check. There is something flagged on the redirect review that needs to be cleared up. Imzadi 1979 → 01:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that one, the problematic redirect now points to the correct section. GRAPPLE X 03:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the candidacy. I think that the article could be further enhanced by expansion in the area of the sinking process itself and there are substantial difficult-to-digest sources on that. I was planning to do that someday but haven't yet. I hope that FA would not tend to freeze the article (make it too hard to edit) from further development. North8000 (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No Wikipedia article is ever finished, but if what we add later doesn't meet the FA standard in any respect, it will get downgraded. Rumiton (talk) 15:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to put the above comment on the article talk page, not here. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Nice article. A couple little things:

  • This bit sounds kind of repetitive: "The thoroughness of the muster was heavily dependent on the class of the passengers; the first-class stewards were in charge of only a few cabins, while those responsible for the second and third-class passengers had to manage large numbers of people... The second- and third-class stewards had to manage a far larger number of people and"
  • In the Notes section there are several instances of (a single) "p." for page ranges, or "pp." for single pages. There are also a couple of hyphens that should be en dashes (refs #16, 138, 147). Also, your system of writing page ranges seems inconsistent, e.g., ref #49 is 118–19, while ref #110 is 138–9 (c.f. refs #138, 141, 157— there may be others). Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've reformatted the refs to ensure a common system of writing page ranges. I can't find any hyphens that should be en dashes, so I assume someone else has taken care of that issue. Prioryman (talk) 23:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I find the Titanic story fascinating, so when I saw it was at FAC I just had to read through the article and offer some comments. I'm not really qualified to fully support or oppose, so I will just state my opinion of the article after reading through it (I have left specific comments, more like a peer review, on the talk page).

Prose: The article is easy to follow and is an exciting read. I was particularly impressed with the organisation of the article, and the flow between sections. I did find the writing a bit stiff at times, probably as a result of trying to make it clear what is happening. But often by tyring to make it clear, the sentences end up a bit forced and overly-wordy. I fully recognise how difficult it must be, so I don't blame you for this at all. There is also some ship jargon (confusing to a layman like me), and it occassionally lapses into a slightly inappropriate tone (more like it is telling a story). On the whole the prose is good though, and if a couple more people are willing to do some copy editing (I did a bit) then I think these problems could be ironed out.
Comprehensiveness: It is almost comprehensive, lots of detail about the actual sinking, but I think the background section should be expanded, and I also think there needs to be more about the changes it brought about to make ships safer (see my comments on the talk page). The lead also needs to mention more/something on the aftermath. Again, however, I imagine these problems could quite easily be fixed (so long as someone's willing to do the work).
Sourcing: I personally didn't like the fact that I often had to assume that one ref was convering several sentences. I'm a bit of a freak for referencing, so maybe my standards are too high, but I'd prefer to know that every fact is definitely verifiable. Sometimes I questioned if all the information seemingly attributed to one ref was definitely covered by it...Basically, I personally would like a higher rate of citations.

I really enjoyed reading about this fascinating event, thank you so much for your work on it (that applies to all main editors). It is impressive stuff. And I agree that it would be fantastic if it could be on the main page for the 100 year anniversary. It's a major event in history and that would be so good for wikipedia. I think it needs a bit more work, but not much. It could definitely be up to scratch over the course of this FAC, and I really hope other editors will work with you to get it promoted. If there's anything else I can do, let me know. :) --Lobo (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update: I am happy with the page now (it is comprehensive, and I was already being too picky about the prose and sourcing), and I think it should be a featured article. Like I said on the Jaws FAC I'm not sure if it's okay for me to give supports quite yet, but if it is: Support --Lobo (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Broken harvs

Comments

  • Well done article. It looks quite comprehensive to me. As for the background section being expanded (as mentioned above) I think the main article should handle that so I would add a "See" note at the top of this section. Also, two sentences in the introduction I would consider changing: 1) Rather than calling it "the biggest" passenger liner of her time I would say "the largest"; 2) Instead of "she hit an iceberg" how about "she struck an iceberg"? Jimknut (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • About the background, do you not think a couple more sentences, just to communicate the nature and importance of the ship, would be helpful for the article? I really do. --Lobo (talk) 20:01, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple issues - but I really like the work and research that has gone into this article. I hope you're proud of it!
    • Sentences like "They did not go quietly." should be avoided -- we're an encyclopedia, not a dramatic account of the event!
    • I wonder why Lynch hasn't been used more? Were the other sources just more encyclopedic? There's a ton of information in his account.
Comment: would love to see this one make FA, I really would. Have you considered reorganising the first sentence to say that that the Titanic sank? The "sinking of the Titanic" seems slightly odd - but I realise you want to get the article title in - there's no technical need to do so. I also fixed a typo. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:18, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do realise there's no technical need but I prefer to work the title into the first sentence of articles that I write - it makes for a more direct connection between title and article. I find it very irritating when intros don't correspond to article titles... Prioryman (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will return to the article after other reviewers have had a look. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spot check

All sources are high quality and reliable. There are two sources "Ballard 1987" but is the interview in Cruise Today used? If not, I'd be inclined to cut it. If it is, then please credit the writer as Hemphill, Mary Ann rather than Ballard.

It doesn't seem to be used - I must have intended to use it but then cut it while forgetting to also cut the reference. I've taken it out. Prioryman (talk) 11:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10]b: Failed verification. The American inquiry does not separate out women from children, so these figures are taken from the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry not the Senate one. All 6 1st class children were saved, and the number of male crew is 862, making the total 2201. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've amended this using the British figures. The table actually came from the previous version of the article (before I rewrote it). Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20]a: OK. I presume you've excluded China and the Netherlands because I don't see any Dutch at Passengers of the RMS Titanic and the Chinese are from Hong Kong? What determines the sequence of countries? I would place these alphabetically or in order of numbers on the ship.
  • I'm not aware of there being any Dutch, but the Chinese were, I believe, crew members rather than passengers. I think I've managed to find a detailed breakdown of nationalities which I'll see if I can add next week. The sequence of countries is fairly random to be honest. I've put them in alphabetical order. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [20]b: OK.
  • [23]: OK.
  • [24]: Article: "Captain Smith acknowledged receipt of the message..."; Source: "Captain Smith acknowledged receipt of the message..." I'm inclined to accept this as OK as there is no creativity in a simple sentence.
  • [26]a: OK.
  • [26]b: OK.
  • [26]c: OK.
  • [27}: OK.
  • [39]: Please format at "Broad 1997" to match the style format of the other citations, otherwise fine.
  • [59]: The quote is on page 71 of Beesley not page 36.
  • [99]: OK.
  • [110]a: Failed verification. Only the sentence "It is said to have played the hymn "Nearer, My God, to Thee" as the ship sank, but this appears to be dubious." is supported by the source.
  • [110]b: I only see support for "Wireless Operator Harold Bride said that he had heard "Autumn", which probably referred to Archibald Joyce's then-popular waltz "Songe d'Automne" (Autumn Dream)." I don't see mention of Jessop or Gracie. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [117]: The source supports the overall conclusion but you need to change one of the numbers. The figures for the women and third-class children are fine, but Howells and the British Wreck Commissioner's Inquiry say all the 1st and 2nd class children were saved. OK. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they are definitely from Beesley. There was an error in the text attributing them to Gracie but they are definitely from Beesley's account, of which I have a printed copy in front of me. Prioryman (talk) 10:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tracked down the discrepancy. These quotes are not in the online version of Beesley [9] linked in the article, and I was misled because Gracie quotes these words as Beesley's on page 55 of The Truth About the Titanic.[10]. I can tell from the page numbers that you're not using the original print or the online version but a reprint. There's a problem with the online version: pages 112 to 119 are missing. Evidently, in the original book these words are on those pages. I think we either have to use the original book or the reprint; currently it's a mix of the two. DrKiernan (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support—the article needs to provide conversions based for the ton measurements listed. Some further research is necessary to determine if they are long or short tons so that the appropriate metric conversions can be added. If I had to guess, I'd say that they are long tons because that was used for ship displacement measurements at the time. Either way though, until we can determine that, there's a bit of a gap, however small, in the coverage and accessibility of the article to readers in metric countries. Imzadi 1979 → 02:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/queries

  • I was expecting links to the people and ships listed in the infobox. Is there a reason they're not linked?
  • The sentence "The high number of casualties resulted from a lack of lifeboats" is not really correct, since the number of casualties was also caused by lack of response from the Californian and poor utilisation of the lifeboats. I think that sentence can be chopped and then the next two sentences become "There were only enough on board for half the passengers, and many lifeboats were not filled to their full capacity."
I've simplified this a bit, roughly along the lines you suggested. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was capable of carrying ... 600 tons of coal per day." Sentence too long.
  • "(equivalent to over $100,000 in 2012 prices)." is unsourced: the citation at the end of the paragraph is from 1998.
I've added the price given in the book but the $100,000 figure is a simple calculation - it's the original price ($4,350) converted to its present-day value using the consumer price index. In 1997 (when the source was written) that came to $80,000 in the prices then obtaining, but it's now equivalent to over $100,000. Prioryman (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be done using a template, or by adding the source used to calculate the modern equivalent, or by comparing it to the average wage at the time instead? DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the different numbers used throughout the article, there's no confusion in the infobox since the note covers the discrepancy, and the numbers in the lead are fine because they are clearly taken from the Senate report, which says 899 crew and 1324 passengers. Similarly, in the Casualties and survivors section, the opening note explains any difference between the previous Senate figures in the lead and the British figures used in this section. However, there is a problem in the Background section when another set of figures again is given. I think these should either match the opening Senate figures, or be changed to more rough figures that match all the sources (e.g. "about 890 crew and 1320 passengers").
  • I realised this morning that the figures used (892 and 1320) are exact averages of the two inquiries (senate: 899/1324 vs. british: 885/1316). They've probably been chosen on that basis. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "to middle-class travellers," could be dropped as the span is given by the two extremes.
  • Should "the RMS Lusitania and Mauretania", "the RMS Olympic," "the RMS Carpathia", be in the form "the Olympic" or "RMS Lusitania", (without the "the")?
  • "This message also never left ... significance of the message"." Sentence too long. Is the point contentious? If not, cut the attribution and qualification. If so, try "the wireless operator, Jack Phillips, may have been preoccupied" instead of "the British inquiry after the disaster reported that it was probable that the wireless operator, Jack Phillips, was preoccupied".
  • Spelling: realizing or realising?
  • "Further aft, Chief Engineer William Bell ... distress signals to get out." Long sentence; "to keep the ship's lights working and to maintain electrical power for as long as possible in order for ship's distress signals to get out." could perhaps be shortened to "to maintain electrical power for the ships's lights and radio."
Support I'm not aware of any. Thanks for the changes; I found this article both informative and emotive. Please try to resolve the numbers in the background section. DrKiernan (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support switched from Comments from Ealdgyth Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead:
    • "from Southampton for New York City." normal would be "from Southampton to New York City.", wouldn't it?
    • Really .. do we need to link "iceberg" in the lead?
      • I didn't add it, but it seems harmless enough, and if you click through there is info in the article on the danger of icebergs to shipping and maritime safety measures relating to icebergs. That's pretty relevant, and this is a wiki, after all. Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background:
    • Need a citation on "of unrivalled extent and magnificence" ...
  • 09:00:
    • Citation for the quote "bergs, growlers and field ice" and "passing icebergs and large quantities of field ice" and "passed two large icebergs" and "three large bergs" and "Saw much heavy pack ice and great number large icebergs. Also field ice"
  • 23:40:
  • Effects:
    • Need a citation on "series of deformations in the starboard side that start and stop along the hull ... about 10 feet [3.0 m] above the bottom of the ship"
  • 0:05:
  • 0:45:
    • Need a citation on "We are safer here than in that little boat."
    • Need a citation for "It is only a matter of form to have women and children first. The ship is thoroughly equipped and everyone on her will be saved" and "Go, Lottie! For God's sake, be brave and go! I'll get a seat in another boat!"
  • Launching:
    • Need a citation on "weren't British, nor of the English-speaking race ... [but of] the broad category known to sailors as 'Dagoes'."
    • Need a citation on "I did my duty. I hope I finished [the man]. I don't know. We left him on the cabin floor of the wireless room, and he was not moving."
    • Likewise for "a mass of humanity several lines deep, covering the boat deck, facing us"
    • "Captain Smith's fate is unclear, but he was reported as being seen on the bridge as the ship went down." A bit awkward - suggest "Captain Smith's fate is unclear, but he was reported as being on the bridge as the ship went down."
  • 02:15:
All of the above quotes need a citation on the sentence they are in, if not directly on the quote ... otherwise, I'll be glad to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All quotes now done. Prioryman (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support, and let me just praise this article - it's very readable and quite enjoyable. Excellent excellent work! Ealdgyth - Talk 13:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, inclined to support: This is a very readable article which does not drag despite its length. An excellent piece of work and seems comprehensive to a non-expert. Just a couple of minor points; once these and Ealgyth's points are addressed or replied to, I will switch to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "among them the famously "unsinkable" Margaret "Molly" Brown, who was lowered down from the deck as the boat was being lowered.": Not too sure about this: firstly, close repetition of "lowered". Secondly, describing her as "famously unsinkable" does not seem to be encyclopaedic as most readers will have neither heard of her nor know that she was "unsinkable".
  • "It was aboard this boat that J. Bruce Ismay, Titanic's most controversial survivor, made his escape from the ship, for which he was later reviled for a perceived act of cowardice.": Who says he was controversial? Reads as editorial voice. And not sure about "for which he was later reviled for a perceived act of cowardice"; it seems a little inelegant compared to the rest of the prose. Maybe "…escape from the ship, an act later condemned as cowardice" or "an act perceived later as cowardice".
  • There's an entire book about Ismay's escape from Titanic - the newly published (and quite well received) How to Survive the Titanic: Or, the Sinking of J. Bruce Ismay [11]. "Controversial" is very much the term to use, since he was probably the most reviled survivor and lived in semi-seclusion for much of the rest of his life. I've reworded it a bit, along the lines you suggest. Prioryman (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where bodies had once lain before being devoured by sea creatures": Seems a little dramatic to say "devoured".
  • "Eventually she will be reduced to a patch of rust on the seabed, mingled with her more durable fittings in the eternal darkness at the bottom of the North Atlantic.": Again, seems a little too dramatic, particularly "eternal darkness".
  • Bulkheads: I'm not too clear on this paragraph. I cannot really picture what is being described: did the bulkheads stretch across several decks and how did they relate to the watertight doors? Also, if they were open at the top, how did this translate to the ship's design? Were there "gaps" in the "walls" of the compartments? Are there any diagrams that would help? And finally, if these bulkheads allowed water to flow over them, how does this relate to the idea that four compartments could have flooded and the ship remain afloat? Presumably, the spillage only occurred when the ship was listing enough to "spill" the water, but this could be made clearer. This was the only section which I was not clear about. I suspect I am now rambling, so feel free to ignore this as it is probably me being a little dim.
  • "It was difficult to hear anything over the noise of high-pressure steam being vented up the funnels from the boilers.": Was this a result of the accident, or was it a common problem on deck? If not, why was steam being vented at this time? Forgive me if I missed something. --Sarastro1 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were two kinds of boilers involved. First the very large ones that produced the steam that drove the ship. Whenever the ship's main engines are suddenly stopped from full speed the pressure in the system needs to be released by valves that open automatically on top of the boilers, letting the steam escape up the funnels. This was the noise everyone heard on deck. The other boilers were the smaller "donkey" boilers, used to provide heat for cabins and generate electricity. These were the ones that were manually vented later as the water level rose in the boiler rooms. Rumiton (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Very happy with the changes. The diagrams really add to it too. Fantastic stuff. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost ready for support: Some minor suggestions first:

  • "when she hit an iceberg at 23:40" - when she struck an iceberg at 23:40
  • "but was travelling at nearly her maximum speed" - but was travelling near her maximum speed
  • "suites costing $4,350 for a one-way passage (equivalent to over $80,000 in 1997 prices)." - Needs a footnote and why 1997 prices? Why not 2012 prices?
  • "He had decades of seafaring experience" - Be more specific. How many decades?
  • "and had previously captained Titanic's sister ship" - and had previously served as captain of Titanic's sister ship Jimknut (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All copyedits done. On the cost issue, see the discussion with DrKiernan above under "Comments/queries" - the source was written in 1997 so gives the equivalent values as of that date; I had originally used a consumer price index calculation to convert it to 2012 prices but he wasn't happy about that, so I simply used the figure from the source. It does have the disadvantage of being a bit out of date, which I presume is why you've picked up on it. Prioryman (talk) 21:38, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support — Article looks good. Jimknut (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments very good indeed, some tiny technical issues...

  • I thought (somewhere in MOS) we discouraged the use of bold links (i.e. the RMS Titanic link in the opening sentence)...
  • Image captions - complete sentences or captions which have full stops in preceding sentences should end with a full stop.
  • "16 wooden and 4 collapsible." doesn't need that full stop.
  • Curious as to why the initial sorting of the "Passenger category" isn't the same as when you sort it once by that column. (I usually operate on the rule of thumb that I can always get back to how the list was originally formatted by sorting it by one of the col headings...) I note the good use of row and col scopes so I would imagine it should initially be sorted alphabetically by passenger category.
  • "Lord alone has 3 numbers" three numbers.
  • Ref 1 needs an en-dash.
  • Ref 15 needs an en-dash.
  • Refs 21 and 22 are the same so re-use one.
  • Compare ref 15 (pp 150-151) to e.g. ref 31 (pp 43-4) - be consistent with the number of digits you include in the second half of the page range (e.g. either make the first one pp 150-1 or the second pp 43-44...)

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed several of these, but most of these issues concern things in the infobox - there is a discussion about the box's contents on the article's talk page at the moment, so these issues may well go away as a result of that. Prioryman (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment – I have decided that this article is ready for promotion. Please ensure that the remaining minor issues are quickly resolved, particularly my concern over the the citation needed tag. Graham Colm (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 13:34, 25 February 2012 [12].

James Tod

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sitush (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has been developed from a poor copy/paste of Britannica 1911 into a substantial, rounded article that achieved GA in August 2011, has been peer reviewed by User:Finetooth, and has input from others with FAC experience such as Saravask and Fowler&fowler. There have been several suggestions that I should put it forward as a FAC. Sitush (talk) 09:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief comment: The first paragraph of the lead should include more than just who the subject was. It should include the main reason(s) why he is interesting and/or notable, and thus provide some sort of a hook for the reader. Otherwise, from my quick scan, the article looks impressive. Brianboulton (talk) 23:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I'll have a think about how to deal with that over the next day or two. My past admissions that lead sections are not my strong point are scattered far and wide on en-WP! - Sitush (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bibliography entry for ODNB doesn't mention the author, and is rather oddly formatted
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • FN 20: not clear what source this refers to
  • Koditchek or Koditschek?
  • Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not
  • Be consistent in whether shortened footnotes include dates where there is only one work by that author
  • FN 44: why not cite to East India Company?
  • FN 46: title doesn't match that used in Bibliography
  • Be consistent in whether locations and publishers are provided for journals
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two ODNB entries. The ODNBweb template only works for the present online ODNB, afaik, and hence the older ODNB is referenced differently. I was advised not to mention the author names (at least one was in there originally) but, obviously, things can be twiddled as necessary. This would mean abandoning ODNBweb.

    I have never understood the "Be consistent in whether ranges are abbreviated or not" statement & would appreciate clarification. As for the rest, I'll resolve them after I've had a much-needed sleep. Thanks for the input. - Sitush (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further thoughts: your comments regarding alphabetisation and FNs 20, 44 & 46 all boil down to something that I have been trying to get my head round for some time. How should I cite items with no given author, and how should they be ordered in the bibliography (eg: by article name or publication?) - Sitush (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ranges, compare for example "Sreenivasan (2007), pp. 126–127." with "Tod (1829), Vol. 1., pp. 125–6." - notice how one shortens the range and the other does not? As to anonymous works, I've most often seen them cited by title (either book title or article title), and alphabetized the same way. However, you can choose another method if you prefer, so long as a) it's applied consistently, and b) it's clear which citations correspond to which bibliography entries. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks. I think that I have fixed where appropriate, with the exception of your ODNB point. Would you prefer that I abandon the {{ODNBweb}} template, as that would appear to be the crux of the problem? The blurb at ODNB says "Stephen Wheeler, ‘Tod, James (1782–1835)’, rev. Roger T. Stearn, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004" but there are much, much more complex versions listed (eg: MLA). - Sitush (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From where I sit, here are your options wrt that template: abandoning it, and replacing either with a different type of template or hand-coding it; keeping it but hand-coding the author in front of it; changing the shortened citation to not use the author name. I have a preference, but it's based on what I like rather than what's actually required, so I'll leave it to you to decide which of those options you would prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I will abandon it. Give me a few hours as it is late here. Somewhere last year, the template was introduced to me in a GA situation. I was (am!) fairly green. I thought that the introducer was Malleus but I discovered in the last week or so that he didn't even know the thing existed. I am not trawling through all of my edits to work out where or why: if you and Malleus both are both effectively non-cognisant then I am happy to go with that flow. I do not dispute that it looks odd. Your comments are appreciated. This entire exercise is turning into quite a formative experience for me, which is no bad thing. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "and give reason for the inhabitants not to be swayed by outside forces" seems forced into place, the resulting sentence made clunky and difficult; a barrier to smooth reading. Binksternet (talk) 15:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Lead:] I don't like "later" in "...educated in Scotland, later joining the East India Company..." In one way, it's redundant, and if it is not (for instance, if people in Scotland don't join the EIC, or if it is important that he got his degree first), then another transitional word or phrase would be in order.
  • [Lead:] "particularly among those whose ancestors he praised"--"those" suggests either an antecedent (which there isn't) or a noun of some sort. Not grammatically, of course, but rhetorically. Those castes? tribes?
  • [Lead:] Maybe combining the last two short paragraphs look better?
  • Yes, they are short. But no, I really do not see how they can be combined. The paragraph really does look like a natural break to me in this instance. But I am not involved in English language academia. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Life and career:] My congratulations for "whence"--well done. It's underused.
  • [Life and career:] "...what he perceived to be the chivalric values of those times"--this reads like he had a historical sense, but I assume you mean he perceived the importance of the values of those times to his own time.
  • No, it really was a historical sense. Sure, he and others wanted to transpose the past to the present but the root of the romanticism was that he really, really was attuned to the mores of that age. Hence his pride in the Robert the Bruce link etc.
  • [Life and career:] "Artist, Ghasi, Rajputana" is the caption for the first image--I am not sure about the first comma.
  • [Life and career:] "appointment to which position was at the time"--could you be any more BE? ;)
  • [Life and career:] "He was appointed lieutenant ..."--that's a lot of to's and as's and an and in that sentence.
  • Yes. I have tried to to to amend it as as as as best I can in in in the circumstances. Again, if anyone has a better suggestion then it would be welcomed. That thing has grated with me for a while but I needed some sort of push to do something about it. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Life and career:] "He suffered from poor health for much of his life before and after..."--I don't see why this comes here. Without the before, it suggests cause and effect, but with before and after, it appears to be randomly placed--a general comment at a precise moment. Perhaps it is better placed after the quote that follows, in the sentence mentioning his return.
  • [Life and career:] "He had suffered a similar fit..."--this is odd, since it is the last sentence of the section and comes after the report on his death. If there is an unspoken assertion about the cause of his cause of death, so to speak, it should be explicated; if not, it is better placed chronologically, earlier in the same paragraph, or perhaps after the children and mention of his declining health.
  • [Worldview:] "Norbert Peabody has gone further..."--in AE, I wouldn't use this verbal perfect construction and would replace with a simple preterite, but this may be part and parcel of y'all's peculiar dialect. Also, who are Koditschek and Peabody? Are they important? Are they scholars, biographers, cultists, experts? A phrase for each would help give context and authority.
  • Oh, now you are losing me. I've fixed the introductory stuff but when people make up words such as "preterite", well, I am lost. You'll have to point me to something that explains the term. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "then-fashionable"--I approve of your hyphen. Well done, sir.
  • [Worldview:] the wikilink for Romantic nationalism actually points back as well, to the comment by this Sreenivasan (BTW, I don't know who that is--see Koditschek, above), and perhaps the term could be placed/explained there, to give the proper context for the term in that quote.
  • [Worldview:] the parenthetic "both geographical and political" is set off with, you know, them hyphen things, but my MOS (the MLA) dictates no spaces around them.
  • Yes, I noticed that you did an edit in the last few hours based on "my MOS", which would appear to be MLA given this comment. I am lost here. WP:MOS is a moving target and mentions various recognised "real world" manuals of style. To be honest, I do not care as long as everyone else is happy. Flow, go with. - Sitush (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "However, his successes in arranging these matters via treaties did not extend to a third pillar of his beliefs." I can dig where you're coming from, but this needs rephrasing--successes that extend to a metaphorical something, especially since I don't know that the other two pillars are. Perhaps Romantic nationalism is the first? what's the second? (Don't remind me of that embarrassing "pillar" photograph of yourself.)
  • The photo was at Eagle Crag. Pillar is somewhere else, although I've strolled up that one also. I do not see the issue here, unless there is a problem with counting ;) "Tod's belief in the then-fashionable concept of Romantic nationalism dictated that 1 each princely state should be inhabited by only one community and this led to the expulsion of Marathas, Pindaris and other groups from Rajput territories. It also 2 dictated redrawing the territorial boundaries of the various states in order to better delineate them as separate entities, where previously some lines – both geographical and political – had been blurred, primarily due to local arrangements based on common kinship. However, his successes in arranging these matters via treaties did not extend to a third 3pillar ..." Either I am missing your point or the phrasing is unclear. I would appreciate some advice. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the metaphor "pillar" is not helpful. Successes cannot extend to begin with, and certainly not to a pillar. I think you should begin by recasting the first sentence of the paragraph: it's not his belief that dictates, it's Romantic nationalism. Then, who did the expelling and the redrawing? Tod? How the sentence can be recast depends on your answer to that question. "Guided by the then-fashionable concept...Tod believed that each princely state...and had the Marathas etc. expelled. He also redrew..." Then, I don't know what the third thing is, a thing that apparently he didn't believe in. I think, from what I might know about Romantic nationalism, that the idea is that British rule somehow or other should be superior when in actual fact it's just another overlordship. Is that on the right track?

    Then, paragraph break for indirect rule, I would suggest. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Worldview:] "indirect rule", I just learned, is a notable concept. Consider wikilinking.
  • Meh. Linked. This is one of those do we/don't we links. Imo, most people understand the term, but then I am a Brit and indirect rule is as recent as Northern Ireland. - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was news to me--but of course my country has no colonial history at all, and nothing to repent for. I don't think that it would be clear to many US readers. As I just said above, I think it should be a separate paragraph: it's long enough, and it's not necessarily connected to the concept of Romantic nationalism. Now, if my thoughts (above) on your third pillar are correct, and Tod criticizes one aspect of colonialism that would otherwise be accepted by Romantics, then you have a possible transition. "Another aspect of colonialism that Tod both supported and criticized..." Drmies (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Worldview:] "most notably because he thought"--I don't see how his views acquired a political aspect because he thought something. It seems to me that his views on some (possibly more abstract) matter have a political aspect or they don't; if they acquire it it should be because of some development, i.e, "in the course of time he began to think" or some such thing. Or, "the political consequence of this view was..." You're using notably twice in the beginning of this paragraph--perhaps none is enough.
  • [Worldview:] "granting sovereignty to the Rajputs" is not an argument.
  • [Worldview:] "Mughals" is not wikilinked; the next section has Mughal empire wikilinked. Link the early occurrence. Also, link Marathas (piped).
  • [Worldview:] "Above all, it saw character"--what's it? appeal? feudal system?
  • [Worldview:] "there were claims that"--he acknowledged that there were claims? sounds a bit redundant. He acknowledged that blood ties played a part? then trim.
  • [Publications:] "Metcalf believes of the Rajputs" is an awkward construction: he believes something by Tod about the Rajputs, I think.
  • Image: "Painting of Tod seated on an elephant (October 1822)"--is the image from October 1822, or is that when he was on the elephant? The parentheses suggest the former.
  • Image: "The residency in Udaipur, which was the home of the resident or political agent". In the article you have Political Agent, both with initial caps, I believe. Also, why "or"? Is this Tod's home when he was a Political Agent?
  • Fixed, although whether it was Tod's home cannot be ascertained from the source that I have provided - date of construction is not given. - Sitush (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll fix the caps (they should both be so, imo). Regarding the issue of whether it was Tod's home, well, this comes back to Fowler's image work. He is travelling at the moment but I'll see if I can get to the source via a proxy. - Sitush (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Publications:] Section beginning "In the preface to his Annals..." is a long quote, and it needs a transitional phrase to indicate relation to the topic or to the preceding paragraph, and (I think) it needs an explanation of what is in the quote (and thus a justification of why we have the quote). Also, the next paragraph needs a transition/topic sentence.
  • [Criticism:] "The introduction to his Travels..."--this is Tod speaking? No--this was published posthumously, and it's an unnamed editor (if I remember correctly)? Clarify/contextualize.
  • {Criticism:] I am not sure how a propos Macaulay's criticism is. He's of Tod's time, so he's not one of the critics who deem Tod's sources to be unreliable, right? Or, if he and Crooke count as "today"'s critics, I see those comments as simply dismissive of Indian sources rather than as historically suspect--at any rate, Macaulay's and Crooke's criticism are not, in my opinion, on a par.
  • I disagree. William Crooke (another one of mine) was writing 90 years later and was a noted folklorist when most of his contemporaries, such as Herbert Hope Risley (ditto), were scientific racists. In other words, he was nearer to Tod's way of thinking than most and yet still took him to task. The opinion of Macaulay, like James Mill, is relevant because it shows that people considered the sources that Tod used to be suspect even around the time that Tod was writing. - Sitush (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. Well, I think Macaulay's comment (I just reread it) sounds like typical white man's we-know-better speech: maybe it's out of context, but it seems to point to quality, not to some argument about the value and accuracy of historicity (unlike Crooke's comment). And one other thing: Macaulay is not commenting on Tod in your source, so why bring him in? I don't want to cry SYNTH, but do you really need him? BTW, consider rephrasing "That introduction continues by saying that" (which is a transition for the sake of a transition) with someone that drives home the point from the first sentence, about his reliance on historically unobjective or unreliable material. What I'm saying also is that you don't need Macaulay since Crooke's point seems strong enough.
  • I do not see this as SYNTH but will re-visit that article to be sure. The point is that the shaky foundations of Tod's sourcing were known even around his own time. Macaulay was in India himself. Yes, it may be a typical white man's reaction etc, but it is one that still applies today (eg: Donkin is among the many current scholars who dismiss the Puranas and other ancient Indian texts, with the notable exception of Kalhana's Rajatarangini). I forget which of the modern sources it is, but one of them specifically makes this point and uses Macaulay to illustrate it. It is probably Freitag & I could check if necessary. We have a contemporary (Macaulay), we have a more recent editor who empathised with Tod (Crooke) and we have the modern scholars, all saying the same thing: this is a consistency of criticism regarding ancient sources that spans 175 years or so, and yet in Rajasthan today Tod is still held in very high esteem. Anyway, I'll take another look at WP:SYNTH and, yes, look at the transition etc. - Sitush (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what Freitag (2009), p. 18 says: "In 1835, the year of Tod's death, Macauley published his "Minute on Indian Education", famously declaring the worthlessness of the sum of India literature as compared with that of Europe. Tod had, by then, devoted over thirty years of his life, and unknown sums of money, to the collection, analysis and publication of this very literature and history." The Donkin bit, however, is probably a breach of WP:SYNTH. - Sitush (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a think and, ok, maybe I am being specious but the paragraph opens with "Tod relied heavily on existing Indian texts for his historical information and most of these are today considered unreliable." (My emphasis). Given that, even Donkin seems appropriate, despite him not mentioning Tod at all. Am I pushing my luck here? - Sitush (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Bibliography:] I don't think that "on the website of the" (in italics) is necessary for the ODNB entry, but I could be mistaken.
  • This comes back to the Nikkimaria point, I suspect. Guided by (probably) Malleus in a past GA for Isaac Perrins, I was introduced to the ONDBweb template. It seems to me that this is creating problems in a FAC situation. If you and Nikkimaria want to conflab or just basically tell me that this is not the way to do things then I'll switch it to a standard cite template with an ODNBsub attached. Is that the solution? - Sitush (talk) 00:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you feeling any sharp pains yet, Drmies? I am sticking pins in a photograph of you. Can I intersperse my comments in the appropriate bullet points above? - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have an aversion to pink, due to my numerous nieces. Kernow is beyond me, although I did once manage to kick a goal in a rugby match whereby the ball travelled so far that it started in Cornwall and landed in Devon. Strong in body, weak in mind? - Sitush (talk)
  • A general remark on style: Sitush, FAs are strange things, I find, when it comes to style. For instance, that ODNB entry/template, I know nothing of the discussion you mentioned: all I can do is point out what strikes me as odd or noteworthy, one way or another. If it is the proper way to do it according to whatever WP guidelines, it's fine with me. Whatever Malleus says, whatever Nikkimaria says, that's probably more correct than what I say. Similar with the hyphens etc--you don't have to do what I suggest, and what I hope is that someone here will point out what the standard is here, and I am gladly overruled. Let me put it another way: I'm probably better as a proofreader for actual language than as a copyeditor for the stylistic minutiae (no disrespect intended to the FA process). Drmies (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There are just many too images stacked on the right. Please remove some images and stagger right-and-left the images per prescribed in MOS
  • WP:MOSIMAGES says that they can be place left and right, not that they must be. Personally, I find articles that have them scattered around more difficult to read. Is this really that significant? Fowler&fowler added all but the first image and presented them mostly in a gallery, which looked odd. Someone else stacked them in the form that they are now presented (they had a chat with F&f first) and it looks better to me. - Sitush (talk) 20:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Context:
    • " "high standing", according to Jason Freitag": Who is Jason Freitag? or why is his view notable? Add a short description of important eg. orientalist Jason Freitag or author of "ABC", Jason Freitag ... Similarly, names like Robert the Bruce, Reginald Heber, Krishna, Mira bai etc. need descriptions
  • I am loathe to go into any depth about linked names such as Robert the Bruce and Mira Bai. They just add complexity. It is explained that Freitag is his major (only significant) biographer. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relate Rajputana and Rajasthan in lead. May seem like 2 places to something unfamiliar with India.
  • There is no info about Tod's Jain guru in the main text.
  • Because none has been found beyond the fact that he was some sort of servant who helped out with translations from time to time - all rather vague. I'll look again, just in case I've missed something. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the Rajasthan note related to "Central India"???
It appeared to me as though Rajasthan was called "Central India". --Redtigerxyz Talk 11:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names, gender of children??
  • 2 sons, 1 daughter. One has the wonderful name of Grant Heatly Tod-Heatly, then there is Edward H. M. Tod and Mary Augusta Tod. But none of them appeared to have any notability in their own right & so I did not see any need to go into further detail. Is this not fairly normal practice? - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quote "Being desirous of epitomising...": Relate Poorán to Purana, "genealogies of the great races of Soorya and Chandra" will be unclear to a non-Indian reader
  • Yes, this is an the issue with the MOS guidelines for links in quotes (see below). I suppose that since they are only guidelines, they can be ignored but I would rather have some additional support here for doing that. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not talking about links. I am talking about clarity and readability to a non-Indian reader. A non-Indian will assume Puranas and their sacred volumes, the Pooráns are two different things.
  • I am non-Indian ;) Point taken, though. Can this be done as a footnote? There is also the old "Rajpoot" spelling, for example, and we're going to end up with a lot of qualifiers inside quotations unless a single footnote listing and linking archaic spellings is used. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you paraphrase rather than quote. That will solve the problem. Also it is abstract (inconsistent) to use "took advice on linguistic issues from a panel of pandits" and then pundhits in the quote. Other examples Jetty Gyanchandra. I suggest use all current spellings for consistency. Also " the great races of Soorya and Chandra" should be explained. "Soorya and Chandra" are not kings, but gods Surya and Chandra. Tod is talking about Suryavansha and Chandravanshi kings. May be you need to link. Also relate "Rajas'han" to Rajasthan. --Redtigerxyz Talk 14:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:MOSQUOTE - "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader". I am not convinced that Jats or Gurjars need to be linked: the context is obvious and there is a search box at top right. - Sitush (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I making some edits to the article. If you disagree, please revert. Also, comments are cosmetic in nature and should not be seen as an oppose to this article. IMO, this article is very close to FA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't disagree with them :) You are the second person to mention the nature of comments here. I am a little concerned that people may think I am taking their comments as (non-constructive) criticism. It might be the way that I am responding but, please, it is not in fact the case. If something makes for a better article then that's what it does ... and that is why I am here. All input is gratefully received. - Sitush (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • tentative support in terms of prose and structure. Nothing gaping appears missing but I am not familiar with subject matter at all (I just saw the prose praised above and got curious...). Prose is engaging. I have not checked the referencing and might do that later if I get a chance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am surprised that the contribution of one person, who is a relative newcomer and has a clear lack of grasp of policy, can destabilise something to this extent. However, Drmies had earlier raised a concern regarding the sentence in question and I have now removed it. It was useful but scarcely essential. - Sitush (talk) 07:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*Support. I see a clear behavior of WP:OWN. I pointed out that Macaulay was no historian and his criticism of Tod is irrelevant. I supplied the quotes and I got hammered by Sitush, Drmies and his other friends that I am wrecking a featured article. Whatever I wrote was undone. Just check the history of James Tod. Now I see they have removed Macaulay but they did not let me edit it. Is it true that only Sitush and his friends are allowed to touch James Tod article? Ror Is King (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Accusations of ownership represent an objection about me, not the article. The Macaulay point which you contested has been removed; your edits were expanding the article into an unrelated area and thereby losing its focus, as was discussed on the article talk page. It was either keep the quote or remove it. I've removed it. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The criticism section is blatant POV pushing by you. It is not balanced at all. The remaining criticisms against Tod can be easily refuted too for a balanced POV only if your friends just allowed other users to edit the page. The irony is that I dug up all the counter points against Macaulay and in a very un-scholarly way you credit Drmies for removing Macaulay bit in the article here: [13]. And till yesterday Drmies was pontificating to me how I am wrecking the FA article for pointing out that Macaulay cannot be used to judge Tod : [14]. I am very curious as to what facts about Macaulay you heard from Drmies beyond what I had written that made you attribute the removal of Macaulay to Drmies. I should also point out that just a few minutes I added this in support of Tod as a scholar: [15] but your supporter Joyson Prabhu reverted it because he did not like the title of my edit [16]. Now how am I supposed to edit Tod when you and your supporters engage in an edit war? Ror Is King (talk) 11:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues raised are being examined at Talk:James_Tod#Revert_of_recent_additions.2C_pending_source_detail. There is no case to answer, imo. - Sitush (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The prose is deeply engaging and the article seems to be extensively well-researched, in addition to being well-written. The nominator appears to have taken care of all the issues raised so far. I have been unable so far to find any more issues, and unless someone finds another issue with this article, i think its ready to be promoted! Joyson Prabhu Holla at me! 10:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [17].

Birth control movement in the United States

[edit]
Nominator(s): Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this article for Featured Article status because it is an important chapter of United States history which deserves to be well represented in this encyclopedia. The article has been through a GA review and a Peer Review. I'm familiar with the FAC criteria, and I've had one article promoted to FA before. I'm prepared to make any improvements to the article required to meet FA standards. Thanks for your consideration. --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note inconsistent use of named refs, sometimes used, sometimes not. I was gonna {{sofixit}}, but didn't know if you wanted them in or out. If you keep them, fix them for: Engelman, p. 134; Engelman, p. 148; Engelman, p. 160; Engelman, p. 167; Engelman, p. 6; Engelman, p. 92; Engelman, pp. 101–103; Engelman, pp. 107–109; Engelman, pp. 113–115; Engelman, pp. 13–14; Engelman, pp. 132–133; Engelman, pp. 92–93 (In her memoirs, Sanger often understated or entirely omitted the contributions of fellow activists); Hajo, p. 85. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to work on the article: your copyedits are great. Regarding the references: I thought long and hard about that: I was balancing two competing goals (1) using "name"d footnotes to reduce the bulk of the Footnote section; and (2) avoiding multiple footnotes at the end of sentence.[1][2][3] by using WP:CITEBUNDLE. I struck a compromise: I used Cite bundling everywhere (so every sentence has at most one footnote), and I used named footnotes everywhere (that did not interfere with bundling). Thus, some cites are duplicated but only if they are bundled together with another cite. So, there is method to the madness. That said, if the reviewers decide that all must be named, I can undo the bundling. Or, if all must be not named, I can undo the naming. Personally, I like it the way it is, but I'm flexible. --Noleander (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But there are still problems with the refs: who is Praeger? Who is Baker? What does (Goldman/Sanger) mean? I forgot to check for all of these, or more accurately, forgot to check if you were using templates or not for your refs. You aren't, so these have to be checked manually... –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that oversight: Baker is a reference work that got dropped; I've added it back into the Refs section. Praeger is the publisher of the book by Lynn (Praeger is not an author). Goldman/Sanger: Footnote 25 is supporting a sentence that has several facts in it, and four distinct sources are used to support that one sentence. After each source, there is a terse parenthetical comment (e.g. "Goldman/Sanger") identifying which fact the source is supporting. I'll re-word those comments to be more understandable. --Noleander (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet comments
  • The article does not tell the reader whether the US was in advance of other countries or trailing them in regard to birth control. The global setting should be made more plain at each relevant stage. Was America first to ban contraceptives by post in 1873? Was America's NBCL the first birth control advocacy group? Was the 1916 Brooklyn birth control clinic the first in the world? The reader does not find the answers here. Certainly the article must be about what was going on in the US but it cannot be presented in a vacuum. Binksternet (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Footnote 40 does contain a brief mention that England and Netherlands were the two pioneering countries, before the US, in birth control clinics. I'll move that info into the body and beef it up. --Noleander (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I created an entire paragraph devoted to European birth control; and I mention the 1st European clinic when the 1st US clinic is introduced. --Noleander (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like the expansion, setting the scene where needed. Binksternet (talk) 18:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word frequent in the second sentence keeps throwing me off. I keep reading it as "accompany", "associated with". Is there another way to cast the sentence so that this alternate meaning is not a problem?
I removed "frequent" so it now reads "... became concerned about the hardships that childbirth and self-induced ...". Is that satisfactory? --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph, the VD-diagnosed members of the Armed Forces lays the article open to teen-aged male humor. How about "when many U.S. servicemen were diagnosed"...
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead section, we are assured that there were no arrests in 1923, but previous arrests have not been mentioned yet.
Done - Added info about 1916 arrest into prior section. --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "Throughout the 1920s, public discussion of contraception become more commonplace". Had become, or became.
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Term or phrase? "the phrase "birth control"".
Done - Change to "term" (two occurrences). --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • American spelling: legalise => legalize.
Done --Noleander (talk) 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments later. Binksternet (talk) 17:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is not consistently using or avoiding the Oxford comma. The second sentence of the "Free speech movement" section is the poster child, containing both comma styles: "anarchists, and atheists" preceding "D. M. Bennett and Emma Goldman". Other sentences vary between the two styles. Select one style and stick with it.
Done - This article uses the Oxford comma convention. Thanks for finding the oversights. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Breast feeding" is most often one word in American English: "breastfeeding".
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "promised to not break the law" or "promised not to break the law"?
Done - changed to the latter. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The military undertook an extensive education campaign, focusing on abstinence, but also containing some contraceptive guidance." This sentence should not have "also containing" because it the subject is "the military" but the implied subject of "also containing" is the education campaign. Please recast this sentence, retaining one subject. One way might be to change "also containing" to "also offering".
Done - Changed as suggested ... no other formulation seemed better. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was sex widely distributed? "...which treated sex as a natural and enjoyable act and was widely distributed..." I think "widely distributed" can be moved in front of "educational pamphlet".
Done - Although I cannot say if sex was widely distributed (one might hope so), I did change the sentence as suggested. --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rather than joining an existing organization..." Would "join" be better than "joining"?
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please place a citation directly following the quote, "...let them club us if they want to."
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence of the "Opposition" section, the sentence beginning "Large sectors", has two problems. It appears to have a full stop in the middle of it, and it is hard to read with its cites and en dashes. The cites could be moved to the end of the sentence; this would certainly ease readability. Otherwise, the various bits about the medical community, the legislators, and the radio industry could be made into separate sentences.
Done - Moved cites to end; fixed punctuation. Reads better now. --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very smoothly accomplished. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When used as a noun, African Americans should never contain a hyphen. The hyphen is only used adjectivally (and even there it is challenged by many modern writers.)
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "incompetent with managing", "incompetent in managing", or "incompetent managing"?
Done - Went with "in managing" --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dominance of whites in the leadership and medical staff..." might be more clear as "The dominance of whites in the movement's leadership and medical staff..."
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs an 'r': "400 contraceptive manufactures".
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-breaking space is needed between $250 and million, or a no-wrap template surrounding the two parts of the fiscal figure.
Done --Noleander (talk) 22:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hidden text: Why is Roe v Wade commented out in the infobox? Why is the Reproductive Rights Sidebar commented out? The hidden question regarding Engelman and 1877 appears to have been answered. I see no need to retain the hidden conversation. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The RR sidebar {{Reproductive Rights Sidebar}} has been superseded by both (1) the Reproductive Health footer navbox; and (2) the current "reform movement" sidebar. The underlying assumption is that this article is more of a history article than a medical article. If you think it should be added below the "reform movement" sidebar, let me know and I'll do that. I've removed the "1877" commented-out question (since answered). --Noleander (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the hidden Roe v Wade text in the infobox should be taken out. I am satisfied with the explanation about the RR Sidebar. Binksternet (talk) 23:44, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Sorry about that; missed it the first time. --Noleander (talk) 01:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, subject to resolution of a few relatively minor issues. This is an impressive article on which I commented fully at peer review. It looked strong then, and is stronger now. These are my outstanding points:-

  • You mention "the dire demographic predictions of Thomas Malthus" but you don't say what he predicted
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Publications on the topic dwindled..." I suppose it was the number of publications that dwindled?
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does "30 day jail sentence" require a hyphen (30-day)?
Done Yes, it does. --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What happened to the Comstock laws? No mention of them after the Free Speech section circa 1914
Done --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of points I missed during the peer review: Can RU-486, "which induced abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month", really be included as a contraceptive pill?
That is a political minefield I'd rather not step into :-) The intention of the Conclusion section in the article is to talk about the wide field of post-WW II events dealing with women's reproductive medicine, not limited to contraception. Within that section, the birth control pill is mentioned, and is identified as a contraceptive. Immediately following that, are three drugs that are related to reproductive health, that may or may not be considered contraceptives, including RU-486 and ulipristal acetate. RU-486 is included in the template Template:Birth control methods; and it is described in the article emergency contraception (e.g. "However, in China and Russia only, mifepristone is available as either emergency contraception or as an abortifacient, depending on whether it is used before or after implantation..."). The reason I included RU-486 in the article is simply that it seem more encyclopedic - in the sense of giving the reader one-stop shopping for all information. Perhaps the best path forward is to keep RU-486 in the article, but add clarifying words to the effect that "it was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally regarded as an abortifacient". Does that sound acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I put the following wording into the article. Let me know if it should be changed: "In 1982, European drug manufacturers developed RU-486, which was initially utilized as a contraceptive, but is now generally prescribed as an abortifacient: used to induce abortion in pregnancies up to the fourth month." In addition, the accompanying footnote has: "RU-486 is still used for contraception in Russia and China." --Noleander (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems OK to me. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... And why did donation of the U.S. manufacturing rights of RU-486 to Danco Laboratories deflect antiabortion boycotts?
Done - Reworded to "To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion groups, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories (a company whose only product is RU-486), and the FDA approved the drug in 2000." --Noleander (talk) 23:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get it; the manufacturers set up a front company with a neutral name, so as to evade the attentions of the antiabortion groups - is that it? If so, a slight rewording might make this fully clear. The approval by the FDA is surely a separate matter, and shouldn't be tagged on to the end of the sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Danco is more than a "front company". The European inventor, Roussel Uclaf, wanted to totally wash their hands of RU-486, so that anti-abortion activists in the US could not boycott the company. So a group of pro-choice activists formed Danco, with the sole purpose of manufacturing and distributing the product in the US. The European company then donated the US rights to Danco, forgoing all profit possibilities. Danco is privately owned, with no shareholders. Danco's offices are in a secret location in New York, and it produces no other products, so any boycott or bad publicity would have no impact. I've changed the article wording to: "To avoid consumer boycotts organized by anti-abortion organizations, the manufacturer donated the U.S. manufacturing rights to Danco Laboratories, a company formed by pro-choice advocates, with the sole purpose of distributing mifepristone in the U.S, and thus immune to the effects of boycotts." --Noleander (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This support is further conditional on there being no significant issues with images, sources and copyvio, which I have not personally vetted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll get right on those improvements. --Noleander (talk) 23:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, 1c, sourcing: I'm concerned about the extensive reliance on Engelman for a good deal of the sourcing. Perhaps you can educate me to alleviate my concern? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. The history of the birth control movement in the US is covered by several reliable secondary sources; most notably
  • Chesler Woman of valor: Margaret Sanger and the birth control movement in America
  • Tone Devices and Desires: A History of Contraceptives in America
  • McCann, Birth control politics in the United States, 1916–1945
  • Kennedy, Birth Control in America: The Career of Margaret Sanger.
  • Engleman A History of the Birth Control Movement in America‬
The participants of the movement wrote many essays, books & pamphlets, and there was a vast amount of contemporary media coverage, so those secondary sources had access to a copious amount of primary source material. Thus, the secondary sources agree on almost all points. Why did I rely on Engelman as the most important source? Two reasons: (1) Engleman is the one source that covers the topic a comprehensive, chronological manner (without focusing solely on Sanger); and (2) Engelman's book was published in 2011, after the others, so it is most likely to have the most up to date information. Therefore, I chose his historical outline as the armature on which to hang the article. Using another outline would necessarily involve some original research since I would have to cobble together my own outline. That said, nearly every sentence in the article could be cited to any of 3 or 4 sources. Would it help if I replaced some of the Engelman cites with cites to other secondary sources? --Noleander (talk) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No need, that answer satisfies my concern ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how editors and encyclopedia articles are notated
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 15: doubled date
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use consistent punctuation for page notations
Done - The convention in this article is p. and pp. --Noleander (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing bibliographic info for Macmillan
Macmillan is the publisher of a couple of works cited in the article. I believe that no additional information is needed, correct? --Noleander (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sanger is not in Bibliography
Done - The article follows this convention: (1) References section lists only the sources read and used by me; (2) If the source mentioned another work, I sometimes identified the other work in the footnote, so interested readers could pursue; and (3) If I used a source only once, I put its bibliographic information in the footnote, rather than in References section. Following that convention, most of Sanger's works are listed in Further reading, since the sources mention her works, but I did not rely on Sanger's works. Her work Pivot of Civilization is used for a quote box ... I'll see if I can find a secondary source instead. --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether books cited by other sources are included in Bibliography or not
Done - see response immediately above ("The article follows ..") --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in where year is placed in book citations
Done - Ensured that all book years are in parentheses after author. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 28: ISBN for Viney?
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether or not you include publisher locations for books
Done - The article omits locations; so I removed location from two cites. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need ellipses at the beginning of quotes
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 86: formatting
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
Done --Noleander (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 106: use of "passim" is generally discouraged in FACs
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karen O'Conner or O'Connor?
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • "An advertisement for Sanger's 1920 book which endorsed eugenics" - the book or the ad endorsed eugenics?
Done --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Several sources indicate that the photo was taken January 8, 1917, but I am unable to find the name of the photographer, nor any information about where it was initially published. This particular photo is really helpful to readers, because it is the only image (that I am aware of) that shows birth control advocates engaged in an important legal battle: Two of the major advocates, Sanger and Byrne, were arrested and tried for opening the first birth control clinic in US history. The photo shows them on courthouse steps, leaving that trial. This trial was a watershed event: Sanger and Bryne were both sent to jail for 30 days. It is covered in the article in this section. So this photo does enhance the reader's understanding quite a bit, much more than prose alone could do. Let me know how you think we should proceed. --Noleander (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The added information on the source should be sufficient to allow it. The Corbis link metnions "Bettman"; any chance that's the author? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bettman is Bettmann Archive, a stock photo company that Corbis merged with. --Noleander (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Robertdaleowenindiana.jpg: need page number, and why the doubled tag? In general, images scanned from books or magazines should include page numbers
Done - Redundant tag removed. Page number: the uploader of that image (and Google hunting) indicates that the source is the "The Who-When-What Book" published in 1900, and those facts are in the Commons data. However, I cannot find a page number, and the book is not online. It may not be feasible to find a page number for this particular image. --Noleander (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Emma_Goldman_seated.jpg: tag specifies published or copyrighted before 1923 - which is it, and if the former where was it first published?
Done - The Library of Congress information says it was published 1911; but there is no indication where it was first published. I've added that information (".. no indication where it was first published") into the Commons facts about the image. --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Birth_Control_Review_1919b.jpg should mention the source the linked site gives for this image
Done - Added link to ABC-CLIO, which is indicated as the original source. --Noleander (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The editor that uploaded the 1926 advertisement (in 2007) provided the comment "published in the United States more than 70 years ago with no statement of copyright; public domain per US law.". And the copyright information page indicates that 70 years is the limit for articles published after 1923 if the copyright was not renewed. The "1923" box says: "This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923. " (bold emphasis mine). So, it appears that "1923" box is applicable not because the ad is from before 1923, but rather because the ad had no copyright notice, and the 70 years have expired (1926 + 70 = 1996). If that analysis is not correct, the image can be removed: it is not critical to the article. --Noleander (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be more helpful to use {{PD-Pre1964}} or {{PD-Pre1978}}, or another more specific tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed tag to {{PD-Pre1978}}. I was not aware of those other tags, thanks. --Noleander (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:WEB_DuBois_1918.jpg: link given to confirm authorship appears to be broken
Done - Provided new link to Library of Congress page with authorship info for this pic. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg: according to Commons, PD-Art should not be used for this type of image, and isn't needed anyways.
Done --Noleander (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your, as always, comprehensive and astute comments. I'll start resolving them today. --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I reviewed the article at Noleander's request earlier today. I found the article to be well-sourced, generally comprehensive, and quite readable. I have not reviewed for plagiarism, source verification, or copyright issues, but I am satisfied about the general quality of the article (some of the changes I made and the questions that I brought up can be found in the history of the article). For what it is worth (as I am certainly not the most experienced reviewer), I would support this article for promotion. NW (Talk) 19:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Robert Dale Owen's image should be aligned to the left because he should be facing towards the article, per MOS:IMAGES. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Noleander (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 02:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- Progressing well but a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing is still required. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport. I think it's a very good article overall, but I've been stuck on a few points.

  • "The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign to make contraception legal in America." Isn't this a little too limiting? Weren't information and availability also goals?
Done - Improved to "The birth control movement in the United States was a social reform campaign to increase the availability of contraception in America through education and legalization." --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Use of contraceptives increased throughout the nineteenth century, causing the fertility rate in the United States to drop by 50 percent between 1800 and 1900, particularly in urban regions.[2]" I find it hard to believe this was the only factor, since fertility rates often change for many other reasons, such as economic growth, industrialization, movement of population away from rural areas, cultural norms, etc.
Done - The source explicitly says that (in his opinion) no source other than birth control explains the decrease in birth rate - but the way he words it does leave some wiggle room. So I changed the wording in the article to say "Use of contraceptives increased throughout the nineteenth century, contributing to a 50 percent drop in the in the fertility rate in the United States between 1800 and 1900..." --Noleander (talk) 14:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... at the beginning of the twentieth century, federal and state governments began to enforce the Comstock laws more rigorously.[21] In response, contraception went underground, but it was not extinguished." Are there any fertility or other statistics that quantify this?
Unfortunately, no. When I wrote the article, I wanted to include a graph showing the usage of contraceptives in the US over time, but I searched high and low and found nothing. The simple fact is that, until around 1940, there were virtually no surveys or studies of contraception. None. Hence, all information about usage rates prior to 1940 is anecdotal. --Noleander (talk) 14:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK.
  • "The first birth control clinic in England was established in 1921 by Marie Stopes, in London.[15]" This is an example of the problems I've had trying to follow the article's chronology. This is after the first Sanger clinic but before the second. Did either influence the other?
The article is written in chronological order. Another reviewer suggested adding material covering birth control clinics in Europe, so I created the paragraph that begins "Birth control practices were generally adopted earlier in Europe than in the United States. ..." If you think the final "England 1821" sentence should be moved to later in the article, I can do that. As it currently stands, all the Europe material is co-located in the "Europe" paragraph, which makes some sense. I can go either way. Let me know.
Was the English one the second one in Europe? Did the English one have any influence on the U.S. movement, like the Dutch one did? Its significance is unclear.
I cannot find any sources that say if the England clinic was 2nd in Europe (or any other sequencing information) ... that sequencing/influence appears to be a topic that is not yet well studied by scholars. The sources do not say that the England clinic influenced the US (the sources only talk about the Dutch clinic in that regard). I can remove the England info, but it was added in response to a reviewer above who wanted more material in the article about birth control/clinics in Europe. Let me know, and I can remove it. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, just leave it as it is. Getting whipsawed between two reviewers is no fun, I've been there ...
  • Why does the first picture of Sanger appear so late in the article? She's the central figure in the whole story, yet when we are first introduced to her, we get a picture of Emma Goldman instead.
Good question. I originally had the MS photo higher, but moved it down because (1) she is also in the InfoBox picture at the top of the article; and (2) there was just no room in the sections where she is first mentioned ... it was too crowded up there. Since the picture distribution was "top heavy" I aimed at spacing the images throughout the article in an aesthetic way. But I can move the image anywhere you suggest: is there a particular section that would be best?
I'd put the Sanger picture where Goldman is. Goldman was so many other things as well, I'd be tempted to leave her out. From the article, Dennett is a more important figure specific to this movement, so maybe add an image of her in the "Early birth control organizations" section.
Done. There is no picture of Dennett that I can find, so I did not add one of her. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems like the article should say something about the broad cultural impact of the pill.
Done - Added sentence: "The pill became very popular and had a major impact on society and culture, for instance, leading to sharp increase in college attendance and graduation rates for women." --Noleander (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done --Noleander (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think a little more could be said than the clause you added inside an existing statement. And in general, this last section needs to be more clear that there has been ongoing debate about contraceptive methods that are considered by some to be tantamount to a very early abortion. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll see what I can find in the sources. The reason that section is a bit skinny is because the soruces treat "the birth control movement" as an era that lasted from 1914 to circa 1945. After that, it becomes something else, usually called the "Reproductive rights movement". So this "post WW II" section is not really supposed to be an in-depth section, but rather a WP:Summary style overview of material that is covered in other articles. That said, I'll see if I can beef it up with some more material about contraceptive battles post WW II. --Noleander (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like there is another article that follows on to this one. But you could add something that links underneath to Beginning of pregnancy controversy. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Okay, I think I've made some improvements that should address those issues you raised: (1) I added a new paragraph covering the "is emergency contraception abortion or not?" controversy; (2) I added a link to Beginning of pregnancy controversy; and (3) I added wording to the final section which should make it clear that the "birth control movement" came to a conclusion around 1945; and that a new era commenced after that, under the name "reproductive rights". See sentence: "After World War II, the birth control movement had accomplished the goal of making birth control legal, and advocacy for reproductive rights transitioned into a new era which focused on abortion, public funding, and insurance coverage.". As for other articles, yes, I think there could be an article on The history of birth control or The history of birth control in the United States, but those hypothetical articles would go back in time before 1914, and would cover post-1945 events in detail. But the "birth control movement", as a radical social reform movement, wound down around 1945. Let me know if those improvements are satisfactory. --Noleander (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would drop "because they blurred the distinction between birth control and abortion" because not everyone agrees with that. I would move the two "Opponents of ..." and "Proponents of" sentences into that place (ahead of the two statistics sentences), which gives the debate. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - It now reads: "These emergency contraceptives, including Plan B and EllaOne, proved to be another battleground in the war over reproductive rights. Opponents of emergency contraception consider it a form of abortion, because it interferes with the ability of a fertilized embryo to implant in the uterus; while proponents of emergency contraception contend that it is not abortion, because the absence of implantation means that pregnancy never commenced.... [statistics here] ... " --Noleander (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, my concerns have all been addressed, indicating support above. Good work. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Small comment: Could the image of the Clinical Research Bureau not be right-aligned? I say this because 1), the house is pointed in towards that direction and 2), it would stop there being a big gap down to the next section. --Lobo (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Noleander (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a very well-written and well-structured article. Readers will come away with a clear idea of the movement. It is well-researched (with the one exception I point to below).

  • This was the first time a U.S. government institution had engaged in a sustained, public discussion of sexual matters, and it marked a shift in public discourse, which began to de-emphasize personal morality. - I found this sentence slightly confusing. It is not as if morality dropped out of the discourse - what was considered a moral question simply changed. I'm not sure how to rewrite the sentence, though.
Done - Yes, that sentence is poorly formed. I changed it to: "This was the first time a U.S. government institution had engaged in a sustained, public discussion of sexual matters; as a consequence, contraception transformed from an issue of morals to an issue of public health". --Noleander (talk) 01:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comstock and his allies also took aim at the libertarians and utopians who comprised the free love movement – an initiative to promote sexual freedom, equality for women, and abolition of marriage.[20] The free love proponents were the only group to actively oppose the Comstock laws in the nineteenth century, setting the stage for the birth control movement. - This paragraph does not flow well in the "Contraception outlawed" section - I'm wondering if it is entirely necessary.
I think the encyclopedia is better with that paragraph. There are several articles that are yet to be written on this topic area, so I'm inclined to err on the side of casting a wide net now, since this kind of interrelationship/nexus/connectivity (birth control vs. free love) needs to be documented somewhere in WP. Plus, the final sentence "The free love proponents were the only group to actively oppose the Comstock laws in the nineteenth century, setting the stage for the birth control movement" is a good historical backdrop factoid. --Noleander (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drug stores continued to sell condoms as "rubber goods" and cervical caps as "womb supporters". - It would be awesome to get a picture of this for this section - better than Comstock. Have you tried the Kinsey Institute?
Good idea ... I'll give it a try (although I've had miserable luck getting photos from sources outside WP ... but there is always a first time!). --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farrell, Courtney (2008), The Abortion Debate, ABDO, ISBN 9781604530537. - Considering there are so many good secondary sources to use, I'm not sure why this is included. It is clearly a fluffy book. Could the information cited to this source be cited to other sources? If not, I am wary of including it.
Done - Good catch. I'll find a more reliable source. --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all of your hard work on such an important topic! Wadewitz (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! --Noleander (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:37, 23 February 2012 [18].

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Richwales (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it discusses a landmark US Supreme Court case on birthright citizenship — one which has increased in prominence in recent years because of renewed controversy over birthright citizenship for US-born children of illegal immigrants. The article covers the topic clearly and comprehensively, and after two peer reviews and a prior FAC (which came close but not quite close enough), I believe it is now in suitable condition to be recognized as a Featured Article. — Richwales (talk) 21:24, 14 December 2011 (UTC) [with additions to statement — 00:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)][reply]

Restart, link to previous comments. After receiving a significant amount of attention and re-working, this nomination seems to have stalled in recent days, and the nominator's final comments indicates some weariness. It's hard to tell what has been addressed and where everyone now stands, so restart for a fresh look rather than close for lack of consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion 3 only as per before restart. —Andrewstalk 01:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Newly added image File:Horacegrayphoto.jpg is OK. I changed the licence tag for File:Melville Weston Fuller Chief Justice 1908.jpg from {{PD-old}} to the more appropriate {{PD-US}} (my support on images stands). —Andrewstalk 07:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Everyone please note that there's been a lot of new work done on this article over the past several days — so you'll all probably want to go through it again and see what you think about it now. — Richwales 03:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for the time being ... Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (extended discussion moved to talk page; please go here to find and add to this discussion)

Support: I have re-read the article, which has improved considerably during and since the previous nomination in which my detailed concerns were discussed and addressed. I find the reasoning behind Calliopejen1's oppose incoherent; this is not a legal journal paper, it is an account intended for laypersons of a case and the law surrounding it, and I think it does this job well. Brianboulton (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Largely per Brian above, I find Calliopejen1's comments a bit vague (and maybe not even relevant to the standards). Using Roe v. Wade - the only FA court case article at the present - I think this article passes far ahead in content; specifically the significant development sections and the analysis of the Opinions itself. Also, I think a strong kudos is in order to Richwales who has worked extraordinarily hard on getting this article to where it is now! Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, still leaning toward oppose ... Savidan 21:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • (extended discussion moved to talk page; please go here to find and add to this discussion)

Additional note; I have read the extensive notes on the article's talkpage. Calliopejen1 has not visited the discussion since 23 January; I still cannot fathom the reasoning behind his/her oppose, which I suggest has no basis in the FA criteria. The nominator has I think gone to great lengths to meet the concerns raised by Savidan, and has resolved many of them. Of those that remain it is not clear which are being considered as critical. Savidan has been away from the page for some days; what I would like to see is a short, pithy listing of the specific outstanding points on which h/she is maintaining an "leaning to oppose" stance. Brianboulton (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments — I think the intro sentence should be clearer and more to the point. "X v. X, cite, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held ______." Then you can get into the importance of the decision for whatever area of law and discuss precedents and subsequent developments and adjacent case law. But the first sentence really ought to be a summary of the case, I feel.

Standard convention has been to have "Opinion of the Court" be an == h2 ==, as the article is about a United States Supreme Court case, so the opinion (of the Court) is a major component. Maybe the biggest component. There are plenty of cases at the district court and appellate levels. The reason this case/decision is written about is that it reached the U.S. Supreme Court and it set the law of the land. The Court's opinion should be highlighted as such while a reader navigates the article. The two paragraphs under "Supreme Court" should moved to "Background" or just put directly under "Opinion of the Court," in my opinion.

I can't remember if it was ever decided to use "Dissent" as a header or use a specific person's name ("Fuller's dissent"). I think case article vary on this, so it's not really a big deal.

Personally, I think having both "Notes" and "References" sections is awkward, but it's hardly uncommon.

Also not a huge fan of the "Gallery" section. I'd rather have a shout-out to Wikimedia Commons for a gallery like that. Or have the images incorporated into the article. Not sure how common it is for featured articles to have baked-in galleries, but I think it's weird and cluttery.

And please don't use multiple columns for references. It makes the mobile browsers cry. :-(

Hope some of this has been vaguely helpful. Feel free to ignore part or all of these comments if not. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I've reworded the opening of the lead section to (hopefully) make it crystal clear what this case is about. I foresee a small possibility that opponents of birthright citizenship for children of illegal aliens may object that the new intro sentence is POV, but I believe the sources used in the article make it very plain that this is the mainstream consensus interpretation.
I was uneasy as to how best to handle the material about the oral arguments before the Supreme Court (material which Savidan insisted must be included), and it was in this context that I attempted a slightly different sectioning for the Supreme Court stuff. I've gone back to a more accepted convention; hopefully the result is clear enough. Since there was only one dissenting opinion in this case, I don't really see any pressing need to change the "Dissent" subsection heading — though I'm certainly open to other comments on this issue.
I went with both "Notes" and "References" for the very specific reason that several of my secondary sources are cited multiple times in the article. Repeating the citation info again and again for a multiply-cited source is (IMO) unreasonably cluttery and error-prone — and it's my understanding that we're advised not to use Ibid or op. cit. in footnotes because these can be easily broken when material is rearranged. I continue to believe that the way I'm handling the citations here is the most appropriate way to do it for this article, but I'm open to alternative suggestions.
I'm using {{reflist|25em}} for the footnote list — the 25em parameter is supposed to enforce a minimum column width. I personally believe that not using a multi-column list would make the footnotes hard to read, and would also be wasteful of space (given that many of the cites are very short). And it's been my understanding that multi-column footnote lists are fully accepted for Wikipedia articles. Hopefully it won't come down to your being unwilling to support promotion of this article solely on this one issue.
As for the gallery, it's been my understanding that this was acceptable (even for FA's). If there is a need to lose the gallery, a couple of the images are (IMO) particularly relevant and could certainly be incorporated into the body of the article. I do believe it's advisable to have a good photo of Wong Kim Ark himself as the first image in the article body (for Navigation Popups if nothing else). For the moment, I'm going to leave the gallery in place, but I'm certainly open to doing something different if there is a policy issue involved, or if the gallery is going to make the difference between promotion and archival for some other reason. — Richwales 21:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead is better now (I had the same problem as MZMc), but I don't see the reason for the gallery either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think "United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that virtually everyone born in the United States is a citizen." is significantly clearer and better.
Rich: I wasn't actually planning to vote at all, as I haven't read the article entirely and I'm not really familiar enough with the featured articles process that I feel very comfortable doing so. Having skimmed the comments on the talk page, it looks like this article has made a good amount of progress and is getting closer to being ready for promotion. I don't think a third featured article candidate nomination should be necessary; it seems more than doable to knock this out during this round. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I've removed the gallery, and moved two of the gallery images into the main body of the article. These images were already part of the article (in the gallery), so I assume it's not strictly necessary to have Andrew (Adabow) reaffirm his earlier OK of the images. Note that the article already had a Commons link, so anyone who wants to see the rest of the images should be able to find them. — Richwales 22:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I tweaked the lead for WP:OVERLINKing (I think everyone knows what China and the US are), and to merge the single sentence into three paragraphs, conforming with WP:LEAD.
    There is still a bit of WP:OVERLINKing in the article. See my sample edits, and see WP:MOSLINK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Are there sources which address the social context of Chinese immigration during the period to expand the "Citizenship of Chinese persons in the United States" section? Specifically, is it true that while Chinese immigrants came to build railroads and then stayed, had this decision been otherwise, those immigrants' descendants' status would be a mess in the US?
  3. BTW, there's an overuse of the word subsequent in the article ... are they all needed? Can you instead use alternate words like later or rephrase to use the word since? However and subsequently are frequently overused among many of our FA writers :) :)
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I did some more rewording of the second paragraph just now.

There can certainly be a lot more said about the social context of Chinese immigration during this time. I believe I need to be careful, of course, to keep the article focussed on its topic, but I can add a bit more. I haven't read anything suggesting that the political/social establishment was worried that the status of US-born children of Chinese immigrants "would be a mess" if Wong Kim Ark had gone the other way; if anything, the worry was that recognizing these children as citizens would lead to increasing (and undesired) influence by Chinese in the western US.

I'll be happy to go through the article and look for ways to reduce the overuse of the word "subsequent". I may not have time to make the changes today, but that may be just as well, because I've spent so much intensive time on the article recently and could probably use a break of a day or so. :-) — Richwales 16:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the article and changed many of the occurrences of the words "subsequent" and "however" (but not all occurrences — these words are in the English language for a reason, and it's not always feasible to replace them). Now I'm going to look for a bit more to say about the social context of Chinese immigration. Expanding on something I said the other day, concerns about the status of US-born children of immigrants being "a mess" seems (as I read the sources) to have been one of the big points made by supporters of Wong Kim Ark; they wondered what might happen to US-born children of European immigrants who had already been assumed up till then to be US citizens. — Richwales 04:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some material about the motivations for Chinese immigration to the US and the roots of anti-Chinese popular sentiment. I'm hesitant to add much more, since this is an article about the Wong Kim Ark case and shouldn't get turned into an all-encompassing history of Chinese immigration (or of the Citizenship Clause, birthright citizenship, illegal immigration, etc.). But hopefully what I've added will help fill in the background and provide context for the reader to aid in his/her understanding the events of this time as they relate to Wong and his court fight. — Richwales 04:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The context you added is just what the Dr ordered-- not too much, not too little, let's the reader know the context necessary for understanding the case, thanks. Please review my edit summaries on WP:OVERLINKing. (Speaking as a reviewer, since my resignation as FAC delegate is now effective.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks re: context of Chinese immigration and anti-Chinese sentiment. I'm OK with removing the wikilinks, except that I still believe that there needs to be a link associated with the first (and only) reference in the text to the Philippines — many readers may not be aware of the Philippines' historical status as a US territory, or of the grounds (legitimate or not) under which some people from the Philippines have tried to argue that they were entitled to US citizenship. I'm not sure which of several Philippines-related articles would be the best place to direct readers, but I do think there should be some link. — Richwales 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's fair, but they're not going to get that from a country link. IF it's that important, it needs correct linking and direct explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I rephrased the part about the Philippines slightly, and added a link to History of the Philippines (1898–1946). — Richwales 07:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the article is stable now. I recently pinged several people (and some projects) in search of more input here. If anyone has more suggestions or whatever, please feel free to speak up. — Richwales 05:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. (Also, I was *not* canvassed.) Article seems complete, accurate, and well-written.

I ran the article past a lawyer friend of mine, and his main potential criticism is that the article portrays the "children of illegal aliens" issue as perhaps more up in the air than it really is. Wong Kim Ark applying in that case is considered pretty non-controversial in most quarters (regardless of whether this is a good thing of course). Then again, apparently Judge Posner thinks Wong Kim Ark might not apply there, which is a pretty good source, so maybe writing that much about the controversy is reasonable.

As a side, purely optional comment from me: I realize the terms are wikilinked already, and people can click on them if they want to know more, but I'd try to squeeze in the Latin meanings of "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli" if possible, somewhere. "Right of blood" is much more resonant than "inheriting citizenship from a parent", IMHO, and not everybody will know this.

As another purely optional comment... the "Notes" are mostly references at the moment. If there was a separate "Footnotes" section, I'd move the bit about McKenna not being on the court when the case was heard into it. That bit of info is questionable for the article itself, I agree, but seems more important than being buried with the pile of references. SnowFire (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response: Thanks for the above comments. I've added translations for "jus soli" and "jus sanguinis". I originally split the references into "Notes" and "References" sections because many of the references involve multiple separate cites to a single work, and "short citations" are considered preferable to ibid. or op. cit. (see WP:IBID and WP:CITESHORT). I'm certainly open to restructuring this material if experts would like to suggest a more appropriate way. As for doing a separate "Footnotes" section, this sounds reasonable, and it appears to be technically possible (see WP:REFGROUP), but I confess I've never done it before, and I don't think it's currently used much on Wikipedia — though I'd be open to expert opinions on this as well. — Richwales 00:34, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:20, 21 February 2012 [19].

Elizabeth II

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC) DrKiernan (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is almost perfectly written and is just about at the level of other British monarch FA's. It could use a couple of revisions, like in the header, but I think it'd be really cool to work out all the kinks by February 6 to coincide with the Queen's Diamond Jubilee. Comments always help! Rockhead126 (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hi Rockhead, welcome to FAC. Have you contacted any of this article's editors? Please see the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dank, he posted at the article's talk page, and the most significant editor agreed that he could nominate it. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in how shortened citations are combined (ex FN 1 vs FN 10)
  • Check wikilinking in footnotes
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes in titles
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in whether publisher locations are provided for books or not
  • Cassell & Co or Cassell and Co? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review.
  • FN 10 corrected
  • Most wikilinks removed
  • The quotation marks used match the original source in all cases
  • Hyphens removed
  • I'm really not keen on adding a location for OUP, because of the duplication "Oxford Oxford" (so good, they named it twice)
  • I've used ampersands because I like the pretty curls. DrKiernan (talk) 13:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'd keep the ampersand. I looked up Cassell & Co, and that's how it's listed everywhere.
  • I don't think adding the OUP location would look all that bad. The colon kinda separates it out. When I see "Oxford: Oxford University Press", I think "Oxford University Press in Oxford". Unless Nikkimaria agrees with you, I'd change it for the sake of consistency. Rockhead126 (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right, have done as it turns out one of the books is published from the New York office! DrKiernan (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I gave the article a good article review a few months ago, where my concerns were dealt with. I am happy with the minimal changes since then, and so, after a chat with DrKiernan, I am happy that this article is ready for featured status. J Milburn (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - while I've not had the chance to fully review the article, I have read the whole article and enjoyed it very much. It is very readable. If in a week or so you need further review (which I'd need to do before entering a formal support) please let me know (am unlikely to have time before then). Carcharoth (talk) 01:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 09:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up. I am tempted to nominate those images that are not free in the US for deletion at Commons; maybe in the process someone more knowledgeable about the matter will have a solution. —Andrewstalk 11:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't removed it from the article, because it has been nominated for deletion before and kept [21]. But I don't mind if someone wants to remove/replace it or re-start the deletion discussion. DrKiernan (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion on this file restarted by Adabow here. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While the general quality of the article (which I read during the blackout via the cache) is good, there are a few concerns that need addressing:-

  • The lead is somewhat muddled, in particular in trying to define what Elizabeth is queen of. The terms "Commmonwealth realms", "Commonwealth of Nations" and "Commonwealth countries" are all used; do they all mean the same? Is there a distinction between "monarch" and "queen regnant"? In terms of numbers, the arithmetic seems wrong. First you say she is monarch of "the 16 commonwealth realms". When she became queen in 1952 she was queen regnant of seven Commonwealth countries and during her reign she became queen of 25 more countries. 7 + 25 = 32; where does 16 come from? (I know the answer lies in the decolonoisation of Britain's former Empire, but younger and non-British readers won't Know this).
  • She is also queen of a number of "Overseas Territories" which are not Commonwealth realms. The best-known of these are probably Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Gibraltar and the Falklands; there are about a dozen others. These territories are not mentioned anywhere, and should be.
  • The list of 16 countries in the first sentence of the article makes a dull introduction. Consider transferring this, and perhaps other lists (of territories etc) to tables at the end of the article.
  • You should reconsider the wording of: "During her reign of over 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch..." The grammar is dodgy; the sntence will quickly become outdated (60 years in less than three weeks away). "Second-longest" will be superseded if she lasts another 3½ years.
  • under way" is two words, not one.
  • Beyond the lead I made just a few scattered notes:-
    • The implication from the article is that The Little Princesses was published while Elizabeth and Margaret were still children. Perhaps clarify that by "later" you mean "1950".
    • There is explanation later in the article about the meaning of "Heiress presumptive", but it would be better to have this explantion brought forward into the section bearing this name.
    • In the first line of the Second World War section the words "her younger sister" are redundant; by now we know who who Margaret is.
    • Marriage section: The pronoun in "She still required ration coupons..." is unsuitable, as there is too much text since the previous mention of Elizabth by name.
    • In the "Reign" section, "President of the United States Harry S. Truman" is cumbersome. Just "President Truman" with a link will do.
    • "Succession" - shouldn't this be "Accession"? The content of the subsection leads me to think, anyway, the title should be extended to "Accession and coronation"
    • "In 1960, after the death of Queen Mary and the resignation of Churchill..." makes it seem that these events happened in 1960., rather than seven and five years earlier, respectively.
    • The third paragraph seems to have strayed in from elsewhere, being unrelated to accession or coraonation. If the material is to remain, you should clarify that Armstrong-Jones was elevated to his earldom as a consequence of his marriage.
    • In the "Issue" table it might be worth adding a note that the children of the queen's sons at present have precedence over those of Anne in the line of succession.

I read the article in somewhat restricted circumstances; if I can find the time I may add further comments, but in general this looks a thoughtful and well-constructed article. Brianboulton (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review.

Well, I'm disappointed with the first three of those responses. The lead as it stands does not in my view meet Featured Article standards, and adamantine statements like "that's not going to happen" make me think it never will. It is essential that lead statements are clear, since the lead is likely the most read part of any article. I simply don't accept that it is impossible to write a lead that does not contain a confusion of terms that require background knowledge to interpret. For instance, the sentence "During her reign of 59 years, the second-longest for a British monarch, she became queen of 25 other Commonwealth countries as they gained independence" implies that she was not queen of these countries before—which of course she was. And how can a decision to ignore the Overseas Territories altogether in the article, not just in the lead, possibly be justified? I urgently ask you and other interested editors to reconsider how the lead should be presented. I don't want to oppose this article's promotion, but if the answer really is "it's not going to happen", then I feel I will have no choice. Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with Brianboulton, I also think the lead should be improved. Can we rephrase it a little? Do we really need the following: In 1992, which Elizabeth termed her annus horribilis ("horrible year"), Charles and Andrew separated from their wives, Anne divorced, and a severe fire destroyed part of Windsor Castle. Revelations continued on the state of Charles's marriage to Diana, Princess of Wales, and they divorced in 1996. The following year, Diana died in a Paris car crash, and the media criticised the royal family for remaining in seclusion in the days before her funeral. I think that this article has the potential to be a Featured Article. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 03:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be a summary of the article. It won't be an adequate summary if annus horribilis, her children's marital problems, and Diana's death are excluded from it. DrKiernan (talk) 08:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, maybe you are correct. I liked this change, it is better now. I am reading the article again, so far, no problems have surfaced. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 16:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada, I think we should use the modern version: File:Coat_of_arms_of_Canada.svg What do you think? Regards Paulista01 (talk) 18:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The modern version is copyrighted, whereas the older version's copyright has expired. According to Wikipedia:Non-free content: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". DrKiernan (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if we can make it, but I think February 6 would be better. It's the 60th Anniversary of Elizabeth's ascension to the throne, her Diamond Jubilee. Queen Victoria was the only British monarch who lived long enough to have her Diamond Jubilee, so it's a huge milestone. Rockhead126 (talk) 14:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - How many supports are required these days? My only suggestion - and it is no more than that - concerns the bit about the Queen paying taxes is in the 1990s section. Consider placing it with "finances". Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spotcheck of sources -- While the supports are indeed mounting up, I can't see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- did I miss that somewhere? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll do it on Monday. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Spotcheck of sources:
      • Okay, went down to the National Library of Australia and pulled some references. Bradford and Brandreth are quite good. Lacey sucks.
      • fn 3, 9, 11, 13, 51, 52, 66, 99, 113, 114, 121, 129, 177 are all okay
      • fn 36: Should be Brandreth pp. 132-139 (corrected)
      • fn 77 "he owned and edited" - close but okay
      • fn 176: Was a bit off. (corrected)

09:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 22:16, 20 February 2012 [23].

1907 Tiflis bank robbery

[edit]
Nominator(s): Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it is a great article about a little known but very interesting incident. The article deals with a stagecoach robbery organized by Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin where bombs were thrown at a bank stagecoach in a crowded city square resulting in reportedly at least 250,000 rubles stolen (over $3 Million in current USD), forty people killed, and fifty people injured. The article also discusses how one of the robbers feigned insanity for over three years after being captured and eventually escaped from a mental institution. I think it is a fascinating historical topic that has not received much attention. I have never taken an article through the FA process (so please go easy on me), but Wehwalt and BorisG helped edit this article a lot so I believe it is in pretty good shape (plus it has already been through GA and Peer review). Anyways, it has been a goal of mine to get this up to FA status, and I hope I can eventually accomplish that goal. Remember (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Welcome to FAC! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Leonid Krasin initially quit politics after the split from Lenin in 1909, but rejoined the Bolsheviks after the revolution" - source?
I have added Nicolaevsky as a source for this - and amended the sentence in the process. - BorisG (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin's original Georgian name was "Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili", but at the time of the robbery he mostly went by his revolutionary nom de guerre "Koba." Stalin adopted a variety of nicknames and aliases in his life. Sometime after 1912, he began using the name Stalin, which in Russian means "of steel", as his nom de guerre" - source?
Added information and sources. Remember (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check citations to Trotsky and Jones - both are problematic
I am not sure what is problematic about these citations. Could you please let me know more about why these citations are problematic and I will fix them. Remember (talk) 16:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 32: formatting
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Revised. Remember (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent formatting for page ranges - for example, you have "pp. 236–37" but "pp. 246−247"
Fixed. Remember (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for book publishers.
I don't think I am missing any book publisher locations that can be found. I checked the citations for the books that do not have a book publisher location and they those locations don't show up in any internet search. If anyone knows where to find this information, let me know and I will add it. Remember (talk) 16:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had a lot to say at the various reviews this article has had, and got my hands dirty by rewriting paragraphs here and there. I've been waiting for Remember to, er, remember that he needed to bring this article to FAC. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding inflation, source quality: I believe I remember having noted something about inflation in the past in relation to this bank robbery? My recollection is that the inflation used in this article is sourced reliably to a secondary source and I'm satisfied with this—and I checked this. Source quality also looks good, see next users comments. I checked the use of PRIMARIES and am not concerned, they're all double cited or quotations in the context set by a secondary. Fifelfoo (talk) 21:00, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not yet.
    • A certain lack of context; most summaries of the history of the Social Democrats do not skip merrily from 1903 to 1907 without ever mentioning the Revolution of 1905.
Agreed. Added. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind more than half-a-dozen words. This was done by a Party which had just been at open war with the Czarist Government, and still viewed it as radically illegitimate. Surely one of the sources describes their internal discussions and even the robbery in such terms? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This requires quite a bit if research. Indeed, this extraordinarily violent robbery was pivotal in creating a rift between those advocating violence and those who rejected such approach, expecially after the defeat of the 1905 revolution. If you have anything specific in mind in terms of context, go for it. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it certainly does; it would require reading several standard accounts of the Russian SDs, and understanding them. That is the level of work FAs should have. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read a lot in this field over the decades. And I know the context of this and have references. Indeed there was more by way of context in the article than there is now. But during GA review we were asked to shorten it as details may be ineteresting but not for this article. I can try to expand it again... - BorisG (talk) 07:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Over-reliance on a single source; Roman Brackman. Who is he? What is Psychology Press? Does it fact-check? Why is it publishing a history? Matters sourced to him vary from the extremely controversial to the well-known; the record of Stalin's ties to the Okhrana has been known at least since 1940, and is widely discussed. Reading reliable sources on Soviet history would have enabled our editors, and so the readers, to tell which is which.
I agree that Brackman is borderline. However, I emphatically disagree that the article is mostly based on one source. There are plenty of sources listed. Brackman just gives the most detailed and systematic account in English. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Trotsky is cited twice (speaking of polemics). Did Trotsky say or imply euphemism? Not as far as I can see; and it should be made clear that his objection to Stalin's role is in part that it was inactive and cowardly, unlike Kamo. (I note Trotsky's point that the expropriators were not expelled from the Party; they resigned beforehand, to ensure denialability, and the question was whether to readmit them.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This would be original research. I do not think we should judge Trotsky's motives. Sorry. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PMAnderson, IMO, these days FAC has kind of a high bar for attributing states of mind, such as motives or emotions, in articles that are basically historical narrative. It's doable ... but the sources have to make it clear that the state of mind was both obvious and important, the sources have to be unusually trustworthy, and even then, we don't do it much. Do you set the bar somewhere else, and do you think these conditions are met in this case? - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I had in mind. Indeed, it is the present text which implicitly attributes a state of mind to Trotsky, one that he is most unlikely to have had. We need to be aware of what Trotsky meant, even if we do not say what it was.
I do not understand what you mean. The article contains an exact quote from Trotsky. Please explain. Or even better, edit it yourself. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a point of detail, it would be nice to mention that Djugashvili has had a large variety of spellings in Western languages.

Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This would be appropriate for an article on Stalin, not here. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree if the article were not using "Djugashvili", which I do not recall having seen elsewhere. Reassuring the reader that his memory is not going is a minor good; but why not? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - reviewed at the peer review stage, but the response there was delayed and I never returned to check what had been done. Will try and find the time over the next few days to do that, and read through the whole article again. Carcharoth (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Most images on this page may be deleted from commons as either "Author unknown - cannot establish PD-70" (post-1917 portraits of Kamo and Litvinov), or "Place and year of first publication unknown - cannot establish eligibility for PD-RusEmpire" (Lenin and Stalin's mugshot), or "Phoney author info" (portrait of Litvinov - McBride authored the book, not the photo), or even "No FOP in Georgia" (present-day photo - modern statue too prominent to qualify for de minimis defense). Consider moving images to wikipedia. NVO (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • sources Like some reviewers above, I sense an indiscriminate approach to sourcing. I haven't had a chance to examine your main sources (Sebag, Brackmann, Shub) at length, but certain statements credited to them ring the bell. Example: "One source, P. A. Pavlenko, claimed that Stalin ..." (ref 14 to Sebag). Very well. Pavlenko (ru:Павленко, Пётр Андреевич) was seven years old when it all happened. He was not a historian, but a writer for Stalin's propaganda machine. Dig deeper into the sources, and you will find that the statement was actually published by Edvard Radzinsky in his Stalin and it goes like "Pavlenko told my father that Stalin injured his arm in one of the exes [expropriations], he was nimble and brave. He was one of the men who attacked the stagecoach during the Tiflis money robbery." Period. (Russian: Павленко говорил отцу: "Сталин искалечил руку во время одного из эксов, он был ловок и храбр. Во время захвата денег в Тифлисе он был среди нападавших на экипаж".). Even if you take it a fact, Sebag distorted it by blending two statements together and inventing "bomb fragments". But it's not a fact, it's an anecdote retold by a propagandist. Go to Googlebooks, search "Pavlenko Stalin Kamo" - and compare Radzinsky's text (English imprint) with Sebag's interpretation. NVO (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is about verifyability, not truth. There is no doubt that Sebag is a relaible source. He is an well known British historian and his Young Stalin is an award winning book. The problematic statement above is properly attributed as claimed by Pavlenko, implying that it is problematic.
WP:V is no excuse for reproducing "verifiable" errors. Certified errors. "Award winning" and "well known" authors, or their copywriters, or their translators turn out sloppy writing all the time. It happens. NVO (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Straight out errors, no. But we are not talking errors, we are talking claims reproduced in reliable sources. If qualified by the word 'claimed', I think this is fine. It almost admits that this is quite possibly untrue. - BorisG (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support after some possible improvements recommended above. When Remember was writing this article, he and Wehwalt suggested I may be interested. I helped Remember with some details and with Russian sources. This is the first time I am commenting on an FA review, so please excuse me if display ignorance about the process. I will provide some replies to comments above, but I have some difficulty with formatting. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 17:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recall (admittedly, vaguely) that I myself initially had objections to this source. But then looking at a number of sources, I realised that Brackman did have the most detailed account of all in English, and possibly at all. A lot of details can be found in different sources, but altogether Brackman has the most systematic story. - BorisG (talk) 02:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have just re-read the talk page and this is what I said when the article was in the final stages of preparation (December 2010): I think Brackman's book is not a serious source. I think it is ok to use it but we need to mention alternative claims. Brackman presents highly controlversial and disputed claims as facts. He also describes details that cannot possibly be known (like emotions of various people etc). He does not present any critical analysis of sources and evidence. This is more of a fictionalised biography than a serious historial study. Obviously, for WP, it is a reliable source, and thus can be used but need to be used with caution, and alternative views presented. Especially when talking about Stalin's involvement with Okrana (the crux of his book). I would like to present these when I have time. But this can be done in the mainspace. I think my concerns have since been addressed, more or less. - BorisG (talk) 03:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was redundant. I have revised it. Remember (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1907_Tiflis_bank_robbery#Attack needs to be rewritten; there's so much redundancy that it wouldn't be practical for me to make the changes. You can get rid of almost half of these words with no loss of meaning: "One of the horses harnessed to the bank stagecoach with the money was injured but still alive. The bleeding animal bolted from the scene pulling the stagecoach with it. Three of the robbers, Kupriashvili, Datiko Chibriashvili, and Kamo, chased after the runaway money-laden stagecoach. Kupriashvili threw a grenade at the escaping stagecoach, and the blast from the bomb blew off the horse's legs, killing the horse and stopping the stagecoach. The blast also threw Kupriashvili into the air, and he fell to the ground stunned. Kupriashvili later regained consciousness and managed to sneak out of the square before security forces arrived. After the stagecoach stopped, Datiko Chibriashvili went into the stagecoach to snatch the sacks of money while Kamo, firing his pistol as he rode his phaeton, raced to the stopped stagecoach. Once Kamo reached the stagecoach, Chibriashvili and another robber that arrived at the stagecoach helped throw the stolen money into Kamo's phaeton." - Dank (push to talk) 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the robbery, there were rumors that Stalin threw the first grenade": Not sure what this means. Were people saying right after the robbery that they saw him throw the grenade? Who said that? - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source just says that "it was said that Stalin had thrown the first bomb from the roof of Prince Sumbatov's mansion". So I can't answer when the rumors stared. Not sure how this can be improved given the ambiguity of the source material. Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, please see User:Dank/Copy2, "hinting". I removed that sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stalin left Baku along with 20,000 rubles in stolen money in July 1907." Stalin had the money, right? I changed "along with" to "with".
Correct.Remember (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin had been hoping to help the man who had successfully executed the robbery": By paying for surgery, or some other way?
By just setting him up with a doctor, but I think this has already been resolved so it's a moot point now. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed a lot of text so far, but no references, so some of the references will be redundant. (I don't generally make calls on references.) Striking, I did this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That autumn, Kamo traveled to Paris, to Belgium to buy arms and ammunition, and to Bulgaria to buy 200 detonators.": I'm checking to see if my wording is right; were all those trips in autumn?
Yes. That is correct. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Muktarov was suspended from Okhrana,": Usually you say "the Okhrana"; be consistent throughout.
Revised. Remember (talk) 13:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "none of the major organizers of the robbery": "none of the organizers of the robbery", right?
Correct. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nevertheless, the notoriety of the robbery had a significant impact on internal politics within both the RSDLP and the Bolshevik faction.": This is a judgment call; I removed it because IMO this section doesn't need a topic sentence, that is, it's easy enough to understand one sentence at a time, and the other sentences state the same thing in a more precise and accurate way. A shorter topic sentence might be fine. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "party members investigated Lenin and others concerning the incident. However these internal investigations were stalled by the Bolsheviks, which impaired the ability of the investigators to get anything accomplished": I don't follow; was Lenin investigated or not? Striking, I got this. - Dank (push to talk) 02:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This left their social-democratic rivals, Georgian Mensheviks, without any significant opposition.": What is "this", the whole paragraph, or the previous sentence? - Dank (push to talk) 15:41, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has been revised so the point is now moot. Remember (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "This left" to "leaving"; is that right? - Dank (push to talk)
Yes. Remember (talk) 14:23, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I made a variety of small changes to improve the clarity and readbility of the article. It looks like all of the other issues discussed above are either resolved or still being discussed. If there are any other suggestions or comments regarding the article, please let me know. Remember (talk) 15:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think this can be considered reliable enough-RaviMy Tea Kadai 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the use of Trotsky for a minor point should invalidate this article as a FA candidate. We simply cite that Trosky, who was a strong political opponent of Stalin, researched this issue and concluded that he did not take part in the actual robbery. But just to clarify for the reader the nature of Trosky and Stalin's relationship, I have revised the passage to make clear that Trosky was a political opponent of Stalin. Any other thoughts on this? Remember (talk) 14:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, Trotsky doesn't seem to be a problem here. But one little note: at present when you click the link in the references, it doesn't jump to his entry in the bibliography like it should. Leonxlin (talk) 04:51, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script (which I strongly recommend anyone using Sfn/Harvnb references to install) shows that ref. 64 (Jones 2005) has the same problem. Ucucha (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Remember (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is not with Trotsky. My problem is with the site. The introduction to the site states that "... Are you looking to join a union or a political party? While our work is about education, not party or union building, we are happy to give you information about these things through our sister site: Leftist Parties of the World. This site contains a very robust and thorough listing of unions and political parties near you. " Can the site be considered neutral enough? Are you sure that Trotsky has not been misrepresented or his writings not been tampered with?-RaviMy Tea Kadai 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. Boris added this link and the Trotsky reference, and I think he did so just so that people could have an online reference to the materials cited. But I will ask him to chime in. Remember (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting question. To be sure, this Trotsky's book was published widely by mainstream publishers. The site just made the text available online. I will check at other sites. - BorisG (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked Russian edition here http://magister.msk.ru/library/trotsky/trotl030.htm http://magister.msk.ru is a general purpose internet library. I can confirm that the translation is very precise. Is this enough or we need to check with a published copy. I don't have one, and I think it would be an overkill. Marxists.org is a reputable online publisher of Marxist literature. It is not reliable as to opinions, but it is the main publisher of histortical Marxists. What do you think? - BorisG (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can also see a quote from the book from here from google books [24]. So the quote is accurate, but I don't know if you want to change the publisher to the google book link. Let me know what you want to do. Remember (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that we should change the publisher to the one used by Google books but retain the internet link to the online edition as well. - BorisG (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I changed the citation to the Library of Congress citation number (instead of an ISBN) and used the google book links instead of the website. Let me know if this works for everyone or if we need to do further work on this. Remember (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)

  • Overall, I find the prose quality very good. The narrative is engaging, yet professional. Good job.
Thanks. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And/or: "The robbery was planned and/or executed ..." - That should be plain "and". Unless I'm misreading the article: isnt it certain that the Bolsheviks both planned and executed it? Even if there is uncertainty (thus "and/or" is legitimate) it is too informal for an encyclopedia, IMO, and should be re-worded.
Revised. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use "reportedly"? All detail about the attack originates, directly or indirectly, from eyewitnesses over 100 year ago - so all the facts should be equally reliable (or suspect). For instance: "Witnesses reported that bombs were thrown .... The blasts from the bombs were so strong that they reportedly knocked ..." I would eliminate both "reportedly"s.
I was hedging because I cannot be sure what happened, but I have revised all the use of reportedly based on your suggestion. Remember (talk) 21:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verb: "Kamo's monument—authored by the sculptor Iakob Nikoladze—was later removed during Stalin's rule ...". The word "authored" doesn't seem right for a sculpture. Perhaps "crafted" or "designed" or "created".
revised. Remember (talk) 21:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: The final two sentences of the lead seem rather unimportant: "Kamo, the leader of the group that executed the robbery, was originally buried in Pushkin Gardens, which is located near Yerevan, and a monument was erected in his honor next to his grave. The monument was later removed and his remains moved to another location." Perhaps they could be removed from the lead, and some other, more critical material be inserted?
I actually like this sentence here, but if others want me to remove it and add other information, I will do so. Remember (talk) 21:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Noleander that the entire last paragraph is not important enough to be included in the lead. I would prefer to expand slightly on the previous paragraph re immediate aftermath of the robbery. I will try to formulate it shortly. - BorisG (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Waiting for BorisG's revisions. Again, I like this paragraph because it is very ironic that the bank robbers have the square named after them, but I seem to be in the minority. Remember (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End of Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on images

I don't believe NVO's comment re: this article's images was addressed. Although all are present on Commons, I see two issues dealing with proof of license:

Everything else image-wise seems okay. María (yllosubmarine) 14:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to deal with this issue. I found these images on Commons but I did not upload them so I don't know who the authors are and I don't know how to obtain this information. Any suggestions? Remember (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not an expert on images, so I've asked for some guidance at WT:FAC. Are there suitable substitute images available, just in case? Are these two images integral to the article itself? María (yllosubmarine) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep them if possible, but if we have to ditch them, so be it. Remember (talk) 20:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The second one looks like a newspaper, do you know where it came from?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Unfortunately, I don't know where either picture actually came from. I just grabbed them from commons so I don't know more than any of you all about the images. I think I am just going to cut the bombs picture because I am not even sure that these bombs are the same type that were used in the robbery so it may be misleading to have them in the article. As for the Kamo picture, I would like to keep it since Kamo is such a major figure in the robbery, but I would be happy to replace it if anyone can find another picture of Kamo to put in its place. Remember (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will do some research while we are locked out by the management.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since I have heard nothing on this and can't find the justification myself, I have removed the image from the article.

Comments some technical issues on a real quick drive by (apologies, time is short right now...):

He's talking about the Sydney Morning Herald; he may be proposing you add the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Revised.Remember (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't do more detail at the moment, perhaps if I'm lucky, I'll get a chance to re-visit the prose in more detail. Very interesting read though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the subscription needed, the usual is to add (subscription needed) at the end of the cite.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but how do you fit it into the citation template? I tried putting it under the title, but it won't come out right. Is there a specific field where I should put this information? Remember (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Add it after the end of the template and before the </ref>--Wehwalt (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Remember (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I think I have addressed all remaining issues with article. Let me know if there is anything else that needs to be dealt with. Remember (talk) 15:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources- I'm not seeing it, did I miss it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that this is something that I cannot do and that others will have to check out? If not, let me know what needs to be done. Remember (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (it's listed at WT:FAC). We try to get at least one spotcheck for every nominator-- that sources are accurately represented and avoid too close paraphrasing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Spinningspark
  • The infobox should not have Kamo as both a participant and a suspect. Either he definitely participated or it was only suspected that he did. The need to make these kinds of judgements calls in filling them out is what makes infoboxes such a bad idea imo.
  • "RSDLP" or "the RSDLP". It should consistently be one or the other throughout, and inmo should be "the RSDLP".
  • "...caused a split within the Bolshevik leadership between Lenin, Bogdanov, and Krasin." Who split from who? It is not clear. Same commnent in the "Trials of Kemo" section.
  • The background section should give background information on the nature of the state (imperial government) the RSDLP was trying to overthrow as well as the RSDLP themselves. At the moment a very lopsided picture is painted of them.
  • "...had already planned a number of "expropriations" in different parts of Russia by the time of the 5th Congress" Previously it is stated that the Bolshevik Centre was formed during the 5th Congress. If so, it could not have planned anything in advance of the conference.
    • Nicolaevsky suggests that Bolshevik Centre had existed in some form prior to the Congress, but he has trouble finding any useful information about it. Thus it is better to speak of Bolshevik leadership rather than a specific body. Revised. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...known by his earlier nickname Koba" Nickname is a poor description. This is more of a nom de guerre.
  • The allegation that Stalin was an Okhrana agent, at least at the time of the robbery, is debunked by multiple authors. Even with the modifier "allegation" this is still too unbalanced.
    • Not sure. Debunked is POV. This is a serious compilation of various sources on this issue [25]. I don't think there is anything conclusive about this. Wikipedia should not take sides in this controversy. 'Allegations' is fine, in my view. - BorisG (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is the same as BorisG's. If anyone else knows that this has been completely debunked and should not be mentioned, I can incorprate this information into the article. Until then, I think mentioning the allegations is fine. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with previous reviewers comments about "stagecoach". This probably stems from a poor translation. It should be changed unless it can be established that stagecoach with the usual English meaning was really meant.
    • The source itself uses the term stagecoach and our article on stage coaches say that they "could be any four wheeled vehicle pulled by horses or mules, the primary requirement being that it was used as a public conveyance, running on an established route and schedule." Not sure why this doesn't meet the requirements. I am happy to discuss further though along with discussing alternative terminology. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some copyediting is required before this can be promoted. There are multiple sentences spliced with "and" which are not really connected or that do not flow very well.
    • You are going to have to be more specific because I don't know what sentences you would like revised. I am happy to review the text to try to make it better, but I don't know what you want revised. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any other source besides Montefiore for the 40 dead? All the other sources give the dead as three Cossacks and/or two bank workers. My suspicion is that the dead are being conflated with the figures for the wounded who may have later died.
    • The Russian archives evidently show that it was 40 dead and Montefiore is the only one that went that far (as far as I know) to verify this information. Not sure how you want to deal with this issue. Happy to hear any suggestions. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lenin walked 3 miles (4.8 km)" Small cardinals should be spelled out, as "three miles"
  • Centre/Center. Either American or British spelling should be used consistently throughout.
  • "Soviet Customs office" half-capitalised. Probably should be "Soviet customs office".
  • SpinningSpark 15:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the basis of the above replies I am going to oppose, at least for now. I think it is essential for balance of the article that the background section discusses the Czarist state and the Bolsheviks relationship to it. This needs to be done before FA promotion, not simply marked down as a task for some future date. In my view this is rather more relevant than the relationship to the Mensheviks which is discussed at some length. On the question of Stalin working for the secret police, "alleged" simply will not do given the strength of opposition to this idea in some sources [26][27]. I am not in the least suggesting taking sides, but I am suggesting that leaving it as a weak "alleged" is POV in favour of the allegers if the strength of the opposers is not made clear. At the very least a case needs to be made for why the sources cited are to be considered more reliable than those that contradict and have been left out. SpinningSpark 18:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the source I provided (Felshtinsky) is a compilation of publications both for and against the allegations. The editor does not take sides. - BorisG (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review Spinningspark, let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Remember (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spinningspark, I skimmed the lead and first two sections in response to your comment about inappropriate ands; there were none in the lead or first two sections. Could you point some out, please? - Dank (push to talk) 20:01, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial spotcheck:

  • Checked #9, five uses: fine.
  • Google books references include a lot of highlighting/tracking bumpf, which should be removed;
    • I don't know what you mean by this. Could you please explain further and I will try to fix. Remember (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you see http://books.google.com/?id=zQL8POkFGIQC&pg=PA58&lpg=PA58&dq=russia+tiflis+%22bank+robbery%22#v=onepage&q=russia%20tiflis%20%22bank%20robbery%22&f=false, well "http://books.google.com/?id=zQL8POkFGIQC" would suffice for the book, "&pg=PA58" is to the page (optional), "&dq=russia+tiflis+%22bank+robbery%22#v=onepage&q=russia%20tiflis%20%22bank%20robbery%22&f=false" does the higlighting of the search terms you were using at the time (and some other small breadcrumb things, I think) and can be removed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Burford is a bit weak in so far as it doesn't cover all of the elements of each sentence, but another source, which I haven't checked is provided. (Further check warranted.)
    • Yeah, Burford was only used to try to get some general information about the square and so the other source should support the sentence. Unfortunately, it was hard to find sources on this topic so I had to use the scant resources I could find. Remember (talk) 13:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mensheviks would lead Georgia during its short-lived independence from 1918 to 1921" is not supported by #64;
  • Ref #3 has no page number, or even a range of pages. This would be helpful. It doesn't seem to touch on the "expropriation-as-a-euphemism" thing mentioned.
  • No concerns with Christian's one use.
  • Ref #40: first use is fine. Second is a bit iffy. The article says "swallow the evidence after the cashier called the police, but the police stopped her by grabbing her throat", but the NYT suggests it actually had details of her accomplices. Not quite the same thing. Also it's fairly closely worded, see if you can kill two birds with one stone. I wouldn't say close paraphrasing, and the article is phrase "The New York Times reported" which makes that more acceptable. Even so, worth another look at.

I think this is a start, if the rest of the issues are resolved (I haven't been following the FAC). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Can we simplify "To deal with the increased security, there was a gang member spotting each security officer prior to the robbery and gang members were looking down on the square from above the main street."?: "To deal with the increased security, gang members spotted each security officer prior to the robbery and lookouts were posted looking down on the square from above."
  • "dead humans and horses": it strikes me as unidiomatic to talk of people as humans. I think this may have been done to avoid repetition of "people" in the same sentence, or to go for the h- and h- alliteration?
  • Can we expand "the death of his wife Ekaterina Svanidze" to "the death by natural causes of his wife Ekaterina Svanidze". Just to highlight that her death was not related to the raid or the revolution.
  • No problems with sources or media. There was a problem with the media file in the template (because if File:StalinPortrait.jpg was taken in 1943 or after, as claimed, then the license is incorrect), but I have exchanged it with a known free one. DrKiernan (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't wish to hold this up, so I've made three changes on the above. DrKiernan (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Could the nominator please provide a short summary of the actions taken to resolve the two remaining opposes and respond to DrKiernan's review? Graham Colm (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately, I am extremely busy in real life right now, but I should be able to address all concerns sometime this week. Remember (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • DrKiernan has made his own revisions. As for the two opposes, I will discuss them each below.Remember (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The first oppose was from RaviMy Tea Kadai who opposed using Trotsky as a source, but we only use Trotsky as a source for a small point and we point out his conflict of interest in the article. Given that there are a lack of good sources on this issue, I think it is useful to have and I disagree that the use of this source should disqualify the article. Remember (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second oppose is from SpinningSpark who said that he opposed because: (1) the background section needed to "discuss[] the Czarist state and the Bolsheviks relationship to it; and (2) use of the word "alleged" was inappropriate in his view to characterize Stalin's working for the secrete police. I do not think that further background is needed regarding the status of the Czarist state at this point, and I think the use of the word alleged is fine given the sources we cited. If other editors feel differently, let me know and I will try to address these concerns. Remember (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let me know if you need any further information. Remember (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Eisfbnore
  • "Lenin conceived of a plan to have various individuals cash the large bank notes at once at various locations thoroughout Europe in January 1908, but this strategy failed resulting in a number of arrests, worldwide publicity, and negative reaction from European social democrats." — I would prefer a comma after "failed".
  • "The goal of the RSDLP was to change the economic and political system in the Russian Empire through a proletarian revolution according to Marxist doctrine." — Perhaps swap "according to" for "in accordance with"?
  • "From 1903 onwards, the RSDLP was divided between two major groups, the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks." — The comma after "groups" ought, methinks, to be replaced with a semicolon or a dash.
  • Is Brit. or Am. Eng. used in the article? I'm seeing both "per cent" and "traveled".
    • Not sure there is a definite decision. I am happy either way. Let me know what needs to be revised to make it consistent. Remember (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Per cent" is Br. Eng. whilst "traveled" is Am. Eng. It's your take, but since this article deals with a European topic, I would have chosen British English.
  • "Because Voznesensky worked in the Tiflis banking mail office, he had access to a secret schedule that showed the times that cash would be transferred by stagecoach to the Tiflis branch of the State Bank" — I would ditch the "Because" in favour of "Since". There are a few too many because's in this article.
  • "Kamo was confined to his bed for a month due to intense pain" — Shouldn't the "due to" be "owing to"?
  • "On the day of the robbery, 26 June 1907, the 20 organizers, including Stalin, met near Yerevan Square (just 2 minutes from the seminary, bank and viceroy's palace) to finalize their plans, and after the meeting, they went to their designated places in preparation for the attack." — My own (non-native) comprehension of English would dictate that the comma be placed after "and".
  • "Apart from Kamo, none of the organizers of the robbery was ever brought to trial" — subject-predicate agreement.
  • "The Bolsheviks popularity in Tiflis continued to fall and by 1911, there were only about 100 Bolsheviks left in the city" — 1) missing possessive apostrophe in "Bolsheviks" 2) comma after "and"?
  • "The statue of Lenin was torn down in August 1991 in the final months of the Soviet Union to be replaced by the Liberty Monument in 2006." This sentence would exploit its grammatical parallelisms better if it read thus: "The statue of Lenin was torn down in August 1991—one of the final months of the Soviet Union—and replaced by the Liberty Monument in 2006".
  • "Stalin's role was later questioned by fellow revolutionaries Boris Nicolaevsky and Leon Trotsky, Stalin's rival, who was later assassinated on orders from Stalin." — This is a bit unclear. Most people will of course understand that it was Trotsky who was assassinated, but the sentence should be more clear in explaining it thus. How about: "Stalin's role was later questioned by fellow revolutionaries Boris Nicolaevsky and Leon Trotsky. The latter, Stalin's rival, was later assassinated on orders from Stalin." --Eisfbnore talk 18:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- all comments have been addressed. Please let me know if there are any other comments. Remember (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the changes look great. You'll have my support. Eisfbnore talk 21:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:52, 19 February 2012 [28].

John Balmer

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After my recent naval sortie with the Hector Waller FAC, time for another pilot. However, while the services may have differed, John Balmer has more than a little in common with Hec Waller: both were professionals who joined the armed forces before World War II; both attained similar ranks; and both seemed destined for prominent post-war roles in the Australian military before being killed in action. For further context, Balmer preceded William Brill, whom some might recall from a FAC last year, as commanding officer of No. 467 Squadron RAAF during the air war in Europe. This is a bit shorter than either Waller's or Brill's articles but, given Balmer lived an even briefer life, I don't think it's lacking in any detail -- except how he got his nickname, for which I apologise in advance... ;-) This has passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews, the latter including a spotcheck with Earwig but, oddly enough, no explicit image check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and Images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images all fine per pre-1955 Australia rule
  • be consistent in use of "Retrieved" vs "Retrieved on"
    • Tks for finding the one that slipped through... ;-)
  • Compare FNs 21 and 22
    • Tks for that too.
  • Allen & Unwin: Sydney or North Sydney?
    • Definitely North Sydney for one that I have. Will ping Nick-D to confirm the other, which he added.
      • I added the reference to Whispering death. The publishing details page identifies Allen & Unwin as being both in Sydney in the list of cities where the firm has offices and Crows Nest (a suburb of Sydney) in the specific publishing details, so I went with Sydney. However, the National Library of Australia uses Crows Nest in its record for the book. The State Library of NSW uses 'Crows Nest' for its record for the hard copy of the book (which I what I consulted) and 'Sydney' for the ebook edition... I'd say that using 'Sydney' makes more sense, but either option works. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well I might use Crow's Nest then as I tend to take the specific suburb if one is given. As I've mentioned to Nikki before, A&U has used St Leonards, Crows Nest, and North Sydney in its time, which could even be the same office with boundary changes over the years as the three locations are in such close proximity. Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the ADB be italicized? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article's GA and A class nominations, and I think that the FA criteria are now also met. My only comment is that it's a bit odd to say that a military pilot in a combat zone "took three weeks sick leave" - it's my understanding that they don't have much choice about this kind of thing (as the flight surgeon won't allow them to fly and orders that they stand down), while the use of 'took' implies that he had a choice in the matter. Nick-D (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks (disclaimers: no spotchecks, MilHist member). Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I reviewed this article at DYK almost a year ago, and am quite impressed with it. One quibble though: I bet there's a few due/owing to errors in the article; esp. when the antecedent of it is another verb than 'to be'. They're in effect the same now, but I think that in an FA this should be paid attention to. --Eisfbnore talk 13:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:43, 18 February 2012 [29].

George Andrew Davis, Jr.

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article.. —Ed!(talk) 01:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

  • Please double cite the citation 16 and 17 in the third paragraph of the Command and Success section. The current citations only confirmed the Chinese side of the story during the November 30 engagement, but it did not mention Davis involvement in anyway.
  • If possible, please add the research from the book Красные Дьяволы на 38-ой Параллель (Red Devils on the 38th Parallel) on the circumstances of Davis' death in the Identity of Assailant section. Aside from an important book on the Russian involvement in the Korean War, Colonel Askold Germon, the author of the book, was personal involved in investigating Davis' death on the Russian side. Jim101 (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments, leaning toward supporting. This is very good—just needs some fit and finish and possible attention to one section.

  • MoS problems spotted:
    • Image captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods. I see you say that is fixed above, but it's not.
      • I think I've fixed them all now. —Ed!(talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • None of them were fixed. We're clearly not connecting here. For example, the caption under the airplane image in the World War II section is "The P-47 Thunderbolt, the type of aircraft Davis flew during World War II." This is not a complete sentence, hence it should not have a period. I just went ahead and fixed them. Also, a friendly suggestion: using edit summaries makes it a lot easier for reviewers to examine the changes you make. --Laser brain (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "By this point, Davis had 12 victories and the next best pilots claimed only six." WP:ORDINAL. Comparative quantities should both be written out, or both written as numbers.
  • I'm rather disappointed by the Controversy section. Is the current content really all that can be said here? Can you expand on the three controversies? What do you mean by saying that his presence in Korea was disputed? The section raises more questions than it answers.
    • Some of the information fit much better in the biography area (eg. the Army extended his tour because they couldn't find anyone to replace him) and re-stating it in that section would have gotten me in trouble for being repetitive. —Ed!(talk) 17:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was followed by another 74 hours during Basic Flight Training in Waco, Texas and a final stint of training aboard the T-6 Texan at Aloe Field in Victoria, Texas." Avoid beginning sentences with the vague "This". This what?
  • "He closed to 75 yards (69 m) of the pair" Either "closed to within" or "closed to 75 yards (69 m) from the pair"?
  • "This changed on November 30, Davis' 22nd combat mission in Korea." Same comment as above.
  • "scored a direct hit on Davis' fuselage, causing it to spin out of control" Just the fuselage spun out of control?
  • I do not have access to any of the sources used; therefore, I did not perform a source spot-check.
  • "killing the Chinese flight leader leading" Can we find a way to rephrase this to avoid the "leader leading"?

--Laser brain (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Some of these are explained at WP:MHU. - Dank (push to talk)

Comments Support from Noleander (Prose only) ... However, recommend address comments from Ealdgyth below before promoting.

  • Section name "Controversy" - Section title is too sensational - not as professional as it could be. Generally, section titles like "criticism" or "controversy" should be avoided, if there are more descriptive titles available. See WP:Criticism essay. The simplest solution here is just to eliminate the "Controversy" top level section, and leave its 3 subsections under "Korean War" heading.
  • Sources: The line "This article incorporates public domain material from websites or documents of the United States Army Center of Military History." ... I've never seen that before in an article (I have not reviewed many military articles). Is it necessary? Don't many articles use government and/or public domain materials as sources? Is there some WP policy that suggests that that statement should be included? If it is not required, I would omit it, because it implies that there are some sources that were used that are not listed in the "Sources" section.
    • It's there to refer primarily to the awards and decorations section to refer to the text of the awards. They're long text provided by the US Army Institute of Heraldry, and though they;re cited to books, they aren't the intellectual property of those authors. As far as I know, they should have the template. —Ed!(talk) 10:10, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Units: " 500 m (550 yd) " - all other measurements in the article have English with metric in parenthesis.
  • Portal box: The portal box in the See Also section is rendered in a rather ugly way, at least in my Chrome browser. It would look nicer if you used the horizontal layout provided by the {{Subject bar}} template (see Foley Square trial for an example of that usage).
  • Chronology: The "Early Life" section includes: "His wife was six months pregnant with their third child, Charles Lynn Davis, at the time of his death in 1952." That is out of place in the article, which is otherwise arranged chronologically (certainly his death is not part of his "early life"). This is a common problem in biographical articles: Where to put the information about marriage and death? My suggestion is to take the latter 2 paragraphs from "Early Life" and move them into a new section "Personal Life" at the end of the article. But maybe there are other ways to address it.
  • Identity of assailant: "Although Zhang was credited by the Chinese for shooting down Davis' F-86, Russian sources disputed his claim 40 years later ..." - That sentence appears near the bottom of the section. It needs to be at the top, where the dispute between China and USSR is introduced: the fact that the USSR claim only arose 40 yrs after the event is important.
  • Alt text is missing for photo captioned "Davis in the cockpit of his F-86 Sabre in Korea during his 1952 tour in the war"
  • Prose quality is excellent.
  • Overall, a fine article.

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support' (switching from Comments:) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:22, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment:
    • Lots of short one and two sentence paragraphs in the early section of the article, this gives the prose a very choppy feel, is there a way they can be combined somewhat to alleviate this?
  • Lead:
    • Given the size of the article, can we make the lead less than four paragraphs? It kind of feels like the lead has been broken into four paragraphs just to meet some sort of "needs four paragraphs in the lead" rule - would read a bit better if the paragraphs were combined somewhat.
    • "...quickly rising to become the war's ace of aces and..." was he the US ace of aces or for the entire war, both Chinese, Korean, and all the other forces taking part?
  • Early life:
    • "...and was known to have taken up farming for a time before entering the military." Wordy - suggest "...and took up farming before entering the military." And why is this before his educational information? Generally folks go to school THEN pick up a career...
  • World War II:
    • Do we really need to know how many hours he had in the various training planes?
      • It establishes his level of experience on various aircraft, and helps to set up the large amount of flight time he accrued which could have contributed to his overconfidence against poorly trained Chinese and Soviet pilots. —Ed!(talk) 10:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Guinea:
    • "Davis was also known among the pilots to be very confident of himself. Many of the pilots of the unit became aces in short order." These two sentences don't fit very well together... can we make them flow better?
  • The Phillippines:
  • Post-war:
  • Command:
    • "However, these plans changed when it was determined the Air Force had no capable replacements for Davis who could command his squadron. He gained the nickname "One Burst Davis" for his extremely accurate shooting." these two sentences have nothing to do with each other and the transition is jarring, can we place the second sentence elsewhere or something?
  • Length:
    • "...something rarely done by widows of killed American soldiers in the war." something reads off in this - suggest "...something rarely done during the war by widows of killed American soldiers." or "...something rarely done by widows of American soldiers in the war." or even "...something rarely done by widows of American soldiers at the time."
  • Identity:
    • "In light of these findings and the testimonies from ground troops that had witnessed the battle, Zhang was credited by the Chinese military for shooting down Davis' F-86. Davis' dog tag is currently on display at the Dandong Korean War Museum." again, I don't see the connection between these two sentences and the transition is jarring. Needs rewording.
  • I am not quite ready to support just yet. Besides the above notes, I did some copyediting, and it wouldn't hurt to get someone outside the subject area to review the prose also. It's close, but there are still some spot of less than engaging prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:39, 18 February 2012 [30].

Tricholoma pardinum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) & Sasata (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This was another funny poisonous mushroom which fascinated me as a kid, and its drawings always looked sinister to me. Anyway, I buffed this to a point and then felt stuck for a long time, but finally called in Sasata, as alot of the information (particularly taxonomic history) was really fiddly and took some time, discussion and maybe even a little lateral thinking to get (hopefully) right. Two of us are here to address concerns super-quick, and hopefully it is a good read (and has about every damn thing written on the fungus in it :)) Have at it. (NB: 'tis verily a wikicup nomination, or is it a double nomination, or nomination/2....?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, conditional on a few quibbles (and resolution of Nikkmaria's concerns above):

  • Ref 17 is a dead link.
  • In Description, is there a reason for some of the ranges using en dashes and some using the word "to"?
  • Distribution: Can we introduce a bit of variety so most sentences don't begin with "It"? Subjective matter, really, but we need all the excitement we can get.
  • "A historical record from Estonia has been discarded." Why?
  • "Eating it results in highly unpleasant gastrointestinal symptoms of nausea, dizziness, vomiting and diarrhea, which may have a fetid odour." I'm sure I'll be sorry for asking, but what has a fetid odour? The diarrhea? When does diarrhea not have a fetid odour? --Laser brain (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: All images verified as being properly sourced an either public domain or freely licensed. --Laser brain (talk) 22:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Several of the sources are foreign-language, and I cannot verify them.
  • Ref 20(a): Article text is covered in work cited, and is appropriately paraphrased.
  • Ref 27: Article text is covered in work cited, and is appropriately paraphrased.
  • Ref 39: Too close for comfort.
Damn these ones can be tricky, with only a limited number of ways of imparting the information - have tweaked thusly Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I debated even mentioning it. Thanks for the tweak, though. --Laser brain (talk) 00:20, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: [T. argyraceum] se caractérise principalement par la teinte jaune vif qui apparaît, avec l'âge, d'abord sur les lamelles, puis sur les autres points du corps fructifère où commence la corruption. Ces deux espèces se trouvant communément en plaine, sous feuillus et Conifères, tandis que le tricholome tigré est essentiellement montagnard.
  • My translation: [T. argyraceum] is primarily characterised by a bright shade of yellow that, with age, first appears on the gills, and later on others parts of the fruitbody where rotting/decay has commenced. These two species are commonly found in plains underneath broad-leaved trees and conifers, whereas the tiger tricholoma essentially grows in highlands.
  • Article: [...] its gills and bruised parts turn yellow with age. Both of these species are found more in lowlands in Europe, whereas T. pardinum is more common in montane areas." Auree ★ 12:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source: De plus, le Tricholoma orirubens se distingue du Tricholoma tigrinum par les plus faibles dimensions* du chapeau [...] la chair assez cassante ...
  • My translation: Furthermore, the Tricholoma orirubens is distinguished from the Tricholoma tigrinum by the smaller size* of its cap [...] the rather brittle flesh ... *"faibles dimensions" is slightly ambiguous; in this context, I take it to mean "smaller size", though it could also (less likely) refer to the meagreness/brittleness of the cap's structure.
  • Article: T. orirubens has [...] brittle flesh, and is generally smaller.
  • Source: crampes dans les mollets [found in list of symptoms]
  • Translation: cramps in the calves
  • Article: Cramping may occur in the calves.
  • authored the species — I don't like author as a verb, but if it's used as such, it should refer to a publication. Do you mean "described"?
duly deauthorised Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • authored a mushroom — write a mushroom... I think not, "described" again
ditto Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • fungus be authored as Tricholoma pardinum — "named"?
ditto Casliber (talk · contribs)
  • mycologist — overworked imho. I'd assume that someone writing about obscure mushrooms is a mycologist unless told otherwise
  • 2.5–4, 1.5–2, 2.5–4 — inconsistent number of sig figs, also inconsistent usage within article (8.0–9.6). Should be 4.0 etc
  • Hi Jim, thanks for the comments. Unfortunately, I just can't add sig figs, I have to give as many (or fewer) as reported by the source. I checked the sources I have available (Cas will have to check one I don't have) and added sig figs to a few (as warranted in the source), but in the "Similar species" section, the inconsistent sig fig values can't be helped. Sasata (talk) 06:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that is just plain wrong, wrong, wrong. If you are saying you can't change what appears in the source, that means that you are assuming that the authors measured to 0.1 μm, except where they thought it looked like a whole number in which case they measured only to the nearest μm. I not sure it's even possible to do that without measuring to the nearest 0.1 first, then discarding that figure. The inconsistent figures are clearly due to sloppy writing/subediting. If you saw The sproe print is white in the source, would you reproduce as is, or correct an obvious typo? Even I'm not pedantic enough to withhold support on the basis of nonsensical data, but it's not OR to correct an obvious typo or formatting error Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the spore data was presented sloppily in this source (it's from a field guide, not a journal article, so they're writing for a general audience), but I'd have to make assumptions about the unseen original data and how it was rounded (or if it was at all) in order for this to be an "obvious" error, so I'd prefer not to make that decision and just report the data as is. Editorial wimpiness, I guess :) Sasata (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to seem to obsessive, but your usage is inconsistent in 5–6 by 3.5–4.0 μm. Why 4.0, but 5, 6? Also, if the source really is only measuring to half a μm, then giving a figure that implies tenths of a micron is misleading. 3½-4 would be appropriate. Now, where's my paperclip collection? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I confess I do like using the '½' notation....and agree it is a good way of highlighting the original text's measuing, but wonder whether it'd look odd in a paragraph where other amounts are decimal. Also, I made the assumption the source was only measuring down to half-microns from the measurements themselves on the source page, so would folks seeing a bunch of .5 microns reading this assume the same? (i.e. is '½' necessary to denote this? - pondering what to do here...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind using fractional numbers in general, but it would look inconsistent here where other measurements are in decimals. Looking at the big picture, I don't think much fuss is necessary about this: we give microscopic measurements so that the article meets the comprehensiveness requirement, but the average reader will likely gloss over this information. Others with a microscope will probably not care greatly about the sig figs given in these measurements (although we should do our best to present this information consistently as much as we are able). The few hard-core amateurs or mycologists who desire more precision will consult the scientific literature for these values. Sasata (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criteria 1 and 2. Wow, I'm quite impressed with the quality of presentation here: The article is well structured, tightly written, comprehensive and has an overall clean look to it. I read through and found most of my concerns to be so minor that I took the liberty of making the changes myself (serial comma consistency, some redundancy removal, etc). Changes can be viewed here, please check if I haven't altered any meaning. In any case, good work! Auree ★ 00:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, am glad it reads well as I did feel mentally blocked by it for a couple of years...changes are ok. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:21, 18 February 2012 [31].


Royal Opera, London

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other London opera company, the ENO, already has a Featured Article, and it seems to me that the Royal Opera, based at Covent Garden, ought to have one as well. This company has a shorter history than its rival establishment, having been formed from scratch at the end of the Second World War, developing to top international standards by the mid-1960s. The article has had a thorough peer review, with later supplementary comments and proof-reading, from several Wiki-colleagues, to whom I am most grateful. As always, comments on balance, referencing, images, prose etc will be gladly received. – Tim riley (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having already waxed lyrical about this excellent article when it was submitted for GA status,

What else? Trying to nitpick this article is a hard task. Support MistyMorn (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, as ever, for your unblinking eagle eye. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out in terms of licensing, though the Haitink photo is rather blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, it's a case of resorting to what's available. Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a drive-by comment, but it would be nice to add more images of the actual building (see the commons link I added). I was trying to remember if I'd been inside the building before (turns out I had!) Very beautiful establishment. Ruby 2010/2013 20:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some are available, but this article is about the company, rather than the building which has its own article here. I am wary of blurring that distinction too much. Tim riley (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, my apologies. Ruby 2010/2013 22:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies required! I'm grateful for your comments, and just wanted to explain my thinking. 81.178.197.68 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry - not logged in: 'twas I - Tim riley (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. I had the privilege of reviewing this at PR, and my concerns were answered and I see only improvement since. Actually, I've seen the Royal Opera twice, once in the old Covent Garden, once in the new. Tim has attained a similar improvement, at considerably less cost.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this (and delighted chuckling, too). Tim riley (talk) 17:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to a captivating performance: the order of appearance of famous singers in the lead is not obvious. The conductors are chronological, singers likely the same? But at that point I would also understand by alphabet. I admire Elisabeth Schwarzkopf a lot, but think the average reader may be more familiar with Maria Callas. Hotter and Flagstad are mentioned together in the article, how about the lady first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. I'll recast. Thank you for this. Tim riley (talk) 20:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After some pondering I thought that alphabetical order was best, and so, as it happens, it's ladies first for Callas, though not for Schwarzkopf. Tim riley (talk) 14:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, thank you. I never was there, but Kiri Te Kanawa as Contessa changed my life, good memories! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a couple of quibbles (obviously):-

  • I notice that the word "opera" occurs three times in the first line, three times in the second and twice more in the remainder of the paragraph. That's a lot of opera. I see the difficulty, because the word is in the present and former names of the company, and in the name of the other London company. But I wonder if a bit of tweaking could get rid of one or two?
  • The word "namely" before the list of names at the end of the lead should definitely be blowtorched.

I raised a lot more issues at the peer review, but can't identify anything else that needs fixing. A great effort. Brianboulton (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and for the two comments, with both of which I entirely concur and have acted on. Tim riley (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, this is a great read, just minor things I picked up with regards to sourcing:

  • For Ref 108, if you want I found a direct link to The Independent article. Same with 103.
    • Having had to reroute innumerable links to The Times after R. Murdoch erected his pay-wall I am chary of linking to other papers' sites lest they follow suit. I have more faith that Newsbank will continue to be accessible to WP readers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah yes, never thought that way. The Independent will be going paywall for non-UK readers in the coming months, so that could be problematic.
  • It should be made clear that Newsbank is the 'publisher' in all the references you have retrived stories from that site. So the newspaper becomes the 'work'. – Lemonade51 (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm slightly surprised at that. I think of Newsbank as the platform (cf. JSTOR, Gale, Chadwick et al) and the copyright owners as the publishers. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. I did double check some articles on Newsbank just now and it does clearly state the copyrights underneath.

Support Read through this yesterday at lunch and found it as I've said above, a great article. Prose shows clarity for one and there is a great selection of images. Ideally this should make the reader want to know more about the Royal Opera – preferably seeing it first hand. Alas I haven't but shall make a note of it in the coming year. – Lemonade51 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, both for your support and your helpful comments above. I didn't know about The Independent's plans, and I'll ask non-UK colleagues to check for blocked links in other articles when the paywall you mention comes into effect.

Support - A few months ago, I felt compelled to visit the building to learn more about it's archetecture. However, my attention was soon drawn to the RO instead. The pamphlets were brief and uninformative and I left feeling as if I needed to know more. Then comes this article. One should print this out instead to take round. It's far more engaging and whole lot more informative. Another great article Mr.Riley. -- Cassianto (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your kind words and your support. Tim riley (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012 [43].

Tropical Storm Cindy (1993)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A relatively short article on a short-lived yet devastating storm this time around. Cindy produced historic rainfall rates over Martinique as no more than a disorganized tropical storm, causing flooding that wiped out entire communities, killed two people, and left hundreds homeless. As if that weren't enough, it went on to bother the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico with blustery conditions before killing another two people in the Dominican Republic. The article is a GA and received a peer review from two editors, but any comments are welcome and appreciated! Disclaimer: I can fluently read both Spanish and French, so any sources in those languages were translated by myself. Auree ★ 02:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Binksternet
  • The storm track is first described as moving "steadily west-northwestward". Next, the storm is said to have "moved to the west-northwest". How about using "continued to the west-northwest", as "moved" implies a change in direction.
  • The name "Cindy"... I'm not much of a storm follower but this phrase to me suggests two actions, not one: "the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Cindy". First, the NHC upgraded the depression to "tropical storm". Second, the NHC assigned the new storm the name "Cindy".
  • The en dash should not take the place of an intermediate word in these constructions: "with totals ranging from 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of between 2.0–4.5 in". Those bits should be either
    • "with totals ranging from 4 to 10 in"; "received rainfall amounts between 2.0 and 4.5 in" (ditching the en dash) or
    • "with totals of 4–10 in"; "received rainfall amounts of 2.0–4.5 in" (keeping the en dash).


Comments: A tidy-looking storm article. I have a few mainly minor prose issues.

  • Do we use "USD"? I thought $ was assumed US unless specified otherwise
  • Phrasing: "The origins of Tropical Storm Cindy trace back to..." → "...can be traced to" (the origins are what are traced, not what are doing the tracing)
  • Comma needed after "(hPa; 29.74 inHg)"
  • Some confusion as to classification as "storm" or "cyclone" in the Meteorological history section. We read that "the NHC upgraded the depression to Tropical Storm Cindy around 1800 UTC on August 14", but at the start of the next section we have "When Cindy became a tropical cyclone on August 14..." Are the terms "storm" and "cyclone interchangeable? When you say "prompting the NHC to declassify it as a tropical cyclone on August 17", I assume you mean downgrade it from a cyclone to...something else?
  • "Tropical depression" is the weakest classification for tropical cyclones, i.e. a tropical cyclone with winds of less than 39 mph. I've clarified it in the article -- does that do the trick? And declassified as a tropical cyclone, not necessarily downgraded. It might have had equally strong winds or thunderstorms as a remnant system; it just didn't meet the requirements for tropical cyclone classification, as it lacked an organized circulation. Auree ★ 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the links look unnecessary. For example, "violent rainfall" links to rain. I think we all know what rain is, violent or otherwise.
  • In what sense wer the flood waters "thick"?
  • "Damage across the small commune alone..." No small commune identified that I can see
  • Distinctly odd phrasing: "trading vessels from Petite Martinique briefly ceased their purchases from supplying fishers". I take it to mean that these tradng vessels stopped buying fish from local fishing boats, and if that is so it needs to be said more clearly.
  • "In spite of the thorough preparations across Puerto Rico, Cindy's center passed well to the south of the island." How very unsporting of it! I don't think, however, that "In spite of" is appropriate. Perhaps "Thorough preparations were made across Puerto Rico, although in the event Cindy's center passed well to the south of the island."
  • Non-prose point: I wonder at the usefulness of the two "see also" links.

Happy to support in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brian! Concerns addressed; the ones that needed clarification have been replied to inline. Auree ★ 01:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: subject to any issues arising from sources or media (which I have not checked). My queries above are satidfactorily addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 1: link gives a different author name than you do, why? Also applies to other citations to same source (and need page number here)
  • Fn 12: check spelling of author name
  • Don't need retrieval dates for Google Books links
  • For some reason, there's no accessdate parameter in the edit window (I removed all of them for Google Books a few days ago), but the retrieval date still shows up... I'll try to see if I can get rid of it. Auree ★★ 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the problem is beyond that. I can't get the reference to stop showing up even after removing it entirely. Never mind, the problem was contained in the citations for the rainfall template. Auree ★★ 03:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the source and image reviews, Nikki Auree ★★ 03:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - exceptionally written piece that seamlessly incorporates quite a bit of info. Absolutely the most comprehensive and extensive account ever written on the storm, so I support its promotion without hesitation. I especially like how you did the first paragraph of the intro, which is always hard for me to perfect. Juliancolton (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the laudatory comments and support, Julian! Auree ★★ 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012 [44].

President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General MacArthur's relief in 1951 remains a controversial topic in the field of civil-military relations. Article has been through peer, good article and a-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor comment. I saw this on my watchlist and the title made me chuckle. So I took a look at the talk page and the A-class review, and found much discussion about the title. While "relief" may be the correct military term, the way it is used in the title suggests not only a sculpture of the MacArthur, but also a sigh that "Thank God he's not sending me back to Korea again". In military terms, "relief" also suggests wartime reinforcements or rescue.
My tentative suggestion is that this article is as much about Truman as MacArthur, and so much of the ambiguity in the title could be resolved by mentioning both people, e.g., "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" (with first names added if preferred). The "sigh of relief" garden path is thus avoided, while the "sculpture" and "wartime" interpretations become rather unlikely. Geometry guy 20:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This came up during peer review and A-class review but did not achieve any consensus. I thought maybe the wider audience here might be the place. "Relief" is indeed the correct military term, and some editors were dead against the use of more colloquial terms like "dismissal", especially when that word also had a precise military meaning. We wanted to avoid having the article say that it's own title was wrong. I suggested "The Truman-MacArthur controversy" but another editor felt that this "implies equivalence between the Commander in Chief and a subordinate [Commander in Chief]". The whole article is about this very subject. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read it, and agree with some of those concerns. What do you think of a title along the lines I suggest: "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur"? Geometry guy 23:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be acceptable to me. I would like to hear more opinions before making any change. though. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a Brit, not particularly au fait with military stuff, I have to say I understand exactly what the title signifies – that MacArthur was relieved of his military command. The nominal ambiguity is one that I don't think many would puzzle over. If the consensus is to change, I'd say "President Truman's relief of General MacArthur" is a good alternative. Brianboulton (talk) 09:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As a Brit, though, how well do you think it explains the American political-military system to a British reader? How do you feel about the "Foreign Pressure" section? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn here; the real-life equivalent of my on-wiki role is "freelance copyeditor", which means I'm here to help, not to set rules. However, I'll repeat that this doesn't seem like a close call to me: given the target readership (most of the English-speaking world), the word "relief" in the title will be misinterpreted more often than it will be interpreted correctly (a majority of our readers aren't familiar with the history, sadly). Of course, when readers get into the article, everyone will get it pretty quickly ... but central to copyediting is the notion that phrases that may make your target readership stumble ... or worse, chuckle ... should be replaced by phrases that don't. "Relief of command of General Douglas MacArthur" or "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur" would be fine. Hawkeye doesn't like "Firing of General Douglas MacArthur", but I can't see the harm, as long as you make it clear in the first two sentences that he was fired from some but not all of his positions. - Dank (push to talk) 21:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "relief" in the sense of sculpture is that well known. I would be happy with "President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur". MacArthur was indeed relieved of all of his three commands, but the article makes it clear that he was not actually fired and could not have been. He continued drawing his five-star salary until his death in 1964. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "Firing" and "Dismissal" are not appropriate here. I would also note that for me the main garden path was "relief" as in "sigh of relief" or "relief from pain"; I only noticed the "sculpture" interpretation on reading Hawkeye7's introductory comments at the A-Class review! Geometry guy 23:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur is fine with me, any objections? - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about this article; Recall of General Doublas MacArthur was a chapter name I had found in one of your sources and I mentioned in the first A review, however, I never pursued this very far because "relieved/relief" isn't wrong just confusing, its used in other sources and the supporters eventually supported that name. You probably could use synonyms in the article for "relief", but other than that its a good article. Kirk (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I supported this article's promotion to A class, and think that the FA criteria are also met. The current title makes sense to me, and is in line with what the various works which cover this topic call it. It would be fairly unusual to change the title of an article which has successfully passed through GA and A class reviews... Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in this case; I sat out the peer review and A-class review over this issue, and more people hang out at FAC than at A-class and peer review who care about copyediting this kind of thing. And I've been involved in several title changes at FAC over the last few months (hyphen to dash, "photographer" to "photography", and ß to ss). - Dank (push to talk) 21:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use a consistent date format
  • Fn 86, 135: publisher?
  • Check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • FNs 156-158: you're using three different names for the same publisher
  • Compare formatting of FNs 120 and 177
  • Use consistent wikilinking
  • FN 185: typo
  • New York Times or The New York Times? be consistent
  • be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Be consistent in how you list multiple works by the same author
  • Be consistent in whether you provide locations for journals
  • James 1975 is volume 2 of what? Does that volume have a title? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Done
  2. Added
  3. Okay
  4. Corrected
  5. Done
  6. Okay
  7. Corrected
  8. Done
  9. Difficult! Fortunately, I have written a bot...
  10. Done. Not sure if you like the dash format
  11. Done.
  12. "The Years of MacArthur" Changed "work" to "series"

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I also reviewed this article for A-class, and the comments I had were addressed there. I asked for some rewording and clarity in several places. The piece easily matches or exceeds the detail in scholarly works including the Truman Presidential Library and books I have on the Korean War. As far as content is concerned at least, it contains everything it should. —Ed!(talk) 15:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • "Left to right" is preferable to "Left to Right"
  • Source link for File:Truman_and_MacArthur.JPG redirects here
  • Source link for File:Douglas_MacArthur_speaking_at_Soldier_Field_HD-SN-99-03036.JPEG returns error message. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Done
  2. Done
  3. I replaced this with the version that you see here from the Truman Library, but forgot to alter the description. Switched to reference from the Truman library.
  4. Link rot. Added NARA information.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment. The sentence "MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." needs some clarification. Up until that point in the article, I was under the impression that insubordination was precisely what MacArthur was relived for. For example, a few paragraphs before that, Truman is quoted as saying "I could no longer tolerate his insubordination." Maybe it should say something like "According to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination." or "Technically, MacArthur was not relieved for insubordination, but for ???." Kaldari (talk) 09:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-worded to make this clearer. It is one of a number of points in the article where Truman says or writes something he knew to be untrue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's much clearer. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    My only other criticism is that the article is a bit on the lengthy side, but since I can't come up with anything obvious to remove, I won't withhold my support due to this. Kaldari (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments
    Whose support is this? The first sig I encounter is the nominators-- please add {{unsigned}} or {{interrupted}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's Ian's. His signature is below, at the end of the Spotchecks. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyedited as usual, pls check I haven't inadvertently altered meaning anywhere. Aside from that, happy with prose now.
    • Level of detail seems fine, as does structure (not necessarily straightforward in an article like this), referencing, and supporting materials.
    • Spotchecks:
      • Checked sources against citations #29, #41, #47, #165, #177, #179, #182 and #190; tweaked a couple of things from an informational and page range point of view as a result but found no instances of copyvio or close paraphrasing -- no action required.
      • Couldn't find the documents referenced at citations #38 and #39 when I followed the links to the Truman Library site.
      • Don't think we can attibute "However, MacArthur did say things that would later come back to haunt him" to citation #65, as the source is simply a primary record of a conference. It's probably worth you checking each of the other instances you've used a primary source to make sure you haven't employed commentary that is not in fact part of the document (but which could well be cited to secondary sources).

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The structure of the article was difficult to determine, given the nature of the subject. This was the third attempt.
  2. The Truman library seems to have reorganised its documents, but fortunately the old ones are still available, at least for now; changed the links.
  3. Added a reference for the comment.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, re. 2, I can see the missing documents now, tks. Re. 3, that one's fine. Aside from this and the citations I've already listed above, can you just let me know you've double-checked other instances of primary sourcing to ensure we haven't attributed more to them than they actually contain, e.g. later analysis that should in fact be cited to a subsequent book, article, etc? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've conducted an audit of all of them:
  • 56, 78 and 87 reference a fact only. Added to reference to fix 78, similar to 66, so it now only references a fact.
  • 37, 47, 66, 83, 98, 118, 129, 121, 126, 137 and 142 are quotes only.
  • 19, 36 and 159 also include facts, which are covered by the document concerned.
So all are okay. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, just remembered I'd checked #56 earlier and was fine with it but didn't list in my comment. Anyway tks for double-checking the rest, mate, happy to support now -- great piece of work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Very 1st sentence should be plain and inviting. It is a bit convoluted: "On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War, of his commands for making public statements that contradicted the administration's policies." That parenthetical note within commas could be confusing to some readers. How about "On 11 April 1951, US President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his commands for making public statements that contradicted the administration's policies. MacArthur was a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War ..."
  • Lead tease: " Henceforth, all military officers were on notice that they could be relieved at will, with consequences that would unfold over the following decades." I like the suspense, but for an encyclopedia lead, maybe it would be better just to name a couple of examples right there.
  • Wording: "... in which he contradicted Truman's policy..." Contradict seems more appropriate for witnesses giving different account of facts. A better word may be undermined? opposed? subverted? undercut? disagreed with? contravened? Not a big deal, just thinking out loud.
  • "was cool about the idea" - a bit slangy. Some ESL readers may not grasp it.
  • "... come back to haunt him." a bit slangy. Maybe ".. would later regret"? Just a suggestion.
  • "Truman did not relieve MacArthur for the military reverses in Korea in November and December 1950. ..." I understand why that is being said at this point in the article, but it is just hanging out there, inviting the question "Okay, why was he relieved, then"? This text should probably be accompanied by a hint of what he was relieved for.
  • " Congressional inquiry". Capitalization is not uniform throughout the article. My preference is user lower case when used as adjective.
  • "Truman had touched upon one of the most sensitive issues in civil-military relations in the post-World War II period: civilian control of nuclear weapons. This was enshrined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1946." Could those two be merged into one sentence?
  • "Nonetheless, the British became alarmed in .." - The "nonetheless" is throwing me for a loop. I dont see how the preceding paragraph is opposed to the subsequent. Maybe just drop the "nonetheless"?
  • "In a 3 December 1973 article in Time Magazine, Truman was quoted as saying in the early 1960s..." - Ten year gap. Is the quote corroborated by other sources? Is there any reason to suspect the quote is not accurate? If so, why is the date and source (Time) emphasized in the article?
    • What happened was that this was one of the first lines to be put into the article, which was originality just sets of quotes. It came from the Harry S. Truman article. Considerable effort went into tracking down the source of the quote. This is the only source of the quote. The editor who dug it up wanted to emphasise that the quote was in restrospect (ie after Truman's defeat by Eisenhower) and not contemporary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Issues" section: has 3 excellent subsections. But the top-level "Issues" should itself have 1 or 2 introductory sentences, which tie-together the 3 subsections: What is the common theme? Why are they together? I concede that that kind of intro is hard to write.
  • "Relief" in title. I see the discussion above about this word. FWIW, my opinion is that article titles should really strive for common English, since we are reaching a global audience. There are times when technical accuracy should be sacrificed for understandability. I'd use "Termination" or "Discharged", "Dismissed", etc in the title. But that is just by 2 cents, and it is not an obstacle to FA status.
    • The problem is the conflict between technical accuracy and popular opinion. This is a thread that runs through the whole article.
  • Confusing author of order: "President Truman drafted an order to MacArthur, which was issued under Bradley's signature: "I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander in Chief of the United States ..."". I'm confused as to how Bradley could sign it if it says "my duty as President"?
  • Excellent article. Really well written. Will support when above are addressed.

End Noleander comments --Noleander (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to Support. But I would still recommend adding some text to the start of the "Issues" section explaining what the three subsections have in common (e.g. "The incident involved three important constitutional issues governing the relationship between the military and civilian realms of the Executive branch. Constitutional scholar Smith contends blah blah" ). Grouping the 3 subsections together without explanation like smacks a little of WP:Original Research. Otherwise, fantastic article! --Noleander (talk) 10:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 00:43, 16 February 2012 [45].

Mark Satin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this biography (touching on Vietnam War-era draft dodging, New Age politics, and radical centrism) for featured article status because it has been carefully developed over time. This is its third FAC review. I first nominated it five months ago (August 11). In the fall I put it through productive A-class and peer reviews. In November I re-nominated it here, but withdrew it (to save Wikipedia editors time and trouble) after I realized that all the editors were saying essentially the same thing: I needed to make sure the article was written in what one called the Wikipedia "house style." I have now done that - simplified words, shortened sentences, etc.

After the two brief notes below, I reprint 31 comments (from four editors) that I received during my second FAC review. Instead of responding to them there, I wrote a brief note saying I'd review my entire article with the spirit of those comments in mind. Now that I've done that, I have inserted responses after each of the comments below, to give you a better sense of how I've changed the article. (I responded to Nikkimaria's comments during my second FAC review.)

Correction!: Apparently, placing my responses to the 31 comments here would violate FAC norms (see Dank's note below). So I have placed them at the beginning of my talk page, under the heading "Responses to comments on 'Mark Satin' article." - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note on citation style. I have retained the style I used in a 2005 revision (my original 2004 stub contained no references). It is a composite with the following major features: (1) first name before surname, as in the Bluebook; (2) all commas until the period at the end, as in the Bluebook; (3) no parentheses around dates or publishers (except around years of journals), as in the MLA Handbook; and (4) "p." or "pp." before page numbers, as is the practice of some American publishers.

Note on links in the "References" section. I have linked authors and publishers here only if they are not linked anywhere in the text or in the "Publications" section; and I have only linked authors or publishers here on first mention.

I would appreciate your reactions to the article, and I will respond to them here. - Babel41 (talk) 23:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome back, Babel. I see you've made a lot of new responses to questions from previous FACs ... we generally like to start out with a blank page at FAC, so I've moved those to this FAC's talk page, if that's all right. - Dank (push to talk) 00:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dank. The last thing I want to do is violate FAC norms, so whatever you say, goes. Noleander, Brian, and Jim put a tremendous amount of thought into their questions, though; and I spent much time crafting appropriate answers (and changing my article accordingly); so I did think it would be useful for that material to be here. When you move it, could you create a conspicuous link to it, so FAC editors can readily find it? Thanks! - Babel41 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've put it in bold above, I don't think they'll miss it :) - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts, but I don't see it on the article's talk page. So I've entered it myself, on my own talk page, where I could post it at the very top, and eliminated your bold message above. I hope that works for you and everyone. - Babel41 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're on this FAC's talk page; you'll see them if you click on the "Discussion" tab above. I left messages on the 3 users' talk pages pointing them to your comments. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, foolish me. I'd like to keep them in both places for now, so any Web neophyte can find them. And thanks for writing N., B., and J., that was on my agenda for tomorrow. - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Foolish software for naming the talk page the "discussion" page ... the community has asked for the change, we're waiting on the developers. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • The article is looking very good.
Thanks ... didn't happen overnight. - Babel41 (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording confusion: "Other observers see Satin as a wounded figure. ... Annie Gottlieb, who attributes Satin's wounds to his struggle against the Vietnam War, .." - Not clear if these are emotional wounds, or physical. Did he pull a hamstring?
Done: He should have been so lucky. I've changed wounded to "emotionally wounded." That's not too strong a phrase, I think, given Berton's and Gottlieb's remarks. (And both of them like Satin's work!) - Babel41 (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His original Ten Key Values - I would love to see his original Ten Key Values for the Green Party. I see the link in the Ext links section ("Green Party of California. Green politics with the original Spretnak-Satin "Ten Key Values" statement largely intact..") but that looks like it has been modified somewhat. Can the original be linked to from Ext Links?
Done: I do reference two complete original Ten Key Values (TKV) statements, after listing the values themselves (in the sentence you describe in your last comment below). Both are in books, though, one by Gaard, the other by Spretnak-Capra. Unfortunately, the only 100% unadulterated original TKV statement I can find on an Internet site is the one on Satin's own site. And I am hesitant to link to Satin's TKV page in the "External links" section because Wikipedia warns (correctly, I think) against giving even the appearance of puffing one's biographical subjects. The TKV statement was not created by Satin alone (not that Satin states or implies that on his site - quite the contrary). If the TKV statement is linked to in the "External links" section, though, I think it should properly be on a Green site.
Given these considerations, I have done two things:
(1) I have retained your link to the California Greens' TKV page. You are right, their TKV statement is not greatly modified, and it retains the all-important open-ended questions. But I extended your link to encompass the two words "largely intact." That will clarify to viewers that the CA Greens' statement has been slightly modified.
(2) I had linked to Satin's online TKV page elsewhere in the article; and now I link to it a third time, alongside the Gaard and Spretnak-Capra books, following the listing of the TKVs that you discuss in your last suggestion below. (I realize that that violates Ealdgyth's advice to avoid citing three or more references in a row. But I hope I can be excused here, since all I'm doing is offering viewers an opportunity to look up the same material in different sources.) - Babel41 (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peculiar wording: "The radical middle idea does go back in time with him." - I think I know what the sentence is trying to say, but it is hard to parse, so maybe you should simplify the wording so readers can grasp it more readily.
Done: I replaced it with a more conventional construction: "Some observers had always seen him as a radical centrist." (Then I follow with the same two examples. They still work, I think.) - Babel41 (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence has a lot of quotation marks. Although perhaps they are grammatically correct, good usage suggests that there are exceptions to every rule (the capitalization should suffice to indicate that they are verbatim section titles): The values in the original [Ten Key Values] statement are: "Ecological Wisdom", "Grassroots Democracy", "Personal and Social Responsibility", "Nonviolence", "Decentralization", "Community-based Economics", "Postpatriarchal Values", "Respect for Diversity", "Global Responsibility", and "Future Focus".
Done: I can be too careful sometimes, and I definitely was here. All the quotes are gone now, and the titles do still read as if they are being directly quoted, as you anticipated. - Babel41 (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose, provided Noleander's points are addressed, per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've checked the changes since the last FAC, and read over the reviewer comments and answers on this FAC's talk page, and I'm satisfied with the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 15:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your subtle edits from January 7; both passages read more smoothly now. - Babel41 (talk) 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support and a couple of minor comments This is so much better, good use of notes to help your readers without losing direction in the text

Thank you! - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Later life", I'd be tempted to say stopped producing Radical... but no big deal.
Done: I like that, makes it more precise. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Manual of Style/Images#Location agrees with you, Jim. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Have moved all my left-aligned images so each begins one paragraph under the subheads, for consistency's sake. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportLeaning to support: I was impressed by this article at its previous FAC, though I thought it needed more work. My comments at that process have been addressed, and the article is now a truly impressive and informative account.

It is now a truly collective work as well, owing much to you, Jim, Nikkimaria, Dank, Noleander, Ed, Ealdgyth, others. And thanks for your excellent stealth edit to my "Carl Rogers" caption. - Babel41 (talk) 02:57, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few issues arising from my latest reading, mainly minor nitpicks:-

  • In the lead, you refer to "a period of political disillusion, spent mainly in law school and practicing business law". I see almost no reference to this period in the article, beyond a vague statement of disillusionment. As this period evidently lasted for seven years, a significant chunk of his life, I would have expected a little more detail in the body of the article, especially as the episode is highlighted in the lead. Like, when did he finish law school, when was he called to the bar, where did he practise, etc?
Done: Satin's law career always struck me as peripheral to his achievements as a political theorist and activist (i.e., the reason his biography belongs on Wikipedia), and there is little in print about it. But in response to your comment, I managed to find enough relevant material to add a brief paragraph about it; see paragraph #2 under the "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Just before leaving for Canada, Satin's father told him he was trying to destroy himself." This wording reads as though Satin's father, rather than Satin, went to Canada. ("Just before Satin left for Canada, his father told him..." etc)
Done: Right you are; I simply borrowed your wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When Mark Satin was hired as director of the Programme in April 1967, he attempted to change the Programme's culture". The second "Programme" should be a pronoun.
Done: Changed it to "its." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] Satin was fired..." This reads as though it was a second firing. I would re organise: "Satin was fired from the Programme soon after the appearance of the second edition of the Manual, which had a print run of 20,000,[45] and..."
Done: Again, simply used your good wording. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not use "arguably" as a loose adverb. Who has suggested that the Manual stands as an icon of its era?
Done: Have given Joseph Jones his due. Went on to eliminate another "arguably" from the last para. of the "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "[Satin's memoir encountered] a more fundamental obstacle than unenthusiastic reviews" carries the whiff of editorial opinion
Done: You're good! It now reads, "In addition, Satin's publisher began having reservations about him. Many years later, ..." - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "And philosopher Douglas Groothuis says..." In a few circumstances, beginning a statement with "And..." is acceptable, but is rarely encyclopedic and in this case is, I think, unjustified. (There are other instances, too)
Done: This is a tic left over from my long-lost youth. Overall, I found nine sentences beginning with "And" (NAP last para. (two instances), NWA paras. #3 and 4, NOPT last para., TKV para. #3, RMN para. #4 (two instances), and RMB para. #6). And I found one sentence beginning with - ugh - "So" (NAP para. 1). So I changed the beginnings of each of them. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Satin quit the Greens in 1990, but unless I missed something, you don't say when he joined.
Done: I thought it would be understood from his taking on a defining assignment at the founding meeting. I have now added a clarifying phrase. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, it would be useful to have a year for the foundation of Radical Middle, rather than a vague "Seven years later".
Done: I have put that in as well ("Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, end of para. #2). - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "To some extent, these objections were inevitable". Editorial observation, I fear.
Done: I felt it was just this side of objective, but I appreciate your sterner standard. I simply eliminated that transitional sentence and slightly re-worded the rest of that paragraph. It still works, I think. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Radical Middle provoked, and continues to provoke, essentially three kinds of responses". I found it hard to identify three separate responses from the following text. Could these be indicated a little for clarly?
Done: I gave neutral labels to each of the responses ("skeptical," "pragmatic," and "visuionary") and gave each a separate paragraph. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legacy" is what you leave when you're dead or completely retired. Maybe "Appraisal" or "Assessment" would be a more appropriate section title?
Done: "Assessment" does feel sunnier, I've taken it. - Babel41 (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to changing to full support, when these points, and sourcing and image issues, have been cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All my significant points answered; images & sources seem OK so I have switched to full support, registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Hopefully helpful note on layout of this page: Brianboulton's Sources review (d. 10 January) and my respones (d. 12-13 January) follow this bracketed note and continue through the indented "Endnote" many paragraphs below. Brianboulton's Support (d. 17 January) is given just above this note. Nikkimaria's Spotcheck of sources, my responses, and her response (d. 10 February) all appear toward the end of this page. - Babel41 (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Sources review: In general the sources look very solid. A few format isues:

Please allow me to explain and defend my choices here. Before turning this article into a fully-developed one, I put some time into thinking about format issues, and I think you might like what I've done when I explain it to you. I'll be as brief as I can ... really. - Babel41 (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is standard practice in reference listing to place authors' surnames first, i.e. "Slaton, Christa Daryl" not "Christa Daryl Slaton"
Addressed: When I started revising and expanding this biography one year ago, I read in Wikipedia:Citing sources that we could devise whatever reference listings we preferred, so long as they were (a) internaly consistent and (b) contained all necessary information. As you will see from the third paragraph in my inroduction to this FAC nomination, I chose to continue the hybrid style I devised as the first major contributor to this article in 2005. It is partially based on the Bluebook, which does place first names first.
After reading your comment, I looked at the current version of "Wikipedia:Citing sources" to see if that rule has changed. So far as I can tell, it has not. Section 7, "Variation in citation methods," states that different Wikipedia articles can and do use different citation "systems, styles and methods." Similarly, Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style reports that there is "no consensus on a preferred citation style or system." The example it uses is itself a hybrid style. Finally, I looked at some recently chosen Featured Article bios to see if Wikipedia's policy had changed in practice. I saw that the Brad Pitt bio, Wikipedia's FA for January 10 of this year, employs its own hybrid reference style that puts first names first.
I prefer putting authors' first names first. I think that makes it easier for readers to absorb the names and quickly move on. I hope you will let me keep them that way. - Babel41 (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of the book/article sources have several citations to them, including Satin: Confessions, Sale: SDS, Schreiber: "Canada's Haven" and several others. These should be listed in a "Bibliography" subsection; otherwise a reader, for example, who wanted to follow up on ref 106, wouldn't know where to look to get details of this book.
Addressed: My understanding of Wikipedia:Citing sources was, and is, that authors of fully developed articles are free to choose between two basic citation reference formats. The first consists of a list of '"full citations" (often listed under the label '"References"). The second consists of a list of "short citations" (often designated as "Citations") followed by a separate list of "general references" (often designated as "Bibliography"). In the current version of the "Wikipedia:Citing sources" page, section 1, "Types of citation," appears to express no preference between these two basic types, and section 6, "Citation style," explicitly leaves the "ordering of the information" up to the individual author.
I consciously chose the first reference format (which, btw, is a lot harder to type in). The second format makes sense to me when you're dealing with many more internal citations than texts cited to - for example, the Samual Adams FA-rated bio has almost 10 times as many internal cites as it does texts in its bibliograpphy. Even the recently FA-awarded Elvis Presley biography, with 372 internal cites to about 145 texts, works tolerably well under the second format. But my Satin biography has 216 internal cites to 154 texts. And 20 of those 216 cites are second and third references to Satin's own books, which are already separately listed in the "Publications" section. [These numbers are different now. See the "Update" section three paragraphs down.]
It makes no sense to me to have 216 (effectively, 196) short citations in one section linking to 154 general references in a second section. Consider what that might do to a reader who wanted to read my entire text along with all the references. Under the first forrmt (which I use), the reader is able to read 154 full references on first click, and has to scroll up the reference list to find the remaining 42 full references. True, it is not a perfect format. But under the second format, which you want me to use, the reader would not be able to read any references on first click. They would have to click twice to get at each full reference. And then, in order to get back to their place in my 7,500-word text, they would have to scroll up the screen, manually, 196 times, and try to remember where they were. I suspect readers would quickly forego looking at my full references.
That is why I prefer the first format to the second one with regard to my Satin bio (though not the Samuel Adams bio). I hope you and the other Wikipedia editors will let me retain my reference section as it stands. Perhaps one compromise could be for me to bundle some of my second and third references to certain texts in with my first references to them. For example, there is no altogether necessary reason for me to retain more than one reference listing for Schreiber's brief article, or to retain five (!) references listings for four pages in Churchill's article. I suspect I can, without significantly complicating life for researchers, reduce my 42 second and third references to non-Satin texts by nearly half. - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update on merging of citations: Brianboulton gave his support to this article on 17 January, four days after I suggested the "compromise" in the paragraph above. So I assume he was leaving it up to me whether or not to carry it out. I have now done so. There are now 204 references in all. 160 (nearly 80%) are full-citation references. An additional 20 (10%) are short-citation references to Satin's own books, which are already listed separately in the "Publications" section. Only 24 are short cites whose full cites need to be found by scrolling up the References section. And of those 24, nine are within six spots of a cite to the same source. Thus, the References section is now even more user-friendly than before, and far more user-friendly than a dual listing of Citations and Bibliography would be.
(I tried to carry out the consolidation of citas in a principled way. Among the newly conolidated cites, (a) none are over six pages in length, and (b) each covers a single topic - e.g., the references to McLaughlin p. 109 and p. 111 were not consolidated because the pages discuss different topics.) - Babel41 (talk) 07:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do refs 26 and 27 [now 24 and 26] have no page numbers? (See also 65 [now 59]. I notice other cases of chapter numbers rather than page ranges)
Addressed: Those refs are to chapter numbers rather than page numbers. I hate to keep throwing Wikipedia:Citing sources back at you, but section 5 there, "What information to include," sub-section 5.1, "Books," states that Wikipedia authors can give page numbers, page ranges, or chapter numbers "if appropriate." Whenever I cite chapter numbers it is because an entire chapter or series of chapters is relevant to the issue being discussed in my text. Thus, for example, in ref [#26] I cite to a chapter that speaks directly and specifically to the issue being discussed (Satin's rebelliousness after leaving for university). - Babel41 (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endnote: Please don't take my comments about format issues above as any sort of resistance to your counsel. In the end, I am willing to do whatever I am expected to do to bring my article up to FA status. I do want you to see that I strongly believe I am abiding by the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's current format rules, including those that allow for thoughtful choice on the part of its authors. - Babel41 (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, sources look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem to be in order, with the caveat that I don't have OTRS access (many of the files claim OTRS permission). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully helpful note on images (from nominator of article): Again, sorry I'm so slow. Here's something I wrote on images earlier today that might help:

To (possibly) save Wikipedia editors time and duplication of effort, I thought it might be useful to point out that image issues for this article (a topic raised by Brianboulton, above) have been taken up by two Wikipedians over the last few months.

(1) Nikkimaria asked the following question during my first FAC review, and I provided her with this answer at her talk page on 17 November 2011:

  • Phillips contributed the photo [of the Anti-Draft Programme door] to the public domain, but who holds copyright on the image on the door? Is the artist known, is the image PD...?
Done: Your question eventually caused me to familiarize myself with Wikimedia and its requirements. All five of the pictures in the article that come from Satin's collection (the first, [second, third, fourth, and sixth]) now have their yellow OTRS permission slips from Wikimedia. In other words, I had the photographers send documents to Wikimedia verifying that they were turning their photos over to the public domain. In the case of the "door" photo, I also had the artist - Satin - submit a letter to Wikimedia verifying that he is the artist and that the image belongs to the PD. - Babel41 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(2) On 5 December 2011, according to the "Revision history of Mark Satin" page, a Wikipedian named Kitfoxxe apparently looked over my images and removed two that I had simply found on Wikimedia (i.e., not any of those dealt with in the prior paragraph). I have not attempted to restore either of them.

In the "Early years" section, Kitfoxxe removed an image of the SNCC pin on the grounds that it is "only related to a small time in the subject's life." That is true. In the "Assessment" section, Kitfoxxe removed the image of a pre-Reagan era Greyhound bus-and-terminal on the grounds that it has only an "indirect connection to subject." That may be a closer call. Satin does not appear in the picture. But as the "New World Alliance" sub-section (first para.) and Note #11 [now #13] make clear, Satin was a "networker" for two years in the 1970s, and the Greyhound bus system was his medium.

After writing the defense of my reference format choices above, the last thing I want or intend to do is question another Wikipedia editor's work on something he or she knows far more about than I. But if any of you would care to look at the Greyhound image (with caption) and re-assess, you can find it atop this article's FAC talk page. - Babel41 (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 7 sources found the following issues:

Thanks for your work here. - Babel41 (talk) 19:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN [15] covers pages 74–76, but the second occurrence of that footnote cites material that appears on pages 77–78
Done: I remembered citing those pages precisely, and when I went back to my edit page I discovered, to much dismay, that my cite to pp. 77–78 was preceded by a < ref name=Hagan tag, which may be what brought pp. 74–76 up instead – after I removed that tag, the correct page numbers reappeared. How embarrassing! I spent part of this afternoon trying to find similar glitches among the cites on my edit page, but could not. - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC) [Update: I have now simply merged the cites as pp. 74-78, as part of the "compromise" referred to at the end of the second "Addressed" section in Brianboulton's Source Review comments above. - Babel41 (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)][reply]
  • Compare "Satin says they are just updates of the values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair start), pursuit-of-happiness (human potential), and fraternity (help the developing world)." in the article to "Satin sees these key goals as updated aspects of the eighteenth-century values that animated the American Revolution: liberty (maximize choices), equality (a fair start), happiness (human potential) and fraternity (help the developing world)." in this source. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done: This paraphrase is too close. The new values (the phrases in parentheses) had been cited in the previous sentence in my article, so I substituted for the sentence you quote from a new one, as follows: "Instead of finding those values in the writings of contemporary theorists, Satin says they are just new versions of the values that inspired 18th century American revolutionaries - liberty, equality, pursuit-of-happiness, and fraternity, respectively." - Babel41 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source checks by nominator of article: After responding to Nikkimaria's spotchecks above, I took responsibility for reviewing all the references where I felt I might have possibly misrepresented or inadequately paraphrased material. I developed a list of 70 references to check out. I have now checked each of them, and msde the following changes:

A. Incomplete citations

1.) "Early years" section, para. 2 - the source describing Satin's expulsion from Midwestern State University (the Radical Middle book) refers only to "a small Texas state university." So I did some digging and came up with a new Note, as follows (now entered as Note #2): "Satin mentions this incident in his Radical Middle book, but omits the name of the university.[FN.] An article from September 1967 also mentions the incident without naming the university, but adds that Satin's father taught there at the time.[FN.] An article from May 1967 tells where the father taught.[FN.]"

2.) "Radical Middle, the book" sub-section, last para., fn. 201 [now 190] - although pp. 80-81 is not incorrect, a better sense of the emerging "ideology about ideologies" can be gleaned from pp. 77-81, so I changed it to that

B. Faux paraphrasing corrected by quoting or rewording the material

3.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, end of para. 3 - Pierre Berton's remark about Satin's stature has been reworded

4.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, end of para. 1 - journalist's phrase about the Manual-as-bestseller is now quoted (too precise to mess with)

C. Paraphrasing made looser by changing a key word or phrase (I was bending over backward to be correct here)

5.) "Toronto Anti-Draft Programme" sub-section, para. 3 - "cash grants" is now "cash"

6.) "Manual fo Draft-Age Immigrants to Canada" sub-section, para. 4 - "federal audit" is now "government audit"

7.) Same sub-section, last para. - "era" is now "age"

8.) "New World Alliance" sub-section, para. 2 - "held" is now "convened"

9.) "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 2 - "thinking" is now "views"

10.) "Ten Key Values" sub-section, last para. - "acknowledged" is now "recognized"

11.) "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, para, 2 - "specializing in" is now "focusing on"

D. Useful additions (as distinct from corrections}

- "New Options Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added a world-class futurist (Robert Theobald) to the list of representative figures on Satin's New Options Newsletter advisory board

- "Radical Middle Newsletter" sub-section, para. 3 - added an important person in the socially responsible investment community (Shelley Alpern) to the list of representative figures on Satin's Radical Middle Newsletter advisory board

- Same para., fn. 176 [now 166] - I mentioned and linked to the online masthead after citing the hard-copy masthead

I think you can now be confident that the article's sources are being used accurately and without too-close paraphrasing. - Babel41 (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Response by Nikkimaria] Yes, definitely. I'm now satisfied with the results of spotchecks. Nice work! Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You did careful work (and effective prodding!) at all three of my FAC reviews, and your praise here means a lot to me. - Babel41 (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great news - Wikipedia Featured Picture award: I thought everyone who's been helping me with the Mark Satin article over the last six months would like to know that one of the pictures used there - the one of Satin counseling draft dodgers in Toronto in 1967 - has just been voted a Featured Picture by the Wikipedia community! (It is now on exhibit at Wikipedia:Featured pictures and will apparently remain permanently at Wikipedia:Featured pictures/History/War.) I asked the photographer - now in her 60s - to turn the photo over to the PD last year, principally so I could use it in the Satin article. Six "support" voters mentioned or referred to other voters' mention of the photo's strong EV (encyclopedic value). - Babel41 (talk) 08:29, 28 January 2012 (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 22:38, 15 February 2012 [46].

Katharine Hepburn

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lobo512 (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I bring to FAC one of the most famous and unique women of the last century. I began working on the article last August, when it looked like this, and somehow ended up rewriting the whole thing and aiming for FA. This isn't a process I've been through before, but I have been reading the reviews here in preparation, and am familiar with FAC demands. I've also had input from several experienced editors. I believe it meets the criteria, but will happily address any concerns you may have. This is a popular article that gets viewed approximately 150,000 times a month, and would be a great feature for the main page (hopefully for her 105th birthday in May). Please note that all images have been carefully checked to be in the public domain (apart from one, which I believe meets non-free criteria). Lobo (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on all the work you've done on this article. However, I have one BIG problem that prevents me from supporting it for FA status: One of your sources of information is a biography of Hepburn by Charles Higham, an author who is often derided for his lack of credibility (notably for his fabricated claims that Errol Flynn was a Nazi spy). I will not trust anything that Higham wrote and therefore must reluctantly pass on supporting this article. Jimknut (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am refraining from making any more suggestions about this article ... with one exception: I would identify the actor with Kate in the still from A Bill of Divorcement. I believe the gentleman is David Manners. Jimknut (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly resistant to do this, because the caption is already long and Manners isn't a notable enough co-star to warrant making it longer. I'll do it if it's really wanted though. --Lobo (talk) 19:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Higham book is one of the few Hepburn biographies that has not met with a poor reception. He makes no scandalous claims at all, unlike William Mann's book which insists she and Tracy were both gay and the Barbara Leaming book, which for some reason claims John Ford was the love of her life. These are the Hepburn biographies to avoid, which I have done. Higham may have done some questionable work, but his Kate is generally considered reliable. James Curtis recently published a biography of Spencer Tracy, and it is one of the best researched bios I've ever seen. At the end, he assesses the various Hepburn biographies (because they have played such a big part in shaping Tracy's image) and says: "The first major Hepburn biography, Charles Higham's Kate, drew its strength from the author's interviews with a number of Hepburn's friends and coworkers ... [re the Tracy relationship], Higham came closest to getting it right." He has no negative things to say about this bio. And I can assure you that I only have an interest in depicting Kate accurately and would not be using a book I felt to be unreliable. There aren't many good books to chose from for Hepburn, most seem to have an agenda, and I have made sure to use the ones considered the best. I ask you to please have faith in the article. --Lobo (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note to delagates: Jimknut explicitly identifies himself as an Errol Flynn fan on his userpage, so may have a personal and perhaps irrational vendeta against Charles Higham (I'm not being rude here Jimknut, just making an observation) --Lobo (talk) 17:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on the conversation above (or source comprehensiveness in general). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply
  • I looked very closely at the sources for inconsistencies and found a few things to fix, let me know if you can see any more I've missed.
  • IMDb is used only to cite her filmography stats and her awards. I feel it's a good source for her checking the stats of her career (how many films, how many tv films) because it numbers them. It makes for quick and easy verifiablity. The info here is absolutely, undoubtedly accurate. As for awards, this is the only place to get them all collected on one page. And when it comes to finding an actor's/film's awards, I'd say IMDb is considered one of the best resources available. This stuff is only added by IMDb employees, it can't be added by the public like in their "trivia" and other sections (at least I'm pretty sure this is the case).
  • BBC obituary removed from external links.
Thank you Nikkimaria for your time in looking at this. --Lobo (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query, before I dig in. I appreciate the evident fact that there are many books out there on the subject. May I ask what your general strategy was for selecting sources? You make some comments above about how certain books were not well-received or are unreliable, but what information are you basing your assumptions on? For example, did you seek the opinion of a film scholar, or do you have a reliable source that provides insight on which Hepburn books are unreliable? On reviewing potential sources, I noticed, for example, the Worrall book Lunch With Miss Hepburn: The Last Interview. You haven't used this source and it could add to the sparse section about her last years and death. Why did you decide not to use it? --Laser brain (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair question. No I didn't consult a film scholar, but I have done a hell of a lot of reading about this woman, seen practically all her films and interviews, and consider myself pretty much an expert on Hepburn (probably as knowledgable as any film scholar would be). The books I have avoided using in this article are 1) biographies that make extreme claims and have subsequently met with a backlash from aquaintainces and experts (this refers to Leaming, Parish, Porter and Mann - although I have now made a reference to Mann and his argument in the article). Honestly, to anyone who knows anything about Hepburn, these books are considered a joke. Their research has been strongly called into question. I believe that using them would be the equivalent of using tabloid newspapers, which is something frowned upon here. 2) I thought the exclusion of rather "casual" books like Considine-Meara's At Home With Kate and Prideaux's Knowing Hepburn was fine because they are, well, so casual. As for that specific interview you linked to, there's a very practical reason why I haven't used it. It is only available as an e-book, and I don't have a device for that! I'd love to read it. But to be honest, I'd be very surprised if it includes anything previously unsaid. Also, Berg's book goes into a lot of detail about the final years of her life, so I already have the material to expand those sections. However I've chosen not to go into a lot of detail about this in the article - I think these sections are the appropriate length they should be. The article is already very long, and I don't think those sections can afford to be any bigger.
The main thing is, I have definitely made use of all the best Hepburn bios. If I had not made good use of Higham, Berg, Kanin and the new Spencer Tracy bio (probably the best research that's gone into her, even if it's not directly about her), that would mean the article was lacking. These are definitely the sources that *need* to be used for Hepburn.
If you like, I can provide more quotes from Curtis's assessment of the various bios, which confirm what I've said here...so actually, yeah I guess I kind of have had input from an expert! --Lobo (talk) 20:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more thing to add. I hope you remember, Hepburn was a big celebrity, and one with the potential for lots of juicy stories. People have exploited this, and written a lot of crap about her. It's not like the respectable books that have been written about poets and artists, you know? Most of the books are people just trying to make a buck out of her. I have to be selective in the material, to make it a respectable article. I truly think it's is a good thing that I've done this (and a good thing that I am so knowledgable about her, so I know which books to avoid). --Lobo (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your quick answer! Everyone you've said makes sense. Subjects for whom so much have been written present an interesting challenge in research. I will provide a full review soon. --Laser brain (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I'm glad you understand. :) And I hope you like the article!
If anyone else has concerns about my judgement of the sources, let me know and I will type up Curtis's comments as "expert proof". --Lobo (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – On references
Ref 285 was published for guardian.co.uk, not The Guardian newspaper.
For all references cited to the BBC in this case, BBC News as the 'work'. BBC is the publisher. – Lemonade51 (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments from Laser brain > These have been moved to the talk page, with permision from delegate Ucucha and Laser brain. They were prose concerns that have been fully dealt with.

Support now. I've been through the rest of the article, and it is excellent. I changed a few things here and there. Awesome job on this! --Laser brain (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is a nice thing to wake up to, wonderful, thank you! --Lobo (talk) 09:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (No. 3) and spot checks

I've no qualms about using Higham. I've looked through the "Final years and death" and "Legacy" sections (numbering of sources as of this version:

  • [288]: "in the family plot" is not covered by the source (neither is the burial location but that can be sourced from the picture). "private plot" would be. The source calls itself "The Guardian, Monday 30 June 2003". I see no reason not to use the name of the newspaper. Fixed: Can't find a HQ source that says family plot, removed that statement. I changed it to "guardian.co.uk" after I was asked to above, but TBH I agree with you and certainly prefer it to say The Guardian, so changed back.
  • [290]ab: OK. The source actually says the lights will be dimmed, but I guess we can assume that they were.
  • [291]: the article says the money went "mostly" to her family; the source does not mention any other beneficiaries, implying they got the lot. Fixed
  • [292]: failed verification. "Academics" is not covered by the source, and the writers are not academics: http://www.camedit.com/who_we-are.html. Fixed: Oh, apologies, I was misled by something. Removed.
  • [218]c: OK.
  • [293]: Is this source really notable? Comment: You mean the book, in general? Well, I thought it was. It is an officially published book.
  • [294]: couldn't access. Dead links indicate to me that the sources and material are somewhat trivial. Scholarly sources are not prone to link rot. Comment: Variety is actually a well known and important cultural magazine, that spanned almost the entire 20th century (making their "100 icons of the century" list rather poignant). The list was mentioned by the BBC. That's very annoying they have removed the list from their site. Would this source be okay to use?
  • [295]: OK.
  • [168][296]: OK. You may wish to link Sheridan Morley as he is a notable critic; the quote marks around "breaking the mold" could give the impression that this is a quote from the two sources, whereas it is actually signifying a colloquialism. I'd re-phrase or remove the quotes. Fixed: Thanks for noticing he is linkable, that's great! I've rephrased this to " Broadcaster Sheridan Morley has said she "broke the mold" for women in Hollywood..", because those exact words are used in the image caption.
  • [218]d: OK.
  • [77]f: OK for the sense; the quotes in "modern woman" are again signifying a concept rather than the words of the sources. Comment: The statement is also sourced to Berg p. 17, where he uses those words ("The modern woman Hepburn symbolized..."). The other ref is used to support the first half of the sentence (which is also supported by Berg, but I thought it was nice to show two different sources say this).
  • [168]d: OK.
  • [77]gh: OK.
  • [300]: OK.
  • [206]h[301]: OK.
  • [206]i: OK
  • [302]: OK.
  • [303]: OK. But the source says Hepburn was in 4 comedy films; the article just names 2. Comment: Now this is tricky, because the other two films in the comedy list (Bringing up Baby and The Philadelphia Story) have just been mentioned at this point in the article, and it has already been established that they are classics. I felt it would be a bit awkward to repeat their names again for the comedy list...Can you think of an effective way of doing this, that won't be wordy and repetitive?
  • [168]e: OK.
  • [304]: OK.
  • [305]: OK for the square name; failed verification on the 12 stepping stones. Although this could be verified by going to the garden and looking, the lack of a third-party source describing the steps indicates that they are not especially notable and should perhaps be cut. Comment: Fair enough. Removed fact about the stones.
  • [306]ab: OK for content. Primary source.
  • [308]: OK for content. Primary source.
  • [309]: OK.
  • [310]: OK.
  • [311][312]: Primary sources. "Two other exhibitions have been" is not supported by the sources, as there could be others that we don't know about. It's better to say "Other exhibitions were..." or "Two other exhibitions were..." so that further exhibitions are not excluded by the phrasing. Fixed - I've just removed the word "two" to stop it from sounding so definite.
  • [313]: OK.
  • [314]: subscription or login required. Comment: Do I use the "subscription required" template for this? Strange, some NYTimes articles require log-in, and some don't.
  • [315]a: place OK; date not mentioned at the source. Comment: It was suggested to me that the place and year of first production were included in the article, but I can't find a single HQ source that gives both of these pieces of information! Do you think I should just remove it altogether?
  • [316]: OK.
  • [317]: OK.
  • [318]: OK.
Thank you DrKiernan for taking on this task, let me know if I can return the favour sometime. I have fixed the errors and left some specific comments above. --Lobo (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's all fine now, thank you. I don't think any further changes are necessary on [293][294][303], as your explanations have cleared up those points. The Variety article is probably still accessible to subscribers. On [314], I've found an accessible copy at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/theater/theater-review-two-snapshots-of-a-hollywood-legend-at-home.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm. I've also found a source for the year and place of the Tea at Five premiere at http://www.bostonphoenix.com/boston/arts/theater/documents/02164902.htm. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh you're a star, thank you. I'll add both of those. --Lobo (talk) 11:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • Is the spelling "honored" and "theatre" consistent with MOS:ENGVAR?
That's fine then. DrKiernan (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.

Support. I thought this was an enjoyable read; comments addressed. What rationale have you used for the selection of credits in the Filmography section? DrKiernan (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray, thanks Doc! Thanks very much for taking the time to read it and I'm glad you enjoyed it. I confess that there is no official source I have used to select the films listed, it is merely a selection—based on my knowledge—of her films that are generally well thought of and fairly-widely seen (they had to meet both these criteria, not just one). I have aimed to be completely objective, there are actually a couple there I'm not keen on and a couple of my favourites are missing. I used these two IMDb lists, her highest rated films and her most voted on films as guides. And I do think they are a good indicator of the current standing of her films (as objective as anything I'm likely to find). I also tagged on Morning Glory, since she won an Oscar for it. --Lobo (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Image review passed. Nominator is to be commended for going the full length in justifying his usage of stills by checking copyright renewals and film copyright handbooks. I'll try to find time to read the text shortly as I've recently read one of the more scurrilous biographies.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did put in a lot of time and effort getting the pictures right, so I appreciate the acknowledgment. Did you also spot that there is a media file, incorporated into "Legacy" (this one)? It's definitey PD, but you may want to check. Oh, and it's "her". ;) I hoped making my signature pink would resolve this problem, but I guess not! --Lobo (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll mostly be addressing issues with the prose. First:

  • You need to choose a comma style and enforce it consistently throughout. Serial comma or not? I looked at the first four list sentences; two currently have a serial comma, two do not. This is just to demonstrate the inconsistency; the entire article needs brought in line with one or the other style.
  • Katharine Houghton Hepburn (May 12, 1907 – June 29, 2003) was an American actress of film, stage, and television.
  • Three more Oscars came for her work in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967), The Lion in Winter (1968) and On Golden Pond (1981).
  • She was dominant, outspoken, athletic, and wore pants before it was fashionable.
  • Katharine Martha instilled in her daughter the virtues of perseverance, independence and fortitude.
Serial comma is now (hopefully) used consistently.--Lobo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dominant" in the sentence cited above rings oddly in this context. "Confident" or "assertive" or something similar would be better. ("Domineering" is the closest-sounding term commonly applied to a person's character, but I don't think you mean "domineering".)
Changed to "outspoken, assertive..", which I agree is much better. --Lobo (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this article a thorough talkpage review, here before its FAC submission, and was impressed by the ready co-operation of the nominator in resolving outstanding issues. I thought the article was in good shape then; it has continued to improve during this process, and I hope to see it promoted shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian! Your comments and encouragement were a big help. It's a privilege to have your support. --Lobo (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes -- this looks about ready for promotion, just a couple of things:

  • For the non-Americans in the audience, it may be worthwhile to link "progressive" to Progressive Era, as appropriate.
  • Done
  • I note a number of final sentences in paragraphs are not cited, and most (though not all) tend to relate to awards. These should all be cited as a matter of course -- examples below, pls check throughout:
    • Breaking into theatre -- fourth para.
    • Instant success -- second para.
    • Revival -- last sentence of second para.
    • Professional expansion (by the way, know what you mean but perhaps Professional challenges might read better as a heading -- suggestion only) -- last sentence.
      • I think I'll leave it as "Professional expansion": this makes clear that she was improving, whereas "challenges" could suggest she was struggling.
    • Success in later years -- last para.
    • Film, television and theatre -- fourth para.
    • Focus on television -- last sentence.
  • All paragraphs now end with a reference.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I reviewed this article for GAC, and at the time thought it a masterful work by a dedicated editor. I'm so glad to see it's only improved since then. It's well written, exhaustively researched, and a great representative of one of the greatest actors, ever. I'm also a big fan of the new lead. :) Great work, Lobo! María (yllosubmarine) 13:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aww thanks Maria. It certainly took a lot of time to get to this point! I'm loving your "greatest actress" comment by the way, you have fine taste. ;) --Lobo (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 07:36, 13 February 2012 [47].

Franco-Mongol alliance

[edit]
Nominator(s): Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of two arbitration cases and various related amendments and other various motions, but it has been stable for over a year now, so I'd like to see about getting it promoted to FA status. It had one premature FA nom shortly after it was created in 2007, but has since gone through extensive peer review and editing, including being promoted to GA status in March 2010, a MILHIST peer review in April 2010, and a MILHIST A-class promotion in June 2010. It is my opinion that the article meets FA criteria, is extremely well-sourced, has many high quality free images, and should be promoted because it covers an interesting aspect of history, the 13th century intersection between the events of the waning Crusades, and the expansion of the Mongol Empire. Thanks for your attention, --Elonka 19:24, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick driveby comment (I probably won't reply) - I noticed at least one citation uses p where it should say pp. Also, at least one page range appears to use a longer dash than others. Parrot of Doom 02:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • many if not most of the images face off the page. At least in the lower part of the article they would be better all switched round as far as left/right placing goes.
  • The complicated background needs more introduction. I know there's a history to the title, but if retained it needs more explaining and qualifying. The use of "Europeans" is also confusing - at times apparently meaning people in Europe & at times those of European origins in the Crusader kingdoms. The use of the contemporary term Outremer is found useful by several historians.
  • Did "historian Steven Runciman" really say the Georgians "were particularly fiercest in their destruction" in 1258? An implausible lapse in grammar from such a grandee, and his editors. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ideally many of the multiple citations would be combined, but I suppose this can't be done with the templates used. Another demonstration of the disadvantages of these.

More later Johnbod (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I have moved some of the images as you recommended (that's a subtlety I'd never noticed before, thanks!). In double-checking the Runciman quote, the actual wording is "were particular fierce in their destruction" rather than "fiercest". Not sure how that got in, but fixed. As for the language about the Europeans in the article, it's generally meant to encompass both groups, both those still in Europe, including the Popes and royals, and the transplanted Europeans in the Crusader states (the Outremer). We could potentially change the wording to say something like, "the Europeans both on the mainland and in the Outremer", if you think there might be some genuine confusion, but that would seem a bit bulky to me. As for the background, we have this covered somewhat in the "Early contacts" section, or do you feel that more is needed? Perhaps we could just change that header to "Background"? --Elonka 18:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nearing support, sorry for the long delay since my last. I have gone through making small rephrasings & links, and have taken the liberty of adding a one-para section on "Cultural contacts" with a quick summary of Mongol elements in Western medieval art, which I hope people are happy with. I don't do "cite book" I'm afraid, so the Mack book in refs needs converting
  • I don't think the article says outright that "Franco-Mongol" means "Frank-Mongol" not the usual "French-Mongol" readers might expect it to. I think this should be spelled out, & somewhere in the lead seems the obvious place.
  • Re: "The complicated background needs more introduction" I really meant a brief new section that goes through the various power/ethnic/religious blocs in the Levant at the time, as this is unfamiliar country for the great majority of readers, who will think that Turks come from Turkey for example. I wouldn't insist on this, but I do think some more is needed on this.

Johnbod (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I commend the effort put into this article, but at this point I don't feel it meets the FA criteria. Here are some specific concerns:

  • WP:LEAD: lead is quite long and contains multiple citations
  • WP:OVERLINK: don't link the same terms multiple times, don't repeat hatnoted links within section text, etc
  • File:Mongol_Empire_map.gif: three of the source links return error messages. Also, on what source or data set is File:Genghis_khan_empire_at_his_death.png (the basis of this map) based?
  • On what source or data set is /File:Principality_of_Antioch_locator.svg based?
  • Photographs of 3D works need separate licensing info for the 3D work and the photo, especially given that France does not have freedom of panorama
  • Source link for File:Bagdad1258.jpg returns error
  • PD-old tag also requires a US PD tag (though it should be fairly obvious in most cases)
  • Avoid repetitive and redundant phrasings, for example the repetition of "event" in "an event often considered as the single most catastrophic event". Try to be concise and straightforward in the language used.
  • At the same time, avoid very short and choppy paragraphs
  • Generally speaking, in-text attribution avoids using work titles
  • Make sure citation format is consistent - compare for example current FNs 6, 78 and 79
  • Reference formatting is also inconsistent - check multi-author listings, wikilinking, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the review and comments. My responses are as follows:
      • WP:LEAD. The current condition of the lead is a result of the many disputes that the article has been through. The lead section was a major point of contention, and has been through many discussions and patient consensus-building, of which the citations were an important element to reduce controversy. WP:LEAD doesn't say that citations are prohibited, so if possible, I'd rather leave the lead alone unless there is some major issue that is blocking the FA process?
      • Linking: Good point, I have thinned out the links considerably, at least looking at things manually. Is there a tool or script that would help me find any other problems?
      • Images: I have swapped out the 3D images, added the US PD tag, and removed the dead link (good catch!)
      • Phrasings: I fixed the "event" sentence, but were there other places that you were concerned about?
      • Paragraphs: I looked for places where some of the shorter paragraphs could be combined, though in some cases they are covering such different concepts, it wouldn't make sense to just string them together. I did some copyediting/rearranging, so please let me know if you see any other problem spots?
      • In-text attribution: Sorry, I didn't understand this comment, could you please elaborate?
      • Citation format: Good point. I reworked all the citations and references to something more consistent.
    • Let me know about the attribution part, and I'll see what I can do to fix? Thanks, --Elonka 20:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The length of the lead seems fine to me too, although WP:LEAD says "As a general guideline—not an absolute rule—the lead should normally be no longer than four paragraphs". I think this is often ignored but the 2 line 5th para could be merged to the shortish 4th maybe. But I agree many paras are very short, for example: "Following Ain Jalut, the remainder of the Mongol army retreated to Cilician Armenia under the commander Ilka, where the Mongols were received and re-equipped by Hethum I" is a one-sentence para (deprecated) taking up less than a full line. I think I will have some language points later. Johnbod (talk) 21:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The claim about in-line attribution may be somebody with a strong preference for short titles in footnotes. For my part, the citation of Jaroslav Folda's book (cited once), with full title - and no listing in the bibliography- seems perfectly reasonable. I know of no guidance against it.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quick response on the in-text attribution: by that I'm referring to "Person X in his book Title" constructions - generally simply "Person X" is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite often it is not sufficient; Wikipedia cannot guarantee that somebody will not add another paper by Grousset, say - especially on a subject like this, where there is a limited pool of authors; there are already three works by Peter Jackson. Personally, I prefer a short title in such cases to "Grousset (1936)" - which work is that again? Others differ, and so there is no guidance. (And if you include short title only when absolutely unavoidable, somebody will complain that your style is inconsistent.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nikkimaria: Thanks. I have reworked several of the citations to not include titles, though as Septentrionalis mentioned, sometimes they are necessary when one author has multiple possible works. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an update: I've struck my oppose. Further copy-editing will likely address the prose issues (Dank is an excellent copy-editor), but I'm still seeing inconsistencies in reference format (further examples: FN 33 vs 116, 96 vs 104, 94 vs 103, etc), so am unwilling to support at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very good catch on the references. I fixed those, and some others which were inconsistent with their "the's". As for prose, could you please point out a few places where you have concerns? I'm a bit uncomfortable with a requirement that "one particular other editor has to rewrite things", as it's not really something that I can take action on? --Elonka 03:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean that it had to be a particular editor, I had just noticed his comment here. Some further examples of prose issues: "A few marital alliances between the Mongols and Christian rulers continued between the Christians and the Mongols of the Golden Horde" - phrasing is redundant; "who were making attacks on Eastern Europe" - awkward, why not just "who were attacking"?; "when they needed them more at home" -> "when they were more needed at home"; still have some ellipses in parentheses; paragraph about Mongol court historians uses "seen" thrice in two sentences; etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed, thanks. --Elonka 05:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general; this meets my standards for FA: it would not be regrettable to see it on the front page as it stands. Some comments:
    • Do begin the passage on Constantine and Helena with a source that uses Helena, and an explanation (his mother would probably do) of who she is. Most of our readers will think of Helen of Troy, and relying on a link to undeceive them has an Easter Egg feel.
    • Which Mongol representatives reached, and negotiated in, Europe? (For example, bar Sauma's visit to the King of England). By this time, Elonka, you know the material so well it is no longer clear to you what the article does not say. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the review. I have reworked the section on Constantine and Helena. As for Mongol representatives though, to my knowledge they are all mentioned? Bar Sauma is mentioned several times (I'm a big fan), though if you'd like, I could definitely go into more detail. --Elonka 23:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "westward" and "northward", but "southwards": be consistent with the adverbial form. (For those who have Garner's, see "Directional words".) If there are any directional adjectives ending in ward, don't add s to those.
  • Since this article has seen a lot of dispute resolution, including Arbcom, I have less freedom here than usual. I'll go through it quickly, and probably wind up neither opposing nor supporting. - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The communications initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian–Mongol communications: the Europeans would ask for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, but the Mongols would simply respond with demands for submission.": Christians were asking the Mongols to convert, which would have put them under the authority of the popes, and the Mongols in turn asked for submission. I changed the "but" to "and" because the two parts of this sentence aren't in opposition; there's nothing surprising about either side's demands, or their responses. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the comments, it's always interesting to learn about these subtle points of grammar! I've changed "southwards" to simply "south", and reviewed all the other "thward" parts of the article but they appear consistent. I've also reviewed your other changes, and have no objections. Thanks for your time! --Elonka 17:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My pleasure. I'm really enjoying the variety of history articles we're getting at FAC these days. - Dank (push to talk)
  • "Incidents ... a few incidents occurred, one of them leading to an incident ...": Too many incidents. - Dank (push to talk) 18:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hethum I, King of Armenia": All the relevant style guides say that this needs a comma afterward if there's no other punctuation there, although it's becoming more and more common to omit the second comma. See WP:Checklist#second commas. Since I'm skimming this article, I may not catch all of these. - Dank (push to talk) 18:12, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm stopping early; I hope the copyediting helps. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be happy to continue copyediting after progress has been made on turning the one oppose and the two "comments" into supports. - Dank (push to talk) 04:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dank. To my knowledge, all of the concerns have been addressed, and there are no open requests on the page. Regarding the one oppose from Nikkimaria, I've followed up at her talkpage a couple times[48][49] to see if she has any other concerns, but she has not replied since the 11th, probably because she is too busy. So if you'd have time to continue copyediting, it would be much appreciated. :) --Elonka 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I'd like to help here, but I feel too constrained, because the article has so much history in dispute processes; I don't want to be named in a future Arbcom case just because I copyedited an article. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Dank, sorry to hear that. For what it's worth, I don't think there's a risk of any other ArbCom case in the near future. The article has been stable for over a year, and the key editor involved has been gone from Wikipedia for several months. And even if there were an arbitration case, I can't see as any reviewer would get dragged in... It would normally only be those editors actively involved with disputes on the article talkpage. Just making comments and suggestions here shouldn't be a problem. It's up to you though! --Elonka 20:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Nice read, interesting subject. I've made a few tweaks hope you like them, if not it's a wiki....

  • Links. I fixed two that went to the wrong article, and I'm afraid I may not have time to check every link. Have now checked more as I think have others.
  • Europeans/Franks I changed one occurrence to West Europeans, this is one of those subjects where Europeans shouldn't all be lumped together as this is really about one part of Europe and indeed one part of the Mongol Empire. In that sense statements such as "Contact between the Europeans and Mongols began around 1220" really needs more context about the contemporary events in Eastern and later central Europe. Similarly dating the "The first official communications between Europe and the Mongol Empire" to 1245 puts it after the the Battle of Legnica and indeed the surrender or refusal to surrender of various east European states. Either that or clarify that this omits the Battle of the Kalka River and subsequent events because this article is really about the relationships between the Frankish crusaders in the Levant and the Ilkhanate, and not between Europe and the Mongols.
  • Maps are difficult because borders shift and records may not always be exact, but your first omits the Mongols altogether and your second only shows the movement of their armies. If possible it would be great to have a map which shows the bigger picture, including the boundaries of western and eastern Christendom as well as Islam and the various Mongol states.
  • "an increasingly bleak situation for the Crusaders in Egypt" I would have thought The Levant was more accurate. Ta.
  • "There, no strong state could have stood in their way until Morocco." This links to the modern Morocco and is more than a little misleading as both the Marinids and before them the Almohads ruled what is now the inhabited part of Algeria as well as Morocco, as well at some points areas of what are now Tunisia and Libya. ϢereSpielChequers 22:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for your detailed review, and copyedits. I could tell by my watchlist that you were doing a very thorough check of the article, which is appreciated. I've done my best to address all of your comments, except for the map. I agree with you; however, map-making is not one of my skills. Would it be best to simply remove the maps are there, to avoid confusion? --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't remove the maps as they are useful, just not as good as they could be. For the purposes of FA we should use the best we have available, but it wouldn't hurt to ask one of our mapmakers if they couldn't do something specific for this article. Changing Europeans to Franks in several places works for me, but it increases the importance of the way they are described at the start of the article. I think that "Europeans on the mainland" is not as good as "West Europeans", that may just be my perspective as a Londoner. But my understanding is that in that context English crusaders in the holy land probably would be counted as "Franks" whereas Europeans from the areas ruled by the Golden Horde wouldn't. As for Morocco, the new link is better because it mentions that Morocco then ruled NorthWest Africa, but I'd prefer North West Africa over Morocco, not least because many who know their current world map won't click to see that we are talking about a much larger state that the Mongols would have reached much sooner. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough. I've switched to "Western Europeans" in the lead, and the Morocco sentence to "Morocco and the Islamic caliphates in the Maghreb of northwest Africa," does that work better? --Elonka 02:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks, that largely works for me. I think its time for me to count as a support. I'm still not quite comfortable at the balance between this and the contemporary Mongol invasion of Europe. But I'm not sure how to do it better so that would not be good grounds for an oppose:) ϢereSpielChequers 15:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (Disclaimer: I made some comments on the talk page in 2010.) As a lay reader, I was puzzled by several things in the "Incidents" section:

  • Isn't this an instance of the hostility of the non-Antioch Franks described in the following section, rather that some sort of border friction?
  • The cited source (Richard) describes a simpler encounter than the first paragraph (no expedition for redress or ambush), and doesn't seem to have the deprecation of Julian. Is there an additional source?
  • On the other hand Richard says the raid on Sidon involved sacking the lower town, which seems a significant detail.
  • The second paragraph seems to suggest that Baibars was angered by Crusaders and Mongols attacking each other, and goes on to describe attacks that don't seem to fit with the truce discussed in the following section. The source (p416) says that Baibars claimed the treaty of 1240 was void because the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt" (the article says because they had helped the Mongols to attack Damascus). It turns out these attacks occurred in 1263, i.e. after the events described in the next two sections, and don't seem connected to the Mongols. Kanguole 00:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kanguole. Good point, that "Incidents" section was confusing. I have added some refs, and overhauled that section. --Elonka 05:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The re-distribution of the material makes sense, but the source (Richard, p416) does not seem to support the underlined causal factors in the following sentence: "In 1262, the Mamluk leader Baibars threatened Antioch for its association with the Mongols, and declared that the treaty that had been signed between the Crusaders and the Mamluks in 1240 had been invalidated when Christian forces assisted the Mongols to capture Damascus." Regarding the first, Richard says Baibars had "an anti-Christian fanaticism intensified by his hatred of the Mongols". For the second, Richard gives the quite different reason that the Crusaders had "allied with the sultan of Damascus against Egypt", presumably referring to events back in 1240 described on p323. And wasn't the year of his siege 1263? Kanguole 11:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, after spending a few hours going through multiple sources, I've got it figured out (thanks for spotting this!). The 1240 treaty didn't have anything to do with the Mongols or the Mamluks, but was related to a time when Crusader Theobald I of Navarre had brokered separate agreements with two warring factions of the Ayyubid dynasty, the Ayyubid sultan in Egypt, and the Ayyubid sultan in Damascus. In 1260, Baibars appears to have been claiming that the 1240 treaty was invalid because the Crusaders had also allied with Damascus in 1240. In any case, most of this isn't Mongol-related, so I just removed that part of the section, and expanded several other related articles where it's more appropriate. Please let me know if you think it reads better now? --Elonka 05:34, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I haven't read the other sources, but, yes, that was my reading of what Richard was saying, and I agree with trimming it. One minor nit: I think Richard says the seige of Antioch by Baibars was in 1263 rather than 1262. Kanguole 15:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, he may be implying 1263, or maybe 1262, it's not entirely clear. I've checked several other sources, but they're kind of vague as well, with the general consensus being, "Baibars attacked a bunch of places after 1260, and Antioch fell in 1268." So how about I change the line in the article to "Around 1262 or 1263"? Or if that doesn't work, I can just quote Richard directly? --Elonka 03:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • OK, I see the vagueness – "1262 or 1263" is fine, but the sentence still contains "for its association with the Mongols", when the source seems to indicate he hated them because they were Christians, and being Mongol vassals was just the icing on the cake. I also see that the preceding paragraph has two unsourced sentences (restoration of patriarch, Antiochene territories) – the cited source only covers the last sentence. Kanguole 12:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the section "Dispute about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance", it's not clear that there is an actual scholarly dispute on that question:

  • The clauses "There is dispute among historians as to the existence or extent of an alliance" and "though a few historians have argued there was an actual alliance" aren't supported by the citations, which deal with other parts of the sentences about different questions.
  • Demurger's post-1300 alliance presumably refers just to the Ruad expedition, since the principalities had been lost by then. Is that contentious, or just a matter of labelling? The section of the article on the Ruad expedition speaks of the Mongols being delayed, which presupposes at least some attempt at coordination, but this is not described.
  • That leaves Richard as the only cited dissenter, but the extent of the alliance he's claiming is not described. If his is a significant minority view, it would be useful to clarify the points of contention. Kanguole 13:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Kanguole, thank you for the comments. Replies below:
      • For the "Dispute" question, did you see Reference #8? The source is a book entitled History in Dispute, which goes into great detail about the debate as to whether or not an alliance would have been a wise idea.
      • I'm not entirely understanding what you're asking about Demurger. Yes, he was referring specifically to the Ruad expedition. This is covered in more detail in the Fall of Ruad article. There is a also a mention of his views in the "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section.
      • Regarding Richard, I personally don't regard him as a "significant minority view", since his opinions were expressed only by him, and were not shared by other historians. However, since he is a major historian, it seemed reasonable to include his views, as well as those of Demurger. There is also a bit more detail about Richard's views up in the "Papal communications" section.
      • Please let me know if you have any other questions? --Elonka 03:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The broad issue is whether there really is a "Dispute about the existence" among scholars, as suggested by the section header:
          • Yes, #8 discusses the wisdom of a hypothetical alliance, but not the questions of existence or extent.
          • Similarly, #2, #138, #139 and #140 talk about failure, but not anyone arguing for an alliance.
          • My point about Demurger was that saying there was an attempt at cooperation limited to the Ruad expedition doesn't seem particularly contentious, i.e. more a matter of how to describe an agreed event than an example of a dispute over the existence of some over-arching alliance. (The "Saint Louis and the Mongols" section discusses Demurger's views on events in 1270 rather than after 1300.) That leaves Richard as the sole dissenter.
        • Most of this could be addressed by giving that section a more modest title (e.g. with "existence" or "alliance") and deleting (or citing) the two unsupported clauses I mentioned.
        • I'd also repeat my remark about the "Ruad expedition" section: it says the Mongols were delayed, but without explaining why the Crusaders were expecting them. Kanguole 13:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, okay, I see what you're getting at now. How about changing "dispute" to "disagreement", would that work better? I also moved sources around to get them closer to where they should be. There was an earlier reviewer who didn't like sources in the middle of a sentence, so I moved the sources to the end of the sentence, but I agree, it doesn't make as much sense. It's so difficult to please everyone!
          • Regarding Demurger, we had an extensive dispute about this in the talkpage discussions, and to bring peace, we opted to include Demurger's stance, even though I agree with you that it didn't make a strong case for there being an alliance. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fall of Ruad. Aha, good catch! The info about the Mongol request for assistance got deleted somewhere along the line. I'll re-add it. --Elonka 06:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Sorry, I mistyped above: I meant to say 'without "existence" or "alliance".' Regarding the scope of the citations, I would prefer to see that addressed by removing the unsupported text. The broader point is that this section suggests a controversy about the existence of an alliance (not least in its title) but then has little evidence for it. I'm sure you're right that such things are left-overs from past editorial disputes, but I'd expect that not to show in a featured article. Kanguole 01:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I guess we're not communicating... To my knowledge, all text is supported by citations, though in some cases the citations might not be right next to the text, and are instead at the end of a sentence or paragraph. If there's something in particular that you think isn't cited properly, please list it either here, or mark the locations in the article with {{cn}}, and I'll see about getting the citations updated. --Elonka 02:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • OK, I've added tags to the article on the passages I mentioned above. Kanguole 09:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fixed! I re-worked one sentence, and added citations to the other locations. --Elonka 18:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I don't think that a scholarly dispute can be demonstrated by citing two historians' views (one of whom is taking about a single minor campaign at the very end of this period). I'd expect a source discussing the dispute, or at least one historian criticising another's views. Without that, a section on a dispute about the "existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" seems unjustified. Kanguole 00:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a thorough survey of a fascinating slice of history, so I regret that I feel obliged to oppose promotion. My principal reason is that although this article has emerged from the long-running dispute, it still bears the scars, i.e. features that are explicable only by reference to the dispute (which of course should be no concern of our readers). The most obvious is the title, contradicting the account of the article that no such alliance existed. Similarly there is a section entitled "Disagreement about the existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" (formerly "Dispute ...") that does not in my view substantiate the existence of a scholarly dispute or even disagreement (discussed above).

A related concern is the use of sources. I checked sources in two subsections, not randomly but (mindful of the article's history) focussing on passages that accentuated Mongol-Crusader connections. Some short items were not supported by the sources, and have since been removed, though I still don't believe the first sentence of the "Disagreement ..." section is supported by the attached citations. I thought that the instances I found were perhaps all there were, but SpinningSpark's random sample has thrown up more errors in the same direction. I'm afraid the only way to be sure that all traces of the former slanting of the sources are gone would be a tedious audit of all the citations against the sources. Kanguole 12:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kanguole, do you have a suggestion for how that first sentence could be re-worded? As for the title, the current name of the article has been debated extensively at the talkpage, survived multiple RM discussions, and has been stable for some time. If you would like to suggest another title change at the article talkpage though, you are welcome to do so. --Elonka 02:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's more than rewording that sentence, since the same "existence of the Franco-Mongol alliance" wording occurs in the section title (actually saying "the" makes it worse), when the section doesn't give evidence of any argument on that point (I don't think just pointing at Richard does that). Rather, the section is focussed on whether an alliance would have been wise or effective, and why it didn't happen.
    • The second paragraph of that section has an odd feel to it. One can see that there was a battle here, and that passages claiming there was an alliance have been mostly removed, but the defensive material around them remains. The effect is an argument with an opponent who has disappeared. Kanguole 02:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I have completely overhauled the section, added a couple more sources, and changed the title to "Views from historians". Please take another look when you can? --Elonka 05:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support On the basis of the article as it stands, but could be polished further.

  • Check "never actually left to go do battle" - klunky.
  • I prefer "The idea of "ally" was foreign to the Mongols" to "Traditionally, the Mongols tended to see outside parties as either subjects or enemies, not allies". I think this is both more accurate and succinct. It was indeed not a concept they understood at all.
  • In "There is dispute among historians as to the existence, extent, or even wisdom of an alliance." Existence, extent or (on a non-factual topic) wisdom of an alliance. Not a big issue, but could perhaps be rephrased more elegantly and/or easily referenced.
  • My advice, with humour and great respect - release The Dank! Doug (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Doug. :) I've reworked a couple of those sentences, but am not sure on the last one, what might be better. It's possibly because I've read and re-read the section so many times, my brain just can't fathom wording that might work better. Do you have suggestions? --Elonka 05:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments - I admit I was turned off this whole subject when the article was first created, and all the drama that went on back then, but I see it has greatly improved since I last looked at it. I found a few nitpicky things to mention:

  • In the "Papal overtures" section, should the Battle of La Forbie be mentioned? That was much more immediately disastrous than the fall of Jerusalem a few months earlier. Jerusalem was symbolically important, of course, but it didn't mean much whether the Franks controlled it or not.
  • "Christian Vassals" - this section has a lot of images already, but there is one of the letter from Sempad, if that's useful.
  • "Antioch" - perhaps it would be better to say the Principality of Antioch was founded "during" the First Crusade, since that wasn't the intended result of the crusade, and the crusade went on for at least another year afterwards.
  • "Invasion of Syria 1260" - one of an-Nasir's Arabic titles is in fact "king" but the Ayyubids are not usually described that way; an-Nasir is usually called an emir. Maybe someone refers to him as a king though, I don't know.
  • "Council of Lyon" - here the Muslims are called "Sarazins", and it doesn't seem to be part of a quote. Elsewhere "Saracens" is used, and in the "Arghun" section this is actually defined as "Muslims". I would stick with "Saracens" but define it when it first appears (in "Saint Louis and the Mongols"), or just use "Muslims" throughout.
  • "Arghun" - did Tekuder convert to Islam, or from Islam to something else? Presumably to Islam, but "a converted Muslim" is ambiguous.
  • "Genoese shipmakers" - Acre fell in May 1291, so "on March 1291" has the wrong month, and is missing the day, or it should be "in" rather than "on".
  • "Ghazan" and "Ruad expedition" - Amalric of Tyre is linked in both sections (but with different links each time, once as Prince, once as Lord). Also, although in context it is obviously Amalric of Tyre, "Amalric of Lusignan" usually refers to the Amalric of 100 years earlier (Amalric I of Cyprus/II of Jerusalem).

Otherwise I don't see any problems. I am impressed with how this article has turned out! If I have a moment I will try to go over it in more detail. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points, thanks. It's great to work with someone who really know the material! I have addressed all issues, including adding a mention of the Battle of La Forbie, and the Sempad letter. For an-Nasir, I re-checked Morgan, who refers to him as "Caliph", so I updated the article accordingly. If you have any other comments or suggestions, please let me know. --Elonka 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, he does? I can't check that at home right now, but an-Nasir certainly wasn't the caliph...the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad was sort of like the Muslim Pope, a religious leader. He was killed by the Mongols in 1258. an-Nasir was a relatively minor Ayyubid emir, a political leader. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, actually I can see that on Google Books. Morgan is talking about the caliph in Baghdad, and then an-Nasir, separately, although he doesn't give an-Nasir a title. Normally I would say an-Nasir was just an emir, based on his age/previous possessions/general inexperience, but since he ruled in Damascus he could just as well be called a sultan, which is what Grousset calls him (in "Empire of the Steppes"). Adam Bishop (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While we're at it, should An-Nasir redirect to Al-Nasir? There were more Caliphs than usual at this point, surely, but I'd defer to AB & his sources. Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, yeah, I guess it doesn't help that there is also a caliph with the same name. I think that's a problem with with people named "al-Mansur" too, and there are a couple of Ayyubids named "al-Adil". Too bad they are always known by these names, which are actually titles, rather than their actual given names. In any case, Runciman also refers to an-Nasir Yusuf as "sultan". (Maybe he's not as minor as I thought, I must be thinking of some earlier Ayyubids.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so there's Sultan An-Nasir, and Caliph An-Nasir, and it didn't help that Morgan referred to the Caliph in one sentence and the Sultan in the next. Okay, thanks, I agree with the change.[50] --Elonka 18:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to change my comment to a support :) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query: I'm not seeing it on this page, although it is likely covered somewhere in talk archives or one of the arb cases (if so, please link?). I'm wondering how the article name "Franco-Mongol alliance" was chosen considering ... there wasn't one. A Google books, Google scholar search doesn't lead me to anything conclusive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The current talk page has a failed move proposal from 2010, made by Elonka, opposed by Adam Bishop ("Oppose, since this a phrase used by scholars, even if it is to say that there wasn't one") and others. It has links to previous rounds. Johnbod (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Johnbod-- your link is red, but I found it here; noting for the record that the requested move was closed as "no consensus" and the subject was not reviewed on this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion of "European-Mongol diplomacy" was made after the RM, and would also solve the question of defining Franco as more than France; "Western European" might be even better. The title should not say Franks; too many readers will think of the Merovingians. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:41, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the title doesn't accurately describe the topic. It's a relic of the troubled history of the article, and the dissonance will be confusing to readers. Kanguole 14:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not opposed to another discussion about re-naming the article, but for now, I think it's probably best to leave the title as it is. If nothing else, the title has been stable for over a year, and I'd rather not stir up the naming hornets' nest right now, which might risk de-railing the FA process. Could we possibly table this discussion for the moment, with assurances that we will re-visit it after the article is promoted? We can then (re)review the terms that historians use, and look into crafting a new consensus if necessary. --Elonka 02:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a spotcheck of the sources, and another look at the prose wouldn't hurt. Ucucha (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Reasons for failure" section seems to have only source, and every paragraph begins with "there have" or "there are" –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are too many direct quotes in this article. I know that sounds like the "too many notes" bit in the movie "Amadeus". However, direct quotes are for main points, or particularly original or particularly representative ones. Many times the quotes in this article seem like mere name-dropping, "Person x said simply, 'The attempt failed'" is one example. –OneLeafKnowsAutumn (talk) 12:06, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a result of the disputes that the article has gone through. Often when there was disagreement about how to interpret what a particular historian said, the consensus was just to quote the historian verbatim. --Elonka 06:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
reference spotcheck

References to check chosen by random number generator.

  • FN.24 Ascelin is not mentioned on cited page 522. He is mentioned on the previous page but his leadership of the mission or the 1245 date is not verified there either. The meeting of Aibeg and Sargis with the pope is not verified, merely that they probably carried the letter.
    • Article: "They [Aybeg and Sargis] accompanied Innocent's embassy back to Rome, and stayed for about a year, meeting with Innocent in 1248.
    • Source (p.522): "The pope's reply to Baiju's letter...dated November 22, 1248, and probably carried back by Aybeg and Sargis..."
    • Source (p.521): "It is thus quite understandable that the two Mongol messengers, Aybeg and Sargis, were held virtually incommunicado..."
  • FN.29 Hetum's submission is verified but not his role as the main conduit of negotiation nor his encouragement of other kings to submit. FN.28 is also cited but I can only access page 7 with my credentials. However, the snippet given in the footnote also fails to verify his later role.
  • FN.36 ok
  • FN.38 ok
  • FN.61 ok
  • FN.63 ok
  • FN.74 ok
  • FN.98 ok , except neither this source nor FN.97 verify that Kelemechi was head of the astrological observatory in China.
  • FN.99 partly verified through Google snippets view only. Cannot get a hit in this book for "Ghizolfi" or "Ghisolfi" on any page but the rest of the sentence seems ok. Although not cited here, FN.104 later found to verify Ghisolfi.
    • Article:Through Bar Sauma and other later envoys, such as Buscarello de Ghizolfi, Arghun promised the European leaders that if Jerusalem were conquered, he would have himself baptised and would return Jerusalem to the Christians.
  • FN.104a ok (in conjunction with FN.103)
  • FN.105b agf no access
  • FN.110 ok verifies in part only, but covered by other refs
  • FN.134 ok
  • FN.136 ok
  • FN.138 ok
  • SpinningSpark 16:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks very much for the thorough review. Answers follow:
      • I reworked the section on Aybeg & Serkis, and added a couple more refs.
      • For Hetum, I toned back the language a bit, and added a link to another ref, Nersessian, to verify the info.
      • Regarding Kelemechi, the information was sourced at the Isa Kelemechi article, but I've gone ahead and brought one of the refs over.
      • For Ghizolfi, the ref you are referring to, Rossabi p. 99, is verifying the Bar Sauma part, not the Ghisolfi part. As with Kelemechi, since Buscarello de Ghizolfi has his own article, I didn't feel that it was necessary to source the details on him (since the sources are at the Ghizolfi article), but if you'd like, I could definite bring some refs over.
    • If you have any other questions, let me know! --Elonka 06:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am still not seeing verification of Hethum ecouraging other states to submit to the Mongols. Nerssessian (FN.30) talks about encouraging alliance, not submission. He also appears to be discussing the period late 1250s- early 1260s which is somewhat later than 1247. I can only access the first page of Stewart (FN.31) but his article is also clearly about a much later period. Jackson (FN.32) also does not talk about encouraging others, and I am not seeing the 1247 date - it could only be arrived at by adding "1244", "shortly afterwards", and "two years later". While 1247 is not going to be far wrong, it is still WP:SYNTH.
      • I offer no comment on whether relying on other Wikipedia articles for facts is acceptable, but it remains that "head of the astrological observatory in China" is unverified in this article. FN.100 verifies neither that it was an observatory, nor its location (although China is a reasonable implication).
        • Source: "...Kublai Khan established an Office of Western Astronomy in 1263 with the Syrian Isa kelemechi as its head."
      • "Ghizolfi" remains unverified for the same reason.
      • SpinningSpark 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reworked the sentences on Hethum and Kelemechi, and added a few more sources to verify Ghisolfi's involvement. --Elonka 03:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have now struck most of my comments, but you have not responded to the 1247 date question. SpinningSpark 10:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for not being clear. When I said above that I had reworked the Hethum sentence, I meant that I had addressed your concern. The sentence now reads, "Hethum I submitted in 1247, and over the following years encouraged other monarchs to enter into a Christian-Mongol alliance." --Elonka 02:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reworking of the sentence is fine, that is not the issue. The problem is that there is no cite to verify this happened in 1247. SpinningSpark 04:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. I have added two more sources, with URL links so they should be easier to check. BTW, one possibility for why Google searches are proving more difficult here, is because there are many alternate spellings for Hethum's name: Hethum, Het'um, Hayton, Hethoum, Hetoum, etc. --Elonka 05:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Now struck. For the avoidance of doubt, when searching cited sources I used the spelling of Hethum found in the source rather than that in the article. That is, prior to the introduction of additional sources, the spotcheck would still have failed. SpinningSpark 13:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The source spotcheck has resulted in 3 out of 15 (20%) of passages checked being rewritten to comply with sources. Possibly this was just unlucky, but may indicate either that a further spotcheck is in order, or even that the article should be withdrawn while a more thorough source check is carried out. I am saddened to have to make this comment, Elonka has clearly worked hard to bring this article up to standard and I very much enjoyed reading it. SpinningSpark 10:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spinningspark, and again, thank you for the time you have taken to review the sources. I of course disagree with your suggestion that the nom should be withdrawn. Your spotcheck showed that there were no incidents of copyright violation, nor any incidents of "close paraphrasing". --Elonka 14:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm very unconvinced by the quality of the prose in this article. A few examples from the lead:

  • "... as attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance ...". You make attempts "towards forming", as opposed "to form"?
  • "Such an alliance would have seemed a logical choice". To whom?
  • "The Mongols had already conquered other Christian nations ...". There has so far been no mention of any Christian nation being conquered by the Mongols.
  • "... including the Kingdoms of Georgia and Cilician Armenia". Why is "Kingdom" capitalised? "Empires" wasn't in "They also shared a common enemy in the Muslim empires".
  • "... the often-proposed alliance was never achieved". Alliances aren't achieved.
  • "... through infrequent messages from the Papacy or European monarchs ...". "Or"? Shouldn't that be "and"? And why is "Papacy" capitalised?
  • "Attempts towards an alliance continued through negotiations with multiple leaders of the Mongol Ilkhanate in Iran ...". That's at best semi-literate.
  • "... which usually resulted in the forces arriving months apart". "Apart" can't possibly be the right word here.
  • "A final attempt was made to establish a bridgehead at the small island of Ruad off the coast of Tortosa, again in an attempt to coordinate military action with the Mongols." By whom?
  • "The plan for collaboration failed ...". Whose plan? Who were the collaborators? Was it just a "plan for collaboration" or was it a planned collaboration?
  • "... if it had been successful, would have even been effective in shifting the balance of power in the region". How are we to parse "would have even been effective"?

Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Malleus, thank you for taking the time to review the article. I have addressed most of your concerns, with other comments as follows:
  • "logical choice": Do you have suggestions on how else to word this? It's similar to how the subject is treated in the sources. For example, Atwood's quote, "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam."
  • Thanks for pointing out the capitalization issues, those are now fixed.
  • Regarding the sentence that you say is "semi-literate": Could you suggest a better way to word it?
  • Ditto with "apart": What would you suggest instead?
  • "would have been effective": I'm not sure what you're asking here?
Looking forward to your reply, --Elonka 07:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some background here that I've only just become aware of, but I not uncommonly look at and try to help older nominations, nothing personal. Returning to this article, I see similar problems with the prose throughout. A few more examples:
Background (1209–1244)
  • "This legend fed upon itself, and some individuals who came from the East were greeted with the expectations that they might be the long-awaited Christian heroes". Why the plural "expectations" and "heroes"? The only hero mentioned is Prester John, and the only expectation is that he would be a Christian ally from the East.
  • "... the legends of Prester John again conflated with the reality of Genghis Khan's rapidly expanding empire." Again, isn't there only one legend?
Papal overtures (1245–1248)
  • "The Mongol invasion of Europe subsided in 1242". Invasions don't subside.
  • "The communications initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian–Mongol communications; the Europeans would ask for the Mongols to convert to Christianity, and the Mongols would simply respond with demands for submission." A rather subtle shift there between "Christian" and "European". Why?
  • "The loss of Jerusalem again caused some Europeans to look to the Mongols as potential allies of Christendom". The positioning of that "again" is rather ambiguous. Is that the loss of Jerusalem again, or that the loss of Jerusalem again caused some Europeans to consider the Mongols as potential allies?
Saint Louis and the Mongols
  • "... as Louis died there of illness." That reads very strangely to me.
Saint Louis and the Mongols
  • "Louis IX of France had engaged in communications with the Mongols since his first Crusade, when he was met on December 20, 1248, in Cyprus by two Mongol envoys, Nestorians from Mosul named David and Marc, who brought a letter from the Mongol commander in Persia, Eljigidei." There's a subtle tense switch there ("had engaged ... since") which is rather jarring. The sentence is also trying to cram in too much. Malleus Fatuorum 06:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
  • Prester John. The plurals seem appropriate. There were indeed multiple legends about Prester John, in multiple locations, and multiple individuals were greeted as being representatives or relatives of Prester John, so "heroes" seems correct as well.
  • changed "subsided" to "ended"
  • Christian-Mongol changed to European-Mongol
  • "Loss of Jerusalem": I removed the word "again" to avoid confusion
  • Sentence on Louis's death reworked to "when Louis died of illness", and I reworked the paragraph about his meeting with Eljigidei's envoys.
--Elonka 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I keep giving you examples only; I think the whole article needs a good seeing to before it meets 1a. "A few years later, in 1252, Louis tried unsuccessfully to ally with the Egyptians, and then in 1253 he tried to seek allies among both the Ismaili Assassins and the Mongols." Do you really believe that to be an example of our best work? Your explanation of the plural/singular is also inconsistent with the statement in the lead: "... due to the long-running legend of a mythical Prester John". That's singular, not plural. Malleus Fatuorum 07:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To say that the "whole article needs a good seeing to" is not exactly an actionable concern. It is also somewhat dismissive of the many other reviewers who have already read and approved the article. Regarding Prester John, the word "legend" can be used in singular or plural depending on context, so it seems somewhat odd that you would oppose an entire FA nom based on something so minor. Ditto with the sentence about King Louis, I see nothing wrong, but if you would like to suggest a different wording, I would be happy to review your suggestion. As for whether or not I think that the Franco-Mongol alliance article is an example of Wikipedia's best work, my answer is an unequivocal "yes", otherwise I would not have nominated it. I think it would be a credit to Wikipedia to have this article show up on the mainpage, and indeed, I feel that the FMA article is of a higher quality, and has gone through far more scrutiny, than several of the other articles which I have seen bannered. --Elonka 16:34, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that "the whole article needs a good seeing-to" is precisely an actionable concern - the prose isn't exactly first quality, and "brilliant prose" has always been one of the Featured Articles criteria. 128.226.130.41 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FAC, "Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed." Saying "the whole article needs a good seeing-to" is not specific, and is near impossible to address. --Elonka 02:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other reviewers have their opinions, I have mine, and my opinion will weigh no more heavily than that of anyone else. My only concern is whether or not this article meets FA criterion 1a, which I'm unconvinced that it does; if that's "dismissive" of other reviewers in your mind then so be it, but we might as well all pack up and go home if disagreement is now to be deprecated. The truth is that I keep giving you examples, yet very little is being fixed, and the focus is only on the examples, not the article as a whole. Let me give you just one more example, from the lead: "They [the Mongols] had already conquered other Christian nations in their advance across Asia ...". As no Christian nations have been mentioned at all at this point, "other Christian nations" is meaningless. And here's another, also from the lead: "Communications tended to follow a repetitive cycle ..." Aren't cycles by definition repetitive? And there are even small things that anyone reading the article ought to be able to spot need fixing, such as the inconsistent capitalisation of "Crusader": "After the Fall of Acre in 1291, the remaining Crusaders retreated to the island of Cyprus. A final attempt was made to establish a bridgehead at the small island of Ruad off the coast of Tortosa, again in an attempt by the crusaders to coordinate military action with the Mongols ". That's why I say the whole article needs to be looked through, not just those areas I've drawn attention to; this is not a peer review. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed some of the things you addressed. As for the capitalization of "Crusader", you are correct, this is inconsistent, even among the sources. Some capitalize the word, and others do not. There seems to be a slight preference towards capitalization, so I have tried to make the article consistent in that way, even though it now means that some sentences are using a different style than the sources which support them. --Elonka 02:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am having a look through the article to see if I can hoover up any remaining infelicities in the prose. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits that don't seem like clear improvements. --JN466 03:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comments from Malleus Fatuorum The text is certainly improving, but I still don't think it's quite there yet. For instance, I brought up the inconsistent capitalisation of "Crusader" above, but there's the same issue with "Crusade": "Louis IX of France had communications with the Mongols throughout his own crusades ...", "Louis attempted a second Crusade ...". There's a similar inconsistency with "king": we have "king of Jerusalem" but the "King of Armenia". We also have "French King Louis" in the Edward I's Crusade (1269–1274) section, but "French king Louis" in the Papal communications section.

  • From the lead: "The Franks and Mongols shared a common enemy in the Muslim empires, but despite generations of messages, gifts, and emissaries, the often-proposed alliance never came to fruition." Who was this common enemy in the Mongol empires, and how can messages and gifts go through generations?
  • Why is "Pope" capitalised throughout when "papacy" and "king" isn't"?
  • "Faced with the option of subjugation or facing the nearby Mongol horde ...". That "faced ... facing" is rather awkward.
  • "However, the only monarch who followed Hethum's advice was his son-in-law, Prince Bohemond VI of Antioch." This is said twice: once in the Christian vassals section and again in the Antioch section.
  • "... and accomplished raids as far south as Gaza". Raids aren't "accomplished.

Malleus Fatuorum 00:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point on the capitalization. This is another case where the sources are terribly inconsistent. I've tried to rework the article to have its own internal consistency, so, "The Crusades", "Crusaders", "Seventh Crusade", but "went on crusade" and "Edward's crusade". Will that work?
  • Regarding "king" and "pope", this is another case of sources being inconsistent with capitalization, but I've tried to bring the article into line with WP:JOBTITLES. Meaning the terms should be lowercased when referring to something generically, but capitalized when referring to a specific individual or specific government. So "John became a king", but "King John". "The popes decided that Pope Greg was the proper choice. As pope, he made the following declarations...".
  • With "papacy", sources are again all over the place,[51] and WP:MOSCAPS doesn't seem to offer specific guidance. So I've decided (somewhat arbitrarily) to simply lowercase throughout.
  • "common enemy", I've changed "Muslim empires" to "Muslims". As for the wording of "generations of messages, gifts, and emissaries", I don't really see a problem with it, but if you'd like to suggest a different wording, I'll definitely take a look.
    I've suggested an alternative, see what you think. Malleus Fatuorum 05:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "facing": Good point. Sentence has been re-worked.
  • Bohemond: Again, good catch. I removed one of the sentences.
  • "raids": Fixed.
--Elonka 05:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm about ready to strike my oppose, but before I do I need to look through the whole article again, so please bear with me. Malleus Fatuorum 05:41, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copyediting. I took another pass at the lead too. Does "several decades" work better than "generations"? --Elonka 06:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Much better I think. Malleus Fatuorum 06:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

I have added United States public domain tags to the nine files that were missing one. File:Pope Urban IV.jpg and File:B Gregor X.jpg are missing sources, dates and authors. DrKiernan (talk) 12:56, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've removed the Pope Urban image, and swapped the Pope Gregory image to one that has better source info. --Elonka 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Is Atwood the author of a chapter (indicated in footnote 2) or the editor of a whole encyclopedia (indicated in References).
  • Why do some authors who write short papers not have page numbers (e.g. Ryan ) but others do (e.g. Amitai, Knobler)?
  • Why does Demurger footnote 7 get a chapter title but others not?
  • Why do some footnotes give book titles and others not? I would remove the titles from the authors with only one work in the References section or always include them.
  • Why are Ghazarian and Glick in full in the footnote when other books are only given in full in the References section?
  • Why are some sources linked to google and others not? Jackson's Mongols and the West for example is linked in some footnotes and not others. I thought it might be because only certain pages were accessible, but that's not the case. The pattern seems random. Why not remove the links, and just link the whole book in the references section?
  • The locations in the References section tend to look silly. "New York, New York, USA" is unnecessarily precise, even for an FA. DrKiernan (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the detailed review! Answers follow:
  • Atwood: Both. He is credited to the entire encyclopedia, but for the actual citation, I chose to reference the specific entry that is being referred to.
  • Ryan does have page numbers: 411–421?
  • With Demurger, there was one entire chapter of his book which was relevant to that particular cite, whereas other Demurger references were more specific.
  • Books in footnotes: Fair enough, I moved Glick down.
  • The sources that are linked, were usually done in that way to make verification earier. This article went through multiple disputes, many of which revolved around the precise wording of a source. So if something was possibly controversial, we took care to provide links to the specific pages. Linking only to the entire book, would make it a bit more difficult to find the specific pages being referenced.
  • Source locations. (sigh) I agree with you, but I was trying to adapt to comments by other reviewers to be precise and consistent about locations. I'll happily format the sources in any way anyone wants, I'm just trying to be amenable to requests. So, please tell me how you'd like the sources formatted, and I will oblige?
--Elonka 20:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the first five points, my queries are answered. I have made some edits in response: adding page nos. and removing unnecessary details.
On the penultimate point, I suspected as much and that's fine. On the last point, I suspected that too but I don't want it to become standard FA practice to overdo the locations. I think such creep should be avoided. It is, however, unnecessary to revert edits, only to resist doing them in the first place!
I have one more point on the sources: [115] is unclear, to which Amitai source does "Ghazan's first campaign into Syria (1299–1300)" relate? DrKiernan (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good eyes! That's condensed citation for a separate article of Amitai's, but the expanded citation was either never added, or disappeared somewhere along the way. I have (re)added it. --Elonka 00:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "1260's pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut" and "and the 170-year-old principality was no more" strike me as colloquialisms, I prefer "pivotal Battle of Ain Jalut in 1260" and ", ending the 170-year-old principality"
  • The clause "needed to withdraw because of other internal matters in the Mongol Empire." is woolly. It would be clearer to state what the internal matters were.
  • "The raids went as far as Gaza, passing through several towns, probably including Jerusalem.": This statement indicates the Mongols probably entered Jerusalem and then left. But the sentence "But in reality, Jerusalem had been neither taken nor even besieged" indicates that Jerusalem was by-passed. There is a contradiction here.
  • Please re-examine and check the third paragraph of the final section. Currently, it implies the Mongols could have certainly conquered all of Africa, which clearly cannot be the sense meant. DrKiernan (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed the Antioch sentence, but would rather not move the year 1260 to the end of the Ain Jalut sentence, because it would result in two nearby sentences in that paragraph both ending with "in 1260".
    • "internal matters": I have reworked that paragraph
    • Jerusalem wasn't really a strategic target at that point. Its walls were in ruins, and the populace wasn't in much of a condition to put up a fight. So it wouldn't be correct that it was "besieged" or "taken", though it's probably true that there were some raids on the city as the Mongols passed through, but they didn't stick around. So it's a bit of a semantics issue: If a Mongol raiding party goes galloping through a town, causing havoc, but then doesn't stay, does that mean that the city was "taken"? Sources tend to say no, which is why the section is worded the way that it is.
    • Reworked section about Africa
--Elonka 23:31, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Note - Could the nominator please confirm that all reviewers' comments have been addressed, including the prose issues raised by Malleus Fatuorum and DrKiernan's points above. Graham Colm (talk) Graham Colm (talk) 17:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi GrahamColm. To my knowledge, all comments have now been addressed, unless of course DrKiernan has any further comments based on my most recent reply. The last I heard from Malleus was a couple days ago when he said he was about ready to strike his oppose,[52] but he has not returned since then. --Elonka 00:18, 13 February 2012 (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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [53].

Turning Point (2008)

[edit]
Nominator(s): WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... its failed 3 nominations due to lack of support. I think it meets the criteria. I'll review for a review. You want me to review an article you got up, I'll do a deep review for a review of this one.--WillC 13:11, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: I just went through and did some copy editing, feel free to revert any of my changes if you think they made things worse. The prose seemed ok to me (I'm not the best judge though). There were a couple sentences that I thought needed some more help:
  • "This followed later with Styles missing a pele kick on Sting, which allowed him to pin Styles with a small package to retain the championship."
  • "The number the participant was eliminated determined his ranking in getting a future TNA X Division Championship match, in storyline." Mark Arsten (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one wishes to give comments I gather? I'm expecting this to be closed soon. Guess I'll have to renominate it again.--WillC 06:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am disinclined to close a FAC for lack of review so many times, so this one can sit here a bit longer until some kind person decides to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, good. I don't want to have to nominate this a fifth time anyway. Anything I can do to get that review? I don't mind reviewing another article for one or something along those lines.--WillC 22:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

—Andrewstalk 00:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed.--WillC 05:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:Turning Point (2008).jpg still needs a bit of work. See WP:FUR for what should be included. —Andrewstalk 05:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not exactly sure what else to do. It had a different Fair use explanation, but another Media reviewer came through and changed it during the first or second review.--WillC 00:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the poster is the primary visual image for the 2008 Turning Point? Say so. Describe why the non-free content it is needed in the article, and how it significantly enhances readers' understanding. —Andrewstalk 05:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I gave it a shot.--WillC 07:51, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not quite there (IMO). See File:Wonder World Tour poster.png for an example. —Andrewstalk 09:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I looked and took a few lines from its purpose of use if that is alright to help better the understanding of use.--WillC 08:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on criterion 3 only. —Andrewstalk 01:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please check my edits. The prose is a bit slack in places, have a careful read through to see if there is any redundancy or lack of clarity.
  • first event under the name to take place in November. It was originally scheduled to take place in December, but TNA moved the event to November in late 2008 for an unknown reason — why is this notable enough for the lead?
  • I'd assume the date being changed somewhere around a month before it took place would be notable enough for the lead. Also considering, Turning Point was an annual December event since 2004. This being the one to break that and set a new consistency with future events.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • a 7 out of 10 — why "a"?
  • on-screen co-owner (twice) — I don't understand why he's only co-owner when he's on-screen. Needs clarifying or correcting.
  • Had to do with a storyline that started at the same time that would be pointless to explain in this article. Mick Foley was announced on the October 23 episode of Impact!" that he had bought half the shares of TNA from Jeff Jarrett, becoming part owner. It was pure storyline. I could change it to "storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley" or "co-owner of TNA Mick Foley, in storyline,..."--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC) [reply]
  • Hall, however, legitimately no-showed the event citing "food poisoning" as a result, leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse — two "legitimately", who decides legitimacy?
  • Jarrett, however, recommended Abyss as Angle's opponent, who was standing behind Angle in the ring and was a casualty of Angle's the previous week — confusing, at one point I thought Angle was standing behind himself!
  • Storm spat beer in Sabin's face, which led to Beer Money gaining the pinfall — the cause and effect isn't obvious to me
Alright I will handle these sometime tomorrow.--WillC 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes, and the points that you haven't accepted are individual style preferences. FWIW, one way of explaining material without disrupting the text is to use footnotes, as in this current FAC. It's particularly helpful when what might be obvious to an American fan is less clear to a Brit non-aficionado. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments they were greatly and I mean greatly appreciated. Made my day when I saw them. Been waiting so long for them and your support. WP:PW is all about explaining out to the uninformed reader. I will definitely take a look into the footnotes idea when I (massively) re-write Sacrifice (2008) for my next FAC nomination.--WillC 12:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Based on prose only. Presuming prior FAC attempts validated the sources, images etc. --Noleander (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Noleander :

  • Overall, the prose is workmanlike. I wouldn't call it scintillating, but on the other hand I'm hard-pressed to identify shortcomings.
  • Prose: "The match came down to Lethal and Young, which Young won ... ". Seems like "which" is modifying the noun closest: Young. But I think it is intended to modify "match". Perhaps reword
  • Prose: " The match was announced as following lucha libre tag team rules, where a participant could ...". Use of "where" in that manner is a bit too informal for an encyclopedia. Re-word?
  • Term: "domestic buyrate" - what is that?
  • Term: "The build to the encounter between .." - "Build up" is more conventional, but maybe "build" without the "up" is wrestling argot?
    • Tried to make it sound more formal or "production based", in order to get away from the wrestling aspect of storylines and make it more about the event. Like the Superbowl being about the event and telecast more than just football idea. How so much is brought into the overall process. Thats why I used "build" as a means of showing the way they promoted the event, than the event promoting the storylines which is how most events are written these days it seems.--WillC 08:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Italics? DVD: "... as part of the "TNA Wrestling: Cross The Line Vol. 2" box set, ..." If that is a DVD title, maybe it should be italicized. Not sure about that.
  • Spell check - I ran it through a spell checker, and it looks good.
  • Spot checks on sources: I looked at 3 of the sources, and they were consistent with the associated material. Was a more thorough spot check done in one of the prior FACs?
  • Leaning toward support: If the above items (from myself and Jimfbleak) are addressed, I would Support.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 02:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see a spotcheck of this article's sources. Ucucha (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of a few random sources (out of 38 total footnotes) by Noleander:

  • FN 4:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the first day of 2008, TNA updated their official website to publicize the official dates for all of their PPV events to take place that year."
Source: [dated 1 Jan 2008] .. contains a list of event dates
  • FN 12:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Sting's and Styles' rivalry soon escalated to a point where storyline co-owner of TNA Mick Foley announced on the October 30 episode of TNA's television program TNA Impact! that the two would fight for the championship at Turning Point"
Source: "Mick Foley entered the Impact Zone and talked about the new remodeling that was done. Foley talks about voting and TNA in HD. He announced two big main events for Turning Point which include, Kevin Nash vs. Samoa Joe and Sting defending the TNA Heavyweight Championship against AJ Styles. "
  • FN 14:
Result: Partially validated. But "history of no-showing" not found in source.
Article: "Hall, however, missed the event citing "food poisoning", leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse; Hall has a history of no-showing events."
Source: "As the afternoon progressed and Hall wasn't answering his phone, a lot of concern grew within TNA that he was going to no-show. There was said to be hope as the PPV went live that he would eventually show up. However, Hall sent word that he had food poisoning and couldn't make it."
I expected this to come up. I could probably use a bio to source the extra part or just remove it. I was hoping it would fall under good faith or common sense, but that regarding wrestling. Its common sense in this world. Universal not really. So, its not that important, I might as well remove it. Its about the match, not Hall.--WillC 03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if there is an article about Hall, it belongs there. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, its been removed.--WillC 03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 19:
Result: Validated.
Article: "Angered by Jarrett's refusal, Angle began assaulting several wrestlers in TNA to persuade Jarrett into accepting the challenge."
Source: "…Kurt Angle entered the Impact Zone and attacked David Penzer. ... Security and referees came out to stop the beating, but also wound up taking shots from Angle. Jeff Jarrett came out and told Angle to let it go. Angle said that he wanted a rematch .... Jarrett went nuts and went after Angle, but security held him back...." [much more detail in source]
  • FN 20:
Result: Validated
Article: "On the October 23 episode of Impact!, Angle challenged Jarrett again to a rematch, which Jarrett again refused."
Source: " Borash asked Jarrett if he will give Kurt Angle the rematch against him that he wants. Jarrett said he doesn't always get all he wants in life, but he'll get over it. He said Angle will get over never getting a rematch. He said he has business to take care of, so he had to leave."
  • FN 23:
Result: source not available.
Article: "The event featured employees other than the wrestlers involved in the matches. There were four overall commentators for the event; Mike Tenay and Don West provided English commentary, while Hector Guerrero and Willie Urbina served as the Spanish announce team."
  • FN 24:
Result: Validated, if "Gore" is a high-angled attack
Article: "… and came to a finish when Rhino pinned Bashir after a high-angled tackle."
Source: "Bashir settled in the ring into a chinlock at 6:00. Rhino came back at 8:00 with a spinebuster. Bashir got upset with the ref and spit at him. Rhino then surprised with him a lousy looking Gore for the win."
  • FN 38:
Result: Validated
Article: "Eric Young got his TNA X Division Championship match on the November 13 episode of Impact! against then-champion Sheik Abdul Bashir."
Source: "Mick says he believes in second chances and then says that Eric Young earned a shot at the X-Division Champion."

End of Noleander source spot check. --Noleander (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

Comments

  • "Turning Point (2008) was a" was it actually called "(2008)"? It doesn't look that way from the poster.
    • No, but its meant to differentiate between the events "Turning Point was a professional wrestling pay-per-view (PPV) event..." makes it sound like it is the only event in the series.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe a US thing, but "under the Turning Point chronology " I would have thought it was "in" the chronology rather than "under" it....
  • Since you've just mentioned Canada, isn't it worth clarifying that " Phil Allely of The Sun " is a UK-based thing?
  • No need to link rock music.
  • "The promotional poster for the gathering was released some time prior through PPV providers featuring Mick Foley" -> "The promotional poster for the gathering, featuring Mick Foley, was released through PPV providers."
  • You don't need the {{see also}} link to pro wrestling, that's already been linked to and isn't particularly specific to this section.
  • " leaving Joe legitimately angered by the excuse" if he had food poisoning, what made it legitimate to be "angered"?
    • I had a statement which explained this more, but it wasn't in the reference. It was believed by TNA this was an excuse and Joe believed it was as well. I felt the statement made that clear enough as is.--WillC 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joe and Nash's partnership seemed to come to a close after Nash disappeared from TNA television in mid-2008." -> "seemed to"? is that your opinion or is that a direct quote/ref?
  • Check images have alt text.
  • " (James Storm and Robert Roode; Pictured) " pictured no need for a capital P.
  • "was .5 above" ordinarily would expect 0.5 but perhaps this is a US thing.
  • Table fails MOS:DTT, it's inaccessible to screen-readers and no real reason that the font size should be 85%.
  • I thought MOS said to avoid using # as a replacement for "number"?
  • "X Division rankings match eliminations" table, Eric Young isn't linked first time.

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have not yet had reliability of sources cleared on this FAC-- I listed it at WT:FAC days ago as still needing a source check for reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, first time I've heard of this. Its had several source checks in the past. None seem to be outstanding. All issues appear to have been met. I can explain source reliability if needed again. The Sun and Slam Sports should be obvious. Meanwhile, Pro Wrestling Torch is a leader in wrestling news, its pretty much number 2 next to Wrestling Observer/Figure Four. It has been running in several ways since the late 80s. Their information is determined with sources from inside the companies, through the wrestlers, road agents, etc, via interviews, inside tips, etc. WrestleView prints its information by relay from Wrestling Observer, TNA, or PWTorch. The main journalist Adam Martin has interviewed several within the industry and been interviewed by several magazines and radio shows due to his connection with wrestling. They publish stories that are backed up by various people, rather than speculate like other wrestling sites. TNA, Pro Wrestling History, and HowStuffWorks is all that is left. TNA is primary, HowStufWorks is own by Discovery so obvious, and Pro Wrestling History is minor covering attendance and match times which are not detrimentally important to the article. I could probably remove it if needed, but was used in Lockdown (2008) when it was passed.--WillC 16:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reliability of sources
  1. There is nothing here to indicate reliability: http://www.prowrestlinghistory.com/about.html Please review WP:V and WP:RS and explain what makes this source reliable, according to policy. — SandyGeorgia 16:51, January 24, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    I'm already in the process of removing it to an extent. Its been a WP:PW thing to use it, I've disliked using it since I can't explain other than what I've been told so I've begun removing it with recent articles I've done such as Slammiversary (2005). I'm replacing the match times. The only thing it will be used for is attendance since the Impact! Zone is fed tourist from Universal Studios they always have the same number that its no longer posted by sites.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is nothing here that speaks to journalistic credentials or editorial oversight: http://www.wrestleview.com/info/staff.shtml Please explain what makes this a reliable source, according to policy.
  3. Here is one of many responses from WP:RSN about howstuffworks.com: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#HowStuffWorks.com Please address how that response relates to the text cited from this source in this article, specifically wrt the 1c requirement. Is it not possible to find a higher quality source to cover the text cited from this source? — SandyGeorgia 16:51, January 24, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    How it relates, the source is meant to cover a breif idea of the topic of wrestling rather than covering the event. As said there it's "basically factual" and it "over simplifys things" which is exactly what its meant for, to simply the nature of wrestling. Besides it I only know to cite a book, but I know of no published material which explains wrestling reliably. None have been popular to come to mind which are considered good besides tons of bios. I could use Bret Hart's biography which I have so it would be possible. He explains wrestling in depth and would obviously be a credible source in the subject as he grew up in the world and his father was a promoter who trained wrestlers.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I suspect there's a good chance that a case can be made that this source is reliable, but the case does need to be made, with respect to Wikipedia policy, not opinion: http://www.pwtorch.com/torchhistorypage.html Please make it.
    I'm going to cover this and WrestleView the best I can here. WP:PW has always had issues at explaining how sources are reliable, we've yet to convince anyone of a purely reliable source I know of besides published sources such as newspapers. As such it makes it difficult to use the self published idea. However, from what I know WrestleView should be considered reliable for the following. It is well established, as it has been around for over 12 years. They have an established staff that has gone through an application process. For a larger explanation see the one given by GaryColemanFan at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/SummerSlam (2007)/archive2. That is pretty much all I know to say. Although, I have more info elsewhere. As I've seen several times other wrestling sites have mentioned Adam Martin, WrestleView, etc. However, they have not been proven so they are useless to mention. Just to make the argument though, referencing them would suggest WrestleView is seen as reliable, trustworthy, etc in the industry. Not sure if arguing that wrestlers have appeared on WrestleView's "radio network" would help justify, as I believe wrestlers would not be associating with an unreliable publication who can't get their facts straight. I've emailed the webmaster for information on their fact checking system and staff if it is anywhere on the website. I did discover a WrestleView history page, but its blank and supposed to be under renovation which has yet to be completed. Apparently it once existed. As for PWTorch, its a newsletter which has been running since 87. Wade Keller and James Caldwell have worked with the Wrestling Observer, ran by Dave Meltzer who has been interviewed and covered by Slam Sports, mentioned by wrestlers such as Bret Hart in his bio, featured in documentaries like Beyond the Mat, etc. If I can think of any other ways to prove the reliability of these sources I will. I'm looking for information on WrestleView.--WillC 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Dispatch that should help in your work: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches. And here's a page from another Project that shows how to establish a self-published source as reliable: Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan/Marc Shepherd's Gilbert and Sullivan Discography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright so I went through the article to see how important WrestleView is through it. Found a few that it could do without so they were removed. Also discovered a good amount of them aren't even by WrestleView themselves, they are repost from Wrestling Observer, PW Torch, and TNA which I believe would make them alright to use. The issue appears to be WrestleView rather than PW Torch. With the explanation given above on why WrestleView is creditable to use as well as now knowing that the information comes directly from known reliable sources, I believe the sourcing issue is solved now.--WillC 07:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looking at the HowStuffWorks reference, I see no problem with its use. It's a site that presents things in a "dumbed-down", but not factually incorrect, manner; but here it is simply used to cite a brief aside on the presentation of a professional wrestling event. However, if better sources are required for this, I believe that documentaries such as Beyond the Mat and Catch: The Hold Not Taken offer this same information—however, in a much more protracted manner which would make sourcing content to them slightly more difficult (if time references are required then separate citations would probably have to be made for each clause in the current sentence, as whole scenes in these films discuss one aspect at a time). Using a written work such as the Bret Hart autobiography mentioned above would prove equally problematic, as any of the wrestling autobiographies I've seen mention these things in passing (explaining, say, "works" and "shoots" in one place, "heels" somewhere else, and so on), requiring a simple sentence-long overview to be culled from a large range of individual pages. Perhaps a secondary citation to one of these features, without any specified time references, would serve to reaffirm the accuracy of the initial HowStuffWorks citation, without the need to rely on the larger work for specifics? I'm leaning towards supporting this one if this is clarified—I can dig up the information mentioned but as I no longer own a copy of Beyond the Mat, I'd be unable to provide any specific times, should they be required, and to be frank, I'm not keen on rereading a full novel-length biography to find citations for a single sentence. In all honesty I don't feel that the use of HowStuffWorks is unreliable given the content and context of the citation, however, and should probably stand on its own without any problems. I took far too long to say that, didn't I. GRAPPLE X 06:47, 11 February 2012 (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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [54].

Jonathan Agnew

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dweller (talk) & The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this for a second run. Although Dweller and I thought we'd copyedited it sufficiently before its previous nom, it became quickly apparent that that was not the case! Many comments later, the nom was closed due to lack of support. I believe we have covered all the main issues brought up in the previous nom and look forward to receiving further comments and suggestions this time round. Thanks, in advance, to all contributors for time and energy expended here. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is looking really good now and a lot of work seems to have gone into it. Very comprehensive and representative of the available sources. It is almost there; some questions and comments and then I will be happy to support. Sorry if any of these seem fussy or nit-picky, and feel free to disagree. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moved comments to Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Jonathan Agnew/archive2 to reduce clutter on the page. Please revert if there is a problem with this. All my comments were either addressed or not something that required action and none affected my support below. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, inclined to support: I've struck the comments which have been directly addressed. Most of the others are personal preference and I have no problem with them as such., but I have not struck them in case others want to chip in. The only remaining issues I have are with the Tyson ref and use of WP:INTEXT, while I've replied with further points to a few of the other things. I would like reassurance on the dirt-in-pocket and judgements on his effectiveness as a broadcaster, but I do not necessarily insist on action being taken before supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have attempted to cover most of the existing concerns, only one I can't directly solve with Dweller's input is the Tyson ref... The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks for your patience, all my concerns have now been dealt with. Anything unstruck does not affect my support, it merely suggests that our views diverge slightly! I do not expect anything further to be done regarding these. Great work. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been addressed, except for the small comma issue. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just a few quick ones from me, since what I saw at the first FAC was taken care of...

Comments – Some comments, I have only reviewed an article once before so apologies if I in some way break the rules, or if I am being too pedantic.

  • in lede - "Agnew had a successful first-class career as a fast bowler for Leicestershire from 1979 to 1990, returning briefly in 1992." Agnew's brief return was in a limited overs match, not a first-class game. In any event the return is probably not important enough to deserve a mention here.
    • Agreed on the confusion between first-class and one-day. But I do think it would be misleading for the lead to say he finished in 1990 when he had that cameo in 1992. I'll ponder it. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agnew's most successful seasons came toward the end of his career, after his last international match, when he had learned to swing the ball" reads as if he learnt about swinging the ball in his last international match.
  • "Following the end of his playing career" seems a clumsy phrase. Perhaps "since his playing career concluded"... or is the phrase necessary at all?
  • "Michael Henderson, one of Agnew's peers and rivals". Henderson is an opinion columnist in the newspapers - I don't think he can really be described as a rival of Agnew. They don't do the same sort of job.
  • Is it common to record the listing of his parents' marriage in a newspaper? It seems irrelevant detail to me.
  • "From the age of 16 he developed his skills as a right-arm fast bowler out of school hours at Alf Gover's cricket school at Surrey." The words "out of school hours" seem unnecessary.
  • "in time for the 1978 season" the words "in time" are superfluous.
  • "Agnew found himself bowling to..." the phrase "found himself" is too flowery, why not "Agnew bowled to" or "Agnew played against"? Good writing is straightforward.
    • Actually, I think we're trying to write engaging prose, and this is an attempt to demonstrate that it was something of a shock for a young player to face such a veteran professional in his debut. You could just say "bowled to" but it would lose all sense of prominence. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the phrase "found itself" is an ugly one. It suggests it was some sort of surprise to Agnew that he found himself playing or found Lloyd in the opposition, neither of which would have been at all surprising to him. The surprise element was that vhe bowled so well as is made clear in the words that follow. I don't find it engaging, but obviously it is not a major issue. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he had taken just six first-class wickets" - shouldn't the "just" be "only"?
  • "The award afforded him the opportunity" - again this seems too flowery. "As the prize, he spent..." is more straightforward.
  • "Agnew's career did not initially live up to his early promise" "- I think "Initially, Agnew's career did not live up to its early promise" would be more grammatical.
  • Under the test cricket section there is a wikified reference to the term "blackwash". The link doesn't really describe the origin of the term which is a reference to the colour of the West Indian players. I suspect it isn't a phrase that would be used today, but in any event I don't think it's necessary here, it has no relevance to Agnew's story. "to avoid losing all five tests in the series" would be more meaningful for the reader.
    • Referenced "blackwash" with regard to this series. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the reference doesn't explain what a blackwash is. I think it is confusing for the reader who doesn't understand this jargon and you really need to know a lot about cricket to know what this means. I also feel uncomfortable with the racial overtones. Dean B (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, the reference corroborates that it was "known as" the "blackwash" and the wikilink to the specific game in the series gives it context. It's not our job to censor Wikipedia, so while I'm sure we're all uncomfortable with the tone, it is an important phrase and an important part of cricket history here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He was immediately dropped again from the side..." I think "subsequently" would be better than "immediately".
  • Under "playing style and career summary" the paragraph about his batting seems to be overly generous about his batting ability. I have no problem with mentioning his highest score, but surely it should be in the context that Agnew spent most of his career at 10 or 11 in the batting order. At least his FC average - 11 - should be recorded here.
    • Agreed, we should mention his average - which is far better than the rabbit reputation he's developed on TMS would suggest. I don't really have a good source for him being a 10/11. --Dweller (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His first duty was to cover England's 1990–91 Ashes tour" - this is incorrect, he covered that tour for the Today newspaper, not for the BBC. As noted earlier in the paragraph, he joined the BBC in 1991, not 1990.
  • "In 2007, Martin-Jenkins cited Agnew as the sports journalist he most respects". If you look at the reference Martin-Jenkins says he respects all his fellow cricket correspondents, and Agnew. He doesn't name Agnew as the single journalist he most respects.
  • Under "private life and personality", "when they worked together on BBC radio Leicestershire", I think Radio should have a capital R.

Again, apologies if this is all too pedantic, but I was reluctant to edit the page myself directly, given its nomination here and my relative inexperience. Dean B (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are excellent, and helpful and I agree with many of them. Thank you. Please do check back in when we've finished going through them. --Dweller (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good writing is, indeed, straightforward. Thanks for your comments. You are, as always (and with any article), welcome to engage in editing. Indeed, new eyes on an article are very welcome as it becomes something of a chore to repeatedly review the same prose so anything you'd like to do to the article (obviously, beyond a radical overhaul!) would be welcome. Hopefully between me and Dweller, we can address your immediate concerns. Again, cheers for your interest and detailed review comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dean, all of your comments should now be addressed. Thank you for your time, contribution and homework! --Dweller (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. My main objection from the previous FAC remains: inappropriate inclusion of the "leg over" incident in the lead section. I also had several other points during the previous FAC. While all my points have been "responded to", I have a few ongoing disagreements with The Rambling Man. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks. I don't see anything "ongoing" there, just matters of taste that we presumably will just disagree on. Also, it should be noted that Dweller asked in your link "I think all of Axl's comments have been responded to. If I've missed one, please let me know. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)" to which you didn't respond. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the following comments:

  • I, too, have expressed criticism concerning the "leg-over" incident in the lead. I still have reservations about this, but not to the extent of opposing on these grounds. TRM and Dweller are experienced and responsible editors, and if their judgement is at odds with mine, well, that sometimes happens.
  • I have a further reservation about the use of File:Vivian richards crop.jpg. In my resolution, Richards's features are barely discernible; it could be a picture of anyone. With further editing of the image for brightness and contrast it should be possible to get a version in which Richards becomes recognisable; have you tried this? At present, I doubt that the image is worth keeping.
  • For some reason this article attracts more than its fair share of attention from minor copyeditors. Most of these suggestions are useful but many are very minor, and much of these long tracts of comment should I think be transferred to the article's talkpage rather than lengthening this FAC page indefinitely.
    • Agreed, of course we welcome all comments but FAC's refusal to use templates which allow compression of text mean that this has already reached extreme TL;DR length in a week. More than happy to take comments on this FAC's talk page or the article talk page or, indeed, on my or Dweller's user talk page. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agnew is rather more interesting as a man than he was as a cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Completely true. And what's more, once we've got this featured, we'll let him know and see what he has to say about it on TMS, he has mentioned his Wikipedia article a few times in the past, so it'll be interesting! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now This is a very good article, but goes off the rails towards the end I'm afraid. — Nick-D 07:17, January 29, 2012 — continues after insertion below
    • The coverage of Agnew's personal life and playing and broadcasting career is excellent, and I have only the following minor comments on it:
    • However, the last 'Broadcasting controversies' and '"Leg over" incident' sections really need a lot of work.
      • For starters, the concept of 'controversy' sections is generally frowned upon. The material they contain should be integrated into other sections.
        • Frowned on by whom? If it's MOS, I've missed it. There have been a number of FACs with controversy sections in them, from memory. The material could be moved elsewhere, but I'm loathe to do so - it adds colour to a biography and helps prevent accusations of hagiography - a common FAC accusation. --Dweller (talk) 19:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • While it's an essay, Wikipedia:Criticism is widely accepted and seems to be common sense. You can easily integrate this material into the article without labeling the incidents 'controversies' (particularly as none of the incidents are particularly controversial). Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, I've given this a lot of thought, and I'm genuinely unsure what to do. You're right, some of these are not really controversies and that's what's made me rethink. However, I do like them sitting separate from the the history of his progression as a journalist, because it helps the reader find what he's looking for - and that includes the leg-over which is so very well-known far beyond cricket circles. I'm thinking of retitling the subsection "Notable broadcasting incidents", as by definition, they're all incident and notable. And that's about as NPOV as I can get it. Sadly, it's also rather bland. Any views before I make the change? --Dweller (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is Agnew's comments about all the British cricket media being banned from Zimbabwe a 'controversy'?
      • Likewise, what was 'controversial' about Agnew's interview with Michael Vaughan or comments about Michael Atherton? These kind of incidents seem perfectly normal for professional sports broadcaster, as they invariably interview people who make fools of themselves and are encouraged to state their opinion on various matters
        • The Vaughan interview was included at the request of an FAC reviewer, last time. The Atherton comments are not included as a controversy, but for context. --Dweller (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not suggesting that these incidents not be included. My concern is that they're in a section labeled 'Broadcasting controversies' when there's nothing particularly controversial about them. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does the 'Leg over incident' really need three paragraphs? It could be cut down to a single paragraph (eg, he said it, it was funny, and it was voted the most popular of nine options in one phone-in or internet poll).
      • What's the purpose of the paragraph detailing several other double entendres? Part of Agnew's charm as a commentator is that he's often very funny, and I don't see why these incidents should be highlighted. It would be much better to have a paragraph discussing how Agnew uses humour to lighten up his commentary as it's an important part of his success as a broadcaster. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I'm aware there are some outstanding issues raised by Nick-D. I plan to get to them tomorrow or Tuesday. RL has been very busy of late. Nick, apologies it's taking so long. It's partly because your points are good ones, lol. --Dweller (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, I've completed my review of your comment by greatly reducing the length of the leg-over section, including downgrading the other innuendo comments to mere references of Agnew's occasional love of innuendo and cutting back on some of the extra detail about the match and the commuters. I hope that meets you at least half way. --Dweller (talk) 10:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Just quick checks on references

Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are still some problems with prose; for example, in "Agnew has been known to laugh at or include occasional sexual innuendo, while on-air. The most notable of these occurred in August 1991, when Agnew was commentating with Brian Johnston", it's not clear what "these" referred to, and "laugh at or include" sounds distinctly awkward. Ucucha (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that does sound pretty nasty. We'll get onto a rephrase for that. Is that the only problem or do you see other major prose problems? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's slipped the proofreading net because I just caused it a day or two ago, fixing the last of the issues raised here. Whoops. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I found a few other things that I fixed myself, enough that I'm not quite convinced that the prose is up to the standards. I haven't had time to read the entire article, though, and won't until Monday at least. Ucucha (talk) 14:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That missing comma and mistaken en-dash? I've run a script over for remaining en-dashes (there weren't any, and I directly blame Dweller for adding the one you found!) so hopefully no further problems. Look forward to your additional comments as-and-when. P.S. any chance you could do a source spot check? I asked Sandy if she could or if she could recommend someone but no luck there. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2012 (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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [55].

Cross of Gold speech

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it meets the criteria in my view. The Cross of Gold speech is William Jennings Bryan's effort a the Democratic convention in 1896, which may have won him the nomination at the cost of the election. Though I think McKinley would have won regardless. While it is not a requirement to so state, I have reviewed the following articles which are at or have been at FAC, since my last nomination: John Tyler, Martha Layne Collins, Halo (Beyoncé Knowles song). Possibly others, I have not in the past kept track. Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I think that this article is important enough and extremely well cited without a single citation needed tag that I can find. It is well written and appropriately illustrated as well. Zibart (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Compelling stuff; the account of the Democratic Convention leading up to the speech, and the record of the speech itself, are particularly arresting. Naturally I have a few prose quibbles and minor queries:-

  • At least one too many commas in "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively been on since 1873, limited the money supply, but eased trade with other nations, such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold." Also "been on" jars - I'd make that "embraced". My version: "The gold standard, which the United States had effectively embraced in 1873, limited the money supply while easing trade with nations such as the United Kingdom, whose currency was also based on gold."
  • California Gold Rush: I know there's a link, but the year should be given
  • Presumably the Coinage Act of 1873 preceded the Panic of 1873, but by how much?
  • Oxymoron watch: "a riveting three-hour address". Is the adjective yours, or was it described as such by someone who sat through it?
Kazin says (page 39) "It was a riveting performance". I assume he was not there, but the description convinces me it was justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which was until 1913 not elected by the people, but instead by state legislatures". Slightly clumsy: "which until 1913 was elected by the state legislatures rather than the popular vote" would in my view be clearer.
  • When you say he "came up" with the phrase in 1894, do you mean he used it? It would be interesting to know exactly when and where.
  • Bryan lacked a seat at the start of the convention - but suddenly we have: "Bryan, once seated, was Nebraska's representative..." etc. How did he get to be seated?
It is mentioned in the quote from Barnes near the start of the "Silver advocates" section. The Credential Committees made two key rulings, they seated the pro-silver Nebraska and Michigan delegations, and their report was adopted by the convention. I felt that the Barnes quote adequately got us by something which would slow down the story to detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an incendiary address" - yours, or source's?
    The word is mine, but it is justified. Williams says, "Worse, he quickly lost the audience with an agitated speech which combined an appeal to sectionalism with rabid abuse of Grover Cleveland."--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dissidents nominated their own ticket; the split in the vote would contribute to Bryan's defeat". The second part of this statement is questionable; the dissidents' candidate, John Palmer of Illinois, garnered only 0.95% of the vote. McKinley's margin over Bryan was over 4%. Thus it might be worth modifying the "would contribute" statement.

All in all, an article of the best quality. Brianboulton (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the support. I need to doublecheck sources on a couple of those. I will say that Palmer/Buckner, while negligible on a national level, cost Bryan dearly in Kentucky.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will address the remaining comments tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All those things are done now, or else commented on. I'm content with the language on Palmer, he did hurt Bryan badly in the border states (Kentucky, where Buckner was from, and West Virginia, especially). I just say "contributing to" because the sources don't think the split was crucial, but it hurt him, along with many other things, the money advantage of the Republicans, the failure of the Democrats and Populists to fully fuse behind Bryan, and Bryan's failure to appeal to the urban vote. And other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All of my concerns were addressed at the Peer Review. Excellent article on an interesting (and important) bit of American history. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the many comments at peer review, which led to a considerable improvement in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Added image also unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • File:Cross_of_gold_speech_cartoon.jpg: source link returns 404 error, missing a US PD tag
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in whether journal entries in Bibliography include complete page range or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thoroughness; I will deal with these tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done now.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 23 January 2012 (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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [56].

Manhunter (film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, after two peer reviews, two GOCE cop-edits and two previous FACs, I believe it ticks all the criteria. A neo-noir box office flop which seem directly responsible for the increasing popularity of both forensic science and criminal profiling in pop culture. The last FAC failed due to there still being possible sources which hadn't been vetted for use, these have now been reviewed (and rejected as redundant to the material already present). Images have been used sparingly but I'm open to adding more free images if this is seen as a detriment. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyscape search - No issues were revealed by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 09:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - with regard to FA criterion 1a. There is a little redundancy, e.g. "in order to", where just "to" will suffice, and I would prefer to see "a ride" expanded a little – it's a little too colloquial for my tastes. I have watched this film many times, thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Reducing "in order to" to "to" can come across as very terse and can make a sentence harder to read. I think this is why "in order to" is so common even in formal writing. However, I have reduced both instances. I'm not sure whether "a ride" is colloquial or simply AmE, but I've changed it to "a lift". Wikt doesn't mark either as colloquial or regional, but I hope this is OK. --Stfg (talk) 11:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've just heard "lift" used in an American film (Bugsy Malone) so I suppose it's not just BrE. Good. --Stfg (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN 4 and similar should use endash, not hyphen
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated
  • FN 7 and similar need not repeat publisher
  • Compare formatting on FNs 14 and 15
  • FN 17: punctuation
  • Be consistent in whether directors are listed first or last name first
  • FN 29: check title vs publisher
  • FN 30: publisher?
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
  • Check italicization
  • What is SIU?
  • FN 45: page?
  • Be consistent in whether web sources are cited using website name or base URL, and if the latter whether these are italicized. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for combing over this. I removed the Ain't It Cool News ref and the associated text, having found that the author has had his journalistic integrity questioned in the past. I think I've addressed the other concerns, but I've quite possibly missed a few. I'm not sure, though, where I've inconsistently listed editors or directors, could you be specific with where this is? Editors are all listed using the relevant fields in the citation templates, which always spits out "Surname, Forename. ed."; and I believe anyone credited as a director in has been listed "Forename Surname (director)". Then again, it's three AM and I might have missed something GRAPPLE X 02:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • FN 7 for editor, 78 for director (and 64 is strange too, and 21 vs 45, possible others). Still several hyphen/dash issues, repeating and sometimes contradictory publishers (ex. FN 49), 14 and 15 are still inconsistent, 29 still misses the actual title of the cited page (though now includes work), still italicization problems (ex FN 14). That being said, sleep is probably more vital than addressing formatting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Will give it another look through tomorrow, but have grabbed everything you've mentioned specifically for now - except FN 14 (I removed italics from it earlier, if that's what you're referring to, unless you feel they should be restored? The A.V. Club is a web-only source, not sure that's meant to be italicised); and 29 (I have the title down as "The Reds Official Web Site", its title in my browser is "THE REDS OFFICIAL WEB SITE", though I believe the convention is to replace all-caps with title casing. Does the name display differently for you, or is it the casing thing just?). Going to bed for now but I'll check for further instances of what you've noted tomorrow evening. GRAPPLE X 03:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our article does italicize AV Club, but I'll leave that to your discretion - what I was looking at there was the date formatting, and the inconsistent italicization which has been addressed. For 29, that's the name of the site, but not the specific page on the site that you're citing (you're right about the casing). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Although I'm not sure what the page title is meant to be (I'm only seeing the "The Reds Official Web Site" bit and nothing more), I've changed the title to the title of the interview given in the text, rather than on the browser tab. If that's not what you meant then it can be reverted. GRAPPLE X 23:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work, even if light on images (I'm used to see these movie articles trying to become more illustrated through every free image possible). igordebraga ≠ 04:00, 25 January 2012 (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 Raul654 21:42, 11 February 2012 [57].

George W. Romney

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, not the man currently running for U.S. president, but his father. George Romney was in turn a displaced person, a college dropout, a finder of an accidental career, a wartime industrial leader, a famous corporate CEO, a family man and a local civic and religious leader, a successful governor, a front-running but then dreadful presidential candidate, a quixotic cabinet secretary, and more. Article is GA, was at FAC two years ago but failed due to lack of feedback. It's been largely stable since then in terms of content, and hopefully this time around will earn sufficient support. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brief initial comments: Fascinating stuff, and very timely. I may or may not have time to read through the entire article, so just a few comments to speed along the process:

  • Consistency needed in "Bibliography": some sources do not include publication city, and Mollenhoff does not list publisher.
  • All images except this one checks out:
    • File:NixonAndRomneyInOffice.jpg: Source says "As stated in the book, this is an official White House photograph from the National Archives II, College Park, Maryland." What book? Also, what does this mean: . {{{title}}}.
  • This is very minor, but on my screen the image of the gravesite pushes the "Notes" off kilter. No big deal, but it grates on my anal-retentive sensibilities.

Good luck! María (yllosubmarine) 18:52, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your comments. I have added locations to all the Bibliography entries. I have updated the Commons definition of that image with the full book source and fixed the formatting (I think it got messed up when it was auto-transferred to Commons from WP). And I have added a 'clear' template to make sure the Notes section starts correctly. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All images check out. Thanks for clarifying the source! María (yllosubmarine) 03:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books
Done; all book cites now have locations.
  • Why is FN 181 linked and not FN 190?
Because the first footnote is to a free chapter on the publisher's website, and the second isn't. Is it preferable to remove the link anyway?
  • No citations to Angel, Plas, either Romney text
Yes, I deliberately included these full-length works about or by Romney for completeness. Is there a guideline against this?
Are they being used as references in the creation of the article, or simply to provide further information to the reader? If the latter, the creation of a "Further reading" section would be preferable, as it's generally frowned upon to include cited and uncited works in the same section. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a "Writings" section for the two by Romney and a "Further reading" section for the other two. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the qualifications of the author of this source?
I know a couple of years ago, Wargs.com was not allowed as a source in FAC articles, only NEHGS. Is that still true? (Another editor put this in, I'm willing to take it out.)
Unless the author has some particular qualifications on this topic, my inclination would be to remove the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at other review comments such as Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Line of succession to the British Throne/archive2 and Wikipedia:Peer review/John McCain/archive1 and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 91, Wargs.com is considered a self-published site and is not usable as a source at the highest levels of review. I've therefore removed it and the statement it was supporting. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN 7 and similar: page(s)?
This work is more a pamphlet than a book and I didn't think page numbers were necessary – it's shorter than some of the news articles that are cited.
Generally if a work is more than about 3-4 pages, page numbers are preferred. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the page number range used to that cite (now FN 6). Wasted Time R (talk) 14:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you provide retrieval dates for newspapers/magazines
Done; no regular dated news or magazine articles now have visible retrieval dates, only undated websites.
  • FN 81, 145, 199: page?
Done; for 145, page numbers added, for the others, 'fee required' url added.
  • Be consistent in how multi-author works are notated
Done; the short-form book cites now use the same semi-colon-separated form the news cites do.
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source?
Done; replaced with better source (website of the State of Michigan Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs).
  • FN 206: URL?
Done, with 'fee required' added.
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done.
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
Done; all are now hyphenated.
Done; editors now have "(ed.)" or "(eds.)" after the end of the name, while editions now have written out numbers such as "(Second ed.)" From the context I'm sure it's clear to the reader which is which.
Thank you very much for your detailed look, changes and responses are underway. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished my initial changes for this, and will change more depending upon a few of your responses here. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, looks good now, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is inconsistency/issues in the way some of the ref templates are being used. The issues I currently see are: (1) most references are using the "first"/"last" parameters, but some are using "author" instead; (2) there are instances where the "first"/"last" parameters are being used for editors, when the "editor-first"/"editor-last" parameters should be used for proper formatting; (3) the placement of "Jr." in people names in some references is not correct; (4) a link to http://web.archive.org/web/20070918090328/http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,680195540,00.html is being use when it should not be, since the article is available directly from the original source at http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html ; (5) there is a "page" parameter in use that is including both a page number and a URL, instead of putting the url in it's own parameter; (6) using the parameter "work" to a magazine improperly formats it, where "journal" correctly italicizes it (however since the ref done this way is actually a collection of covers, and not the magazine itself, a better formatting of that ref moght be{{cite news | url=http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19590406,00.html | contribution=George Romney – Apr. 6, 1959 | work=TIME Magazine Covers | journal=Time}} . Additionally, while not related to references: (1) there is a sentence with a simple list of three items that uses the word "and" twice, instead of using a comma in place of the first "and"; (2) the categories should be alphabetized. I have attempted to fix most of these issues (and was in the process of fixing the rest), but have been reverted, and that I needed to being the issue here. Being a wikignome, I would normally be happy to fix all of these minor issues, but I have apparently been forbidden to do so for some reason that is not clear to me, so I'll leave it up to others. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I reverted some changes made by 208... and asked him to bring up reference issues here, because I was afraid of changing formats after Nikkimaria's check had been done. If 208's changes are fine, please revert my reversion of him. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presume CZmarlin and 208.81.184.4 are one and the same? Why do you keep going back and forth between the two? I mass reverted your original edits because you made some drastic changes that I strongly felt were undesirable, such as unlinking every author and every publisher. That's a complete misread of WP:OVERLINK. You also had mysterious edits such as "missing space" that were impossible to understand from the diffs. And several of your changes undid things I had already done to respond to Nikkimaria's comments above. After the reversion I tried to restore things I thought were worthwhile, but I missed some due the maze of diffs. But to answer your specific points that you now raise:
1) I've never understood how "last=L | first=F" produces anything different from "author=L, F" from the reader's perspective, but I have no objection to it being changed, it's just that you always make those changes intertwined with other ones that I do object to
2) I've tried the "editor" parameters but they produce awful output in this case, "ed" with no period for a single editor and nothing at all with a double period for joint editors; look at your version here to see what I mean. So I went back to doing it by hand to satisfy one of Nikkimaria's comments.
3) Is there a WP MoS guideline for where "Jr." goes in last, first order? But I'm okay with your ordering. And I've now done the changes to make it so (since Chicago Manual of Style endorses it).
4) The Mitt Romney article relies heavily upon the Boston Globe 7-part series, and both BG and Deseret News move individual entries in that series behind the paywall and back out again on a repeating basis. Therefore the editors there built this redundant layer of url's so that some copy somewhere of it would always be available. I'm using the same layering here. And what's the harm?
5) The page with its own URL is because only part of that book is available for free, not the whole thing, and there's another reference to a page that isn't available.
6) Actually, the cover part needs only a minimal citation; I've reworked this to flow better in the footnote, see FN 17 and see what you think.
NR1) You misread that one, it's not a series of three but a one and a pair.
NR2) WP:CATEGORY actually says "The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first." That said, I have no objection if they are alphabetized, and I have restored that.
In sum, I realize you are putting a lot of effort into these gnomish edits, but in some cases there are reasons why things are the way they are, and in the FAC case it's better to talk and get agreement before mass editing. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know who CZmarlin is but that's not me. I haven't been making any effort to unlinking anything. It's not easy in the dif tool right now to see where missing space are added, so perhaps it would have been more clear with a different type of notation in the edit summary (will try that here):

A) Republican Partypolitician → Republican Party politician (dif)
B) electedstudent body president → elected student body president (dif)
C) </ref>The abject → </ref> The abject (dif)
D) newDetroit → new Detroit (dif)
E) theAmerican Automobile Manufacturers Association → the American Automobile Manufacturers Association (dif, by 128.8.65.2, not me)
F) (dif)
(1) [[National Press Club (USA)|National Press Club]] , the → [[National Press Club (USA)|National Press Club]], the (fixing a spacing issue I accidentally introduced by putting a space before the coma)
(2) attack on Pearl Harborthat → attack on Pearl Harbor that
(3) firmNash-Kelvinator → firm Nash-Kelvinator
G) theInternational Labor Office → the International Labor Office (dif)
H) TheRambler brand → The Rambler brand (dif)
I) forLieutenant Governor of Michigan → for Lieutenant Governor of Michigan (dif)
J) afavorite son → a favorite son (dif)
K) CongressmanNeil Staebler → Congressman Neil Staebler (dif)
L) theMichigan National Guard → the Michigan National Guard (dif)
M) John Lindsayand → John Lindsay and (dif)
N) infamousPruitt–Igoe → infamous Pruitt–Igoe (dif)
Ah, I see what happened now on these. This big formatting edit by CZMarlin right before your edits somehow collapsed the space out between a word and a "[[" in a number of cases. When I reverted the chain of edits starting with his and including yours, the problem went away, causing me to wonder what it was in the first place. In any case, the article doesn't have any of these missing spaces now.

As for the numbered points above:

1) "last=L | first=F" produces better meta-data than "author=L, F" on key parameters (the most important being surname)
Agreed, but is that meta-data exploited anywhere right now? I have no objection to this change being done, but it should be done first and with no other formatting changes in the same edits, so any discussions or disputes about the other changes don't put this one at risk of reversion.
2) The editor parameters are critical in certain circumstances, such as...
Herman, Max (2007). "Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967". In Rucker, Walter C.; Upton, James N (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Race Riots. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 167–170. ISBN 0-313-33301-7.
...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
{{cite book | last=Herman | first=Max | chapter=Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967 | editor-first=Walter C. | editor-last=Rucker | editor2-first=James N | editor2-last=Upton | title=Encyclopedia of American Race Riots | publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] | location=Westport, Connecticut | year=2007 | isbn=0-313-33301-7 | pages=167–170}}
Unfortunately this is how it displays currently (after your revert)...
Rucker, Walter C.; Upton, James N. (eds.) (2007). "Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967". Encyclopedia of American Race Riots. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 167–170. ISBN 0-313-33301-7. {{cite book}}: |first2= has generic name (help)
...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
{{cite book | last=Herman | first=Max | chapter=Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967 | first=Walter C. | last=Rucker | first2=James N. (eds.) | last2=Upton | title=Encyclopedia of American Race Riots | publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] | location=Westport, Connecticut | year=2007 | isbn=0-313-33301-7 | pages=167–170}}
Notice with your preferred version that we never actually see the true contributor of this entry to that encyclopedia, instead only seeing the editors, since the first/last perimeters are used twice in that template. One way to take care of this, and include "(eds)", could be...
Herman, Max (2007). "Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967". In Rucker, Walter C.; Upton, James N. (eds) (eds.). Encyclopedia of American Race Riots. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 167–170. ISBN 0-313-33301-7. {{cite book}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help)
...which looks like this is in Wiki markup:
{{cite book | last=Herman | first=Max | chapter=Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967 | editor-last=Rucker | editor-first=Walter C. | editor2-last=Upton | editor2-first=James N. (eds) | title=Encyclopedia of American Race Riots | publisher=[[Greenwood Publishing Group]] | location=Westport, Connecticut | year=2007 | isbn=0-313-33301-7 | pages=167–170}}
We could also try the citation template instead of cite book...
Herman, Max (2007), "Detroit (Michigan) Riot of 1967", in Rucker, Walter C.; Upton, James N. (eds.) (eds.), Encyclopedia of American Race Riots, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group, pp. 167–170, ISBN 0-313-33301-7 {{citation}}: |editor2-first= has generic name (help)
...but this introduces it's own set if issues.
OK, you're right that I lost the author of the selection, I missed it (!?) and that's no good at all. But your top version is also problematic, because it doesn't indicate that Rucker and Upton are editors (I've seen volumes with primary authors and guest writers for chapters, so "eds" can't be assumed). Also it only avoids a double period after "N" by your having magic knowledge to not put any period after the "N" in the coding. So I've changed the article to use your middle alternative, thanks.
3) Thanks, looks fine.
4) The series in the Deseret News is not behind a paywall; the current URL just is different than what is used as the "original" in the citation. I don't see why we'd prefer to use a 3rd party archive instead of a link to the actual source material from the original publisher, since it's available at the updated URL I provided. Having the archive link is fine, but we really should include the working DN link in that citation as well.
OK, I've swapped the two urls and reworked the text in the cite, see if that's what you're looking for.
5) Makes sense.
6) The cover citation is fine the way you changed it.
NR1) The National Press Club is both a professional organization and a private social club; given that Romney was not a professional journalist, the focus of this sentence is that he joined three prominent private social clubs/organizations, making this a simple list of three items, where the double "and" is out of place.
Well, I understand your point but respectfully still disagree. He wasn't a journalist but he was a professional lobbyist and part of his job description would be to talk to reporters and columnists, since how an issue is framed in the press is an important part of convincing Congress to see it your way. To me that's a different beast than country clubs, which are purely social, although of course politics and business are discussed within them too. Furthermore your wording – "Romney joined the National Press Club, the Burning Tree and Congressional Country Clubs; ..." – seems wrong to me, as you either have one too many or one too few 'clubs'.
NR2) While by no means mandatory, or even preferred in some cases, alphabetical order of cats has the added benefit of making maintaining the cats much simpler, including making duplicate categories very obvious. I appreciate you restoring them to that order.

Thanks for responding in detail to these minor issues. I've tried to extend you the same courtesy, hoping to clarify my actions. -- 208.81.184.4 (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks very much for your responses and I'm sorry things got off on the wrong foot here. The major item remaining is doing the 'author to first,last' changes. If you want to do it (again), go for it, as I said above. Otherwise I'll try to fit it in at some point. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone ahead and done all the 'author to first, last' changes. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Mark Arsten — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark Arsten (talk • contribs) 03:07, January 23, 2012
  • Alright, this looks like an interesting article. I'll be reviewing this for compliance with 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b.
Thanks very much for your comments, I have started making changes in response to them.
  • The lead looks fine, just a few small comments:
  • "There he turned around the struggling firm by focusing all efforts on the smaller Rambler car." I think this could be revised a bit for clarity (smaller than?).
Done, by replacing "smaller" with "compact".
  • "Romney was a strong supporter of the American Civil Rights Movement while governor." Did he support it before/after his term or was this a just a political thing?
Done, by removing "while governor" (not just a political thing).
Done.
Seems like a common English word to me (certainly the root is common), and if I link that, it would be odd not to link "public service" right after that, but there is no useful article for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life and background
  • "They practiced monogamy." Was this the norm in their area at that time or were there polygamists around?
I've added that polygamy went into general decline among Mormons after the 1890 Manifesto (they married in 1895).
  • "The farm was not well located and failed when potato prices fell." What does it mean that it was not well located?
Changed to "not on good land".
Shorter form means the city too, but maybe it didn't back then, so have added "City".
  • "with their debts taking a dozen years to pay off." Maybe rephrase to avoid the with noun -ing construction.
Changed to "and having to take a dozen years to pay off their debts".
Yes, now linked (thought it was already).
  • Missionary work
  • "Three decades later, Romney said that his missionary time had meant more to him in his work than any other experience" I don't understand what is meant by "in his work" here.
Changed to "in developing his career". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early career
  • "He followed LaFount to Washington, D.C., in fall 1929, after her father had accepted an appointment" should probably be more specific per WP:SEASON.
  • "With one of his brothers, Romney opened a dairy bar in nearby Virginia during this time." Maybe be a bit more specific about time here.
I never found a source with a more precise time on either of these events.
  • "Romney did not attend for long, or nor graduate from, any college in which he was enrolled" Should probably tweak that a bit.
Now changed to "Romney did not attend for long, or graduate from, any of the colleges in which he was enrolled; ...".
  • "instead he has been described as an autodidact." Can we say "he became an autodidact"? (I love that word)
I'm using this in a personality sense, and I think this was just something in Romney's nature (and in some other people like him) – at a certain point they don't respond that well to formal education and instead are eager to go out in the world and do things and learn along the way.
  • "LaFount had the opportunity to sign a $50,000, three-year contract with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studios, but Romney convinced her to return to Washington where he worked for Alcoa and the Aluminum Wares Association as a lobbyist." In the last sentence you had him as a salesman in LA, maybe note the transition? Also, is there a good way to note what the value of $50k was back then?
I've reworded the sentence to convey his transition. As for the value of $50K, there's a template somewhere which adds "(such-and-such today)", but I'm reluctant to use it here because then I'd have to use it in about eight or nine other places in the article where money amounts are mentioned. And to give context I'd have to know how it compared to other studio offers at the time, which I don't.
  • "He was chosen by Pyke Johnson, a Denver newspaperman and automotive industry trade representative, whom he met at the Press Club, to join the newly-formed Trade Association Advisory Committee to the National Recovery Administration, whose work continued even after that agency was declared unconstitutional in 1935." This sentence seems a bit unclear to me.
I've reworded it and split it into two.
  • Pyke Johnson, worth a redlink?
Would be borderline as an article I think – NYT has several mentions of him but no obit, for example.
  • Automotive industry representative
  • "These included over 3 million motorized vehicles, 80 percent of all tanks and tank parts, 75 percent of all aircraft engines, half of all diesel engines, and a third of all machine guns." Maybe something a bit more specific than "These" here.
Changed "These" to "This", which makes it clear I think.
  • What is a "short complex contract-termination procedure"?
Changed "cut short" to "forgo".
  • "U.S. employer delegate" Should there be a hyphen here?
Reworded sentence to avoid issue.
  • American Motors Corporation CEO
  • I made a few copyedits here, as always, feel free to revert.
Only undid one ", and" to semi-colon.
  • "Though AMC was on the verge of being taken over by corporate raider Louis Wolfson, Romney was able to fend him off." When were they on the verge?
1957, added.
  • "However, when he felt his salary and bonus was excessively high for a year, he gave the excess back to the company." When did this happen?
Changed to "whenever", as this was a general practice.
  • Local church and civic leadership
  • "preached occasional sermons" Would "occasionally preached sermons" be better or am I imagining things?
So changed.
  • "In 1959, he received the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith's Americanism award." What was this award in recognition of?
I don't know ... I've looked at a half-dozen of these awards and none say what it is for. But I found a 1962 story that also thought it important, so I added that as an additional cite.
  • "it made nearly 200 recommendations for economy and efficiency and for the need for better teacher pay and new infrastructure funding." Maybe add some punctuation here.
Shortened and punctuated.
  • "Romney helped a $90 million education-related bond issue and tax increase win an upset victory in an April 1959 referendum." Was this a state vote or a city vote?
Clarified as statewide.
  • "After a period of pained indecision and a two-day prayer fast," I suggest "two days of prayer and fasting".
To me that loses meaning, since the indecision went on for a while and the prayer and fasting were connected. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have been more clear, I meant to suggest "After a period of pained indecision and two days of prayer and fasting," Mark Arsten (talk) 18:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Governor of Michigan
  • "were more likely to vote Republican than the heavily Democratic residents of the city itself." I'm not sure about the use of "the city itself". Maybe something like "the city's urban areas"
Clarified to indicate suburbs of Detroit.
  • "He almost always eschewed political activities on Sundays, the Mormon Sabbath." Sundays or Sunday? I'm not sure.
Change to Sunday.
  • "Whites and Negroes, in my opinion, have got to learn to know each other." Emphasis original, I presume?
Yes.
  • "In 1965, Romney visited South Vietnam for 31 days and said that he was continuing his strong support for U.S. military involvement there." Not a big deal, but is there a good place earlier in the article to note he supported the war?
Not really; I thought this was a compact way of saying that.
  • "George Romney helped Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies convert to Mormonism." In Mitt Romney you write that he "guided" her conversion. Maybe try use the same language in each? (or maybe I'm reading too much into this).
Changed to "George Romney guided Mitt's fiancée Ann Davies in her conversion to Mormonism".
  • "His share of the black vote rose to over 30 percent, a virtually unprecedented accomplishment for a Republican." That is impressive, do you know if any other Republican candidates have gotten that much?
Interesting question – I can think of a few possibilities, but would require some research.
  • "but got the state to where it had a surplus." Maybe something like "left office with a surplus"?
So changed. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • 1968 presidential campaign
  • "Romney announced an exploratory phase in February 1967, beginning with a visit to Alaska and the Rocky Mountain states." Might want to clarify that it was a political exploratory phrase (is there an article on that?), so it doesn't sound like he was going exploring the wilderness of Alaska.
So clarified. But I think the Exploratory committee structure came in later years, so I didn't link it.
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
  • "moving blacks out of inner city ghettos" Should this be inner-city?
Yes, so changed.
  • "Based on his automotive industry experience, Romney thought that the cost of housing could be significantly reduced if in-factory modular construction techniques were used." was modular housing construction a novel idea then? Maybe note that if it was.
I see Google News Archive stories on this going back to the late 1940s and 1950s, so I'm not confident enough to state this.
  • "Wife Lenore Romney ended up running instead, losing badly to incumbent Democrat Philip A. Hart." I'm not sure we have to mention here that she was his wife, since it's clear from earlier.
"Wife" removed.
  • "assisted housing for low and moderate income families" Should there be hyphens here?
I've seen both forms, but more with hyphen, so changed it.
  • "and a local citizen's representative." Citizen's or citizens'?
The latter, changed.
  • "but in the end was unable to bring about meaningful alterations in American segregation patterns, with no equivalent effort having happened since then or likely to in the foreseeable future." Could you clarify the timing here (when this was said)?
Added 2008 context of statements.
  • Final years
  • "The Governor George Romney Lifetime Achievement Award is given annually in Michigan, to recognize citizens who have demonstrated a commitment to community involvement and volunteer service throughout their lifetimes." Who gives the award? The State of Michigan?
Yes, the state, so clarified. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Arsten (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your useful comments! Wasted Time R (talk) 05:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, thanks for doing all this work. At this point I am confident that every issue I could find is satisfied, so I am more than willing to Support promotion to Featured Article. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Wasted Time R (talk) 05:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg gives as a source File:GeroRomney2.jpg, which gives as a source...File:GeroRomney2-Head.jpg
I've clarified the source descriptions on Commons; both of these are actually crops of File:Ford, Matthews, and Romney (1986).jpg.
The quote from Doctrine and Covenants is from Section 90, which dates back to the 1830s, so it shouldn't be an issue. What's written after that, "To many he was known ...", is specific to Romney and presumably was written by family members. What the copyright status of that is, I don't know. I looked around to see if such inscriptions are copyrightable, or if freedom of panorama is at play, but didn't find anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, should've been more specific - I meant the engraving of his profile (I'm assuming), not the words. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I get it now. You're right, freedom of panorama does not cover photos of works of the visual arts in the U.S., so this has to go. I've removed the image. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Nice-looking article. I've got a few comments:

  • Last paragraph in "Early life and background": I'm not sure what "co-located" means.
Located at the same site as the high school of the same name.
  • I linked a few cities, it's a problem feel free to revert.
I unlinked London, which FAC reviewers are always taking out; we'll see about the others.
  • In "Early career," second paragraph: what is a dairy bar? Is it a tavern where one drinks milk?
I found a link for it and added it to the article.
  • Same section, last paragraph: I think "newly-formed" does not take a hyphen, but I may be wrong so I left it in.
You're right, per the MoS. I took it out.
  • In "Governor of Michigan", the last sentence: I don't think you have to say that Fine is "noted". That word always seems like a journalist's POV when I read it in a newspaper. He has a Wikipedia article, so he's clearly notable (yes, sarcasm intended).
I might agree in general, but in this case he really was quite prominent and accomplished, and it's important to convey that to readers who don't click through. If there's an alternate adjective that can be used, I'm willing to change it.
  • In "1968 presidential campaign", first paragraph: I've gotten dinged for using "re-elected" instead of "reelected." Apparently, the former is British and the latter is American, though you and I are, I think, both Americans and we both seem to prefer the hyphen. <shrug>
From what I gather, "re-elect" is the proper form due to awkward doubled vowels, and many sites say so. Except that the AP style guide makes an exception for very commonly seen words like this one and uses "reelect". I've seen slow-motion edit wars over this question on other political articles. I'll wait and see if there are additional opinions here before changing it.
Thanks very much for the comments. I think I'm going to wait on Mitt until it's clear who's going to win the nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, works for me. Good luck with the nomination! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Items that were fixed, but because reverts now need attention (in my opinion)

  • The lack of consistency in reference template citation usage (first/last vs. author) as well as in the reference format for books that have editor(s).
Already addressed above in the response to your alter ego 208.81.184.4.
Note to Wasted Time R: I do NOT have an alter ego. Please note that the individual at User talk:208.81.184.4 appears to be "registered to Vangent Inc. and may be shared by multiple users." I have no clue as to that organization. CZmarlin (talk) 04:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK ... two of us made that assumption, understandable given that you showed up at the same time at the same article making a largely similar set of complaints about formatting issues ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverts that removed updated checks and now several online references have missing access dates.
This article never uses access dates unless it's a web only reference with no publication date. (I'm of the school that holds that access dates give no value to the reader and indeed add visual confusion to the publication date.) This was already established in response to Nikkimaria's comments.
  • Improper formatting for "Jr." in the author’s name used in a reference (it would be correct if the "first=" and "last=" fields were not reverted back to "author=").
Already discussed in earlier response.
  • Why is there a need to Wiki link ‘’The New York Times’’ a total of 35 times in the Notes section? This newspaper is already linked in the first instance (out of the two times in appears) in the body of the article.
  • This overlinking is also in the case of the nine Wiki links to ‘’Time’’ magazine in the Notes section.
Reminder per WP guidelines: “Generally, a link should appear only once in an article” … thus it seems that 35 of them in the Notes section is exactly 35 too many.
WP:OVERLINK says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, ...", so the footnote usage here is a permitted exception. That said, I acknowledge that there are three approaches people take to linking publishers in cites: link every occurrence, link the first occurrence, link no occurrences. The first is most convenient for the readers, but upsets blue sea worriers. The second is very hard for editors to maintain on an ongoing basis, since the "first" reference can move, pop in, or pop out of an article. The last gives no help to the reader who wants to see what a given publication is about, so I don't like it at all. If link every occurrence is a deal breaker for you, I'll try and do the first reference one. But I'm not going to take all the publisher links out, and I'm not going to take author links out. Those are important for how the reader assesses the sources!
  • What is the purpose for red links to the ‘’Michigan Historical Review’’ and "Ashbrook Press" in the Notes section? They were removed, but these dead links are back again.
I'm a believer in WP:REDLINK ... someday somebody will be inspired to create an article or maybe a DYK about these publications.
  • Reminder per Wikipedia isbn guidelines: “Please use the 13-digit ISBN where possible”. Also, per reference guidelines the “Publisher (field) should not include corporate designation.”
I don't like 13-digit ISBN's for old topics like this; they seem anachronistic, since none of these books were published with them (many were published without any). Also, I made big effort to get all the ISBN's hyphenated per another of Nikkimaria's comments. I believe this is one of those live-and-let-live deals; if you see an article with nicely formatted 10-digit numbers, don't churn the article by changing them.
  • Specific footnote problems include:
29 - Why keep reverting to a dead link to the Boston Globe and to an archived version? This is a current url for the article: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/680195540/Mitt-Romney-the-beginning.html
Addressed above.
155 – Wrong author is listed for this article. Why was the correct author reverted?
Karen Tumulty wrote that article, I read it in the print magazine at the time. Jake Chessum is just the photographer credit for the top photo.
  • Lastly, the alt image description in the infobox does not show a “Tall, slim” man. Rather, it is just a face of the person and it is impossible to "see" from that picture that he is tall and slim. This was fixed, but why was this improper description put back?
Sorry, the top photo used to be the full standing image (that's present later in the article); I've fixed this. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 02:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per a response above, all of the "author" cite parameters are now changed to use "first" and

"last". Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your presumption is false. I have no clue who is that IP contributor. I log on with my account for all my edits in WP. CZmarlin (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander (prose only)

  • "Governor Jim Rhodes of Ohio more memorably said, "Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football." - Humorous, but needs explanation: What was the point of Rhodes? (one source says he meant the campaign was inept).
It means he was trying to do something that by nature he was ill-equipped to do, and thus was doing it poorly. But I think the quote should speak for itself; it loses its effectiveness if it is 'explained'.
Hmmm. I hear what you are saying, but this is an encyclopedia, and sarcasm/facetious remarks within articles must be qualified/explained. I'm pretty well read, yet I could not grasp what Rhodes' point was. We, as authors, are not trying to prove to readers how clever we are :-) I'd just reword it to something like "Rhodes felt that Romney's campaign was run poorly, and he commented "Watching ... " ". --Noleander (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent some time trying to find the original source of the quote, but I haven't found anything prior to the Teddy White book on the 1968 campaign, which is one of the cites I use. That's the one that other books footnote to, for instance. In his book (page 54), White doesn't attempt to explain what Rhodes meant, and neither do the large majority of books and articles and sites I looked at that repeat it. So to try to explain it might even be considered OR-ish on my part. (But it doesn't mean that Romney's campaign was poorly run, it means that by his very nature Romney was ill-suited to run for the presidency.) Given that many other sources use this quote without explicit explanation, including some that show up on Google Scholar, I'd like to continue to make the case that we can too. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same Rhodes quote as above: Footnotes need to identify explicitly which source (book) the quote is from.
It's from both. I double-cited it to show that multiple authors considered it an apt portrayal of the campaign.
  • Prose quality is very good
Thanks!
  • " Romney resigned from AMC in 1962 to enter electoral politics .." It would be nice to know how that impacted AMC. Was the transition to a successor smooth? Was AMC adversely impacted? What did the board think of the decision?
Regarding what happened to AMC, I originally wanted to cover that, but I gather it's a complicated story with no easy answer (AMC changed strategies a couple of years later and it didn't work, but that doesn't prove that sticking with the Romney approach would have worked either, since the Big Three were more directly competing with AMC). So instead I've put in a parenthetical link to his successor, Roy Abernethy, and the reader can explore what happened there (that article has a long description). I've never read what the board reaction was but they can't have been surprised, because as the article says Romney was oft-mentioned for a political role from 1959 on.
  • " ... .saying he had reservations about Goldwater regarding civil rights and political extremism." - Too ambiguous. Did he think Goldwater was too extreme? or not extreme enough? Did he think Goldwater was too resistant to Civil Rights legislation? Or too enthusiastic about it?
I thought this would be clear from the previous context, but I've changed it to "... saying he had reservations about Goldwater's lack of support for civil rights and the political extremism that Goldwater embodied."
  • "Romney's greatest weakness was a lack of foreign policy ..." - if that is the opinion of a single source, then source should probably be identified in the article. But if a unanimous opinion, okay to leave as is.
I added a second cite to this.
  • "The perception grew that Romney was gaffe-prone and an oaf; the campaign, beset by internal rivalries, soon went through the first of several reorganizations.". A period might be more apt than a semicolon.
Done.
  • "... something Nixon did not forget." Would "... Nixon would later remember" be better?
Nixon was the type to never forget a slight and hold a grudge forever, so I think what I have gets that across a bit more.
As I understand it, the latter was one part of the former. But I misread the importance of Romney's role in this in the source I had, and another source seemed to say something different and relatively minor about that role. So I removed this mention. However, I expanded the introduction into the FHA scandal that's later in that paragraph, in part because of this interesting NYT op-ed from the other day. That professor's argument seemed a bit of a stretch, and as an op-ed I can't use it as a source, but I did want to tie in to the scandal description the fact that this came out of one of the earliest mortgage-backed securities efforts. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing "alt" text for several of the photos.
Now added (these images just came in during FAC).
  • Link Chihuahua needs to be disambiguated (see the "Disambig" link at upper right: it is a really handy tool).
Now done (I ran the dab tool before, but this link got added during FAC).
  • The "Ext links" tool (upper right of this window) shows that one external links is bogus, and one is suspicious:
  1. As They Saw It: HUD's Secretaries Reminisce About Carrying Out the Mission (info) [huduser.org]
This one works, even thought reftools always flags it.
  1. "Buildings Renamed G. Mennen Williams Building And George W. Romney Building" (info) [legislature.mi.gov],
This one often gives trouble, but User:208.81.184.4 has just changed it to something that seems to work.
  • "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" section is unusually long. Are there one or two logical portions that could be made into subsections?
Not really, it was pretty much all of one piece. And there is single-level sectioning for the whole article, I wouldn't want to subdivide just one section. User:John Broughton came through last month and split many of my longer paragraphs into multiple ones, which to me loses some thematic coherence and makes this and other sections appear long than they are. Take a look at this older version of the article to see if that section seems less long to you.
  • Outstanding article. Leaning towards Support, if the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments [20:35, February 2, 2012‎ Noleander]

Thanks very much for your kind words and comments. I will begin responding to them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First set of responses changes done, more to follow. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now all changes and responses done. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your support! Wasted Time R (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [58].

Monteverdi's lost operas

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Monteverdi played a key part in the development of opera as a theatrical and musical art form, so depending on your standpoint you may wish to bless him or curse him. Of the ten operas he actually wrote himself, seven are lost; in those days operas marked specific occasions or celebrations, and once they had been performed their music tended to be discarded like yesterday's newspaper. Monteverdi's missing works are objects of great fascination and speculation to students of baroque music and early opera history (and a matter of relief to numerous others). In any event it is interesting to see how even so distinguished a figure as Monteverdi repeatedly got the runaround from his lords and masters. Thanks to all who participated in a particularly detailed peer review, and here's hoping. Brianboulton (talk) 12:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, where such minor quibbles as I had were thoroughly dealt with. This article, IMO, meets all the Featured Article criteria. Moreover it is an article that will enhance Wikipedia's prestige: it fills a significant gap in online coverage of an important aspect of musical history, with a comprehensiveness and authority unmatched elsewhere. – Tim riley (talk) 12:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a well-written and excellently sourced article. In my opinion it meets or exceeds all of the FA criteria, and would make a superb addition to the roster of Feature Articles on wikipedia. Well done!4meter4 (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Support - I also took part in the peer review and all of my (minor) concerns were addressed there. The article more than meets the FA criteria and there are no dab links. The external link checker finds that some links are to a subscription required site, but this is properly noted in the article references. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review The painting images are all old enough to be out of copyright and thus photos of them are free in the US. The photo of the palace is also free. The sound file is free. I added a link to the web page of the uploader (who is no longer active here), and I note Raul654 OK'ed the file's transfer to Commons (so it should be fine). The uploader recorded and sang the work himself, so that seems fine. The only possible question is which version of the song did he record - I assume it is the one from the Madrigals book, so all should be fine. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 16:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Ref 95: Article text is covered in page cited, and is sufficiently paraphrased.
  • Ref 110: Article text is covered in page cited, and is sufficiently paraphrased.

--Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I went through this while it was in peer review and any concerns I had were addressed. An excellent piece of work and a great addition to our opera articles. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment on FA criteria 1 and 2. Excellent coverage, solid writing and consistency throughout. This represents everything a FA should be. Auree ★ 00:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the lede, there's no mention of Monteverdi's nationality or any location where his works took place until the second paragraph. I'm not too sure, but it might be favourable to include this somewhere in the first paragraph.
  • "The composer Claudio Monteverdi (1567–1643), in addition to a large output of church music and madrigals, wrote prolifically for the stage." Maybe it's just me, but without the introduction of a verb in the first clause the interruption reads quite oddly.
  • Check for usage of restrictive vs nonrestrictive clauses--there are several instances in the lede where the latter is applied incorrectly.
  • I've made a light copy-edit to the lede; feel free to revert my changes. Auree ★ 09:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added his nationality (thanks for spotting the omission). As to the "missing" verb, I could introduce "producing" before "a large output...", though I'm not sure that it would be an improvement. Can you give an example of an incorrect nonrestrictive clause? Perhaps I know the proose too well, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing it. Thanks for your interest in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, Graham seems to have taken care of the clauses already. Lede looks great, thanks. I'll take the liberty of adjusting any other faulty clauses as I read through. Btw, minor point, but does the article implement the serial comma or not? Right now it's used interchangeably throughout. Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "came into in general use in about" ?
  • "The new genre had specific characteristics such as a complete story told through characters, and the use of recitative, aria and arioso as well as choruses in the vocal parts." Something seems off here, probably has to do with the comma placements vs the usage of as well as
  • "For example, Monteverdi's Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) is a work whose precise genre has proved particularly difficult to define." Tighten to "For example, the precise genre of Monteverdi's Il combattimento di Tancredi e Clorinda (1624) has proved particularly difficult to define"?

For Mantua

  • "L'arianna was composed for the Mantua court as part of the festivities for the wedding of the heir to the duchy" Capitalization missing (?), and just a bit repetitive later on (for the... of the... for the... of the...)
  • "Monteverdi complained bitterly" Remove "bitterly"?
  • "Theseus agonises over his decision to abandon her, but is advised by his counsellor that he is wise to do so," Subtle ambiguity: "to do so" could refer to either his agonising over the decision or his abandoning Ariadne
  • A few minor tweaks, feel free to revert
  • "It seems that the Gonzaga court was trying to persuade Monteverdi to return to Mantua" Is "seems that" the best choice of words?
  • "Instead, he went to Parma, to work on a commission to provide musical entertainments" Is there any way to avoid the "to... to... to..."?
  • "while on a mission seeking aid against the armies that were encircling Mantua" Tighten by removing "on a mission"?
  • Some more tweaks.

For Venice

  • "{I]n the evening with torches there was acted and represented in music ..." Bracket glitch?
  • "By her temperament, Proserpina anticipates Poppea; Pachino is a forerunner for Ottone; some of the discourses have the rhetorical flavour of Nerone and Seneca in the later opera." I'm quite confused by this sentence
  • And some more. Obviously I'm not finding much to nitpick about here; the article is extremely comprehensive and the writing is great. Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have dealt with these, either per your suggestions or using my own judgement. There were some clumsy constructions and I'm glad you picked them up. I had no problem with your minor ce tweaks. I'm grateful for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good, just a few stylistic nitpicks:

  • Why is "Carter 2002" the only short citation that includes the year?
  • Because he is also the author of another source - see ref 31
  • Ref 42: Check spacing
  • Fixed
  • In most references, the subscription templates have been added after the citation templates sans spacing. It might be preferable to insert spaces for aesthetic purposes (see Ref 112).
  • Spaces inserted
  • Needs consistency in how publisher locations are notated for sources
  • I have regularised the format of state names - not sure what else?
  • Check author notation for Monteverdi (1994)
  • What's the problem?
  • Check editor notation for Beat, Janet E. (1968) vs Rosand, Ellen (2007).
  • Fixed typo
  • Apart from the typo, punctuation inconsistencies (bolded): "An Icognito debate: questions of meaning". In Whenham, John and Wistreich, Richard (eds)." vs "Monteverdi and the Opera Orchestra of his Time" in Arnold, Denis and Fortune, Nigel (eds):"

Auree ★ 21:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gilding the lily support I also participated in the peer review; my concerns were addressed then.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I haven't looked at the article in detail, but one thing struck me: the article on L'incoronazione di Poppea correctly points out that it is very far from certain that the opera was composed in its entirety by Monteverdi, yet in this article it is always labelled as by Monteverdi without any qualification. Perhaps a footnote could be added somewhere? --GuillaumeTell 11:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have commented in the peer review am completely satisfied with the incorporation of a few concerns. One minor addition:

In the middle of the plot of Arianna I read "famous". Perhaps I am over-allergic to those words, but I think - since it's stated elsewhere that the lament is famous - it could be dropped in the plot. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 09:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Looked at the rest, impressed!

Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [59].

John Barbirolli

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article is one of a series on British conductors on which I've worked, and having got Henry Wood, Thomas Beecham and Adrian Boult to FA, I hope I have done Barbirolli justice too. After taking the article to GA in 2010, I revised and added to it substantially last year. Barbirolli was Toscanini's successor as chief conductor of the New York Philharmonic, and was a celebrated guest conductor in opera in Rome and in the concert hall in Berlin, but he is principally remembered as the conductor and saviour of the Hallé Orchestra in England. He was a great, occasionally eccentric, musician and he deserves a top-flight article, which I hope I have given him. Tim riley (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • No citations to Kennedy 2008
  • Be consistent in whether punctuation is linked or not, and whether commas appear inside or outside quotation marks in titles - for example, compare FNs 7 and 10
  • Check pagination on FN 37
  • Be consistent in how editors are notated
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All attended to, I think. Thanks as always for your sharp eyes. Tim riley (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with quibbles. I peer-reviewed this, but that was a while back and I have not looked at the article recently. I read it again with pleasure, but of course had to find a few things to niggle about:-

  • Second para of lead: Remove comma after "Born in London..." The first half of this paragraph is rather dense with "conductor/conducting" repetitions, which could perhaps be reduced by some slight rephrasing
  • Last sentence of lead: the "but" should be an "and" ("and was also admired..."
  • Shouldn't his baptismal names (Giovanni Battista) be mentioned in the lead intro? Otherwise an unaware reader might not realise that they are one and the same.
  • "Southampton Row is within the sound of Bow Bells, and Barbirolli always regarded himself as a Cockney." Sentence looks misplaced where it is. Suggest promote to second sentence of the paragraph.
  • I also suggest you look for instances of over-punctuation, e.g. in sentences such as: "His father, Lorenzo Barbirolli (1864–1928), was a violinist, who had settled in London with his wife, Louise Marie, née Ribeyrol (1870–1962)". (Five commas among 20 words)
  • His scholarship at Trinity College of Music is mentioned in passing, but not how or when he acquired it.
  • "regular playing partner Ethel Bartlett": Could you mention she was a pianist (if this be she).
  • "...with whom he made several early broadcasts." Can you clarify the subject of "whom"?
  • "Barbirolli's ambition remained to conduct". Perhaps "remained" is wrong here, since this ambition has not been mentioned until now.
  • I'm slightly puzzled by "Barbirolli also won warm praise from Pablo Casals, whom he had accompanied in Haydn's D major cello concerto at the same concert." The word "accompanied" does not seem apposite, if he was conducting. (see also a later point)
    • You and I have disagreed about this before. I maintain that the orchestral part of a concerto is referred to as a matter of course as the "accompaniment" (see opening para of the WP Concerto article), and you can see JB described as accompanying concertos in Bicknell's obituary tribute to him, here, or in Kennedy, p. 171, where JB firmly declines "to become a piano concerto accompanist". Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The positioning of the two sentences relating to his marriage to Marjorie Perry is chronologically correct, but awkward. Consider if this could be arranged better.
    • I agree, but short of having a separate "Personal life" section, as I did for the Beecham article, I can't think where else to put this information. Unlike Beecham's, JB's personal life was not notable enough to run to a whole section of its own, I think. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a rough press campaign in New York from interested parties who wished to evict him from his post": I think this quotation should be attributed.
  • "In 1943 Barbirolli made another Atlantic crossing..." Can you clarify, e.g. "In 1943 Barbirolli flew back to England..."
    • I chose this phrasing rather carefully, because an exposition of the complete facts seemed to me to be rather wordy. JB crossed the Atlantic by ship to Portugal, and then went by plane from there to England. It was in Lisbon where Howard asked him to swap flights so that Howard could remain in Lisbon for a few days. According to some accounts, someone on Howard's flight bore a striking resemblance to Winston Churchill, which is why the Germans decided to shoot down a flight over a neutral country, but I cannot vouch for this. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later he extended his teaching skills to the Royal Academy of Music..." Maybe replace "later" with a year?
  • "He found that mastering a Mahler symphony took between 18 months and two years..." Clarification necessary; maybe insert "him" between "took" and "between", since the statement is followed by a reference to "50 hours of rehearsal".
  • "Many of Barbirolli's pre-war recordings for HMV were of concertos. His reputation as an accompanist tended to obscure his talents as a symphonic conductor, and later, his detractors in New York "damned him with faint praise by exalting his powers as an accompanist and then implying that that was where it all stopped." Again, the use of the word "accompanist" confuses me in this section:. To me, an accompanist is a supporting player to a soloist, e.g. Gerald Moore; as such, Bruno Walter sometimes accompanied Kathleen Ferrier on the piano. I can't fit that understanding into the above; can you say in what sense Barbirolli was acting as an "accompanist" in these prewar HMV recordings?
  • Perhaps link, or better still describe, what is meant by an "Intendant". Otherwise it sounds like the person in charge of the cloakrooms.

These are not major matters, and I am sure you will have little difficulty disposing of them. Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the support, and for the comments, which I have acted on as noted above. We shall have to agree to differ over "accompanying" concertos, but for the other points I have followed up your suggestions. Tim riley (talk) 10:17, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten our earlier colloquy on the meaning of "accompany" in musical parlance. My problem is with what I will call the "Walter–Ferrier question". Bruno Walter accompanied Kathleen Ferrier on the piano during song recitals, and also conducted the orchestra when she sang works such as Mahler's Rückert songs and Kindertotenlieder. There ought to be a way of distinguishing between these rather different activities; in the latter case the orchestra is accompanying the singer, the conductor is directing both. That, m'lud, is the essence of my case, but I am not pressing it. Brianboulton (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your magnanimity is much appreciated - thank you. Tim riley (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. A few quibbles:

Lede
  • "seized the chance" Too dramatic for the lede, since you are not explaining at this time. You are also exactly duplicating the prose you use later, which I think is a bad idea.
Biography
  • Given his parentage, something should be said about his own nationality.
  • Date Otello's premiere
  • Although you do imply it in the lede, it may be worth mentioning his birth name early on.
  • "was to be absent in America," This sounds odd. Perhaps just say what he was doing across the pond.
  • " the other three were Elgar, Beecham and Pierre Monteux." This is clearly a great honour, then, judging by his fellows, I would move the information up in the sentence.
    • I take your point and have tussled mightily with this, but I can't find a way of mentioning the other three before JB without having the prose get complicated. I think I'll duck out and leave it as it is. – Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barbirolli's name was hardly known internationally" A little too flowery, I am afraid. Perhaps "Barbirolli was not well-known internationally".
    • Hmm. I have redrawn, but I want to get across how completely unknown JB was outside Britain. One of his biographers wrote: "Barbirolli's appointment was announced by the New York Philharmonic Society's directorial board on 7th April 1936. The musical world rubbed incredulous eyes. … In much newspaper comment the following day surprise verged on perplexity. Nobody had heard of John Barbirolli. … What sense was there in giving the New York Philharmonic to a man who had never been on an American front page before or, so far as could be made out, on any front page of moment anywhere?" I have added this as a footnote to make the point clearer. – Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the spring of 1936, " This paragraph is a bit of a problem. As it delves further into the past it should probably be "had been confronted", etc.
  • "political lobbying" I would not disparage it with such a term. Concerns about Nazi Germany proved to be justified.
  • " the post should have been offered to "native conductors"" One post being divided among multiple native conductors reads oddly. I take it you want to keep the quote as colourful; perhaps "preference should have been given to "native conductors"
  • "Players and critics in Europe and the United States commented on the improvement in the playing of their orchestras when Barbirolli was in charge." Since the previous sentence can be read to limit Barbirolli's training to the Halle, this is jarring as the first hint that he was training outside the Halle.
  • "but he declined to be deflected from the Hallé" This seems a bit odd in phrasing.
  • "worked at " a plebeian phrase for his art, no?
  • "the Philharmonia" it is long since you mentioned them; consider a link.
  • "Barbirolli was appointed Conductor Laureate." If someone took over workaday conducting duties, I would say who. Additionally, it might be wise to mention that acceptance of such an appointment meant he was stepping back a bit.
  • "His last" Begins consecutive sentences in the penultimate paragraph of the bio section.
Honours

--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed for the support and the suggestions above, which I shall enjoy going through carefully tomorrow. Tim riley (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now complete. I've adopted all your suggestions except one, which I can't find a smooth way of incorporating. Several of your suggestions have led to important improvements in the article, and I'm most grateful. – Tim riley (talk) 09:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As usual with a Tim riley article, this is a delight to read, as well as thoroughly researched, well illustrated and comprehensive. I also have a few minor suggestions, but ignore any of them with which you disagree:

  • Lead
I wonder if this information is important enough to be in the intro: "his father and grandfather were violinists".
Perhaps not, on reflection. I've removed. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The intro says: "in the 1950s he conducted productions of works by Verdi … at Covent Garden". Does this mean operas only, or other works also?
Operas only, but I drafted thus to avoid two "opera/operas" in one sentence. I think it's clear. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early years
"Barbirolli was born in … London…. He was a British national from birth". Aren't all children born in London British nationals from birth?
I don't know the legal position. I think (mind, I say I think) it was so in JB's day but is no longer so. I added this in response to an earlier FAC suggestion, and on balance I'm inclined to leave it in. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"I was scrubbing the floor in the Officers' Mess when they came and invited me to take over." I don't have a comment here, except, what a delightful story!
  • First conducting posts
"John Barbirolli's Chamber Orchestra". Did he continue to conduct this after he started at British National Opera Company?
It seems not. The biographical sources don't specify, but I've checked the concert listings in The Times, and "John Barbirolli's Chamber Orchestra" is not mentioned after 1928. However, that's not proof positive, and I'm chary of making an unqualified statement. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Barbirolli had never conducted a chorus or a large orchestra". We just said that, in 1924, he established the Guild of Singers – was this a union? Why did he do this if he never conducted a chorus?
The Guild was a group set up to allow its (soloist) members to give joint concerts. There wasn't a chorus. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He made his operatic début. … made his début at the Royal Opera House…" I thought prev. FA discussions had indicated not to use the accent over the word debut?
They did indeed. I may have been sabotaged by the spell-check or alternatively have been in didactic mood when drafting. Now purged of its accent. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He conducted a Royal Philharmonic Society concert at which Ralph Vaughan Williams was presented with the society's Gold Medal". Is Vaughan Williams's receiving this medal really of interest in this article?
The medal is Britain's highest musical honour, and there is considerable reflected glory in being the conductor at the concert at which the medal is awarded. For one so new to conducting as JB, this was a big feather in his cap. By a rather pleasing symmetry, when JB was awarded the medal in the 1950s it was presented to him by Vaughan Williams. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"The marriage was unsuccessful and within four years the two were living apart." Do we know that it was a thoroughly bad marriage? It lasted longer than many show-biz marriages. I would cut the first five words, unless we are saying that they quarrelled throughout the marriage. Also, we need a comma before "and".
Good point. I have moved the statement about living apart to the following section to sit alongside the divorce and remarriage. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the musical world was taken by surprise in 1936 when he was invited to conduct the New York Philharmonic Orchestra…" Passive voice? Also, shouldn't this go in the next section?
I don't think making this active mood improves it: "It took the musical world by surprise…." As to placing, I tried this above and below the break, and it seemed to me that the prose and the narrative flow better with this sentence before the section break. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Philharmonic
"In 1939, Barbirolli married the British oboist Evelyn Rothwell. The marriage lasted for the rest of Barbirolli's life." Of course! Have you ever done it with an oboeist?
"I was longing to return and it was just a question…" We need a comma before the "and".
It's a quote, and not my prose to tinker with, I'm afraid. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hallé Orchestra
The image of Free Trade Hall is less than exciting and is the fourth image in a row of a building. How about an image of Charles Hallé or Malcolm Sargent or the rather more exciting image of Albert Hall, moving the Hallé programme image higher (even though it's mentioned further down)?
True enough about the image. Hallé would be possible, and I'll experiment with how he looks there. There isn't a free image of Sargent, and I can't see how fair use would wash for using him here. The Albert Hall wasn't really core to JB's activities, and I don't think an image of that would be appropriate. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"He retained his reputation for training orchestras: after Barbirolli's death…" How about, "Barbirolli retained his reputation …: after his death…"
Yes, done. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Barbirolli received invitations to take up more prestigious and lucrative conductorships. … LSO, BBC…" Did he reject these offers? We note that he declined to be wooed away from the Hallé, but it may not be crystal clear.
Good. Amended. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honours, awards and memorials
I made some minor proofreader's changes.
Thank you for them. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repertoire and recordings
"Barbirolli's repertoire was not as wide…" This may be a cross-pond issue, but I would say "broad" rather than "wide". But I think "wide range", in the last section, is ok.
I think it must indeed be a UK-v-US thing. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pre-war
"The same year, he began his long association with the His Master's Voice label…" Should we add the short form "(HMV)" right after the full name?
We should. Now done. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1943 and later
"including many recordings still in the catalogues in 2010." Can you update this to 2012 or at least 2011? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I've checked the EMI catalogue, and the recordings mentioned are still listed. (Unsurprisingly, as I gather they have always been good sellers.) Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support, and for the interesting points above. I shall enjoy working through them over the weekend. Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now done. All suggestions adopted, except where noted above. I'll experiment with the images as suggested. I'm most grateful for your support and comments. Tim riley (talk) 10:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Made one follow-up suggestion above. Again, congratulations on a super article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • [2]a: The source says his father was Italian, but the article says Venetian, though [3] says Barbirolli spoke the "Venetian dialect"; otherwise, OK.
  • [2]b: OK.
  • [2]c: His playing with the Carl Rosa, Ethel Bartlett, in restaurants, and in dance halls, and the four-word quote are not found in this reference.
  • [2]def: OK.
  • [3]a: The source says Lorenzo played at the premiere of Otello, but I see no mention of the grandfather, however, I see he's mentioned in [8] as being in the first orchestra to tour with it.
  • [3]b: OK
  • [3]c: Where does the source mention the Vienna Staatsoper?
  • [3]de: OK
  • [3]f: Article: "His reputation as an accompanist tended to obscure his talents as a symphonic conductor... Barbirolli became very sensitive on this point, and for many years after the war he was reluctant to accompany anyone"; Source: "his skill as an accompanist tended to cloud his talents as a symphonic conductor...made John very sensitive to this issue ever afterwards, and for many years after the war he refused to accompany anyone" I do appreciate that this is attributed, and that there is a direct quote in the middle of it.
  • [3]gh:OK
  • [8]a: Article: "The following year he won a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music, which he attended from 1912 to 1916, studying harmony, counterpoint and theory under Dr. J. B. McEwen and the cello with Herbert Walenn". ODNB: "The following year he won a scholarship to the Royal Academy of Music, which he attended from 1912 to 1916." The Gramophone: "studying harmony, counterpoint and theory under Dr. J. B. McEwen, and the violoncello with Herbert Walenn". The problem with this is that while the Gramophone is attributed, the ODNB is not.
  • [8]b: His playing with the Carl Rosa, in cinemas, in hotels, in restaurants, and in dancehalls is covered; I don't see Bartlett or the four-word quote.
    • As above, added additional citations>
  • [8]c: OK
  • [8]d: OK (though year not given, but I can infer that from [20])
  • [8]ef: OK
I think all but one of these points can readily be covered from available sources, which I will look out. The exception is the quote about playing everywhere but in the street. It's a good quote and I'd like to keep it in, but where did I get it from if not the ODNB? I'll search and report back. Tim riley (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here? (pdf) DrKiernan (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that! I have a dim memory of another, more expansive source, but the RAM site is splendidly authoritative and will do very well if I can't find the other one among my rough notes. Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still can't discover where I got that quote from originally, but it's in the memoirs of JB's widow, Evelyn Rothwell, and I've cited it to that. All other missing refs now in place, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • File:Verdi.jpg might not be public domain in the States because of URAA renewal.
  • I'm not sure why the copyright registration number is shown at the Library of Congress for File:Arthur Rubinstein 1906.jpg. I presume this is an expired registration?
    • Does this require any action on my part? Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I tried to look that number up, but I just get returns for unrelated matter, which indicates that the registration must be an early one. I think those very early registrations have to be checked by hand in a card index in the Copyright Office in Washington. As it says at the source: Rights assessment is our responsibility. We've assessed as public domain, so we'll stick with that until told otherwise. DrKiernan (talk) 14:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had a look at the Library of Congress and National Portrait Gallery for clearly free images of Barbirolli without success. Of the two images at LOC, one is an Associated Press photo and the other has no rights information. There are some snapshots from the 1920s at NPG but they look like previously unpublished private photos, so not obviously free. So, one fair-use low-res publicity image is fine.
  • All other files check out. DrKiernan (talk) 13:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • All above points now acted on, I think. I hope all is satisfactory. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support Superlative article; meets all criteria. Minor prose suggestions: I try to avoid using "there" and "here" when referring to places where people were, because if I'm in New York and read "...New York Philharmonic, serving there from 1936 to 1943" it looks a bit off since I'm here not there: "..serving from 1936 to 1943" works just as well. The "thus" in "He later described the experience thus" can also be dropped to tighten the prose. In the sentence "The programme consisted of music by Berlioz, Bax, Mozart and Brahms (the Fourth Symphony)", it looks a little odd that Brahms' work gets a mention (not wikilinked by the way) but not the others. DrKiernan (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is an informative and highly readable article which should grace the home page in both content and style. I have a few queries:

  • I couldn't see any reference to his wife Evelyn's 2002 book 'Life with Glorious John: a portrait of Sir John Barbirolli'. I think it deserves inclusion in the list of sources.
    • I have killed two birds with one stone. My original draft was found deficient in citations, and Lady B's memoirs have been an excellent source for remedying that dereliction. It is, moreover, a charming work, and throws light on several points, not least why Downes was so prejudiced against JB. Tim riley (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I would like to see a little more shed on his family background. For example, according to Evelyn, both his father and his grandfather played as violinists in the first performance of Otello at La Scala. She says "John often told me how much he learnt from his father about the tempi and interpretation of Verdi's music, and about other Italian composers of opera, including Puccini." Although Barbirolli's mother ("always known as Mémé") came from Archaeon near Bordeaux, they apparently always spoke Venetian in the family.
  • A small point: In the fifth paragraph of the 'Hallé orchestra' subsection, the statement "Barbirolli's interest in new music waned in post-war years" seems to me to require some external support. I appreciate the point that the new works programmed by Barbirolli at this stage of his career were written in "a mostly traditional [viz tonal?] style". But so, it could be argued, were those of the composers listed in the third paragraph of the 'New York Philharmonic' subsection. MistyMorn (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 03:38, 10 February 2012 [60].

Hadji Ali

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because there's presently not enough coverage of regurgitation among our FAs, much less an article on a professional regurgitator. I say "very little" as a hedge: It is possible that there have been others, but I really do think this is the first one. This oversight should not stand. I guess I should also tell you as an aside to the above merits, that this has had a peer review, is a good article and I think it meets the criteria.

Regarding content, two gaps you may note is that there is little on his personal life and little on his years in Europe and elsewhere before he came to the U.S. This is not for lack of trying. I have exhausted every source I could find using every variation of his name's spelling, misspelling, reversal of order, his stage names in both English and in other languages. etc.

This was mostly built from newspaper articles – hundreds I looked at using Newspaperarchive.com. Very few sources go beyond variations on the same two or three paragraph patter about what his vaudeville act consisted of. I've included every pertinent detail I came across and I traveled down every path to locate reliable sources I could think of, including (after the usual Google News archive and book suspects, and magazines with archives such as Time, Life & Variety) looking at German sources such as Die Zeit and Der Spiegel, Italian newspaper archives, expat asian newspapers, etc., as well as asking for help at the Russian Wikiproject (since he performed for the Tsar). Obviously, I am trying to gird against a comprehensiveness objection I foresee as a possibility, but I don't think this can be made significantly more comprehensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Z. Thanks for stopping by. I don't edit Wikiquote but please feel free to create the page yourself. Regarding the disambiguation I suppose a hatnote could be added to the article on the mosque but I'm not sure it's necessary. Hadji Ali (with the "d") is his common name and there are very few sources that have ever mistakenly spelled it without the "d" when referring to this individual. Regarding a disambiguation page, they are only addressed to ambiguity created by various existing titles that can cause confusion. Even if we add the mosque to the mix, we only have that and Hi Jolly to deal with so hatnotes would be the normal way to go. See generally WP:TWODABS. Regarding creating the suggested redirects, I have done so for the Arabic but I see no need for the others since I think it very unlikely anyone will be looking for this subject by searching for the transliteration.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 08:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: This is an impressive piece of work, given the way that it has had to be pieced together from lots of sources. The prose looks good apart from a couple of quibbles, and there are one or two other points. It is an enjoyable article and I look forward to supporting. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure that a long list of his stage billings should appear in the first sentence of the lead. Firstly it makes for a distractingly long sentence and secondly I think (unless he was widely known by these names) it would be better kept for later in the lead, or more ideally, the main body.
  • He was widely know by these names, at least in hundreds of advertisements, though commenting on that directly would stray into OR territory--no source I've come across directly says that. I've taken them out of italics and folded them into the body.
  • Also, unless I am missing some strange part of the MoS (which is likely!) why are the names both italicised and contained in quotation marks?
  • See above.
  • "Although never a true headliner…": A little vague: maybe "Although never a true headline act", but it leaves the question of what a headline act is in this instance. To me, it suggests "topping the bill" at a theatre, but I suspect that was not the intention. Needs clearing up. Struck, but see below! --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A top headlining act is the sense, tweaked to say so.
  • Close repetition of "vaudeville": "…had a dedicated following on the vaudeville circuit in the United States. His vaudeville act was captured…"
  • Rewritten. Although "vaudeville" and "vaudevillian" are now nearby one another, I think the modified forms don't have the same repetitious feel. Better?
  • Not sure about this. After the change above, we now have three words with their root in vaudeville in the first two sentences! I think this is overkill, but I'm afraid I'm not sure of a better word that carries the correct meaning. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC) I'm not too fond of "vaudeville...vaudevillian" but that's just my opinion, so struck. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the first usage; "top headlining act" didn't need the vaudeville modifier.
  • Background: the opening is a little mixed up in my view. It talks about how he discovered his ability, when he explained how he discovered his ability, and only then describes what his "unusual ability" was. Would it be better to begin by describing the ability and then how he discovered it, or even to open with the event by which it was discovered. (Hope this makes sense…) But, given how vague it all is in his own words, maybe the current way is better. Hmmm. Not sure.
  • I have placed a lead-in sentence that makes it less in media res.
  • "A more dramatic version of these events was provided by Ali's Daughter, Almina Ali in an interview in England after his death": May be better with a comma after his daughter's name.
  • Done.
  • Actually, you hadn't, so I did it! Also realised that "Daughter" was capitalised, which I also changed.
  • Oh, this is one of those where I was working in multiple windows and never transferred the edits over. I remember decapitalizing daughter also!
  • "an ability that he continued to develop as he grew older": In the sense that he practised or that he became naturally more accomplished as he got older. The source seems to imply the former but is a little vague.
  • I have tweaked.
  • "who signed him to a contract for music hall performances": Slightly awkward "signed him to a contract"; would "signed him" be better, or change the subject of the sentence and have "Ali signed a contract".
  • I have worried at this but cannot figure out a better way to say it. "Signing someone to a contract" is a stock expression (see e.g., this).
  • "Ali "remained more a sideshow curiosity than a true vaudeville headliner."" Although this has a ref, there should be in-text attribution as well.
  • Done.
  • The way it was phrased was awkward so I replaced it with the name of the author. If anyone comments on explaining who he is (I don't think that is an issue myself), it may be worth recasting the whole sentence. However, I like the link with Judy Garland. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reportedly 60 to 100 glasses at a time": Reportedly does not sound reliable. Maybe "according to X" may be better.
  • Tweaked.
  • Minor close paraphrasing issue: "he spurted forth the water in a steady stream": Arguably a little too close to the source which says: "Then for nearly a minute he spurts forth the liquid in a steady stream from his lips" (Incidentally, the ref gives the date as December 12 when it was actually 21) I think "spurted forth" is a little too grand anyway.
  • Rewritten.
  • "It is thought that for the nut feat, … For the handkerchief stunt, it was speculated that…" Not too sure here; maybe say who thinks this and who speculated, otherwise it suggests editorial voice.
  • Rewritten with in-text attribution.
  • "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation.": This strikes me as too wordy: maybe "At some performances, a panel or "jury" from the audience was invited on stage to verify as best they could, while in close proximity to Ali, that no trick mechanism was being employed: that he was actually swallowing the items in question and delivering them back through acts of regurgitation regurgitating them."
  • This has been tweaked, though I kept in "jury" because it's replicated in the lead and it gives the sense that they were there to determine legitimacy, not just to observe.
  • "Not all felt the same.": Not all what? Newspapers? (that is the last thing mentioned) The public? Theatre managers?
  • I think you missed how the subject "others" is connected to the immediately proceeding sentence, which reveals that it refers to audience members/the public. I have made it clearer by ending with a colon.
  • I think I may be missing something here. These are the two sentences concerned: "One newspaper reported that Ali's feats, essentially controlled vomiting, were performed in "a manner without the least bit of unpleasantness or anything bordering on repulsiveness."[27] Not all felt the same: at least one of Ali's engagements was cut short once the proprietor realized that the nature of the act "was killing their supper shows". The subject of the first sentence is "one newspaper" and the public aren't mentioned. I think this is easily solved by replacing "all" with "everyone" or "all the public". --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Everyone" works fine for me and I have replaced.
  • Maybe give Houdini's full name and state who he was just in case someone doesn't know.
  • Done.
  • "The abilities of Ali, who was said to have "two stomachs"…": Who said so?
  • Removed. It felt misplaced.
  • "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and rigorously examined him during the performance.": Surely not while he was performing? And maybe "thoroughly" rather than "rigourously"?
  • I have changed the one word but yes, during the act. I can only reflect what the source says and it does say it was during his performance: "Physicians who have doubted his feats, recently subjected him to a rigid and thorough examination while he was performing..."
  • "They came away satisfied that their doubts that he was actually imbibing the material reported were unfounded, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Again wordy, and the quote requires in-text attribution. Maybe "They were satisfied that he was actually imbibing the material, but according to X, remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."
  • I have pared down.
  • I'm missing something. It says, in text, what newspaper it was reported in, the year of the article and and whose opinion it was. Can you explain further how this should be attributed better? The article is by Morris Fishbein, not just attributed to him therein.
    P.S. I just realized didn't make this clear because I failed to place him as the author of the article in the citation. Fixed now.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we are talking about different parts of the text! The part you are talking about is the possible medical explanation of his tricks. The part I mean is "At one of his acts a number of doctors attended and thoroughly examined him during the performance. They came away satisfied that he was actually imbibing and regurgitating the material and objects as claimed, but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."" Which has ref 17. The unattributed part is "...but remained "mystified over his extraordinary performance."": it needs to be clear who wrote those words. It only needs to say "according to X newspaper". --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding comprehensiveness, it would be nice to know more about his life outside his act, such as his childhood, family, etc. For example, his daughter appears fully grown early on in the article and we never hear much more about her. As the nominator says, it is light on what he did in Europe. However, given that these details most likely do not exist, and that he was most notable for his charming stage act, I do not think it is a problem that the information is not in the article. The main points of significance all seem to be there.
  • Indeed. As I also said in the nomination, there is little on his personal life. I have found nothing on Almina's mother or anything more on her at all, whether he was married, where he resided. etc. Just nothing. He enjoyed some small fame but I think he was not quite famous enough for background details to have been sought.
  • However... Looking at the sources, some of the claims about what he did such as the tsar seem to come from either him or his daughter. Several things seem to be less than independent. Perhaps the article could make clear which "facts" come from the man himself. It is also interesting that no-one has ever repeated this act, which does beg the question was it even possible and not some elaborate hoax. It would be interesting to cover this, but I imagine nothing really exists except the comment given by David Blane and the contemporary doctors. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made it clear that his appearance before the Tsar comes from his own recounting. Regarding it being an elaborate hoax, well it's neither here nor there, but I think that's quite impossible given the way he performed and the observation he allowed. Really, nothing he did is beyond belief (there are other regurgitators btw, even some coming to light now 1 2)—maybe only that he apparently suffered no ill effects from having kerosene in his gut many times per week, albeit for short periods of time.

Support Comment: It's just about there. There are a couple of final points lurking above on prose and once these are addressed I will be happy to support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC) There is one remaining issue which we are getting muddled about which I think needs clearing up, but I am happy to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks: I checked several of the newspaper sources and apart from one item noted above, no issues were found. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Sarastro1.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries; WP:FAU will explain some of them. - Dank (push to talk) 02:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the copyedit! One minor reversion in the lead since I think it affected meaning and I have removed an Oxford comma for consistency since I don't use them. One other thing: I'm not so sure about the change from c. 1888-92 to the median ("c. 1890"). As you note, this is explained later, but I think the original is more precise and works better given the discrepancy described in the note.
  • The source doesn't say that he had Judy Garland proclaim him as her favorite vaudevillian, it just says that he was her favorite vaudevillian. This should be fixed in the lead and below the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 05:43, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You think there's a material difference? Proclaim means to make known. Barring ESP, how could the author ever state he was her favorite if she didn't state the same? Incidentally, having searched, I discovered that this detail comes from an interview Garland gave to Johnny Carson on the Tonight Show taped and aired on June 24, 1968. I and trying to get access to the clip which appears to be available behind a membership only (not pay) wall. If I do I can expand.
  • Oh, I see. Never even occurred to me that's what you meant. Read it again, using having's definition of possessing; something "having" come too pass. Or to make it crystal clear, here the same use in a different context but using a similar sentence construction: Although never considered the most fascinating of physics questions, the cosmological constant problem has been a consistent subject of PhD theses for the past 100 years, even having drawn the attention of Einstein. Hmm. I'm not sure others would misinterpret what I meant the same way so I'll try to think of a change.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:37, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vaudeville subdivision": probably the wrong word.
  • I have changed to "subgenre".
  • Here we have a guy about whom sources say where he was born and even his name is not sure and that he was born "around" "c." "ca" 1892, all of which sources seem to be feeding from the same trough in the manner they parrot each other. Meanwhile, close family members normally know each other's ages. If we were forced to list only one age for Ali by our best guess at accuracy from available sources, it's far more likely that Ali's daughter, his constant assistant and translator, knew her father's age when she stated to reporter upon his death in 1937 that "he was only forty-nine!" Fortunately, we do not need to make that decision and can detail the issue as I have.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: very interesting, well-written article. Seeing the work Fuhghettaboutit did on this prompted me to track him down for help on another short quirky piece. I looked over the prose and only have some small suggestions, I could find very little to nitpick about.
  • Could the bit about Blaine be significant enough for the lead?
  • "Ali's act was captured in two films: the 1930 short, Strange as It Seems and Politiquerias (1931), the expanded Spanish language version of Laurel and Hardy's Chickens Come Home." Maybe an "and" before "the"?
  • "Speaking about the democratic nature of the vaudeville performance circuit, Vaudeville's writer and executive producer, Greg Palmer said in reference to Ali, that the film..." Could you try to tighten this part a bit?
  • In the Background section you start three sentences in a row with "Ali", maybe rephrase a bit?
  • "Ali came to the United States with Almina in the mid-1920s where they performed at fairs" Maybe a comma after "mid-1920s"?
  • "in a continuous stream for a sustained period of time sometimes approaching one minute." Maybe a comma after "time"?
  • "with a small flame burning in close proximity." is this the WP:PLUSING construction? Mark Arsten (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know, it feels like the flame, using that construction, is now some disembodied fire. Anyway, I *think* the point of the plus -ing(amagig) is that the "with" is the part that's seen as the problem. So if the "with" belongs, getting rid of the gerund is removal for removal's sake. Is this really noun plus -ing? Does it actually read poorly to you as is? Rules of thumb are useful but are we talking here about the way this sentence strikes us or just trying to adhere to a rule (which I'm not clear is actually applicable to this use of with).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image are unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work! This was very interesting to read. Good luck with the nomination. I made some changes as I was reading. Some other items for your consideration:

  • "Although never a top headlining act" Is the word "top" redundant?
  • The whole phrase is too ambiguous and doesn't quite capture the sense of the source (quoted in the body) which is really about his degree of celebrity. I have changed to "Although never gaining wide fame..."
  • "His fame was as a practitioner of a recognized vaudeville subgenre known as a "regurgitation act", involving the swallowing of material or objects and their regurgitation in various ways." This sentence seems out of place in the first Background para. I would lead up to it in Background, and then explain in closing how the background you've outlined led to his fame.
  • If you read the section again as if this wasn't there I think you'll see that we need some type of introduction as to what he was famous for or the material that follows it lacks context. Specifically, after introducing meager details about his origins (all there is in sources), by necessity it starts with a description of how he learned as a child of his unusual gastric abilities. Without this introductory sentence providing context, the reader is left wondering: "why are we being told of this person's unusual swallowing facility?" etc. I added this in in response to a comment higher on this page stating "the opening is a little mixed up in my view. It talks about how he discovered his ability, when he explained how he discovered his ability, and only then describes what his "unusual ability" was..." I'm not quite sure what path there is to thread between your comment and the other.
  • "Ali came to the United States with Almina in the mid-1920s, where they performed at fairs, carnivals and in vaudeville." Misplaced modifying phrase.
  • I have recast, breaking up the sentence and melding with another.
  • Some of the wikilinks are of low value... peach, mouse, etc.
  • Yeah, I agree there's a bit of overlinking in that section and have removed.
  • Why periods after the attributions in the boxed quotations?
  • I have no idea why I put periods there (all removed).

--Laser brain (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much Laser brain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck: Fuhghettaboutit, have you had a source spotcheck for 1) accuracy in representation of sources, and 2) close paraphrasing in a previous FAC? If so, pls link it; if not, still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, there is a check above by Sarastro1. --Laser brain (talk) 03:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, this is archive1. There is no prior FAC. Thanks for noticing Laser brain.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies for missing that, Fuhget; had I seen it, I could have looked into promoting this one, but now I'm resigned, so I can't. Honestly, I was just making one quick last runthrough, to try and not leave so much work for Ucucha. Also, by the way, I know this is archive1-- my query related to any previous FAC of yours. We try to get at least one good spotcheck on every nominator, since we don't have the resources for every nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you resigned? I do hope that was because you're giving yourself a well deserved break and not in response to the shameful crap I've been seeing about the FAC process (am I a "battleship" or a star whore or something like that). We haven't crossed paths before I don't think, but I am around enough to get an idea of how much you do for featured content. It didn't even occur to me that you might have meant a FAC on a different article. For posterity, I have had one prior FAC: Masako Katsura but I don't think there was any close paraphrasing check in that one.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I attempted to review this back when it was a Good Article nomination, but was beaten to the punch while I was still reading it (sad face). I've re-read it now that the above feedback has been acted upon and I'm more than happy to support this article. I look forward to a colourful torrent of regurgitation-based FAs. GRAPPLE X 06:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Grapple X. Thanks for looking. Yes, I expect we'll soon need a separate heading at WP:FA just for the category.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the notes says that the Nile runs only through Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia. That is, of course, wrong, since the Nile (specifically the White Nile) runs through several other African countries, as the Nile article says. Ucucha (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the incorrect material. I have left in just the source's characterization, letting it speak for itself with no gloss about whether it's right or wrong.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012 [61].

Baldwin of Forde

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because ... once more, something wicked this way comes... oh, wait. Not so wicked, as Baldwin was not noted for the wickedness of his life or anything exciting like that. Baldwin's a rather common exemplar of the English medieval ecclesiastic - lived his life well in conformity to the expectations, served his king and his church, went on Crusade, got involved in a few disputes but was generally considered a "good egg" by most. Not a saint by any means, but not a bad boy either, Baldwin was an author as well as a cleric. He's had a Good Article review, a very exacting peer review, plus a final polish by Malleus. This is how the article looked when I started editing it, so it's been substantially rewritten and expanded during my time with the article. Note that although I'm participating in the wikicup, and there will probably be a bot slapping a notice about that on this nom, I will not be claiming this article for the competition, as most of the work on it took place prior to 2012. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Exter or Exeter?
  • "From the Conquest to the Death of King John" or "From the Conquest to the Death of John"?
  • Domesday to Magna Carta or Domesday Book to Magna Carta?
  • FN 7 vs 26
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated or not
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Be consistent in whether ISBNs are hyphenated or not
  • Where in Belgium was Sharpe published?
  • Does the Duggan in Further reading not have a first name or initial?
  • Single image is unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything but the double period - it's a fault of the template, I'm not going to make the data field inaccurate by not including the period after the initial. Also - Sharpe's Handlist does not give a further location in Belgium other than "Belgium". I gotta say though - asking for all hyphenated or all unhyphenated ISBNs is getting into the range of way out there with consistency - I did it, but only because I was able to - most online book databases do not hyphenate and I'm not going to kill myself to find hyphens. They make it easier for people to read them, that's why I include them, but I'm more inclined to just strip ALL the ISBNs out of the references if I'm going to have to do this every time at FAC. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the basis of my peer review, here. I raised the question of the appropriateness of the "Legacy" title; there's precious little "legacy" there, the section is mainly a sort of appraisal of his nature (distinguished scholar, gloomy and nervous, sounds familiar). But I couldn't suggest an alternative title so I'm not pressing the point, though if someone can think of something more apposite, that would be small improvement. Brianboulton (talk) 16:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't think of one either, Brian. If I had, I'd have gladly changed it (and if anyone comes up with one, please suggest it...) Thanks for the excellent peer review, by the way, and thank you for the review here (also thank you Nikki - it's been a wild couple of days here ... I'm a bit cranky.) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm quite nitpicky, so call it even. The reason I asked about Sharpe was because you have another book from the same publisher that does have a more specific location. As to "Legacy", I've seen "Image", "Reception" and "Reputation" used for that type of section, although I'm not sure I'd prefer any of those here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead with Nikki's excellent suggestion of "Reception" - I've never been totally happy with Legacy either... Ealdgyth - Talk 03:23, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another excellent piece of work. Very comprehensive but possible to follow what is going on and no obvious problems with jargon, etc. A few very, very minor points, none of which affect my support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor picky point, but quite a few sentences begin "In 11XX…". Not sure much can be done that is not contrived, but it is slightly repetitive.
  • "is said to have sent Baldwin to Italy to study law.[5] Baldwin was also said to have taught at Exeter, although this is not substantiated by any contemporary record." Fussy point, but who said it? I assumed that it was contemporary "gossip" or hearsay, but it can't be if it is not in the records.
  • "after his father's death": Baldwin's or Bartholemew's?
  • "Eventually all the prominent ecclesiastics and monastic houses of Europe were forced into choosing sides in the dispute.": More of a personal query than anything to change: was it really such a big deal? It seems quite a local affair, even by contemporary standards. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the second and third points, and on the fourth - yeah, you and I would consider it very minor but it wasn't in the time frame - it engaged most of the western European ecclesiastics at some point or another. The Becket cult was HUGE in medieval Europe - not just in England, but across most of modern France, Spain, Germany, Italy and Scandinavia - and any intimation that the body might be moved was big news. The Christ Church monks were not afraid to use the revenues that came in from the cult to protect their cash cow - at the first sign that they might possibly lose their stranglehold on the cult, they started screaming bloody murder throughout Europe and that usually created quite a ruckus. I haven't really thought that the episode needed much more detail - but yes, it was a big deal that caused quite a lot of grief to Baldwin - and his successor Huber Walter also. Walter had to drag himself before the king a couple of times because relations got so bad with his cathedral chapter (the monks of Christ Church - i.e. the monks who formed the clergy staffing Canterbury Cathedral). Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments reading through now on prose and comprehensiveness....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the Ecclesiastical career section, I'd swap the third and fourth sentences as the third seems to postdate the fourth (?) - another option is to make the fourth sentence have the pluperfect tense "... 1138 to 1155, had sent Baldwin to Italy to study law".
  • I'm copyediting as I go (please revert if I guff the meaning) - there are alot of "Baldwin"s throughout the text. I am seeing if we can do without a few without losing context.
  • The first three paras in the Writings and studies section all start "Baldwin...", which is a tad repetitive but I am having difficulty thinking of alternatives. One consideration might be to append para 3 (collaborations) onto para 1 (works), and move para 2 (sermons) to after this. Anyway, have a play.
  • I'm in two minds whether the quoted bits in the first two sentences of the Legacy section are worth the quote marks or better reworded without.

Otherwise looking spiffy as usual, eh what? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got the first one, the copyediting looks fine, Malleus fixed the third one, and I think I lean towards the exact quotes for those - there are only three in the section, so rather than tax my poor brain thinking of paraphrases... definitely want to keep the Saladin one at least. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mention a "FitzNigel" at one point; do you mean "FitzNeal" instead? Ucucha (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are the same person - some folks use fitzNigel, some use fitzNeal. Do I use both? Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Another thing: in the "Reputation" section, the sentence about Baldwin's succession seems out of place. Ucucha (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whacked the fitzNigel and removed the succession info. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012 [62].

Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC) and Cla68[reply]

This is the third article on Japanese aircraft carriers that I've written with Cla68. This ship was originally designed as a battlecruiser, but was converted into an aircraft carrier during the mid-1920s after the Washington Naval Treaty limited new capital ship construction in 1922. The ship participated in several iterations of Japan's war with China during the 1930s and was very active in the first part of the Pacific War. She was one of the carriers that conducted the attack on Pearl Harbor on 7 December 1941 and supported many of the Japanese attacks on Allied forces and territories through June 1942 when she was sunk during the Battle of Midway. The article received a very thorough MilHist A-class review last October and we're hopeful that not much work remains to pass this FAC. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:07, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose/detail/structure at this stage

  • No DAB links or EL probs according to the toolbox checkers.
  • Having reviewed and copyedited this at its MilHist ACR, I've gone right through the article and CE'd again as a fair few edits have been made since.
  • No image checks as yet and, although refs look reliable, no spotchecks either -- will do so as/when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Went through each image and licensing looks reasonable to me, however I wouldn't mind an expert double-checking one or two that are scanned from American books but assert Japanese PD without author details, e.g. File:Akagi AA gun position.jpg and File:Akagi Pearl Harbor Second Wave Prep.jpg.
    • Checking over the online sources, there's not much to spotcheck in any case. Knowing the nominators as I do, I'm prepared to AGF on the info presented. However I'm a bit dubious about the Tully website. I can see it's purported to be by someone who's published at least one book, but that doesn't necessarily tell me that the site itself is wholly reliable... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that I understand what your qualms are, Ian, but Tully's written or co-written two books on battles of the Pacific War and he wrote the record of movement that we cite here. It meets all the requirements of a highly reliable source as far as I see.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Read it for clarity and any obvious RW technical issues. Nice article. Two notes, matters of opinion rather than issues, no need to change on my account. In the lead and the last paragraph, is "scuttle" the right word to use for sinking by other ships? The use of "IJN" extensively throughout the article to refer to the Japanese navy for me kept stopping the flow of the reading. Nice article. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The most common use of scuttle is for a ship to sink itself, but it is also appropriate when another ship of the same nationality/side sinks it to prevent capture, etc. I'll look again at the usage of IJN.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fairly common in military literature to spell-out the formal title of an organization (Imperial Japanese Navy), then use an acronym (IJN) to refer to it for the rest of the article, book, or essay. I understand that in most other literature, however, using acronyms that way is not necessarily pleasing to the eye. I'm fine with trying to use other words, such as "the Japanese navy", or something like that if you feel it would read better. Cla68 (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I don't have much to add. It is very well-written and very interesting. I appreciate the opportunity to read it. I made a few minor changes as I read. My only real beef would be the application of WP:ORDINAL, especially in the World War II section. In the places in the narrative where you are writing "x of these aircraft, x of these other aircraft" and so on, I recommend you always express the numbers as numerals. WP:ORDINAL refers to comparative quantities, but I think it applies here since you are comparing numbers of different kinds of planes.

  • Image review: all images used are in the public domain.

--Laser brain (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Based on general quality of the article; not review of all FA criteria. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support on all criteria except 3, which is covered above. 1a- made some of my own tweaks, but am a fan of it overall. 1b- as far as I can tell (speaking as a Milhist/ship editor), the article does not omit any major facts or events. 1c- I'm sure there's more out there on the Battle of Midway,at least, but P&T's Shattered Sword is the definitive reference on that battle, and the rest fulfills the "representative survey of the relevant literature" requirement. 1d- no POV is jumping out at me. 1e- is stable. 2- has a lead, is sectioned, has consistent citations. 4- ~6,000 words is a tad longer than average (from what I've seen) but is far from atypical. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 19:44, 4 February 2012 [63].

South American dreadnought race

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the curious story of a dreadnought arms race between Argentina, Brazil, and Chile. In 1907, Brazil changed a previous naval order to include three dreadnoughts – a new design of warships that was much more powerful than any earlier naval vessel. The Argentine government, Brazil's chief rival, had a major problem with that, so they responded by ordering two larger dreadnoughts. Chile, Argentina's rival and major naval competitor in the 1890s, didn't like this new development, so they ordered two super-dreadnoughts. The costs for these ships were staggeringly astronomical. The Argentine ships' original cost was a fifth – that's 20%, folks – of the entire Argentine budget. Making everything worse, later in-service costs would easily add up to more than half the original cost over the first five years. The whole ride came to a crashing halt when WWI hit, which was probably a good thing for the countries involved, but the dreadnoughts received by the countries were used through the Second World War.

I hope you find this topic as interesting as I have. This article, the last in a series on South American dreadnoughts, has been about seven months in the making, and I have received help from many people in crafting it. Lecen bought and provided translations of the chief Portuguese-language book in this area, and I've received copyediting assistance from Dank, John, and Drmies. Fifelfoo validated most of the sources and did a thorough close-plagiarize check, which eventually ended up as a Bugle op-ed. The article went through a Milhist A-class review in June 2011. I'd love to hear any feedback you all have. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nearly there I made a couple of tweaks, am curious as to how given the contemporary lack of reliable earthquake prediction technology an earthquake in 1908 would cause a 1907 recession, especially if the 1906 Valparaíso earthquake was not worthy of mention.:) Also there is an aside in the footnotes about an Argentinian policy of being able to fight both Chile and Brazil. Such a policy would probably be worth an earlier mention, especially if they were trying to follow it. It might also be worth mentioning somewhere the size of other Latin American navies. Peru has not always had good relations with Chile and Brazil borders all of them bar Ecuador and Chile. ϢereSpielChequers 21:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He actually says "Chile's entrance into the South American naval race had been deferred because of adverse economic conditions. The collapse of the nitrate market in 1907, and a disastrous earthquake in 1908 had brought on a severe financial depression." but I wonder if we can assume he meant the 1906 quake? It seems obvious what he meant, at least to me. I don't see the footnote you are talking about, only a list of tonnages, and Argentina certainly never had such a policy or they would have gone bankrupt :-) They certainly had to be among the naval powers to compete with the Chilean Navy or the Brazilian Navy, but not both. Other Latin American navies at the time were tiny compared to the three main powers. Peru bought a ridiculously obsolete armored cruiser, Dupuy de Lôme, in 1912, but never took possession of it, so they were left with two new scout cruisers that had been completed in 1906 and 07. By 1914, they had a grand total of two cruisers, one destroyer, two submarines (mostly useless for want of spare parts), and other assorted ancient warships including an 1850-built wooden(!) frigate that was a training ship. Also, Peru is the only other South American navy worthy of being listed by Conway's in the continent's section. A few others are listed at the back of the book, but that's the realm of such powerful countries like Morocco, San Salvador, and Zanzibar. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't be so sure that the recession was in 1907, on my reading of that source it may have been, or it could have been a year or so later. Better to leave it undated; Something along the lines of "Due to a recession caused by x in 06 and y in 07 Chile postponed her naval plan till 10."
Re "an honest and respectable Government {{sic}}" Whose sic is this and why?
I can't find the sentence I thought I saw about Argentina, so I'm striking that as a senior moment.
I think you'll find that it might be worth mentioning Peru and specifically the Naval Campaign of the War of the Pacific as part of the background. Your story does start in the 1870s, it even mentions that war, and even if Peru never competed in the naval race afterwards she certainly had a fleet in that war. As for the rest, if they never had significant fleets during this era then it would in my view make sense to say something like: In the decades after the defeat of the Peruvian navy in the war of the Pacific, only three South American countries, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, maintained significant navies.
ϢereSpielChequers 19:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
It was for the capitalization of "Government". Too minor to include, or can I make it lowercase as an acceptable typographical change? (based on WP:MOSQUOTE I think it is, but I can revert if necessary)
I'll use Scheina and add this in the next few days! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • On an unrelated note to the above, why do you use parenthetical references for the block quotes?
    • Also, wouldn't the Argentine ships Libertad and Independencia be better referred to as coastal defense ships rather than battleships? That's how Conway's 1860-1905 classifies them. Parsecboy (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size."
      • I think they were popularly classified and thought of as battleships at the time, but they were really more like the coast-defense ships of the Nordic countries. I'm fine with them being called either one. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not enough to oppose over or anything, but I can't help but feel that the current section headings are a bit melodramatic at the expense of encyclopedic-ness. Have you considered alternatives, perhaps "[Start of dreadnought race and ]Brazilian orders", "Argentina and Chile's[/Argentinian and Chilean] dreadnought orders", "Third Brazilian dreadnought" (for the three they correspond to, no suggested changes to the others)? What do you think?
Also, I'm no opponent of non-repeating references in general, but I think the paragraph "At the beginning of the Second World War, ..."'s references get a bit lost because of the blockquote. Might it be a good idea to repeat the references next to note "N" so the reader realises which reference(s) cover that bit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm trying to show that there were three distinct phases in the race. I have no objection to changing them, though. As for your second point, I think I forgot to add references when I first wrote the section. Whoops. Thanks for pointing this out. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was caught by surprise here. I wasn't aware that Ed was going to nominate this article so soon. Still, it's one wonderful piece of work and I can guarantee that all information here provided is correct. --Lecen (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lecen! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:40, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few initial observations

  • Every one of your online sources that I have checked (about half), and every book that I possess that touches on the topic, capitalises "Dreadnought" as a class of battleship (in the way that, say, "Spitfire" is a class of fighter aircraft). Why have you adopted the lower case form?
  • Sources in foreign languages, such as Acorazado Almirante Latorre's Unidades Navales, should be identified as such.
  • Direct links to external sources should not be in the text (see end of "Catalyst" section).
  • There is a tendency to use citation strings (three, four, five in a row), sometimes to support fairly straightforward factual statements. Examples: "Even the departure of Moreno was marked by mishaps, as the ship sank a barge and ran aground twice.[95][96][97]"; "she was formally purchased on 9 September after the British Cabinet recommended it four days earlier.[76][101][102][103]". This leads to some unnecessary clutter in the texts; I am sure that not all of these citations are necessary.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • That is a very unsatisfactory answer; please don't try to insult my intelligence. "Dreadnought" is not a general category noun similar to "truck" or "van"; it was an invented name, a nickname, to designate a specific type of warship with enhanced armaments. I have mentioned the parallel with "Spitfire"; another might be the name "Big Bertha" which depicts a type of First World War howitzer. As I have said, "Dreadnought" is capitalised in mainstreamm history books, and in all or nearly all of the online sources you are using. The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary gives "Dreadnought" as the usual form. Are you seriously saying that all these are "simply people who don't know how proper and common nouns work"? There may be a case for using the lower-case form, but I suggest you give a little more thought and reason to your reply; I also await your responses to two other points. Brianboulton (talk) 11:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
ngram from books.google.com, definition from Oxford dictionaries, M-W. - Dank (push to talk) 12:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, I wasn't insulting your intelligence. Like I said, "dreadnought" is a common noun, like "truck" and "car". The Supermarine Spitfire is a proper noun, because it refers to a specific type of airplane, and is not analogous to "dreadnought", which refers to a general type of warship, the same as "armored cruiser", "destroyer escort", and the like. A more accurate relationship would be "Spitfire is to fighter as HMS Bellerophon is to "dreadnought". As to the other two points, I'll leave those to Ed, whose FAC this is. Parsecboy (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further hijacking this comment, please review MilHist style guide; perhaps Ed should consider a redirect from South American battleship race? Kirk (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's a tough one, as there was an earlier battleship race between Argentina and Chile in the 1890s (see the background to this article). Perhaps a dab page? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Parceboy, above: "Like I said, dreadnought" is a common noun" is merely your opinion; it does not become fact by reiteration and is disputable. I have referred to several authorities which favour capital D - let me give you another. The Shorter OED gives three definitions for "dreadnought": a heavy overcoat; a fearless person; a class of battleship. It gives the first two with lower case and the third with "D". I won't bother to cite more evidence, though I could. What I want is an answer to my original question: "Why have you adopted the lower case form", especially when sources that you quote capitalise it? Can you, or someone else, please answer this? Brianboulton (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think three people answered you already so I will summarize: dreadnought as a common noun is used in multiple sources cited in this article, its the form used in multiple dictionaries linked by Dank, and its consistent with the project's style guide. Yes, capitalization of military terms is not consistent across all sources but I believe Ed has met the requirements of our project's style guide. Kirk (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For example: dreadnought describing the Rio de Janeiro, in Conway's All the World's Ships
Also, I randomly checked 8 books in our library for the term - 3 used 'dreadnought', 4 used 'Dreadnought' and one didn't have the term. Two were books by John Keegan, and each one used a different capitalization so even some authors/editors can't stay consistent! Kirk (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that the printed Shorter OED does not say what the online version, linked above, says. But let that pass; your answer seems to be that both the lower case and capitalised versions are widely used, and you have come down in favour of the former. That's OK; you could have just said this when I initially asked. There are two other questions (see above) still unanswered (citation strings and in-text external link). I am also doing a prose review, and will post here soon. Brianboulton (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of my printed sources use the lowercase 'd'. Most of the online sources in this article are from 1905 to 1914ish, which was possibly before the term came into widespread use as a common noun. The citation strings tend to support different parts of the sentence. To use your first example, the sunken barge, running around once, and running aground twice are all different sources. The in-text external link is there because I don't have newspapers in the bibliography, meaning that readers would have to search for a link in the 150-odd list of citations (for why it's in-text, see my above reply to Parsecboy). Thanks for the review, Brian, and I look forward to your comments on the prose. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that citation strings arise when the facts in a sentence require different citations. The problem can be reduced by bunching; for example, refs 41 to 44 could be bunched into a single citation, which would help to unclutter the text. I will do this for you experimentally; if you don't like it please revert, but you may feel it helps the reader. On the in-text external link, in what way is this different from the several other NYT citations you have? Why is this treated differently? As to my prose comments I will post these to the talkpage, otherwise this page will become unduly congested. Brianboulton (talk) 13:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only issue I have is with consistency (bunching some together but not all). I could bunch all of them but there's be a bunch of repeated citations. The in-text link arise because Chicago 13.68 says "The source of a block quotation is given in parentheses at the end of the quotation and in the same type size." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't covered referencing issues and don't know for sure, but there's some inconsistency in your referencing at the end of your block quotes, Ed. Also, I'm perfectly happy to cite Chicago's Chapter 5 on grammar and usage; I can't argue one way or the other for how we treat the other chapters, I haven't kept track. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I used a short cite for the last block quote because the book was used in an earlier block quote. Should I expand it? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, what's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've expanded them for the moment, at least. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in responding. My position is that there should be one consistent referencing style for the article. I fail to see why the citation at the end of the blockquote in the "Catalyst" section is in the form of an external link, when elsewhere there are many standard citations to the New York Times and to other newspapers. Nor do I see a justification for the citations at the ends of the other blockquotes being in non-standard form. These should all be in short citation form, for consistency in accordance with MOS. This is an issue I believe must be addressed before the article is promoted. If you disagree, I suggest you ask Nikkimaria to adjudicate—she is wise on sourcing issues. I must apologise again for not having got very far with my prose review, details posted to the article talkpage. The points I raised there have been properly addressed; I doubt I'll have time to do much more in the course of this review, but would not wish to delay the promotion on that account. Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I've had plenty of delays too. I've been following Chicago almost to the letter (only a couple exceptions e.g. ISBNs, JSTOR #'s, etc. aren't in Chicago, but I feel that they are necessary to fulfill Wikipedia's mission), and the blockquotes follow the style given by that style guide in Chapter 13. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Actually, Eagle wasn't flush-decked at all as she had a prominent island. But she was the fastest large hull available to the Brits at that time that didn't require an expensive full-scale reconstruction to convert to an aircraft carrier.
  • What's a shipwright?
  • Why is there a hyphen here: New-York Tribune?
  • What about Argentine post-war naval expansion plans? I know that they received a number of G-class destroyers from the Brits in the late 1930s.
  • Combine cells rather than use ibid. Every cell other than ship and country needs cites.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A number of items listed that are unclear as to whether they've been addressed. Attempting to sort it out, I checked the article and still see spaced ellipses-- not recommended by WP:MOS. Could you please clarify above what is done and not? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe everything has been addressed now. Spaced ellipses were answered above; Chicago recommends them. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:33, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a settled issue on WP, Ed, at FAC and elsewhere. I've changed them to three dots per WP:ELLIPSES. I have no objection if you like Chicago formatting, but you can also add the formatting you like, then self-revert, so that you'll have a version that conforms to Chicago that you can point people to. - Dank (push to talk) 20:35, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says: "Argentina's two dreadnoughts were handed over in 1915, as the United States remained neutral in the opening years of the war." That doesn't make sense without context. Also, the first paragraph of "Historiography" is uncited. Ucucha (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I missed this on my watchlist. I've resolved the ambiguity you mention – thanks! I can cite that paragraph if you'd like to challenge the information, but it's really a summation of many of the sources listed in the bibliography, so I'd essentially be citing the entire page range of each source. The sentence I can't cite from the article's references, "General maritime histories on the period (c. 1904–14) avoid the area and focus on the traditional powers, especially the Anglo-German arms race.", is pretty obvious to anyone who has read any popular maritime history book on the 20th century, so I don't think it needs a source. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:28, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing that sentence. I'd like to hear some reviewers' opinions on whether or not the historiographical paragraph constitutes original research—I'm not sure. Ucucha (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that it's borderline, but it's just an extension of what I've done for the rest of the article. I'm simply drawing out facts from the various books, just in a different way (not historical facts, but facts from the books themselves). I'd welcome other assessments though, as I can see how others can think it is OR. As far as I know, there is no published historiography of the dreadnought race, even within a larger work; Morgan includes one for the Revolt of the Lash, but for the purposes of historiography, that is an entirely separate event. I may be able to include a bit more from Haag to address some of your concerns, but I'll need time to go back through his article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the books are secondary sources if you use them for facts about the race itself, but primary sources if used for historiographical analysis. Primary sources aren't necessarily unacceptable, though; I'll wait to see what others have to say. Ucucha (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 23:30, 2 February 2012 [64].

Nyon Conference

[edit]
Nominator(s): Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that it is th emost thoroughly prepared of my articles to head into the process, which is just as well. Would be great to be in a position to feature it 75 years on, later this year. Has been Milhist A-class reviewed (here) and Dank's given it another look since. I can provide any of the journal articles on request. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally found a picture from the Conference with the possibility of a FUR. Also, I've added and used as supplementary sources articles from The Times and The Manchester Guardian, which should help on coverage but comes as a technical detriment to the copyedit. Apologies to Dank for the non-preferable order of those two things, but they are only minor additions in terms of prose. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm away from home and don't have my Chamberlain references with me, but I'll do what I can and then doublecheck my Chamberlain bios in ten days. Purely stylistic, but why is Anthony Eden, the four times he is mentioned in the article always referred to by full name and he's linked three of them? Who attacked the German ships? Also, I'm afraid your reference to pirates may confuse the reader, what was really being dealt with was freebooters, no? And our article unrestricted submarine warfare doesn't mention Italy ... Just from a hasty reading, it strikes me you could use more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War ... Gotta catch a plane, more in a day or three.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rearranged the first paragraph to more quickly define "piracy" and explain why the term is used. I dealt with the "Eden" problem. - Dank (push to talk) 20:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence concerning "more context about European response to the Spanish Civil War" - namely pointing out Soviet intervention on the one hand, Italian and German on the other (the subtleties of the French response not suited to such a brief mention). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I copyedited this last week (it was a request at WP:FACG). These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected numbers 2 and 3, could you clarify which references you mean for #1? I've only found one to which this applies – "A Conditional Refusal: "Absolute Parity" Needed". Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall there having been two, but can't locate another, so I'll say just the one you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done - well, I think you meant using single quotes instead of double - if so, that's done. Think it's just spotchecks and image review to do now. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I think. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 11:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: although I am an entrant in this year's Wikicup, I will not be entering this nomination. I may, if this nomination shows that significant development is necessary, enter this article's hypothetical second nomination. But I hope it does not come to that. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Article does not seem ready, presentation is confusing. I prepared specific comments for the first two sections, but it's present throughout. Suggest some work be done. Not certain it can be done during the course of this FAC.
Let me know of improvements, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[A lot of comments archived to talk, may thanks to Wehwalt for his patience and attention to detail. I do so as to not put off further reviewers. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)][reply]
I think that's all, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've read through your comments. If I don't reply soon, it will be because I accept your answer; I will only mention specific things.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I have not checked sources or images; content with other things and checks with my own knowledge of Chamberlain's early foreign policy. I would get rid of the three red links, especially the one that includes the word "Admiral" as part of the name (good thing he went into the Navy, if that's really part of his name and a deed poll wasn't involved). Well done. No one can say I haven't put you through the wringer.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "Admiral" link was an error, which I've fixed. The other two are in my opinion sufficiently defensible now that that one has been fixed. 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

One comment taken from above, archived, then reposted just to reply to in the sake of completeness:

  • "Both countries would patrol the high seas and territorial waters of signatory countries." In the Mediterranean?"
I assume your question is "There were high seas in the Mediterranean?". If so, yes - the source is clear - and in other work I've read that territorial waters have been massively enlarged since then in terms of nautical miles from the coast.
No, I understand that. I mean, were non-Mediterranean territorial waters patrolled? Say Atlantic France near Spain?

It's good question, but one which I can answer on examination of the treaty itself: no, they weren't included. Spanish territorial waters weren't party to the agreement, because Spain wasn't, so I can only assume that no attacks happened on the high seas in the Atlantic (where operation was more difficult because of sea conditions, one might guess). Added "in the Mediterranean" as suggested. Thanks for clearing that up. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem. Most books rush past this in the hurry to get to Munich. Very interesting to hear more about it. If I have anything else, I'll take it to article talk.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll also keep this on my watchlist.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • At the size used, about half of the notations on the map are illegible. Would it be possible to increase the font size used for notations, or increase the size of the map?
  • File:British_delegation_at_the_Nyon_Conference.png: who holds copyright to this image? The Times, the photographer...?
  • File:BlankMap-Europe_no_boundaries.svg: on what source or data set is this image based? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing a new version of the map off a different source. For #2, it doesn't mention an individual copyright on the page (no copyright notice of any kind). If there's a specific photographer-newspaper contract, it isn't noted. That's why I used fair-use and not attempt a corporate copyright approach. Should be fine per WP:NFCC number 10: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder" (my emphasis), unless there's some FA-specific rule? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:43, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. There's no FAC-specific requirement above and beyond NFC, but I think you need to reconsider the copyright tag used for that image (and most of the non-free tags indicate that copyright info is required, so if it actually isn't those should be amended; that's not really in the purview of this review, though). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. This one says "This work is copyrighted (or assumed to be copyrighted) and unlicensed." thereby implying that the exact copyright holder may not have been identified. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Map replaced with a differently sourced map, with clearer provenance, and larger labels. Is that better? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support after the copyedits and tweaks. Still would like to know what the British ambassador/whatever was protesting... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Oppose for now' Comment - review incoming, as a heads up to the delegates. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Lead:
    • "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. It was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself." I think this would read better with the last sentence shifted before the sentence beginning "It was designed..." so something like "The conference was convened in part because Italy had been carrying out unrestricted submarine warfare, although the final conference agreement did not accuse Italy directly; instead, the attacks were referred to as "piracy" by an unidentified body. Italy was not officially at war, nor did any submarine identify itself. The conference was designed to strengthen non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War."
    • Why is submarine linked in the second paragraph when it's already used in the first paragraph? And really, do any readers not know what a submarine is? Same on why is Italy linked in the second paragraph when it's mentioned in the first paragraph?
  • Context:
    • "aimed at preventing a proxy war – with" I think you mean "aimed at preventing the proxy war – with" as you are directly referring to one specific proxy war.
      • you are clearly referring to a specific proxy war though - there is definitely one meant with this statement, because you directly then mention the specific belligerents in the following phrase. This one isn't a deal breaker - but it's just an odd phrasing considering the direct mention of specifics later in the sentence.
    • "An Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." I'm unclear on what this bit of information has to do with the preceding and succeeding sentences. It's disjointed and lacking context.
        • Perhaps "Previously, an Anglo-Italian "Gentleman's Agreement" was signed on 2 January 1937, with each party respecting the rights of the other in the Mediterranean." and then explain what problem this agreement was meant to solve.
    • "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy." Suggest linking Prime Minster to the correct national article and adding a bit of context like so: "In May 1937, Neville Chamberlain succeeded Stanley Baldwin as British Prime Minister, and adopted a new policy of dealing directly with Germany and Italy."
    • "favouring a significant control effort as the best solution" - jargon - I have NO idea what this means.
    • "As suspected by the other powers, Italy was behind some of these attacks." this implies that it is now known that Italy was behind the attacks but there was no proof at the time. Is this the case? If so, when did it become proven?
    • "...the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy." Huh? I am totally lost with that last phrase - it makes no sense in connection with the forgoing.
      • Okay, better but still a bit confusing ... "... the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, referred to in discussion as a campaign of piracy without mention of Italy." which discussions? Prior to the conference? at the conference?
    • "Whilst officially being at peace,[12] the Italian leadership had ordered the commencement of unrestricted submarine warfare, known internationally as a campaign of piracy without reference to Italy.[11] These plans would be the basis for a Mediterranean meeting, suggested by French Foreign Minister Yvon Delbos.[11]" - really - no need to cite every sentence with the same exact citation.
    • "The British representative in Rome protested to the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs." protested what? the attack? And what did the Italians do in response?
      • Still not clear what he was protesting though?
Okay, I'm only two paragraphs into the first section - this is a lot of context missing and prose that's hard to decipher. Normally I'd oppose - but I see you did have a peer review. I'll oppose for now and put the rest of my comments on the talk page of the FAC - so as not to bog this down. I do think you deserve a full review but this needs some work before it's up to FA standards for non-specialists. The rest of this will be on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lead changes made, with the submarine link moved but retained. The reader could well want more context on that. Will see to the rest shortly. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"aimed at preventing a proxy war" ~ I'm afraid I don't see how "the" makes sense. "Proxy war" is a general term and does not refer to one in particular.
"Gentlemen's Agreement" ~ those three consecutive sentences contextualise the following paragraphs (as suggested in this FAC) and refer to Anglo-Italian relations. THe contextualising has to start somewhere - do you have some suggestions of how it could be made less "disjoint"? It has to come before the chronologically later change of PM.
Linked "British Prime Minister".
"significant control effort" ~ reworded;
"Italy was behind some of these attacks" ~ 1950s or so with the publication of Ciano's (Italian foreign minister) diaries, apparently. So after the war. It would be exceptional to mention the source where it is regarded as true; indeed, I reference it to where I got it and not Ciano's diaries, which I haven't seen. The British had their evidence at the time, presumably other people did. Do you suggest altering anything?
"without reference to Italy" ~ well, I've reworded it a bit. Does it need to be clearer, if so, could you articulate your difficulty? Is that it appears to contradict something in particular? We've been over the issue a few times before at ACR and FAC - it is counter-intuitive, but I am trying to state the facts without editorialising, which is challenging.
"Whilst officially being at peace" ~ the first clause is referenced to [12], and it's my standard practice to therefore reference the rest of the sentence with the appropriate reference because otherwise the reader might think that [12] referenced the whole sentence. You mention two consecutive sentences with the same end reference, are there any more examples without my point applying?
"The British representative in Rome" ~ added "but without response". The source says "but 'had been smoothly brushed aside'" quoting one of the people at the meeting's diary.
Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind, one "prevents a war between France and Germany", to use a simpler example, rather than "the war".
Anyway, (1) I've mentioned the aim of the Gentleman's agreement, at least in its simplest formulation; "which discussions" ~ all discussions, what changes do you suggest?; Added that the protest was at the attack - is this specific enough? I've noted the points you've put on this FAC's talk page, and will respond there. Thanks, Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: are any of those watching or passing by this review prepared to do a spotcheck? I can provide the PDFs, it should be straight forward. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks. "Barbarous" is a direct quote from the source and should be noted as such; other than that, spotchecks of 4 sources found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded - normally throwing the thesaurus at something wouldn't help with CP, but I think it's OK for a single word. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose looks ok. A few repeat links I've fixed. Over-referencing is a problem. For example, in the para above Aftermath, 36, 36 in the same sentence! I see 32, 32, 32 above that. Lots of close successive repetitions of ref tags could be looked at with a view to trimming a few. Tony (talk) 06:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed a few repetitions. Were there any more you think are problematic? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 23:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence needs to have its grammar fixed: "In the United Kingdom, Eden noted that the savageness of submarine attacks, that attacks on submarines would be restricted to suitably extreme circumstances, and that the two parties in the war would still not be able to engage neutral vessels." The article says that the Republicans were unhappy that belligerent rights were not granted to the Nationalists; are you sure that's correct? Ucucha (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully fixed the grammar in that sentence. As far as belligerent rights, the article notes above that that "Italy continued to request that belligerent rights be given to the Nationalists, so that Republicans and Nationalists would both gain the right to search vessels for contraband" which gives some indication why the Republicans wanted the Nationalists given rights - but actually, this involved both sides getting rights (there being no such things a war with one party) so I've tweaked the article to say this. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that makes more sense. Ucucha (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 23:30, 2 February 2012 [65].

Russell T Davies

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A third FAC in as many months for this article, after the previous two closed with minimal feedback. I've been working on this article for the past year or so and I believe that it's of a good enough quality to gain that all-elusive golden star. Sceptre (talk) 13:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bod's comments
    • Section: Children's Television Career, para 3. Without going into detail it would be good to mention why BBC Manchester was 'not allowed' to do drama. If it's a BBC Guideline just add "due to BBC guidelines" or something similarly brief. Otherwise it looks a bit mysterious.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 2. Article says "He let his contract with Granada expire and pitched a new early-evening soap opera to Channel 4, RU, created by Bill Moffat, father of Press Gang co-creator Steven Moffat, and co-written by him and Paul Cornell." It leaves me wondering why Bill Moffat didn't pitch it since he created it? And when it says "co-written by him" is the 'him' Bill Moffat, Steven Moffat or R T Davies? I assume it's Davies but I think the sentence needs to be re-written for clarity.
    • Section: Adult Television career, para 5. Article says he almost died from an overdose. The context suggests it was a suicide attempt but the reader is left wondering. Is it known? If so, it should be made plain rather than vague. As it stands it is even open to conjecture that someone poisoned him since it doesn't say he administered the overdose.
    • Section: Queer As Folk, para 2 (excluding quote): article says "The eight forty-minute episodes emulated experiences from his social life and includes an episode where the minor character Phil Delaney (Jason Merrells) succumbs to his excesses and dies unnoticed by his social circle." I feel 'succumbs to his excesses' is vague. Given the context and what the article has informed us of thus far, I assume it's a drug overdose. But some people might wonder if "sexual excesses" are being referred to here. On the other hand, perhaps it's drink? We have no way of knowing for sure. So I'd be glad if it were just spelled out for us. --bodnotbod (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In order:
      • It seems to be an internal thing, looking at Aldridge/Murray.
      • Moffat, Cornell, and Davies pitched it together with Press Gang producer Sandra Hastie.
      • As far as I can tell, it was accidental (he was with a friend, probably drank too much, and had to be hospitalised, with the existential crisis coming after. The drug isn't mentioned in Aldridge/Murray.
      • In the show, it's cocaine. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these points have been clarified. Sceptre (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure the quotes that begin some of the subsections really add anything to the article. The ones from Queer as Folk and Doctor Who in particular are very long, and just consist of a random line of dialogue from the series which doesn't really tell us anything the article doesn't (namely, that the show has a frank approach to sexuality and that the main character is quite alien respectively). I couldn't find anything about this in the previous FACs or peer reviews, but if this has come up before then fair enough (As a sidenote, they're all referenced except for The Second Coming one, which is inconsistent). One other point: the image of the protest from Bob and Rose doesn't really resemble the real-life photo at all - certainly not enough to warrant a side-by-side comparison (which also makes the fair use rationale a bit dodgy). Would it be possible to get a clearer screen grab, with something more than a tangle of people and a tiny slice of a bus? Smurrayinchester 01:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Beyond my earlier comments, the article looks great. Smurrayinchester 13:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: I'm somewhat concerned how heavily RTD's life story rests on the Aldridge & Murray source. I'm not saying the article shouldn't do that, I merely pose the question. Is this acceptable? Do we have any guidelines on this matter? I asked the Foundation mailing list about it and didn't get many replies but one person said that one thing to ask is "would the article put someone off buying the original book?" It's impossible for me to really answer that without myself buying the book and making a judgement having read it. What do others think? By the way, I realise this will cause misery for the person(s) who has/have gone to great trouble to create/improve the article (and I think the article is excellent) so I'm genuinely sorry for that. But it's a valid concern, I think and I would really need this question to be considered before I can offer my support for promotion. --bodnotbod (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Bod's review of article versus featured article criteria
    • Criteria 1a: well written (its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard)
      • Excellent - I found it to be so. I do have some interest in this subject so I'd find it more interesting than someone stumbling on it by accident but the article drew me in and I wasn't at any point cursing it for length or bored. I didn't notice any clangers in sentence construction or anything like that.
    • Criteria 1b: comprehensive (it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context)
      • Excellent - I know a bit about RTD and didn't notice anything missing. It covers his non-Doctor Who work in detail, which is good to see.
    • Criteria 1c well-researched (it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate)
      • Comment - This brings us back to the Aldridge & Murray question as outlined above this review: ie, can one source ever be said to be a 'representative survey'?
    • Criteria 1d: neutral (it presents views fairly and without bias)
      • Good - It doesn't give us any criticisms of RTD's work, focusing on praise alone. I wouldn't block promotion on that score, though. Article provides criticism of the work as well as praise.
    • Criteria 1e: stable (it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process)
      • Excellent - Looks like Sceptre has been looking after the article for the last few months. No sign of any combat (I looked back as far as August).
    • Criteria 2: It follows the style guidelines
      • I think so: I'm not a Manual of Style expert but I'm happy with it.
    • Criteria 2a: a lead (a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections)
      • Excellent - covers all the ground briefly.
    • Criteria 2b: appropriate structure (a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents)
      • Excellent - his different shows make up most of the contents links, which seems a good way to let people navigate if they don't want to read the whole article.
    • Criteria 2c: consistent citations.
      • I think so - but I'm not really brilliant on our referencing styles. But I can say that all information is referenced.
    • Criteria 3: Media (It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
      • Someone else usually vets all FACs for image rights - but I'm happy with the images as illustrations of the subject.
    • Criteria 4: Length. (It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail).
      • Excellent - I didn't notice any points where it went into too much detail but nor did I feel short-changed. Seemed very well-rounded to me.
    • '''OVERALL JUDGEMENT''' : I'm happy to support as a FA provided there is consensus amongst other reviewers that Aldridge & Murray being so extensively used is not in breach of any guidelines we have or a problem for FA status. I've read Sceptre's comments on Aldridge & Murray below but I would like to see more input on it from others. -- bodnotbod (talk) 14:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOTE TO SELF: In the mess of unnecessary bolding above, a support is buried. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aldridge/Murray itself uses a lot of sources dating all the way back to 1987, and the sources do become more frequent post-Queer as Folk. I could, in theory, use those sources instead of the book, but I'd still be using the book anyway as it's more detailed than those sources. It's the problem with fame coming gradually to most people: I dare say that, without the book, Revelations, for example, would've faded into obscurity. I would say that it (or any decent biography) would be considered a representative survey of the available sources, as it both uses most sources available between '87 and '08, and is one of the only sources I've found to cover his career in between Century Falls and Queer as Folk. I don't think it would put people off buying the book, though; there's a lot of detail in the book I considered incidental to a Wikipedia biography.
    • Re: criticism: I feel that the article does mention criticism where it's balanced: e.g. the Queer as Folk section mentions the backlash from a lot of people due to how it handled its subject matter (although, really, what did they expect from a Channel 4 show?). However, among actual critics and the general public, Davies has always been mediocre at worst; even "Love & Monsters", as the article points out, was only marginally worse-than-average, even though I personally think it's a terrible episode. There is the infamous "gay agenda" criticism, but it's never been levied by reliable sources, and both you and I know it's just homophobic ranting. Sceptre (talk) 15:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and Comment: The subtitle "Sources" should be renamed to "Bibliography" and that of {{Reflist}} should be "Footnotes". And footnotes must come BEFORE the bibliography. Good article overall. --Z 05:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for Classics is misleading. My understanding is that the subject is the study of Ancient Greek and/or Latin and the associate cultures, whereas what you link to is basically Eng Lit.

I'd like to see an image review and a source spotcheck on this article. Ucucha (talk) 11:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are not complete sentences should not end in periods
  • File:Bob_and_Rose_Section_28_protest.jpg: who holds copyright to this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi: could you tell me which captions in particular should be edited? I could only think of the infobox caption.
    • I believe the copyright would be held by ITV, as the airing channel. I've edited the image's description to specify the producer and publisher. Sceptre (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments weighty tome, good work. A few technical comments:

  • Is there a reason why "notable awards" are in bold in the infobox?
  • "resulted in a " clarify it was his mother that had that issue, not him.
  • "English Literature" -> "English literature".
  • "an Oxbridge university" well that's either Oxford or Cambridge, so why not just say that?
  • We call "Why Don't You...?" just "Why Don't You?". Is there a reason for your use of the ellipsis?
  • "Why Don't You...?.[7]" double full stop warning.
  • Do you really mean to link Bill Moffat?
  • Anthony Cotton has no h in his Antony.
  • You've linked McGuffin then Easter-egg linked it in the next section, I wouldn't do that.
  • Zeta Jones is hyphenated.
  • "Bank Holiday" is just "bank holiday".
  • You link "dénouement" the second time you use it, not the first.
  • Tables don't meet MOS:DTT for accessibility.
  • Some refs end in a full stop, others don't, is there a reason for that?

The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: spotcheck of sources still pending. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of all online sources (50/182)

  1. 103) Article: "Ian Berriman of science fiction magazine SFX gave the book five stars and wrote that it was the only book necessary to gain a knowledge of the show's production and secrets."
    Source: "You can douse all the other books about new Who in lighter fuel and spark up your Zippo – this is all you need. It’s the only one that opens a door into the brain of the series’ showrunner." Not in the source.
  2. 130) Article: "His most prolific cliffhanger was in the script of "The Stolen Earth", which created an unprecedented amount of interest in the show."
    Source: "More than 10million viewers are expected for tonight's finale of the latest Dr Who series amid anguished debate over whether David Tennant's Time Lord will be killed off." Does not say unprecedented in this source, would constitute OR.
  3. 135) Article: "The world without the Doctor creates a dystopia which he uses to provide a commentary on Nazi-esque fascism."
    This sentence is cited twice, thus this may not be a problem, but the internet link is to a script of the show; if the other reference does not explicitly state that it is a commentary on fascism, it could constitute OR.
  4. 136) Article: "Davies generally tries to make his scripts "detailed, but quite succinct", and eschews the practice of long character and set descriptions; instead, he limits himself to only three adjectives to describe a character and two lines to describe a set to allow the dialogue to describe the story instead."
    Source: "Really quite detailed, but very succinct." Also, I think "the practice" is unnecessary and not really talked about, more talk about what he does.
  5. 139) Article: "Torchwood also tackles LGBT themes by subverting stereotypes and exploring the characters' sexualities"
    Source says nothing about stereotypes; closest it gets is "I want to knock down the barriers so we can't define which of the characters is gay."
  6. 142, 145, 147, 149, 153, 154 (all are links to BAFTA site) dead links

Recommend further source review of printed materials --ClayClayClay 08:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hey:
      • Changed.
      • Changed.
      • The line "That's what they called him last time" is a direct reference to the Holocaust (although that can be inferred without RSes—Rusty was never that good with allegory—the magazine does support the assertion).
      • Changed.
    • I'm going to have a closer look at the source to see exactly what he says; I believe there's some words in the interview to the effect that h*e wanted to prevent people from thinking "oh, this character is gay and he'll only sleep with men", to which I can't see any other interpretation other than he wanted to subvert stereotypes.
      • I'll fix that momentarily.
    • I'll pop back in an hour or so, which should give me time to do the rest. Sceptre (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through my previous comments - all have been taken care of. I especially liked what you did with the AfterElton reference and expanding its coverage a bit. One question now, unrelated to spotchecking: did you mean to remove the Recognition section header? ClayClayClay 02:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to do that; I think it's something to do with a JS tool... fixed, in any case. Sceptre (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2012 (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/February_2012&oldid=479548051"