- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC) [1].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about explosions, magical statues, kidnappings, long lost siblings, lost kings, and inter-faith romance. Need I say more? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – The criteria have well and truly been met with this article; not only that, but it is informative, educational, interesting and more importantly, a pleasure to read. I fully support its elevation to FA status. -- Cassianto Talk 18:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I was a happy puppy at PR, and the work since then has improved it further. A great article! - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from another peer reviewer. My handful of small quibbles were dealt with there, and all is now absolutely as it should be, in my view. I knew nothing about vernacular Malay novels hitherto, but this article is not only informative: it is also interesting. A fine piece, plainly meeting the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments: Looking good but a few minor points from me:
- 1929 link to 1929 in literature
- "canon" needs to link to canon (fiction)
-
-
- Okay, personal taste I guess.
- "The book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon." Without the slightest explanation, this sentence seems strange; it could feasibly add such a sentence to every work outside of a canon, which is almost all of them. It's only once you reach the publication history that you understand its particular relevance. Perhaps just add "Owing to its being written in vernacular Malay, ..." or equivalent? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Went with "As with other works of Chinese Malay literature, the book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon.", as not linking Chinese Malay literature in the lede was certainly an oversight. I should really get around to writing that article... I've got books... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, that's fine. Look forward to seeing that article, a literature aficionado and so keen to see any more related articles improved. With that in mind, can't find anything else to say about this, apart from that it's great and I Support. Hope the active volcano doesn't derail the FA nom! Take care, MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - In an unexpected yet strangely appropriate turn, I may or may not have to leave this nomination suddenly owing to a volcanic eruption. Right now everything is safe, and I will likely be online and ready to reply to reviews, but if I don't reply within 48 hours I may have evacuated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Update - Apparently we're "only" getting ashfall from Kelud, so right now there is no need to worry. I'll be right here, perhaps even more so than usual as they are recommending not to go out on the street right now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Support: Crisco 1492, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions which I think will improve the article.
WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis. I feel the Plot, the Themes, and the Publication history and reception can be expanded a bit.
- Major Point 1: Plot "centres around two families in 1920s Batam which are unknowingly tied together by siblings who were separated in 1883. The brother becomes a political figure, while the sister marries a Baduy priest-king. Ultimately these families are reunited by the wedding of their children, after which the priest sacrifices himself to calm a stirring Krakatoa." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 2: Writing "Inspired by Edward Bulwer-Lytton's 1834 novel The Last Days of Pompeii and the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa, the sixteen-chapter book" & "First published as a serial in Kwee's magazine Panorama between 7 April and 22 December 1928, Drama dari Krakatau was written over a period of two months after the author was asked to prepare a "sensational" story for a film. Before the final instalment had been published, the novel had already been adapted for the stage." (summarised well in the lead)
- Major Point 3: Themes "Although Kwee was known as a realist and researched the volcano before writing, Drama dari Krakatau is replete with mysticism. Thematic analyses have focused on the depiction of indigenous cultures by Kwee (himself ethnic Chinese), as well as geography and nationalism." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 4: Publication history and reception "As with other works of Chinese Malay literature, the book is not considered part of the Indonesian literary canon." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Other suggestions:
- I think the statement "Moelia, the son of the Regent of Rangkas Gombong and Assistant Wedana of Sindanglaut,[b] hears of a Baduy priest, Noesa Brama, who has established himself and his family on Mount Ciwalirang and begun curing the sick and injured" can be broken into simpler statements to make it easier to follow.
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Crisco 1492, please feel free to strike out any recommendation which you think will not help in improving the article. By the way, I’m praying for your safety. All the very best, 
--Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi there, Seabuckthorn. Regarding the plot, when summarizing novels and films for the lede of an article I do not subscribe to the school of a paragraph for plot. Yes, the plot is the longest section in the article, but that does not mean it needs to be longer than a sentence or two in the lede (just the general idea of the plot). Three sentences is about what I gave Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (an FA) and longer than what I gave Ruma Maida (also an FA).
- Point 3: The only point in this section not mentioned in the lede is that this was the first of several books about volcanic eruptions in Chinese Malay literature, which could possibly be added to the end of the first paragraph. I tend to avoid expanding on themes in the lede so as to a) not bloat the lede with unnecessary details and b) avoid misrepresenting writers' arguments through oversimplification.
- Point 4: That section is actually summarized in various places in the lede, to help the flow. I.e. "1929 vernacular Malay novel" (year of publication as a novel), First published as a serial in Kwee's magazine Panorama between 7 April and 22 December 1928 (year and means of first publication), Before the final instalment had been published, the novel had already been adapted for the stage (stage), and the sentence you quote. That's all 3 paragraphs in the "Release and reception" section, summarized in the lede.
- I've tried splitting that sentence as you mention. Thank you for your prayers. Luckily it's calmed down now. The sky is fairly clear and the air is much less dusty. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review but no spotchecks: be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated, and why is njai italicized differently in the original and translated title? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All abbreviated now, I believe. In "De Njai: Moeder van Alle Volken: 'De Roos uit Tjikembang' en Andere Verhalen", njai is not italicised because it appears to have made its way into Dutch (i.e. become naturalized enough to not require italics, such as in this book's title), whereas it is still a foreign word in English. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Lead
- " was asked to prepare a "sensational" story for a film."
- Are the quote marks around "sensational" scare quotes, or is this an actual one-word quote? If its the later, then per WP:LEADCITE you need to add in-line attribution.
- "centres around two families in 1920s Batam which are unknowingly tied together by siblings who were separated in 1883."
- "which are unknowingly" is non-restrictive, so it requires a comma to set it off of the surrounding text. I would substitute that for which.
- Plot
- "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years."
- Perhaps I'm unfamiliar with the appropriate conventions for this type of article, but this present tense narrative style strikes me as encyclopedic. Is this an accepted format for detailing plot lines in Wikipedia articles?
-
-
- Like I said: I've never read a Wikipedia article that details the plot-line with the voice of a present tense narrator; I didn't say that they don't exist. Since I've never edited or written any articles that detail a plot-line I defer to you, your reviewers, and your numerous FAs. It just struck me as odd because instead of "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years", I expected something like: "The story is set in 1883, as Krakatoa verges on its first eruption in more than 200 years", or similar. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Stfg, I can see that the guideline justifies use of present tense, but it does not seem to suggest that the plot-line should be summarized using the first person voice of a narrator. In fact, some passages suggest otherwise. E.g., "Plot summaries can be written from the real-world perspective by ... describing things from the author or creator's perspective ("The author introduces", "The story describes"). This gives the summary a more grounded tone and makes it more accessible to those unfamiliar with the source material." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Butting in here, since I'm looking at closing this nom if I get to walk through the list this evening (Sydney time), that MOS para you quote from, Gabe, also says "Such conventions are not as important for plot summaries of single works". Further, I think that Crisco's language in the plot summary meets the FA criteria of engaging writing, probably more so than some of the alternative wording suggested. Anyway, since you've supported promotion of the nom, I'm gathering this isn't a deal-breaker for you in any case... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian, the text-string that you quoted goes on to say: "nevertheless, some real-world language at the beginning of such summaries is often good style", but no; its definitely not a deal-breaker. I was just curious because, as I said, I've never before read a Wikipedia article that details a story as a first-person narrator, which still strikes me an inappropriate style for an encyclopedia. What part of the MOS suggests that first-person narration is an appropriate format for detailing plot-lines? I see where MOS:PLOT sanctions the use of present tense, but its a leap to assume that this applies to first-person narration, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
Ian Rose, what about "An in-universe perspective describes the narrative from the perspective of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis ... Many fan wikis and fan websites (see below) take this approach, but it should not be used for Wikipedia articles"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That same section also says "Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements (except backstory), rather than the historical present tense"... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The first four apply. Per WP:INUNIVERSE: "Features often seen in an inappropriate, in-universe perspective include: Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavor, A plot synopsis written like a historical account, Fictography – an article or section about a fictional character written like a biography (placing, for example, undue emphasis on titles or birthdates despite their being unimportant to the plot or interpretation). For example, instead of writing: "Gandalf was a powerful wizard" write: "Gandalf is characterised (or described or cast) by Tolkien as a powerful wizard", Description of fictional places written like a geographical account; the same principles apply as for fictional characters." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Rose, per WP:INUNIVERSE: "The threshold of what constitutes in-universe writing is making any effort to re-create or uphold the illusion of the original fiction by omitting real-world info." Isn't this exactly how Crisco has written the plot section? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) How, dare I ask, does "Fictography" apply? There are no biographies here. "Description of fictional places written like a geographical account;"? There's no "Mount Ciwalirang, the tallest mountain the land of x" or whatever. "Disregarding all or most aspects of a work of fiction as a creative endeavor," - So what are the next three sections about? "A plot synopsis written like a historical account" would imply past tense, not narrative present. Sorry, I'm not seeing it.
- Its Fictography because of phrases like: "Upon returning home, Moelia realises that Noesa Brama must be the last male descendent of the Hindu kings of Pajajaran, and that both Retna Sari and her mother bear a striking resemblance to his own grandmother." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you want to see violations of this aspect of the MoS, check out character biographies that go something like "Itchy is an anthropomorphic mouse. He is blue and about 3 feet tall. His hobbies include killing his erstwhile friend, Scratchy, something which he does regularly. Itchy was born on 30 February 1981 and strangled his nana with his umbilical cord..."
- Anyways, the current MOS clearly states that a) narrative present is the recommended tense and b) For single works the plot section need not be immediately placed in real world context, as it is implicitly understood to be part of that narrative. If you disagree with the MOS, please start a discussion to change it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 1) Where does the MoS clearly state that a narrative style is appropriate? 2) Where does the MoS clearly state that for single works the plot section need not be immediately placed in real world context? Per WP:Real world: "However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I "omitting real-world info"? Do you know of any sources I haven't used? Doubtful (though if you do please let me know, so that I can incorporate the information). I am assuming that our readers will understand that a section titled "Plot" is going to be about the fictional plot of a novel, without having it spoon-fed to them. The same as all other FAs on works of fiction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no real-world info in the plot-line section. Is there? Its written as though the fictional events and characters are real. Do any of the people mentioned in the plot section actually exist? Is there any acknowledgement in the plot section that the story is a work of fiction? Which text-string in the plot section refers to the real-world? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction#Conclusions: "When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind: The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective. Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction."(original emphasis) Unless I'm missing an important point here, the plot section is not MoS compliant, as its written without the distinction between real-world perspective versus "in-universe" perspective. Per WP:Real world: "However, consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:27, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- GabeMc commented at WP:WAF, asking about its interpretation, and I will comment here in this specific case: there are a few bad statements in the plot section - written for dramatic effect rather than clarity - but fixable. "It is 1883, and Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years" should be something more like "The novel begins in 1883, where Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years." (I assume this is the first part, but the point is there). "Forty-four years pass." should be "The novel then jumps to forty-five years later." (This is a major narrative jump, so should be called out, compared to "The following week,..." which is still running on the same narrative frame. That's all I see specifically there that helps ground the writing more appropriate for an encyclopedia. Nothing major but would help a lot. --MASEM (t) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will defer to the judgment of Ian and the other reviewers/delegates on this. Personally I think that it is redundant and disruptive to the narrative. The readers know this is a novel. They are not goldfish. They won't forget it in the 3 minutes it takes to finish the lede and plot. Repeating "novel" twice in the plot section is redundant and patronizing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, as a fellow editor, as well as a delegate/coordinator, I have to agree with Crisco's response here, and find it a commonsense interpretation of the MOS plot summary guidelines for a single work (my only suggestion for the text, incidentally, would be to avoid the "activity/active" repetition in the last line of the summary if possible). With that in mind I think we should call time on this review -- thank you all very much for your input. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you don't have to use the word "novel". Just that the phrase "It is 1883..." or "45 years pass." is really clunky encyclopedic writing. The first line could be rewritten as "In 1883, Krakatoa is stirring for the first time in 200 years." For lack of a better word, it is removing the "dramatic flair" that "It is 1833..." has that may be appropriate in more compelling or emotional writing but not in neutral style for an encyclopdia. --MASEM (t) 16:55, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco, nobody is suggesting that readers will "forget [its a novel] in the 3 minutes it takes to finish the lede and plot." This is about encyclopedic writing, and the MoS suggests that fictive or in-universe style is not preferred over real world style. The way you've written the plot summary there is no indication that its a fiction. Masem is right to suggest that fixing this is a simple matter of adding one or two topic sentences to the section so that it is grounded in the real world, versus an abbreviated fiction story. Story telling style is not encyclopedic. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
| Post-closure comments: copied to talk page by SchroCat (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
********** With all due respect, I disagree with Ian. When taken as a whole Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Writing about fiction is quite clear in its strong prescription to avoid WP:INUNIVERSE perspective. E.g., "Articles about fiction, like all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded ... consider that real-world perspective is not an "optional" quality criterion but a general, basic requirement for all articles." This passage is from the first section in the guideline, then in Conclusions it states: "When writing about fiction, keep the following in mind: The principal frame of reference is always the real world, in which both the work of fiction and its publication are embedded: write from a real-world perspective; Readability and comprehensibility: put all information into context with the original fiction". So while the language of MOS:PLOT seems to give all single works an exemption in this regard, I suggest that that contradiction should be fixed not followed. The avoidance of in-universe perspective is a central theme of the guideline, so what's the purpose of an exemption that apparently applies to all single works of fiction? Real world perspective is the rule not the exception, since the vast majority of fictional works are not part of a series. Why do we have the all encompassing directive of using real world perspective when writing about fictional works if this only applies to works that are part of a series? We should not write our MoS this way. Deferring to a delegate is often a wise course of action, but the delegates do not have override power in terms of the MoS, do they? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As this canditature has closed, this isn't the place to continue the conversation: perhaps the article talk page would be a better venue? (And, for what it's worth, I find the plot here follows the path of the majority of book and film plots I've read on Wiki). - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
- "Tjakra Amidjaja consoles her, and tells her that they will leave the village in two days."
- There is a comma separating two verbs in a compound predicate.
- This is an incomplete sentence that lacks a subject.
-
-
- "Noesa Brama accepts the proposal, but, after he discovers"
- You should remove the extra comma after but.
- I don't think it's needed because if you remove but, it creates a comma splice: "Noesa Brama accepts the proposal, after he discovers", whereas if it was needed you should be able to remove but without wrecking the sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The comma is most unusual, and imho poor, making the sentence unnecessarily choppy. You wouldn't write "John went to the movies, but, Mary stayed at home". The syntax might be viewed as "X, but Y" where X and Y can stand as grammatically complete sentences. In this case, sentence Y is "After he discovers that Retna Sari and Soerijati had not gone willingly with the men from Palembang, he expresses regret over the destruction of the statue." OK, that's just a theory, but my observation is that putting a comma after "but" in sentences like that is extremely rare in good writing. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "He weds Moelia and Retna Sari, and has them promise that their first son will be raised a Hindu and become king of the Baduy"
- A comma is separating the two verbs in this compound predicate.
- Themes
- "were often understood to mean mainland China"
- The verb understood should be followed by a gerund, not an infinitive.
- "An adaptation of the novel was performed on stage before Kwee had completed writing it, as had happened to his earlier work Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang."
- "as had happened to his earlier work" is awkward, and "completed writing it" seems like a double verb when a single would do. Consider: "As with his earlier work, Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang, an adaptation of the novel was performed on stage before its completion", or similar.
- "On 28 March 1928 the Moon Opera"
- A comma should follow this full date.
- Very controversial for such a short phrase. It's needed when omitting it would create a garden-path sentence, but here it didn't. --Stfg (talk) 15:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per MOS:COMMA: "Dates in month–day–year format also require a comma after the day and also after the year (unless followed by other punctuation). In both cases, the last element is treated as parenthetic." According to WP:DATEFORMAT: "A comma follows the year unless followed by other punctuation". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 17:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is my understanding that not all manuals of style require such a comma (and even in respected newspapers such as The Guardian we can find examples of a comma not being used after a date in a sentence such as this). However, as this one issue comes up so often, it is much less of a headache to just change it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Putting a comma after a date opening a sentance is American usage (or journalistic, in the UK), which is why the MOS insists on it after the US date format is used. In formal or encyclopaedic British English–which it looks like this article is in–it's not used. - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Where does the MOS say that, SchroCat? MOS:COMMA (2nd bullet) mentions the use of the comma after the year in MDY format anywhere in a sentence, treating the year as parenthetical, and WP:DATEFORMAT also mentions that, but I haven't been able to find any statement relating it to engvar, and nothing about a date opening a sentence. --Stfg (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't cover it in the MOS, it is just good British punctuation use. As you point out above, the comma use is only suggested after the American M-D-Y format: there is nothing about using a comma after BrEng D-M-Y format because it shouldn't be there. (See here and here for explanation/confirmation). - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- "The story for the performances was prepared by Kwee, and was abbreviated and simplified for the stage."
- 1) A comma is separating the two verbs in a compound predicate. 2) Did Kwee abbreviate and simplify it for the stage, because this is a bit vague/confusing. Consider: "Kwee prepared the story for the performances, abbreviating and simplifying it for the stage." GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uncommonly for works of this period, Kwee attempts to centre the novel around indigenous people and present it from their perspective, "impersonating" these indigenous cultures through his narrative.[20]"
- 1) Is this a dangling modifier? The first clause seems to be about the work, but the subject of the sentence seems to be Kwee. 2) You have an unattributed quote in there. Who are you quoting with the word impersonating? Per Wikipedia:Quotations "Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation." I think you have this issue with the one-word quote "sensational", which appears in the lead and the article body. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:27, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- MOS:QUOTE gives "The author of a quote of a full sentence or more should be named; this is done in the main text and not in a footnote", implying that a single word need not by given in-text attribution. Changed the subject to "ethnic Chinese writers". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support One or two very minor things though. What is a priest-king? I find it a confusing term as I'm unsure what religion it would be initially in the lead. Isn't there an article linking to it or a better term? If not it might be worth adding a footnote to briefly explain, or adding "marries a Baduy priest-king, the last male descendent of the Hindu kings of Pajajaran" which you mention in the plot. Why the scare quotes around "impersonate". I think it would read better if you wrote that sentence entirely in your own words. "He was highly critical of contemporary writers who relied more on their fantasies than logic and reality.[10] Hoping to keep his story grounded in reality," -repetition of reality.. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 07:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Priest-king" would be a religious leader who is also political ruler of a certain people. Merriam-Webster gives "a sacerdotal ruler: one who rules as king by right of his priestly office functioning as vice-regent of a deity", which is a bit more specific. The term is fairly common on Google (200k hits), but somehow we don't have an article on Wikipedia or Wiktionary. I think the gist of the idea gets through clearly, though.
- "Impersonate" has scare quotes for two reasons. First, it is not a literal impersonation, but rather writing from their view point. Second, that is the term Budianta uses.
- What sentence are you referring to with "I think it would read better if you wrote that sentence entirely in your own words."?
- Edited. Thanks for reviewing! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Uncommonly for works from this period, Kwee attempts to "impersonate" these other cultures and present them from their own point of view." Several things about this bother me. I'm not sure what cultures you're referring to, as above you just mention literature, and I'm really not sure what you mean by impersonate and what you mean by "present them from their own point of view". I thought you said that he didn't have major ethnic Chinese characters like others in the day? Might just be me and too early in the day.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:25, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I gather you're distinguishing between Malay Chinese and Chinese Malay and arguing that he imported characteristics which were uncommon in Malaysian writers at the time? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're arguing that he imported characteristics using indigenous characters which were uncommon among Malay Chinese writers at the time who tended to use Chinese main characters then? This isn't immediately clear, I think it could be reworded a little more clearly. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the text says "characters". As in, characters in a novel. Not characteristics. Essentially none of the characters in the novel were ethnic Chinese ("no Chinese characters in major roles"), whereas Kwee's contemporaries almost exclusively used ethnic Chinese characters in their novels. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, how do you "imported characteristics using indigenous characters"???? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at it:
"Unlike many contemporary works by ethnic Chinese authors, Drama dari Krakatau features no Chinese characters in major roles; the only such characters are mentioned in passing, shopowners who provide emergency food supplies to the regent.[18] Historically, Malay-language works by ethnic Chinese authors centred around Chinese characters, to the point that terms such as tanah-air (homeland) were often understood to mean mainland China, rather than the Malay Archipelago or Dutch East Indies. Chinese Malay works which featured exclusively indigenous characters had only developed in the 1920s.[19] Uncommonly for works from this period, Kwee attempts to "impersonate" these indigenous cultures and present them from their own point of view.[20]"
I think what was confusing me is Historically, Malay-language works by ethnic Chinese authors centred around Chinese characters, and then you say Chinese Malay works which featured exclusively indigenous characters had only developed in the 1920s. By indigenous characters I gather you mean of the Dutch Indies (Indonesian). I get that but its what you say then that he's trying to "impersonate" those cultures as if they're foreign which seems odd given that they're native. I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say by "impersonate", it doesn't seem right in the context to me although I gather it's a Budianta quote. I understand that he was ethnic Chinese and not indigenous, but if you'd written "Uncommonly for works of this period, Kwee attempts to centre the novel around indigenous people and present it from their perspective" I'd have immediately understood. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that the indigenous cultures were foreign (in the more general sense) to the ethnic Chinese in the Indies, at least in the early 20th century; notice how "homeland" was often understood as China, and not the Indies. The socio-political climate of the time had extensive divides between the Chinese, the Dutch, and the Native Indonesians (no longer enforced by law, but no less present). They all had their own spheres in which they moved, their own boundaries which set them apart from each other. Actually getting to know and respect Native tradition was a massive step forward for the time, although admittedly not as drastic as it would have been in 1900 (see Tjerita Oeij Se for the kind of story they could get away with in 1900).
- By not using the word "impersonate" in this paragraph, the clause "the 'impersonation' presents a "region of theosophy where religious difference is unified in the belief of goodness." would not make sense. I'd rather keep the word, as it is succinct and easy to refer back to.
- That being said, I like your sentence and see if it can be worked in — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I kinda understand that it was seen as foreign despite both being Indonesian though.
Much clearer now, it is now quoted in a better context I think, thanks. Sorry to be so picky! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 23 February 2014 (UTC) [8].[reply]
- Rodw & Amandajm — Rod talk 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wells Cathedral has unique Gothic architecture and complex history. These are described and illustrated within the article, which has been edited and reviewed by dozens of editors, so that I feel it now meets the FA criteria. — Rod talk 12:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods, and those that aren't shouldn't. Check for other grammatical problems in captions, like the extra comma in the Ministry image
-
- I've just checked them. Amandajm (talk) 10:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WellsCathPlan_numbered.JPG: when/where was this first published?
- Fixed, AJM
- File:Wells_Cathedral,_Chantry_in_Nave_by_Francis_Bedford.jpg needs US PD tag
- Fixed, AJM
- File:Wellsgrotesque.jpg: I'm not seeing any info about licensing at the source link?
- Response I did not find a license at the source link either. I presume that the license under which it has been uploaded to Commons reflects the request at the source link that Cornell should be acknowledged. AJM
- Fixed, Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I peer reviewed this article, and my minor queries were thoroughly dealt with. Since then the page has been further reviewed and improved. I don't as a rule comment on images as WP's arcane rules are beyond me, but the text is in my judgment clearly of FA quality: the prose is a pleasure to read; the balance of the article is judicious; the sources are varied and well cited; there is ample but not excessive detail. Any visitor to Wikipedia in search of information about Wells Cathedral will be well served by this article. A fine piece of work which it is a pleasure to support. – Tim riley (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I've also reviewed this one and am happy to support it for FA. Only one minor quibble would be that I think the big table and plan might look better a bit further down the article and seems to affect the flow/appearance a bit.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Dismail Fail I cannot make the map look plan in colour. Never mind! Amandajm (talk) 12:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Somebody who assesses images or MOS issues might want to review the image alignments and sizes. On my browser a lot of the images look very large and there's quite a lot of section breaks and page stretching.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think they all seem to be set at upright=1.25 or above, which is a bit bigger than the default (upright=1.0 is the default thumbnail size, if I remember correctly). There's nothing in the MOS that prevents this, and it can be quite appropriate on particular images, but because they've all been expanded, it will create a strange effect on many screens. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Response I have no idea what sort of "strange effect" your referring to. I look at these article on an ipad as well as a wide screen, and also experiment with the width, to make sure that the images remain in the relevant sections, regardless of whether the screen is wide or narrow.
- The issues of left aligned and forced image sizes have been addressed below & as you say there is "nothing in the MOS that prevents this" so does this issue still need to be discussed? I've tried the article on several devices & screen settings without problems but can you specify the "strange effect on many screens", so that we can look at how to resolve it? Is this a wider issue which might affect other articles or specific to this one?— Rod talk 09:00, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of the article having all the images enlarged, the problem is that they will all look bigger than the default that's set on any individual system. With lots of images, this then can rapidly take up quite a lot of room. The MOS encourages standard sizing, which can be done very easily (i.e. just take out the "upright=1.2" bit, and they'll appear at default size) unless there's a special reason why they individually need to be bigger - you might argue the Victorian fittings needs to be larger, so you can see the detail better, perhaps, for example. Some of the multiple images are also quite enlarged from the default, although they're done using px sizing. I'd also advise following the MOS guidance on left justified images, namely that "Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph." Hchc2009 (talk) 09:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response on images. I don't understand why the image size of upright=1.25 is a problem. There seems to be a presumption that most users set their own defaults. In my experience, this is not the case. Most users don't know how to set default sizes. I have never had a computer that sized the images differently, and when I use computers in different countries, the images look the same size as they do on mine at home.
- Basically, the thumbnail default it too small for looking at detailed images. It is a ridiculous size for an artwork, or a detailed piece of architecture. If you look at the view of the cathedral from above, for example, you can't make out the pertinent details at small scale.
- The other matter has been dealt with, below.
- I find the MOS guidance of left-hand images to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of both visual layout and readability. In the case of a short section of text, it is better to move the sub-section heading along with the text than to put the picture in a position where it chops up the placement of paragraphs in a short section. The present arrangement works better than the alternative. Amandajm (talk) 11:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Re sizing of paired images. I have just reduced all of them. Amandajm (talk) 12:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the article as it stands is compliant with MOS:IMAGES, Amandajm, which is a requirement for FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither am I, and unless it's fixed I'll be opposing this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 12:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Placement of Images
- (putting all this together)
- I have just been, again, to the MOS re images. The only non-compliance with the MOS is this
- Avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text. Images on the left are best placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
- My response to this has already been given:
- The standard placement of pictures (given elsewhere in the MOS) is immediately under the heading or sub-heading so that they fall in the right section. But, in the case of a left-hand placement, putting the image under the sub-heading splits the sub-heading from the text and affects readability, as noted above.
- One solution to the problem, as given in the MOS, is to place the image beneath the first paragraph. This sometimes works. But it often results in the displacement of the heading of the unrelated paragraph below.
- In the specific case of this article, the relevant sections are very short. This means that there is no option (in most cases) to put the image after the first paragraph.
- The layout solution that maintains the sub-heading with its relevant text is to put the image immediately above the heading, as has been done here.
- In this instance, the solution provided by the MOS is not a good one. The alternative solution needs to be written into the MOS as an option, in a case such as this, or in cases where the left-hand image is very long and narrow.
- With regards to the sizing of images:
- Detailed images need to be larger than thumbnail as per MOS. Upright=1.25 reveals far more in the highly detailed images than thumbnail does. (e.g. the aerial view of cathedral and precinct)
- I have sized the majority of single images to the same upright 1.25 because the layout of the article as a whole looks better if the horizontal images are all sized the same.
- A number of non-detailed single images (the font etc) could be reduced thumbnail. However, this would affect the overall layout of the article.
- My preference is to maintain the constant size for the overall visual appearance. However, if there is good reason for downsizing the non-detailed images, we should do it.
- Re sizing of paired images:
- With similar overall layout in mind, I have attempted to size all the paired images in such a way that the boxes are the same overall size (within each major section) and sit well with the single images.
- The sizing is not all that easy to adjust as the images sometimes simply refuse to appear at certain sizes.
- I have just down-sized all the paired images so that they don't take up so much width. This has made some of the vertical images very small, but, never mind!
- Amandajm (talk) 13:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
overlinking—there is a fair amount of overlinking, I suggest you run the duplicate links script.
- Many of the left-aligned images force headings into the text, very unappealing appearance.
- Alternating images right/left is normal procedure. However, when the sections of text are relatively short, then the left images always displace the text. There are two separate issues here:
- On any wide screen, images tend to displace text. The worst offenders are right-hand boxes which often push right-hand images right out of their section, yet are tolerated, and even liked! With left-hand images, if the sections are short, then the images routinely push aside those headings that are below them, and which are generally not the heading most relevant to the picture that is doing the displacing. It just has to be tolerated.
- The other problem is in the placement of the relevant heading. With right-hand pictures, the image generally goes right after the heading, and nothing gets displaced. But with left-hand images, if the image is placed immediately under the section heading, then the section heading gets split from its text, and the eye has to jump sideways from the heading to the text of the section. For this reasons, it is preferable to place the left-hand image immediately above the heading that it relates to, so that the heading remains alongside the relevant text. It has been done like this in this article, because the alternate solution is worse, not better. Displacement of headings is going to happen at some point, unless you are using a narrow vertical screen. Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
Please remove forced image sizes since they override user preferences, a particular problem on tablets etc.
- The "forced sizing" has been done in a manner that does not cause problems on ipads. They all seem to shrink down to thumbnail size or upright. I cannot check it on a mobile at present, but have done so using the same format in a different article on a previous occasion, without problem . Amandajm (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the most poetic of the English Cathedrals—is "cathedrals" capitalised in your source?
sculptured figures—"sculpted".
- four chief clergy, quattuor personae—why the Latin here, and nowhere else in the article? It only means "four people".
-
-
excommunicated, Strainer arches, nave, lectern, corbel —please link at first occurrence.
-
-
onset of the civil war—why lower case for the Civil War.
- known as the Non-Jurors—convince me this should be capitalised.
-
-
which are around £2 million per year—"as of 2013" (or whenever your data is from).
Alec Clifton-Taylor —since you rely on his opinions, tell us who he is in the text, eg "English architectural historian Alec Clifton-Taylor".
Sir Banister Fletcher —as above.
Sheela na gigs—I assume you have capitalised "Sheela" as a proper noun. Convince me that it is a name
-
- No, Sheela (today usually Sheila), is a *very* common first name. Ceoil (talk) 13:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of your web references are a bit of a mess. You must have a publisher, usually following the title. Some of your refs either don't have a publisher or have the publisher where the author should be. 128 is a particular shocker. The authors appear to be Tate and "Turner" (apparently not notable enough for initials or a link). The author is J. M. W. Turner, the publisher is the Tate Gallery. Refs 130/131 can't even agree where the same publisher should go! There may be others.
- I've dealt with the ones identified (used your guidance for 128 even though the Tate gallery now styles itself as "TATE" across all sites) and identified one other with a publisher missing. I hope I've caught them all now.— Rod talk 15:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I've left it as Tate Gallery
I'll have another read through tomorrow.BBC or BBC News (refs 70/134)
Newspapers, like the Telegraph, should be italicised
- Bibliography. Use a consistent capitalisation style regardless of how the source book did it. Adkins, Hay and Sale at least are out of kilter, and Thornsby is just plain weird. Also decide whether to put spaces between initials or not, just random at present.
- Ref 105 for Malden, page range should have ndash, not hyphen
-
- I'm happy with the final round of responses. One thing I noticed but forgot to put is that Royal Hist. Soc. should be spelt out in full, per mos. I'll leave that with you since I'm now ready to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:20, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on OR
- A quick one. The article's using the inflation template to calculate the contemporary cost of a church organ (1620 costing of £398 1s 5d; modern equivalent £70,000) The template states the it is "only capable of inflating Consumer Price Index values: staples, workers rent, small service bills (doctor's costs, train tickets)" and warns that "incorrect use of this template would constitute original research". Church organs have never been part of the CPI in either the 17th or 21st century, and I would back up the wiki template in warning against using it for this purpose. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
- Support this very impressive article. I work in a similar area and have been following its development for a few months. I have small quibbles that I can look after myself. One thing, the lead is five paras and thus a little choppy; I would at least merge the first two. And loose the see also section. I think the choice of images is exemplary, the discussions of architectural features obviously deeply informed and clearly written; its a pleasure to see this finally here. Ceoil (talk) 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Comment While no one can dispute the research and effort that has gone into this article, I think the prose could do with some tightening. I have addressed a couple of issues but think it could do with a copyedit from someone better than me. Scissors arch? J3Mrs (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 1: "Scissors arch", I believe it has been deleted. I cannot believe that the following sentence doesn't describe the arches adequately:
- "The unorthodox solution of the mason William Joy in 1338, was the insertion of low arches topped by inverted arches of similar dimensions, forming scissors-like structures that brace the piers of the crossing on three sides." NOTE: This description is teamed with a photograph, and the description of the arches being like a St Andrew's cross. Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response 2: the article has suffered an ongoing problem from attempts to "tighten the prose" that have
- significantly changed meanings of sentences,
- diminished meaning by unlinking facts that should be linked
- linked facts that were not closely dependent,
- created the possibility for misunderstanding
- changed statements so that they were just plain erroneous
- gave certainty to facts that were deliberately expressed in a manner that did not imply certainty (the date of the foundation of the choir school, for example)
- shortened grammatical forms by the frequent removal of the word "that" from the beginning of clauses, e.g. "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." simplified to "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding ...." The former is grammatically correct. The article does not need to be turned into journalise as no-one needs to count the column inches.
- There seems to be a misunderstanding (in some editors) of the use of participial phrases. A number of editors see the use of the present participle of a verb as a difficulty. Sentences like the following are grammatically correct: "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, having a pattern of a single repeated shape....". The sentence does not require changing into "The tracery of the windows is in the style known as Reticulated Gothic, it has a pattern of a single repeated shape..."
- Response 3
- I appreciate every effort of other editors to copy edit errors, whether they are spelling, typos, grammar, reference and number formatting etc etc. All these things are helpful.
- On the other hand, the efforts to tighten up the prose have resulted in so many errors, potential mis-conceptions, poor grammar and poor expression that I have reached a point of frustration. I am sick and tired of having my expression tweaked by people who are not as familiar with the subject of the article as I am.
- As a major editor of the article (and as a long-time writer on heritage related subjects) I am beginning to find the inadequate and inappropriate tweaking of my expression an affront.
- As one of two major editors to this article, I ought to have some say in the manner of expression.
- The bottom line is: If a major contributor prefers: "The canons complained that they had borne the cost of the rebuilding..." over "The canons complained they had borne the cost of the rebuilding...", then, as major contributor, I am requesting the right to maintain my preference, without feeling harassed about it.
- You have two statements here, one from Cassianto saying that the article was easy to read, and the other, negative opinion, from J3Mrs whose efforts have introduced into the article a significant number of errors that have required fixing, and modes of expression of types that this major contributor to the article would not choose to use.
- I am sick and tired of the petty, often unproductive, and sometimes detrimental nit-picking over the prose, which has been carefully constructed to convey encyclopedic material as accurately as possible.
- God spare me from ever being so arrogant as to have to impose my "personal preferences" in matters of expression on an editor who writes accurate, grammatically correct prose, in the manner that some editors here apparently feel entitled to do!
- Amandajm (talk) 03:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 I copyedited this article in good faith. I have corrected many capitalization errors, removed numerous "of the cathedral" type redundancies and other edits. Amandajm has posted this public berating and two private thank yous, I don't know what to make of that. I corrected what I saw as poor prose as it would have taken too long to catalogue. I stand by what I have done and think the article is better for it. I thought the idea was to review and improve not endorse what is lacking. PS the term is scissor arch and I would never use "being" instead of "was". J3Mrs (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response. J3Mrs, I apologise for the personally-directed nature of my comments. I want to stress that I appreciated all the tweaks to style and format. On the other hand, it was the tweaks to "expression" that changed the meaning here and there. I believe that at this stage corrections to expression (unless they are purely grammatical) ought to achieved by suggestion, rather than direct intervention. I respond to such suggestions as rapidly as I can, as does Rod, but I'm hampered in response if what I am doing is trying to sort out and rephrase things that have suddenly gone wrong.
- Re Discussion of changes, the repeated use of the word "cathedral" for example, I have left your changes intact, but would have appreciated discussion on that matter, as another editor Derek Andrews, had complained on the talk page about exactly the opposite thing- the omission of the word "Cathedral" behind the word "Wells", seeing it as a sort of presumptuousness to simply call the cathedral by the name of the town. While you are obviously fully aware that "Wells" is the normal way to refer to the cathedral, other people are not.
- Please read the new section and make as many comments as you like. It's already mentioned on the article talk page. Amandajm (talk) 03:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment3 This was not the first time you have attacked me in a very personal manner regarding this article and I noted on the talk page here that you consider I edit in "a very similar manner to vandalism", I think it best to say I am walking away. J3Mrs (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Nit-picking over the prose" is a long-established and important part of FAC reviews, which, as a co-coordinator, I find helpful when deciding if a consensus for promotion has been achieved. There are glitches that require attention:
- Here, "Between 1275–1310 the undercroft and chapterhouse were built" and here "Between 1315–22 the central tower was heightened" for example. (In the Lead it is correctly written "The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490").
- Some of the many "with" expressions might benefit from recasting such as, "with the body of the church being divided into distinct parts".
- There is a formatting error here: Cockerell, Charles Robert (1851). Iconography of the West Front of Wells Cathedral. J. H. Parker. Harv error: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFCockerell1851. Graham Colm (talk) 08:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. Graham Colm. As I said above, that type of suggestion (or direct editing) is exactly the type that is desirable and most welcome.
- I will look at the "with" expressions and see if this can better phrased.
- Re Cockerell, I want to include a sentence or two that relates to that book. For this reason it hasn't been removed from the reflist. I'll get onto it, when I am not feeling quite so hassled about dealing with introduced errors.
- Amandajm (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Between the dates. I think that I have fixed all of them. Amandajm (talk) 09:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With Removed 13 of them. You may have suggestions re others. Amandajm (talk) 09:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have'nt, but you might want to check whether the ten or so occurrences of "being" would flow better using a simple—and more elegant—present or past tense. Graham Colm (talk) 16:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.
It might be apt to add Category:Libraries in England.In the infobox, it might be apt to footnote the bishop-to-be, Peter Hancock.[9]Regarding placement of images to the left of subheaders, I have no opinion at this time, except to say that this practice could easily be reduced; e.g. put the first image (baptismal font) at right, put the second image (Bishop's Palace) at left and down, et cetera (this rearrangement could be facilitated by breaking the first paragraph of some subsections into two shorter paragraphs). You might also consider a two-to-one ratio of pics on the right relative to pics on the left (I don't think there's any requirement about a one-to-one ratio). Overall, it's a very excellent article, and I look forward to supporting it for FA.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments. I'm not sure about adding Category:Libraries in England as, although there is a paragraph on the library, it is not a major part of the article. Others such as Canterbury Cathedral which also have a brief mention of their library are not included. If we had a separate article on the library (similar to Lincoln Cathedral Library) then this would obviously be appropriate - perhaps we need a sub cat of Libraries in England for Cathedral Libraries? The new Bishop Peter Hancock has been discussed on the talk page and the suggestion was to wait until his enthronement (on some date in 2014) as he does not officially take office till then and therefore the post is currently vacant. I will leave Amandajm to comment on the images as the editor most responsible for the layout.— Rod talk 16:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is already Category:Jewish libraries, so it would seem fine to start a Category:Church libraries or something like that. I don't see why it would have to be limited to England although it might be wise to limit it to really substantial libraries having more than X thousand books. The library at Wells Cathedral definitely is very substantial, and so adding Category:Libraries in England seems appropriate for now (that category already includes Stanley Burton Centre for Holocaust Studies which has more than just a library). Many Wikipedia articles have categories that do not apply to the whole entire article (e.g. Washington National Cathedral has a cat Category:Anglican cemeteries). I'm not a cat expert, so others may want to (purrorate) perorate on this matter.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As there have been no further comments on this I have added the category - this can always be changed if a more appropriate cat is created. I have also added the note about acting diocesan and bishop-designate.— Rod talk 20:09, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Rodw.
The only outstanding issue I have is with the image placement, as described above, and I am reluctantly leaning "Oppose" for that reason. This is not to pick on Wells Cathedral at all; many Featured Article nominations have had to deal with this specific issue of images placed to the left of headers. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Strepsirrhini/archive1,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tripura/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stan Coveleski/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Quagga/archive1,Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern Rhodesia in World War I/archive1.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
- The situation here is rather different to any of the articles that you mention above. (I have just looked at them all) With the exception of the article on Southern Rhodesia in the War, the articles are all very much shorter and are focussed on a considerably simpler subject: One person, one painting, one animal, one group of similar animals. In each case there are only a limited number of pics to be included. The topic of a major Gothic Cathedral with so much to described: Nave, choir, Lady Chapel, Chapter House, West front, tower sculpture, capitals, an organ, windows a palace, a street, gatehouse, cloisters, misericords, corbels, etc etc. Every one of these things requires illustration in order to do the subject justice.
- Because of the complexity of the subject, their are lots of sub-headings and short sub-sections, nearly all with illustrations. This necessitates alternating the images right and left.
- As I have written above, the layout choices are to put the left image under the sub-heading, or above it. If the picture is placed immediately below the the sub-heading, then the sub-heading gets split from its text. The alternative is to put the picture above the sub-heading, which moves the heading sideways and keeps it with the text. If you look at Southern Rhodesia in World War I, section Aviators and section Economic impact, you can see the result of allowing the sub-heading to be split from the text. It's not a good look.
- If the section is long, the image can go further down. In the case of Wells Cathedral the sections are short, and this is not an option. If the pics move further don, they will still push headings aside, but it will be the one below, not the one relevant to the image. Amandajm (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amandajm for the thoughtful response. I know it's kind of a pain in the neck to have so many MOS considerations, but they do still leave much flexibility. It's kind of a fun riddle to figure out how to get an article to do what you want, while still doing what the MOS wants. As another editor mentioned, the MoS should be adhered to strictly in regard to images being after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate, and this is for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. If you can find any other featured articles that have many images placed before the relevant section, then you will have a more persuasive case. Otherwise, what's done now for Wells Cathedral will be the first precedent for this sort of thing, so we have to think of more than this article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Expansion: As indicated, I have now used the book by Cockerell on the iconography of the west front to create a new section. Wells Cathedral#Architecture
- My problem now is that I think that because the new section is long, it creates an overall imbalance. On the other hand I am loathe to cut it down as the west front is a very significant work of art in its own right. There is a good deal more that could be added, without becoming plagiarist.
- Opinions, please: Should I leave it in the article (with a relevant image)? Or remove it and create a short linked article?
- Amandajm (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Grudgingly oppose Support - happy that my concerns have been addressed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to have to grudgingly oppose this one. I believe that one of the FA requirements is that the article complies with the [Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images]. This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Every standalone image in this article (11 or so?) seems to be enlarged by 20%. This includes images that I would personally consider to be quite "normal" images, e.g. Vicars Close Wells Somerset.jpg. The MOS guidance on the placing of left-hand images is also being disregarded in this article. I say "grudgingly", as otherwise I'd like to support it. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Hchc2009, you made a number of points before that related to sizing of images.
- I responded, in point form, above, to every comment that you made.
- I also went through the images and reduced in size all' the images that were in pairs, in direct response to what you had said.
- I also addressed your present comment, This includes using the default image size unless there are good reasons to the contrary. I have responded to this earlier.
- I have just reduced the image of the pulpit, which is the only image that doesn't show significant detail.
- Re: The image of Vicars Close is only a "quite normal" image if you haven't realised its extraordinary significance. That is no "normal" street that you are looking at in that photo. It is the only remaining intact 15th century street in Britain (and probably in the world).
- I have already explained that the mode of up-sizing allows the images to be viewed at a reduced size on small screens i.e. ion ipads and also on mobiles. I have checked the appearance of the article on both.
- NOTE: Now that the only non-detailed image has been reduced, the images all comply with MOS in terms sizing to of include visual detail that is significant in the content of the article.
- Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- V. quick response (work beckons!). By "normal image", Amandajm, I meant that the image seems to be quite visible/adequate at a normal formatting size, not that the subject of the image (e.g. the street) isn't of historical interest. Hchc2009 (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hchc2009, As a person who deals with images on Wikipedia all the time, I find the thumbnail size too small to be effective for anything more than the simplest of images. At thumbnail size, It is clear that this is a street with houses, and that there appears to be a church at the end of the street. The difference to clarity that the additional 25% makes is enormous and justifies taking a pragmatic approach to the sizing. Wikipedia guidelines for images are not set in cement- they are recommendations.
- I can only see one possible reason for enforcing the thumbnail rule- that is to allow the pics to work on a mobile phone. As I said before, the sizing of the images does work on a mobile phone. The images simply shrink to fit.
- Is there any other purpose in setting the images all to thumbnail? Do we really have to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule"? Amandajm (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of changing the wording of the MOS and its recommendations on the default use of thumbnails, it's probably best to take it up on one of the related talk pages. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK.
- But the question remains: Is it appropriate to enforce a "recommendation" as if it was a "rule", if, when all else it considered, there doesn't seem to be any good reason for the enforcement?
- As I have said before, the current mode of formatting reduces the images to the required small size on mobile phones. Is there any other reason? Amandajm (talk) 01:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You probably want a specialist for this (User:Pigsonthewing or similar, perhaps) but I believe the guidance is there to allow users the most flexibility in configuring how the wiki functions for them. If articles regularly use default sized images as the norm, the user themself can decide if typically that is suitable for them (they usually work fine on my screen, generally) or perhaps too small (as you've noted is the case for you above) or perhaps too big (I'm sure there's someone out there who thinks that), and reset their preferences accordingly. Overriding that on special cases is fine too. On my screen, having all the images in this article enlarged by 20% on the standard size means they are rather large and overwhelm the text. In my opinion, one or two of them should be enlarged because the detail is critical, but most of them should just be the regular default size, as per the MOS. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You called? Thank you. Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails (and Amandajm should do this if images appear too small for their eyes, on their setup); and provides a default size (which is nothing to do with mobile phones -styling for them is handled separately) for other users. These user preference, and default, should not be overridden throughout an article, just because of one editor's personal aesthetic preferences or technical circumstances. Consider a reader who has a small screen (say, a 9" netbook) and who has already set thumbnails to the maximum size allowed. Increasing them further makes them relatively huge, and reduces the amount of text that can fit on the screen alongside them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello User:Pigsonthewing. Could you also please comment about whether it's okay to put images to the left of subheaders? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS should be adhered to strictly in that regard (and images should be after, not before, the subheading of the section to which they relate), for reasons of both presentation and accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Andy Mabbett; Thanks for your response. Yes, there is a problem with the MOS on this point.
- The MOS states quite clearly that the subheading should not be split from its heading, because it creates a disjunction and disturbs readability.
- This conflicts with the MOS recommendation that the image should be placed directly under the sub-heading (adjacent to the relevant text)
- The above method works fine for right-hand images. It doesn't work for left-hand images.
- The reason why it doesn't work for left-hand images is that it splits the heading from its text, in conflict with the MOS. In other words, its a catch 22.
- So looking at the two options: 1. split the heading from its text, 2. displace the heading so that it stays with the text, the latter option is preferable.
- I would take the instruction "Do not split the heading from its text" as the RULE that applies in every circumstance and the instruction "place the image immediately below the heading to which it pertains" as a recommendation (which works for right-hand cases and not for left).
- As I have pointed out before, any article that has short sections and left-hand images, suffers displacement of sub-headings below the image. This occurs in very many cases regardless of whether the image is above or below the sub-heading. This isn't visible on upright screens (mobiles etc) but is very visible on wide screen modern computers. It is almost unavoidable. The only solutions are not to have any left hand images (and overcrowd the right) contrary to the MOS which recommends alternating images, or else ignore the displacement that occurs on wider screens.
- The following featured articles have instances of the sub-heading split from its text, in direct conflict with one aspect of the catch 22. It isn't a good look, and doesn't help the flow. Southern Rhodesia in World War I, Jimi Hendrix, Crocodilia.
- The situation with the Featured Article James VI and I is typical of what happens in biographies, where, (in line with the MOS) portraits (upright and sometimes tall) are placed left. This article has a number of instance where the sub-heading is split, where the lower sub-heading is displaced, and in two instances a major heading and/or its accompanying line are displace by an image. (Please look on a wide screen, because the problem probably isn't visible on a tall one.)
- So Andy Mabbett, Hchc2009, it's all a matter of which aspect of the MOS we are prepared to ignore: the instruction not to split off the Sub-heading causing disjunction in text, or the instruction to place the pic below the heading. I believe the solution that I have applied at Wells Cathedral and elsewhere, is the preferable alternative. Amandajm (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Further.
- I have just reformatted the first major section of Wells Cathedral so that the problem of splitting the sub-headings from text is apparent in the context of the article under discussion.
- Note that in a couple of instances, lower headings are displaced. It would look much better is all affected headings were displaced rather than some displaced and others split off. Please compare this with the other sections which I haven't changed. (please view on a wide screen) Amandajm (talk) 02:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain I understand the problem here Amandajm. The image MOS guidance we're trying to follow here appears to be:
- Images should typically be at the default size, unless there are special reasons.
- Images should be typically be on the right hand side of the screen by default.
- Images can be placed on the left or alternated (its not a recommendation, but an option), but left hand images shouldn't be at the start of a paragraph, and should be placed somewhere after the first paragraph.
I'm about to tweak the first major section to illustrate this, including an alternating left-right image pattern at the beginning for illustrative purposes. (NB: feel free to revert this edit - it is illustrative!) Formatted in this way the section seems to comply with the MOS guidance. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. The images in the first section you have changed look OK to me on a couple of different screens. I haven't tested on mobile/tablet but I'm assuming they will work on these just as well.— Rod talk 07:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a bit more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response
- Andy Mabbett: Wikipedia allows signed-in users to set their preferred size for image thumbnails is something of a joke. Are we writing this ecncyclopedia for signed-in users, or for the World? The millions of people who use Wikipedia are mostly not "signed-in users". I can see a real purpose in taking mobile users into account, but the fact that some signed-in users chose to set images at a default really ought not dominate the way in which Wikipedia functions. It means that only the most computer-competent people are being well served by our product. It means that the choices of those who know they can chose over-ride the experiences of all those who don't. It takes care of the privileged few. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been told that the best way to increase the size of images effectively is to size them up as "upright= percentage", e.g. "upright= 1.5" etc. I have employed this system in sizing up images because I know that it works on a number of different devices. I have no idea how it affects those few "signed-in" users who like to set their own defaults (even if what it means to them is that some images are oversized as a result). I do realise that some of the people who set images large are those with poor vision. I have just checked some large-sized images to see how they fitted on the screen, and agree that in some cases the screen can look crowded.
- The fact is that most Featured Articles on Art, Architecture and related fields have their images sized up, often to 300px. If they don't have their images sized up, then they are not conveying the pictorial information adequately to millions of our readers. If the article is talking about the pseudo-kufic inscription on the Virgin Mary's halo, the the reader needs to be able to see that it is in fact present, without interrupting their reading to go to the enlarged page. Wikipedia prides itself on the quality of its images, and rewards them for being of high resolution, and then sets rules that keeps them inadequately small, in the context of articles. Amandajm (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hchc2009, your solution of alternating the images in the reverse order to the way they were previously has worked in most instances in terms of addressing the problem with the headings.
- My complaint is relatively minor. Mainly, it may comply, but it looks bad from a point of view of layout. Almost everything about it looks bad, for one reason or another. The info box pushes the first image. The image looks ugly sitting under a box of a different size, the wider image (the aerial view) and the image below it look messy. Seen with the eye of an artist/art historian, it is bad layout. If ugly layout that offends an artists eye is what it takes, the so be it.
- Anythingyouwant, The most beautiful image in the article is now at thumbnail size. And the most significant cathedral west front in England, (and arguably the whole of northern europe) about which there are not one but two sections in the article, has also ben reduced to thumbnail. It is frankly ridiculous that these two important images should be so small. Basically, the article, viewed on any normal screen, now looks a mess.
- I notice that you moved the group of images to the centre again. Please don't. As my edit summary stated (when I moved them) they need to be left in order to be viewed well on mobile phones. Amandajm (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I will try an entirely different solution to fix the present ugliness problem. Amandajm (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Eric makes some good points below (though I continue to support). If User:Amandajm would like, I'd be glad to go through the article from top to bottom and adjust items such as those pointed out by Eric, subject to being reverted in case of any disagreement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Bear in mind they were just a few examples. Eric Corbett 22:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, that's why I said "such as".Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict) Good luck with it then. I think it needs a lot of work, but I'll revisit when you've had your evil way with it. Eric Corbett 22:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I'll only do it with permission, and Amandajm may prefer to do it "themself" (as they say on Wikipedia).Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Anythingyouwant, I have been around the traps, having had a very pleasant day off yesterday! Thanks for your offer! Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please add these examples to the list:
- "There is a hierarchy of size, with the more significant figures being larger and enthroned in their niches rather than standing."
- "The eastern range is of two storeys, the upper being the 15th-century library above."
- Graham Colm, don't miss a trick, do you? I got rid of a dozen of them, only to write in a couple more. Oh well.... Amandajm (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed- and doing it gave me this kind of unbearable lightness ...... I think I need more coffee. Amandajm (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):
| “
|
Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle and it is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as at Lincoln and York, and the much smaller ones at Oxford and Carlisle. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the dominant feature of its the small cathedral city of Wells and is a significant landmark in the Somerset countryside.[10] Wells This church has been described as "the most poetic of the English cathedrals".[11]
|
”
|
This makes it crystal clear that the cathedral is not dedicated to the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and differentiates in a crystal clear way between cathedrals and the towns where they are located (thus making the paragraph "idiot-proof" which a lead paragraph ought to be). Also, writing "it is the dominant feature of its...." had a bit too much "its" for my taste. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. I think this is rather clumsily written, a few examples:
- "Since the 11th century the church had a chapter of secular clergy ...". Strange use of tense.
- "The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends ..." Obviously ought to be "twenty-two".
- "The cathedral was conceived and begun around 1175 by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin". Why do we need to be told this twice, once in the History section and again in the Construction section?
- "The cathedral is designated by English Heritage as a Grade I listed building, and scheduled monument." English Heritage isn't responsible for designating Scheduled Monuments.
- "Its clergy has a long tradition of singing or reciting from the Book of Psalms each day ..." "Clergy" is sometimes treated as a singular noun as here, but at other times as a plural, as in "The clergy were endowed with twenty two prebends".
- "Wooden galleries that had been installed in the 16th-century ...". Why the hyphen? Similarly, "The 19th-century saw the restoration of the building and its fittings."
- "Wells is not only the first cathedral in England to be commenced in the Gothic style ...". Very strange use of the word "commenced".
- "From about 1192 to 1230, the first known architect, Adam Lock ...". So Adam Lock was the first architect known anywhere in the world?
- "Its southwest tower was begun 100 years later ..." but "To the north-east is the large octagonal chapter house ...". Should be consistent. Eric Corbett 21:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Thank you for your pertinent comments User:Eric Corbett.
- Fixed- "has had"
- Fixed- "twenty-two"
- Repetitious sentence changed.
- Fixed- "scheduled monument"
- Fixed "clergy" to clerics, etc here and there where appropriate to indicate individuals rather than the collective.
- Fixed- "16th-century", I think that I have picked up the instances where the hyphen was misused.
- Used of word "commenced"- The sentence has been rewritten.
- Fixed- any uncertainty about the status of Adam Lock
- Fixed- "north-west" etc now consistent.
- Amandajm (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
Comment cut'n'paste: We've had an edit conflict here. I'll get back to the later comments Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Amandajm, the first paragraph of the lead is fairly crucial, and so I'd like to suggest some minor edits to make it read a bit more smoothly (underlines signify additions, and strike-throughs signify deletions):
Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle and it is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. The present building dates from between 1175 and 1490, an earlier church having been built on the site in 705. It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as those at Lincoln and York, and the much smaller ones at Oxford and Carlisle. With its broad west front and large central tower, it is the dominant feature of its the small cathedral city of Wells and is a significant landmark in the Somerset countryside.[10] Wells This church has been described as "the most poetic of the English cathedrals".[11]
Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "it is"- added the "is" but not the "it" as the noun subject is quite clear.
- "those at"- this returns to a bit of a misunderstanding that was commented on previously. The name of the cathedral is its place-name. In any article about cathedrals (or bishops for that matter, or British nobility, in that context), one simply uses the place-name for the building or person. Once it is clear that the article is about cathedrals, then "Wells" = "Wells Cathedral".
- The sentence "It is moderately sized among the medieval cathedrals of England, falling between those of massive proportion, such as Lincoln and York....." means" Lincoln Cathedral and York Cathedral". It doesn't mean "the cathedral at Lincoln and the cathedral at York". Nobody ever refers to them as "the cathedral at Lincoln". I believe that in the context of this sentence, it is perfectly clear that what is being referred to is "medieval cathedrals of England".
- "its small cathedral city". This is correct. The city is a city for only one reason- it is the location of Wells Cathedral. If it were not for that cathedral, then the town of Wells would be just a market town. (A market town is a village or town that has a charter to hold a market, generally serving surrounding villages). The name of the cathedral city doesn't need stating, because it cannot be anything except "Wells".
- "Wells has been described as......" This is "Wells" the cathedral, not Wells the town. To refer to Wells as a "church" in this context downplays its significance. From now on, within the context of the article, every time "Wells" is referred to, it means the cathedral. If the town is referred to, then it is called "the city of Wellls" or "the town".
- Likewise, because the context is "cathedrals", if Wells is compared to Salisbury, Norwich or Exeter, it means "Salisbury Cathedral", "Norwich Cathedral" and "Exeter Cathedral". The use is consistent throughout the article. Amandajm (talk) 07:30, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added the words "cathedrals of" before Oxford and Carlisle. That should make it idiot proof. Amandajm (talk) 07:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, thanks. Do you mind if I go through the rest of the article like this, to perhaps deprive Eric of further examples?Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, go for it. I have already done this "cathedral" thing over twice. At an earlier request, I inserted the word "cathedral" many times. J3Mrs removed them all. You can't keep everybody happy, so in the end, I just comply with what architectural historians usually do, and use "Wells" etc throughout.
- I'll come back and look for your messages in a bit. I would rather you left messages than made changes. I am very happy to either fix or discuss. Amandajm (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are three items in the later paragraphs of the lead that caught my eye:
- "The architecture of the cathedral presents a harmonious whole, in the sense that it is entirely Gothic and mostly in a single style, the Early English Gothic of the late 12th and early 13th centuries." This clarifies that it is a harmonious whole because of being entirely gothic; if there are other reasons for it being a harmonious whole then you can say something like "for instance because it is" or "for example because it is". If this doesn't suit you, then please consider replacing the first comma with the two words "that is" because the sentence seems kind of choppy to me.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: "in the sense that it is" is correct but clumsy. The correct form there is the participial phrase beginning with the continuous "being" i.e. "being entirely Gothic". The problem with this form is that I over-use it to such an extent that it is something of a joke. I have added "which is".
- "Unlike the many English cathedrals of monastic foundation, Wells has an exceptional number of surviving secular buildings associated with its
chapter of secular canons secular clergy." I expect that many readers will understand the word "secular" to mean non-religious, and the article on secular clergy has a fairly clear explanation what that's all about.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: The present linked article at canons is the one that describes the situation more clearly, and also gives the later history of what happened at the English cathedrals under Henry VIII.
I am going to try to resist temptation to look at the cited sources during this process, except on this item:
- "The earliest remains of a building on the site are of a late Roman mausoleum, identified during excavations in 1980.[15][16]" The first cited source mentions "an early 5th cent Chapel", is that correct? Maybe worth mentioning?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No: It mentions a 9th-10th century mortuary chapel. AJM
-
- I have obviously looked at a different source. But, anyway, if your source says "5th century chapel" then it is the rarest building in England. It's obviously a typo. The chapel at the end of Vicars Close is 15th century. AJM
Regarding the rest of the "Early years" subsection:
- “In 766 Cynewulf, King of Wessex, signed a charter endowing the church with eleven hides of land.” Per the Wikipedia article titled Virgate there were about 30 acres per hide, so maybe help the reader out here by converting units (at least in a footnote)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- OK A hide is about 120 acres. 30 acres is a quarter of a hide. AJM
- “Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was moved from Sherborne to Wells.” This makes it sound like the seat of the diocese was already being discussed. Maybe better to say: “Two centuries later the seat of the diocese was established at Wells, having previously been located at Sherborne.”Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: Diocese of Sherbourne has already been mentioned. I have added the date that the diocese moved to Wells, 909. AJM
- “At this time a choir of boys was established to sing the liturgy.” I’d say “around this time” or "during this time" instead of “at this time”, because Athelm and Dunstan were presumably not Archbishop at the same time.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the "Seat of the Bishop" subsection:
- “It was designed in the new style with pointed arches, later known as Gothic, and introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.” Instead of “and”, how about “a style”? Otherwise it sounds like you’re saying that Wells Cathedral was introduced at about the same time at Canterbury Cathedral.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed by the removal of a comma. AJM
- “The church was largely complete at the time of its dedication in 1239.” If this sentence is out of chronological order, perhaps rewrite to “The church would not be completed until soon after its dedication in 1239?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: The first paragraph in the section summarises the building of the cathedral. The rest of the section is about the to-ing and fro-ing. The beginning/end dates are now in the same sentence. AJM
- “In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, but the monks there would not accept their new Bishop of Glastonbury and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” This is a long sentence, and somewhat confusing. Maybe split up and clarify. Did Savaric stay in Glastonbury even though he was unwelcome? Why didn't they like him?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed: The problem, as far as I can see, is that they objected to his title and he was forced to change it. I have dropped the "objection" bit as it is not really important to the Wells situation. AJM
- Response: The church is the church. That's the bit that gets dedicated. Fixed the Jocelin matter. AJM
- “The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond.” Because he was lazy, or received insufficient bribes, or hated Jocelin’s guts, or for unknown reasons?Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “In 1245 the church became Wells Cathedral and the title ‘Bishop of Bath and Wells’ was granted to Jocelin's successors by a papal ruling of 3 January 1245.” Did the papal ruling make it a cathedral? If not, what did? Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I have looked back at Dunning who confirms the title becoming Bishop of Bath and Wells in 1245, but doesn't give the date of 3 January which is included in the article. Various sources (examples here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here) discuss the ongoing "conflict" between Wells and Glastonbury (and to a lesser extent Bath) but perhaps the clearest explanation is here. None of the sources give that exact date. Perhaps 3 January should be removed and the sentence replaced with "In 1245 the ongoing dispute over the title of the bishop was resolved by a ruling of Pope Innocent IV and thereafter known as the Bishop of Bath and Wells."— Rod talk 10:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Is that papal ruling also what designated Wells as a "cathedral"? I'm curious what designated Wells as a "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Malden (1947) "Wells was raised to the dignity of a cathedral church in 909" (p28). The new building was "reconsecrated on Saint Romanus's day (probably 23 October) 1239. (p32) So it looks as if it had cathedral status since 909 even though the Bishops title featured Glastonbury or Bath in later years (see Bishop of Bath and Wells).— Rod talk 16:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure). Technically, such churches are proto-cathedrals." Accordingly, I think this confusion could all be cleared up by inserting a parenthetical into the lead sentence of this Wikipedia article: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England cathedral in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." Then people will understand that it was a cathedral when and only when the bishop's seat was there.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:55, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- (edit conflict)Colchester (1987) supports the original date with c.909 & then discusses the transference of the see from Wells to Bath being linked to the Council of London in 1075 but argues (based on the writing of Polydore Virgil in 1534) it was probably another Council of London, this time in 1078, which decided that the seat was "entirely a matter for the bishop". He talks about the rebuilding by Robert of Lewes which was "consecrated and dedicated jointly by him and the bishops of Salisbury, Worcester and Hereford in 1148. Saying he produced statutes (later the Statuta Antique) and had a full complement of dignitaries, canons, prebendaries, vicars choral and choristers (+ schools) at that point. After the Interdict of 1208 & the bishops leaving, work resumed in 1213. In 1219 Jocelyn surrendered his title to Glastonbury Abbey & applied to the pope for Wells to be given full cathedral status. The papal legate, Pandulf, was asked to investigate whether Wells had previously been a cathedral. He "did nothing" & it wasn't until 1245 that Innocent IV authorised bishop Roger to adopt the title of Bishop of Bath & Wells. Colchester doesn't say explicitly that cathedral status went with the title. I would have no objection to your parenthetical insertion but having the word cathedral twice in the same sentence may not be welcomed by others? — Rod talk 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the word I would insert is "cathedra" rather than "cathedral".Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- In the absence of further comments I have revised the sentence re 1245 & added ("cathedra").— Rod talk 17:24, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: the "cathedral" isn't the "cathedra" even though it is referred to as "the seat of the bishop" . "The seat" is used in the same way in referring to the estate of a temporal lord. To get around the little problem, I have added a sentence of useful explanation, which doesn't muddy-up an otherwise reasonable lead sentence by repeating the word "cathedral" yet again (in the same sentence). Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. The first two sentences of the article are looking good, but I would like to suggest some minor tweaks. The first instance of "cathedral" is not wikilinked, and instead of doing so it might be best to instead use the word "building" like so: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England
cathedral building in Wells, Somerset, England, dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As with other cathedrals churches, its title status as a cathedral is dependent on it its role as the central church of a diocese and on the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a non-specialist, the second sentence now reads very oddly to me. I can't quite see what it is trying to tell the reader: that it contains a throne and is a central diocese church? (if so, why not just say so directly) That it is the same as all other cathedrals? (not an unusual fact) That sometimes it isn't, or hasn't been, a cathedral? I'm not at all sure that this detail really belongs in the lead (NB: my usual rule of thumb is to imagine you're talking to a mate at the pub. "Tell me something about Wells Cathedral," he says. Would we really start off by telling him about this aspect of it, rather than when it was first built or about its architecture etc.?) Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It might indeed be worthwhile to combine the first and second sentences, e.g. like this: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and housing the seat ('cathedra') of the Bishop of Bath and Wells." This would avoid repetitive use of the word "cathedral", would educate readers immediately about the meaning of a cathedral, and would make them aware as they read the article that Wells was a cathedral when and only when the bishop was seated there. If the word "housing" is not preferred, then "including" or "containing" would work too.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response:
- Hchc2009, I can't understand why you are having trouble with the following sentence:
- As with other cathedrals, its title is dependent on its role as the central church of a diocese and the fact that it contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop.
- Those people who are familiar with the correct meaning of "cathedral" know immediately by the name of the building that it is the central church of a diocese, and that it contains the throne of a bishop. They don't need to be told those two things.
- The second sentence explains why rather than repeating the facts. It is called "Cathedral" because of these two facts that have already been indicated (but not stated) in the first sentence.
- Anythingyouwant, sorry, but that all read rather badly, particularly "and is where the seat ("cathedra") of the Bishop of Bath and Wells is located."
- As I have already explained, the "seat" of the bishop is his cathedral. His "throne" (the actual object) is a "cathedra". You cannot describe his throne as "cathedral" and you cannot describe his "seat" as "cathedra". Wells Cathedral is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells.
- I have returned the sentence, slightly reduced: "As with other cathedrals, it has the role of central church of a diocese and contains the throne (cathedra) of a bishop."
- I have maintained the link to cathedral in this sentence, so that the three definitions: cathedral, diocese and cathedra, are all together. some people might use all three all three, and others will need none. Having "cathedral" linked in the previous sentence simply looses itself alongside the more specific links.
- Amandajm (talk) 06:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As per my comments above, it isn't clear to me what the sentence is trying to emphasise. If the intent is to explain why it is called a cathedral, I'm not convinced that this is the right place for it. I simply don't think that most readers' immediate question on starting the article would be to ask "why is Wells Cathedral called a cathedral", particularly since the reason it is called a cathedral is no different from any other cathedral in England.
- For comparison, you probably wouldn't, say, start off an article on, e.g. "St Mary Church, Littlevillage", by saying "St Mary's Church lies in Littlevillage, South England. As with other churches, it is a centre of worship for the local Christian community." I quite like Anythingyouwant's proposal, btw. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hchc2009, in order to reach an acceptable compromise, how about making the second sentence more specific to this church? Like so: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle, and is the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells. As with other cathedrals, it is the central church of a diocese — here the Diocese of Bath and Wells — and contains the bishop's throne (cathedra)."Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:33, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- We're still drawing the reader away from the key information in the second sentence, which isn't great for the lead. I'd recommend: "Wells Cathedral is a Church of England building in Wells, Somerset dedicated to St Andrew the Apostle. It is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells, the seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne (cathedra)." That would focus the reader on the article in hand, rather than cathedrals in general, and means that the second sentence starts off with a clear, positive statement rather than a comparative one. By moving the bishop bit to the second sentence, you would also be grouping the three related pieces of information into a single sentence. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good to me, though I'd insert the word "is" before the words "the seat".Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Re wording proposed by Hchc2009, No.
- "building" isn't adequate. A "cathedral" is far more than a building. The fact of it being a "cathedral" implies a specific function (which the reader either does or doesn't immediately comprehend from the word alone). "Cathedral" isn't just about "building" as in "structure". It is about what goes on there. You might as well say "The White House is a building in the US."
- The fact that it is the "seat of the Bishop of Bath and Wells" is first sentence material. This is made all the more important by the fact that the cathedral is called "Wells" but the Bishop is styled "Bath and Wells".
- The repetition of "Bath and Wells" in the next sentence is clumsy.
- The second sentence can be omitted altogether, except that it is useful for the many readers who really don't know what a cathedral is. There are a lot of people out there that think a cathedral is just a "big church" and will argue that fact, because it is a definition that is include in some dictionaries as a vernacular use of the word. We can leave out the words "As with other cathedrals" but this defeats the purpose. The only reason for the second sentence is to serve those people who don't fully comprehend what a constitutes a cathedral. All the people who do know what a cathedral is, know already that it is the central church of the Diocese of Bath and Wells and contains the bishop's throne. How do they know that? They know it because the first sentence says it is the seat of the bishop of Bath and Wells, and that is all the information that a person who already "in the know" requires.
- I would prefer to leave the phrase "as with other cathedrals" because, in the span of four words, it conveys a great deal of information to the "unchurched". The notion of "cathedral" may seem simple but is not as straightforward as it appears. You could begin the second sentence with the words "By definition a cathedral is a church where blah blah blah..." but that seems to be overkill.
- Amandajm (talk) 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will boldly change "as with other cathedrals" to "as with most other cathedrals". Per the Wikipedia article cathedral: "The removal of a bishop's cathedra from a church deprives that church of its cathedral dignity, although often the name is retained in popular use, as for example former cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland (which lacks episcopal structure)." By inserting the word "most", the sentence will become much more appropriate and useful, by distinguishing this cathedral from, e.g., cathedrals acquired by the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- That got reverted. Oh well. I still think the sentence is acceptable, especially because it includes a piped link to the Diocese of Bath and Wells.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response, the only reason why there exist a few non-cathedrals that are still known as "cathedral" is because they previously functioned as cathedrals and held the seats of bishops. It's an historical hang-over. Yes, the piped link is good there. AJM
- Done; It's linked a little further up under "Early years". AJM
I will take a break now, and see what you think. All of the above are fairly small points, which is why I have already supported FA status for this article. But still they may possibly improve the article even more.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, do you consider this to have been helpful and/or tolerable? If so, I can proceed with the rest of the article. Unless you prefer, I will not strike out resolved points.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, helpful! Go ahead, if you have the time. The matter that Rod needs to look at is tagged with his name, so he will find it. I don't think you need to strike out the rest, unless this is some rule. It doesn't do to break the rules. Do you really want Rod to get an answer on this "papal legate" thing, or is it sufficient to look at the current news and know that papal legates have not changed much in 1000 years? Amandajm (talk) 02:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, if it's against some rule then maybe someone will point it out. Anyway, the sentence is: "The delay may have been a result of inaction by Pandulf Masca, a Roman ecclesiastical politician, papal legate to England and Bishop of Norwich, who was asked by the pope to investigate the situation but did not respond." I would have thought that when the pope asks for something from an underling, he gets it, but maybe I'm missing something.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three comments about territory already covered, plus comments about the rest of the "History" section:
- “In 1197 Bishop Reginald's successor, Bishop Savaric FitzGeldewin, with the approval of Pope Celestine III, officially moved his seat to Glastonbury Abbey, and the title of Bishop of Bath and Glastonbury was used until the Glastonbury claim was abandoned in 1219.” One-sentence paragraphs are suspect, and this one can easily be split in two.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “The building which was begun by Bishop Reginald Fitz Jocelin in the 12th century continued under Jocelin of Wells, who was a canon from 1200, then bishop from 1206.” This is somewhat redundant to the earlier sentence: “Bishop Jocelin continued the building campaign begun by Bishop Reginald….” I would move the dates into the earlier sentence and remove the rest, so that the “Construction” subsection starts with “Adam Locke….”Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Removed all but the first half-sentence to the second section.
- I think "Diocese of Sherborne" ought to become "diocese of Sherborne" with both words wikilinked, and "diocese" not capitalized. This is the first occurrence of both terms, so I think it would be helpful for them both to be wikilinked. Also, the phrase is often spelled without a capital "D"'[10] which seems apt here if the two words are wikilinked separately.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. "diocese" is now linked in the lead. "Diocese of Sherborne" is correct. It is now linked to Bishop of Sherborne because that article contains info on the now-defunct diocese. (It is part of the Diocese of Salisbury, but has a bishop.)
- “Adam Locke was master mason from about 1192, perhaps succeeded by Elias of Dereham in 1229.” I don’t see the date “1229” in the cited source, and perhaps it’s best to leave out stuff that is “perhaps” true (but keeping stuff that is probably true).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know where the date 1229 came from. My assessment is that it is "probably" true that Elias of Dereham had a hand in it somewhere, but I don't know what he did. Unless it was the vault. The vault is very very similar to that of Salisbury and is absolutely the only part of Wells Cathedral that isn't a little eccentric.
- Fixed, I removed it. Amandajm (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “He built Vicars' Close and the Vicars' Hall, to give the men of the choir a secure place to live and dine, away from the town and its temptations.” I gather this refers to the vicars who chant services several times a day. Unlike in the previous sentence, the word “choir” is used here in the usual musical way. I would make this clearer, e.g. by saying “the vicars who chant in the choir” instead of “the men of the choir”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. The building looks pretty much the same, but the fittings have changed considerably, including the insertion of a massive organ, the installation of an altar in the nave, the choir stalls greatly changed etc. AJM
- “From 1508 to 1546, the eminent Italian humanist scholar Polydore Vergil was active as the chapter's representative in London.” This intrigues me. Was it a fulltime job? Did each cathedral in England have a representative in London? Why is the year 1534 glossed over? Isn’t that when the Church of England broke from Rome and the Pope? Why did this Italian guy keep serving even after 1534?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Polydore Vergil was an Italian who came to Britain as the emissary of the pope and was invited by the English court to write a history. According to this paper he may have been related to Adriano Castellesi and is sometimes described as his assistant as the popes representative & collectors of payments due (Peter's Pence). He is described as a proxy at the enthronement but exactly which of them acted as Bishop on a day to day basis is unclear. This source (p 77) suggests he lived most of his time in London and was the representative for Bath & Wells at the Convocations of Canterbury and York, possibly after 1518 when the bishopric was transfered to Thomas Wolsey In commendam.— Rod talk 16:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions can be put forward by the bishop and his advisors but the appointment goes through a complex selection process and is ultimately by the Crown.
- Presumably from Bridgwater which is about 20 miles from Wells. Having looked harder at the wording, it is possible that he was initially imprisoned elsewhere, then brought to Wells.
- Rod, I need help here! Amandajm (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- If you look at Walter Raleigh (priest) it says he was initially imprisoned in his house at Chedzoy, then Ilchester and Banwell before he "was brought back to the deanery at Wells". This tally's with the source (DNB at wikisource). See also here and here (NB with double "T" in Barrett).— Rod talk 16:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “was appointed dean and served as the bishop for two years before his death in 1672.” Insert “then” before “served”? Also, the ensuing sentences discuss things Creighton did before his death, so maybe the stuff about his death should be later in the paragraph, to keep things chronological.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Fix, "fabric" has gone. Bathurst in in. AJM
- “He was one of seven bishops imprisoned for refusing to sign King James II's ‘Declaration of Indulgence’….” I like the word “King” here. Can this be done throughout the Wikipedia article (e.g. “King Charles I”, “King Charles II”)?Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “Ken refused to take the oath of allegiance to William and Mary because James II had not abdicated….” So let me get this straight; Bishop Ken was convicted for defying James II, but later was fired for his loyalty to the very same James II? Maybe that irony should be explicitly noted as such.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It was on account of his oath, not on account of any personal loyalty. Amandajm (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- RE: King William and Queen Mary, they are usually corporately known as "William and Mary" and nobody bothers about the numbers, because they are distinct, as "William and Mary", but Wiiiliam on his own is referred to as William III, King Billy, and by a great number of other names that are not so polite, depending on where one is coming from.
- Rod, should we indulge this person by adding "King" to Henry VIII and Chas I etc? AJM
- Not wanting to intrude on the good work going on, but, ... Bishop's Palace, Wells is already mentioned and wikilinked in the Seat of the bishop section. Yes it still exists and has been the house and office of the Bishop for hundreds of years. There is some current controversy about the next bishop (to be enthroned in 2014) who will have his office at the palace but will get another residence in the city.— Rod talk 10:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Oops, my mistake. I think my "find" function is case sensitive, so it overlooked "Palace" with a capital"P".Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “The late 20th century saw an extensive restoration programme on the fabric of the building….” Presumably “fabric” does not refer to cloth. What is the difference between “the fabric of the building” and “the building”? (Also see five comments up discussing "fabric".)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, Ok! Fabric can go. It's conservation jargon. It means that the stone, mortar, lead and glass are being repaired. But what it meant in the Victorian era, and still too often today is that stuff is being extensively replaced. Amandajm (talk) 11:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “The cathedral is the venue for musical events including an annual concert by the Somerset Chamber Choir.” This could be moved into the section about “Music” or alternatively its tense can be changed to fit better in this “History” section (e.g. “The cathedral has been the venue…”).Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Done But I think that more work is probably needed on these two sections. AJM.
User:Amandajm, would you prefer that I keep going to the end, or would you like to deal with the above comments first?Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
I am back at it again now, not sure how far I'll get.
- "Wells has been described as 'the most poetic of the English cathedrals'.[11]" I request that the person quoted be named inline. Whether in passive or active voice, I think it's always preferable when offering a quote to say who said it. I know people can just go look at the footnote, but that really shouldn't be necessary, and anyway, the way it's written now, the reader could infer that Clifton-Taylor was quoting someone else rather than making his own statement.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: I don't want to go down the "according to architectural historian with the double-barrelled name" line at the end of that section, So I fixed it by adding an even more quote. The homesite says it's possibly the most beeyootiful. Only "possibly". But two quotes are better than one, and excuses me from saying who said either of them. Amandajm (talk) 08:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “Its governing body is the chapter which is made up of five clerical canons….” How about: "Its governing body — the chapter — is made up of five clerical canons…." That seems like a preferable sentence structure given the previous mention of the chapter ("On acquiring cathedral status, in common with other such cathedrals, it had four chief clergy, the dean, precentor, chancellor and sacristan, who were responsible for the spiritual and material care of the cathedral").Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- “ The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists and committees focusing on the fabric and finance.[71]“ The series of two ands is confusing, and it's unclear who does the "focusing". How about: "The chapter is advised by specialist architects and archaeologists, and also receives advice from committees focusing on the fabric and finance"? (Also, this is now the only mention in the article about "fabric" and so you might want to briefly explain that term if it means something other than cloth.)Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “More than a thousand services are held each year, including daily services: Matins, Holy Communion and Choral Evensong[74] and major celebrations of Christian festivals.[75]” There needs to be a clearer separation between the daily services and the major celebrations. This can be done various ways (using parentheses, or dashes, or a semicolon, etc.) but the way it is now makes it look like “major celebrations” is included in a list of daily services.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- “The cathedral is also used for the baptisms, weddings and funerals of those with close connections to it.[76]“ Maybe clarify by adding: “especially those who live on the few streets surrounding the Cathedral”.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed (during school terms)
- “running costs which were around £2 million per year in 2010”. I must respectfully request a dollar equivalent, not because I am an American, but because a dollar equivalent would allow many more people to understand the running costs. This is not a request that some Wikipedians would want to grant, so feel free to ignore this comment if you'd like. If you don't ignore it, it would be sufficient to mention the exchange rate in a footnote.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to finish tomorrow.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: To save time, I will make relatively small or uncontroversial edits directly, but put more substantial issues into comments below. Of course, if I mess up any edits, please feel free to revert.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wells has been variously described as "perhaps the most beautiful",[11] and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.[12]" Footnote 11 is to the cathedral's own website! Much better to instead cite a neutral and reliable source: "Wells has been variously described as "unquestionably one of the most beautiful of English cathedrals"<ref>Oggins, Robin. ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=DtS2iD79NgEC&pg=PA42 Cathedrals]'', p. 42 (Sterling Publishing Company 1996).</ref> and as "the most poetic" of the great English cathedrals.{{sfn|Clifton-Taylor|1967|p=274}}Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wells is the first cathedral in England to be, from its foundation, built in the Gothic style. According to art historian John Harvey, it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world, its architects having entirely dispensed with all the features that bound the contemporary east end of Canterbury Cathedral and the earlier buildings of France, such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis, to the Romanesque.[12]" If it was the first Gothic cathedral in the world, then obviously it was the first Gothic cathedral in England. So, I'd delete the first sentence here ("Wells is the first cathedral...."). Also, I would put "such as the east end of the Abbey of Saint Denis" into a parenthetical or delete it, so that it does not interrupt the sentence so much.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two different points being made here. The first point is that it was actually begun during this period. At Canterbury, where the work is contemporary, they were rebuilding an existent building, starting at the east. At Lincoln they were rebuilding the cathedral after a recent fire in which the greater part was lost. Only two other English cathedrals were actually begun in the Gothic style, Lichfield Cathedral which is just a little later, and Salisbury Cathedral 1220, where the monks abandoned their church on the hill at Old Sarum and rebuilt on the plain.
- The second statement, that it is the first truly Gothic cathedral in the world is a qualitative assessment. There was no clear-cut shift from Romanesque architecture to Gothic. Gothic features such as the ribbed vault, the pointed arch and the flying buttress had all been employed at Durham Cathedral (which was extremely innovative). Yet Durham remains beyond question Romanesque in character. Inside Durham one has the most overwhelming sense of the mass of the building and its various parts. As Gothic developed in France, many of the features were employed by Abbot Suger at the Basilica of Saint Denis, and are also seen at Noyon Cathedral. Noyon is often cited as the first Gothic cathedral. But the point that Harvey and Swaan make is that Wells has thrown off any hint of Romanesque character. It doesn't feel like a transition from Romanesque to Gothic (as St Denis, Noyon and Canterbury do). It feels like a new invention. Yet it was begun in the late 12th century, at a time when at Peterborough Cathedral the Norman nave was still under construction. It is almost impossible to look at the nave at Peterborough and think of it as contemporary with the western part of the choir at Wells. Peterbro has everything that a Norman nave should have, including stout cylindrical piers, paired openings set in arches, and zig-zaggy ornament at the borders. There are a lot of things about Wells Cathedral which show a mind-boggling originality. The naves of Lincoln and Salisbury, both renowned for the beauty of their proportions and the massing of parts, were begun 25-30 years after Wells, but neither is as original, or as free from Romanesque origins as is Wells. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "In about 1310 work commenced on the Lady Chapel, to the design of Thomas Witney, who also built the central tower from 1315 to 1322 in the Decorated Gothic style.[38] It was later braced internally with arches by William Joy." Which was later braced, the Lady Chapel or the central tower?Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The sculptures occupy nine architectural zones which stretch horizontally across the entire west front and around the sides and the eastern returns of the towers where they project beyond the aisles." What projects, the towers, the returns, the zones, or the sculptures?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "The niches in the lowest zone of the gable contain nine angels, of which Cockerell identifies Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel.[104] In the next zone are the taller figures of the twelve apostles, some, such as John, Andrew and Bartholomew, clearly identifiable by the attributes that they carry.[105]" Maybe wikilink the named angels, and the named apostles? Also, is this a technical use of the word "attribute"? Usually (in the U.S. anyway), one speaks of having an attribute rather than carrying an attribute.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Response: In the case of images of saints and the like, they literally carry their "attributes" which signify who they are. Bartholomew carries his flayed skin, Dennis carries his head, and Agatha carries her breasts on a platter.
- "The north porch is described by art historian Nikolaus Pevsner as "sumptuously decorated", and intended to be the main entrance.[85] Externally it is a simple rectangular building with plain side walls." If the North Porch was intended to be the main entrance, has it ever been used as such? Also, calling the North Porch a "building" gives the impression that it is a separate structure, but is it?Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed The structure isn't separate. It adjoins the cathedral.
- It was probably in frequent use as an entrance until Vicars Close was built and Chain Gate was constructed which has a bridge over the road and into the cathedral via the Chapter House steps. I believe that it now contains a noticeboard directing people to a different entrance.
- We need Rod on this one]]. AJM
- The last time I visited (a few months ago) the porch was being used as an entrance by staff, but it did have a sign directed the public to the other entrance where a donation is suggested and guides etc are available.— Rod talk 20:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. The transom is a horizontal bar in the window. A "light" in this sense is similar to the way that it is used in the expression "transom light" in that it is a window opening. In a medieval window, the "lights" are the long vertical openings. A four-light window has four long vertical openings. In a window that is in the Perpendicular Gothic style, these are commonly divided by horizontal transoms. I know that this seems a totally confusing notion of horizontal and vertical, but the fact is that Lancet and Geometric windows do not have horizontals, only verticals, and Perpendicular windows are distinguished in part by their horizontals. OK! It won't surprise you to discover that only the English did "Perpendicular Gothic". The others just happied themselves with "Flamboyant Gothic".
- Confused? "Lights" should be linked, but I don't know what to link it to. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't have a clue, so I deleted it. AJM
- Fixed removed the first inst. changed "the" to "a". It's not Biblical. The claim to fame is that this is by far the most famous sculptural group on the Wells capitals, easily the best known in England. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "One of the carvings at Wells is atypical as it has wings and appears to be wearing clothes.[121]" In the whole cathedral, there's only one atypical carving? If so, then clarify that fact, plus say where it's located. But if not then rephrase.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. It is doubtful that it is a Sheela N Gig but people want to think that it is.
- "In the 15th century Vicars' Close was built to house the men, and provided a chapel and communal facilities that isolated them from the "worldly temptations" of the town." Can this be shortened or removed? It seems redundant to earlier material.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- The main thing is to mention them, and more info about them is not necessary. The Cathedral gets its name from them, and they're located on cathedral grounds, so they really should be mentioned, if only briefly.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done for now. I haven't scrutinized the image captions, the notes, or the footnotes, but have otherwise read and commented from top to bottom.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Anythingyouwant, I knew you weren't going to get away with that Americanism; it's been spotted and reverted already. You might as well try letting a wombat loose at Lord's.
- Some other on-the-ball editor picked up the fact that weddings are not "private". Of course they are not! Otherwise no-one could run in and halt the wedding by shouting "I object!" the way the brother-in-law did in Jane Eyre. Very good! Amandajm (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I supported this article for FA above, and then (paradoxically) made a boatload of comments. I am satisfied that those comments have been satisfactorily addressed (even though I'm too lazy to cross each of them out). And I still support FA.
Anythingyouwant (
talk)
00:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- has anyone performed a dedicated source review for formatting/reliability? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ian Rose (talk) I believe that it was done in part. I am sure that since then I have added references that have not been formatted in the same manner as the others. Amandajm (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well then we'd better have a formal check; will list request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Ref 2 is not an online source, so retrieval date irrelevant
- Ref 21: Why is this source high quality/reliable? It is created by "Two people, whose hobby has evolved into something of a passion for recording the diverse heritage of Britain", which is commendable but not necessarily scholarly.
- Ref 22: Is a 100-year-old encyclopedia entry the best source for this information?
- Ref 23: Paging should be 243–44
- Ref 37: Source unclear – publisher? date?
- Ref 43: Origin of source unclear – it apppears to be publicity material for the City of Wells
- I've found several sources saying the same thing but similar levels of reliability eg This I don't think these two sentences are vital for the article about the cathedral so could be removed if people think that is appropriate?— Rod talk 17:46, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 56 not properly formatted (see 32 for correct format of ODNB source)
- Ref 63: give full details of source; "Project Canterbury" is merely the facilitator
- Ref 65: You give the publicaion location here, but not generally. Consistency necessary
- Ref 67: Page range format (and ndash required, not hyphen)
- Ref 69: This is an advertisement: unnecessary as info alrady cited elsewhere
- Ref 83: Publisher missing (Western Daily Press)
- Ref 84: Page range format
- Ref 89: Give publisher's full name rather than initiala JBAA
- Ref 91: Why is this source high quality/reliable?
-
- The sentence in your text which is cited to the quarry history reads: "The west front is 100 feet (30 m) high and 150 feet (46 m) wide, and built of Inferior Oolite of the Middle Jurassic period, which came from the Doulting Stone Quarry, about 8 miles (13 km) to the east." Only some of this information (the bolded bits) is in the quarry history. It can be accepted as reliable for those details, and I don't think the 8-mile distance is important, but the measurements, which I can't immediately relate to what's in the infobox, need to be cited to somewhere else. Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 93: add (subscription required) tag
- Ref 95: Irregularly formatted. Also, "Harvey" requires a year
-
- Ref 114: archive link broken
- Ref 122: looks like a private project rather than a quality source
-
- Certainly the source looks comprehensive, but it does not come from a learned institution. It may be the work of an enthusiastic amateur. The only information cited to this source concerns the atypical Sheel Na Gig at Wells – is this information verifiable by a more formal source? Brianboulton (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are several sources for the likely presence of Sheelas however I can't find any better sources for the "atypical" claim and therefore have removed that sentence.— Rod talk 10:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- One of these things that has been claimed to be a Sheela Na Gig almost certainly isn't. But people want to find them. They get dreadfully excited about the notion of a sculpture of a female exposing her genitals. If we leave them out altogether, you can be sure someone will come along and put them in. Amandajm (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realise , when I commented here that the reference to it probably not being a Sheela was the one that had been removed. Let me emphasise that the the carving almost certainly is not a Sheela, and regardless of the quality of the reference, the writer has obviously looked at it considerably harder than the authors of the two sources that say there are two of them. I think that they question of uncertainty should be returned to the article. Amandajm (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 129: link unnecessary in short citations
- Link moved to bibliography
- Ref 137 returns "page not found"
- Ref 146: as with ref 2, retrieval date irrelevant
- the Cox book lacks publisher information
- In referencing books with multiple authors, be consistent in citation formats e.g "Tatton-Brown & Crook" v. "Wade"
No spotchecks done. Other than as noted, the sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image Review: One of the most impressive uses of images I've seen on an article. I believe I counted around 55 in all, checked each one. Sourcing is a mix between nom's own work, clearly free use from other users, and the geograph project, all of which are fine. My only nitpick is that the last organ image seems rather out of place bunched in with the bibliography. Is there a better spot in the article to place it? Wizardman 04:07, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I kind of like that one way down there. It's kind of like...one more for the road. If there's a better spot then I wouldn't object to that either.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Wizardman, you have to admit that the "Nom" did a brilliant job with those images, having been hounded from ten thousand miles away to go back there on some winter's morning that wasn't raining, stand on his car and take shots over the wall. (His collaborator had checked the best position on Google Earth.) He was then obliged to crawl around on the floor under the stalls to get the misericords (the seats don't tilt properly because of the cushions.) Then he came up with the idyllic shot taken over the pond in the Bishop's garden, with the reflection and two duckies... probably the most beautiful photo of Wells Cathedral taken for the last hundred years..... knocked on the head as a Fine Image by Wikimedia Commons because it was a slightly misty winter morning and the building wasn't quite "sharp"..... you can't win them all! Incidentally, I'm still not satisfied. I want Rod to photograph the boss on the right hand side of the door into the undercroft. I have a close personal connection with that piece of carving.
- And I am glad that you like the use of the images. It is a lot of hard work putting them together in series that work well as groups. Sometimes it means a lot of cropping.
- Amandajm (talk) 07:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Notes
- You guys have some duplicate links that may be justified by the length of the article but pls review in any case -- this script highlights them.
- Regarding citations, I note that in some places you're citing every sentence, even when the source is identical for each statement and you could therefore get by with the one citation at the end. If this is deliberate, say to make things more precise in case further info is added subsequently, fair enough, but I'd like to know that's the case as IMO it does clutter things a bit.
- There have been so many challenges on this article it is easiest to cite everything, particular as with multiple editors it does deal with the additions of extra information as you suggest.— Rod talk 09:13, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, despite the density of sourcing in most areas, there are some uncited sentences. Now admittedly a basic physical description like "Buildings in Vicars' Close include the Vicars Hall and gateway at the south end, and the Vicars Chapel and Library at the north end" is unlikely to be challenged, but an earlier statement that "It was restored and extended by Benjamin Ferrey between 1846 and 1854" is historical info and does need sourcing. It's just simpler to ensure there's a citation at least at the end of every paragraph, which also goes for the second para under Clock and the solitary para under Bells.
-
- Well I think it's up to the nominators to search for any further instances when a problem is pointed out but in this case I think I caught all of them; citations are one of the things I always double-check as a delegate/coordinator, prior to promotion -- thank you for responding promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [11].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note the sinister placement of the apostrophe—according to a reliable source with his own Wikipedia article, this book will hurt your children, and is the "the darkest, ugliest book [he has] ever seen". It is a Faustian tale of an aspiring artist who sells his soul for a magic paintbrush. A tale told entirely in pictures, it was the best selling American wordless novel, and probably the best remembered today. In recent years it has been rebranded as a graphic novel, and has seen a renaissance of publisher and reader interest. Enjoy, fellow editors! Enjoy your doom! Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support from ColonelHenry
[edit]I had the good fortune of reviewing this article at GAN, and have benefited from Curly Turkey's coverage of graphic and wordless novels by being inspired to look into the genre more. So, seeing it pop on my watchlist with a FAC nomination, I wanted to offer my support and few comments here.
With regard to the featured article criteria, this article definitely well-written, informative, intriguing, and in this case has all the potential of being a bad influence. :-) CT's work provides a great analysis of the themes and symbolism of the novel. Writing, structure, and summary are all clearl, well-organized, and in compliance with MOS and appropriate guidelines Based on a review of its sources, and compared to other articles available online and in print on the book, this article covers all the major aspects of the work sufficiently and neglects none. The sources cover a comprehensive survey of information available on the subject, the citations are consistent, and the article complies with WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:CITE, and the article is both stable and entirely neutral discussion of the subject.
I am glad to support this article here for promotion to FA status.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good so far, but just a few concerns:
- In the introduction, we refer to "New York" but do not specify if this is a reference to the city or the wider state; we also don't add a link.
- Also in the lede, we use the abbreviation "US" and I think that in this instance "United States" would be more explicit, particularly for an international readership.
- The use of the wording "other Americans to try their hands at the medium" is perhaps a little colloquial; non-native English speakers might have trouble understanding "try their hands"; could we replace it with something a little more straightforward ?
- In the Content section, we read this: "Each image moves the story forward by an interval Ward chooses to maintain story flow; Ward wrote in Storyteller Without Words (1974) that too great an interval would put too much interpretational burden on the reader, while too little would make the story tedious. Wordless novel historian David A. Beronä likens these concerns with the storytelling methods of comics.[2]" Is all of this information contained in that single reference at the end, and if so, maybe we should duplicate it after the first that I just quoted. A similar situation is apparent in the paragraph following on from it.
- Do we need to link to Plautus twice in quick succession ? And the quote would (in my opinion) read better if it was included directly in the prose paragraph.
- "he attacks one of them, who happens to be a police officer" – maybe consider replacing "who happens to be" as it seems fairly superfluous in the text.
- Why do we have the birth and death date of the author twice in the article ?
- We could do with adding further biographical detail on Ward into the Background section.
- Why add the original German titles of publications in a separate "Notes" section ? Why not do what we do over at the likes of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets and have the original language titles in brackets ?
- A couple of reasons:
- I prefer keeping glosses out of the text, as it interrupts reading flow.
- With the Tintin articles, Le Vingtième Siècle is the actual title of the newspaper, and "The Twentieth Century" is a gloss we provide for convenience, but isn't an official title of the newspaper (there was no English edition, was there?). The books in this article do have official English translations under which they've been published, which makes the original titles trivial in the context. As a convenience I include the original titles anyways, but as per above I prefer to kick them into the notes section to keep the prove clean.
- I wasn't the original or primary editor of any of those Tintin articles, so I didn't want to enforce my own preferences on the articles, especially since I know my preference isn't widespread, and it's a pretty fine point to start an argument over. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise I think that this is a fairly strong contender for FAC, although admit I am no expert in assessing such things. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review: question first. Did the initial printing have a copyright notice, and was the copyright renewed?
- an illustration career for himself. - how about "an career as an illustrator"?
- The artwork is executed in black and white; the images vary in size and dimension, up to 6 by 4 inches (15 cm × 10 cm), the size of the opening and closing images of each chapter. - this begs the question of page size
- told in sixty-three silent woodcut prints. - silent implies sound. Technically, all prints are silent (until you drop them). Wouldn't "wordless" work best?
- whose story - a novel is a person?
- You're confusing "whose" with "who's": "whose" is a relative pronoun whose meaning includes "of which" or "belonging to which". Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I know it's a relative pronoun. The issue is, it's a relative pronoun which is usually used for people, and its use for inanimate objects is disputed at best. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:19, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Disputed at worst, I'd posit. I can certain imagine people disagreeing with it on a gut level because of its homonymity with "who's", but it's been firmly a part of the language for centuries—going back to Middle English, in fact. Fowler larfs at those who proscribe it: "In the starch that stiffens English style, one of the most effective ingredients is the rule that whose shall refer only to persons; to ask a man to write flexible English, but forbid him whose 'as a relative pronoun of the inanimate', is like sending a soldier on 'active' service & insisting that his tunic collar shall be tight & high." Basically, it's "disputed" by the same starched shirts who insist on such wince-inducing unEnglish constructions as "It is he". Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This convinces me that all the authorities that matter are on board. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Since that was written in response to another article, on the same site, I'm still fairly certain that it's disputed. Personally I'd never use it. Why not something like "The work inspired Ward to create a wordless novel of his own, with a story stemming from his "youthful brooding" on the short, tragic lives of artists such as Van Gogh, Toulouse-Lautrec, Keats, and Shelley" or something similar? Avoid the pronoun altogether. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Because this usage of the pronoun is well established, natural English, and I have a problem with giving in to artificial proscriptions. English is complicated enough without these pointless, unnatural rules against split infinitives and stranded propositions. It's a matter of fixing what ain't broken. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- More later. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Gods' Man was the best selling. - The way this is phrased, it sounds as if it was the best selling of the time, which, being the first, it obviously was. "proved to be" or something may work
- Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What does his TB have to do with anything? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It explains why the family constantly moved when he was young. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:26, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, what does that have to do with this article? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since this is his first major work, and because Midnightblueowl asked so nicely, I thought it was best to give a capsule history of the man as context for how he came to create this unusual book.
- Perhaps, but I'd expect the background to be limited to things which could feasibly have influenced him. Otherwise it feels a bit wandering. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any other part of this background you'd cut? Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just that one sentence, "Ward suffered from tuberculosis and persistent inner ear and mastoid infections as a child, and his family moved frequently in search of an environment that would promote his health." It doesn't really, explicitly or implicitly, relate to the work and/or the contents of the work. Everything else, sure, keep it. At least it lets us know some of of the social and biographical aspects which shaped his development as an author/artist. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - A nice, succinct, article, although I should note that this is likely available on Jstor, and you should give it a shot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support from Jim Personally, I'd prefer the three German notes as parenthetical translations, I don't think they justify notes which add no other info. I'm certainly not going to oppose on the strength of that, though. Nice article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [13].[reply]
- Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 and MASEM (t), 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thirty Flights of Loving is a first-person interactive fiction adventure video game developed by Brendon Chung under his studio, Blendo Games. It was released in July 2012 for Microsoft Windows, and in November 2012 for Mac OS X. The game employs a modified version of id Software's id Tech 2 engine—originally used for Quake 2—and incorporates music composed by Idle Thumbs member Chris Remo. It follows three people as they prepare for an alcohol heist and the aftermath of the operation. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 and MASEM (t), 16:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll probably give this a review later (I like short articles). One thing to note right away is the inconsistent use of linking publishers in citations - "Kickstarter" is linked but "Kotaku" isn't. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 16:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am already handling that! Thanks! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 17:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two stray curly brackets in the infobox. Any idea what's causing them? Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 18:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The template has been broken. I am now trying to fix that. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 19:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 19:18, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments by Darkwarriorblake
- I'm a little confused as to how the game was considered critically acclaimed, as far as I can tell it had only 10 reviews on Metacritic and a score in the 80s which brings it under their declaration for critical acclaim, and it has only the one award nomination.
- Changed to "positive reviews"
- I think Mac OS X is just called OS X.
- I think both work fine. However, I switched it to OS X, given that I just checked that the word "Mac" has been deprecated.
- Other than that, it looks ok and as referenced as it can be given its such a small game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a random mention of a "Goldblum" mode, but apart from the link to Jeff Goldblum, there is no explanation for what this mode is.
first-person interactive fiction adventure video game - WP:SEAOFBLUE
first-person interactive fiction adventure - Again
The player has little control over the game mechanics and is only able to move freely ... - this sentence is rather contradictory, to my reading
under his video game studio Blendo Games. - feels weird to me
- Well, it was developed by Chung, but development credits are awarded to Blendo Games, which is... Chung himself.
leveraged from Gravity Bone to Thirty Flights of Loving - leveraged?
- Thirty Flights of Loving includes references to and Easter eggs from classic cinema, as did Gravity Bone. - should be reworked, as there are also video games etc. Also, "classic" is far too vague a descriptor.
- It replaced the character models with ones resembling actor Jeff Goldblum. - So, a male and a female Goldblum?
- There is only a male character, so it's a male Jeff. Changed models to model.
Thirty Flights of Loving was nominated for the Narrative Award at the 2013 Independent Games Festival. - have the awards been given yet? What happened?
- it was a finalist, which means that it did not win. I've tweaked the wording.
- Yes, and it did not win. Let me double-check.
TV Tropes says the mechanics are simpler over Gravity Bone. Though this isn't a reliable source, that kind of information is pertinent to the article. Also, there are mentions of "commentary". Any idea what that is?
-
- As I thought: TFOL originated as a prototype for Gravity Bone, though it was canned as being "too dialogue heavy" until it was revived after Idle Thumbs contacted the Dev (source: commentary bubble #2). More to follow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction of Anita and Borges was supposed to use dialogue; when this was removed, Idle Thumbs crew thought the relationships were unclear, and as such montages were made (source: commentary bubble over Borges).Criminal nature of the group presented through the environment, as Chung did not want to use voiceovers and such (commentary bubble #3). Environment also used to bridge “the disconnect between the player’s knowledge and the player’s character’s knowledge” (bubble in first flashback)Automatic people generation system for crowd scenes was based on one Chung designed for a surveillance game which did not pan out (commentary bubble in first hallway)A noodle-eating simulation was planned, but then dropped (“Lorenzo’s Lo Mein” bubble)The gunfight scene was intended to have a “musical rhythm”, inspired by Koyaanisqatsi and Baraka (film)The ending area is modeled after the National Museum of Natural History (France), which required some researchTFOL is the seventh game to star Citizen Abel (though I doubt most of these were published)
- Hmm, the image says "seventh Citizen Able game," which is different, since Chung said himself that the main character had no name, and that Citizen Abel had to do qith a Quake map instead. Howeverm sources have misrepresented what Citizen Able means, even when Chung himself has corrected them several times. Though, this piece of information is extremely valuable.
Unlike most of Chung’s earlier work, the design of TFOL was not framed around a certain musical composition
-
-
- Here are screencaps of most: caps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my, Crisco. Thanks :D — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 17:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Crisco 1492: Okay, I already expanded the development section (thanks!). Still have some things to fix (like rephrasing the "classic cinema" part). — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 19:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Speaking of missing sources, one review from an RS and one from a source I cannot judge.
- Well, they are not missing. Masem already explained why I left Shacknews outside of the article. The reason why I also skipped Wired was because I wanted to include, mainly, reviews and comments from major indie websites or magazines, and major videogame magazines. IMHO, they are far more important and valuable, given their expertise and constant coverage of indie topics. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 05:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- My point was that Wired is not a video game-focused publication, but a technology one. I gave priority to those whose main focus are video games, like IGN, Destructoid, Edge and Eurogamer. I actually gave higher priority to those who focus on PC gaming or indie gaming, like Gamasutra, PC Gamer and Rock, Paper, Shotgun over general sources. My view is that adding Wired won't make any difference. Reading the actual Wired review, it gives me the impression that this guy (Mark Brown) just came across this game by chance and decided to make a post about it. His review is significantly different from, say, those by Edge or Destructoid. These reviews actually discuss the merits of the game, instead of going with the "oh,I came across this game last night, and it's great! you should buy it!"-type of reviews. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 06:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never ignore traditional non-gaming sources
If your game gets reviews in the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, or other major national newspaper, Wired, the BBC, or such other sources that normally have limited game coverage, these by all means are extremely valuable to include as they usually are written as reviews directed to the non- or casual gaming reader. They may not have scores (and thus not included in the table), but will likely have good, concise statements of why a game is good or bad, and other details.
- I would not exclude an NYT review or similar from a video game, and Wired is a significant enough publication that it should not be ignored (in fact, it's mentioned explicitly in the above quote). Sound bites like "It's more like a rollercoaster ride than a video game" are very useful for articles. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I will add it, though I still find it valueless xD — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 20:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Overall a short and sweet read, but I'd double check that you've used all available sources. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- A comment on the shacknews source which is normally a VG RS, but as Brendan is/was a frequent forum user there (That's how I got in touch to get free images) so the review may be a bit biased. Certainly the other reivews (including the wired one) are sufficient to explain the critical praise of the game. --MASEM (t) 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Made some copy-edits throughout.
Lead
"It was developed as part of the Kickstarter campaign for Idle Thumbs' podcast and offered alongside a free copy of its predecessor." -- I'm a little confused by what exactly this is saying.
Story
This sentence: "Action is then switched to a dark room with..." -- I'm a little confused on what "Action" is meaning. "Action" also pops up in the second paragraph, second sentence. Does "action" mean scene?
"In this area, several plaques showing the game's name and credits." -- Incomplete. Maybe "In this area, there are several plaques showing the game's name and credits."?
Development
Support My issues have been satisfied. --JDC808 ♫ 23:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I believe that this article fits the FA criteria and is well referenced. Mackey23 (talk) 01:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article's good overall from what I've skimmed, but I'm a little nervous about the phrase "takes about 15 minutes to complete." What if you get stuck? What if you've beaten it before? What if your computer's slow? I know it's sourced, but I think this statement should be distanced and disclaimed a bit, maybe as "One reviewer estimated its average completion time as 13 minutes." Just a thought. Tezero (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I've read the article more thoroughly and feel much more well-versed about the topic as well as refreshed from the knowledge of a novel type of game. I can only complain to the Internet for not providing more information to flesh the article out a bit. Well done. Tezero (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note: the article is actually almost double its original length now after using a couple primary sources (mostly in the development section). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I added on CN tag because I don't believe the MC is implied to be the same character as Gravity Bone. Also, I feel like there's potentially some more stuff that could be added from the Tone Control podcast. Otherwise, I'd be happy to support. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I have a source for that. I'll add it soon. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 20:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Axem Titanium: I removed it, since I can't remember where did I see that it was the same character. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 16:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- All comments addressed. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was this the source? "Gravity Bone, a 15-minute experience, gained acclaim for its first-person storytelling and stylish art direction. Thirty Flights of Loving is a similarly brief but engaging interactive story that focuses on the same character, Citizen Abel, who is wrapped up in a heist this time." --MASEM (t) 16:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, nope. I think it was my imagination, or maybe a confusion. However, for such details, I only trust primary sources. I remember when all reviews of Gravity Bone said that the main character was named Citizen Abel, and then Chung came and explained that they were all wrong, and that the phrase had a totally different meaning. Since then, I dismiss all third party sources when it comes to this type of details. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 22:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Query -- Hahc, this looks about ready to close but I wonder if the wording can be improved in the last section. We talk about a sequel, then we backtrack and say it's just in the same universe and not a direct sequel. Can we change the wording in the first sentence to something more generic like "follow-up"? I think it'd make the next bit flow more naturally... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure! I agree with what you say, and it makes perfect sense to me. Suggestion implemented. — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 03:29, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, tks -- I think we're done here then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't thank you enough, Ian
— ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 February 2014 (UTC) [14].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Profumo affair was a major British political scandal of 1963, which had a profound and lasting effect on relations between government, press and public. At its core was a brief sexual affair between the dashing Secretary of State for War, John Profumo, and a 19-year-old topless showgirl. Profumo at first denied the association; when he was forced to admit it, a whole raft of rumours of further scandal hit the headlines. Many of them were linked to the activities of one Stephen Ward – social climber, osteopath to the aristocracy, and suspected Soviet fellow traveller. Profumo resigned; Ward became the scapegoat for the affair, and committed suicide after being tried on trumped-up vice charges. Lord Denning put the lid on things by saying that everyone had behaved properly, except Ward. The article was reviewed in great detail at peer review, and I think it is ready for consideration here. Brianboulton (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I was one of the peer reviewers, and my not very numerous queries were dealt with at that stage. A further read through the article now confirms me in the opinion that it meets all the FA criteria. I am old enough to remember this scandal very clearly, and the article gets the details and the general thrust and feel of the thing exactly right. Tim riley (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your peer review comments, and your support here, are most welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Nicely done. A few alternatives...
- Mounting pressures
- "Aware of increasing public interest, Keeler began trying to sell her story to the national newspapers." – "Aware of the increasing public interest, Keeler attempted to sell her story to the national newspapers" possibly? Or "Aware of the increasing public interest, Keeler tried to sell her story to the national newspapers."
"Nevertheless, Profumo's denials..." – Could we get away with a pronoun here seeing as it is only him we speak of in the preceding two sentences?
;Retribution
"Sentence was postponed until Ward was fit to appear, but on 3 August he died without regaining consciousness." – Without wishing to sound impertinent, surely when one dies, they don't regain consciousness. Or should the "regain consciousness" bit go before the death? → "Sentence was postponed until Ward was fit to appear, but he never gained consciousness and died on 3 August."
- While your suggestions are perfectly sensible, I think the original form is OK. Ward could, after all, have briefly regained consciousness, and then died. As it was, he died without doing so. If the wording offends you, however, I don't mind if you want to change it.
- That's fine, I suppose it was a bit nit-pickety.
That's it, sorry I missed the peer review. -- Cassianto Talk 18:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was another peer reviewer, and all my (minor) concerns were addressed there. Although the event was before my time, I'm familiar with the outline, and this is an excellent and very readable account of it. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The event was not quite before my time, though I don't think I understood it until some time later. Thank you for your interest, and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Another attendee at the PR party. There has been some work done since then but in an entirely positive and beneficial way. - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for previous comments and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support ditto above.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your time, trouble and support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I had my say at the PR. I thought the article met the standards then and it is even better now. I am more than happy to back it for FA status. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:John Profumo 1960.jpg - One, this image is a bit too big. I'd say 400px wide, max. Two, I'm not quite sure of your FUR for this article. Wouldn't an image of the two of them together (if it exists) be useful? I don't think an image of Profumo on his own is enough to pass WP:NFCC#8
- I have reset the Profumo image at upright= 1.3 – is that better? There is no image of them together, for obvious reasons; the only apparently free image of Keeler is the one used in her article, taken when she was 45 years old, quite unsuitable for this article. The basic rationale for the use of the Profumo image in this article is that he was the central figure in the scandal that bears his name, and it will be helpful to readers' understanding of the affair to know what he looked like at the time. To have two of them together would be great, but one is better than none. I would welcome some comment on this from other reviewers. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- I'm inclined to agree with Brian. I would rather see a picture as opposed to nothing at all. An actual picture of an affair would obviously not be possible so it would either fall on the person or persons involved to provide the visual representation. Profumo would be the obvious choice as the scandal carries his name and so an image of him would be quite relevant in the circumstances. However, I also see where Crisco is coming from; it takes two to tango and a second image of Keeler would make sense. I very much doubt that there is a picture of the two of them out there together, but two separate images could be placed side by side, like we see in Gilbert and Sullivan. The question is, will this satisfy any NFCC issues? Cassianto Talk 01:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be tempted to go against something like that, if only because his and her physical appearances are not all that pertinent to the case. What about a scan of the Darling letter, if one has been made available? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would love to have a photo of them together, preferably sitting on a bed, with exhausted, self-satisfied smirks on their faces. That being ruled out, I agree with Crisco that it would be even more difficult to justify a portrait for Keeler than it is for Profumo – even leaving aside that she is still alive and that a (supposed) free image is available (quite unsuitable for use here, though). My case for using the Profumo image is that he, above all, is associated indelibly with the scandal. It is not called the "Keeler affair", or the "Ward affair, and historically he is identified with it far more than with any other aspect of his career. It's not the strongest of rationales, but there is provision in WP for a measure of discretion in such cases, and it is hard to see whose interests would be harmed by using the image. I have not seen a facsimile of the "Darling" letter, but presumably that image is also under copyright and I can't see how any convincing fair use rational could be written. The "safe" solution would be to replace the Profumo picture with one of the location shots, but that would, in my view, significantly diminish the article. Other voices, please speak up. Brianboulton (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe, based on my reading (though I am quite possibly wrong), that the "Darling" letter was one of the main pieces of physical evidence of the affair. You also discuss it in-depth in the article, which would pass WP:NFCC#8 quite easily IMHO. That being said, if a facsimile of the letter is not available, that avenue is not open no matter what. Other voices? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, other voices are needed, and I have asked around. Before they chime in, one other point relevant to the Profumo image, which shows him in his capacity as War Minister. His role as such is discussed in the article quite as much as the "Darling" letter, and was the chief reason for the security concerns which coloured the affair – however bogus such concerns proved to be. That should be a positive NFCC factor with regard to the image. Brianboulton (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Another voice: It didn't, and still doesn't, strike me that the image was incidental or unnecessary. It would seem really very odd, in my view, not to have a picture of Profumo at the head of this article, and in my opinion the use of the image meets the fair use criteria. As a complete side issue, I should be mightily surprised if the owner of the page whence the uploader got the image is the owner of the copyright. A posed ministerial image like this would almost certainly have been taken by an official photographer for press and other use, and would, I suppose, be Crown Copyright. Be that as it may, whoever owns the copyright, I am satisfied that fair use applies here. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And another voice! I'm a little wary myself as far as FU images go, and I'm a long way from being an expert. Just a few little points. Firstly, if NFCC 8 allows (which it seems to) pictures to be used to identify the subjects of articles, I don't see a huge jump from using one here to identify the main focus of the article. Secondly, my understanding is that if the picture were the subject of commentary in the article, this would easier to justify. Is there any way that this or any other photograph could be made more relevant to the article? One possible suggestion would be to change the image to one showing a reaction to the scandal. There are a few photos online of Profumo in a car surrounded by the press; would this be more suitable or more easy to justify? And finally, to follow Tim's point, are there any "official" pictures which are out of copyright in the same way that photographs of former PMs seem to be out of copyright under some kind of open government licence? But as I say, I'm no image expert, so I may be spouting rubbish here.
Sarastro1 (
talk)
22:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I appreciate Crisco's concerns here – and my grasp of the intricacies of image use is not the strongest. As far as I am aware, NFCC8 concerns contextual significance and I think, in a scandal carrying his name, an image of Profumo just about fits acceptability. The image is contemporary with events and, in the absence of any News of the World-style paparazzi images of the two of them this fits the bill. - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks to all the "voices" who have chipped in, and to Crisco for ensuring that the matter has very properly received an airing. I will do what I can to establish whether this copyrighyt is held by the Crown. Brianboulton (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thanks. This is not an FAC issue, so no hurry, though it will be nice to have the image's exact status clarified. To date I have not found this image in any of the copiously illustratede Profumo books I've acquired. There is another, earlier one of him at a different ministerial desk, which is also attributed to a press agency. I am fairly ignorant of these things, but did our government ever employ an "official" photographer to take pictures of ministers? Most of those I've seen seem to have press sources. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Having been published more than 100 years ago, the image is out of copyright in the UK. The building is definitely still there, as a visit via google maps will confirm, although it is now surrounded by 1980s commercial buildings – which weren't there when I visited in the 1970s. The photo is not ideal, but a current one would not, I think, give a better impression of the building that Profumo worked in in the 1960s and would not present the Hall nearly as well. Unless there is strong objection, I'm inclined to leave this in place until a more satisfactory image is available. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Now, I have absolutely no idea about licensing, but as far as I can make out this uses a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 Generic licence and seems to fit the criteria under the license conditions for its use on WP. Is this acceptable Crisco? Cassianto Talk 01:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
-
-
- I see one (verb rather than noun) at the end of the second paragraph of "Investigation and resignation": ...to enquire into possible security breaches". Changed to "inquire". Finetooth (talk) 21:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Watch for overlinking. You link Macmillan twice in two paragraphs.
-
a former Labour MP who she met by chance in a night club. - I always get this wrong, apparently, but should that be whom?
What's the point of mentioning the Queen Mother?
Among those who gave statements was Keeler, who confirmed her sexual relationship with Profumo, providing corroborative details of the interior of the Chester Terrace house. - Why'd she change her tune?
- I don't think she had a "tune". She was a 20-year-old, unsophisticated, unpredictable – and perhaps a bit intimidated when gruff coppers started asking questions. Consistency was not her forte. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Timothy Bligh - Odd how we have articles on nearly everyone here but Bligh.
Perhaps a slightly out of place question, but why would Ward have turned to procuring when his earnings from medicine were considerable?
- Exactly. This was a central weakness in the prosecution's case; Ward, with a comfortable assured income, had no need to resort to procuring or poncing. He was rightly acquitted of the procuring charges. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Above all, the judge failed to disclose Keeler's perjury at the Gordon trial—Keeler was the prosecution's chief witness against Ward." - I fail to see how this could have been done. Didn't Keeler only admit to perjury after both trials were finished? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Keeler's evidence at the Gordon trial led to Gordon's conviction. At the appeal, her evidence was contradicted by two new witnesses who had been absent from the original trial. This cast considerable doubt on Keeler's veracity as a witness in the Ward trial; this information, known by Ward's trial judge, was kept from the jury. Had they known that she had been compromised, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, for Ward to have been convicted. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review. The lead image question is under consideration. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Support – I read it with sheer please, found nothing to comment, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Really enjoyed this one. I have but two so-small-you-can-hardly-see-them quibbles, both about note 12. Colon instead of point in 12:30 am? Spell out 4,000 since it starts a sentence? Finetooth (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks to Gerda and Finetooth. I have made the two small fixes. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on prose and content (not checked any of the fine detail of citation). A lovely article - informative and interesting, and generally very well put together.
- A couple of small quibbles:
- Is it quite right to characterise CK in the lead sentence as "a 19-year-old topless showgirl"? The chronology in "Background" is not very clear, but it suggests Keeler had left the club a year or so before she met Profumo, and at the time was an (unsuccessful) model. I know it needs to convey something of the scandal, but this seems a little heavy-handed.
- "...adding that her friendship with Profumo and his wife was entirely innocent" - The article has previously suggested that Keeler was initially interested in Profumo because of his wife, but the subsequent discussion of their affair has no indication that she ever met Hobson before, during or after. It would seem to change the dynamic a little if she did, and probably worth mentioning.
- I'm quite happy with the fair-use image as entirely justifiable in context, and very appropriate to see Profumo as he was then. I might go so far as to say that the infamous 1963 chair photo would also be reasonable to include as fair use in a later section - my understanding is that it was very much an iconic image of the height of the scandal, and it would be good to show Keeler as well as Profumo. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for these comments and support. I have slightly amended the description of Keeler, to "would-be model" – to describe her as an "unsuccessful" model at this stage in her career would be premature, although she was ultimately unsuccessful. There is no evidence that apart from the swimming-pool encounter, Keeler ever met Valerie Hobson, and it seems that her claims to friendship with Profumo "and his wife" were unfounded. Brianboulton (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Would-be" sounds apt - thanks! And congratulations again, it really is an excellent article on a major topic. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Brianboulton, the article is fantastic! I have the following suggestions I think will be useful in improving the article.
WP:LEAD I think the lead can be improved in order to Provide an accessible overview and to give Relative emphasis. I believe the lead gives too much due weight to the Aftermath which I feel can be compressed to make way for the expansion of other points.
- Major Point 1: Background "" (summarised well in the lead while covering the other points)
- Major Point 2: Origins "When the Profumo–Keeler affair was first revealed, public interest was heightened by reports that Keeler may have been simultaneously involved with Captain Yevgeny Ivanov, a Soviet naval attaché, thereby creating a possible security risk. Keeler knew both Profumo and Ivanov through her friendship with Stephen Ward, an osteopath and socialite who had taken her under his wing." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 3: Developing scandal "The exposure of the affair generated rumours of other scandals, and drew official attention to the activities of Ward, who was charged with a series of immorality offences." & "In March 1963 Profumo denied any impropriety in a personal statement[n 1] to the House of Commons," (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 4: Exposure "but was forced to admit the truth a few weeks later. He resigned from the government and from Parliament." & "Perceiving himself as a scapegoat for the misdeeds of others, Ward took a fatal overdose during the final stages of his trial, which found him guilty of living off the immoral earnings of Keeler and her friend Mandy Rice-Davies." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
- Major Point 5: Aftermath "The repercussions of the affair severely damaged Macmillan's self-confidence, and he resigned as prime minister on health grounds in October 1963. His Conservative party was marked by the scandal, which may have contributed to its defeat by Labour in the 1964 general election." & "An inquiry into the affair by a senior judge, Lord Denning, indicated that there had been no breaches of security arising from the Ivanov connection. Profumo subsequently sought private atonement as a volunteer worker at Toynbee Hall, an East London charitable trust. By 1975 he had been officially rehabilitated, although he did not return to public life. He died, honoured and respected, in 2006. Keeler found it difficult to escape the negative image attached to her by press, law and parliament throughout the Profumo affair. In various, sometimes contradictory accounts, she has challenged Denning's conclusions relating to security issues. Ward's conviction has been described by analysts as an act of Establishment revenge, rather than serving justice. In January 2014 his case was under review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, with the possibility of a later reference to the Court of Appeal." (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body, the lead is currently aftermath heavy and should be compressed further.)
- Major Point 6: Dramatisations "" (the lead does not give due weight and is not a concise summary of the corresponding section in the body)
Besides that, I think the article looks excellent. Brianboulton, please feel free to strike out any recommendation you think will not help in improving the article. All the best, --Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your comments, and for your kind words. In general, I don't agree with your opinion that the lead is not a concise summary of the article. The lead is intended to summarise the essence of the subject, with limited recourse to detail, and I'm satisfied it does this. Throughout a long peer review process and this FAC, none of the many reviewers has suggested that the lead needs attention, which rather indicates that you are a lone voice here. However, you do have a valid point in relation to dramatisations, which should have a brief mention in the lead. I thank you for pointing this out, and have added the necessary wording. Brianboulton (talk) 01:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [19].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Eb.hoop (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the eminent US scientist J. Willard Gibbs. I originally nominated this for FA more than a year ago, after successfully promoting it to GA and putting it through a peer review. During that previous nomination, some copyediting issues were raised, which I think have largely been resolved. I think that the article achieves a good balance between readability and thoroughness in dealing with fairly technical subject. Eb.hoop (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- File:JWgibbs-signature.jpg: the two tags here are contradictory - either it's eligible for copyright or it isn't, it can't be both (as source and host country are both US)
- I took out the tag claiming non-eligibility, which in any case wasn't needed. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Maxwell's_letters_plate_IV.jpg: source link isn't working
- I'm not sure what to do about that. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a paywalled version of the letters and papers at [20]. Another out of copyright collection of Maxwells letters and papers can be found at archive.org [21] the same illustration might be there?--Salix alba (talk): 00:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we need a link? The image is a scan of a plate in the edition of Maxwell's letters and papers linked to above. The Wikicommons description gives this reference. For now I've just taken out the dead link. Eb.hoop (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SloaneLab.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died more than 70 years ago?
- The page does give a publication, without copyright notice, before 1977. I took out the PD-old tag. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, unsure what to do about the dead link. I think that the two tags are meant to refer, respectively, to the photograph and the underlying bronze tablet, but I don't know how to spell this out. Eb.hoop (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I found a live link to the same image file, which I've now substituted for the dead one. Eb.hoop (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I continue to support this nomination. This is a biographical article on an important scientist, which is both readable and comprehensive. When the article was first nominated in late 2012, a few minor defects were raised but these have now been addressed. I think it is time to feature the article and help to make J. Willard Gibbs better known among the general public. Dirac66 (talk) 01:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support excellent work and sorry to be so slow to the table. A few comments, and these are mostly suggestions
- Early years
- "(In later years, he used glasses only for reading or other close work.[11])" I think this is far enough afield that it should probably be a footnote. Alternatively, you could add it to the next sentence, preceded by "though".
- Done (I took your second suggestion). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "This was also the fifth Ph.D." I'd toss an "only" after "also".
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think Natural Philosophy should be capped.
- Done (I put it in quotes instead). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "dictated by such" dictated is an odd term for a lecture. Given?
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "in the Riviera" possibly "on the Riviera"
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Middle etc
- "at the age of 48, precluded further collaboration between him and Gibbs." this seems rather obvious. Perhaps "at the age of 48, ended the budding collaboration between him and Gibbs."
- Done (I rewrote the sentence slightly). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "to systems composed of more than one kind of matter" Maybe "to systems containing matter in multiple states"? (if accurate and the source will justify)
- I think it's fine as it is. The heterogeneous systems he considers can be composed of different substances, each possibly in different states (for instance, salt plus water as both liquid and ice). - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Was there any dispute over credit between him and Heaviside?
- No. Gibbs was not one to fight for credit, while Heaviside was an academic outsider. They were in friendly terms. Gibbs's only public controversy was with Tait and others who thought it sacrilegious to question Hamilton's quaternions. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Later etc
- Gibbs died in New Haven, aged 64," I think you need to toss in the date of death. Were any tributes paid to him that are worth mentioning, either from those within or without New Haven? Or the funeral/burial site? The death just seems abrupt and I think a bit more could be said.
- Done. I added the date, plus details of the funeral and the memorial at Yale. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not pretending to critique the science, I am not a physicist, although I can follow it a bit as a math major (in my time, somewhat before Leibniz)
- Statistical etc.
- " than what Maxwell and Boltzmann had achieved before him." I'd strike the word "what"
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Vector etc.
- "Hamilton's quaternions" I think it's worth a fresh link to "quaternion", it's been a long time since you mentioned it.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Physical optics
- " luminiferous aether" "Aether" I believe to be a more British spelling, consider "ether".
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Shortly afterwards, the electromagnetic nature of light was conclusively demonstrated by the experiments of Heinrich Hertz in Germany." Presumably this can be easily sourced.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "members of the university" I've encountered that term most often with reference to British universities. It may need explanation. And is it accurate? Was Yale deemed a university at that moment? (picky, picky)
- Done. You're right that at the time Yale was still only a "college". I changed it to "Yale faculty members". - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " Gibbs's graphical formulation of the laws of thermodynamics only came into widespread use in the mid 20th century, thanks to the work of László Tisza and Herbert Callen" this is slightly ambiguous, it could be read to say that Tisza and Callen were responsible for the use, or that they were responsible for the delay.
- Done. (They were responsible for the use, not the delay.) - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Scientific etc.
- "granted honorary doctorates" awarded honorary doctorates, I think
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "remained at Yale" perhaps "remained in New Haven" to make it clear what is meant is his physical location, not his job.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose I cannot object to it taking second billing to Einstein, but I think that the fact that Gibbs's work survived quantum mechanics virtually unscathed should be more prominently featured in this section.
- Done. I moved the Wightman quote up, before Einstein's assessment. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Gibbs was also the mentor of Lee De Forest, who went on to invent to the triode amplifier " There goes the perfect game! A surplus "to" prior to "the". I would delete "also", but that's purely stylistic.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The material about Wheeler should be sourced. If an entire FA (as this will no doubt be once the formalities are completed) is sourced, it's easy to object when unsourced crap is added.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I would relink Fisher, it's been a very long time and not everyone reads the whole article.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "For his part, mathematician Norbert Wiener" I would strike the first three words, they add nothing to the reader's understanding.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Commemoration
- "In 1910, the American Chemical Society established the Willard Gibbs Medal, through the initiative of William A. Converse, a former chairman and secretary of the Chicago Section." Rather than devote that space to the obscure Mr. Converse, perhaps use the same space to say what the medal is for. Yes, you have a link, but the reader can use the same link to find out about Mr. Converse, and I think it more likely that the reader, seeing the name of the medal, would want to know what it is for, rather than about Mr. Converse.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " the Josiah Willard Gibbs Lectureship in 1923 to increase public awareness of mathematics and its applications." Similar objection. Presumably that society is trying to increase public awareness in many ways, perhaps be a little more down to earth about what it is/does.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " (Onsager, like Gibbs, worked primarily on the application of new mathematical ideas to problems in physical chemistry.)" I don't think the parentheses are needed, the sentence can stand on its own.
- Done. I also reorganized this slightly. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "has a J. Willard Gibbs Professorship of Thermomechanics, presently held by Bernard D. Coleman" I think you should say "held as of 2014" and update the "retrieved on" date of the source. This is not prominent enough to have the electronic masses rush to change it when the incumbent leaves the post.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "located near the eastern limb of the Moon," I've never heard a location on the Moon described in this way. Please double-check use of terminology (limb?)
- It's fine, I think, and consistent with the usage in Gibbs (crater). Because of tidal locking, we see essentially the same moon face at all times. The limb is the edge of that face and "eastern" tells you which way to go (with respect to the moon). I added a link for the use of the term "limb". - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "E.A. Guggenheim" presumably the Edward A. Guggenheim previously referred to? I'd call him "Edward Guggenheim" to avoid stirring dark doubts about identity in the reader's mind.
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- " William Giauque et al. suggested using" to avoid the Latin, suggest "William Giauque and others suggested in a paper that the term "gibbs" should be adopted …" or similar
- Done. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The image of the Gibbs Labs is pushing the next section heading to the right on my browser. Suggest the image be moved up one paragraph.
- Done. I also reduced the sizes of the images in that section slightly. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Just as a note, on the Gibbs stamp, there may have been a first day of issue ceremony, either in New Haven or elsewhere, and New Haven may have been one of the designated first day of issue. You might find something useful in that direction.
- Done. I added some details on the first day ceremony. - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No action required, as there is on none of this (other than the sourcing and the typo), I'm very impressed with the quality of this article. Good luck.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for your input and support! - Eb.hoop (talk) 11:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I supported this article at the previous FAC. The small changes made since have strengthened an already excellent article. Aa77zz (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review: I checked sources #1 (aps.org), #7 (st. andrew's), #46 (yale alumni), and #115 (iowa state) for copyright issues. All came back clean, and the quotes noted are in the reference (7) provided. Reliability appears okay as well. As for formatting, I found two minor issues. Refs 105 and 110 are simply Rukeyser 1988 and Wheeler 1998, respectively, without page numbers. Since you do use page numbers for those sources elsewhere, this should be rectified. Wizardman 14:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the feedback. The reason why Refs. 105 and 110 had no page numbers is that they were only intended to document that the respective biographies had been written by the author and on the date indicated in the article. This same issue was raised in the previous FA review, but then dropped after I explained why no page numbers were given. Nonetheless, I have now edited both references to try to improve things a bit. For Rukeyser, I have instead given a reference to a chapter in a recent academic study that discusses her biographical work, including the poem and book on Gibbs. For Wheeler, I have indicated the page numbers corresponding to the preface, where he explains the circumstances in which his bio. of Gibbs was written. - Eb.hoop (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC) [22].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go again. I am nominating this for featured article because, like both previous times, I believe that it meets all the criteria for becoming a featured article. It has received a peer review and a copyedit. At the first FAC, there was one support, and two reviews that had been addressed, and for the second one, there were four supports and one oppose. Again, this is the first step in my attempt to get Navy's bowl games up to a featured topic.
From last time, the 1924 Rose Bowl was the first time either of the participants, Washington and Navy, ever participated in a postseason game. It was a first for many things, including radio broadcasting. Washington was predicted to come out on top, but Navy led in nearly everything (except the score). It would be 30 years until Navy came back to bowl games, while Washington returned to the Rose Bowl in just two years. There are currently just 10 bowl games at featured article status, none of which are at least 15 years old. This article is on the short side compared to them, but since its been nearly 90 years since this occurred, info is pretty scarce. All comments appreciated. Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 20:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments from Toa Nidhiki05
As a whole I think this is an excellent article. The biggest concerns remain with prose, but I think these can be solved over this review.
- Team selection
The last sentence in Washington's subsection is unneeded as this is explained earlier.
- Removed. I had been thinking about axing that sentence earlier.
- Game summary
"Two plays later, Ira McKee ran the ball in from two yards out for a touchdown. McKee then converted the extra point." I would merge these two sentences to make it flow a bit more.
Change "tying the game at 14–14" to "tying the game at 14".
- Aftermath
Remove the quotation marks around A Streetcar Named Desire.
- Removed the quotation marks. I have no clue why I left those for so long.
- Thanks for the review, especially for how quick you responded. I have attempted to address all of your points, all of which were mistakes I should have caught a while ago. Thanks again, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support after fixes. Great work on the article! Toa Nidhiki05 03:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support—I reviewed this article during its previous two trips to FAC, offering in-depth suggestions which Awardgive implemented or gave appropriate consideration. It was good to begin with, and has improved greatly through the process, and so I had also supported it before. I'm impressed by the research Awardgive has put into the article, particularly given the paucity of records from a game 89 years in the past. It's remarkably thorough and precise even compared with many more recent games. I think the comments above from Toa Nidhiki05 are reasonable (definitely on point with the quotation marks) so once these changes are made, I would encourage anyone reviewing this to join me in strongly supporting it for FAC. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:48, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the support and for putting up with a review for the third time in a row. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 01:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Otherwise images seem appropriately tagged & licensed
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:10, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I can't believe that I missed that for so long. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:
- Isn't postseason one word, sans hyphen?
- "Following the inaugural game's blowout score," Linking the original one here would be helpful, though I see it is later in the article.
- "including congressmen Andrew Fenic and high-ranking military officials." I'm not sure about this one. I can't find anything about an Andrew Fenic online, let alone on-wiki. I'd remove that part of the sentence.
- I had to remove it. That was the one source I originally got from Google News, and since they've completely changed how the site works, I have no clue how I'm going to find it again. Looks like I really should have linked it.
- I'd imagine you have been asked this already, but any reactions or comments at the time on Washington taking Navy over other stronger teams?
- Actually, that seems to be the one question I haven't been asked yet. But anyways, I couldn't find any reactions, which I was slightly shocked about.
- "The game began on time, with a temperature" Did this mean it in fact started at 2, or the rescheduled 2:16? Not entirely clear, but I may be over-thinking it.
- It started at 2:16. I tried to clarify that.
- "completing a perfect six of six passes," maybe reword to "completing all six passing attempts" just to make the language crisper.
- Changed, and it does sound better.
A good article overall, just make the above fixes and I'll support. Wizardman 20:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review. I tried to respond/address all of your concerns. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 06:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
All ref formats are OK. As far as I can judge, the sources are all of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability to meet FA statndards. I have not carried out spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [23].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This dinosaur article was originally written for the German Wikipedia and than rewritten for the English Wikipedia. It has benefited a lot from an exhaustive GAN review by Zad68 and a "prepare for FAC" review by FunkMonk. We are looking forward to suggestions for further improvement. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Query by ϢereSpielChequers Nicely written, I've made a couple of tweaks hope you like them, if not tis a wiki.
- Did you mean conversative? If so you might want to add another meaning to wiktionary.
- Are you sure about the twice as strong as the strongest living animal re the American alligator? I thought the Great White was twice as strong. Did you mean strongest bite of a land animal? ϢereSpielChequers 16:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much! I hope I was able to resolved these issues. For the American Alligator; a 2003 study indeed stated that it has the greatest measured bite force of any living animal. Well, the study calculating the bite force for the Great White Shark is from 2008, so the information just was outdated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to get this moving. I did the GA review and checked the sourcing fairly well. I believe the sourcing meets FA standard, where I had questions I checked other dino FAs and they checked out.
Zad68 14:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC) This is a very nicely done article that I'm just about ready to support. But a couple of comments first.[reply]
- As I noted in one of the edit summaries, references to scholarly results should generally take the present tense: "studies suggest" not "studies suggested." I believe I've changed all instances of this.
- Are you sure? In the scientific literature as well as in other recent featured articles (e.g. Nigersaurus, Plateosaurus), the references always take past tense.
- I've looked at some of your references and there is no consistent use of past tense although admittedly they don't use the present simple either. Rather, it's generally the present perfect (e.g. "...theropods from the Northern Hemisphere, have been interpreted by Bonaparte to be the result...") One ref I could find on this comes from the American Journal Experts and supports present perfect. Would you have a problem if I flipped it to that tense? Dontreadalone (talk) 21:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for linking that paper, that's interesting. The paper says that present perfect should only be used when the result of the cited study is still valid. However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV. It also says that, when the study result is no longer considered valid, the past tense should be used. And there is this: "When referring specifically to the methods used in a previous paper, the past tense is best […] it is correct to say "Smith and Anderson sampled …". When searching for the string "suggested" in the featured article Edmontosaurus, most occurences are past tense. So I think it depends: A "suggestion" is a thought that someone has written down some time ago, it should be past tense. But "a comprehensive, much cited analysis" could be cited present perfect because it influences our current research. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "However, we are Wikipedia, and in most cases cannot declare a study to be still valid without commiting POV." I can't say I agree with that statement. If we say that one study is right and the other wrong we're committing POV, but simply putting forward results as currently pertinent is not POV. If there were no present validity to the papers we cite then we wouldn't be able to write anything at all. And consider the opposite implication. If we write "some studies suggested the animal was able to hunt down very large prey" then we're situating that research in the past and implying the results may no longer be applicable.
- Anyway, we're spending a lot of time on something that's not a deal breaker either way. Would you like me to revert, leave as is, or audit this further with your definitions in mind? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not express myself well, I meant that we cannot use past tense and present perfect tense exactly as suggested by that paper because that would require declaring studies valid or invalid. I would be unhappy with switching to "present perfect only" without good reason. So lets leave it as it is now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed your en dashes in favour of em dashes and then checked the MoS and found that spaced en dashes are still allowable. Apologies. Please feel free to revert that change if you like.
- thanks!
- You see in "Jaw function and diet" where we now have "flexibility (kinesis)" and "back of skull (occiput)"? There's no need to over-do it but I think you might audit this article for other instances where the reader would be similarly well served by having both the lay description and the technical term. There's an awful lot of vocabulary to absorb. I'm unfamiliar with dino articles so perhaps some understanding on this has been arrived at elsewhere.
- I have removed one and linked several other technical terms, I hope it is a little bit better now. Most technical terms that still are in the article I'm not aware of an easy lay description though, so it may be better to rely on wikilinks alone. If you could name those sentences that troubled you most, I will try my best getting them more reader friendly, perhaps by adding additional sentences explaining the vocabulary.
- I think the blue linking is good and I agree there's no simple way to unpack all the technical terms without making it clunky. So I am satisfied on this point. Isn't "keratinous integument" a wonderful phrase :)? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I now just have used "skin" instead of "integument". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain to me how this notes and references sections are working. I don't think I've seen anything like it before. Sometimes you're referencing an entire article in the reference section and sometimes you're referencing specific page ranges within the article in the notes section?
- I followed the featured article Plateosaurus here. This system was proposed during the Plateosaurus FAC or review. For most sources, precise page numbers are not necessary (so they only appear in the references section). Those sources that are in need for page numbers (whole books, lengthy papers) appear both in the references section and the extra section.
- Hmm. Well, I don't think I'll make it an oppose basis but I can't say I like it. As one example you have "...and an unknown number of caudal vertebrae" linked directly to Bonaparte in the reference section but "...were sculptured with numerous small holes and spikes" linked to a page number in the notes. How did you decide what warranted what? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not aware of a better solution. When I started working on the article, I used the rp template to give precise page numbers (see Help:References and page numbers), but people were grumbling about that, so I switched to this style. This style was chosen during the Plateosaurus FAC preparation after lengthy discussions, so I thought it to be the best compromise. Its an advantage that you only have to give precise page numbers when you really need them: In your example, I cited Bonaparte directly without precise page numbers, because the info is spread over half the source (Bonaparte described each vertebra separately). I myself would have no problem with switching back to the rp template, but my WikiProject colleagues have some reservations about it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't insist you go back to it if you've already been pushed in this direction. Dontreadalone (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the article is extremely well-balanced with good sized sections. Without committing OR of course, could a couple of extra sentences be added, probably to paleoecology, describing the possible distribution of the genus? To what extent was its territory South America as we now know it versus Gondwana?
- We can not say anything about distribution of this dinosaur because there is only one single find. I think it would, most probably, not have been present outside South America because South America was already separated from Africa during the late Cretaceous.
- How about we at least say that? Or would you consider it OR? Dontreadalone (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So that's it. Well done! Dontreadalone (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks for reading, improving and commenting! I have placed my answers under each of your points. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to add another comment after supporting, but I noticed a comment on the Bonaparte back links on the talk that still hasn't been addressed. A number of the links are not working. Click on q, r, w or x, for instance, and they don't take you anywhere in the article. No idea why. Dontreadalone (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I have fixed it now! The "name" tags simply were not working at all … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:IMAGELOCATION recommends against left-aligned images at the start of a section
- Alt text would be nice, but apparently is not required for FA
- File:Carnotaurus, Chlupáč Museum, Prague-2.jpg: something's funny with the source—apparently the file was derived...from itself?
- Not necessary for FA, but this graphic could easily be cleaned up, removing artifacts and flattening the colours, which would also produce a smaller file.
- File:Carnotaurus DB 2.jpg (File:Carnotaurus DB.jpg): licensed CC-BY-2.5 by the uploader, but di the uploader create the original image?
- Other images seem fine. Several are from the Public Library of Science under Creative Commons licenses
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:31, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll answer three of those, since the others seem to be taken care of. As I mentioned in another place, the image alignment issue is not widely agreed upon[24], and as for now has been pretty much dealt with on a case by case basis/left optional. I'm vehemently against the"guideline", but progress is slow on the talk page discussion. As for who created the image listed below, it was a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore, but the image was transferred to Commons by someone else. Since it is PD, I and others have since edited the image. The one that links to itself is likely because both versions were merged, and a bot would then replace the "duplicate link with the kept name. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "a well nown Russian WP user who doesn't edit anymore": I think the "Source" information needs to state the source explicitly
- Selfmade or what? The source is Dimitry Bogdanov, the original uploader. FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the author is listed, so the source is him. Could be replaced with "selfmade". FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through two major sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Citation 2, Bonaparte (1990); Mostly good expect:
- Doesn't mention Carnotaurus length or it being "one of the one of the largest abelisaurids".
- The length estimate is stated in the second cite (p. 162 in Juárez Valieri et al. 2010). This paper cites the skeletal diagram in Bonaparte (1990) as the source for this estimation. So I have cited both sources. Now I have removed the Bonaparte (1990) source, to avoid confusion. I have added another source that explicitly states that Carnotaurus is one of the largest abelisaurids.
- It mentions the bones being destroyed by weathering, not erosion. Wiki article states they are not to be confused.
- Yes, you are right, I have corrected that, thank you.
- There were a couple times (e. g: K, AD) were the source only partially supported a statement but in these cases it was one of two or more cites being used, so I'm assuming the other cites support the rest.
- Yes, I usually don't cite more than one source for the same info. If there are two or more cites, the information probably is scattered over these sources (I have checked K and AD).
- Citiation 6, Mazzetta et al. (1998); All good expect:
- No comparison with humans/ostriches.
- That information is from the second cite (Mazzetta and Farina 1999).
Okay, all good. LittleJerry (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- As I have a FAC open myself at the moment, I'm recusing myself from delegate duties in a few cases to review. Although I like dinosaurs as much as anyone, I'm no expert, so this was mainly for prose and accessibility. I copyedited as I went, so pls let me know if I've misunderstood or broken anything. Generally I found the piece well-written and easy to comprehend. Outstanding points:
- I don't think linking modern-day countries like Argentina is really necessary, probably not continents either...
- You use the term "best-known" in the lead and several times in the main body. I gather this means "best-understood" (by experts), but "best-known" also sounds like "famous", which I assume is not the sense you're after...
- Describing the forelimbs as "robust" in the main body sounds odd to me when they're characterised as "possibly functionless" in the lead, but perhaps I've missed something...
- In Function of the horns you briefly mention and cite all the theories in the first para, then go on to expand upon those theories and cite them again. Although in FAs one is generally expected to cite absolutely everything, certainly at the end of a paragraph, I for one wouldn't object to you leaving the first para uncluttered by all those citations if all the information there is cited in the following exposition, as appears to be the case.
- No dablinks but you have a few duplinks -- use this script to detect them and see if you really need them.
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Ian! Thank you very much for reviewing. I hope I have fixed all issues. I have removed the word "functionless" and used "vestigial" instead, because "functionless" is a over-simplification (the arm will never be entirely functionless). "Robust" and "functionless" sound contradictory, but the arms are functionless in every member of the abelisauridae, and in comparison with other abelisaurids, the arms of Carnotaurus are more robust, or more chunky (despite being even shorter than in other abelisaurids). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, that works for me -- happy to support, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: One caveat on my support, I just realised -- is this your first FAC, Jens? Someone should conduct a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing (fairly standard for first-time nominators) if that's the case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did. LittleJerry (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- So you did -- I was just on my way out when I made the last comment and only took in the heading title, which suggested a source review for formatting and reliability only. No issue then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC) [25].[reply]
- Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1930s to the 1980s Ralph Richardson was one of the leading actors on the British stage. He also made more than sixty films. He was not a bravura actor like Laurence Olivier or a romantic one like John Gielgud but was famous for playing character roles, at the same time very human yet often strangely mystical. The director Peter Hall considered him the greatest actor he ever worked with. The article has had a superb peer review from an all-star cast of editors, and I think it now does Sir Ralph justice. – Tim riley (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm happy with the results of the peer review in which I provided a fair bit of criticism and am pleased to see that the article has further improved since. Admittedly I'm not a fan of the pink and purple boxes, I'd be inclined to use a light silver or light blue, but I think this is worthy of being promoted. Excellent work on one of Britain's greatest actors.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the support (and tremendously helpful PR comments), Doctor. I am wholly biddable about the box colours, and will be delighted if you have a go at recolouring them. Tim riley (talk) 22:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – I was a late entrant to the PR so RR was already highly polished by the time I had got there. Thanks Tim for bringing what I hope will be the first of the three intended theatrical knight articles to the FAC stage. A fine piece of work indeed. CassiantoTalk 23:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Thank you to all three editors for support here and input at PR. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Tim, the article is not listed on the FAC page and doesn't appear to have been entered there - unless this is yet another glitch on that page. My proper comments will follow soon. Brianboulton (talk) 10:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a glitch: merely incompetence on my part. Now remedied. Thank you very much for spotting this. Tim riley (talk) 10:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sources review
- Ref 54 (NYT) – subscription required
- Ref 122: the linked article has a different title from that named in the citation. Is it the right source article?
- Ref 127: Who Was Who, like ODNB, requires sub or UK library membership
- Sources: Neill entry – "The Oxford Shakespeare" is, I think, a series title and should, I believe, be italicised.
Apart from these minor issues, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability and are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As Tim says, this article had a very thorough going-over at peer review. As one of the all-star cast of reviewers acknowledged above by Tim, I have to say that there wasn't much left for me to carp over, after the others had done their stuff, but carp I did, and my concerns were all adequately addressed. This will make a fine FA and TFA at an appropriate date (or at any time, really). Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you to Brian for the review here and at PR, and for support. Greatly appreciated on all counts. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yet another visitor to the hugely popular box-office success of the peer review. The article was in fine shape then, and it's in even better condition now: fully deserving of FA status. - SchroCat (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I commented at the PR, and my minor points were dealt with there. This is a superb piece of work, and easily meets the FA criteria. Not bad for a Lancastrian! Sarastro1 (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm delighted to see an important classic actor at FAC. Tim has done a wonderful job on the article and I've no doubt that it meets all the FA criteria. Thanks again for your work on this one. --Loeba (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Grateful thanks to SchroCat, Sarastro and Loeba for superb input at PR and for support here. Tim riley (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Had my say at the Peer review. Well done indeed!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, Wehwalt, for your input at PR and support here. Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - If you want me to look at prose, just say the word.
- Thank you for this. If the first image is not permissible, I can move the Long Day's Journey one up to replace it. Delighted if you'd like to look at the text of the article as well. Tim riley (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - I uploaded the image and included a link to the renewal records. It is definitely out of copyright. Cheers Loeba (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- What were your search terms? I doubt it would have been under "Richardson" if it had been renewed. Usually, as far as I can tell, batch renewals are done under the name of a film or production. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah I also searched for the film title (The Heiress, which it has to be as it's the only film he made in 1949 and it was for Paramount). I've done dozens of searches for publicity stills like this and not one has had its copyright renewed. --Loeba (talk) 16:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough. I'll note that on the image description page (as for "not one has had its copyright renewed", I agree (from my own experience, MGM didn't start regularly including copyright notices on its posters until the 1940s), but we still have to show due diligence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm greatly indebted to Loeba and Crisco for their expertise and the trouble they have taken over this image question. Those of us who are not clued up on images have cause to be grateful to those who are. Tim riley (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments (Support below)
- as Sir is not part of his given name, should it be bolded here? I generally don't bold honorifics, but I understand the UK has its own style guidelines
- taking the youngest son with her. - perhaps mention that Ralph is the youngest son? After all, for all the reader knows there could be a fourth son
- Xaverian College - notable?
- For a red link, you mean? I think probably not. People with an interest in religious topics are pretty hot on covering as many bases as possible, and the absence of an article suggests to me that there is unlikely to be one in the future. Tim riley (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- frequently posted documents to the wrong people as well as engaging - one is -ed, one is -ing. Perhaps the two should meet?
- Banquo in Macbeth - with two different troupes, then?
- Yes indeed, but I felt it prudent to repeat "in Macbeth" to avoid ambiguity at the second mention.
- Muriel Hewitt - any chance she's notable?
- modern dress production or modern-dress production? Also, link modern dress?
- As his wife's condition worsened he needed to pay for more and more nursing; - when did she stop acting?
- More tomorrow. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- in Agate's phrase, ran away with the piece, - should "ran away with the piece" be in quotes?
- I am sometimes twitted for overusing quotation marks; when, as here, the context seems to me to make it plain that these are the ipsissima verba I think it's all right to omit the quotes, but I have no objection to including them. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Link Cedric Hardwicke?
- The Times commented, "Mr Ralph Richardson makes Drummond as brave and stupid on the screen as he is in print." - if we don't mention that the film is based on a series, this may not make sense to some readers (those of my generation, for instance, although I know Drummond from reviewing Schro's stuff)
- Was the play entitled Peter and Wendy or Peter Pan?
- It ran for two months; - Pan or Cornelius?
- He had taken flying lessons during the 1930s and had logged 200 hours of flying time, but admitted to being as timid a pilot as he was reckless as a driver. - Don't think you've mentioned that he was a reckless driver before.
- Olivier rapidly eclipsed Richardson's record for pranging. - I hate to ruin the (perhaps unintentional) comedic effect of this sentence, but "pranging" is not encyclopedic.
- Of the massed ranks of peer reviewers, only one (whom I greatly respect, and whom I'll thank to stop smirking if he's reading this) commented on that point, and I replied – and still think – that adding quotes, though strictly correct, would make the prose rather leaden. I think the earlier quotes for the slang term can fairly be taken to do service for both occurrences. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Agate wrote, "He had everything the part wants - The subject of the last sentence was Olivier.
- Olivier is the subject of the first half of the previous sentence, but "the evening belonged to Richardson" makes repeating "Richardson" in the next sentence unnecessary, I think. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- a National Theatre - caps? Note that you're using "National Theatre" as a generic (with "a")
- Yes, I pondered that when writing it. I originally had it in lower case, and it looked a bit strange – struck an indefinably wrong note. I'm wholly biddable on the point though. Tim riley (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Skipping ahead
- Richardson, though hardly ever satisfied with his own performances, evidently believed he had done well as Falstaff. Hall and others tried hard to get him to play the part again, but referring to it he said, "Those things I've done in which I've succeeded a little bit, I'd hate to do again." - what part? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- much less well paid - feels awkward (and as if there is a hyphen missing). An alternative wording?
- revival of Six Characters in Search of an Author - no way to know anything about this play, based on the information in the article. No link, no author, and that it was a revival... perhaps the barest of a hint?
- The two men bleakly examining the little nothingness of their lives are John Gielgud and Ralph Richardson giving two of the greatest performances of two careers that have been among the glories of the English-speaking theater. - does the original quote have no commas?
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC) [26].[reply]
- Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kenneth Horne was a damned funny man. A talented sportsman in his youth, a well-respected businessman and a cast member of three hugely popular BBC radio series, Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh (1944–51), Beyond Our Ken (1958–64) and Round the Horne (1965–68). His work is still popular, and Round the Horne is popular in audiobook form, and is still repeated on BBC radio; a 2002 survey to find listeners' favourite British comedian placed Horne third, behind Tony Hancock and Spike Milligan. A good peer review here saw the odd wrinkles ironed out. I hope reviewers enjoy reading about such a colourful character as much as I have enjoyed writing about him. - SchroCat (talk) 22:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
- Long quotes like "He was an unselfish performer..." should be blockquoted
- Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers - you generally do, but FN92 doesn't
- Similarly, most books include location, but Johnston and Williams do not. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. Just for once I know quite a bit about the subject of an FAC, and I am relieved to report that I can find nothing to carp at. An interesting story, well told, excellently sourced and cited. Very pleased indeed to support its promotion to FA. Tim riley (talk) 14:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto
Sorry for not being there at the PR, these are my efforts...
- "By 1913 Silvester was suffering from continual poor health, and he resigned his position at the tabernacle on medical advice in January 1914, intending to resign his parliamentary seat." --"intending to resign"? This last part doesn't quite sound right. "and intended to resign" would sound better.
- "he was able to attend Magdalene College, Cambridge and entered the university in October 1926." -- This could be shortened to "he was able to enroll at Magdalene College, Cambridge in October 1926."
- "He threw himself into the sporting side of life..." Does not sound encyclopedic enough for me. He committed himself to sport" would sound better.
- "a liking for squash, tennis and golf and for dancing" -- "a liking for squash, tennis, golf and dancing" rolls off the tongue much more easily.
Service in the RAF
- "In the initial months of the conflict, the Phoney War, Horne's duties were undemanding..." -- I have tried, but I cannot make sense of this. Is "the conflict" the Phoney War?
- "Horne was ordered to put on the show, and he made his broadcasting debut on 16 April 1942, acting as compere." -- "Horne was ordered to put on the show, and he made his broadcasting debut on 16 April 1942, as the compere."
- "Flight lieutenant Richard Murdoch..." -- If my memory serves me correctly, should the rank be capitalised when a name follows? If so, the "L" is missing.
Postwar, a double career: 1945–58
- "On his return to civilian life, Horne resumed working at Triplex, promoted to the position of Sales Director." -- "On his return to civilian life, Horne resumed working at Triplex, and was promoted to the position of Sales Director."
- "Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh had gained sufficient interest and popularity over its run of 20 Merry-go-Round episodes that it was given its own 39-week series beginning January 1947." -- "Much-Binding-in-the-Marsh had gained sufficient interest and popularity over its run of 20 Merry-go-Round episodes that it was given its own 39-week series beginning in January 1947."
- I would query the grammar in "had gained sufficient interest and popularity over its run of 20 Merry-go-Round episodes that it was given..." I would replace "that" with "to be", and perhaps delete "interest and", since interest is trumped by popularity. Brianboulton (talk) 21:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- "Horne was offered and accepted the position of managing director..." -- Just "Horne accepted the position of managing director" would do I think.
- "Horne received several attractive invitations" -- "Horne received several attractive job invitations"
- "on popular Saturday evening comedy and music radio show Variety Playhouse" -- "on the popular Saturday evening comedy and music radio show Variety Playhouse"
- "and, in the spring, to appear in an increasing number of other programmes." -- "and, in the spring, appeared in an increasing number of other programmes."
- "After his work on Variety Playhouse finished" -- "After his work on Variety Playhouse had finished"
A single career: 1958–69
- Do we need to repeat 1958 in close succession in the opening two sentences?
- "debilitating stroke"? Aren't all strokes kind of debilitating?
- "In April 1961 Horne..." -- I reckon we could use a pronoun here.
- "As a result, he did not appear in the Round the Horne Christmas special. He returned to work in January 1967 to record the third series of Round the Horne." -- Do we need to repeat Round the Horne? Or can we leave it at "third series"? In fact, looking at these two paragraphs, we use Round The Horne quite a lot, could these be trimmed?
Death and tributes
- "Because of his heart condition, Horne had been prescribed an anticoagulant, but had stopped taking it on the advice of a faith healer.[102] He died of a heart attack..." -- Horne and not the faith healer?
- All done, bar one: thanks very much for taking the time and effort over this review - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I see nothing else. Wonderful stuff! -- CassiantoTalk 19:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
- Full stops removed (I always forget that one!); no idea on the Costa date, although I could hazard a rough guess: the image was provided by his grand-nephew without too many other details, unfortunately. Many thanks for picking up on the images here Nikki - much appreciated" - SchroCat (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had my major say at the peer review. I then cheekily inserted a couple of points into Cassianto's review, above. I've read the article again, did a few prose fixes, and have a handful of further issues:
- "who became both the Master of the Rolls in 1907, and Baron Cozens-Hardy on 1 July 1914." You can apply "both" to events that occur more or less simultaneously, but not to appointments seven years apart. Delete "both the", and the comma after 1907.
- "Silvester was a Congregationalist minister at the Whitefield's Tabernacle, Tottenham Court Road, the Liberal MP for Ipswich and a powerful orator." I don't think "a Congregationalist minister at the Whitefield's Tabernacle" really does justice to Silvester's standing in the Congregational movement – see his ODNB entry (chairman of the Cong. Union in Eng & W, etc) Also you should give the dates that he served as Ipswich's MP (1910–14)
- "as a border"??? (boarder)
- Most readers will have to use links to find out who people such as Bunny Austin and Lord Burghley are. Why not briefly introduce them, e.g. "the future Wimbledon finalist", "the Olympic gold medallist", etc. People who have to keep leaving the article to follow links may not return.
- "very modest salary" is a bit directive. just "modest" will do
- "he would accompany" → "he accompanied" (and as he was only the head of BIF for a year, "annual visits" doesn't seem right)
- "it was described by the Radio Times as 'five characters in search of the authors' " I remember this from the peer review. I didn't know what it meant then, and I'm still puzzled as to what it is meant to convey.
- Further thoughts on a sentence you've amended since the peer review: "The televised recording of the event omitted the incident, bridging the gap with announcer Michael Aspel saying, "Mr Horne was taken ill at this point and has since died." I'm a bit puzzled by "bridging the gap"; this implies that the recording was briefly interrupted by Aspel's announcement, then continued with the awards presentations with a replacement host. I find it hard to believe that is what happened. Can you enlighten?
- "never resorted to blue comedy" Hmm, he was a bit near the knuckle on some occasions! ("master of the scandalous double-meaning")
Happy to support when these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I have adjusted the "Congregationalist" sentence a bit, and have moved Austin's description to his first mention. Otherwise, as you say, you have satisfactorily addressed my concerns. A fine biography of a memorable subject. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Definitely looks to be good enough, excellent work!♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
--Seabuckthorn ♥ 23:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Facepalm Of course. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
_Gods%27_Man_-_surrounded_by_wineglasses.jpg){kind=link}
_Gods%27_Man_cover.jpg){kind=link}
_Die_Sonne_self-portrait.jpg){kind=link}
_map.svg){kind=link}
