Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/February 2013

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

The list was promoted by GrahamColm 16:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Rakoto Frah

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Learn about Rakoto Frah, possibly the greatest cultural hero of Madagascar in the 20th century - all because of his incredible skills and creativity as a performer of the sodina, a traditional flute brought over with the island's original Indonesian settlers more than two millennia ago. Although Rakoto Frah isn't well known in the US, Ian Anderson, flutist of Jethro Tull, cited him as an influence. I'm nominating the article because it's complete, thoroughly researched and definitely a noteworthy topic - particularly since he's the only non-political figure ever to appear on a Malagasy banknote. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media review

  • Feo Gasy or Feo-Gasy?

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments moved to talk

Source review & comments by Maky:

  • Like Crisco 1492 above, the weight of the last paragraph seems a little strong. The mention is fine, but details about the cohorts seems a little over-the-top.
It is better. Just be aware that you will need to keep this material up-to-date because of the potentially dated statements that are made. – Maky « talk » 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found some close paraphrasing where it reads: "The American composer and jazz saxophonist Ornette Coleman described Rakoto Frah as having some of the best phrasing of any musician in the world. Ian Anderson, flutist and leader of Jethro Tull, cited him as a key influence." (Source: "Ornette Coleman disait de lui qu’il possédait un des plus beaux phrasés du monde. Ian Anderson, flûtiste et leader de Jethro Tull, le citait comme sa référence majeure.) This is very close to a direct translation.
  • "By exposing global audiences to traditional sodina performances, Rakoto Frah became an unofficial ambassador of the instrument and the musical heritage of Madagascar." – I'm not sure the source supports this.
  • I removed references to the term "unofficial ambassador" and instead discussed how he raised international awareness of traditional Malagasy music, or promoted traditional music internationally. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, every other randomly sampled sentence checked out with its source without any close paraphrasing. I reviewed the GAN a while back, and feel this article is very near FAC standards. I will be happy to support when the issues are addressed. – Maky « talk » 19:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maky and Crisco, I've addressed all your comments. Thanks for your reviews. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I now feel this article meets FAC standards. – Maky « talk » 03:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Amakuru:

I've not reviewed too many articles before, but have done the FAC thing myself a couple of times so will give this one a go... feel free to contradict anything I say if it doesn't make sense!

  • Support - all my comments have been addressed to my satisfaction and I am satisfied that this article meets FA standards - the prose is excellent, coverage is good (summarises all information easily available through sources) and well researched and it has good structure and use of images. All in all an excellent read!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by GrahamColm 17:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

California State Route 52

[edit]
Nominator(s): Rschen7754 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On March 19, 2011, I was present at the official ribbon-cutting ceremony for the completion of SR 52 from La Jolla (San Diego), where I got my undergraduate degree, to Santee. I have wanted to bring this to FA standard for personal reasons (after SR 78, my first edit and my first FA). However, SR 57 and 56 managed to get in line first... This article was heavily copyedited during its months-long ACR, and I am confident that it is very close to the FA standard. Rschen7754 02:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by (no pun intended!) comments I don't think that I'll post a full review and have only skimmed the article. While it appears to be very comprehensive and well illustrated (I'm a big fan of self-made photos in FACs), its prose would benefit from some extra work. Some examples:

  • "After this interchange, the freeway leaves the military base " - it's previously stated that the road runs along the edge of the base, not through it as this implies
  • "Estimates indicated that residents of La Jolla would save 80 hours a year by using Ardath Road" - I presume you mean that each resident who regularly made this trip would save 80 hours a year, and not everyone in the town as this wording implies if read literally.
  • "The U.S. Navy was consulted in the planning process due to the road's proposed routing through MCAS Miramar that would provide a delineation on further urban development." - this is a bit unclear
  • " It was dedicated at a community celebration on July 11, 1987, and was scheduled to open to traffic a few weeks later." - did it actually open as planned?
    • There's admittedly a few places where I use "scheduled to open". What that usually means is that I couldn't find an article about it actually opening. So that means that most likely it did, but I have to go by what the sources say. (There's a few years missing in the newspaper archive I'm using, unfortunately). --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1987, the Santee City Council voted to commence a study of a more northern route, even though some residents and working professionals objected that this would postpone construction" - what's a "working professional" in this context?
  • "$89 million (about $214 million in 2012 dollars), compared to the river route's $121 million (about $291 million in 2012 dollars)" - what's the source for these and the other conversions in the article? (and should they now be updated to 2013 dollars?). Given that the dates the various funding was announced is included in the article, are the conversions even necessary? (I'm not sure what the convention is here).
    • That's using the inflation template, using the specific calculations for US public works projects. I doubt that the template has been updated to 2013 dollars yet. I suppose I can add a source, but that would mean adding it to every single inflation calculation, and I personally think that clutters the article. (Or they could be removed - there's no specific standard here. Most USRD FA writers include them, but I know of one prominent one who does not). --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "however, some employees of the City of Santee were concerned that portions of the report were "outdated." - who were these employees? (I presume that you're referring to town planners and the like rather than librarians or other staff whose official duties weren't relevant!)
  • "In April 1990, the Santee City Council agreed to begin the purchase of land, over the opposition of Councilman Jim Bartell for environmental reasons." - this is unclear: did the council purchase the land on environmental grounds, or was this Jim Bartell's concern? (it would work better if you replaced the 'for' with 'on', but 'agreed' seems needlessly vague - did the council vote to do this?)
  • File:CA SR 52 Opening.JPG might benefit from being cropped to remove the empty space in the bottom third of the photo if the purpose of the photo is to illustrate the celebrations for the opening of the road - the people walking along it are hard to spot (great work with the self-made photo BTW)
  • "Reactions to the extension between SR 125 and SR 67 were mixed, with reports of faster transportation through the East County area. Commuters noted that there is a rush hour backup at SR 125 headed westbound because there are only two lanes traveling west through the interchange." - this is a bit awkwardly worded, and seems to be comparing different things. Also, is the 'reports' and 'commuters noted' construction of these sentences necessary? (can you just say that traffic was faster in the East Country area but there's a traffic jam at SR 125 headed westbound?)
  • "The military erected a fence in 2002 to block a deer tunnel underneath the freeway that led into the Marine base from Mission Trails Regional Park, due to concerns that the tunnel would be used to gain unauthorized access to the base following the September 11 attacks." - this seems rather wordy, and is a bit imprecise (presumably the fence was built as part of a post-September 11 program of works to improve security).
  • These examples were chosen more or less at random, and I'd suggest giving the prose a general tune up, with a focus on improving the precision of the wording used (which should also result in a slightly shorter article). I hope these comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm making another pass through right now. I've made a few comments above where the awkward wording is necessary to represent the sources. --Rschen7754 07:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've just copy edited a paragraph picked at random to illustrate the kind of wording changes which I think would be helpful (hopefully not causing a really annoying edit conflict for you, but I fear that I have - this is the diff). As noted in the edit summary, please feel free to revert some or all of it if you think it's not an improvement, but I think that those kind of changes would cut down on some redundant wording. Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've done a modification to the copyedit, as there were no letters that were actually published, according to the source. I'm about halfway through my final copyedit (I'll admit I jumped the gun by a few hours - I didn't expect such a quick review!) and hope to finish tomorrow. --Rschen7754 09:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks good! (after stumbling here from an FAC I just started)

  • What is "a large open space"? Is it really just as plain as the description suggests?
  • "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, the road becomes a freeway as it intersects I-5. The canyon is designated as Marian Bear Natural Park" - so the canyon has two names? Why not say something like "Before entering San Clemente Canyon, also known as MBNP, the road becomes..."?
  • "the highway passes through an area with Pliocene sedimentary rocks estimated to be 10 million years old that are visible from the freeway" - the writing could be more concise here, since it mentions the roadway twice. It just doesn't seem up to the level of elsewhere in the article.
  • "the freeway leaves the edge of the military base" - unless I'm mistaken, you never mentioned a base elsewhere in the article. I know this refers to "Marine Corps Air Station Miramar", but it'd be good to see the clarification of it being a "military base" somewhere else. IDK, not a biggie, but it struck me as odd.
  • "between Santo Road and Mast Boulevard. Access to the path is from Santo Road and from Mast Boulevard" - seems a bit redundant - could you rewrite the latter sentence to avoid re-mentioning both roads?
  • I'm curious why you felt it was worth mentioning that it's not part of the National Highway System?
  • Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see an indication anywhere why the original western portion of the road was built in the first place? I expected to see that at the beginning of the history section. Unless, is it - " to connect the interchange with San Clemente Canyon Road"?
  • "80 hours a year" - should that be "80 hours per year"?
  • Did the citizen opposition affect any of the progress of the Soledad Expressway?
  • "(about $36.1 million in 2012 dollars)" - I suggest you use the inflation template to include the current year, since right now it's stuck in the past :P
  • "however, construction did not begin for more than ten years" - any reason? (funding?)
  • I'm curious - was it ever proposed to continue eastward toward I-8? Even if there's unofficial rumors or something that can't be put into the article, after reading the article, I'm curious now :)
    • I've never heard anything, either as a local resident or in my research for this article. The goal was always La Jolla to Santee, as was mentioned at the final opening ceremony. --Rschen7754 00:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in all, a good article. Almost ready to support. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Activity note: I will be offline for the rest of today, Tuesday, and most of Wednesday. I will be back on Thursday. --Rschen7754 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back now. --Rschen7754 00:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [5].

Andrew Johnson

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Andrew Johnson is today not considered anywhere near the top of the list for American presidents. Yet he had a public career of over forty years, and became the only former president to serve in the Senate, so I hope you'll agree that there's more to the man than met the eye when they impeached him. Enjoy. Thanks to Khazar2 and Rjensen for reviewing the article.Wehwalt (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Better than I usually do! I'll fix these tonight. Thanks.--20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Great to see the three of you at FAC, if you're all here ... Milhist is putting together a GLAM collaboration, and you're all welcome to jump in during the planning stages.
  • I wasn't wild about "natal characteristic", I went with: "Being born in a log cabin was a potent symbol of political virtue and simplicity in the 19th century, and Johnson did not hesitate to remind voters of his humble birth in future elections." (I'm going partly on my memory of a BookTV talk by Gordon-Reed ... if this doesn't correspond to pp. 17-18, feel free to fiddle with that.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what the writer has to say on the speeches, but I'll certainly scrap the adjective. Do you have a link on the GLAM? Happy to help if I can.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Start with WT:MHC#New GLAM proposal. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As a consequence, Johnson assumed an attitude of white supremacy, which he kept throughout his life.": I removed "As a consequence" and otherwise left this alone. I guess this is mainly a personal preference based on what seems to me to be a firm trend in expository prose, but IMO there's a broader point; feel free to disagree. Sociologists and historians can make scientific statements about attitudes associated with certain economic conditions. They're on slightly looser ground when they assert which way the causation goes ... but the case can be made. They're on quicksand when they attempt to assert that a particular 19th-century figure's attitudes were a direct result of such-and-such; for all we know, he had unfortunate experiences in his formative years, or he got his attitudes from his mother. - Dank (push to talk) 21:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. It was a bit loose.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Johnson supported the Polk administration's decision to fight the Mexican War, which was seen by some northerners as an attempt to gain territory to expand slavery westward.": "which" dangles: does it refer to the war itself, or his support? Probably best to reword ... if it's the former, I'd go with: "Johnson's support for the Mexican War was seen ...". - Dank (push to talk) 02:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the office was a bully pulpit which allowed him": that allowed him, or allowing him
  • "the ticket of Buchanan and former Kentucky representative John C. Breckenridge, which was elected": Not wrong, but you usually see "who were elected" in a context like this.
  • "he made proposals which were popular among Democrats": probably "he made proposals popular with the Democrats"
  • "a Union which could not be dissolved": "that" would be correct, but I'd go with "an indissolvable Union" or some synonym. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in areas which had been in revolt": that
  • "most states which voted": most states that had voted
  • "without making political deals, which occurred": ... which he did
  • "a proposal which had been defeated": that
  • "The veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 is often seen as a key mistake of Johnson's presidency, which convinced Moderates ...": The veto of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, often seen as a key mistake of Johnson's presidency, convinced Moderates ...
  • "engaging in arguments with hecklers which were criticized as undignified": "engaging in undignified arguments with hecklers", unless you're saying the arguments were misrepresented as undignified
By the standards of 1866, for a president to engage in back and forth with hecklers was seen as undignified. I am trying to tell the reader how they were perceived, rather than describing what they were. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, I didn't get that. Okay, write what you just said :) - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Republicans gained two senators and a state which promptly ratified the amendment.": Probably "The Republicans gained two senators, and a state that promptly ratified the amendment."
  • "after which the Senate confirmed Schofield": and the Senate confirmed Schofield (to prevent repetition of "after which")
  • "Another treaty which fared badly": Another treaty that fared badly
  • "a pardon which ended": a pardon that ended, or a pardon ending
  • "where cities which had been hostile to him during the war as senator and military governor": where cities hostile to him during the war [which implies senator and military governor, I think]
  • "setting a pattern which would be repeated": that
  • "Through the days which followed": that
  • "personal flaws which scarred his presidency", "deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency": both require "that" ... and they're a bit too similar.
  • "A series of highly-favorable biographies ... which": A series of highly favorable [no hyphen] biographies ... that - Dank (push to talk) 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'll work through these.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All those are done. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Sorry, but we're not off to a good start ... I picked just one issue, misuse of "which", and pointed out all the problems, and it's still wrong: "t Buchanan", "which had been in revolt", "engaging in arguments with hecklers which were seen as undignified for a president" (among other problems, referent and verb don't agree: it wasn't the (plural) arguments that were undignified, or the hecklers, it was that he was engaging in them, so "were" is wrong), "days which followed", "deep flaws which sabotaged his presidency". Disclaimers on "which": I've noticed that people who write about earlier times use the word more liberally, because that's how it was used back then. It continues to be used in the sense you're using it informally (I use that way all the time), and it is also used in the best prose occasionally to signal emphasis. Having said all that: this oppose is not a "thumbs down" of any kind, simply an admission that there's more to do here than I have time to do, particularly if I have to go back and check to see if you've really made the fixes you said you did. If you can find another copyeditor who does have time, and I get the sense that they're doing a thorough job, I'll be more than happy to strike my oppose and turn the job over to them. - Dank (push to talk) 19:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll ask you to look in after other reviewers have taken their shot. Sorry if I was hasty, I'm doing this in hasty hours this week. Would you mind if I took a second shot at the above, and perhaps you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed or rephrased anything likely to cause offense. It was not inattention, that particular distinction is not one of my strongest suits.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"the senator". I'll see where it can be done without looking forced. Note that we may not agree in full on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Johnson opposed] "the prohibition of alcohol, and the Know Nothing Party". It's better not to use one word in two different senses at once. - Dank (push to talk) 16:29, 25 January 2013 (UTC) P.S. Put another way: what does it mean that he opposed that party? Whatever it means, it's not the same thing as opposing a proposed law. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll play with it. What it's saying is he didn't like their anti-immigrant policy, which was controversial, and especially since their members were initially told, rather famously, that if asked about the party, they were to say they knew nothing about it. They didn't last long, the country had bigger fish to fry.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on a tied procedural vote broken by Vice President Breckinridge against the bill": Since you reverted me, I guess I don't know what you're saying, I thought my version was clear ... maybe it was clear and wrong :) - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"breaking the tie in a procedural vote" read oddly to my ears. I didn't revert you actually. I think it's OK for people to toss back alternate versions at each other until they find one that sticks, when both are trying to accomplish the same end.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the expression "breaking a vote". What's a broken vote? - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Meant to say "tied", sorry, but that still wouldn't help. I've taken another shot at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I accidentally lowercased two things inside quotes, I've restored them. Btw, "Southerner" vs. "southerner" is a nice example of how uppercasing makes sense in one context but not another. Current style guides prefer uppercasing for general readers, but people for whom "southerner" can only mean one thing can lowercase it without fear of being misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 22:26, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Thank you for the time you've put in on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:45, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The President gave permission for constitutional conventions": I don't know what "gave permission" means.
He issued proclamations, directing the people of a state to elect delegates to gather and decide on a(n acceptable) constitution and hold elections under it. It's alternative language as I have Johnson issuing proclamations multiple times, so I wanted different language.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received considerable public support, which he took as unconditional backing for quick reinstatement of the South. While he received such support from the white South": The first sentence says his policies "received considerable public support"; the second sentence says the support came from a minority. - Dank (push to talk) 14:49, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add "In the North". The white South was initially rather apprehensive, given Johnson's past statements about rebels.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it is produced by an inflation template it is possibly best to have it undated.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a most thorough review and for bearing with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tackling the really hard stuff. My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "Johnson, born in poverty, became a master tailor." I don't like how this sentence reads, I don't understand how being born into poverty is linked to him being a "master tailor". --Andrew 16:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recast it, and deleted the "master" which is difficult to quantify.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support . I carried out a detailed informal peer review, details on the article's talkpage. I am happy with the responses, and have just a few points outstanding:

  • In the "Congressman" section: "general-election" is not a hyphenated term
  • In the same part of that section (and continuing a point I raised in the review): "Rival for a fifth term" implies that both Haynes and Johnson were seeking fifth terms. Was this the case? Otherwise, they were merely rival candidates for election.
  • In the "Impeachment" section there are two separate mentions of Stanbery giving up his office to act as Johnson's counsel.

I have also done some general copyediting. The nom may have been a mite premature, but I believe that the prose is now of the required standard, the narrative is compelling and the research looks terrific. I have not done an image review but I can't see any likely problems here. This looks a fine addition to the "American presidents" series (only about 30 to go and they'll all be FAs) Brianboulton (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I'll work through these. "Rival for a fifth term" was a phrase I struggled with and would welcome suggestions from FAC page stalkers. All the other ways of putting it I could come up with seemed somewhat awkward. Thirty? Well, we will have to see.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I got the last one, and Wehwalt and I got the first two. - Dank (push to talk) 20:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. Thank you both.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In November 1867, "the Democrats took control of the Ohio General Assembly, allowing them to defeat for re-election [...] Senator Benjamin Wade". According to his article, he was elected senator in 1863 and did not faced election this year.
Before 1866, states were rather random with how they elected senators; Johnson wasn't even elected until after his term began in 1857 (there was probably some shenanigans with split control of legislative houses to avoid a Senate election, too, that happened a lot in Tennessee). In 1866, Congress passed legislation that standardized when the election of senators took place. Congress decreed that the election take place shortly after the legislature which would be in office when the Senate term expired first convened. So Wade's term expired March 3, 1869, and the Ohio legislature which would be in session when his term expired was elected in November 1867 and would convene in January 1868, and the law forced them to begin the balloting for senator the second week of the legislative session, and to keep voting if they couldn't decide. So basically, Wade became a lame duck a little under 14 months before the end of his term. Ohio changed this, to even-year elections, in 1905.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Our article is literally correct, Wade was defeated in the 1868 elections. The January 1868 elections, in the Ohio General Assembly. I suspect whoever wrote that really didn't understand that. When I get a chance (after this FAC closes, for transparency) I'll do something about that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kansas Senator Edmund G. Ross received assurances that the new constitutions ratified in South Carolina and Arkansas would be transmitted to the Congress". Could you explain this sentence because I do not see the link with the impeachment. Les3corbiers (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the President was slow to officially report ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment by the new Southern legislatures". According to Hollingsworth v. Virginia, the President has no formal role in the process of amending the Constitution. Was Johnson some kind of unwilling PO box who refused to send ratifications to the Congress to prevent the adoption of the amendment ? Les3corbiers (talk) 17:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The executive branch still administers the process; the beribboned ratifications from the legislatures were sent to the Department of State, although Trefousse specifically states that Johnson, not Seward, did the notifications to Congress. Today, I recall from the ratification of the 27th Amt. that it is the Archivist of the United States who does the work. So yeah, pretty much. He was trying to be as difficult as he could without breaking the assurances he had given senators like Ross and Grimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:57, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understand it much better now. By the way, I have translated the article into French. Les3corbiers (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Very nice article. A have a few comments and questions:

  • In the lede, the language about AJ being a "logical choice" is confusing to readers who don't understand the National Union party. Maybe a few brief words about why Lincoln chose a Democrat.
  • In "Boyhood", the sentence about his "lifelong love of learning" is confusing.
  • In "Tennessee politician", I'd change the last sentence to remove the semi-colon and end with "and about eight or nine slaves".

...more comments to come. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you, and thanks. Those things are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you substitute something for "chattel"? I only see that in legal and scholarly contexts these days. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments:

  • In "Vice President", the phrase "it is known that" adds nothing. I'd cut it.
  • In "Accession", I'm not sure Castel's opinion adds much. He doesn't contradict Trefousse and Gordon-Reed, so I'd just say that Johnson & Lincoln discussed whatever, unless there's some pressing reason to get into the historiography.
  • In "Judicial appointments", is "crony" the best word? Seems a bit POV-ish.
It's how we described Day in McKinley. Except Canton crony.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC) [reply]
Hmm. Guess I can't complain then! --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Historical view" section is very well-written, but could probably be summarized more succinctly to the extent that it discusses Reconstruction generally and not Johnson's reputation specifically.
I don't know how you separate the two ... the two rise and fall together, or possibly one rises as the other sinks.
That's true. AJ's rep is as much tied to the perception of Reconstruction as anything.
Thanks, appreciate it. Good seeing you again. Except as noted above, I'll implement.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, glad I could help. I changed to support. --Coemgenus (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. By the way, looks like I started the "crony" in Hanna and it went on from there.
Request Could someone do an image check please? For delegate summary purposes, we have three supports and nothing presently going on.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-1923, own work). Sources and authors provided (or Library of Congress-image with sufficient background information). Some minor bugs/typos tweaked. GermanJoe (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you on that. Three supports, checks done. I'm available if anything else comes up.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [6].

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A perennial favourite for "On this Day.." on 2 March (six times!). I am hoping that we have have it as Today's Featured Article on the 70th Anniversary of the battle on 2 March 2013. One problem: it isn't a Featured Article! Let's see about that... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments by Cwmhiraeth - It states in the WikiCup rules "You must declare your WikiCup participation if you review another WikiCup participant's FAC" so I hereby declare it!

My first impression was of a very well-written article and much of the prose flows easily along. A few minor comments:
  • "Nonetheless, the convoy succeeded in reaching Lae on 7 January and landing the troops, only to join in Okabe's defeat in the Battle of Wau." - To someone like me who knows little on this subject, this sentence is not self-explanatory.
  • "In the South West Pacific, the primary mission of the Allied bomber force was interdiction of Japanese supply lines, especially the sea lanes" - "interdiction" seems a curious word to use here.
  • "But the results of the effort against the January convoy were very disappointing." - Maybe join this sentence with the previous one so that you don't have a sentence starting with "but".
    • Rephrased to In the South West Pacific, a conventional strategic bombing campaign was out of the question because industrial targets in Japan were well beyond the range of even the largest strategic bombers operating from bases in Australia and New Guinea, so the primary mission of the Allied bomber force was interdiction of Japanese supply lines, especially the sea lanes. The results of the effort against the January convoy were therefore very disappointing. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of places are mentioned in the article ( Rabaul, Lae, Finschhafen etc). It would be nice to have a map showing their locations as an aid to understanding the account. The present maps are low resolution, in Japanese and limited to Japanese vessel movements. Ideally the map would show where the American air bases were located, where the convoy was when attacked etc. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment -- I don't know yet if I'll review in detail and therefore recuse myself from delegate duties but, hedging my bets, I did spot one thing at a quick glance: Joe Hewitt's involvement (as No. 9 Group commander after Garing had done the RAAF planning and departed) either needs to be cited in the infobox or mentioned in the main body and cited there. You might want to check if any other data in the infobox isn't cited elsewhere... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have added a bit about the command arrangements in New Guinea, thereby mentioning Joe Hewitt. I'm not sure about the rules regarding delegates and reviews, but in the past the delegates have sometimes made copius comments. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66

[edit]
  • I'm a WikiCup partipant so take these with a grain of salt.
    • For those who don't know, Sturmvogel is leading Wikicup by a country mile. I don't think this article is eligible; all the work on it was done last year. I nommed it because the anniversary of the battle is coming up. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinked Rabaul, New Guinea, Wewak, Imperial General Headquarters, RAAF, Fifth Air Force, Lae, Madang
  • What were these Japanese high speed transports? The link goes to US converted destroyers, but did the Japanese do the same sort of thing?
  • This plan was acknowledged to be risky, because Allied air power in the area was strong. The comma here looks to be unnecessary.
  • Should these two sentences be combined or connected? The XVIII Army staff gave the operation a 50–50 chance of success. They held war games that predicted losses of four out of ten transports, and between 30 and 40 aircraft.
  • Link aircraft carrier, fighter group, magazine, landing craft and autocannon for 20 mm cannon
  • Were Pappy's modifications tied to this battle or were they just serendipitous? Dates here would be helpful
  • The chronology of the Allied tactics section doesn't flow well. We start with poor results from the January attack, review weaponry modifications and skip-bombing tactics, presumably both already in practice and then review the available Allied air units. I'd have to think more for a suggestion on how exactly to fix this, but it does need fixing.
  • What kind of tonnage are you talking about for the Japanese transports? GRT, DWT? And what are the cubic meters for? I've never seen them used for any ship in all my readings.
    • Per the link, GRT. This is a unit of volume. For example, the Japanese transport Aiyo Maru was 2,746 tons (GRT) but 4,331 tons (DWT). The former is used, as it is what appears in all the sources. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tell the reader up front that these are GRT. Just like you tell xe that a given ship is a destroyer or whatever; don't make xe work for it. I presume that you're converting from GRT to derive the cubic meters, but why? It seems pointless and I've never seen any source do it when dealing with wartime merchantmen or convoys. The GRT is normally all that's given.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seem kind of redundant unless there were naval troops involved: army troops
  • Because of the conditional "if" at the start of the sentence, shouldn't "maximised" be "would maximise"? If the ships turned to face them, the standard procedure in case of a torpedo attack, the Beaufighters maximised the damage they inflicted on the ships' anti-aircraft guns, bridges and crews in strafing
  • This seems a bit awkward: Tokitsukaze was also hit and fatally damaged, and later sank
  • Howabout adding "also" in front of "collided"? The destroyer Arashio was hit, and collided with the transport Nojima, disabling her
  • This reads oddly, but it may just be the difference between US and BritEng handling of collective nouns: One band of 18 landed on Kiriwina, where it was captured by PT-114

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: I reviewed this when it was at A-class a while back. I've checked the changes since then and made a few tweaks today (please check you are happy with those). I believe this meets the criteria. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Given we have a non-MilHist review along with project support, I'm satisfied the article's pretty well ready to promote but, before that, under Allied intelligence you state that Hewitt "instructed" Whitehead. Is this the right word? Makes it sound like Hewitt was Whitehead's superior... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was Kenney. Got changed in the copyediting somewhere. Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I asked... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [7].

United States v. Lara

[edit]
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the FA criteria and is an important case in Native American case law at the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been a GA for about 2 years, but has recently been expanded significantly and just had a GOCE check. GregJackP Boomer! 20:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The lead should be expanded to cover the post-decision analysis and any other subsequent developments. Additionally, I think it'd be useful to have a section covering the history of Tribal-Federal relations since there seems to be a lot of precedent that pops up in the "Supreme Court" section without any prior discussion. This structure makes it a bit difficult to follow for someone unfamiliar with this area of the law. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will expand the lead and work on the requested section (lol, though this area of the law is difficult to follow for those who are familar with it, the Court has multiple personalities as far as Indian rights are concerned). It may take a bit, I'm busy IRL. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done part of the expansion of the lead (still have more to do). As far as the federal-tribal relations, what do you think about my adding a small subsection to subsequent developments, with a {{main}} template to the tribal sovereignty article? GregJackP Boomer! 01:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I need to clarify my point; I'm referring to federal-tribal relations in terms of the development of law since the 19th century. It seems that the only case discussed before you get to the issue around Lara is Duro. I think you need a subsection under "Background" that covers the changes in this area of the law over time. For example, when the dissent section says "... which referenced prior cases dealing with sovereignty and jurisdiction, from the decision made in United States v. Kagama,[100] to the opinion made in South Dakota v. Bourland", I should have already read some background on what the issues in those cases were. I'm aware this is complex (you have my admiration for attempting this challenge!) but such a section would greatly increase the clarity and readability of this article. All the best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can do that. GregJackP Boomer! 12:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a section on criminal jurisdiction to the background (Major Crimes Act). Hopefully this will work. It doesn't address Bourland, but I can't figure out where Souter was going with that - Bourland was a case involving hunting and fishing rights. GregJackP Boomer! 13:32, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been resolved; prose looks good and isn't too complicated to follow for someone (like me) who knows nothing about this area of the law. -- Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:24, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support.
    • I am used to articles telling me what the vote was, who was in the minority etc. The Decision section does not say this (nor that Scalia joined Souter in dissent). I know, it is in the infobox, but it is not sourced there. Could this be added?
  • Done. Added to Dissent subsection, first sentence. Vote count added below.
    • Last sentence of Opinion of the Court is unsourced. I would also prefer that it say that The decision of the Eighth Circuit Court was reversed
  • Done. Sourced to the Oyez Project, changed to "Eighth Circuit", added the vote count (7-2).
    • Why is it the Eight circuit court in the article and the 8th in the infobox?
  • Comment - WP:MOSLAW requires following Bluebook citation style for cases. In the infobox, it is part of a case citation, hence "8th Cir." In text, it should be spelled out, as part of the proper name of the court ("United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit"), shortened in text to "Eighth Circuit."
    • What is the source for the case being cited over 190 times?
  • Not done (yet) - I'm looking for it and if I can't find it, I'll remove it.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hawkeye, a friend told me about the comments here, and I returned to fix what I could, but I don't know if I'll be back again. I don't think of this as coming back from retirement, just as closing out unfinished business, but I appreciate you help. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Comments from Ceranthor
  • No dab links. External links check out.
  • Formatting of reference 9 is broken.
Formatting had been fixed until FiachraByrne reverted my corrections. I've fixed it again, and removed (again) the information I couldn't find a cite for. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 3 refers to $, must be USD but not specified.
Y'all need to make up your mind. Do you want USD in articles or not? I get tired of taking it out, putting it in, taking it out, etc. Let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay then. ceranthor 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to link states in Footnote 14 or 15.
It's a template. Plus, it is not linking the states, it is a link to the statute (U.S.C. stands for United States Code). GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. ceranthor 00:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is source 124 a publication like a book? A page number, if available, is desirable.
The page number is present, page 90. The reference states: David Wilkins, Justice Thomas and Federal Indian Law – Hitting His Stride, America is Indian Country: Opinions and Perspectives from Indian Country Today 90 (Jose Barreiro & Tim Johnson eds. 2004). Formatting for Bluebook is: Article author in roman type, article name in italics, volume number if needed, book or work title in small caps, page number, parenthetical editor(s) and date of publication.
  • While I'm fairly certain abbreviation is okay in references, omitting proper names is not. Source 125's reference to The New York Times must include the proper "The" in front of "NY Times". The publisher (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.) should also be mentioned for that source.
Not if you are citing per Bluebook rules. Certain abbreviations are mandated by the citation style. See Table 13, page 458, Bluebook, 19th edition, The New York Times is always abbreviated as "N.Y. Times" (note that there is no space between N. & Y. - that is intentional also, per Rule 6.1(a)). See also page 444, stating to "Omit the words 'a,' 'at,' 'in,' 'of,' and 'the'...." Publisher's names are always omitted when citing per Bluebook. Bluebook is an acceptable citation style per WP:CITE#Citation style, and if you use the citation style you should follow its rules. For newspapers, it is Rule 16.6, pp. 151-52. The New York Times is shown as an example numerous times in the Bluebook, and it is always cited as I have noted above. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 05:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll probably come back to look at the prose, since this is in desperate need of reviews. ceranthor 15:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-USGov, PD-US, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 00:37, 17 February 2013 [8].

Dobroslav Jevđević

[edit]
Nominator(s): User:PRODUCER and User:Peacemaker67 Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because it has undergone significant refinement in the last few months, including a GAN review and MILHIST ACR, and we believe it now meets the FA criteria. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Not sure you can justify a non-free image of the subject where he appears in a free image later in the article. That being said, would File:Jevđević_with_Italians.jpg still be free if initial publication were in Croatia? Since publication location is uncertain, should account for both possibilities
  • We were working on the basis that the closer, almost face-on image in the infobox is justified in that the other image (being a profile shot from further away) doesn't really show his appearance properly for the purpose of identification. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN6: page formatting
  • No citations to Goldstein 29 October 2012.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and I'm making some minor tweaks now. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 04:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review Dank! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:13, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Images - both images are most likely PD (either PD-croatia or PD-because as a work in a non-signatory state of the Berne Convention), but the situation with a now defunct state is often vague and confusing. I can file a request for advice on Commons to be sure, if you want. GermanJoe (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a great help. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added that question to WP:Media copyright questions (PD-status of ...?) for Wiki-files. If you have any additional info, please provide it there. GermanJoe (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - OK (see comments), two requests for feedback on Wiki and Commons didn't gain any additional advice.

  • Based on available information both files should be ok (added PD-croatia as suggested for the second possible country of publication).
  • WP:NFCC allows fair-use, when no other image for the "same encyclopedic purpose" is available. The second image is of very low quality and the subject is barely recognizable, so both images are used for different purposes within the article.
  • Unlikely, but if any other images can be found later, the actual photos should be exchanged. GermanJoe (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Moved to WT:V#phrasing of the non-English sources rules
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • The references to Goldstein and Dizdar are non-English so they need to be made to comply with WP:NONENG - please cite the relevant portion of the text in each case. Is Prometej.ba a reliable source? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what aspect of WP:NONENG you are referring to. Those non-English sources are being cited for information, are you questioning whether those sources actually support the information in the article? If so, which citation(s) and on what basis? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:12, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Er, please re-read WP:NONENG. I see nothing really ambiguous in the text of that policy section. You are citing a non-English source for information, and you don't have to provide a translation, but you still have to provide the original text. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the policy requiring me to do so as Peacemaker pointed out. If there is a statement you believe isn't supported by the source please specify which. The piece written by Goldstein and published by Prometej is profusely referenced itself and written by a reliable author. It was published after a presentation (which Goldstein spoke at) was held in Prozor-Rama. [9] I see no issues with the source given the circumstances. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 17:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • What part of the linked policy makes you think that there is no requirement to do what I wrote? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm confused. I only checked Dizadar ... this article doesn't seem to be quoting a foreign source (for which NONENG would require a quote in the original language), only paraphrasing it. - Dank (push to talk) 18:44, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er, did you see the bolded text "When citing a non-English source for information"? The verb "citing" doesn't imply "quoting". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, I saw that. What I haven't seen is which information you're challenging, or why. Any good-faith challenge is fine ... if you have reason to believe that something is wrong, you should absolutely say so. But what's not fair is "Policy says you have to provide it if I challenge it, so I'll just go ahead and challenge everything, just in case, without giving a reason". The same issue comes up in WP:BURDEN ... information has to be provided if someone challenges it, but that doesn't mean that I have to jump if someone says "I'm challenging everything" without giving a reason. - Dank (push to talk) 20:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I would never do that. The issue is that the NONENG policy section makes for a different situation - it sets a higher threshold of verifiability on information referenced to foreign sources. The threshold is such that it requires a quote in the foreign language, and sometimes more (a translation). This policy section wasn't in place back when I first arrived, and it isn't uniformly respected across the project, but it makes sense - the standard of verifiability on English-language works is that you have to have enough information to find them and check them, while the standard of verifiability on foreign-language works is that you have to have more than that because it's that much easier to have a source misinterpreted when it's not written in the native language. So, to guard against that, we quote the relevant part of the source. It certainly sounds like something that should be done in a featured article. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'm still not sure what part of the policy requires this (sans challenge). It says, "When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation. However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy." If you are questioning a particular bit of information, please state what it is. If not, with greatest respect I don't think your comment is in accordance with the policy. In any case, I understand you have the requisite language skills, so you know if it is consistent or not. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 21:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • You read the second bullet point, but ignored the first one. It requires both the original text and the translation for quotations. The second one, about citations, may seem to be distinct, but it isn't - yes, its phrasing leaves out an explicit mention of providing the original text, but it then implies that it would have been logical to think that it's necessary to provide a translation. The intent seems clear to me - doing both is considered the best. So, a featured article doing neither - doesn't sound right. But, I'll go search the talk page archives there to see if this question came up before. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:48, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • "Case White in the winter of 1942/43." According to the Manual of Style, the slash should be an en dash instead.
    • I'd prefer "winter of 1943", if that's okay. MOSNUM says: "2005–06 (unspaced) generally denotes a two-year range; 2005/06 may be used to signify a period of 12 or fewer months, such as a corporate or governmental fiscal year, if that is the convention used in reliable sources; sports seasons spanning two calendar years should be uniformly written as 2005–06 season." - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've gone with Dank's version.
  • Operation Alta: "and urged him to undertake this operation as soon as possible in order to clear the Partisans...". The "in order" is a bit of wordiness that can safely be removed without affecting the meaning.
  • "participated in the Italian-led Operation Alta. Operation Alta...". Try to avoid repetition from the end of one sentence to the start of another, like in this example.
  • "with Germans and NDH troops driving from the north and Italian and Chetnik forces pushing from the Neretva River." This is a type of "with + -ing" structure that is typically awkward. To fix it, you could try a semi-colon before this, followed by "Germans and NDH troops drove from the north and Italian and Chetnik forces pushed from the Neretva River."
  • "while others were sent later to northern Dalmatia to aid Momcilo Dujic's forces." Flip "sent" and "later" in order for the best possible sentence flow.
  • Case White: "and also recognition of almost all of eastern Herzegovina as a 'Chetnik zone'." No need to even have "also" here.
  • How were the people who went to Mostar to kill him stoppped? An assassination attempt seems to be an important enough event to justify an extra sentence or two of explanation.
  • Withdrawal: "after which he was captured and killed." Who is "he"? Durisic? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed, except that there is no more information available on the attempted assassination. Thanks for the review! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support – Hard for me to know much about whether this is comprehensive, but it seems so at first glance to this reviewer who knows nothing on the topic; I wish there was more on the assassination, but can't penalize the article when the sources don't provide anything. I'm satisfied with the writing after the tweaks, and am not concerned about whether or not a translation is provided for the Serbo-Croatian sources. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. - The article is well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. I am particularly impressed by the high-quality sourcing. I did notice a few isbn-10s where we should use isbn-13 if available. Some minor prose issues remain, but nothing significant enough to hold-up promotion to FA. Nice work! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013‎ [10].

Kenneth Widmerpool

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widmerpool is, according to most critical opinion, one of the great monsters of 20th century fiction: a supreme egotist, small-minded and vindictive, lacking in social graces or cultural sensitivities, yet, mysteriously, becoming ever more successful and powerful as Anthony Powell's long novel sequence proceeds (though he gets his comeuppance in the end). He has held an awful fascination for readers and critic alike; Evelyn Waugh complained that there wasn't enough of him in the books, and Powell's contemporaries vied with each other for the honour of being the real-life model. The article has benefited from an insightful peer review to which several contributed; thanks to all concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 13:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review, where my few quibbles were thoroughly dealt with. I refrain from comment on the images (I am no expert on WP's rules) but the text seems to me to meet all FA criteria: balanced, well proportioned, comprehensively researched and referenced, and a pleasure to read. Tim riley (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – As per Tim riley, above, my minor points were all dealt with at peer review and the article has improved further since then. A wholehearted support on another excellent article. - SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and ditto as for Tim Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I also helped somewhat during the peer review, and was very impressed with the article, which is a gripping and engaging read through out. This is a remarkably well written page and exhaustively sourced, and though long it never dips, labours or lost my attention. Ceoil (talk) 15:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support and help (it isn't really that long, a mere 4000 words) Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Cassianto: Firstly, congratulations on a neatly put together article. I found it to be a thoroughly enjoyable read with no major faults to report. Nearly all of my quibbles surround possible overlinking:

  • Do we need to link Second World War?
  • Maybe for younger readers? It did end 68 years ago
  • Do we need to link Buckingham Palace?
  • Perhaps for the benefit of non-English readers?
  • Do we need to link solicitors?
  • Likewise; I don't think, for example, that US readers are familiar with this UK term for lawyers.
  • Yes when used as a mosifier, as it is here ("a music-hall burlesque")
  • Could Eton College have a link in the image caption?
  • Yes, done.
  • Likewise Longford and Beale?
  • Also done.

Support - Ceoil, ScroCat and Tim have said it all. I reviewed the piece for the PR, honestly only finding minor nitpicks, all of which Brian quickly resolved. Widmerpoole is an engaging read and more importantly, I believe, it sets an excellent example for an article about a fictional character. I'd also like to note at how impressed I am at the process of taking the article to PR first, where it had a lot of attention, which meant it was in very good shape by the time of the nomination. Thanks for the good read - very well done. Truthkeeper (talk) 17:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for participating in the peer review, and for your support here. I invariably try for a peer review before nominating at FAC. Unfortunately the PR process remains in near-crisis, with simply not enough reviewers prepared to give time to it; at least a quarter of articles sent there are not getting reviewed. This is a concern I have raised before, and will probably need to raise again. Brianboulton (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review:

  • All sources look reliable and high quality.
  • Ref 4: Should there be a space in "Spring1971"?
  • Refs 17, 63: p used rather than pp for page range
  • For refs 22, 23, 55, 57, 58, 71, 76 and 77 as an online version is used, do we need an access date?
  • Compare refs 12, 15 and 41: if the first two use p. for the second page reference, should ref 41 use pp. for the second page range?
  • Compare refs 55, 56 and 70: Is there a reason for the distinction between The Daily Telegraph and the Telegraph Online when all go to the same site? Similarly, why do some of the publications referenced online use "online" within the name of the publisher/journal, but others do not?
  • The articles cited to online sources are those which I cannot be certain first appeared in the printed versions of the newspapers/journals. They are therefore treated as web entries. There is some element of uncertatinty, but I have sought to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the sources lacking an ISBN, could an OCLC number be used?

Everything else fine. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review:

Support: I'm not quite sure where Brian gets all his ideas from, but this is another fantastic article. An excellent read, as others have said better than I can. Just some extremely minor nit-picks which do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Kenneth Widmerpool becomes the principal embodiment of these.[5]": The previous sentence refers to both middle classes and the Establishment, making this sentence slightly ambiguous.
  • "Widmerpool is the only one of the sequence's 300-odd character": Should this be characters rather than character?
  • "The part of Widmerpool was played, reportedly with "audible pomposity", by Brian Hewlett…": Reported by who? I always find "reportedly" slightly weak, but feel free to disagree here. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are right on "reportedly", and I have reworded. It is a second-hand comment reported on the Anthony Powell Society website; I have removed the quotes, as the original wording is "the pomposity was audible". Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Extremely well-written article. Of course, I have some nitpicky comments.
Lead
  • Literary analysts have noted Widmerpool's main defining characteristics: lack of culture, small-mindedness, a capacity for intrigue; generally, an embodiment of many of the worst aspects of the British character. - Characteristics and an embodiment don't have a verb between them. I think "they are" would help, or maybe ; generally, he is the embodiment of ...
Character
  • He first came across the name, he said, through the 17th century book, Memoirs of the Life of Colonel Hutchinson, which features a Captain of Horse, Major Joseph Widmerpoole, who served in Cromwell's army under Hutchinson during the English Civil War. - I think through should be replaced with in.
Career
  • Jenkins becomes his junior officer and observes Widmerpool's industry, also his endless capacity for intrigue. - Also really doesn't work here. Perhaps just a simple and or in addition to.
Critical and popular reception
  • Might be helpful to link running gag (as running joke).
Real-life models
  • Many readers and literary analysts have presumed that Widmerpool was drawn from life. - I think life should be extended to Powell's life. As it stands it's a little general.
  • Capel-Dunn was nicknamed "The Papal Bun" and derided by his subordinates for his appearance and demeanour. - was derided
  • "a very fat, extremely boring, overwhelmingly ambitious arriviste. His conversations were hideously detailed and humourless". - This probably needs a citation.

ceranthor 18:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments and your support. Except in the one case noted, I have folowed your suggested and amended the text accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 23:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, all fixed.

Late comment: I'm not sure if it's for formatting reasons, but in your quote box in the "Critical and popular reception" section, there is a gap between "Twentieth-Century Literature" and the citation number [7]. - SchroCat (talk) 04:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A missing full stop - well spotted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 10:33, 10 February 2013‎ [11].

Canis Minor

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC) + Keilana (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's lookin' pretty darn spiffy. It's had a good workout at Wikipedia:Peer review/Canis Minor/archive1 and got a good run at its good article nom too. Thanks all. So, me and Keilana are here and waiting to fix stuff to make it perfickt. Have at it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB: A wikicup nomination. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by 99of9

[edit]
  • "Canis Minor culminates (reaches its highest point in the sky) each year at 9 p.m. on 16 April." The source looks like it has chosen 9pm as an arbitrary time you might want to look for stars, and then found the day on which it will culminate at that time. So I guess there's nothing amazingly special about this date, since the 10pm answer would be different. --99of9 (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of something about when it culminates or is best visible - it is arbitrary which value - midnight is often used but it is late for kids doing astronomy which is I guess why 9PM is used. I have no idea why the infobox says what it says. I will look for some more sources on the issue Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion's Monthly Sky Guide has good info on what's visible when. I have access to it so I can take a look at some point in th next couple days. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found an hour for the library and Monthly Sky Guide says it's most prominent in mid-February at 10 PM (aka 9 PM in late February & early March). It doesn't say much more about CMi other than implying that it's boring. If you think that's an ok standard, I can put them prominence in (from pp.21-22, 7th ed., ISBN 978-0-521-68435-4). If not, I can keep looking. Let me know what you think. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
that sounds good to add. Most folks think CMi is pretty boring :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - have added best viewing months in evening sky, and corrected bodgy web ref (I think the site must have been hacked..) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done This seems fine now. --99of9 (talk) 00:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Will play around with an image editor later. Made this so far. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you keep it in SVG (I recommend Inkscape), it's arbitrarily resizeable and others will be able to improve on it or translate it more easily. But this isn't Commons, so I won't count this against the candidate :). --99of9 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the notation right, the text also refers to number 8, which is not labelled. Also it would help to mark the positions of the dim stars you discuss in the lead which aren't on the diagram (e.g. Luyten's, NGC 2359, Canis-Minorids). Maybe in a different colour if they're not visible to the eye.--99of9 (talk) 23:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - they are good things to add. Will see what I can add via sourcing. I am a neophyte with image files but have a look at inkscape and see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I've added which stars I can add via visual representations in sources (to date). I am worried the map will get a little..err..busy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not much of a star guy, but "a small constellation in the northern hemisphere's winter sky" and "The Wardaman people of the Northern Territory in Australia gave Procyon and Gomeisa the names" don't seem to make much sense together. I take it this constellation is not *only* in the northern hemisphere's sky? --99of9 (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's true. It's technically in the southern sky, below the celestial equator, but it appears in the southern portion of the sky during Northern Hemisphere winter. I've tried to gloss that better in the text. I rewrote that a bit, does it make more sense to you now? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think discussion of the Southern Hemisphere should at least match the one mention of the fleeting appearance in the Northern. For example, is it visible all year in the Southern? --99of9 (talk) 00:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
given it lies on the celestial equator, it won't be visible all the time from anywhere populous. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But visible once a day all year from most of the southern hemisphere? --99of9 (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
aaah no. they go backwards, so visible in mid-evening over Jan/March...then earlier and then disappearign and then reappearing in morning sky mid year. Trying to find a ref for reappearing in early morning sky to add. Evening bit added. Mid year period where it sets at sunset and reappears before dawn added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a typo/formatting error. Showers are named either for their constellation or nearest star (hence it is "11" and not "II"). Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
✔ Done OK, I see it was correct on the PDF scan of the original 1970 paper. I've fixed your citation #59. --99of9 (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Done" template removed, please see WP:FAC instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I have been suitably discouraged, so I will do it with markup. --99of9 (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC), sources and authors provided. Quick comment:

Support and comments Just two queries

  • and the next closest stellar neighbour to our solar system after Procyon — is that referring to the stars of the constellation, or of all the stars?
Just those within the constellation - I might reword that... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: what kind of source is this?
a very old book..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks! Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment (temporary) - another fine constellation article. Remaining suggestions have been addressed (did some CEs and minor tweaks). GermanJoe (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While i don't appreciate the recent trend of reviewers judging each others' contributions (this "judgement" should be solely done by the delegates), i'll have to change to "comment" just for now. Keilana added so much great content (thanks for that) and Casliber and others did more tweaks, so i don't feel comfortable to support the new version without another complete read. I am sure, the article can make it to FA nonetheless. GermanJoe (talk) 15:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sasata

[edit]

Support I've reread the article now and am happy it meets the FA criteria. The prose reads more smoothly, and Keilana's additions have made the text more interesting (to me). Just one small thing: can we include page numbers and publisher locations in citations 61 & 75? Sasata (talk) 07:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC) Oppose. I'm finding problems that indicates the above supporters haven't examined the article with the thoroughness required for FAC-level scrutiny (sorry guys). Additionally, the last point I've raised suggests to me a closer audit of the sources/spotcheck would be beneficial. Have only gone through half of the article; will be back with more comments later. Sasata (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pages added Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it was included as a pattern of two stars" how is it possible to make a "pattern" with only two points?
My thinking was the diagonal position and the brightness of one compared with the other gave it an appearance specific enough to call it a pattern...the more specific word is Asterism (astronomy) - question is, does it add any meaning over the broadly understood "pattern Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer "asterism" because it's more specific and doesn't imply more than 2 stars the way "pattern" seems to. Just my 2 cents. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in asterism now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its name is Latin for "smaller dog" in contrast to Canis Major, the larger dog" the later article text does not explicitly say that these names translate to "smaller" and "larger". Why is smaller dog given in quotes whereas larger dog isn't?
    • They should both be in quotes as I've done, Latin minor and major directly translate to "smaller" or "lesser" and "larger" or "greater". Do you think it should be stated explicitly later in the text? Keilana|Parlez ici 18:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor contains only two stars brighter than fourth magnitude" is magnitude different then apparent magnitude? If so, it should be linked
apparent magnitude is generally abbreviated to magnitude Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fourth magnitude, Procyon", "9th magnitude red dwarf", "10th magnitude nebula" -> need to be consistent with ordinal/numeral display (audit throughout); shouldn't the latter two be hyphenated?
  • companion should be linked
companion star is just a link to Binary star - will think about what to do here. Linked as "companion" mentioned right up top in bold... Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldn't the lead mention how many stars there are in total?
this is a tricky question - there are two bright stars, 8 with Bayer designations, 14 with Flamsteed designations, and several more that are just visible to the naked eye with HD numbers and variable designations. Visibility depends on conditions, so is also a bit tricky to define, though stars to around magnitude 6 or 6.5 are the faintest. The fainter the benchmark, the more stars that can be counted. Books don't generally list Bayer or Flamsteed star tallies - "Two bright stars and a bunch of other stars" reflects waht the sources say really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, I agree, but I think it's a good idea to also mention the Bayer/Flamsteed stars with a sentence, so the reader doesn't assume off the bat that the only naked-eye stars are Procyon and Gomeisa. I added a sentence to the lead with the numbers, feel free to remove/tweak at your discretion. (Ditto for reviewers, random passers-by, etc.) I just want to make the constituents of the constellation as clear as possible as early as possible. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link meteor shower
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There text sandwiching in the history and mythology section; any chance that historical picture can be moved?
I tried but it is tricky with all the varying screen sizes folks use these days. Tempted to ditch one image altogether Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is "MASH.TAB.BA"? Is this a transliteration of Mesopotamian script? Should it be italicized as a foreign-language word? What are the Three Stars Each tablets? If they are some important historical artifact, could they be red-linked?
MASH.TAB.BA is a transliteration of Mesopotamian; the convention is to not italicize it as far as I know. The Three Stars Each tablets are quite important in the history of Babylonian astronomy (see Babylonian astronomy#Three Stars Each). I've redlinked it and will hopefully write something up eventually. Keilana|Parlez ici 04:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:FOREIGN seems to suggest that this foreign-language phrase (as well as MUL.APIN and DAR.LUGAL) should be italicized. I think the MUL.APIN article incorrectly lacks the italics; notice it's italicized at Babylonian star catalogues. The source used to cite this information (Rogers 1998) is somewhat inconsistent: MUL.APIN has italics when discussed in prose, but not when given in a table. Sasata (talk) 06:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
italicised than Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • please give years for the alternatives names proposed for the constellation, it helps give historical context
    • Unfortunately, Allen doesn't give a date for exactly when the alternative names were proposed. I chose to insert the century they were active instead, I hope that's enough context. If not, I can find copies of the specific star maps in my university library at some point; I think they have a bunch of historical star atlases hiding in the old stacks. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Apocrypha, celestial chart
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicize Nánhé, Beihe? Were the diacritics forgotten on the second mention of Nanhe?
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floodwarers" floodwaters?
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what do the various Polynesian names mean? Hiro, Kopu-nui-o-Hiro, Vena, Puanga-hori, and Ana-tahua-vahine-o-toa-te-manava are trivial additions otherwise
I don't have that book with me anymore so will have to order it from another library. I do know that the definitions were given. Keilana|Parlez ici 15:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They have all been added now, sorry for the delay - ILL takes a few days. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicize Magum and Gurumana?
italicised Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link gum tree, Northern Territory, Northern Hemisphere
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor is most prominent at 10 PM local time during mid-February." what is "local time" here? Anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere? Should be a non-break space in there too.
removed as I realise "local time" is meaningless. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is then seen earlier in the evening until July, when it visible after sunset before setting itself, and rising in the morning sky before dawn." something's wrong with the grammar here
woops, fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in 1922, is 'CMi'." double quotes were used previously for word-as-word subjects
conformed Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is the seventh brightest star" hyphenate
  • "Its name means "before the dog" or "preceding the dog" in Greek" shouldn't this be grouped with the similar etymology material in "History and mythology"? Greek/Ancient Greek should be linked earlier.
I've de-linked. I'm not sure about moving. This note is about Procyon (rather than Canis Minor) and its attributes and location in the constellation (and surrounds). I feel it goes well here and breaks up the section which can get listy with all the stars' attributes and distances etc. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
masses of Procyon A & B added Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the source Kambič (2009) says Procyon is the 8th-brightest star (not 7th, given in article). Is this fact disputed?
  • "K3-III C,[28] Fe-0.5 which lies around 398 light-years (122 parsecs) away. Its colour is obvious when seen through binoculars.[27]" I went to the cited source to see if I could figure out what "Fe-0.5" meant, and discovered neither this nor the "398 light years" fact are actually in this source
aaah, this one is understandable - SIMBAD is a bit like mycobank WRT it being a consensus-type page on latest star stats. ref 27 should be at the end of the sentence and not sure where "Fe-0.5" came from WRT this star (it is a qualifier for how much iron is in spectrum but not AFAICR, Gamma CMi is not particularly notable so this normally wouldn't be notated). ref 28 only refers to the colour thru binoculars. Just need to double check the history as the copyediting might have done something else inadvertently with the refs. NB: Light years are obtained from SIMBAD by getting (1000/parallax (mas) x 3.26), which equals the calculated distance in light years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please give Bode's full name on first mention (which, as far as I can tell, is in the image caption; what year is the Uranographia? Is this a book, and if so should it be italicized?
done, year added...yes it's sort of a star chart/illustrated book thing Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "HD 66141 is an old star which has evolved" which->that; how old is old? This seems to be the only star where the age is mentioned, but it's given without any context.
It has exhausted its hydrogen and been expanding and cooling - I'd love to add this bit but the source doesn't discuss in this paper. It's also unusual that a giant star has a planet...but the source doesn't make this comment.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was mistakenly named 13 Puppis" Why? How?
celestial coordinates were recorded incorrectly, it teleported into a neighbouring constellation of Puppis...and then folks realised it where it should have been....I spelt it out a bit, should I add more? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "semi-regular variable" is there a link for this (or even just "variable"?)
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with measured periods of 27.7, 143.3 and 208.3 days" sorry, I'm an astronomical newbie, but why does it have three periods? Are there three things it's rotating around?
it's a pulsating star which brightens and fades..and these pulsations occur in the ranges noted. I will reword to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mira-type variable which ranges" which->that
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The WZ Sagittae-type dwarf nova VSX J074727.6+065050 flared up to magnitude 11.4 over January and February 2008 before dropping eight magnitudes to around 19.5." why would it do such a thing? How long did it take to get back down?
it is a white dwarf in a close binary system which accumulates material from its companion until a critical mass is reached and then...ka-blammm ..it brightens. SOme
  • "pulsating stars which have been used" which->that
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BI is of spectral type F2 with an apparent magnitude varying around 9.19,[50] with a period of approximately 2.91 hours." with … with …
  • "Fainter still is PSS 544-7, an eighteenth-magnitude red dwarf around 20% the mass of the sun around 685 light-years (210 parsecs) away." all of a sudden, the magnitude is given in ordinal format (inconsistent with previous); around… around …
  • link galactic disk (should it be UK spelling "disc"?)
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be brutally honest: the entire "Stars" subsection is (IMNSHO) repetitive and dull. Rather than trying to list the spectral type, luminosity class, variable type, period, magnitude range, and distance of every star in Canis Minor as prose, would it not be easier to summarize this in a table? As a reader I would appreciate being able to quickly compare these variables in a tabular format. The adjoining text could be saved for interesting exceptions or mentioning things that don't easily fit into a table. Again, I'm not used to reading astronomy articles, so perhaps I'm way off base here, but I'd like to hear other opinions about this.
aaah, this section isn't comprehensive by any means, and we also have List of stars in Canis Minor. I'll see if we can find some facts to sprinkle through and spruce up or rejig. Having just re-read it, I think it can be rejigged to flow better and be more engaging. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yet it is not blessed with deep-sky objects." is this NPOV? Is it a blessing to have deep-sky objects? Why couldn't it equally be a curse?
Sorry, was getting a bit flowery (floury?). rejigged now Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Herschel recorded four objects in his Catalogue of Nebulae and Clusters of Stars" perhaps mention the publication year for this book
year added Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is a collection of fifteen unrelated stars" fifteen->15
I wrote it out as fifteen because of the similar discussion of "five" two sentences previous...or are the two far enough apart you wouldn't bother aligning them in number-as-word? Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • link nebula (also in lead)
done x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "approximate magnitude of 10, that is 10,000 light-years" that->which
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nebula is shaped by HD 56925, an unstable Wolf-Rayet star embedded in the nebula." tweak wording to remove repetition of word nebula
dup. removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "estimated at 205 million light years distance" for some reason the "light years" starting from here are no longer hyphenated
aah, I wasn't using the template. Manually fixed now and hyphens added Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with a diameter of 80 thousand light years." If a galaxy is lenticular, is the diameter measured the short or long way?
the long axis. I would have thought people would assume it was the long axis...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Named as a single object by William Herschel" His first name was already given last paragraph
there are two famous Herschels (father and son - William and John), and they worked on similar material.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is actually a pair of galaxies which appear to be close by and interacting with each other." which->that; "close by" what? (could be worded better)
--> near-adjacent Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 11 Canis-Minorids are a meteor shower" is the singular/plural construction correct here?
As far as I can tell - I can't see another way - the verb agrees with the subject (which is plural, and all showers are described this way. The shower is then a collective noun) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Canis Minor was also given the name DAR.LUGAL ("the star which stands behind it") in the MUL.APIN, representing a rooster." I'm confused about the rooster part: does DAR.LUGAL translate to ""the star which stands behind it"" but actually means rooster?
  • "The same constellation was called tarlugallu in Akkadian astronomy." Does "the same constellation" here refer to Canid minor or to Lepus (mentioned most recently)?
  • "Ptolemy only identified two stars" -> "Ptolemy identified only two stars" better?
  • "septentrionalis ("Northerly", for its position …" not sure why Northerly is capitalized (other translated words are not)
  • "included a diagram of the with a canine figure superimposed." of the what?
  • "as part of both Canis Minor - the collar of the dog - and its modern home." either spaced endashes, or unspaced emdashes; not hyphens
  • "called ash-Shi'ra ash-Shamiya, the "Syrian Sirius" and Gomeisa was called ash-Shira al-Ghamisa, the Sirius with bleary eyes." why is Syrian Syrus in quotes but not Sirius with bleary eyes?
  • "Syrian Sirius" is a direct quote from the source, 'the Sirius with bleary eyes' is a paraphrase (original was "Sirius who has bleared eyes"). I can change "The Sirius with bleary eyes" to "Sirius who has bleared eyes" if you'd like, I just liked the flow of the paraphrase better. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17th century German poet" Don't start sentence with a number; hyphenation required
  • "Neighboring Korea" -> Neighbouring
  • is the Red Bird different than the Vermillion Bird?
  • "Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-Hiro, meaning "twist as a thread of coconut fiber"" They both mean the same thing? The first looks to be a shortened form of the second.
  • I screwed that up. Makemson is annoyingly vague. At one point she gives Hiro ("twist as a thread of coconut fiber") as the name for Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-hiro ("great paunch of Hiro") as the name for Canis Minor. Then, at the end of the book, in an appendix, she cites both Hiro and Kopu-nui-o-hiro as names for Procyon. My inclination is to assume the appendix was an oversight and cite the detailed definition she gives in the body of the book. I've put this information in the article for now but if you have a different idea for how we should go about this, I'd love to hear. :) Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shepherds note 6 constellations" 6->six
  • the text says the "declination coordinates are between 13.22° and −0.36°", while the infobox says it is +5°; why the discrepancy?
  • The infobox is taken from Bakich 1995, who gives the center of CMi as 5°, likely derived from the "stick figure" of the constellation, which makes sense - the constellation as defined covers more area than just Proycon and Gomeisa. The full range in the text comes from the official IAU boundaries. Both are valid. Keilana|Parlez ici 07:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • AU should be linked at first occurrence (and perhaps spelled out the first time?)
  • Earth should be linked earlier (if at all), and is duplicate-linked; actually, there's several duplicate links that should be culled
  • please give full page ranges for journal articles (but still indicate specific pages for citations where required), and check for consistent application of title/sentence case
all refs title case now - will look into other - had no internet access all day :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ok, Keilana, we do it like this with square brackets - it is generally done when you have a large journal article - I am not sure when the cutoff is but when I've had one of around 100 pages or more I've done it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, that's spiffy, thanks! I'll definitely use that for articles where I'm not using {{sfn}}...I got so used to having specific pages in the footnotes and the whole range in the bibliography that I never learned how to do it with cite templates. Now I know! :) Keilana|Parlez ici 21:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:FAC instructions-- "done" templates removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (again, all listed points improved), did some more polishing and have a few remaining minor issues:

  • history "The stars of Canis Minor were incorporated into the set of stars associated with the day designated "Water", which also included some stars of Orion and Gemini." ==> The whole sentence could use some rephrasing: ... associated ... designated ... reads clumsy. What was designated, the set of stars or the day? All sub-clauses probably belong to "the set of stars", but the structure could be a lot more straightforward (maybe use two sentences).
I had a go at simplifying it. Might think on this one.. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable features "... who claimed an association with the comet D/1917 F1 Mellish.[76] However, recent research indicates that this connection may not exist. The Canis Minorids are related to the December Monocerotids and November Orionids." ==> Probably too complex to explain everything in detail, but this is too vague for a non-astronomer. What kind of "association"? What "recent research"? How reliable is the newest finding (does "indicates" imply some remaining doubts here)? What kind of relation is meant in the last sentence? In short i think, this paragraph assumes too much background knowledge about meteors from the reader. Try to replace association, research, connection and related with more specific terms, if possible and add 1-2 very brief details.
tired now - will read afresh in the morning and have a think... Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That may be hard, the sources I have are super vague. I'm really busy today - about to run out the door - but will try and take a look tonight. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
had a go. the other too showers are somewhat extraneous to the story and have been removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...around..." => 20 occurrences of "around" throughout the article. Maybe some of them can be trimmed, where non-precise numbers are expected and obviously used.
Agree, and this is tricky. I've just ditched some of the less uncertain ones, and changed a couple of others to "about" and/or "approximately"....will see if I can ditch a couple more... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general comment (not related to this particular FA). I am not sure, keeping history and mythology on top of the main article is the best solution. For constellations with a long history and mythology the reader has to dig through a lot of info, until the first "hard facts" are presented in "Characteristics". Of course "history and mythology" is important as well, but maybe characteristics and star data should have higher priority (probably worth discussing in WP:ASTRONOMY, if not already done). GermanJoe (talk) 15:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we moved it for one of the other FACs (from bottom to top) in response to discussion there. I wasn't expecting Keilana to turn up quite so much I suppose. Sequentially it makes sense but does push down the 'meat' of the article somewhat. I do like to strive for uniformity in headings and layout between articles in the same set (i.e. constellations here), so would prefer all articles either have the history at the top or all at the bottom. I wonder if having a lead which at least touches on star data makes up for this in some way. Trying to get a consensus over at the wikiproject page seems prudent..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, sorry about that. :P One solution I think we implemented on Andromeda (constellation) was to merge Characteristics with History and mythology. It made a lot of sense for Andromeda because its stars got shuffled around a lot in the 1700s, then were solidified in 1923. I'm not sure how seamless that would be for Canis Minor but it's an option. Keilana|Parlez ici 14:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 18:19, 9 February 2013‎ [12].

Richard Wagner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Smerus (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because...together with a number of other editors I have been working over recent weeks to raise the article to FA status; with a particular hope that the article can feature as FA on 22 May 2013, the bicentenary of Wagner's birth. The page is well-watched and many comments have been received during this process, as can be seen from the talk page; we have therefore not sent the article for a formal peer review for FA (although it had one for GA not too long ago).Smerus (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ellipses generally don't need to be bracketed
  • "Wagner wanted the first complete cycle to be performed in a new, specially designed opera house" - source?
  • Magee 2000 or 2001? Ashman 1988 or 1982? Gutman or Guttman? Check correspondence between footnotes and references - this will be quite time-consuming
  • FN175: missing italics
  • FN195: page in Ross? Page for FN199? 212? 213? You've got a few footnotes without pages where they seem to be needed
  • FN188: link returns error
  • Donington: missing comma
  • Foreign-language sources should be notated as such
  • Publisher for John?
  • Laibach link is dead and link checker reports other problems

Need a thorough checking here. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I understand your 9th point, as I see a publisher in the article. Regarding your 5th point—all those references are Internet ones. Toccata quarta (talk) 07:43, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these copyediting points, I will deal with them in the next day or two if no one else does. Please note both foreign-language sources are now correctly notated as such.--Smerus (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Nikkimaria's points have now been addressed by other editors and myself. I point out the following:

  • "Wagner wanted the first complete cycle to be performed in a new, specially designed opera house" - source? - This is in fact addressed and sourced earlier in the article when discussing A Communication to My Friends, but I have now rephrased the passage, re-cited the original source, and given an additional source.
  • FN188: link returns error (Laibach) - relocated page and given access date. The new page seems permanent.
  • Ashman - this source seemed to me suspect (details about Tannhauser in a book about The Dutchman), so I have replaced it with another citation.
  • Magee (2000) - another editor has used the US edition which is from 2001. I have the 2000 UK edition, and have substituted this and checked all the page references.
  • Ross: I have removed this quote, and its supposed source, which are only visible by subscription and anyway do not make any significant contribution to the article. As regards other internet citations, see the comment of Toccata quarta above.
  • Publisher for John? - corrected.

Best, --Smerus (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by Johnbod:
  • "In 1833, Wagner's older brother Carl Albert..." - not previously introduced. Were there other siblings? I'd work any into the childhood years section.
  • " as choir master in Würzburg" - for what? A school, a church, the opera house?

...ore later. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sorted both these, thanks. --Smerus (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added the 2nd link in "the unsuccessful May Uprising broke out, in which Wagner played a minor supporting role" - if that article is accurate, "minor supporting role" is defence counsel talk. An "active part" perhaps?
  • Don't we have a more idiomatic translation of: "I shall never write an Opera more." and "At a specially-appointed Festival, I propose, some future time,"?
  • I think something should be added about his growing reputation in the late 1860s & early 1870s, presumably on the back of Tannhauser, Meistersingers & Lohengrin (Dutchman?), which were I think widely performed by the end of the 1860s.
If we're talking about growing reputation in that epriod, I think it would be more about the first performances of Tristan, Mastersingers and the first two Ring operas. Tannhauser, Dutchman and Lohengrin had been around for a while and I believe that Rienzi was just about the most popular of the lot.--Peter cohen (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'reputation' is not so easy to establish - but I have added a note indicating the spread of performances during this period.--Smerus (talk) 09:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he nevertheless reworked both the Dutchman and Tannhäuser on several occasions". You might add that different versions are still performed and recorded.
  • I certainly don't think the images should all be on the right, as suggested below, but most of them are fixed too small, at 130/150px, especially later in the article. There is space, & the MOS discourages fixing at small sizes.
  • I'm not sure Rossini can be said to have "resisted his influence" as he must have been in his seventies when he made his famous joke, & had hardly composed for decades.
  • Is there a case for a few audio clips dotted around?
      • That's it. Generally a very good read & certainly FA quality. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Many thanks, Johnbod. I will try to fix most of these points on the lines you suggest. The translation is Ashton Eliis's which although highly Victorian is the standard one used - I know of no others. I will think about the images. Audio clips are difficult because of the scale of the works. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though further polishing points below may still improve it. Johnbod (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerus, rather overlinked. Please see my edit on that count.
  • "and the elaborate use of leitmotifs: musical themes associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements"—you can use a dash, but not a colon or semicolon.
  • "Unlike most other opera composers,"—you could lose the "other".
  • "Wagner's life was characterized, until his last decades, by political exile, turbulent love affairs, poverty and repeated flight from his creditors."—a bit bumpy. Perhaps re-order? "Until his last decades, W...". And there's a "decades" again, two sentences later.
  • Personal opinion: wouldn't it be better visually to have the pics all right-sided?
  • The music-language section ... could include much more technical stuff, but it is a summary article, I suppose. Tony (talk) 08:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
many thanks for this. I have gone through the changes 2-4 you propose, but as for the pics it is better I think to have people 'facing in'. As this article is for Wagner himself, I think it would be wrong to overload it with 'technical stuff', which can be found in other articles in the Wagner category. Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine nomination—certainly in terms of cr. 1a, and probably other criteria, this is worthy of FA status.

  • "In Biebrich Wagner began work on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, the idea for which had originally occurred to him in 1845,[78] but which he had resolved to develop during a visit he had made to Venice with the Wesendoncks in 1860, where he was inspired by Titian's painting The Assumption of the Virgin."—Can this huge winding sentence be tamed? And "for which the idea" might be better word order.
  • Followed by a stub: "This opera is Wagner's only mature comedy.
  • Then: "Between 1861 and 1864 he also tried to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna. Despite numerous rehearsals, the opera remained unperformed, and gained a reputation as being "impossible", which further added to Wagner's financial woes."—This is not the best para ... Is "also" necessary? "Impossible" in what sense—to perform? to listen to? Maybe "further" is not redundant here; I haven't looked at the previous context.
  • "The indiscreet affair scandalized Munich and Wagner also fell into disfavour amongst members of the court, who were suspicious of his influence on the king." I'd be more comfortable with a comma before "and" ... but it's partly personal style. Is "also" needed? "Among" is usually preferred nowadays to "amongst". Was it all members of the court who disapproved? (The current comma indicates this meaning.) Tony (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
now clarified.--Smerus (talk) 11:08, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support A most impressive expansion of a very important—perhaps the most important—opera-related article. Many thanks to the major players in this project.

  • Caveat: I contributed some of the prose used in the Bayreuth section, though I do not consider myself in any way a major contributor. The article has 8000 words of which maybe 150 are mine.
  • At an early stage in the article's development I left talkpage notes for the benefit of the major editors. Most of these seem to have been acted on; one that hasn't, and which I think should be reconsidered, is the retention of the Mahler image. I felt then, and do now, that Mahler's association with Wagner's music (the pair newer met; W died when M was still, metaphorically, in short pants) is not considerable enough to warrant an image in an already profusely illustrated article. Though Mahler did indeed conduct Wagner's operas, he never did at Bayreuth; he conducted works by many composers, yet his image doesn't decorate their articles. Not a sticking point for me, but worth a reconsideration.
  • At least two uncited paragraphs: the second of the "Film portrayals" section and the intro. to the "Controversies" section.
  • I'd find an alternative word to "putative". Hardly anyone knows precisely what it means.

I've only a few minutes online time now - will revist tomorrow with any further comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thanks for these comments. My responses so far -
    • I have added citations as you suggest, except for the final sentences of the first paragraph on "Controversies" which are really a mini-lead for the following paragraphs - it would I think be otiose to add further citations when each point is dealt with specifically in the following paras.
    • I can't find 'putative', but would point out that this is not (yet) Simple English Wikipedia. :-} !!Later - have now found it. In fact I have recast the section, as a consequence of which the superfluous passage containing the putatively egregious offending word has been expurgated.
    • On Mahler - he is there to illustrate W.'s influence on music and the para cites support for him as an example, specifically Taruskin's comments on the music Mahler composed. This seems to me to justify the pic, but I welcome any further opinions.
Best, --Smerus (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Mahler never was a sticking point. I have upgraded to full support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and Comments
  • "In January 1828 he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and then, in March, Beethoven's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." could be reworded to prevent Beethoven being mentioned twice.
  • "together with the collapse of the theatre company employing him" feels a bit clumsy. Can it be reworded?

 Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 21:34, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both points now dealt with - thanks, --Smerus (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Not yet ... multiple:

  1. Image caption: "The Bayreuth Festspielhaus today", pls review WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. There are four uses of "today" in the article.
  2. Is this correct MOS:LQ? "Each stone is red with my blood and yours". Unsure ... pls review throughout.
  3. I don't understand the "now" here ... "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold, now taking its place as the first evening of the premiere of the complete Ring cycle."
  4. See here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; please review throughout. There are 14 instances of "however", and most of them don't seem necessary.
    Similarly, please review "now" and "therefore". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sample: Wagner was determined to set it to music, and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10] What is the therefore adding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Multiple citations are missing page numbers ... since the short notes don't link directly to the long footnote, I've not checked to see if all need page ranges, but suspect many do.
  6. Prose ... While Bayreuth presented a useful front for Nazi culture, and Wagner's music was used at many Nazi events,[242] many in the Nazi hierarchy did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending his lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence. ... Many ... many ... repetitive and vague.
    Now contains "as a whole"-- we can do better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    " ... the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas and resented attending these lengthy epics at Hitler's insistence." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It is possible that Wagner's music was used at the Dachau concentration camp ... it is possible according to whom or what? Weasly.
  8. Jean-Jacques Nattiez has also applied psychoanalytical techniques to Wagner's life and works.[235] ... and ?? This sentence doesn't tell me anything.
    Better (still doesn't tell us much, but at least we have attribution). SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I suggest further prose review and tightening ... these are samples only. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments. I have rectified points 1,3 and 6. (The caption on the picture, which has been in the article for quite sometime, in fact turned out to be incorrect). As regards point 7, I suggest this is not weaselly at all - the source cited deals with the suggestion and the probability of its correctness in very great detail, which would be out of place in the article. Point 8; the sentence tells you that Mr N. has interpreted W's life according to psychoanalytic theories, and indicates, in the context of the paragraph, that this is just one way of approaching Wagner and his works. Again a detailed exposition of Nattiez would be WP:UNDUE but the cited source will give readers more information. I am pretty sure I can reduce the number of "however"s - I will review presently the other points you have made. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Point 2: This is correct per MOS:LQ, and so are all the quotations I have cited in my contributions to the article. I do not believe that 100% adherence to MOS:LQ as to positions of full stops and commas is a precondition of FA, but correctme if I am wrong on this.--Smerus (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PPS point 4. reduced howevers to 3, one of which is in a citation.--Smerus (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 5. I don't qute understand this. Where page citations are given, I have checked them of course, and they are correct. (For what it is worth, I have experience of this sort of thing from my academic publications). Where there is a single number this means that, despite SandyGeorgia's 'suspicions', there is no 'page range' involved. Where there is no page number these are references to web locations. If SandyGeorgia (or any reviewer) has particular citations in mind, please indicate which these are. Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 10:47, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re point 8: For clarity, I have added Nattiez's book to the sources and cited it in a note to the text.--Smerus (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On point 7, it needs attribution to avoid weasle. According to whom will solve the issue. We shouldn't expect our readers to track down a source to understand why the sentence is there. Point 8, the setence tells us nothing, and unless you tell us what source said what about the significance of this psychoanalytic work, I suspect original research. There is no discernible reason for that sentence in the text; if there is one, according to sources, please give it. On point 5, we are still missing page ranges. On point 2, logical quotation, yes, FAs should strive to get it right (although it's unlikely LQ alone would hold up promotion). I still don't understand: Wagner remarked to Cosima: "Each stone is red with my blood and yours".[112] looks like a complete thought, sentence, and that the period should be inside the quote. What was the full quote? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Points 7,8 I have copyedited/rewritten. I don't think, by the way, it is a reviewer's role to 'suspect' - what about WP:AGF? - though of course the role is to query, where there may be grounds for doing so. Point 5, please indicate which notes you believe are lacking page ranges. Point 2. I am presently 2000 miles away from my library so can't check this, but I am pretty sure I am right. What is not to understand? Probably something along the lines of '....my blood and yours, but it was worth it all the same.' Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
re point 2: I have now reviewed and made one or two corrections.--Smerus (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia:

  • and where his most important stage works continue to be performed today ...
  • Continue ... today ... "today" is redundant. Similar is found later:
  • continue to be regularly performed today throughout the world
  • Will review--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed and made excisions/alterations where appropriate--Smerus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a similar overuse of the word "now" in the article; please review all of them. And "therefore", sample: was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle ... and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons ... therefore adds nothing.
  • Will review--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC) I have reviewed and made excisions/alterations where appropriate. 5 appearances of 'now' (one being the title 'Apocalypse Now') are now, oops I mean presently, three. Two appearances of 'therefore', neither inappropriate, are not excessive or in any way deletereous to the quality of the article.--Smerus (talk) 12:06, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hugely impressed"? A most unfortunate colloquialism. Kind of like "major" anything. Unless that is a direct quote from a source, please fix.
  • the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas
  • I think we you can do better than "as a whole".
    Can 'we'? So make a proposal if it worries you so much! - I scarcely have the temerity to do so myself before so formidable a critic. It is a standard English usage and I see nothing objectionable in it.--Smerus (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt

[edit]

I appreciate the effort!

See more resolved questions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Wagner's middle stage output began with The Flying Dutchman (Der fliegende Holländer, 1843)" - this is wrong, was reverted to the wrong version twice. Wagner wrote in German and thought in German. There are several ways to repair it:

You may want to compare FA Cosima Wagner, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Gerda. Wagner wrote and thought in German. We should link "Der fliegende Holländer" and keep (The Flying Dutchman, 1843)" as an unlinked parenthetical. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check

[edit]

Image check - all OK (PD age, 1923 or own work), sources and authors provided. Some minor points and comments:

  • Some images are not suitable for Commons yet, but properly flagged and kept on Wiki under US copyright - OK (no action required).
  • File:Wagnerbruhl.jpg - OK, but could use image category on Commons (not relevant for FA, just as info).
  • File:Siegfried_leitmotif.jpg - needs a source for the leitmotif's notation for possible verification.
  • File:Hanslick.jpg - any chance to find author info? Or add "unknown" as author, if not possible (pd-70 looks OK from the given years, but author or lack of info should be clarified).
  • Tweaked some licenses myself to more specific tags and other minor improvements (no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks -I have now dealt with all three issues you raise.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated status. A very nice article, good luck with the remaining FA. GermanJoe (talk) 20:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I weighed in at the peer review but was still dubious as to whether it was FAC ready. However, I've been monitoring the considerable work that's gone on during the course of the FAC, and it seems to meet the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I take no position on the question of what language the title should be in. I really don't think that issue detracts from what is a very fine article indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

[edit]

Spot checks – the delegate has asked me to do some. I have reserved at the British Library: Deathridge's Wagner Beyond Good and Evil; Gregor-Dellin's Richard Wagner – in the UK edition, which I devoutly hope will follow the pagination of the American edition used by the WP authors; Millington's Wagner Compendium; and all four volumes of Newman. The 1990 American edition of Gutman's book is not held by the British Library, so I'll stick to the above-mentioned seven books, and hope to report back by Tuesday or Wednesday. Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

No trace of close paraphrase or unacknowledged quotation. Where I say, below, that I didn't find something I admit that it may in fact be there and I have looked straight through it; I am quite prepared to be corrected. The few quibbles I have are pretty minor in any case.

Millington (2001)
  • 2 – fine
  • 26 – fine
  • 19 – fine
  • 21a – fine
  • 21b – Millington doesn't quite say what the article says: he says the work was based on Die Laune des Verliebten, but was itself untitled
  • 21c – fine
  • 23a and b – fine
  • 25a – Millington mentions the failure of the production, but doesn't, on the cited page, mention Wagner's own financial difficulties
  • 25b – fine
  • 33 – fine
  • 35 – fine
  • 40 – fine
  • 42 – fine
  • 43 – fine
  • 44 – no mention of Heller here, as far as I could see
  • 46 – fine
  • 49 – I couldn't find any mention here of the goings on with the Julies
  • 55 – fine
  • 58 – fine
  • 59 – fine
  • 68 – fine
  • 81a – the source doesn't quite say what the article says: Millington dates the first draft to 1845, which is not exactly the same as saying the idea first came to him then
  • 81b – fine
  • 81c – I think the article goes slightly further than the quoted source: Millington just says "irreversibly affected … emancipation of harmony" – which is not the same as "laying the groundwork" for 20th century music. Nor does Millington say, as the article does, that "many" hold this view.
  • 92 – fine
  • 98 – fine
  • 103 – fine
  • 104 – fine
  • 125 – fine
  • 128 – fine
  • 136 – fine
  • 137 – fine
  • 139 – fine
  • 142 – fine
  • 155 – fine
  • 157 – fine
  • 162 – fine
  • 163 – fine
  • 166 – Millington's words do not support the statement here that the Ring is the only work of such length to make it into the repertory (though of course I'm not suggesting there are others)
  • 167 – fine
  • 176 – fine
  • 180 – fine
  • 181 – fine
  • 182 – fine
  • 183 – fine
  • 184 – fine
  • 192 – fine
  • 206 – fine
  • 218 – sorry to be Beckmesserish, but the source cited doesn't actually mention Beckmesser in re Hanslick
  • 231 – fine
Gregor-Dellin

Alas, the British edition in the British Library, though it seems to be the same text, has decidedly different page numberings from the American edition used for the WP article. I did a random check of a couple of references, using the index to track them down, and they were fine.

Deathridge
  • 178 – fine
  • 188 – fine
  • 190 – fine
  • 222 – fine
Newman 1
  • 1 – fine
  • 3 – fine
  • 5 – fine
  • 7 – fine
  • 8 – fine
  • 11 – fine
  • 13 – fine
  • 14 – fine
  • 18 – No mention in Newman that Weinlig had the given name "Christian"
  • 20 – fine
  • 22 – fine
  • 24 – fine
  • 27 – fine
  • 28 – fine
  • 29 – fine
  • 30 – fine
  • 31 – fine
  • 32 – fine
  • 34 – fine
  • 38 – fine
  • 41 – fine
Newman 2
  • 50 – fine
  • 65 – fine
  • 66 – fine
  • 69 – fine
  • 71 – fine
  • 72 – fine
Newman 3
  • 84 – fine
  • 85 – fine
  • 91 – fine
  • 93 – fine
  • 94 – fine
  • 95 – fine
  • 96 – fine
  • 97 – fine
Newman 4
  • 117 – fine
  • 120 – fine
  • 121 – fine
  • 123 – fine
  • 124 – fine
  • 130 – fine
  • 131 – fine
  • 134 – fine
  • 170 – fine

I spotted one or two drafting points (nothing grave) while I was doing this spot check, and will go through the article with such things in mind and report back below. – Tim riley (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – this is now a magnificent article, of which both the authors and Wikipedia itself can be proud. For those of us who work on articles about classical music and the lives and works of composers it is a reminder of the standards we need to maintain. It is all the more creditable because the name Wagner is synonymous with controversy – Quot homines, tot sententiae. Sincere congratulations! A few drafting points. Nothing to frighten the horses, and certainly nothing to affect my support:

  • General
    • "–ize" or "–ise"? Except within quotations you should, I think, be consistent on one or the other form. At present you have "organised", "synthesised", "characterisations" but "realized", "characterized", "scandalized", "criticizes", "anglicization".
    • Date format – English or American? You have, e.g., 10 June 1865 but January 25, 1866 in the Return and resurgence (1862–71) section
    • German surnames – specifically that of Hans von Bülow: I have always understood it is not done to include the "von" when referring to a man by surname alone: thus one talks of "Otto von Bismarck" but "Bismarck" not "von Bismarck", or "Herbert von Karajan" but "Karajan", not "von Karajan" – and so "Bülow" not "von Bülow". Grove refers to "Bülow" tout court throughout.
  • Early career
    • Is it useful to have a blue link for "choir"? A touch of WP:OVERLINK possibly.
  • Dresden (1842–49)
    • "Wagner lived in Dresden … The Wagners' stay at Dresden" – deliberate variation of preposition? Nothing wrong with that, but I thought I'd ask
  • In exile: Switzerland (1849–58)
    • "In 1850, Julie … which her husband prevented" – this is a helluva sentence, weighing in at 68 words. Perhaps chop it into three?
  • Bayreuth (1871–76)
    • As with "choir" earlier, I'd be inclined to remove the blue link to "Theatre"
  • Last years (1876–83)
    • "a number of" in successive sentences at end of first and start of second paras.
    • "having suffered through a series of increasingly severe angina attacks" – is the "through" what you want here? Looks a bit odd to my eye.
    • "The legend … is without credible evidence" – How disappointing to learn that he didn't die of a surfeit of Pringles (sorry – pass on rapidly)
  • Influence on music
    • Not sure you need blue links for both "atonality" and "atonal"

That's it from me. Congratulations on fine work. Tim riley (talk) 15:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, very many thanks for this. I will go through all your comments. Checking re the references I can't really do till I'm back in London in mid-February. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned the points I have raised in both my sets of comments above are of minor consequence at most, and for myself I'd be happy to see them addressed after the article is promoted (as I hope it will be). Tim riley (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have nowdealt appropriately with all the above, save for the citation queries.--Smerus (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

[edit]

A great deal of work by nominator and reviewers, thanks all. Given the time already invested in this review, I'm inclined to agree with Tim's last suggestion to leave minor referencing fixes till after promotion if the nominator can't get back to his sources for a couple of weeks (my own comments below re. additional citations may also fall into that category). Anyway, some things I noticed:

  • Many duplicate links were revealed by Ucucha's checker; I removed a couple but would prefer the nominator to review the rest and remove as appropriate (some may be justified owing to the length of the article).
  • I'd expect as a matter of course all paragraphs to end in citations, even if some of the facts are considered common knowledge or otherwise uncontroversial, i.e.
    • In exile: Switzerland (1849–58), fifth paragraph
    • Last years (1876–83), second para
    • Prose writings, first para -- I guess can be taken as an intro to the cited material to follow, so not a big deal
    • Controversies, first para -- ditto
    • Opponents and supporters, last section of final sentence (perhaps this simply requires moving the mid-sentence citation to the end)
  • Just throwing in my 2 cents worth as far as content goes, there is a stronger Hitler quote than I think you have currently under Nazi appropriation, from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, i.e. "Whoever wants to understand National Socialist Germany must know Wagner" -- FWIW.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, thanks for this. I will try to go over as many of these points as I can (with Tim's) over the next few days. I love the Shirer quotation, which I know well - but there's a problem - I have never been able to track it down to precisely something that Hitler is documented as saying, although I have made much effort to do so. It's such a dandy that he ought to have said it - but I'm rather afraid we can't just take Shirer's word on this. If anyone can provide a stone-bonk certainty source, I will of course be delighted! (I mention by way of caution the story which 'everyone knows', and wich is constantly cited in Hitler biographies, that Hitler started on his political career after being inspired by a performance of Wagner's 'Rienzi'- a story which has recently been revealed as a complete fantasy). --Smerus (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have now dealt with these issues, although a couple of ends of non-prefatory paras could perhaps still be improved with citations - I will deal with these when I deal with Tom Riley's citation queries.--Smerus (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think the dup links need further review. As I've indicated, in a longish article some may be justified but Tannhäuser (just a random example) is linked three times in the main body, which is surely excessive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will certainly recheck the dup links. --Smerus (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have now removed duplicate links, except for once each again for operas and other musical works in the 'Works' section - I think this may be justified in a lengthy article - also some readers may want to skip the 'Life' section and just see about the works.--Smerus (talk) 05:15, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by GabeMc

[edit]
General
  • Possible copyvio, non-free use image. - File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg appears to be PD in the US only and not in its country of origin. Also, the file is tagged as not appropriate for Wikicommons and it lacks a Wagner FUR.
  • Per Wikipedia:Writing better articles: "One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly." I count at least seven instances of one-sentence paragraphs. I think a few could easily be avoided. I will review
  • Per WP:MOSIM: "Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other, and between an image and an infobox or similar." Text is currently being sandwiched by images in the sections: "Return and resurgence (1862–71)", "Music dramas" (1851–82) and "Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger". I will review
  • Nietzsche-Wagner relationship. - Perhaps I am missing it in the article, but I don't see anything about Wagner-Nietzsche.
    • Try the Bayreuth and, particularly, the Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts sections, Gabe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • In Bayreuth: "Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]"
      • In Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts: "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich."
  • Inconsistencies (from "Romantic operas (1843–51)"). - "Wagner's middle stage output began with The Flying Dutchman (Der fliegende Holländer, 1843), which is closely followed in the article text by: "The first two components of the Ring cycle were Das Rheingold (The Rhinegold), which was completed in 1854, and Die Walküre (The Valkyrie)". Why is The Flying Dutchman rendered in English and parenthetically translated to German when the rest of the article does the opposite? As with this passage, which appears twice in the paragraph: "Dutchman and Tannhäuser". So why the mix of English and German titles and why not "Holländer and Tannhäuser"?
Glaring omissions
  • Nearly everywhere in the article where a German term is used it is followed by a parenthetical English translation, but this is not the case for "Wahnfried" ("Peace from Illusion"), in "Bayreuth (1871–76)".
  • From the Wikipedia article: "Wagner also began to dictate his autobiography, Mein Leben, at the King's request.[87]" It should be noted that he dictated the bio to Cosima.
  • From the Wikipedia article: "Wagner sought to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna.[82] Despite numerous rehearsals, the opera remained unperformed, and gained a reputation as being "impossible" to sing, which added to Wagner's financial woes.[83]" From Britannica online: "He remained in Vienna for about a year, then travelled widely as a conductor and awaited a projected production of Tristan. When this work was not produced because the artists were bewildered by its revolutionary stylistic innovations". I think the Wikipedia version of this datum needs improvement. 1) "impossible" to sing, and 2) "Wagner's financial woes", in particular.
  • The article quotes Wagner: "I shall never write an Opera more. As I have no wish to invent an arbitrary title for my works, I will call them Dramas", but it does not explicate the fact that he: "prophesied the disappearance of opera as artificial entertainment for an elite and the emergence of a new kind of musical stage work for the people". (Britannica online)
  • "In 1861 an amnesty allowed him to return to Germany; from there he went to Vienna, where he heard Lohengrin for the first time." Ibid. The article does not mention that he went to Vienna (for a year), where he heard Lohengrin for the first time.
  • Wagner was at least once imprisoned for debt (1840), but the article does not mention this.
  • The article establishes quite well that Wagner had ongoing financial difficulties, but it does not attempt to explain why he had problems with creditors. What did he spend his money on and why was he always in debt? I assume he lived beyond his means, but this is not explicated in the article.
  • According to the Encyclopedia Britannica: "several elder sisters became opera singers or actresses" and this proved "a main formative influence" on Wagner, yet our Wikipedia article does not mention his sisters or their influence on his interest in opera, which is currently credited entirely to Geyer.
See note 1. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note 1 says something vague about "careers connected with the stage", but nothing about Wagner's sisters singing or acting or their influence on him in that regard. That is the glaring omission. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Factual error? - Britannica says Wagner "taught himself the piano", the Wikipedia article says he "received a little piano instruction from his Latin teacher" and "persuaded his family to allow him music lessons".
  • Britannica says "On leaving the university that year, he spent the summer as operatic coach at Würzburg, where he composed his first opera, Die Feen (The Fairies), based on a fantastic tale by Carlo Gozzi." The article currently does not mention his work as an operatic coach or that The Fairies was based on a story by Carlo Gozzi. Which would seem an especially important point, that Wagner did not compose "his first complete opera" without inspiration from Gozzi. E.g., the article mentions that The Flying Dutchman was based on a sketch by Heinrich Heine.
  • Fact check. - Are "musical director" and "conductor" synonymous? Britannica says he was a conductor at Magdeburg, but perhaps the two terms are interchangeable.
  • While in Paris, Wagner was for a time "living with a colony of poor German artists".Ibid. The Wikipedia article does not mention this.
  • "In 1831, Wagner enrolled at the University of Leipzig, where he became a member of the Saxon student fraternity.[17]" Ignores the fact that he did so "as an adjunct with inferior privileges, since he had not completed his preparatory schooling." Ibid.
  • "Rienzi was staged to considerable acclaim on 20 October.[39]" should be followed by a paraphrase of: "The next year The Flying Dutchman ... was less successful, since the audience expected a work in the French-Italian tradition similar to Rienzi and was puzzled by the innovative way the new opera integrated the music with the dramatic content." Ibid. This second point (from Britannica) speaks both to the general lack of critical commentary in regard to Wagner's musical innovations and to a general sense that most of the less flattering datums have been intentionally avoided.
  • Missing notable datum. - "The refusal of the court opera authorities in Dresden to stage his next opera, Lohengrin, was not based on artistic reasons; rather, they were alienated by Wagner’s projected administrative and artistic reforms. His proposals would have taken control of the opera away from the court and created a national theatre whose productions would be chosen by a union of dramatists and composers." (Britannica online) This point illustrates well the resistance Wagner dealt with in regard to his musical innovations.
  • Influence of Liszt's innovative tone poems c. 1857. "By 1857 his style had been enriched by the stimulus of Liszt’s tone poems and their new harmonic subtleties". (Britannica online)
  • No mention of his "long-cherished plan to win renown in Paris".
Factual errors
  • "The political ban that had been placed on Wagner in Germany after he had fled Dresden was fully lifted in 1862. The composer settled in Biebrich in Prussia.[77]" This is misleading/confusing, as his ban from Germany was (at least partially) lifted in 1861, the same year he returned there. As the article currently reads it sounds as if he did not return to Germany until 1862. Also, the article later goes on to say: "Throughout this period (1861–64) Wagner sought to have Tristan und Isolde produced in Vienna." Which seems a bit awkward in a section titled: "Return and resurgence (1862–71)", which implies his "return" to Germany was in 1862.
Sourcing issues
  • Three or four of the "notes" do not provide any sourcing whatsoever.
  • Inconsistencies. - In "Other sources", some of the works use isbn-13 while many others use isbn-10. According to Wikipedia:ISBN: "Please use the 13-digit one if available", as they almost always are.
  • Inconsistencies. - cite #134: "^ The WWV is available online in German (accessed 30 October 2012)", cite #143: "^ Wagnerjahr 2013 website, accessed 14 November 2012". Sometimes accessdates are enclosed in parentheses and other times they are not.
  • Inconsistencies. - Cite #111: "^ Cited in Spotts (1994) 54", cite #112: "^ Spotts (1994) 11".
  • Inconsistencies. - Cite #63: "^ See Magee (2000) 251–3.", cite #212: "^ Magee (1988) 47". Some cite include "see", most do not. The citiations should be internally consistent.
  • Cite #167: "^ Cosima Wagner (1978) II, 647. Entry of 28 March 1881." Do you mean dated 28 March? Or is this yet another EngVar issue?
  • Cite #169: "^ Newman (1976) IV, 578. Letter from Wagner to the King of 19 September 1881." Who was the King of 19 September 1881? Perhaps you mean: "^ Newman (1976) IV, 578. Letter from Wagner to King Ludwig, dated 19 September 1881", or similar.
  • Citing Wikipedia. - Cite #214: "^ Millington (2001) 26. See also New German School and War of the Romantics". Avoid citing other Wikipedia pages since they are not considered WP:RSs.
  • Inconsistencies. Cite #47: "Also see Millington (1992) 282, 285." Cite #245: "See also Field (1981)." Is it "see also" or "also see"? Or is there an EngVar issue that allows editors to use either interchangeably?
  • Missing accessdate. - Cite #249: "^ Fackler (2007). See also the Music and the Holocaust website."
Lead
  • Clarity. - The lead currently states: "his Tristan und Isolde is sometimes described as marking the start of modern music", yet in the article body the point is stated slightly differently as: "Some music historians date the beginning of modern classical music to the first notes of Tristan". "Modern music" and "modern classical music" imply quite different connotations.
  • Parenthetical "scare quote". - "(or, as Wagner himself called some of his later works, 'music dramas')". Per WP:LEADCITE: "direct quotations ... must be provided with an inline citation every time it is mentioned". I will review
  • Excess detail. - "leitmotifs—musical phrases associated with individual characters, places, ideas or plot elements." Is the lead really the most appropriate place to explain to the reader what leitmotifs are? The term is already linked. Yes, as this is an impotant element of Wagner's style and influence
  • Awkward. - "His advances in musical language," I don't think he added anything to the language of music per se. I think what you are trying to say that his use of "extreme chromaticism and quickly shifting tonal centres" was musically innovative, but surely these were not musical expressions invented by Wagner, as the prose currently implies. I am indeed saying that Wganer introduced these feaures as central elements in his style.
  • Modifier choice. - "greatly influenced the development of classical music". I would swap-out "greatly" for "significantly". Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "Unlike most opera composers, Wagner wrote both the libretto and the music for each of his stage works." Is "Unlike most opera composers" necessary? It seems too vague for the lead. Yes important, and I don't see what's vague - it's true.
  • Awkward. - "as a composer of works broadly in the romantic vein" The use of "broadly" seems awkward to me and I think it could be removed. I will review
  • Confusing prose. - "Wagner transformed operatic thought through his concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk ("total work of art")." What does "transformed operatic thought" mean? Was opera pre-Wagner an "incomplete work of art"? I will review; but there is an element of deliberate miscomprehension in your second comment
  • Prose. - "It sought to synthesise the poetic, visual, musical and dramatic arts". "It" here is referring back to "his concept of the Gesamtkunstwerk", but how can a concept seek to take direct action? I think you mean to say that he "sought to synthesise ...". I will review
  • Confusing. - "with music subsidiary to drama". There are no spoken words in an opera, so how could the music be "subsidiary to drama" when the drama originates from the music? See comment by Toccata quarte below
  • Prose. - "Wagner realized these ideas most fully in the first half of the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen" "Most fully" is awkward and were these ideas not realised in the second half of the work? I disagree about awkwardness and your interpretation is correct - see in artcle.
  • Excess detail. - "which contained many novel design features" This seems like excess detail for the lead. Did Wagner design the building himself? not excess; he was colsely inolved in designing.
  • Prose. - "received their premieres", try "premiered". Your taste vs. mine
No that is WP:ENGVAR Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But later in the article the prose is worded as I suggested above. How can an inanimate object (an opera) receive a premiere?GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [13]. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "an annual festival run by his descendants", try: "an annual festival organized by his descendants". Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "His thoughts on the relative importance of music and drama", do you mean to say "His thoughts on the relative balance (or emphasis) of music and drama"? I will review
  • Prose. - "were to change again" try "changed again". Your taste vs. mine
  • Vague modifiers. - "he reintroduced some traditional forms into his last few stage works", try: "he reintroduced traditional forms into his final stage works" No, he only reintroduced some.
  • Redundant prose. - "Until his last years" follows too closely behind "his last few stage works", which would be fixed by my suggestion directly above. I will review
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "turbulent love affairs" seems less then encyclopedic to me. Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "repeated flight from his creditors", could Wagner fly? I think you mean to say that he "repeatedly fleed from his creditors", or similar. Don't be silly
"fleed" ????!!!! Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I made a typo and obviously meant "fled". But wow, I've never seen a reviewer get double-teamed by a delegate and a contributor. Way to encourage FAC reviews guys! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You should read more reviews. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if this is how they tend to go, then I will read fewer (not more) and contribute to them even less. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "The effect of his ideas can be traced in many of the arts throughout the 20th century" "traced"? How about: "The effect of his innovations can be identified in art throughout the 20th century". Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "especially where they have antisemitic content" try: "especially where they contain antisemitic sentiments", or similar. Your taste vs. mine
    • I disagree and I think you have used the "Your taste vs. mine" non-resolution excessively. Writing cannot have antisemitic content, works may contain or include antisemitic content, or Wagner may have at times espoused antisemitism, but his writings do not have antisemitic content, some of them contain or include such sentiments. To clarify further: "have" is a possessive verb, but an inanimate object (e.g. a book, poem or libretto) cannot possess anything. So using "have" in this context improperly personifies Wagner's writings and is poor quality English at best; and its in the lead no less. This example is representative of the awkward prose found throughout the article that the nom refuses to improve. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • Repetition. - "Richard was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8] "
  • Abbreviations. - "Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig, at No. 3", shouldn't this be "Richard Wagner was born in Leipzig, at number 3"? Why?
    • So as to avoid the unnecessary mid-sentence terminal punctuation point following "No.". I've been told this numerous times over the years at FAC; we don't write "No. 3" when "number 3" or "number three" will convey the same information. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess parenthetical? - "the Brühl (The House of the Red and White Lions)," I assume The House of the Red and White Lions moniker is exlicated at the topical article Brühl (Leipzig).
  • Confusing/awkward prose. - "Wagner's father died of typhus six months after Richard's birth, after which Wagner's mother began living with the actor and playwright Ludwig Geyer, a friend of Richard's father.[3]" I think we could use given names here for clarity such as: "Carl died of typhus six months after Richard's birth, after which Johanna began living with a friend of Carl's, the actor and playwright Ludwig Geyer.[3]" I will review
  • Prose. - "although no documentation of this is found in the Leipzig church registers.[4]" Try: "although no documentation of this has been found in the Leipzig church registers.[4]" I will review
  • Overuse of the passive voice. - "Until he was fourteen, Wagner was known as Wilhelm Richard Geyer." Try: "Until age fourteen, Wagner was known as Wilhelm Richard Geyer." Your taste vs. mine
Again, ENGVAR - "age fourteen" is incorrect in British English. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps "aged fourteen", but why would editors of an article about a German subject be required to use British English over American English anyway? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ENGVAR; once one form is picked it should be used consistently. Johnbod (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Picked by whom? Sounds like WP:OWN to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. "He almost certainly[vague] thought that Geyer was his natural father.[5]" Swap "natural" with "biological" for clarity. I will review
  • Wordy. - "Geyer's love of the theatre came to be shared by his stepson, and Wagner took part in his performances." Try: "Geyer's love of the theatre came to be shared by Wagner, who took part in his performances." Your taste vs. mine
  • Excess detail. - "In his autobiography, Wagner recalled once playing the part of an angel.[6]" This detail seems better as a note. Your taste vs. mine
  • Excess detail. - "at Possendorf, near Dresden", is "near Dresden" needed here? It seems like an excess geographical datum.No WP entry for Possendorf, so better thus.
  • Prose. - "where he received some piano instruction from his Latin teacher." Omit "some" as excess. Also, is this the very first musical instruction Wagner received? If so, perhaps that point should be briefly explicated here. I will review
"piano lessons" ? Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward, excess prose. - "He could not manage a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing theatre overtures by ear", try: "He struggled to play a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing by ear". I will review
  • Verbose. - "Following Geyer's death in 1821, when Richard was eight, he was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8]" Try: "Following Geyer's death in 1821, Richard was sent to the Kreuzschule, the boarding school of the Dresdner Kreuzchor, at the expense of Geyer's brother.[8]" I will review
  • Prose. - "At the age of nine he was hugely impressed by the Gothic elements of Weber's opera Der Freischütz, which he saw conducted by the composer.[9]" 1) "hugely impressed" is not encyclopedic, 2) "which he saw conducted by the composer" is awkward. Try: "which Wagner saw Weber conduct", 3) I think we need to use Weber's full name on his first mention in the article. I will review
The name maybe, the rest is fine. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing prose. - "At this stage Wagner entertained ambitions as a playwright." Its confusing to use the term "stage" as in "period" in a sentence about the theatre. I will review
  • Verbose. - "His first creative effort (which, in the standard listing of Wagner's works, the Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis, stands as WWV 1) was a tragedy called Leubald, begun at school in 1826, which was strongly influenced by Shakespeare and Goethe." Try: "His first creative effort, listed in the Wagner-Werke-Verzeichnis as WWV 1, was a tragedy called Leubald. Begun at school in 1826, is was strongly influenced by Shakespeare and Goethe."
  • Passive voice. - "Wagner was determined to set it to music, and therefore persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10][n 2]", try: "Wagner, determined to set it to music, persuaded his family to allow him music lessons.[10[n 2]" Your taste vs. mine
  • Comma use. - I count three commas in an 11-word sentence. "By 1827, the family had returned, now with Geyer, to Leipzig." Try: "By 1827 the family had returned with Geyer, to Leipzig." Actually this is a complete error -Geyer died in 1821 - I will correct..
  • Prose. - "Wagner's first lessons in harmony were taken in 1828–31 with Christian Gottlieb Müller.[11]" I think "taken in 1828–31" should read "taken during 1828–31", as I'm not sure you can do something in a three year span and it avoids the redundancy of "in" twice within five words. I will review
  • Prose, punctuation. - "In January 1828 he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and then, in March, the same composer's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." Try: "In January 1828, he first heard Beethoven's 7th Symphony and in March, the same composer's 9th Symphony (both in the Gewandhaus)." Also, is the parenthetical needed here? Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "Beethoven became his inspiration, and Wagner wrote a piano transcription of the 9th Symphony.[12]" Wagner was inpsired by more than just Beethoven. Try: "Inspired by Beethoven, Wagner wrote a piano transcription of the 9th Symphony.[12]" I will review
  • Prose. - "He was also greatly impressed by a performance of Mozart's Requiem.[13]" "Greatly impressed" strikes me as unencyclopedic. Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose. - "In 1829 he saw the dramatic soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient on stage". 1) use commas after introductory phrases, 2) re: "dramatic soprano", I think dramatic is an excess modifier, 3) Try: "In 1829, he saw soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient perform on stage". Leaving it as "he saw the dramatic soprano Wilhelmine Schröder-Devrient on stage" is a bit confusing, was she performing? I will review. Dramatic soprano is an operatic term, I will link
  • Awkward prose. - "and she became his ideal of the fusion of drama and music in opera" Try: "her fusion of drama and music in opera inpired him." Your taste vs. mine
  • Linking. - "In his autobiography (liked), Wagner wrote", but above in the same section: "In his autobiography(no link), Wagner recalled". Link on first mention in lead and then the first mention in the article body.I will review
  • Prose. - Though I realise that an "almost demonic fire" preceeds the text string, "kindled in him" seems unencyclopedic.Your taste vs. mine
  • Prose, passive voice. - "Weinlig was so impressed with Wagner's musical ability that he refused any payment for his lessons." "so impressed" is also unencyclopedic IMO. Try: "Impressed with Wagner's musical ability, Weinlig refused any payment for his lessons." Your taste vs. mine
  • Overuse of the passive voice, clarity. - "(which was consequently dedicated to him)", try: "(consequently dedicated to Weinlig)".Your taste vs. mine
  • Lacking some detail, prose. - "In late 1820, Wagner was enrolled at Pastor Wetzel's school at Possendorf, near Dresden, where he received a little piano instruction from his Latin teacher.[7] He struggled to play a proper scale at the keyboard, and preferred playing theatre overtures by ear." 1) "a little piano instruction" needs a recast as it sounds like he learned on a miniature piano. Try: "where he received basic piano instruction from his Latin teacher.[7]" 2) The second sentence does not explicate that his teachers felt that he did not show aptitude in music and, in fact, his teacher said he would "torture the piano in a most abominable fashion."
  • Prose. - "hugely impressed" and "greatly impressed" appear in two consecutive paragraphs. Both are colloquialisms that should be avoided in academic writing.
Early career (1833–42)
  • Repetition. - "arrived in Paris in" Consider: "arrived in Paris during".
  • Linking. - "which imitated the style of Carl Maria von Weber" Weber's full name is linked here, but her last name is linked four paragraphs previous.
  • Wordy. - "Wagner's brother Albert managed to obtain for him", try: "Wagner's brother Albert secured for him", or similar.
  • Prose. - "Wagner held a brief appointment as musical director", try: "Wagner briefly served as musical director", or similar.
  • Unencyclopedic parenthetical. - "(not for the last time)". If the article properly establishes Wagner's pattern of debt (see the next paragraph in the article), then this foreshadow seems excessive and unencyclopedic.
  • Unencyclopedia prose. "with serious money problems", try: "with severe financial problems"
  • Excess detail, prose. - "Wagner had fallen for one of the leading ladies at Magdeburg, the actress Christine Wilhelmine "Minna" Planer.[26]" 1) Is it especially notable that she was a leading lady? 2) Leading lady is not encyclopedic, it sounds quite Hollywood-esque to me. In opera, a leading lady is called a prima donna, Italian for first lady.
  • Inconsistent punctuation. I noticed an apparent inconsistency with the article's use of comma, sometimes afte rintroductory phrase sometimes not. E.g. "In 1831, Wagner enrolled at the University of Leipzig" then two parapgraphs later: "In May 1837 Minna left Wagner for another man" and then the next paragraph: "In June 1837, Wagner moved to Riga"
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "this was but the first débâcle of a troubled marriage".
  • Confusing and awkward prose. - "having in this capacity engaged Minna's sister Amalie (also a singer) for the theatre, he presently resumed relations with Minna during 1838.[31]"
  • Prose. - "they fled Riga to escape from creditors", were the creditors hunting them down as law enforecement would, or did they just skip out on the bill? Sounds like they were being pursued, not sure that's what you mean.
  • Prose. - "During their flight, they took a stormy sea passage to London" Are they on a plane or a ship? I'm kidding of course, but I would like to see a word other then "flight" used here so as to avoid the jarring connotation.
  • Prose. - "In June 1837, Wagner moved to Riga (then in the Russian Empire)," I think "(then part of the Russian Empire)" would be better English prose.
  • Missing detail about Wagner's imprisonment for debt. - The article says he fled from creditors but does not mention that he was actually imprisoned in 1840.
Dresden (1842–49)
  • Chronological breaks. - Why does a section titled 1842–49 begin with information dealing with the earlier period? E.g. "Wagner completed Rienzi in 1840." Which is also redundant with the previous sentence: "He also completed during this stay his third and fourth operas Rienzi and Der fliegende Holländer.[36]" I suggest that the Rienzi material be merged into the previous section for flow.
  • Unencyclopedic. - "Wagner also mixed with artistic circles in Dresden", "mixed" sounds like slangy journalese here as does "artistic circles".
"moved in" possibly. Johnbod (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's still slang John. Consider: "Wagner socialised with artists while in Dresden", or is this yet another EngVar issue? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just being pompous. Nothing slangy about "moved in". Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You find the word "socialised" pompous? So you think: "Wagner also moved in artistic circles in Dresden" is better prose than: "Wagner socialised with artists while in Dresden"? How can one "move in an artistic circle", sounds to me like Wagner is dancing? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward prose. - "The Wagners' stay at Dresden was brought to an end by Richard's involvement in leftist politics." Try: "Richard's involvement in leftist politics hastened the end of the Wagners' stay at Dresden."
  • Colloquialism. - "Widespread discontent in Dresden came to a head in 1849". "Came to a head" is unencyclopedic.
  • Colloquialism. - "when the unsuccessful May Uprising broke out" Instead of "broke out" try "began".
  • Prose. - "Warrants were issued for the arrest of the revolutionaries; Wagner had to flee, first visiting Paris and then settling in Zurich". Try: "After warrants were issued for the arrest of the revolutionaries, Wagner fled first to Paris before settling in Zurich."
  • Notable detail missing. - The article should mention that in 1844 Wagner was awarded the Prussian order of the Red Eagle.
In exile Switzerland (1849–58)
  • Excessive use of the passive voice. - "Wagner was to spend the next twelve years in exile from Germany." Try: "Wagner spent the next twelve years in exile from Germany."
  • Prose. - "Nevertheless, Wagner found himself in grim personal straits", 1) "Nevertheless" is unencyclopedic excess, same with: "grim personal straits".
  • Prose. - "isolated from the German musical world", consider: "isolated from the German musical establishment".
  • Prose. - "but this plan was aborted", swap "aborted" with "abandoned".
  • Possible typo? - "when Wagner began an affair with Mme. Laussot."
  • Unrelated parenthetical. "Meanwhile, Wagner's wife Minna, who had disliked the operas he had written after Rienzi, was falling into a deepening depression." Did her dislike of Wagner's post Rienzi contribute to her depression? I don't see how these two datums are related.
  • Prose. - "Wagner himself fell victim to ill-health", try: "Wagner also fell victim to ill-health".
  • Awkward prose. Missing word? - "Wagner himself fell victim to ill-health, according to Ernest Newman "largely a matter of overwrought nerves", which made it difficult for him to continue writing." It seems to me that this text string is missing a clause along the lines of "caused by" or "exacerbated by" or similar.
  • Confusing modifier. - "Wagner's primary published output during his first years in Zurich was a set of essays." Was there a sub-primary published output? Is there a need to identify the set of essays as his primary published work during this period. Did he publish other works during this period that are not detailed in the article?
  • Prose. - "in which the various arts such as music, song, dance, poetry, visual arts and stagecraft were unified." "Such as" implies that this is nto a complete list, though I get the felling that it is complete. Consider: "in which he would unify music, song, dance, poetry, visual arts and stagecraft." or similar.
  • Prose. - "frequently using traditional antisemitic abuse". Recast as confusing/awkward prose. How could Wagner use traditional antisemitic abuse in writing? I think you mean that he "exploited traditional antisemitic stereotypes", or similar.
  • Construction. - "the first of Wagner's writings to feature antisemitic views.[52] In this polemic Wagner argued" I suggest that the chronology not be broken up with asides about antisemitism, which already has a sub-section. "'Judaism in Music' (1850)[51] was the first of Wagner's writings to feature antisemitic views.[52]" This thought should end there, and the following excess detail be moved to the anti-semitism section.
  • Redundant/awkward construction. - "In "Opera and Drama" (1851), Wagner described the aesthetics of drama that he was using to create the Ring operas. Before leaving Dresden, Wagner had drafted a scenario that eventually became the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen." Seems like these two sentences either need to be swapped or merged into one, as the first mentions the Ring operas and the second "the four-opera cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen."
  • Prose. - "revising the other libretti to agree with his new concept" "to agree with" is awkward. Consider: "for continuity with" or similar.
  • Redundant, jarring prose. - "The concept of opera expressed in "Opera and Drama" and in other essays effectively renounced the operas he had previously written, up to and including Lohengrin." "Opera/s" is used three times within 17 words.
  • Ellipses. - "Prelude (Vorspiel). ... At"
  • Prose. - "following it immediately with Die Walküre" consider: "followed immediately by Die Walküre".
  • Excess. - "One source of inspiration for Tristan und Isolde was the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, notably the latter's The World as Will and Idea. Why "the latter's", I'm not seeing any former.
  • Contradiction. - "Wagner later called this the most important event of his life.[59]" However, in "Early years" Wagner is quoted as saying: ""When I look back across my entire life I find no event to place beside this in the impression it produced on me". Did he have two "most important moments"?
  • Editorialising. - "His personal circumstances certainly made him an easy convert to what he understood to be Schopenhauer's philosophy". Particularly: "certainly made him an easy convert".
  • Prose. - "He remained an adherent of Schopenhauer for the rest of his life". An "adherent of Schopenhauer", or an "adherent of Schopenhauer's philosophy"?
  • Prose. - "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that music held a supreme role in the arts as a direct expression of the world's essence, namely, blind, impulsive will.[61]" 1) "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines was that" is awkward prose, consider: "One of Schopenhauer's doctrines asserted", or similar. 2) What does: "a direct expression of the world's essence" mean? Do you mean to relate the doctrine to human behaviour, or to "the world"? How can planet Earth be said to have an essence?
  • Personification, unencyclopedic prose. - "Aspects of Schopenhauerian doctrine found their way into Wagner's subsequent libretti.[n 6]" Consider: "Aspects of Schopenhauerian doctrine influenced Wagner's subsequent libretti.[n 6]"
  • Clarity. - "A second source of inspiration was". Do you mean to say "A second source of inspiration for Tristan und Isolde was ..."?
  • Prose. - "the wife of the silk merchant Otto Wesendonck", is this datum notable to Wagner? If not, consider trimming it out as excess detail not directly related to Wagner.
  • Inconsistent punctuation. - "From May 1853 onwards Wesendonck made ..." In most places the article uses commas after introductory phrases, why not here?
  • Jarring prose. - "Wesendonck made several loans to Wagner to finance his household expenses in Zurich". "loans to Wagner to finance" is jarring, Consider: "Wesendonck made several loans to Wagner, who struggled financially with his household expenses in Zurich".
  • Jargon? - "setting poems by Mathilde". Will the casual reader understand what this means?
  • Prose, verbosity. - "The Queen enjoyed his Tannhäuser overture and spoke with Wagner after the concert, writing of him in her diary that he '[is] short, very quiet, wears spectacles & has a very finely-developed forehead, a hooked nose & projecting chin.'[69]" Consider: "The Queen enjoyed his Tannhäuser overture and spoke with him after the concert, later describing Wagner in her diary as 'short, very quiet, [he] wears spectacles & has a very finely-developed forehead, a hooked nose & projecting chin.'[69]" Also, per MOS:AMP, those ampersands should be rendered as "and".
  • Prose. - "he gave several concerts in 1855" Do conductors give concerts? They aren't even playing an instrument. Bad grammar or yet another EngVar?
See [14], for instance. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concede the point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In exile Venice and Paris (1858–62)
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "Wagner's uneasy affair with Mathilde collapsed in 1858". 1) "uneasy affair" is a bit nebulous. What was uneasy about it? 2) The use of "collapsed" here is awkward. Consider: "ended" or "came to an end" (if you prefer verbosity). Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner's attitude to Minna had changed". "attitude to Minna" is not brilliant prose. Consider: "Wagner's estimation of Minna's character had changed" or similar. Disagree.
  • Spacing. - "Wagner once again moved to Paris to oversee production of a new revision of Tannhäuser ," Agree.
  • Unencyclopedic colloquialism. - "staged thanks to the efforts of Princess Pauline von Metternich," "thanks to the efforts" is not an encyclopedic way of stating that she helped Wagner in this regard. Disagree.
  • WP:EGG. - "The performances of the Paris Tannhäuser in 1861 were a notable fiasco". This should come four words previous, at Tannhäuser. No - because it refers to a specfic subsection of the article, as you will see if you click.
  • Wordy sentence. - "The performances of the Paris Tannhäuser in 1861 were a notable fiasco, brought about not only by the conservative tastes of the Jockey Club which organised demonstrations in the theatre to protest at the presentation of the ballet feature in act 1 (instead of its traditional location in the second act), but also by those who wanted to use the occasion as a veiled political protest against the pro-Austrian policies of Napoleon III.[74]" Recast as two sentences. Agree.
  • Repetition. - "Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation". Use a pronoun at the second use within 6 words. Agree.
  • Awkward prose/confusing chronology prose. - "Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation with Minna during this Paris visit" Recast so "during this Paris visit" does not follow "Wagner left Paris soon after". Amended.
  • Rework. - "The work was withdrawn after the third performance and Wagner left Paris soon after.[75] Wagner sought a reconciliation with Minna during this Paris visit, and although she joined him there, the reunion was not successful and they again parted from each other when Wagner left.[76]" The reasoning should be clear, as with above, these clauses are not in a proper chronological order and are redundant. 'Not redundant. Last two sentences are on a different topic.
  • Redundant. - "the reunion was not successful and they again parted from each other when Wagner left."
Return and resurgence (1862–71)
  • Prose. - "but Bülow refused to concede this". Trim out "to concede this" as wordy excess.
  • "The young king, an ardent admirer of Wagner's operas, had the composer brought to Munich.[84] He settled Wagner's considerable debts,[85] and proposed to stage Tristan, Die Meistersinger, the Ring, and the other operas Wagner planned.[86]" This ignores the notable datum: "In 1864 Louis II, a youth of 18, ascended the throne of Bavaria; he was a fanatical admirer of Wagner’s art and, having read the poem of The Ring (published the year before with a plea for financial support), invited Wagner to complete the work in Munich." (Britannica online)
  • Clarity. - "The political ban that had been placed on Wagner in Germany after he had fled Dresden was fully lifted in 1862." Does "the political ban" refer to the arrest warrant? The section on Dresden does not mention any "political ban". Disagree.
  • Clarify. - "The composer settled in Biebrich in Prussia.[77]"[when?] Disagree.
  • Awkward prose. - "Wagner continued to give financial support to her living in Dresden" He gave financial support to "her living"? Recast as: "Wagner continued to financially support her while she lived in Dresden", or similar. agree.
  • Prose. - "In Biebrich, Wagner at last began work on Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, his only mature comedy." Recast "at last" as flowery unencyclopedic prose. Also, what's a "mature comedy"? A comedy for adults? Do you mean to say that Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg is Wagner's most sophisticated comedy? Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner tried to have Tristan und Isolde produced" Recast to avoid "tried to have", e.g. "attempted" or "worked toward" or similar. agree.
  • Prose. - "and gained a reputation as being "impossible" to sing" Recast "impossible" as difficult to improve prose and avoid "scare quotes". Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner's financial woes" is unencyclopedic. Recast as: "Wagner's financial difficulties", or similar. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner's fortunes took a dramatic upturn in 1864", consider: "Wagner's situation dramatically improved in 1864," or similar. Disagree.
  • Missing detail. - "The young king, an ardent admirer of Wagner's operas, had the composer brought to Munich.[84]" Why no mention that Ludwig romantically loved Wagner? Wagner on Ludwig: "I fly to (Ludwig) as to a lover". Ludwig on Wagner: "I am in your angelic arms". If he did that would belng to an article on Ludwig.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "After grave difficulties in rehearsal", consider: "After especially difficult rehearsals", or similar. Disagree.
  • Awkward prose. - "the first Wagner opera premiere in almost 15 years", consider: "Wagner's first opera premiere in almost 15 years", or similar. Disagree.
  • Redundant prose. - "The premiere had been scheduled for 15 May, but had been delayed", consider: "The premiere had been scheduled for 15 May, but was delayed" to avoid using the phrase "had been" twice within 8 words. agree.
  • Linking. - "and also because the Isolde, Malvina Schnorr von Carolsfeld". Will the casual reader know what an "Isolde" is? Consider linking or explicating, or both. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "and also because the Isolde, Malvina Schnorr von Carolsfeld, was hoarse and needed time to recover." She wasn't hoarse, her voice was. Afflicted by a dry, quite harsh voice - Wiktionary entry
  • Archaic. - "was herself illegitimate" recast to avoid illegitimate. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Liszt initially disapproved of his daughter's involvement with Wagner, though nevertheless the two men were friends". Recast to avoid "though nevertheless". Disagree.
  • Prose, personification of a place. - "The indiscreet affair scandalised Munich". Munich cannot be scandalised, I think you mean: "The indiscreet affair became a scandal in Munich", or similar. Disagree.
  • Inconsistent capitalisation. - "suspicious of his influence on the king.[93]" is preceeded by "at the King's request", two paragraphs earlier, same king. agree.
  • Confusing, dubious claim/construction. - "In December 1865, Ludwig was finally forced to ask the composer to leave Munich.[94]" Who "forced" Ludwig to do anything, he was afterall, the King. Also "finally" is an excess modifier that adds little.Disagree.
  • Clarity, prose. - "He apparently also toyed with the idea of abdicating in order to follow his hero into exile, but Wagner quickly dissuaded him.[95]" 1) "apparently" is a vague modifier, 2) "toyed with the idea" is a colloquialism. Disagree.
  • Awkward prose. - "Ludwig installed Wagner at the Villa Tribschen" Use a better word here then "installed", it makes Wagner sound like an appliance or light fixture or something. Disagree.
  • Scare quotes. - "At Ludwig's insistence, 'special previews' of the first two works", paraphrase or attribute. They are already sourced.
  • Prose. - "at a special festival", what's a "special festival"? Consider: "at a music festival", or similar. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "with a new, dedicated, opera house", dedicated to what? Disagree.
  • Chronological error. - "Minna had died of a heart attack on 25 January 1866 in Dresden. Wagner did not attend the funeral.[99]" Why, in the midst of reading about the events of 1867–1870 are we now "flashing back" to 1866? To lead to Cosima, obviously.
  • Awkward and confusing prose. - "Cosima wrote to Hans von Bülow on a number of occasions asking him to grant her a divorce, but Bülow was unwilling to concede this until after she had two more children with Wagner". As this is written, it reads as though Cosima's having two more children with Wagner was a condition Bülow demanded prior to granting a divorce. Agree.
  • Verbose, excess detail. - "The divorce was finally sanctioned, after delays in the legal process, by a Berlin court on 18 July 1870". Consider recasting as: "The divorce was finalised by a Berlin court on 18 July 1870". Disagree.
  • Prose. "Richard and Cosima's wedding took place on 25 August 1870.[102]" is awkward and jarring. Consider: "Richard and Cosima were married on 25 August 1870.[102]", or similar. Disagree.
  • Avoid specific holidays. "On Christmas Day of that year", consider: "On 25 December". Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner arranged a surprise performance (its premiere)". "its premiere" is currently referring to the "performance", not the piece, as you seem to intend. both.
  • Prose, citation needed. "The marriage to Cosima lasted to the end of Wagner's life." Recast as: "Richard and Cosima remained married until the end of Wagner's life"[citation needed], or similar. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner, settled into his new-found domesticity, turned his energies towards completing the Ring cycle." There seems to be a missing word here ala: "Wagner, now settled into his new-found domesticity ...". Disagree.
  • Verbose, excess detail. - "He extended the introduction, and wrote a lengthy additional final section." Consider: "He extended the introduction, and wrote an additional final section." Disagree.
  • Prose. - "The publication led to several public protests". 1) "The work's publication" would read better, 2) avoid using "publication" and "public" twice within five words. Disagree.
Bayreuth (1871–76)
  • Nebulous. - "The local council". What kind of council, do you mean the city council of Bayreuth? agree.
  • Repetition. - The phrase: "the town" occurs three times in the first three sentences. agree.
  • Excessively wordy and overly detailed prose:
    • "In 1871, Wagner decided to move to the town of Bayreuth, which was to be the location of his new opera house.[105] The local council donated a large plot of land overlooking the town—the "Green Hill"—as a site for the theatre. The Wagners moved to the town the following year, and the foundation stone for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus ("Festival Theatre") was laid." dealt with.
    • Consider: "In 1872, the Wagner's moved to Bayreuth, the future location of his opera house, the Festspielhaus ("Festival Theatre").[105] The local council donated a large plot of land overlooking the town—the "Green Hill"—as a site for the theatre." Also, the second sentence should be moved to notes; it reads as a trivial or excess parenthetical that breaks the flow of the prose. Disagree.
  • Excessive and redundant prose. - "Wagner initially announced the first Bayreuth Festival, at which for the first time the Ring cycle would be presented complete, for 1873,[106] but since Ludwig had declined to finance the project, the start of building was delayed and the proposed date for the initial festival was deferred." 1) This general datum seems more appropriate for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus article, 2) "initially announced the first" is poor quality prose, 3) "the first" appears twice within nine words, 4)) Avoid using "initially" and "initial" in the same sentence if possible. Removed 2nd 'initial .
    • Consider: "Wagner announced the Bayreuth Festival for 1873 (at which the Ring cycle would be presented complete for the first time), but Ludwig's initial reluctance to provide financing delayed production", or similar. Disagree.
  • Inconsistent punctuation. - "By the spring of 1873 only a third ...", again, sometimes the article uses commas after introductory phrases and sometimes it does not.
  • Inconsistent capitalisation. - "the king relented and provided", again, sometimes its "the King" and sometimes its "the king", choose one and make the article consistent. 'agree
  • Jargon, wordy. - "The full building programme included", consider: "The building plans included", or similar. Disagree.
  • Unencyclopedic adjective. "included a handsome villa". "Handsome" is not an encyclopedic descriptor in this context. Disagree.
  • Wordy, excess detail. - "moved from their temporary accommodation on 18 April 1874" consider: "moved on 18 April 1874" Disagree.
  • MOS:LQ. - "'Each stone is red with my blood and yours'.[111]" Seems like this terminal punctuation point should be inside the quotes, but maintain accuracy with the OS. See comments by others on this.
  • Jarring segue. - "For the design of the Festspielhaus Wagner appropriated some of the ideas of his former colleague", its not yet been established that Wagner worked, presumable with a proper architect, on the design of the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, so this drops on the reader out of nowhere as though Wagner was the primary architect of the theatre. He was.
  • Editorialising, punctuation. "The Festspielhaus finally opened on 13 August 1876 with Das Rheingold," 1) omit "finally", 2) you need a comma after that full date. Disagree.
  • Prose. "at last taking its place" trim "at last" as excess. Its already been established that the work was years in the making. Disagree.
  • Confusing prose. - "as the first evening of the complete Ring cycle; this occasion was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle" 1) you use complete twice within 12 words, 2) the cycle required more than one evening, so "this occasion was therefore the premiere of the complete cycle" is not accurate, as how could the "complete cycle" have occured on the first night? The premiere began on the first night, but certainly it was not complete. I think the issue is caused by your use of "this occasion". agree, rephrpased.
  • Prose, clarity. - "performed as the composer had intended as a sequence" recast as: "performed as a sequence as the composer had originally intended".agree.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - (under the baton of Hans Richter).[114] Try: (conducted by Hans Richter).Disagree.
  • Prose. - "At the end, critical reactions ranged between" Did critics really write reviews immediately following the end of the performance? "At the end" needs a recast. Disagree.
  • Redundancy. "Amongst the disillusioned were Wagner's friend and disciple Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]" Seems to be a redundant rewording of "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich", from "Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts". I will consider.
  • Excess modifier. - "The festival firmly established Wagner". There is no need to use "firmly" here. Disagree.
  • Prose. "Wagner himself was far from satisfied", omit "himself" as redundant excess. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "but early in 1874"
Last years (1876–83)
  • Prose. - "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity at this period, which infuses Parsifal". 1) Recast: "interest in Christianity at this period" as "interest in Christianity during this period", 2) "which infuses Parsifal" is unencyclopedic.
  • Capitalisation. - "whom he had met at the 1876 Festival". Should "Festival" be capped in this instance?
  • Prose. - "The composition took four years" How can a work of music take time and from whom did it take it away from? Consider: "Wagner spent four years composing the work", or similar. Disagree.
  • Clarify. - "much of which Wagner spent in Italy for health reasons". Such as? The article has not yet established that Wagner's health had begun to fail by 1876, or even that he was ailing at the time. Disagree.
  • Inconsistent punctuation. - "From 1876 to 1878 Wagner also embarked", again, sometimes the article includes a comma after an introductory phrase and soemtimes it does not.
  • Verbose. - "embarked on the last of his documented emotional liaisons" seems like an overly complicated way of saying: "his final love affair", or similar. Disagree.
  • Repetition. - "the first Bayreuth Festival" occurs twice in the first three sentences of the section. agree.
  • Awkward and jarring prose. - "Wagner was also much troubled by problems of financing Parsifal". No offense, but it sounds to me like whoever wrote this sentence is not a native English speaker, which isn't of course an insult, except that this is an article on the English Wikipedia. Both "Wagner was also much troubled" and "problems of financing Parsifal" are desperately in need of a recast. no offence, but disagree
  • Prose. - "but was still forced by his personal financial situation in 1877 to sell the rights of several of his unpublished works". A "personal financial situation" is a concept, not a physical entity, so it cannot force Wagner to do anything. I think you mean to say: "but his personal financial situation was such that in 1877, he had to sell the rights of several of his unpublished works", or similar. Disagree.
  • Verbose, redundant. - "Wagner wrote a number of articles in his later years, often on political topics, and often reactionary in tone, repudiating some of his earlier, more liberal, views." Consider: "Wagner wrote a number of political articles in his later years, often reactionary in tone, repudiating some of his earlier, more liberal, views." Disagree.
  • Consistency. - "(October 1880) and "Heroism and Christianity" (September 1881)". Nowhere else in the article are the months of his works included in parentheticals. Omit October and Septmber or add months to the numerous other parenthetical dates in the article. agree
  • Prose. - "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity at this period, which infuses Parsifal, was contemporary with his increasing alignment with German nationalism, and required on the part of himself and his associates "the rewriting of some recent Wagnerian history", so as to represent, for example, the Ring as a work reflecting Christian ideals.[125]" 1) its wordy, 2) "infuses" is unencyclopedic fancruft, 3) "required" seems a strange choice of words considering the rewriting was 100% voluntary, 4) "so as to represent, for example" conveys journalistic not encyclopedic tone. Consider: "so as to represent works such as", or similar.
  • Jarring parenthetical. - "(1878, but based on a draft written in the 1860s)" this should be moved to notes.
  • Awkward prose. - "repeated Wagner's antisemitic preoccupations". Perhaps Wagner was preoccupied with antisemitism, and correct me if I'm wrong about this, but TMK Wagner never actively engaged in antisemitic activities, so it would seem a recast along the lines of: "reiterated Wagner's antisemitic views" would improve the prose. Disagree.
  • Prose. - "Wagner completed Parsifal in January 1882, and a second Bayreuth Festival was held for the new opera". Omit :new", he had worked on the piece for years, or recast as "newly completed". or similar. Disagree.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "After the festival, the Wagner family journeyed to Venice for the winter". 1) "journeyed" in not as encyclopedic in tone as "traveled" or similar, 2) "journeyed to Venice for the winter" is poor grammar. Consider: "After the festival, Wagner traveled with his family to Venice, where he intended to remain during the winter", or similar. Disagree.
  • Missing article. - "The legend that the attack was prompted by argument with Cosima". Do you mean "by argument" or "by an argument"? Disagree.
  • Asserting a negative. - "The legend that the attack was prompted by argument with Cosima over Wagner's supposedly amorous interest in the singer Carrie Pringle, who had been a Flower-maiden in Parsifal at Bayreuth, is without credible evidence.[131" Is this necessary? Yes.
  • Parenthetical or note? - "Franz Liszt's two piano pieces titled La lugubre gondola evoke the passing of a black-shrouded funerary gondola bearing Wagner's remains over the Grand Canal.[132]" This is quite jarring and trivial in nature in its current placement within the text. This aside, which is really about List more than Wagner, should be moved to notes, or to a section detailing notable homage to Wagner. Disagree.
Operas
  • Awkward prose. - "Wagner's operatic works are his primary artistic legacy", consider: "Wagner's primary artistic legacy are his operatic works."
  • Excess, redundant parenthetical. - "writing the libretto (the text and lyrics) to others". Since libretto is linked here, there is no need for a parenthetical describing what a libretto is.
  • Scare quotes. - "Wagner wrote his own libretti, which he referred to as 'poems'.[135]" There is no need to enclose "poems" inside quotes here, unless of course, Wagner invented poetry, which of course he didn't.
  • Awkward, excess prose. - "From 1849 onwards". Omit "onwards" as excessive and awkward.
  • Awkward and confusing prose. "he urged a new concept of opera". This needs a recast. How did he urge a new concept? How could one even urge a concept? Perhaps he urged other composers to adopt his concept, but you cannot urge a concept. Consider: "he advanced a new concept of opera" or "he promoted a new concept of opera", or similar.
  • Vague, scare quote. - "often referred to as 'music drama'" 1) by whom, 2) more unnecessary scare quotes.
  • Prose. - "Wagner developed a compositional style in which the importance of the orchestra is equal to that of the singers." Consider: "Wagner developed a compositional style in which the importance of the orchestral music is equal to that of the vocal parts", or similar.
  • Clarity. - "The orchestra's dramatic role in the later operas". I assume you mean to say: "The orchestra's dramatic role in Wagner's later operas", or similar.
  • Redundancy. - "often referred to as 'music drama' (although he later rejected this term)" is closely followed by "These operas are still, despite Wagner's reservations, referred to by many writers[139] as 'music dramas'.[140]" just three sentences later.
Early works (to 1842)
  • Prose. - "Wagner's earliest attempts at opera were often uncompleted". 1) "attempts at opera" is poor grammar. I think you mean to say: "attempts at writing operas", or similar. 2) "were often" is vague. Consider: "Wagner's abandoned some of his earliest attempts at writing an opera, such as: ...", or similar.
  • Merge. - "Abandoned works include ..." merge this with the above topic sentence for improved flow.
  • Prose. - "was unperformed in the composer's lifetime" consider "was never performed in the composer's lifetime"
  • Awkward prose. - "Rienzi (1842) was Wagner's first opera to be successfully staged.[141]" Consider: "Wagner's first successfully staged opera was Rienzi (1842).[141]" Though it seems to me that this is redundant with earlier text regarding Rienzi, or that on the first mention of the work it the article should have explicated this datum.
  • Linking, jargon, clarity. - "the clear influence of Meyerbeerean". Will the casual reader understand what Meyerbeerean means?
  • Unencyclopedic, fancrufty prose. - "did not exhibit the innovations that would mark Wagner's place in musical history". Consider: "did not include the musical innovations later associated with Wagner", or similar.
  • Excess. "Later in life, Wagner said". Is "Later in life" necessary? Would "later" accomplish the same thing, because I think it goes without saying that Wagner's opinions originate from the period during which he was living.
  • Wordy, awkward prose. - "they have been performed only rarely in the last hundred years". Wouldn't "rarely performed during the last hundred years" suffice?
  • Excess vague parenthetical, awkward prose. - "(although the overture to Rienzi is an occasional concert piece)." Recast "is an occasional concert piece" as: "is occasionally performed in concert", or similar.
"Romantic operas" (1843–51)
  • Clarity. - "Wagner's middle stage output began with". Throughout the article there are references to Wagner's "stages", but I don't see exactly were this is explicated. Did he only have a "middle stage", or was there an early and late stage as well? If so, where is the article is this made clear?
  • Vague scare quote. - Yet another, "are sometimes referred to as Wagner's "romantic operas".[144]"[according to whom?]
  • Wordy, vague prose. - "They reinforced the reputation, amongst the public in Germany and beyond, that Wagner had begun to establish with Rienzi." 1) "amongst the public in Germany and beyond" is unencyclopedic and vague. What does "beyond" mean? Consider: "They reinforced the reputation that Wagner had begun to establish with Rienzi."
  • Prose. - "the mature operas that Cosima staged at the Bayreuth Festival". As opposed to the immature operas Wagner presumably wrote for children? "Mature operas" is nebulous, please clarify its meaning.
  • Misplaced modifier. - "and have been frequently recorded", recast as "and have been recorded frequently"
  • Unencyclopedic, awkward prose. - "They were also the operas by which his fame spread during his lifetime." Did the inanimate operas spread his "fame", which is not an encyclopedic term in this context.
Starting the Ring
  • Prose. - "Wagner's late dramas are considered his masterpieces."[according to whom?] Late dramas implies that there were early and middle dramas. Were there?
  • Prose. - "commonly referred to as the Ring or "Ring cycle". Is there a missing article here? Would someone say: "I went to see "Ring Cycle" tonight, it was fantastic"? Consider: "commonly referred to as the Ring or the 'Ring cycle'." Also, why is the Ring not in italics in the same sentence as "Ring Cycle"?
  • Misplaced descriptor. - "is a set of four operas based loosely on figures and elements", consider: "is a set of four operas loosely based on figures and elements ..."
  • Excess detail. - "particularly from the later Norse mythology". Is it necessary to denote "later Norse mythology" when "Norse mythology" will suffice. This excess detail is more suited to the topical articel dedicated to the work.
  • Excess. "Wagner specifically developed the libretti". Omit "specifically" as excess.
  • Prose. - "They were also influenced by Wagner's concepts of ancient Greek drama, in which tetralogies were a component of Athenian festivals, and which he had amply discussed in his essay "Oper und Drama".[151]" 1) "Wagner's concepts" is not the best word choice. Consider: "Wagner's interpretation" or "Wagner's understanding" or "Wagner's appreciation", or similar. 2) "amply discussed" is awkward and unencyclopedic.
  • In-line attribution needed. - "In Das Rheingold, with its 'relentlessly talky 'realism' [and] the absence of lyrical 'numbers'",[152]" This quote needs in-line attribution.
  • Unencyclopedic adjective. - "Wagner came very close", avoid using the modifier, "very", in academic writing.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "with Siegmund's almost full-blown aria". "Almost full-blown" is unencyclopedic prose.
  • Redundant prose. "appearance of the Valkyries themselves". As with Graham Colm, I suggest you avoid "themselves" here for similar reasons given to avoid the unnecessary use of "himself" throughout the article.
  • Scare quotes. "shows more 'operatic' traits". These quotes are unnecessary.
  • Punctuation. - "and the quasi-choral appearance of the Valkyries themselves, shows more "operatic" traits". Omit the comma after "themselves" as it is separating the subject from the predicate.
  • Contradiction. - According to Millington (quoted in the section): "A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression."[153] This would seem to condradict the "music as subsidiary to drama" approach that the article implies Wagner preferred and sought to achieve.
  • Wordy sentence. - "Die Walküre, with Siegmund's almost full-blown aria (Winterstürme) in the first act, and the quasi-choral appearance of the Valkyries themselves, shows more "operatic" traits, but has been assessed by Barry Millington as "the music drama that most satisfactorily embodies the theoretical principles of 'Oper und Drama'... A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression."[153]"
Tristan und Isolde and Die Meistersinger
  • Unnecessary modifier. - "conceived by Wagner in 1845 as a sort of comic pendant to Tannhäuser". Omit "a sort of".
  • Archaic, misused term. - "musico-dramatical". "musico-dramatic" is a proper term, but dramatical an archaic word.
  • Confusing. - "his only mature comedy", does the article properly and previously explicate the meaning of the term: "mature comedy"?
  • Confusing, prose, jargon. - "two works that are also part of the regular operatic canon.[154]" As opposed to the irregular canon. What does this mean? Does "regular operatic canon" refer to Wagner, or to operas in general?
  • Prose. - "Tristan is often granted a special place in musical history". 1) "a special place" is not encyclopedic prose, 2) "in musical history". I think you mean to say: "in music history", otherwise it sounds like you are talking about the history of musicals.
  • Awkward prose. - "many see it as the beginning of the move away"
  • Prose. - "and consider that it lays the groundwork for the direction of classical music in the 20th century". "consider that it lays" needs a recast.
  • Attribution. - "with its use of 'the art of transition' between". You are quoting someone here but it is not at all clear who.
  • Verbose. - "Completed in 1859, the work was given its first performance in Munich". Consider: "Completed in 1859, the work was first performed in Munich", or similar. How can one give a "work" a performance?
Completely normal phrasing. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See [15]. Toccata quarta (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or more precisely [16]. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing. - What's a "comic pendant"?
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "under the baton of Bülow". Consider: "conducted by Bülow" so as to avoid the journalese-esque: "under the baton" text string.
  • Prose. - "it is also held up by some". Avoid "held up by some" as unencyclopedic. Consider: "regarded by some", or similar.
Completing the Ring
  • Wordy sentence. - "When Wagner returned to writing the music for the last act of Siegfried and for Götterdämmerung (Twilight of the Gods), as the final part of the Ring was eventually called, his style had changed once more to something more recognisable as "operatic" than the aural world of Rheingold and Walküre, though it was still thoroughly stamped with his own originality as a composer and suffused with leitmotifs.[161]"
  • Scare quotes, prose. - "more recognisable as 'operatic' than the aural world of Rheingold and Walküre". 1) Why is "operatic" in quotes? 2) what is an "aural world".
  • Confusing. - Waht does "the book for Götterdämmerung" mean?
  • Scare quotes. - "conceived more 'traditionally' than". Why is "traditionally" in quotes?
  • Prose. - "the self-imposed strictures of the Gesamtkunstwerk had become relaxed". I assume you mean to say that Wagner relaxed the strictures, which is better than impling that they had become relaxed by some unknown force.
  • Awkward prose. - "The differences also result". Perhaps "resulted" would be better here.
  • Verbose. - "The differences also result from Wagner's development as a composer during the period in which he wrote Tristan, Meistersinger and the Paris version of Tannhäuser.[163]" Consider: "The differences also resulted from Wagner's development as a composer while writing Tristan, Meistersinger and the Paris version of Tannhäuser.[163]" Also, is there a "Paris version" of Tannhäuser, or was Tannhäuser rewritten in Paris. Are there two extant versions?
  • Consistency. - "From act 3 of Siegfried onwards" is closely preceeded by: "the third part of the Ring cycle". There seems to be numerous inconsistencies regarding the rendering of numerals, sometimes as digits and sometimes as prose.
  • Verbose prose. - "Wagner took 26 years from writing the first draft of a libretto in 1848 until he completed Götterdämmerung in 1874." Consider: "From 1848, Wagner spent 26 years writing Götterdämmerung, which he completed in 1874."
That would be misleading, as he did not work continuously on it. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
True, but then how about: "From 1848, Wagner sporadically worked on Götterdämmerung, which he completed in 1874"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This: "Following the first Bayreuth Festival, Wagner began work on Parsifal, his final opera. The composition took four years, much of which Wagner spent in Italy for health reasons[121]" (from "Last years (1876–83)"), sounds to me like he worked on Parsifal continuously for four years. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious, vague. - "The Ring takes about 15 hours to perform and is the only undertaking of such size to be regularly presented on the world's stages.[165]" "to be regularly presented" implies that other works of similar size are performed, just not as often, which helps make this sentence seem like trivial excess more appropriate for the topical article deedicated to the work.
Parsifal
  • Prose. - "Ulrike Kienzle has commented that 'Wagner's turn to Christian mythology ...'" 1) don't use "that" to introduce a quote, 2) the passage is unnecessarily verbose. Consider: "Ulrike Kienzle commented: 'Wagner's turn to Christian mythology ...'"
  • Comma splice. - "and its expression, as perceived by some commentators". Omit the comma after "expression".
  • Redundancy. - "his only work written especially for his Bayreuth Festspielhaus". Consider: "his only work written especially for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus".
  • Confusing. - "and which is described in the score". How did the music score verbally describe something?
  • Prose. - "has a storyline suggested by elements of the legend of the Holy Grail." Again, no offense intended, but this sounds like it was written by a non-native English speaker. Consider: "has a storyline featuring elements of the legend of the Holy Grail."
But that would be misleading, if not incorrect. Personally I'm not sure I like "storyline" used for operas though. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbose, awkward construction. - "Wagner's final opera, Parsifal (1882), which was his only work written especially for his Bayreuth Festspielhaus and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" ("festival play for the consecration of the stage"), has a storyline suggested by elements of the legend of the Holy Grail." Consider: "Wagner's final opera, Parsifal (1882), was his only work written especially for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus and which is described in the score as a "Bühnenweihfestspiel" ("festival play for the consecration of the stage"). The work's storyline features elements of the legend of the Holy Grail", or similar.
  • Confusing, ESL-esque. - "It also carries elements of Buddhist renunciation suggested by Wagner's readings of Schopenhauer.[166]" What does this mean?
  • Redundnacy. "It" or "its" appears six times within three sentences, four in just one sentence.
  • Redundancy. "the composer" is used excessively throughout the article when "Wagner" or "he/him" could easily be substituted for improved variety.
  • Lack of criticism. - "'a diaphanous score of unearthly beauty and refinement'.[26]" Is the work universally regarded with favour? There is an utter lack of critical commentary in the article, not just regarding Parsifal, but with each of his works generally.
Non-operatic music
  • Clarity. - "These include a symphony (written at the age of 19)," Does the symphony have a name?
  • Redundant, awkward and confusing prose. - "These include a symphony (written at the age of 19), the Faust Overture (the only completed part of an intended symphony on the subject), some overtures, and choral and piano pieces.[171]" "symphony" is used twice (and in a confusing manner) and "the Faust Overture" is awkwardly placed prior to "some overtures".
  • Clumsy prose. - "His most commonly performed work that is not an extract from an opera is the Siegfried Idyll for chamber orchestra, which has several motifs in common with the Ring cycle.[172]" Consider: "His most commonly performed non-operatic work is the Siegfried Idyll. Written for chamber orchestra, it shares several motifs in common with the Ring cycle.[172]", or similar.
  • Prose. - "either in the original piano version". Consider: "either in the original piano arrangement", or similar.
  • Performance statistics. - This section seems to know the frequescy of performances of his works, but is this WP:OR, or is the research in this regard the product of the sources?
  • Clarity. - "from Wagner's middle and late-stage operas". Again, the terms "middle" and "late-stage operas" are used as though previously established, but unless I am missing something, it would seem that the article's author is assuming that casual readers will understand what this means. Will they, and should we write for those already well-versed in Wagner?
Prose writings
  • "Prose writings" seems a bit redundant, though I realise its not technically incorrect. Maybe just "writings"?
  • Unencyclopedic fancrufty prose. - "Wagner was an extremely prolific writer, authoring numerous books, poems, and articles, as well as voluminous correspondence." 1) "extremely" is an excess modifier, 2) "as well as voluminous correspondence" seems like a tedious way to say he wrote many letters.
  • Prose. - "His writings covered a wide range of topics, including autobiography". Did he write about the subject of autobiography, or did he write autobiographical works?
  • Redundant. - "Wagner planned for a collected edition of his publications as early as 1865;[178] he believed that such an edition". Avoid the second "edition" here.
  • Prose. - "would help the world understand his intellectual development and artistic aims" "help the world understand" is awkward and unencyclopedic. Do you mean to say "help his fans understand" or similar?
  • Repetitive. - "Wagner planned for a collected edition of his publications as early as 1865;[178] he believed that such an edition would help the world understand his intellectual development and artistic aims.[179] The first such edition".
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "but was doctored to suppress or alter articles that were an embarrassment to him". "was doctored" seems slangy to me, but perhaps its another EngVar issue as Ian has suggested below. Consider: "but was edited to suppress or alter articles that were an embarrassment to him", or similar.
  • Redundant prose. - "alter articles that were an embarrassment to him (e.g. those praising Meyerbeer), or by altering dates on some articles" Consider: "alter articles that were an embarrassment to him (e.g. those praising Meyerbeer), or by changing dates to reinforce Wagner's own account of his progress", or similar.
  • Confusing prose. - "originally published for close friends only in a very small edition". Was the book miniature? Avoid "very small" and consider "limited", or similar for clarity.
A limited edition is something different. Nothing wrong with this. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excess parentheticals, wordy. - "The first public edition (with many passages suppressed by Cosima) appeared in 1911; the first attempt at a full edition (in German) appeared in 1963.[181]" The article relies too heavily on parentheticals IMO. Consider: "The first public edition, with several passages suppressed by Cosima, appeared in 1911; the first full German language edition appeared in 1963.[181]"
  • Awkward prose or EngVar? - "There have been modern complete or partial editions of Wagner's writings," What's a "partial edition"?
Any American dictionary will help you there. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose. - "As at 2012 20 volumes have appeared". 1) I think you mean "as of 2012", 2) you need a comma after the introductory phrase.
  • Wordy. - "which, however, omitted the essay "Das Judenthum in der Musik" and Mein Leben.[183]" Omit "however" and teh two comma caused by its use here to improve flow.
  • Singular or plural? - "The English translations of Wagner's prose in eight volumes by W. Ashton Ellis". Are we using the plural of translations properly here? Do you consider them plural because they were printed in eight volumes?
  • Redundant. - "estimated to amount to"
  • Redundnat. - "is still under way under"
Influence on music
  • Unencyclopedic, fancrufty prose. - "Wagner inspired great devotion." Also, "great" is a vague modifier.
  • Prose. - "Anton Bruckner and Hugo Wolf were greatly indebted to him". Again, overuse of "greatly".
  • Prose. - "Wagner made a major contribution". Consider: "Wagner made a significant contribution", or similar.
  • Possible copyvio, non-free use image. - File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg appears to be PD in the US only, and the file is tagged as not appropriate for Wikicommons. Is there a good FUR for an image of Mahler in an article about Wagner?
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "pointing the way". Consider: "leading the way", or similar.
  • Confusing. - "were greatly indebted to him". Did they owe Wagner money? Recast for a more encyclopedic tone.
  • Repetition. - "Wagner made a major contribution to the principles and practice of conducting. His essay "About Conducting" (1869)[194] advanced Hector Berlioz's technique of conducting and claimed that conducting was a means by which a musical work could be re-interpreted, rather than simply a mechanism for achieving orchestral unison. He exemplified this approach in his own conducting, which was significantly more flexible than the disciplined approach of Mendelssohn".
  • Verbose. "inspired a whole new generation of conductors". Consider: "inspired a generation of conductors".
  • Prose, attribute claim. - "Phil Spector's wall of sound recording technique was, it has been claimed, heavily influenced by Wagner.[203]" Consider: "It has been claimed that Phil Spector's wall of sound recording technique was heavily influenced by Wagner.[203]"[according to whom?]
Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts
  • Scare quotes. - "'rebirth' of European culture in opposition to Apollonian rationalist 'decadence'." Neither "rebirth" or "decadence" are creative enough to require quotes.
  • Redundant point. - "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich." From Bayreuth (1871–76): "Amongst the disillusioned were Wagner's friend and disciple Friedrich Nietzsche, who, having published his eulogistic essay "Richard Wagner in Bayreuth" before the festival as part of his Untimely Meditations, was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time." This is a nearly verbatim rewording of a previous point.
  • Prose. - "Nietzsche expressed his displeasure with the later Wagner". Sounds like Wagner was two people. Omit "later" as redundant excess or consider: "Nietzsche later expressed his displeasure with Wagner", or similar.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner.[206]" I think even Ian might agree that "worshipped" is not the best choice here, unless of course, there was a Wagner cult of which I am unaware.
  • Verbose. - "In a list of major cultural figures influenced by Wagner, Bryan Magee includes". Consider: "Significant cultural figures influenced by Wagner include", or similar.
  • Unencyclopedic prose. - "Wagnerian themes inhabit T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land". Please consider any word other than inhabit.
  • Awkward construction. - "Wagner had publicly analysed the Oedipus myth before Freud was born in terms of its psychological significance, insisting that incestuous desires are natural and normal, and perceptively exhibiting the relationship between sexuality and anxiety.[214]" Consider: "Wagner had publicly analysed the Oedipus myth in terms of its psychological significance before Freud was born, insisting that incestuous desires are natural and normal, and perceptively exhibiting the relationship between sexuality and anxiety.[214]"
Opponents and supporters
  • Awkward prose. - "German musical life divided into two factions". Consider recasting "German musical life".
  • Repetition. - "supporters of Johannes Brahms; the latter, with the support of the powerful critic Eduard Hanslick (of whom Beckmesser in Meistersinger is in part a caricature) championed traditional forms and led the conservative front against Wagnerian innovations.[216] They were supported".
  • Slangy, unencyclopedic prose. - "contains a deliberately tongue-in-cheek quotation" Avoid "tongue-in-cheek" as a slangy colloquialism.
  • One-sentence paragraph. - "Wagner's followers (known as Wagnerians or Wagnerites)[221] have formed many societies dedicated to Wagner's life and work.[222]" Merge with above.
  • Lacking objective criticism. - There is a general lack of criticism in the article, but one would expect to find some in this section. The closest the section comes to a proper critique is prefaced with a compliment: "Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." So it would seem that the most notable criticism suggests that Wagner may have written a poor 15-minutes here and there. Even the criticism comes across as complimentary: "Even those who ... opposed Wagner ... could not deny his influence. Indeed ... many composers ... felt the need to break with Wagner precisely because his influence was so unmistakable and overwhelming."
Film and stage portrayals
  • Awkward prose. - "The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 and featured in the title role the composer Giuseppe Becce". Consider: "The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 that featured the composer Giuseppe Becce in the title role".
"The earliest was a silent film made by Carl Froelich in 1913 with the composer Giuseppe Becce playing the composer, as well as writing the film score since Wagner's music was still in copyright." - don't say "the title role" if you haven't given the title. Do you know if Wagner's music was "unavailable" or just too expensive? Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One-sentence paragraph. - "Jonathan Harvey's opera Wagner Dream (2007) intertwines the events surrounding Wagner's death with the story of Wagner's uncompleted opera outline Die Sieger (The Victors).[225]" Merge with the preceeding text.
Bayreuth Festival
  • Wordy prose. - "Since Wagner's death, the Bayreuth Festival, which has become an annual event, has been successively directed by his widow, his son Siegfried, the latter's widow Winifred Wagner, their two sons Wieland and Wolfgang Wagner, and, presently, two of the composer's great-granddaughters, Eva Wagner-Pasquier and Katharina Wagner.[226]" Consider: "Since Wagner's death, the annual Bayreuth Festival has been successively directed by his widow, his son Siegfried, the latter's widow Winifred Wagner, their two sons Wieland and Wolfgang Wagner, and, presently, two of the composer's great-granddaughters, Eva Wagner-Pasquier and Katharina Wagner.[226]"
Racism and antisemitism
  • Scare quotes. - "between 'superior' and 'inferior' races".
A lot more scary if the quotes are dropped! Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its not plagarism if the content isn't intellectually and/or creatively unique, which in this context, I don't think the terms are, but I could be wrong. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Plagiarism isn't the issue; we don't want to be talking about "inferior races" without distancing the concept by quotes. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Other interpretations
  • Repetition. - "Wagner's ideas are amenable to socialist interpretations; many of his ideas".
  • Editorialising. - "The writer Robert Donington has produced a detailed, if controversial". Omit "if controversial".
Not if reverenced. Johnbod (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it is properly referenced, then its to Donington, Robert (1979), Wagner's Ring and its Symbols, London: Faber Paperbacks. ISBN 0-571-04818-8, which I doubt. Sounds like WP:OR to me. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nazi appropriation
  • Awkward prose. - "the Nazi hierarchy as a whole did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas". Consider: "much of the Nazi hierarchy did not share Hitler's enthusiasm for Wagner's operas", or similar. Yes, its vague, but its likely more accurate and it sounds less apologetic, which is a general problem with this section.
  • Excess article. - "and attended the productions at the theatre" I think you mean: "and attended productions at the theatre", or similar.
  • Clumsy prose. - "There continues to be debate about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi thinking.[n 19]" Consider: "Debate continues about the extent to which Wagner's views might have influenced Nazi philosophy.[n 19]"
  • Asserting a negative. - "but cannot credibly be regarded as a conduit of Wagner's own views."
  • Scare quotes. - "to 'reeducate' political prisoners by exposure to 'national music'.[249]"
  • Editorialising. - "There seems to be no evidence to support claims, sometimes made,[250] that his music was played at Nazi death camps during the Second World War.[n 20]"

End review. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 04:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I have made comments inline in italics. If you intend to continue in such detail, I may not specifically comment in future on matters of taste, on which I will continue to give preference to my own views.--Smerus (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There are no spoken words in an opera, so how could the music be 'subsidiary to drama' when the drama originates from the music?" Please see Musical form. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly my point. We shouldn't be writing this article only for those with a strong comprehension of opera or even music theory and one should not have to read Wikilinks not provided in the accompanying prose in order to understand the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have now dealt appropriately with the above.--Smerus (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually it looks to me that you skipped over at least 75% of my comments. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I beleive I have responded to every one of your first batch of comments with my in-line reponses, and I have made changes in the article where I agreed with your suggestions (and not where I didn't). I have now done the same (without the in-line repsonses) for your second batch of comments. With thanks, --Smerus (talk) 06:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re latest batch of comments (2 Feb 2013). I disagree with all your rewording proposals, except as regards 'aborted'. I also have a higher estimation of readers' levels of understanding than yours, I think. MOS:AMP does not apply because this is a quote and Queen Victoria used "&". I disagree that Wagner's receipt of the order of the Red Eagle (1844) is in any way notable. Important events -I quote what Wagner himself wrote - and he was often inconsistent - c.f. Walt Whitman -"do I contradict myself? Very well then, I contradict myself - I am great - I contain multitudes". Thanks, --Smerus (talk) 04:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per your comment: "I quote what Wagner himself wrote - and he was often inconsistent". Right, Wagner "was often inconsistent" in what he wrote, but that is not at all explained in the article (TMK), which should not contain contradictions unless that contradiction is framed in the context of Wagner's inconsistencies. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. - I have found far too many basic prose issues that the nom has chosen to not address. There are dozens of sourcing problems, verbose and awkward sentence structures, inconsistent punctuation and spelling, unencyclopedic colloquialisms, missing or redundant notable datums, chronological issues, factual errors, awkward and redundant prose, etcetera. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:06, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now made in-line responses to comments of 4 February, and have or will (or will not) make changes as indicated. I note GabeMc's opposition, but, as even Wagner himself found, you can't please all of the poeple all of the time. I specifically contest however that there are, in relation to any of his comments, any missing notable data, or that there are any factual errors; nor have I seen in his comments any problems about sourcing; all of which issues might have been, as his other comments are not, material as regards FAC. --Smerus (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Examples of missing notable datums are: his 1840 imprisonment, Ludwig's romantic love for Wagner, the article does not explicate that Wagner's teachers felt that he did not show aptitude in music, the Nietzsche-Wagner relationship is mentioned only in passing, and twice in a most redundant fashion, in 1844 Wagner was awarded the Prussian order of the Red Eagle (why mention the occupations of his mistresse's husbands but not this). An example of a factual error is that Geyer died in 1821 yet was still traveling with the Wagner's in 1827 (now corrected due to my review). In terms of sourcing issues, you have the most awkward reference construction I have ever seen. Why "sources" and "other sources", do you mean "sources" and "further reading"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates' comments

[edit]

I agree with some of GabeMc's points and would like to see more of an effort made to reach an agreement. The use of "himself", which is often redundant occurs several times in the article (and incidentally in the nominators replies above). Its only function seems to be to add stress where none is needed. This sentence is particularly affected, "The topic of Wagner and the Jews is further complicated by allegations, which may have been credited by Wagner himself, that he himself was of Jewish ancestry, via his supposed father Geyer". I also saw one redundant "in order to". This contribution is very close to FA standard and it would be a shame to see it archived because good advice is not being acted on. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I will further review in the light of your advice and GabeMc's points (on many of which, despite his assertions and my reservations, I have already acted).--Smerus (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start by dealing with 'himself' and will further review the points of GabeMc.--Smerus (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Graham's admonishment to act on good advice. Gabe has certainly picked up on some issues worth rectifying and I'd expect the nominator to review anything that is clearly a factual, clarity or grammar problem. I also tend to agree with Gabe on most of his scare quote concerns. OTOH, I'm broadly in agreement with Johnbod and Smerus that many of the comments are a matter of EngVar or "taste". Leaving aside the points that Smerus has already agreed with or acted upon, when I look at the phrases described as "unencyclopedic", "slangy" or "awkward" , the only ones that stand out for me as being significantly improved by adopting Gabe's wording are: "financial woes", "held up by some", and "Almost full-blown". I'm also surprised by the suggestion that some of the prose reads like it was written by a non-English speaker, as some of the comments read that way to me, for instance the suggestions that "Wagner's operatic works are his primary artistic legacy" is improved by "Wagner's primary artistic legacy are his operatic works" (it's one legacy, right?), or that "attempts at opera" is poorly expressed (it's the sort of phrasing I'd expect to see in any book or article on a composer). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "attempts at opera", see for instance [17] and [18]. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a review is not expected or required to be 100% beyond reproach, so any of my suggestions that relate to EngVar are by nature subjective. I concede the point regarding "attempts at opera", it just seems awkward to me. I would never say that Hendrix made attempts at blues, though I might say "Hendrix made attempts to compose blues songs", or similar. Also, regarding Ian's comment: "it's one legacy, right?". Well, I guess I should have written: "Wagner's primary artistic legacy is his operatic works", but that doesn't seem like an improvement either in hindsight. On another note, this is the first time I've ever seen a delegate negatively review a review. Ian, are you speaking here as a delegate or a contributor/co-nom? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well as a delegate I'd hope my comments are taken as constructive rather than positive or negative, aimed as they are at gaining resolution to outstanding concerns. BTW, while it's the job of the reviewer to judge an article, it's very much the job of the delegates to judge reviews, weighing up their comprehensiveness and how well they reflect the FAC criteria, and we will on occasion express that judgement in written form in nominations. I've gathered that you recognise that some of your comments are subjective, but a review as detailed as the one you're posting makes it harder to determine what's simply a suggestion, and what's a serious concern that's contributing to your opposition. It might help to move not only your resolved comments to the FAC talk page but also (under a separate heading of course) less vital prose suggestions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expressing a judgement about a review and insulting a reviewer are not the same thing Ian. If so many of my comments sounded like an ESL speaker, then at least they won't be on the front page of Wikipedia in May. This is an FAC talk page, not a featured article in mainspace, so I find it more than a bit silly that you would use a tense error and a matter of taste against me in a feeble attempt to undermine my review and assert your assumed dominance over the FAC process. How about: "Wagnerian themes inhabit T. S. Eliot's The Waste Land", "Wagner's sudden interest in Christianity ... which infuses Parsifal", "Charles Baudelaire, Stéphane Mallarmé and Paul Verlaine worshipped Wagner", or "He apparently also toyed with the idea". Am I wrong about these examples of less than brilliant prose? Do you really think its not notable enough for inclusion that Wagner was imprisoned for debt or that a significant motivating factor in Ludwig's patronage of Wagner was a homosexual love for him? Or that Wagner's teachers felt that he did not show any musical aptitude? Or that his sisters significantly influenced his interest in opera? Also, since you seem to be discouraging my review generally (something I have never seen from a delegate at FAC), I have now hastily concluded it so as to avoid opening myself up to further personal attacks from you. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ian, I'm curious what you think about this: "Wagner's controversial writings ... have antisemitic content". Is this also an EngVar issue or would "contain" or "include" be an improvement over "have"? It is my understanding that "have" is a possesive verb and should therefore not be used where the subject is inanimate. Perhaps you could clarify my mistake, assuming I am making one regarding this point. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Lacking objective criticism", I have to agree. A lack of negative contemporary criticism is a big problem in articles on composers of classical music. The articles Gustav Mahler and Olivier Messiaen became FAs without containing any. Toccata quarta (talk) 06:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Wagner was as musically innovative and intellectually controversial as the article suggests (and I'm certain that he was), then there would have been much negative critical commentary written contemporary with Wagner, as with all artists who changed the status quo. I'm not seeing anything along those lines in this article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I used "contemporary" as synonymous with "recent". Toccata quarta (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realised that, but surely there were opponents of Wagner who voiced more critical opinions (at the time and now) then "Wagner has wonderful moments, and dreadful quarters of an hour." Also, Wagner is not universally admired today, though one would never learn that by reading the article. Some list him as one of the most overrated composers of all time. At any rate, the criticism of Wagner by his contemporaries goes largely ignored in the article, except to preface such comments with how amazingly perfect and overwhelmingly influential he was. This work would be a good place to start in terms of introducing some objectivity and historical accuracy to an article that currently reads as though everyone agreed that Wagner was the greatest and nobody criticized his operatic innovations. Per: "The articles Gustav Mahler and Olivier Messiaen became FAs without containing any [criticism]", please see WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you referring me to WP:OSE? I disapproved of the lack of modern criticism in these articles. Relax. Toccata quarta (talk) 05:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you're right. I misread your comment. You have my full apologies. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still plenty of people in music who don't like Wagner's music, and always have been, but it would be a tough job to argue against its enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer. I don't know what serious attempts have been made at this. Johnbod (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For serious attempts at critiquing Wagner see: Theodor W. Adorno, Karin Bauer, Reinhold Grimm, James Martin Harding, Henry Theophilus Finck, Carl Dahlhaus, Kevin Karnes, Mary A. Cicora, Ronald Taylor, Michael Saffle, Joseph Bennett and Wilhelm Richard Wagner and Thomas S. Grey (among others). E.g. "The musically cultured public of the earlier nineteenth century had a comfortable, established conception of what music was – and to them it was not what Wagner composed." —Ronald Taylor. Works of critical commentary regarding Wagner's music most certainly do exist, they are just not currently represented in the article, which would seem to fail both 1b and 1d of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria based on this glaring omision. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there are shelves of it, much of it written by proper musicologists, unlike most of the rag-tag bunch you list. And the article covers the very critical debate over his various texts as literature & their political impact etc. Have you read all this lot? Does it contain much 'criticising his operatic innovations', let alone 'arguing against his enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer"? Johnbod (talk) 22:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are aware of high quality sources that contain critical commentary of Wagner yet you have not provided any here: "I don't know what serious attempts have been made at this." FTR, I never said anything even close to "arguing against his enormous influence and importance in various ways, or his brilliance as a composer", and that is a strawman argument. Yes he was brilliant, yes he was massively influential, I never said that he wasn't. But was his music universally accepted with favour and should this article pass FAC without any of the high-quality critical commentary of which you now appear to be aware? If so, why? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have barely edited the article, which, I must remind you, is his biography. We have several other long ones on his music, where most of this would belong. I'd certainly not object to a couple of paragraphs more, but there is enough straightforward musical analysis and criticism here for an FA biography. There is certainly room for a whole FA on Reception history of Richard Wagner or something more elegantly titled. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or, perhaps a two or three paragraph sub-section in this article titled: "Criticism", or similar. Afterall, we already have a section titled: "Influence and legacy", so "Criticism" might fit quite nicely in there. Also, you aren't including Thomas S. Grey in the "rag-tag bunch" are you? From the rag-tag bunch at the Encyclopedia Britannica: "Tannhäuser was coolly received but soon proved a steady attraction; after this, each new work achieved public popularity despite persistent hostility from many critics." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A point from Adam Cuerden

[edit]

Minor point, but the Franz Betz image, File:Betz Franz.png, is very odd. I don't know who thought it was a good idea to change this into the circle cutout we have. I'll see if I can't do something. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

5 minutes' work and the problem is no more. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting a point

[edit]

Sorry to complicate things but I wish to query a change made for Gerda regarding the use of the term "music drama". David changed the lede to say the term was used by Wagner. However, when I took Bayreuth canon to FLC, I was specifically asked to remove the term based on what was said when following the link music drama. My reply contained the following "I've opted to remove the reference altogether. I've looked at Millington's article in Grove which talks about Wagner trying out "Festspiel" and "Handlung" and asking readers of his article Über die Benennung ‘Musikdrama’ to come up with suggestions." if someone wants to look at the sources.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, please, I didn't want "music drama" but a mentioning that Wagner himself did not see his later works as "operas". Peter, can you word that better in the lead? (Said before:) I also miss the term "Bühnenfestspiel" in the article, and "Götterdämmerung" in the biography. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the article, in the header paragraph to the Operas section, and sourced (notes 139 and 140) these operas are referred to by many commentators as 'music dramas', despite Wagner's reservations. I don't think we need to introduce further contenders such as 'poetic dramas' (which is a complete novelty to me, and is by no means a standard descriptor for these works).--Smerus (talk) 15:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted summary of what needs to be done

[edit]

I am trying to assess what, from the welter of comment above, is really germane to the assessment of the article as FA. I am aware there needs to be checking of one or two citations, and as already stated I will not be in a position to do this for a week or two, as I am 2000 miles away from my library and sources.

I have dealt with the issues of wording raised by Graham Colm and Ian Holm/GabeMcC. My approach to GabeMc's other comments on the prose of myself and others is expressed in varous comments above; I have in fact gone through every one of his points and in the cases where I felt clarity could indeed be improved I have done my best to remedy the text.

I do not believe, pace the comments of some editors, that there are any factual or source issues presently in debate. If there are, can someone please highlight them, because there may in fact be some snowed under somewhere. Interestingly the factual error re Geyer's death which GabeMc claims to have found was in fact discovered by me in responding to an issue which GabeMc had made about the structure of the sentence, not its content. As regards missing notable data, setting aside the rather comical claim about the award of a minor Prussian order, I think there are two points that need consideration.

One is the homoerotic element in Ludwig's obsession with Wagner. I think overall that this should be mentioned, and carefully sourced, as Wagner certainly exploited it (without reciprocating it), and this gives an insight into one aspect of W's character. I would rather wait until I have my sources before including it myself, but of course any other editor with good sources is welcome to do so.

The other is the issue of 'contemporary criticism', in the sense of 20th/21st century comment. I was slightly bemused by the rather optimisitic comment of one editor that this could perhaps be summarised in two or three paragraphs. I am also bemused by the tenor of comments which suggest that commentators on Wagner must be 'for' or 'against' him. I don't in fact know of any musical commentator of repute who suggests that Wagner's music is worthless or should be ignored - again, please let me know of any such if you find them. Of course there is plenty of anti-Wagnerian political comment and this is covered in the article. Amongst 20th and 21st musical and policitical commentators on Wagner who are cited, by no means all of whom are dyed-in-the-blood Wagnerians, are Adorno, Grey, Weiner, Gutman, Deathridge, Mr. Walsh of Time magazine, and indeed myself. I absolutely agree that we could do with an article on 'Wagner reception' in WP, and I suspect it would be at least as long if not longer than the present one. My view is that the topic is best left to another article, rather than travestying it in an abbreviated form in what is supposed to be a biographical article, or, even worse, swamping the main article with an attempt at a full coverage.

It would be a great help I think to myself and other editors if comments on this page could be limited to issues relating to the FA status of the article; there are of course many fora where extraneous points of principle can be raised.

Thanks to all of you (including GabeMc) for your interest.--Smerus (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Smerus, for all your fine work on an important subject. Per your comment: "I am also bemused by the tenor of comments which suggest that commentators on Wagner must be 'for' or 'against' him." I'm not sure what you are talking about here, as I never attempted to "go there". Who IYO is pushing that POV? Perhaps the article's construction implies this, as there is a sub-section titled: "Opponents and supporters", in "Influence and legacy", where a sub-section titled: "Critical commentary" could easily be included, or perhaps it should replace "Opponents and supporters". That writers were critical of his work at the time is notable, its not an issue of "spliting" IMO, whereby you are either for him or against him. All innovators faced resistance, but that is not meant to imply that you either love or hate Wagner with no objective middle ground. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On missing notable datums. - How about mentioning his sisters as an early musical influence? Or that his teachers thought Wagner did not show any musical aptitude, or that he was imprisoned for debt in 1840 (unless this is incorrect, but no one will address the point). I think its notable that Wagner "prophesied the disappearance of opera". Wagner returned to Germany in 1861, yet the article implies it was 1862. RE: "Dutchman and Tannhäuser", why the mix of English and German titles? There remains unresolved the issue of a possible copyvio regarding File:Photo of Gustav Mahler by Moritz Nähr 01.jpg, which appears to be PD in the US only and not in its country of origin. For consistency, you should mention that The Fairies was based on a story by Carlo Gozzi. Are "musical director" and "conductor" synonymous? Britannica says he was a conductor at Magdeburg, but perhaps the two terms are interchangeable. Its notable to Wagner's bio that at Leipzig he was an adjunct with inferior privileges as he had not completed his preparatory schooling. You mention that "Rienzi was staged to considerable acclaim on 20 October.", but not that "The next year The Flying Dutchman ... was less successful, since the audience expected a work in the French-Italian tradition similar to Rienzi and was puzzled by the innovative way the new opera integrated the music with the dramatic content." This second point speaks to the resistance Wagner suffered for his innovations, something I think the article is currently lacking. For a similar reason, a point explicating that Wagner's "proposals would have taken control of the opera away from the court and created a national theatre whose productions would be chosen by a union of dramatists and composers" would further explicate his difficult position as a musical innovator. Why no mention of his "long-cherished plan to win renown in Paris"? There remain several "scare quotes" and unattributed quotes: e.g., "In Das Rheingold, with its "relentlessly talky 'realism' [and] the absence of lyrical 'numbers'" and "'the rewriting of some recent Wagnerian history'". There are also a few redundancies that need to be rectified. E.g., "In Bayreuth: "Friedrich Nietzsche ... was bitterly disappointed by what he saw as Wagner's pandering to increasingly exclusivist German nationalism; his breach with Wagner began at this time.[116]" In "Influence on literature, philosophy and the visual arts": "Nietzsche broke with Wagner following the first Bayreuth Festival, believing that Wagner's final phase represented a pandering to Christian pieties and a surrender to the new German Reich." These two points are nearly identicle and they are redundant in the article. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerus, regarding your above comment: "My view is that [critical commentary] is best left to another article". Why then does that sentiment not apply to praise? The article currently contains the following positive comments: "a diaphanous score of unearthly beauty and refinement".[26], "[Wagner's] protean abundance meant that he could inspire the use of literary motif in many a novel employing interior monologue; ... the Symbolists saw him as a mystic hierophant; the Decadents found many a frisson in his work.[204], "his influence was so unmistakable and overwhelming", "A thoroughgoing synthesis of poetry and music is achieved without any notable sacrifice in musical expression", "Barry Millington describes Meistersinger as 'a rich, perceptive music drama widely admired for its warm humanity';[159], "Weinlig was so impressed with Wagner's musical ability that he refused any payment for his lessons", "W. H. Auden once called Wagner 'perhaps the greatest genius that ever lived',[209]. So why no critical commentary in light of the numerous instances of glorification that are currently in the article? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's closing comments – I am promoting this candidate because I am satisfied that the FA criteria have been met. There are some outstanding issues, but these can be resolved on the article's Talk Page post promotion. I apologise to reviewer GabeMc for closing when some comments remain unanswered (here). This FAC has received support from reviewers, with solid credentials, which cannot be ignored and in my judgement a consensus to promote has been reached. I thank nominator and all the reviewers for taking part in our FA process. No further edits should be made to this page, please continue the discussion at the article's talk. Graham Colm (talk) 23:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [19].

Fort Dobbs (North Carolina)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it concisely and completely covers a frontier fort that was involved in a critically under-recognized period of conflict, and because I have put this article through multiple ringers including WP:MILHIST A-Class Review, GAN, a lengthy Peer Review, and I believe this article is in peak condition. This is my first nomination, and the first article I've started that's gotten this far, so I look forward to the experience. Cdtew (talk) 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. I've reviewed this for A-class and Peer Review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 00:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images (but not spotchecks) were mostly covered at the recent peer review, but a few more:

  • Done. I checked the rest and made sure they were right. Cdtew (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up: Based on your comments in the peer review, I tracked down and purchased a copy of the Arthur Dobbs biography by Desmond Clarke; funnily enough, it mentioned the fort in passing, mentioned the conflict slightly more, but was mostly focused on Dobbs' personal financial interests and his wrangling with the Provincial Assembly. I will be using it, but only to add a nice footnote about Dobbs' land near Fort Dobbs. Cdtew (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And one last thing, since you did an image check. I've finally figured out how to extract an image of Hugh Waddell from an online book. The image is uncredited, but it appears as a print in a book published in 1885/1890. Does this pass muster for purposes of FAC image checking? If the PD tag I've got on the image isn't sufficient, or if the image constitutes a "substantial edit" that throws off the FAC review, I'll happily remove it. I've been trying to source it for weeks now, and had forgotten somehow that it was in the Waddell book. Cdtew (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I reviewed this article at Good Article Nominations and a substantial number of comments were addressed. Following this, I suggested to the nominator that he expand the archaeology-related coverage of the article. Looking again, this has been satisfactorily done, and I believe it now has the comprehensiveness necessary for FA. Good work. —Ed!(talk) 03:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by SandyGeorgia

[edit]
  1. This sentence in the lead makes sense when viewed with Wikilinks, but look at the problem when the links are left out (as they are on some mirrors):
    • Used as a provincial fort during and after the French and Indian and Anglo-Cherokee Wars,
      How does the reader know how many wars are there ? Without links, it looks like either three wars, or one war with a weird name.
  2. Please try to vary the prose, sample ... built ... built
    Fort Dobbs was built to protect the British settlers of the western portion of what was then Rowan County. Built as a blockhouse ...
  3. Unclear why the switch here ...
    • The fort's name honored Arthur Dobbs, the colonial Governor of North Carolina from 1754 to 1765, who authorized its construction, and played a role in designing the fort.
      Design is before construction, so why not who had a role in the fort's design and authorized its construction ... same tense.
    • And then the very next sentence again used "its construction" ... please try to vary prose.
  4. Don't understand why these two sentences are connected at all, much less with "although" ?
    • the fort housed a variable number of militia soldiers, although many soldiers based at Fort Dobbs were sent to fight in Pennsylvania and the Ohio River Valley during the French and Indian War.
  5. Scanning further into the article to see if there are similar issues:
    • The attack on Fort Dobbs and settlements in the North Carolina Piedmont led the government of North Carolina to join South Carolina and Virginia in their attacks on the Cherokee in their own settlements in North and South Carolina, known as the "Middle" and "Lower Towns". Initially, however, Governor Dobbs notified Governor Lyttelton of South ...
      Repetitive ... attack on ... attacks on ... Also, see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however; please review throughout.

I am not opposing (yet) because the article isn't in bad shape, but I would suggest additional prose checking and tightening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much, I'll have a look later tonight. - Dank (push to talk) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking he time to look this over. I will go through the wording a little later (probably simultaneously with Dank) to see if I can make it sound more varied. I sincerely appreciate your comments, and look forward to your responses once the article has been revised accordingly. I've moved my responses to your points below:
1. The more I think about this, the more I think it should just be the French and Indian War, since that encompasses the Anglo-Cherokee war as well. I have made that adjustment.
3. I don't necessarily disagre, but as far as government is concerned, authorization for construction (and in this context it mainly means appropritaing funds) comes initially before the design of a structure. I'd be open or changing the order, though, if it just flows better.'
4. I agree, this sounds strange when I read it now. I'll change. Cdtew (talk) 00:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
5. I only see one use of "however", and I believe that it's the correct usage, since it isn't conjoining two complete thoughts, merely attempting to distinguish the thought that follows it from the prior sentence. I am, however (ha!), replacing it with "though", which is less clunky. Cdtew (talk) 02:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revisit by SandyGeorgia:
Now we have this:

Delegate comments -- A belated welcome to FAC on behalf of the delegates, Cdtew... I'll want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which is standard procedure for new nominators (and is generally expected every so often for old FAC hands as well). If one of the reviewers above would like to take care of that, well and good, otherwise I'll scout around for someone to action. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been posted at MilHist for a day or so, and I just posted it at WikiProject:NC; no responses yet. Cdtew (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still no response, it seems. If it makes the spot check simpler, I have copies of pretty much all of the items in the bibliography (aside from some that I used the online version of only). If anyone needs scans, I'd be happy to send them. Cdtew (talk) 20:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks of 7 sources:

  • "generally accepted by the academic community" - not sure this can be argued based only on the source given, though I don't doubt it to be true
  • "constructed from parts of local, 19th-century log structures" - not in cited source
  • "At the commencement of the French and Indian War, settlers in the nearby Fourth Creek Congregation settlement took refuge within the fort's walls" - the only thing about this in the cited source is "At times colonists stayed close to the fort's walls for protection". Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Issue 1: Changed to reflect source That is a remnant of my original writing, so I've corrected it to conform more with the source. Regardless of academic acceptance (and admittedly, it hasn't seen any real academic comment as the Babits proposal was prepared privately for the Friends organization), the only two entities whose approval matters are the Friends (who are funding the project), and the State (whose historical site it is). As of now, both are all-in on reconstruction based on Babits.
  • Issue 2: Done That was a forgotten cite to a different part of the website. It's not an independent source, but its not really controversial information; I believe I've seen this mentioned in one of my book sources, and if I find it (and if you think it'd be better) I'll replace it when I'm able with a third-party source. I imagine the third party source, however, will base its info on the state or the non-profit saying that's what it is, though.
  • Issue 3: Done I've conformed my wording more closely to the fort. A later source I quote (Lofaro) does say that Daniel Boone's extended family found protection "in" the fort, but I checked back and it doesn't clarify or expand on that beyond a mention. Thanks for the s/c! Let me know if anything else pops up - I've been working on this for so continuously that these just got lost in the mix, or I never went back and clarified. Cdtew (talk) 15:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry about #2, it's not a concern to have a non-independent source for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [20].

Homework (Daft Punk album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Homework is the debut studio album released by French electronic music duo Daft Punk in January 20, 1997. Considered a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip-hop, its success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from Homework's style. According to The Village Voice, the album revived house music and broke free from the "Eurodance formula". — ΛΧΣ21 03:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments – just taking a brief look; no plans on opposing or supporting right now.

Comments from Cassianto

Not all bad, but certainly not there in terms of featured content. I note that a peer review was not conducted before FAC and would recommend this before coming here in future. A lot of what I have noted could have been avoided with a good peer review. There maybe a lot here, so you may wish to pull its FAC and initiate a peer review before resubmission. Then again, you may not. Either way, here is my review:

Lead *"Considered a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip hop, its success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from Homework's style." --> seems a bit long and could do with being broken up to prevent breathlessness ;)

  • "Critically and commercially acclaimed, <---BY WHO---> Homework was considered to be one of the best electronic albums of the decade, as well as "the foundation" of the "French touch" movement, although Darren Gawle from Drop-D Magazine called its content as"amateurish".
  • You keep saying "Commercially successful and critically acclaimed, but it might be good to see evidence of this with a show of album sales, chart position etc.
Recording history

*"Daft Punk returned to the studio in May 1995 to record "Da Funk", and the same year, it was released alongside "Rollin' & Scratchin'" as singles under the Soma label." --> "Daft Punk returned to the studio in May 1995 to record "Da Funk" which was released later that year alongside "Rollin' & Scratchin'" under the Soma label."

  • "The ensuing popularity of Daft Punk's singles led to a bidding war among record labels, which resulted in the duo signing to Virgin Records in 1996." --> We see no evidence of the "ensuing popularity" up until this point. If the singles which are mentioned in the first paragraph were successful, then you will need to say so and provide a ref.
  • Their departure was noted by Richard Brown of Soma, who stated that "We were obviously sad to lose them to Virgin but they had the chance to go big, which they wanted, and it's not very often that a band has that chance after two singles. We're happy for them." -- Sounds like an admission to me rather than a stated comment.
  • "Bangalter later stated that the B-side "was never intended to be on the album, and in fact, 'Da Funk' as a single has sold more units than Homework, so more people own it anyways than they would if it had been on the album. It is basically used to make the single a double-feature." Does he say "anyways"? If so, use a [sic] to show the mistake is intentional.
  • WP:OVERLINK to Paris. I'm sure most would know where Paris is.
  • OVERLINK to Mastering as it directs to the same article as "mastered" in the previous paragraph.
  • Could you briefly describe who Slam are? I have no idea who they are and I had to click off the article to find this information out. Not good when you want to retain the reader. Perhaps say; " In 1993 Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo presented a demo of their own electronic music to DJ Stuart Macmillan at a rave in EuroDisney."
  • "Virgin re-released "Da Funk" with the B-side "Musique" in 1996, before releasing Homework." - When, the same year? A year later?
  • "The album was mixed and recorded in their own studio, Daft House in Paris, France." Do we need to be told Paris is in France?
Structure

*"Homework is considered to be a blend of house, techno, acid, funk and occasionally hip hop." -- by who?

  • "The following track, "WDPK 83.7 FM" is considered a tribute to FM radio in the United States." -- by who?
  • Why the link to the French government? This is self explanatory isn't it?
  • "It is immediately followed by "Da Funk", which is considered to carry elements of funk and acid music." -- by who? If no one, then consider rewording to: "It is immediately followed by "Da Funk", which carries elements of funk and acid music." Either it does or it doesn't.
  • "The song "Fresh" is stated to be breezy and light, and the duo consider its structure to be comical." -- who "stated" this? Where is this "stated"?
  • "Michel Gondry likewise compared the track's bassline to that of "Good Times" by Chic." -- Likewise? Like who?
  • ""Around the World" and "Da Funk" have been named among the best songs of their time." -- by who?
  • WP:OVERLINK to Soma Recordings. Also, the correct name should be given to avoid confusion; in this instance "Soma Quality Recordings". If not, be consistent with which name you use, and only link once.
  • "Daftendirekt" is an excerpt of a live performance recorded at the first I Love Techno Party in Ghent." Not many people will know where Ghent is so you could mention it is in Belgium.
  • "The song sampled a previous track, 'Musique.'" - Too stubby. Could you either elaborate on this, or merge it into a fuller sentence?
  • "to communicate its message of dumb fun." - who said this because your using inverts?
  • Who is Michel Gondry? -- again, I'm clicking the link to find out.
Singles

*"Homework featured singles..." -- why the past tense?

  • number-one single -- no hyphen
  • WP:OVERLINK to United Kingdom and France. Everyday English words that are expected to be understood in the general context, should not be linked
  • OVERLINK to "Da Funk"
  • "Revolution 909" should be linked on its first mention
Commercial performance
  • "Upon its release in 1997, overwhelming sales of Homework caused distributors to accelerate production and satisfy demand." -- Did the distributors accelerate production to satisfy demand, or was this a separate goal, in which case the "and" would be correct.
  • "The album appeared in 35 countries throughout the world and sold over two million copies in a few months after it release." -- this kind of information should really be mentioned in the lede.
  • "The album peaked at number 150 on the Billboard 200.[40] Homework first charted on the Australian Albums Chart on April 27, 1997, appearing a total eight weeks and peaking at number 37." -- and this.
  • In fact, most of the rest of this section could do with a mention within the lede.
  • "The fourth single was "Burnin'", released on September 1997" - on or in?
  • "The fifth and final single released from Homework was "Revolution 909", on February 1998." - In the interests of copy editing, I think we could get away with saying "The final single released from Homework was "Revolution 909", on February 1998."
  • Check the last paragraph; it is usual to finish with a citation. Can one be found?
  • "Homework first charted on the Australian Albums Chart on April 27, 1997, appearing a total eight weeks and peaking at number 37." -- doesn't read right. May I suggest ending it with"...appearing over an eight week period and peaking at number 37."
  • Homework was certified Gold by the British Phonographic Industry, for more than 100,000 copies sold. -- reads better by saying Homework was certified Gold by the British Phonographic Industry, for selling over 100,000 copies.
  • " In 1999, it was certified Gold in France for 100,000 copies sold." -- again here.
Critical response

*And it proved to many club-goers that there was more to dance music than pills and keyboard presets." -- why are you starting the sentence with a conjunction? Does the period exist in the original quote?

Track listing
  • WP:OVERLINK to Thomas Bangalter & Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo and the tracks.
  • Homework's success brought worldwide attention to French progressive house music and incited interest in French touch music, as several touch artists gained influence from its style. -- Could you give an example?
  • Be careful in over quoting
Personnel
  • Again here. Also, I find that this information would be better suited in prose form within the first sections of the article.

To sum up, far, far off from being featured content in my opinion, but not impossible to make so. There is a gross amount of overlinking, prose is a bit dodgy in places, quite a lot of missing authors of "considered it to be" and "is considred" etc and a need to swap a few "stated" for other descriptive words, such as "claimed", "confirmed", "said", "wrote", "described" etc. No rush for fixes, but if these comments are going to take too much time, then I would reconsider FAC until a peer review has been completed. If you choose to do this, I will happily move all this to there and take part. -- CassiantoTalk 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey. Thanks for your lenghty and detailed comments. I have fixed all but one, the "ensuing popularity" one. If you have more comments, I'd be glad to fix them ASAP. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 22:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow! Please excuse my preemptive and quite frankly defeatist attitude. Most would have run a mile at the length of this review and emerged over the hills at peer review; kudos for your resilience and double quick responses. I will check over again and report back at the next opportunity. -- CassiantoTalk 22:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Still getting links appear on the second or third mention. I have done a couple but you will need to go through and secure the rest.

  • Check for single linking to "The New Wave"
  • Check for the correct amount of inverted commas when speaking of the single "Burnin'". Also check that this is not linked on the second usage. -- CassiantoTalk 07:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done. My only two gripes now are the lede, which now appears a little too short and could be extended to three paragraphs,and the rather redundent "Personnel" section. This would benefit from being incorporated into the main text, possibly within the "structure" section (with a mention in the extended lede).
    • I am very lazy to expand the lead. I consider that it crafts the information very well, and I don't like odd-numbered leads :) Anyways, I will see what I can do. If it needs expansion, so be it :)

::*Yes, it does touch upon much of the information, but there is no mention of who the "duo" is (maybe introduce them by name within the lede somewhere near the top). If you could add at least this, I would be happy enough to strike this comment.

    • I don't find the personnel section redundant. I mean, this section is standard in album articles, AFAIK. I know that, as the duo is the only notable workers of the album, it may look as redundant, but I consider the opposite. I will leave it there for now :)
  • I disagree. I don't really review music or album articles, so I'm not sure of the correct layout. I feel it is poorly situated and aesthetically uneasy on the eye. I would prefer an earlier mention within the "Structure" section. I would be interested in what others think.

*I'm no good with graphs and tables etc and have had to seek help with my two FL's. I do find the ugly white space under the smaller table an eyesore. I don't suppose there is anything we can do about that though. Check the tables against WP:ACCESS and you can't go to wrong in my opinion.

*Support - per resolved comments above and the confirmation Penguin has given in relation to the tables. -- CassiantoTalk 09:59, 27 December 2012 (UTC) Still no resolution to the "Personnel" section which could be the straw that broke the camels back. Also, it is clear that there are still a number of prose issues, some of which slipped past me during my initial review above. I'm not opposing right now, but I feel I can't support either at the moment, pending improvement and the deletion of the pointless Personnel section. I will be staying Neutral for the time being and revisit it a week or two. -- CassiantoTalk 16:44, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - The article is now tip-top thanks to Mark's cute copyediting skills. As far as I can see all issues raised have now been fixed and I am happy to supports its promotion. -- CassiantoTalk 09:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards oppose – still needs a bit more work w.r.t. prose, sources and media. Read halfway into the article:

  • The prose is still a little fluffy. For example: "The duo commented that they had produced the series of tracks without an initial plan [plans] to release an album."
  • More: "However, after working on several projects that were intended to be separate singles over five months, the duo considered the material to be good enough to make [for] an album."
  • Unclear: "...Homework appeared in 35 countries throughout the world..." – I understand what you're saying, but "appeared in x countries" is not clear.
  • When identifying a greater quantity than the given figure, "more than" is nicer than "over".
  • More redundancy: "...and was considered to be the foundation of the French touch movement."
  • Unclear and a bit muddy: "The album features singles that had significant impact in the French house and global dance music scenes." (I have reread this and understood it now)
  • Compound adjectives like "number one" here need to be hyphenated: "These include the US Billboard Hot Dance/Club Play number one singles 'Da Funk' and 'Around the World', the latter of which reached number 68 on the Billboard Hot 100."
  • Unpleasant fused participle: "...which resulted in the duo signing to Virgin Records in 1996."
  • Still redundancy, no need for "own": "The album was mixed and recorded in their own studio..."
  • More: "the duo remain the owners of their master recordings through the Daft Trax label." – "remain the owners of" → "still own".
  • "a series of" is often too wordy, like here: "At first, Daft Punk produced a series of tracks without a plan to release an album."
  • "[more listenable]" seems unnecessary.
  • Better in active voice than passive: "'Daftendirekt' was sampled by Janet Jackson on her song "So Much Betta", which was included in her tenth studio album, Discipline in 2008." – so something like "Janet Jackson sampled 'Daftendirekt' on her song "So Much Betta", which was included in her tenth studio album, Discipline in 2008."
  • What makes WhoSampled and Sputnikmusic high quality reliable sources?
  • Why did you use the audio samples? They're non-free and need specific well explained captions and rationales for use. Audio samples are used to illustrate the sound of a song.

This is a very well done contribution, but needs some work before it can be crisp and considered as one of Wikipedia's best. I'm willing to go further down the article once I'm happy with the upper half. Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:59, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I finally convinced Mark Arsten to give it a copyedit. WhoSampled is not much reliable, I thought I have removed it. Sputnikmusic is a high quality music site, very reliable. Each review undergoes editorial oversight and is written by a proffesional set of staff writers. I see no issue there. I will expand the captions and raionales of the samples. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 18:26, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Sputnikmusic is generally not a high quality source since it is a mixture of user contributors and staff reviewers. Your review in particular is by an emeritus, so I guess that would be like a former staff reviewer. Not sure. I'll look into it a bit more. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:17, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Care must be taken when using Sputnikmusic. Captions have been expanded and WhoSampled is removed. I will take care of the rationales later. — ΛΧΣ21 19:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Mark Arsten has finished copyediting the article. I think that this solved any prose issues left. — ΛΧΣ21 03:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The prose has improved, but all my points have not been addressed yet. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now they have, I guess. — ΛΧΣ21 16:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have revisited and struck through whichever points have been addressed. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 17:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the rest I guess. Some of the ones you didn't srtuck were already solved by Mark when he copyedited (I am unable to find them) — ΛΧΣ21 17:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have revisited again. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:19, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Got the ones left. I think that the FURs are well done. I don't know how to expand them further. — ΛΧΣ21 19:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This and this have generic rationales and do not explain how that audio sample in particular is useful to the article. Discuss the songs in question. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Let me see that I can do. I didn't see this comment before. — ΛΧΣ21 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have expanded the rationales. Take a look at them and tell e if they are okay. — ΛΧΣ21 03:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks a lot better! Just one more issue above re. "remain the owners of". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 03:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! :) Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 03:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed and I've withdrawn my oppose. If I have time, I'll look at the article again sometime later. Best, —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment media (done GermanJoe (talk) 15:06, 22 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia

[edit]

Not yet:

  1. Inconsistent citation format, authors have some first name last name, others last name, first name. Some pages are p. with a space, others are p. without a space before the page number.
    I think I took care of this. Will check again soon.
    I fixed multiple stragglers: [21] why is the book source listed under "Notes"? It isn't a Note-- it's either Bibliography, or Sources, or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will do another scan tomorrow night, as I won't be available all day I guess. I changed the header to Bibliography. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 05:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reliability check needed ... for example, http://www.westnet.com/
    Will check again.
    I don't know about Westnet, but Bob Gajarsky seems to be a recognized journalist and this makes this information, written by him, reliable enough for FA status. — ΛΧΣ21 00:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, digging a bit furhter, WestNet is only hosting the issues of Comsumable Online (old archive from 1997 using Archive.org), "the oldest music reviews publication on the Internet, consists of reviews, interviews, tour information and other music related information." The magazine closed on August 1, 2000, and then all issues went to WestNet, which was the web service provider of the magazine.[22] Bob Gajarsky was the editor in chief and founder of the magazine.[23] The primary source says that the magazine was referred to by NetGuide as the "no-frills alternative music authority" (here is the issue, although not preview is available). I managed to find this, this and this by now. I guess this is enough to prove it is reliable. — ΛΧΣ21 01:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (Without knowing all of that, it looked like a copyright violation, which we shouldn't link to). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Logical quotation (MOS:LQ_ review needed, samples: He contended that it proved "there was more to dance music than pills and keyboard presets." and ... into the record in a way that was "a groundbreaking achievement."
    Will take care of this this weekend. I am way too busy in weekdays.
    LQ check still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I already did this. — ΛΧΣ21 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:ITALICS review needed, I saw for example Slant Magazine and Stylus Magazine ... are those available in hard print or are they websites? If they are available in hard print, they should be italicized ... pls review throughout.
    Indeed, they are not published on paper. Will fix ASAP.
    If they are not published on paper, they don't need italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done this too. — ΛΧΣ21 17:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Redundant prose? " ... Ian Mathers of Stylus Magazine, in his review of the album, noted that ... please review throughout.
    Hmm I got a very good copyeditor so I don't know what to do. I will read and remove all redundancies I get.
    Now the sentence has a grammatical error:
  6. I don't know what some of this means:
    It also sparked interest in French touch music, and several touch artists gained influence from its style. According to The Village Voice, the album revived house music and broke free from the Eurodance formula.
    "Gained influence"? the album broke free from the Eurodance formula? Please review throughout to make sure the prose is understandable to someone who isn't familiar with the topic.
    Well, I am not familiar with the topic as a whole and I got the meaning of it. I will take a look again. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 03:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't read Sandy's comments before looking at the lead but exactly the same phase stood out for me. I've never heard the expression "gained influence from" before -- I assume you mean "gained inspiration from" or, preferably, "took inspiration from" or simply "were influenced by". BTW, I'm happy generally with "broke free from the Eurodance formula" but I think standard English would be "broke free of", not "broke free from". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I forgot that it was also written on the lead. I have fixed the phrase by now. Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21 15:36, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'm going to give this a look over sometime soon. At first glance, I'd reduce the dependence on liner notes (a primary source) as much as possible. Find suitable secondary sources to back up the same information (or at least the important portions worth keeping). WesleyDodds (talk) 04:19, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon a brief glance, I see Discogs still used as a ref in the article, twice. And though this doesn't necessarily mean such coverage exisst, but looking through the footnotes I notice many of the more noteworthy music publications are absent. Are you sure there's nothing to be found about the album from articles published by Rolling Stone, Spin, NME, Melody Maker, The Wire, Q, and Uncut, just to name a few? A quick search using Google Books turned up useful magazine articles from CMJ and Billboard (the latter of which crucially provides a SoundScan sales figure for the record). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, well, I havent checked for new info for a long time. I will try to check tonight to add anything I could have missed. — ΛΧΣ21 19:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, taking a look at those links you added, they only were useful for commercial data. I didn't find anything worthy to be added that wasn't already explained on the article. When I expanded the reception section, I tried to be as comprehensive as possible, so I don't think I have missed anything. Anyways, I will do a check just in case. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 04:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wesley, this nom has been open quite some time and at this stage we appear to have consensus to promote, so if you want to review further I'd ask that you do so posthaste... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – After a quick look, I found Ref 42 to be dead [24]. Also, in the lead you specify that the album appeared on 35 national charts, however there are only 14 in the charts section. Are other country chart positions unavailable? I also noted that in the critical performance section, you include only five reviews in the table. Why is Rolling Stone or The Village Voice not included in the table? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the reference now. Replaced "35 national charts" with "14 national charts" after checking the source (it said distributed in 35 countries, which is not the same as appeared on 35 national charts). About the magazines, I have no idea why they aren't showing because they are on the table :/ I have fixed the issue and now they appear. I can't add The Village Voice because they offered no score. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21 21:41, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 10:13, 8 February 2013‎ [25].

Alloxylon flammeum

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short and sweet – I am nominating this for featured article because it's about as comprehensive as it could possibly be as I've read everything I can find on it. Not very long but has come together nicely and I like to finish the job. I even took some nice photos and have it growing in my garden :) Have at it... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Did you miss the following article? Sasata (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Vegetative cutting and in vitro propagation of the tree waratah, Alloxylon flammeum P-Weston and Crisp (family Proteaceae)
Author(s): Donovan, NJ; Offord, CA; Tyler, JL
Source: AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL AGRICULTURE Volume: 39 Issue: 2 Pages: 225-229 DOI: 10.1071/EA97106 Published: 1999
Hmmm, I think in looking in my library digitally I came up with a more general one when searching for this one - found now and useful. Will add in a sec. added now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • this source says it is slow growing and may not flower for 7–8 years (but flowers in 2 years in the tropics under ideal conditions); this is a bit more specific than what's currently given in the article. It also mentions it's sensitive to frost, and it has a range map. Also mentions that it should not be fertilized.
aaah, the range map there is of where it can be grown, not where it occurs. I can do up a map later tonight though. The Burke book is a bit clumsy though as it likes fertiliser, just they can't have a high phosphorus content (as it itself says, using a native fertiliser. straight after. Still it does have some good stuff to add which I will do soonish. I am wary about the frost assumption given it has been grown in Melbourne. Burke and others have assumed Queensland plants would not tolerate cold and been wrong before. Pre Xmas clutter here...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
range map added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • since the target article (EPBC Act) doesn't explain it, perhaps it might be good to mention what a "vulnerable" classification means (available here)
Good find - I was looking for something like that. Added now - wasn't sure whether to do verbatim plus quotation marks or reword. Went with latter but not averse to former. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • any picture of the seeds?
aargh, there is a big plant in the botanic gardens. Might take a look today if I get a chance. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a picture of the seed pods here. Please feel free to use or not use as you see fit. --Melburnian (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just went out and snapped one now from a street tree near my house...but yours is better, so added now Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • if your garden plant has flowers, any chance you could snap a clear, close-up pic? The current lead pic is acceptable, but if you've got the material at hand … If not, I think File:‪Alloxylon flammeum flwr rbgsyd email.jpg‬ is a superior image (lighting could be better though). Consider putting a picture of the entire plant in the taxobox, and close-ups of other bits elsewhere. If you've still got an immature potted plant, consider retaking the picture with better lighting, proper framing, and minus the distracting household stuff :)
I switched images - tree in taxobox, closeup of flower in description section. My plants are too young for flowers, and I have planted them in the garden now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • how does this species differ from A. pinnatum?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #7 (Zich & West, Factsheet) gives some extra details about the flowers, fruits, and seedlings
details added - some material on seedlings at beginning of section. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like all the new additions (you gave me everything I wanted ... must be Christmas or something). I don't suppose you could clonestamp out the power line in the lead pic? I'll be back with a prose review in the next few days (visitors have arrived so free time is spotty). Sasata (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
trimmed image and removed powerline now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has shiny green leaves, and prominent orange-red inflorescences which appear in spring, followed by rectangular woody seed pods which ripen in late summer." which->that (x2); spring/summer not optimal according to WP:SEASON
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Described formally by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp in 1991, it was designated the type species" "It" slightly ambiguous here (the initial specimen? the one cultivated? the subject of the article?)
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link canopy, Mabi rainforest
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicate that the species is bird pollinated." -> "indicate that the species is pollinated by birds." better?
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a little short. I don't see anything about cultivation, and you could include some basic morphology (e.g., how tall does it grow, how long are the leaves), and briefly mention why it's considered vulnerable.
tweaked, so all these items are in the lead now...I have massaged the lead and the cultivation sections...how do they look now? Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this is a rainforest tree which can reach" which->that
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The new growth is hairy." is this referring to new bark?
branchlets and leaves - clarified Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but then have narrow elliptic entire leaves" I think the average reader is less likely to know what "entire" means than "elliptic"
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are then succeeded by juvenile leaves which have" which->that (please audit throughout; which generally follows a comma)
changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These are then succeeded by juvenile leaves which have two to nine lobes arising at 30 to 40 degrees forwards" cannot picture what this is trying to say
The leaves are pinnate, and the lobes are pointed towards the apex at 30-40 rather than being perpendicular to the axis of the leaf. Maybe aligning the photo here will help Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Want to make sure I'm reading this correctly … the juvenile leaves are up to 50 cm, but the adult leaves are only up to half that long?
yup - weird I know. I suspect the larger juvenile leaves are for low light conditions in the understory, but I have not seen that discussed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pedicel and the outer surface of the perianth pubescent (covered in short fine fur)." fix
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seedlings have obovate (egg-shaped)" obovate has already been wikt-linked previously, so the gloss should be removed (or moved to earlier)
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New Guinea species A. brachycarpum resembles A. flammeum but has duller flowers and shorter wider leaves, and fewer hairs on its perianth." How about "The New Guinea species A. brachycarpum resembles A. flammeum but has duller flowers, leaves that are shorter and wider, and fewer hairs on its perianth."
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • if the pollen colour of A. pinnatum is mentioned in the description section as a character to distinguish it from A. flammeum, the pollen colour of the latter should be given as well.
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Trinity Bay, Tolga Scrub
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and what became known as Oreocallis sp. nova." shouldn't that be novum?
Oreocallis is feminine, hence "nova". Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Aside from tree waratah, it has also been called the satin oak, pink silky oak, satin silky oak, tree waratah,"
oops, fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus name is derived from Ancient Greek allo- "other" or "strange" and xylon or "wood" due to" I think ", and refers to" works better than "due to" as the latter implies a cause/effect that doesn't seem to fit
agree/tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "along with the true waratahs (Telopea), and Oreocallis and Chilean firetree (Embothrium coccineum) from South America." and … and
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hence the subtribe's origin and floral appearance most likely predates" ->predate
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link sister species, understory, invasive plant, Victoria, iron deficiency, cutting
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act).[1] That is, there is a high risk" how about "under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act),[1] which indicates that there is a high risk" (or similar, to remove the odd "that is, there is" construction)
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It does best in a well drained soil" hyphen
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Applying mulch to the soil around the plant and extra water in dry spells helps." helps what? (I know, but it sounds odd to leave it trailing like this)
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fertilisers specifically for Australian native plants" Australian native plants or native Australian plants?
hmm, never heard them called the latter, always the former or "Australian plants" or just "natives" here..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and need support with stakes." "and need to be supported with stakes." better?
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is Clonex Red? If this is a specific product, perhaps it should be left out and replaced with generic "rooting hormone" or something? The specific amount used is maybe too much detail. If you don't think so, use 8 g rather than 8000 mg, and spell out litre to make it clear that it's applied as a solution.
they prefer 8000 mg in the source (and others) - it is a high concentration. Removed Aussie trade name and rejigged. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • link scion, rootstock, cut flower
linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • last sentence about timber leaves me wanting to know more. Anything else that could be added to this?
annoyingly, I haven't found anything. I can't imagine it being used now due to its environmental status... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general, the prose in "Cultivation" sounds choppy.
yeah, not thrilled reading through it again - am a bit tired now - I changed a bit and will have another run through tomorrow. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • need an accessdate for APNI, IBIS database?
Untemplated ref for the time being - will see if the template can be tweaked (for future use) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • publisher location for ref #3?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • need to indicate that Weston & Crisp (1991) is a PDF
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • are authors initials spaced (ref#8) or not (#18)?
unspaced Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • can you narrow down the page range for ref #8?
narrowed now Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref #9 (Weston et al. 2006) is available online as a PDF
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal article titles are not consistently title or sentence case (but be careful with those cite doi templates: if you change the case to be consistent in this article, you may throw off formatting in another article that uses the same cite doi … that's why I don't like 'em!)
fair point - luckily I don't know of any editors opting for sentence case.....are there? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Me (for journal article titles), but you don't have to worry about me messing with your doi templates :-) Sasata (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't need accessdate for print/PDF material in refs #13, #14
removed Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • publisher location for ref #36 (Walter & Gillet 1998)?
fixed (glitch in ref fmting) Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth up to 4 cm (1.8 in) long, which partly splits along one side at anthesis to release the thick style, which is tipped with a slanting disc-like structure that contains the stigma." tweak to remove the repetitive which
  • How about "Each flower consists of a tubular perianth up to 4 cm (1.8 in) long, which partly splits along one side at anthesis to release a thick style. The stigma is contained within a slanting disc-like structure at the tip of the style." Sasata (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yep. I'll take it. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Ok, I've exhausted my nitpick supply for this article, and think it now meets the FAC criteria. Check my final copyedits to make sure I haven't messed anything up. Sasata (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

copyedits look ok. Last example might be tricky to fix....hmmm...thinking...... Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN1: wrong dash
fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:41, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher locations
all books should be sorted now Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13: publisher?
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
fixed x 2 Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perianth, style, stigma, notophyll — need links or explanation
linked first three - last is a bit tricky...will think on the best thing to do here... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Found on basalt- or granite-based soil, it is found in
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cultivation section, paras look a bit unbalanced for length
stubby para appended Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • not widely grown. It has been grown
grown --> cultivated Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A large tree grows in the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney. — Not clear about the significance of this particular tree
I might have to think about rewording it. Essentially it is that it has been there for over 50 years and is growing happily there. i.e. happy in sydney climate. It's a fairly imposing tree and oft talked about in native plant enthusiast circles... Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • successful in experiments Clonex Red (8000 mg indole-3-butyric acid/L) applied, — word missing?
reworded. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its soft silky timber resembles that of oak — I can't say that those two adjectives spring to mind with regard to oak, at least not regarding our species.
dunno. I guess oak is soft compared with our mighty eucalypt hardwoods...I'm not a timber expert so can't comment authoritatively..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Sydney tree still needs a little clarification, but I'm happy to support while you ponder that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

Resolved comments on Taxonomy from Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Ferdinand von Mueller had described what is now known as Alloxylon wickhamii but also collected material of this species at Trinity Bay in 1881, not realising it was a separate species." Does "this" refer to A. wickhamii or A. flammeum?
A. flammeum - clarified now - tossed up whther to add "what would be named" before it... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was only in the 1980s that it dawned on botanists" Unencyclopedic tone. How about "It was only in the 1980s that botanists realized" ?
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "With the recognition of the distinctness of the Australian members of the genus Oreocallis and their reallocation to the new genus Alloxylon, it was given its current binomial name of Alloxylon flammeum in 1991 by Peter Weston and Mike Crisp of the Royal Botanic Gardens in Sydney, the type material having been collected by Garry Sankowsky and Peter Radke from Tolga Scrub in August 1987." This could easily be split into two (or even three sentences).
rejigged Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The genus name is derived from Ancient Greek allo- "other" or "strange" and xylon or "wood"" What is the purpose of the last "or"? Seems to me that it should be removed unless xylon has multiple meanings.
aaah, a typo...reomved Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:54, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Eocene radiation of nectar-feeding birds" I have no idea what "radiation" means in this context.
Evolutionary radiation - linked now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why all latin names are italicized except "Embothriinae". Is this one special?
It is a subtribe rank - this rank (like family or order) is not italicised Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Rschen7754

[edit]

Placeholder - hoping to review soon. --Rschen7754 23:20, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • The second paragraph has three sentences that start with "Alloxylon flammeum" - try to mix it up?
made less repetitive... Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The EPBC Act in... Australia?
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The flowers sit atop stalks (known as pedicels) to 3.5 cm (1.6 in) in length, - up to?
tweaked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • Two consecutive [5] references.
removed first and added commented out note after second (in editing page) to indicate it covers two previous sentences Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conservation status
  • What do you mean by "state-based"?
As opposed to Federal (i.e. National), australia has state government with state-based laws and policies Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Miscellaneous
removed header Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should be a support after these minor issues are resolved. --Rschen7754 23:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks in advance :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by User:Ian Rose 08:37, 5 February 2013‎ [26].

Percy Fender

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Fender was the England cricket captain who never was. Something of a cricketing maverick, his face never fitted with the people who mattered and he was destined to spend his time trying to force wins out of a fairly average county team and come up with some fairly outlandish tactical theories. An unusual sort of chap, and he bore a marked resemblance to Groucho Marx! This article is currently a GA and has had a PR from Brianboulton. All comments welcome. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-1923). Sources provided, images with unknown authors kept on Wiki.

Comments from Tim riley

This is plainly FA material, but I make a few observations before adding my support.

  • Sussex career
    • "His performances the Gentlemen" – missing a preposition, such as "with" or "for"
  • Career in wartime
    • "Although commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, Fender disliked the routine of army life – not sure what the "although" means here. I'd make it more neutral: something on the lines of "Commissioned as a lieutenant in the Royal Fusiliers, Fender disliked the routine of army life"
  • Appointment as Surrey captain
    • This really is nit-picking, but on my screen J. W. H. T. Douglas's first three intials are at the end of one line and his fourth is at the start of the next. Non-breaking spaces needed.
    • "regarded his selection a formality" – is this a stylistic preference or have you accidentally omitted "as"?
  • Resignation and retirement
    • "Fender offered to resign as Surrey's captain, to give Jardine more experience of leadership" – this is the first mention that Jardine played under Fender for Surrey, and may come as a surprise to non-specialist readers. Perhaps you could say in the previous para "passed this information on to his Surrey colleague Douglas Jardine…"
  • Captaincy
    • "he was in the wine trade, which was considered an unsuitable trade for a gentleman" – too many trades; perhaps "occupation" or "career" the second time?
  • Personal life
    • "The couple had two children but Ruth died suddenly … Fender remarried in 1962, but his second wife, Susan Gordon, died in 1968." I don't think either of these "but"s is justified. I'd use a semicolon instead – much more neutral.
  • References
    • Refs 1 a–m don't actually mention that the work quoted is the ODNB.

Nothing of any great moment there, but worth a look, perhaps. Tim riley (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all these. I've fixed most of them. The only one I've left is the second "but" regarding his wife: the alternatives are two semi-colons in succession or a load of choppy sentences. I think some sort of connection between the two parts needs making, and "but" is the best I can manage! Any other suggestions welcome. The ODNB problem was because I'd used the wrong template; it should be OK now. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – a model of its kind: full but not over-full, balanced, impressively referenced and a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my opinion. Tim riley (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments and support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I did a little copyediting at the PR stage. I've nothing really to add to my PR comments; Fender was an interesting cricketer and personality, and his story is well told here. Well done Brianboulton (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged for your help on this one, and for your support. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Not much to report so far; I've read through everything before Resignation and retirement.

  • Sussex career: Don't think Sussex needs the link here, as it was linked in the previous section.
  • The same is true for Lord's.
  • Appointment as Surrey captain: "his first 100 wickets in a season." Feels a bit awkward, unless "first 100 wickets in a season" is actually used (wouldn't know). Maybe try "his first 100-wicket haul in a season."? Not sure if people use that phrase, though. Basically, you need more cricket knowledge than I have to find better phrasing for this part. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:35, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Batting, bowling and fielding: "While Fender's love of experimentation and attempts to surprise batsmen made him difficult to bat against, it also caused inconsistency and sometimes conceded many runs." Two problems here. First, "it" needs to be "they" since two items are discussed beforehand. Second, the "sometimes conceded many runs" doesn't work well with the structure of this sentence. "and sometimes led him to concede many runs" sounds better to me, but I'm sure you can find something better.
  • Period needed before ref 139.
  • The Arlott quote has "Fender was", and later in the sentence there's "he was". It's hard to describe, but this doesn't work as one sentence if you read it as a whole. I'd try going the "Arlott wrote of Fender:" route.
  • Captaincy: "Fender's limited success as Test level...". "as" → "at".
  • Cricket journalism: An en dash needed for the range in 1920-21. Also, the same applies for 1928-29. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Very well written, couldn't find issues. Great job! Zia Khan 00:20, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- query & suggestion re. lead:

  • Don't think I've seen birth and death places added to the life dates in the first sentence -- is this a trend?
  • Cartoonists enjoyed caricaturing his distinctive appearance, but he was also well known outside cricket for his appearances and activities in society -- pedantry but if another word could be found for one of the "appearances"s it'd be nice, paritcularly as the instances have different meanings. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

  • All sources look good qualitiy and reliable
  • One small format inconsistency. Compare ref 90 with 45 and 137'

Otherwise all fine. Brianboulton (talk) 15:57, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by User:GrahamColm 12:06, 3 February 2013‎ [27].

The King and I

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Ssilvers (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The King and I is indelibly associated with Yul Brynner, but he started out firmly in the shadow of leading lady Gertrude Lawrence. Even if you're unfamiliar with the musical, the songs have become such a part of the background of Western culture, that I'm sure you've heard them. Enjoy. Thanks to Brianboulton and Tim riley for most thorough peer reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and note that the article has recently had a very helpful Peer Review. Rodgers and Hammerstein wrote 11 major musicals together between 1943 and 1959; this 1951 work was in the middle of the series. These shows presented well-written stories that explored serious social themes in a way that was revolutionary for musical theatre, clothing them in memorable and evocative musical scores and integrating dancing seamlessly with plot, songs and lavish productions. They established Broadway as the dominant creative force in musical theatre worldwide for decades to come, introducing what is referred to as the "Golden Age" of American musicals. Although The King and I did not, perhaps, push the social envelope as far as some of the team's earlier works, it does involve two stories of forbidden love, a clash of customs between East and West, and portrayals of two Victorian-age women (Anna and Tuptim) who are each alone in a foreign land and must challenge the status quo, which is supported, on the other hand, by a third interesting female character (Lady Thiang). Its depiction of these female characters and the issue of women's independence was, if not novel, at least interesting for a 1951 musical. The King and I has remained popular even after Brynner's 1985 death, despite its dated treatment of an Asian culture, and I thank Wehwalt for his hard work to showcase it so well here on Wikipedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I contributed to the peer review, where my few, and not very troubling, concerns were fully addressed (except perhaps for Decca-v-London as that company's official US label – but that's angels on pinheads territory). This article is, in my view, as good as Wikipedia gets. It is comprehensive, balanced, fully referenced, and the prose is a pleasure to read. Loud applause to the co-noms! (They will be appalled to read that I don't much care for Rodgers and Hammerstein, but I prodigiously enjoyed and admired this article nevertheless.) – Tim riley (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the review, and we forgive you.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – A fantastic piece of work. I have seen the show many times, most recently at the New Victoria Theatre in April last year. Finally, an excellent WP article to compliment such an excellent show! -- CassiantoTalk 21:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're glad you like it. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support – I'm quite prepared to support the promotion of this excellent article. A few thoughts:

  • "The relationship between the King and Anna is marked by conflict through much of the piece, as well as by a love that neither is able to admit." – "neither can admit" perhaps?
Agree, very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The musical premiered on March 29, 1951 at Broadway's St. James Theatre." – a comma after "1951" seems stylistically sound.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as using "though" goes, I heard it is interchangeable with "although", though I've found the latter recommended in formal writing. Either way is alright with me.
There's formality, and then there's formality. I think for the purposes of a general-level encyclopedia article, we're fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1963, New York Times reviewer Lewis Funke said of the musical" – The New York Times reviewer...
This occurs elswhere also. You're right that the name of the paper is "The New York Times", but it seems awkward (at least in American English) to say "The New York Times" reviewer. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is awkward. I think the shortened form of the newspaper's name is acceptable once you have italicized properly at first mention. The reader knows you got it right, and you can use shortened forms if it makes the text flow better.
  • Missing closing quotation mark here: "However, Liz Smith enthused: 'The King and I is perfect'; and the Houston Chronicle wrote, of the subsequent tour, 'The King and I is the essence of musical theater, an occasion when drama, music, dance and decor combine to take the audience on an unforgettable journey."
Thanks. Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the production reached London in 2000, however, it received uniformly positive reviews, with The Financial Times calling it" – with+noun+ing wording should probably be restructured.
Redrawn. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. I'd say Meryle Secrest's quotation is the best possible conclusion to a compelling article! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 01:21, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks from me as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:23, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added my support as my comments have been addressed. This was a great read. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I added a few missing commas after triple dates, but the article is close to error-free. Mikado should not be linked to from within the quote from Barber in the "Critical reception" section, and "2004 – " might be more enduring than "2004 to present". Very nice job. Finetooth (talk) 04:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I don't view the "don't link within quotes" as a rigid rule, the idea is to avoid guessing what is being talked about. There's no ambiguity about The Mikado.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy edits and comments. I love all the punctuation fixes, but I'd rather not change "present" to a dash. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Leaning to support— It's an impressive piece of research and writing, definitely of an FA-quality. Here are a few suggestions:

Bluntly, whenever I add alt text, people find it unsatisfactory so I prefer not to do it. Perhaps Ssilvers will take a crack at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alt texts have always been a pain for me as well. Hopefully Ssilvers will fix them. Cinosaur (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at it. Feel free to rewrite or point out if I missed any. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the lead's second sentence has two consecutive clauses "which" and "who": "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, who became governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s...". Can we reword it for a better flow, like: "...by Margaret Landon, which derives from the memoirs of Anna Leonowens, a governess to the children of King Mongkut of Siam in the early 1860s..."?
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do we need the awkward second "who"in this sentence in the lead: "...contacted Rodgers and Hammerstein, who were initially reluctant, but who agreed to write the musical..." Can it be replaced with "then"?
Wehwalt dropped the 2nd who - looks good to me for purposes of Lead. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider wikilinking the first occurrence of "King of Siam" in Historical background to Monarchy of Thailand;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Historical background: "at a time when the streets of Bangkok were canals..." — due to floods? Is this obvious or could use a bit more clarity?
Well, it's like Venice or Amsterdam, I guess. Wehwalt changed it to say boat transport. Let us know if you think it still needs more clarity. I'm not sure what we'll gain by delving deeper into the geographical history, but maybe something in the Bangkok article would be helpful.... -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reader will understand what is meant, and that Anna could not ride through the streets of Bangkok, because they were in such a condition. Seriously, for purposes of a section which is for background purposes, I think the reader is adequately clued in on 19th century Bangkok.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider restructuring Historical background for a better temporal flow. The last paragraph starting with ""King Mongkut was about 57 years old in 1861..." just begs to be made the first, setting the context and rationale for his subsequent request for a British governess.
Just want to say that I particularly like this suggestion. It fits my philosophy of writing, which is to start with a simple declarative sentence from which all else builds.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt made it so. Looks good to me. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Creation, "...consists of episodes, showing vignettes of life at the Siamese court, along with descriptions of historical events..." — was it that some episodes in the book showed vignettes of life, or that the book as a whole illustrated vignettes by means of episodes? If the former, we don't seem to need the first comma here. If the latter, we do need the first comma, but not the second — unless, of course, the Comma Sutra is entirely lost on me...))
Whoa! Watch where you're waving that punctuation. But the changes look good to me -- Wehwalt, please check that you like the final product. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Act 2: "The prince orders the end of the custom of kowtowing, which Anna had hated." Why the past perfect tense in the consistently present tense narrative? Should be either "which Anna hated" or "which Anna has hated";
I think just "hated" works best, unless Wehwalt feels strongly. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a difficult passage. I would say let it go as it is now. It would slow things down to mention it when Anna does, in Act I.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • words "theatre" and "theater" are used interchangeably in the article's text. Consider sticking to a single spelling;
Wehwalt changed it to use "theatre" everywhere except in direct quotes. But my usual convention is to use the word "theater" to refer to a building in which a theatre work is seen. I'm happy enough with this, however. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only one "theater" existed outside a quotation or a name, so I took that as the easier course.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: "Renshaw pointedly ignored the printed stage directions in the script[106] in reshaping the piece into what he called..." — sorry to nitpick, but the sentence may use slight restructuring to rid it of the three recurring "in"s;
Changed the second one to "when". -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: maybe, wikilinking "emerald Buddha" will explain its significance for the revival and Siamese setting;
Wehwalt made it so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1991 to 2002: wikilink the first (and only) occurence of Playbill;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 2004 to present: delink Variety, as it's already wikilinked once before;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Adaptations: " It featured "Shall We Dance" and "The Small House of Uncle Thomas" ballet, featuring Kikuchi as Eliza" — repetitive "feature";
Good idea. Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Recordings: wikilink "LP technology" to LP record;
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in Critical reception: "John Barber called the work "this treacle-bin [[Mikado]]", and declared that only one of the cast" — per WP:LINKSTYLE, "items within quotations should not generally be linked".
See Wehwalt's comment above. I can see it either way, but I think Wehwalt is right that the link is helpful to readers here - some people will know the reference, but to others, it might make the quote very obscure without a link. More discussion welcome. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these comments are helpful. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, they are. We'll work through these and post any comments in response.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All done except: On alt text, see above. On quoted Mikado see my comment to Finetooth above. Very helpful and insightful, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was a pleasure reading the article, even with an eye for imperfections. Changed to "Support". Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the comments and support. I responded to each point above before realizing that I was late for this train. -- Ssilvers (talk) 09:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are in need of an image review at this point, if anyone looking at this page who isn't Ssilvers or myself would be so kind.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Mongkut caption needs neither colon nor period
  • File:King~I~OBP.jpeg should explicitly identify the copyright holder and original publication date, and the rationale seems to be missing a couple of the items from Wikipedia:FUR#Necessary_components
  • File:King_Mongkut_and_Prince_Chulalongkorn.jpg needs US PD tag and source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've done the first two and found and uploaded another image in place of the third one, of a stereoscopic image. I cropped it but for some reason it didn't upload that way. I'll play with it later. I think it's better than the image we had.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with that as iPhoto is being difficult. But I have asked Connormah to do a better job on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like both images, as they show Chulalongkorn as a small boy, perhaps before Anna arrived in Siam, and as a teenager. The difference in dress of the king and heir, with Western shoes, sword and military medals, suggests a westernizing of court dress during this period. I added the PD-US tag. The dead source should not be a problem, as this 150-year-old image in formal, military dress, is a posed photo-op for publication, not a private photo. The image is used here. here is a similar image. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the stereoscopic image (once cropped) as it shows a much more natural view of monarch and (part of) family and allows the reader to compare what they are wearing with that in a production. I suspect that many people consult these articles to get a quick learn in preparation for seeing a show.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:06, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, or other image folks, can you justify including File:Yul Brynner Samantha Eggar Anna and the King 1972.JPG <---- this image near the Adaptations section, where we discuss the TV series? Note the licensing information given andthe "back" of the image link. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Nitpicks
  • Ref 17 and several others have a comma after the ext. link marker, which is OK, but I note that other refs have a full stop in this place. This ought to be standardised throughout.
All commas now, except in book refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 37: Internet Broadway Database should not be italicised
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 58: Ditto
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 60: "Playbill" not italicised. See 37, 78 et al
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 71: Quote marks open
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 79: publisher should not be italicised
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 81: Title not in quotes. There are others, e.g. 103, 110, 111, 123, 124
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 86: Overitalics - date and retrieval date
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 87 looks to have a different format from the rest
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 89: I'm sure this shoild be Companion not companion
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 99: Incomplate format. The souvenir program would have had a publisher
The producers of the tour were the publishers. Wehwalt, did the R&H Org produce this tour? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it as I review the programs on Thursday. I don't presently have anything one way or the other. I think "publisher" is a bit of a stretch for a printed program, but I'll see what I can do. It looks like there are Playbills extant from the Broadway portions of the tour.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. According to Capua, it was Mitch Leigh, I've inserted that and modified the text to indicate he both produced and directed. Directing Yul Brynner must have been ... interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 113: lacks retrieval date
Added. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 114: Ditto
Added, although the text does not show up unless you mouse over it. Wehwalt is there a fix for that? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 152: Quote marks open
Fixed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There do not appear to be citations from Block, Bloom & Vlastnik or the Rodgers autobiography.
Block is used in footnote 10. Bloom tidbits now added. Wehwalt,should we remove Rodgers, put it under "Further reading" or add something from it? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll further reading it as soon as I'm sure I won't edit conflict you.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments to follow. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on these today and tomorrow and would be grateful for Ssilver's assistance with the ones which require broad checks.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments so far, Brian! Wehwalt, I took care of most of them, but I left you one or two questions above, and of course check my changes to see if you have agree and/or have better changes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No further comments on the general content which I reviewed in depth during the PR process and has been improved by further tweaking here. The outstanding source/citation issues, above, are trivial. A first-class article by an established premier league team. Brianboulton (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, both for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful comments both at PR and here! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a problem. Since we have the free image, it's hard to justify a fair use one. I hope to be going to a performing arts library later in the week, perhaps I will happen upon something PD. this page seems very promising if I can spend some time going through the physical programs and seeing if they lack copyright notices. I'm confident the ones from the original run won't have a copyright notice as a Playbill I have for Me and Juliet, which was later, lacks one and I used the cover in that article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have some now, and more are available if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (provisional): I've made a few minor edits myself; here are some further suggestions. This is an excellent and well-written article.

  • A general note on citations: normally the short form is in the format (to take an example) "Morley 1981, p. 191." (including the year, and a period at the end). See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Short_citations.
You don't need a date unless there is more than one Morley book. You'll see that the guideline permits "author-page referencing". -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but a period at the end is still called for, I believe. And looking further, some of the standard citations (not the short ones) end with periods and others don't. They all should. Omnedon (talk) 15:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a consistency issue -- either they all should, or none should. None of our refs end with a period, except if it is a complete sentence. You'll see that the ones that end with {subscription required} have a period before the {subscription required}, but I was thinking that we could remove those periods. What do you think, Wehwalt? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third paragraph of "Historical background", should a colon (:) precede "$100 per month", instead of a dash?
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Creation", fourth paragraph, perhaps replace the comma before "Chee-Chee" with the word "entitled"? Otherwise it's a nested set of qualifications that seems slightly awkward.
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last paragraph of "Creation", a question: does the term "lyric" refer to the entire set of words for a song? A quick dictionary check suggests this should be "lyrics", but I may be mistaken.
Done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also in the last paragraph, ", before suddenly stopping" probably does not need the comma.
On consideration, I've deleted the whole clause – I know what we were trying to say, but I don't think it matters, and I'm using the KISS principle. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come as I have time. Omnedon (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat
First off, what a fantastic article. Learning heavily to support, but three very minor suggestions for you to consider. If you don't like them or don't agree with them, then fair enough, but at least have a think about them:

  • It's a bit nit-picky, but I notice that in three places you have put the image to the left straight under a title. Although I don't mind it (and use the same placement myself from time to time), it does go against WP:IMAGELOCATION. I'm not saying to change the location, but at least be sure you're happy with the location and justified in having the images where they are.
I understood that this rule had been abandoned, but I see that it still seems to recommend not putting left images directly under a heading. Can Wehwalt, Sandy, BrianBoulton or others knowledgable about this comment? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I treat it as a guideline. The idea is to prevent confusion about where the text of the section starts, as I understand it. However, it is often the best solution, so like SchroCat, it's something to be considered, but more to make sure you are doing it properly than as a proscriptive rule.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the programming has changed, my recollection was that the rule was "no left placement in level three headers (===heading===)or below". It's OK under a main section heading (==heading==) but it screws things up on certain types of readers if you do it for the lesser ones. Not sure if that rule still applies or not. Montanabw(talk) 21:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 110 – The "Internet Broadway database" should be the "Internet Broadway Database". You also need to be consistent with linking it or not, or at least only the first occurrence (refs 37 and 38 are linked, the others are not)
I agree, but I think you're looking at an old version. I think it's fixed now. -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fault - written on one day and posted the next without me checking what had happened in the interim! - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 144 – Caps not needed
Fixed, thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from that, I have no issues at all. - SchroCat (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All good. Congrats on what is a very, very good article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of however: see here and here for discussions of the overuse of however. There are 11 uses in this version; please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have cut it down to three. Looks ok now? -- Ssilvers (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/February_2013&oldid=557825292"