Jill and Rachel are back! This article failed FAC two weeks ago as a result of the nomination stalling, but had one support and another detailed review that appeared to have come close to culminating as such. The second reviewer also copyedited the article in lieu of further comments at the time. Tezero (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the game is not a translation of a Japanese title, then the Japanese in the lead is inappropriate—and much more so if "no Japanese-language version of the game has been released". Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "an unusual case"—it's a gimmick, and the way it's presented implies it's a translation. As it is, it only appears in a small font even in the artwork—not a parallel at all to Final Fantasy et al. It's showcasing trivia in the opening sentence. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, these things are always translations (Japanese's closest potential relation to English is in the controversial Nostratic family, so I don't think "Freedom", "Planet", "Final", or "Fantasy" are mistakeable as Japanese roots), but I'll remove it on the grounds that it hasn't been released in Japan, which now that I think about it does make it seem a little silly. Tezero (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point with Final Fantasy is that it's (a) a Japanese game later translated into English, and (b) ファイナルファンタジー is the actual name of the game in Japanese, regardless of the roots of the words. Even if a Japanese version of the game were to appear, it would be a translation to and not from Japanese, so the {{Nihongo}} would still be inappropriate. Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an argument that should be avoided, and industry jargon is often not appropriate to an encyclopedia article with a general (not specialized) target audience—and "independent developer" is more comprehensible than "indie" to a larger swath of readers. Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost finished with the copyedit. However, I noticed original research in the Reception section, which I've tagged accordingly. The issue of Reception synthesis was unresolved last time, and I have no intention of letting it slip by uncontested here. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For any coordinators or others viewing, I've resolved his issue, although at that point there hadn't yet been a consensus at the Video games project's talk. Tezero (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on sources: Comprehensive source check finds no evidence or copyright violations or close-paraphrasing, no dead links or redirects, and no unreliable sources. Primary sources are used sparingly; Japanese source and game source accepted in good faith. This primary source [2] shows there is a downloadable demo for MAC OS X, yet there is no mention of this in the article. Perhaps add a brief mention of the demo - is there any information from developers at the forums for this game regarding an upcoming Mac release? Support is pending this one issue being addressed. Freikorp (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So far - this will date. WP:ASOF recommends using {{as of}}
I think it's better to just omit that altogether - "as of" is more for when a specific date is mentioned in the source, and for statistics rather than simple facts like whether the full version of a game has been released. Tezero (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying it hasn't been released yet, which will date. When it has been released, it can be nixed altogether. The date an article was published can be used for a reference of the "as of" . — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:10, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose and images. I must say, I do love indie developers. They'll donate amazing free images we can't expect from people like Capcom (though, if they read this, a free 1020px screencap of REmake would make me squee). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as I gave a review and left a support last time, and nothing much has changed, I've only got one or two questions other than 'concerns':
"Polson noted minor audio and visual flaws, most notably the recycling of sound effects from Sonic" - which Sonic in particular or the first three games on the Genesis? Would be best to clarify
Well I'm happy with the prose and if anyone thinks I'm being too lenient, please refer to the previous FAC. Almost nothing has changed and in fact this article has improved in almost every way, so I'll support this. ☯Jaguar☯17:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Mascot was the fifth attempt by the British Royal Navy's carrier air arm to attack the German battleship Tirpitz in her well-fortified base in northern Norway during mid-1944. It followed on from the successful Operation Tungsten (which I took to FA status in October last year) in early April 1944 and three raids which had to be aborted due to bad weather. While weather conditions were agreeable when this attack was launched on 17 July, Operation Mascot ended in failure as, due to the slow speed of the British strike aircraft, the Germans were able to cover Tirpitz in a smokescreen by the time the British aircraft arrived over the target. As a result, the battle was a somewhat odd encounter in which 84 British aircraft aimed at the flashes of German guns, while the German gunners were unable to see their attackers.
Fascinating. The article makes it sound like smoke generators were standard defensive equipment in this sort of situation. I had no idea. Maybe link to Smoke_screen#Smoke_generators, though that's not as detailed a discussion as I would have liked. Haukur (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I've added that link. As far as I'm aware, the scale of the system of smoke generators around the battleship was unusual - presumably it was worth the investment as Tirpitz almost never left the fjord. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: looks quite good to me. I only have one minor point:
there appears to be some repetition between the Background section and the Opposing forces section . In the Background section: "Despite the decision to make further attacks on Kaafjord, many of the Home Fleet's airmen were posted to other units following Operation Tungsten. This hindered subsequent operations against German forces in Norway as the new aircrew were less experienced than the men they replaced." And then in the Opposing forces section: "Many of the Home Fleet's airmen were posted to other units following Operation Tungsten, hindering their squadrons' subsequent operations against German forces in Norway as the replacement aircrew were less experienced". I think one of these is probably unnecessary. Anyway, great work as always. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've read through and made a few minor tweaks / fixed a typo and believe this meets the criteria. Pls see my changes here [4].
One minor nitpick though: In the lead you write "...Tirpitz was protected by a smoke screen by the time the strike force arrived." This isn't really correct though. More accurately it would have been "obscured" by the smoke not protected by it. (pedantic point I agree, pls feel free to disregard).
Thanks for the review. I think that 'protected' is preferable to 'obscured', as this was the battleship's main (and very effective) defence, though 'obscured' is of course correct. The AA guns were if anything a liability in this battle given that they were the only things the great majority of the British pilots spotted. Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and am still walking through changes since then; I've just made one light copyediting pass so far and will return in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now reviewed all changes since ACR and aside from a couple of minor tweaks am happy with those.
Structure and detail seem fine; I reviewed sources below and am happy to rely on Nikki's image review above.
I have just have one query, re. "Furious did not embark any strike bombers during Operation Mascot" -- what exactly do we mean by "strike bomber", an attack plane or something else? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did query uboat.net at the ACR and accepted that it's used in other FAs but I also note Parsecboy's late comment there: "The only suggestion I'd make is to replace the uboat.net citations with page 350 of Rohwer's Chronology of the War at Sea - the full ref can be found in the Tirpitz article." -- suggest that perhaps that could be acted upon now we're at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After a long absence from FAC, due in part to the addition of a second child to our family, I've decided to resume pursuit of a Governors of Kentucky featured topic with this nomination. (Three more GAs need to attain FA status for a featured topic; four after next year's gubernatorial election.) Although it has been a while since I've worked on the article – a recent copyedit notwithstanding – I still have access to the sources and believe this article provides a comprehensive overview of Wetherby's life. I will try to address any concerns promptly, although the time I can devote to editing is much more uneven than it used to be. Acdixon(talk·contribs)22:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No better/other pictures? At least on my display, the infobox picture is a bit out of focus. I'm not a huge fan of adding pictures just for window dressing, but maybe there are a couple other illustrations of things in the article we could dig up, if no other photos of Wetherby are available.
Not that I'm aware of, unfortunately. Until very recently, the article used his official gubernatorial portrait under a fair use rationale. Recently, I learned of the {{PD-US-no-notice}} template – and its associated copyright implications, obviously – and scoured the Kentucky Virtual Library for a free alternative for Wetherby, among others. This was the best I found, which isn't saying much, but at least it's free. For other images we could use in the article, my KYVL search also turned up freebies of Earle C. Clements and Bert T. Combs, while we already had a good quality photos of Happy Chandler and Alben Barkley. There's also an aerial shot of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant that opened during Wetherby's administration and is mentioned in the article. Acdixon(talk·contribs)15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please run the External Links tool and update/post archive links as needed. I show three dead links.
I'm a bit puzzled by the link to Term limits in the United States in the lead, since the article states Kentucky has a two-term limit. Do they count partial terms?
No. The state constitution was amended in 1992 to allow governors to succeed themselves once. It had been a one-term limit since the state's second constitution was ratified in 1799. Acdixon(talk·contribs)15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Chandler did not support Wetherby's 1956 bid to succeed Democrat Alben Barkley in the Senate, which contributed to his loss..." This reads awkwardly to me. I think it's the "Chandler did not support ... which contributed" construction. Maybe "Chandler's failure to support ... contributed"?
"Over the course of his administration, he increased funding to education by $20 million." This doesn't mean as much without the context. $20 million on top of what?
"support peaceful implementation of the Supreme Court's school desegregation order in the case of Brown v. Board of Education" The wording is strange here. Can we revise?
It doesn't seem that strange to me, but I've changed it to "to peacefully implement desegregation as required by the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education". Is that better? Acdixon(talk·contribs)15:24, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He failed in his efforts to amend the state's constitution to allow the governor to succeed himself in office." This sentence seems to offer some explanation of the statement in the lead that he was limited to one term.. I'm assuming later on Kentucky amended the constitution to allow two consecutive terms? Or is the linked article incorrect?
Support, everything looks good and my comments have been addressed. I haven't looked too hard at source formatting but I'll speak up if I see anything. --Laser brain(talk)21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Chandler's charges may have been inaccurate, but they were effective; he defeated Combs in the primary and went on to win the general election" - not sure we can draw that conclusion without OR, the charges are not the only possible reason for his victory
SupportLeaning support. Welcome back! I didn't find much to address here, but I have a few questions:
"Thanks to his father's influence, Wetherby became interested in local politics at an early age." I'm not clear on the father's influence part. All we know of him is his name and profession. Was he involved in politics, too?
The source doesn't say. The exact quote is, "It was his father who instilled in Lawrence and his brother George an interest in politics." The source also mentions that the father was "the scion of an old Kentucky family", but doesn't elaborate. Acdixon(talk·contribs)17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"...former governor A. B. "Happy" Chandler, who was about to be released as baseball commissioner." "be released" is kind of strange phrasing, but I'm not sure what would be better.
I'm open to suggestions. He wasn't really fired, and properly speaking, his contract didn't expire either. He was angling for a contract extension, but twice failed to get the required three-fourths majority, so he eventually resigned. This sentence should reflect the difficulty in securing a new contract, since that's what the speculation about his candidacy was probably based on. The owners refused to vote on an extension in December 1949, and the vote failed in December 1950 and again in March 1951, after which Chandler announced his resignation, effective in June 1951. Acdixon(talk·contribs)17:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You could just say "...was about to resign as baseball commissioner" although I take your point that it's not the whole story. Your call, it's not significant enough to hold up my support. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"What time he was in the state, he campaigned for his former lieutenant governor, Wetherby." This sounds a little informal. Maybe "When he was able to visit the state..." or something like that.
Support. Good to see you back at FAC; I always enjoy your articles. I've one minor question, below, but it does not affect my support.
"Early in Wetherby's term, the state's revenues were inflated by the Korean War": does the source say why the war inflated the revenues? It's not immediately obvious to me how this would happen. It might not be relevant enough to put in the article, but a footnote would be helpful.
I had the same question, but the source doesn't seem to provide the answer. The article for Governor Clements mentions that the war increased tax receipts, but that just kicks the can down the road, I think. Why did the war increase tax receipts? That's also not obvious to me. Acdixon(talk·contribs)14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- I did some spot checks for close paraphrasing on the online sources. A couple of phrases are taken close to verbatim from the source, but they're very generic phrases. For example, "In March 1943 he was appointed the first trial commissioner of Jefferson County juvenile court" in the source becomes "In March 1943, he was appointed the first trial commissioner of the juvenile court" in the article. This seems OK to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the welcome back. Seeing this article get enough reviews not to fail on that basis encourages me. Hopefully, I can make another couple of FAC runs soon. Acdixon(talk·contribs)14:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lawrence-Wetherby.jpg - do you have any additional background info on the publication of this image, maybe in a yearbook or somewhere else? We should be reasonably sure, that it 1) was published in the 1950s somewhere in the US and 2) had no copyright notice. Or, alternatively, any chance for a better documented image? GermanJoe (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the second question first: no, I haven't found a better documented image. Until recently, the article featured a fair use image, but I ran across this while searching through the Kentucky Virtual Library. What I know about this image comes from http://kdl.kyvl.org/catalog/xt75736m0s6q_407_1/guide. It indicates that the images in the collection from whence this picture was taken are "photographs predominately transferred to university archives from the public relations department". To me, this indicates a strong likelihood that the image was published in the 1950s in the US, since PR departments aren't typically in the habit of taking images that don't see the light of day. The "without notice of copyright" bit is based on the fact that there is no notice on the print itself, and no indication that there is one on the back, which is typically noted in these collections. There are separate collections for photos from yearbooks, so I doubt this was published there. That's about the extent of what I can say about it. Acdixon(talk·contribs)14:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional information, I went ahead and added some of those details to the image information for clarity. The file is listed under "publication year 1951" in the source website's catalog, that's good enough. And I agree with your assessment of the copyright notice: details about each single item are quite thorough in that catalog (remarks about the item's condition, authorship, and so on), a copyright notice would have been mentioned. Changed to all OK above. GermanJoe (talk) 08:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about yet another banksia - it is concise, comprehensive and I cannae think of anythin' else I can do to better it. Been trying to space banksia nominations so am not too repetitive. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All images have an appropriate license and look good. One minor tweak, though:
File:Banksialemannianarangemap.png is a derivative, and it would be good to note the other source better (in the "source" and "author" sections). As a suggestion, here's an example image that you can use as a template: File:Phaner range map.svg
I feel like the first sentence or two of the lead should state "what" and "where" the species is. In this and your other banksia articles, "where" is answered several sentences in. Personally, it makes me itch to skim ahead or scroll down for a range map. I'm just curious about your thoughts on this. I'm not saying it needs to be changed.
At what point does "Banksia lemanniana" get abbreviated to "B. lemanniana"?
yeah, this has been a tricky thing to navigate - convention seems to waver between unabbreviate if starting a para to unabbreviate if starting a sentence. I've previously abbreviated at the start of sentences and been changed by others. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If there's an ongoing fight over this "standard" <*cough*>, then I'll stay out of it. As long as you've considered it during the writing of the article, I'm fine with the outcome. – Maky« talk »22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"...it was named in honour of Charles Morgan Lemann." – I think noting that he was an English botanist in the lead is important, otherwise casual readers are left wondering, "who was he?"... especially since he's red-linked.
Are the common names widely used and unique to this species? If so, should they be mentioned in the lead and in bold?
unique? yes? widely used? hard to say - they are mentioned, but the species is not widely written about and most scientific journals stick to latin names...my feeling is they are notable enough relative to the notability of the species to leave there.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why "(Meisn.)" is used with the synonym (no space after the species) in the taxobox.
space left out by accident. Authorities left in as sometimes the same name is used with a different author and might require clarification - i.e. two authors use a binomial and later turn out to be different species so each will be listed as synonym to that taxon.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Shrub in cultivation, Kings Park, Perth, Western Australia" – Maybe I'm just anal or evil or both, but I tend to delete what I see as pointless location information in image captions. Am I missing something? Is there some encyclopedic value to the fact that this photo was taken in Kings Park, Perth, Western Australia (in the article, not in the description on Commons)?
Alright... Could the caption be made more informative (to sound encyclopedic)? For example: "B. lemanniana has been cultivated at the Western Australian Herbarium." (That is where the photo was taken, right?) Also, if this species is cultivated there (and it's one of the most important herbariums for native Australian species), its presence there might merit a brief mention in the "Cultivation" section. ...Sorry, I just like informative captions that actually say something. I'm also tired of people trying to popularize their favorite destinations, home towns, local zoos, etc. with similar image captions. (That's not the case here, but it sets a precedent.) – Maky« talk »22:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry I'm so anal about that, but I on a lot of professional news sites, image captions are very informative and almost always complete sentences. Although not required here, I would like to see more of it, but not for the purpose of popularizing a attraction unrelated to the article. – Maky« talk »21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason the range map isn't used in the taxobox?
Hesperian started that ages ago - I think mainly as the taxoboxes were so long that it made sense to break up the column. I've generally just followed on but been in two minds about it. There are a bunch of older articles that should be tweaked if we feel this one should be I think....Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would maintenance a lot easier, if you either placed all references in reflist=, tided and alphabetised, or use {{sfn}} and an ordered bibliography. Not a dealbreaker though.
"They are dull green, sometimes with a reddish tinge" What are? The cotyledons or the seedlings?
cotyledons. I changed "they" to "these" to try and clarify without being too repetitious. If you feel this is still ambiguous we can go with, "The cotyledons are..."Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Prodromus systematis naturalis regni vegetabilis" The article on the work capitalises this differently; perhaps one should be corrected? (See also footnote)
"It has sometimes been misspelt "lehmanniana"" Should this be included as a synonym?
it's not listed as an orthographic variant - possibly because it's never appeared misspelt in a peer-reviewed paper but only in some tertiary sources or catalogue somewhere.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 01:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You link some journal titles, but not others, in the footnotes. Also, perhaps change article titles to sentence case (there are a couple of small changes to be made, I think) and book titles to title case (EG, "Australian seeds: a guide to their collection, identification and biology")?
Support. I could probably quibble some more with source formatting, but that's pretty tedious, and I think we could have legitimate disagreements anyway. If you're happy, I am too. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant clause of MOS:UNIT is "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit ... is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use". - Evad37[talk]03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The external link boxes leave a lot of whitespace to left of them. I would suggest using the inline versions of the commons and wikisource templates, with an == External links == heading.
Hmm... I think it's coming up for me because I added some custom CSS or JS to show all the CS1 error messages, so I could more easily clear the CS1 error/maintenance categories from articles I work on. The error message links to Help:CS1_errors#displayeditors. It might still be worthwhile resolving this in case in the future template/module changes result in a displayed message, or change the way citation is rendered. - Evad37[talk]03:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Fuji-class battleships were the first ships of the type in the Imperial Japanese Navy. As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to built their own ships of such size and sophistication they were ordered from the UK shortly after the beginning of the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894. Completed several years afterward they participated in the Russo-Japanese War where one ship was sunk by mines a few months after the start of the war and the other participated in all of the major naval actions of the war. The surviving ship, Fuji, was reclassified as a coast defense ship four years later. Thoroughly obsolete by that time, she spent World War I as a training ship and was stripped of her armor and guns in 1922 for service as a school hulk. As always I'm looking for infelicitous prose, unexplained jargon and any surviving bits of AmEnglish.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The license for published abroad prior to 1923 has been deprecated and is supposed to be replaced by the standard PD-old and PD-1923 license in combination. Not sure why PD-old license says that the author died 70 years ago, but it's irrelevant because both drawings were published before 1923.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support my usual few quibbles:
Background
I think the first sentence tries to do too much, and should be split.
"the delivery of the three lightly armoured Matsushima-class cruisers" The word "the" before delivery implies to my ears that this is something you've mentioned before, which you haven't. Suggest "the three lightly armoured Matsushima-class cruisers ordered from France would ..."
Armament
"stowed in the turret were 18 shells that allowed a limited amount of firing at any angle before the turret had to be traversed back to its loading position." Usually I, as a lay person, can follow along fine with what you are describing, but this threw me. These are shells, what, that are fired? And why only a limited amount of firing at any angle?
I'm also inexperienced re ships, though I have been round the Belfast. My assumption was that early turrets could only be reloaded when faced in a particular direction, this limitation was resolved in later ship designs where turrets could be reloaded from magazines whichever way they faced, saving a lot of space in the turret. If that's right it could do with a sentence of explanation, if wrong then both Wehwalt and I are flummoxed by that bit and it would be safe to assume that some of the readers would be as well. ϢereSpielChequers22:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Armour
"used superior Harvey armour of the same thickness" instead of ...
Ships
"The following year, during the Battle of Tsushima in May 1905" There's some redundancy here regarding years.
"the most senior officers" I'm not sure the "most" really conveys anything additional to the reader.
"their circumnavigation of the world" Unless the Ambassador went with the fleet around the world, advise changing "their" to "its". And I'd either pipe to our article on the US ambassador to Japan or to the person who held the post. Was he an ambassador or a minister in 1908, btw?
Support have made some tweaks, hope you like them. Some minor quibbles:
"This raised the number of crewmen to 652 and later to 741" from about 650 officers and men? Or is crewmen a term that doesn't include officers? Not sure what the and later relates to, it isn't obvious from that section, could it be the conversion to Japanese guns or did she get antiaircraft guns added after WW1?
Thanks for looking this over. Usually, but not always, crewmen just refers to enlisted men, but my sources don't actually specify that and also don't say why the complement increased, although I'd suspect that the switch to heavier guns meant that they needed more men for the loading crews. The masts are typical of the period as they needed to support searchlight platforms, lookouts and signal halliards through the pitching and rolling motions of the ship in all weathers. I don't know how I missed that photo! I'm glad that you checked to see what else was available. I've moved the postcard down to the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I reviewed the article at the ACR, and my concerns were all addressed there. I do have a few questions though:
"Emperor Meiji" - I've usually seen it in reverse order, as "the Meiji Emperor" (but then I'm no expert)
Me too, although I just went with the article's name.
Following on from WSC's question about the crew - the change from the 47mm guns to the 12-pounders was the sole cause of the growth in the size of the crew? That seems unlikely - the 12-pounders did use separate instead of fixed ammunition, but it still seems excessive to add around 6 men per gun/magazine, on top of the crew that was already there.
I honestly have no idea why the complement increased, although I agree with you that the change in the tertiary armament shouldn't have required so many extra men.
"At the start of the Russo-Japanese War," - I'd suggest adding "in early 1904" or something.
I might shift the photo of the Fuji model up a paragraph, as it's causing some sandwiching on my monitor (at work - shh!), and I assume it would be worse on wider screens. Parsecboy (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I used the full 24" width of my monitor to check how it looked and didn't get any sandwiching, so it might only be a problem on a larger screen. Thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same with my 15" screen, but possibly it's better than having the top of the image jammed up against the preceding table. I did manage to trim the caption to three lines on my screen if that helps any. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out the service's air combat commitment to the Korean War. Its role there could easily fill an article of its own, having inspired three full-length books—the latest of which I've used as a source here as it draws heavily on the earlier works, as well as having the benefit of recent research. It's sobering to realise that in three years of combat in Korea, No. 77 Squadron lost 41 pilots killed, more than twice the number it lost in three years of combat during World War II. The Korean legacy should not, however, obscure the squadron's part in the Pacific War, for which it earned a string of battle honours, nor its contribution to the security of South East Asia in the 1960s, nor its continuing role as one of Australia's frontline fighter units. Thanks to everyone who supported at the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sorry, Nikki, I thought you meant that particular image of the crest. Can't say for sure -- oddly enough, none of the secondary sources I have spell it out. Since the design commemorates the squadron's Korean involvement I assume it was designed after July 1953 but even after scouring the operational record books from then until 1959 all I could find was a reference to it being displayed in July 1955, nothing about exactly when it came about -- so I think the best we can say is "c. 1955"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine for fair-use. It would be nice to have a bit more information, particularly to be able to discern when it might enter the public domain, but if those details are unavailable then we can work with what we have. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
Tks for copyedit, Dan. The only thing I preferred the old way was "first jet combat claim", as "first claimed hit on a jet in combat" seems a bit of a mouthful...
"Several Australian families were still living at Iwakuni pending their repatriation from what had become an operational theatre, and could watch the Mustangs depart for missions over Korea.": This feels out of place somehow; maybe it just needs more, or less, or maybe I'm not following.
If you think it affects the flow there, what if came after the first operation, i.e. after "The squadron flew its initial escort and patrol sorties from Iwakuni on 2 July 1950, becoming the first non-American UN unit to commence operations"?
"two pilots died as a result of a fire in their quarters": Did they die in the fire, or from injuries sustained in the fire, or because of the fire? (in the last case: how did they die, then?)
Tweaked.
"Mk.8": clear enough, but is "Mk. 8" wrong?
Well the RAAF generally uses it without a space I think.
Terrific article. It's got the passive voice issue, but I fixed some of the worst of it--feel free to revert if I've overfixed, or changed the meaning.
Sources are all reputable, although I don't own them, don't have access to them any more so I cannot spot check pages etc.
Thanks for copyedit and support, Ruth. Some of the passive voice might originate from a desire to avoid close paraphrasing of sources, and some to mix up the expression, but basically happy with your changes. The only one I might change back if you don't mind is "the Meteors found a suitable offensive role" as machines "finding a role" sounds a little odd to me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:04, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The caption of Cresswell briefing pilots in Korea stated that he was now a squadron leader, is that correct? I expect that he'd been reduced in rank with the post-war downsizing, but they sent him to Korea without a promotion back to wing commander? None of this is really relevant to this article, but it did make me curious as to who he'd pissed off among the RAAF brass hats.
Well he was court-martialled during WWII for using his revolver to put a bullet next to the foot of a fellow officer who'd apparently been annoying him but apart from that... ;-)
I know he's linked in the infobox, but Cresswell and the other commanders should probably be linked on first mention in the main body as well.
Heh, was hedging my bets there but I guess I'll be creating the Cresswell article soon enough while all this is fresh in my mind... I think he's the only CO without a WP article who clearly meets notability criteria.
it was speculated at the time, and subsequently ascertained I think that "confirmed" works better than "ascertained".
Fair enough.
Why is Heineman the only publisher that's linked? Please be consistent.
I tend to link all publishers that have WP articles but some editors don't seem to like that and remove them, which doesn't fuss me overly but obviously they miss some occasionally -- will tidy up.
Comments It's good to see this fine article at FAC. I have the following comments:
The first para of the World War II section could more clearly explain the situation at Darwin when No. 77 Squadron arrived; the fact that the town and its surrounds was being regularly raided isn't clear at present (though it is implied), and you could note that it replaced a USAAF fighter group
Gillison, Johnston and the RAAF Historical section don't appear to state explicitly that 77 Sqn replaced a USAAF fighter group (the 49th I believe), although browsing Darwin Spitfires I notice that Cooper effectively says that 77 and 76 Sqns (which arrived in Darwin from Milne a month after 77) replaced the 49th, but I wonder if that will be a bit complicated so early in the history... Also I get the impression from most of the sources that Japanese raids had lessened by the time 77 Sqn arrived in the north (Cooper says "night raids only"). WDYT?
Okay, I think I found a way of mentioning the 49th without the added complication of bringing in 76 Sqn or the additional ref... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In February 1943 the squadron was deployed to Milne Bay in New Guinea" - you could note that it was relieved at Darwin by No. 1 Wing RAAF (see that article for refs for this and the above)
Again I don't think Gillison states explicitly that 77 Sqn was relieved by 1 Wg, but I've mentioned that their respective departure and arrival coincided.
The coverage of the squadron's operations in 1943 and 1944 would benefit from some brief material explaining the strategic context (eg, supporting the various offensives which led to the 'reduction of Rabaul' in 1943 and early 1944, and the drive towards the Philippines for the remainder of 1944) - if it helps, there's stuff (or at least references!) in the No. 75 Squadron RAAF which should give you a feel for what I'm suggesting here
Okay, will look into it.
Hi Nick, added a sentence on the grand plan of early 1943 that hopefully puts most of what follows in context -- think I've responded to everything now one way or 'tother. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a little bit on late 1944 as well (though 77 Squadron seems to have relocated less frequently than other RAAF fighter squadrons) Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"On 21 March, it joined Nos. 3 and 75 Squadrons as part of No. 78 Wing" - this wording is a bit unclear: is this the date 78 Wing was established, or the date 77 Squadron was transferred into it?
Clarified.
Do any of your sources note 77 Squadron pilots and aircraft being rotated through 79 Squadron during its period in Thailand? (as likely happened)
This article is about... one of the more obscure U.S. Mint issues. I like that the promoters of the new coins stuck to their guns when told by experts to get a new design, and we have a beautiful coin as a result.Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading, I'd suggest that the first two paras of the inception section be trimmed and then combined. We've got more information on the Vermont commemorative coins than we honestly need and I'd suggest trimming the bit about the unsuccessful gold dollar proposal. All we really care about is that the California commemorative was added to the existing Vermont commemorative coin bill.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle the area." – The sentence suggests that the area was unsettled; ie, busy, manic, etc... Should this be settle as in "lived" or "moved in to"? If so, should it not read thus: "His report to the Spanish crown garnered little interest, and it was not until the English seaman Sir Francis Drake touched there in 1579 that the Spanish were moved to settle into the area." Or similar?
Changed to "colonize", which I think takes care of your other concerns.
"This was the first time commemorative coin legislation covered more than one issue. An issue of 300,000..." – "issue" and "issue" repetition.
"Numismatic historian Don Taxay averred that this was not done due to the lack of an alternative position to place the motto in." – "not done" sounds wrong to me. I think "omitted" would sound better.
Would the link to "polar bear" fall within WP:OVERLINK?
Under 'Inception,' this sounds a bit strange: "...and the American Revolutionary War independence of Vermont." It seems like "American Revolutionary War" is being used here as an adjective, but it sounds almost like two separate items. Maybe something like 'during' or 'after' could be added there.
Under 'Distribution and collection,' the first part of this sentence should probably be reworded: "At least some half dollars must have left the San Francisco Mint by August 26, 1925..." "At least some" doesn't really make sense. Maybe "at least one" or "one or more" would be more appropriate.
Other than that, everything looks good to me. Once again, your efforts at improving the numismatic coverage here have resulted in the Wikipedia article being probably the best available online source for information about a coin.-RHM22 (talk) 20:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I originally wrote this article 5 years ago, or so, and at the time wrote it off as a perennial GA. Since then, I've gotten access to new sources and was able to significantly overhaul the article. It passed a MILHIST A-class review back in April, and I think it's ready for FAC. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Mackensen_class_battlecruisers_scetch.svg: since the sources given are copyrighted, I would be concerned about this being a derivative work
Thanks for checking these. For the first one, I don't know exactly where the line between derivative works and new works lies, but I can tell you that it's at least not a direct copy of the sketch in Gröner's book so I'd guess there might be a claim for the artist's own work (I don't have access to the other two). Of course I'd hate to lose such a nice sketch. I fixed the second image. Parsecboy (talk) 16:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one could also make the argument that the drawings in the books are derivatives of the actual blueprints, which are of course long-since PD. Which is to say that if the drawings in the books constitute enough of an artistic expression to pass the threshold of originality, then surely this drawing passes the same bar. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
The second paragraph of the design section is kinda awkward. I'd suggest rewriting it with the limitations imposed by Tirpitz and the dock/lock sizes up front and the solution ending the para.
I'm a little confused by this - Tirpitz imposing the limitations was the solution. But see the change I made.
And the last para of that section has a similar issue. I'd suggest that it begin with the protective advantages of the oil/coal storage and say that the designers saw no point in changing that or somesuch.
See if what I added gives it a bit more context.
German-language sources should state as much in the bibliography.
Added
Suggest expanding state and national abbreviations for those readers who would be unfamiliar with them.
I guess this was done before I started purging the abbreviations altogether. All are removed now.
As usual a high-quality article with no major issues, which I will gladly support. However, there are some minor glitches I found.
Infobox
Blohm + Voss used the & until the 1960s
Had it right in the text, and not in the infobox...
There were 7 units planned originally, three of which became known as the Ersatz Yorck-class
Fixed now
Displacement: what does "standard" mean prior to 1922?
Draft was 9.3m rather than 8.4m
Again, right in the text and wrong in the box - guess I should have gone over it again. Thanks for catching this.
Lede
Prinz Eitel Friedrich and Fürst Bismarck were never launched, neither Gardiner nor Gröner list Fürst Bismarck and only Gröner lists Prinz Eitel Friedrich. The article states later on that the unit that was supposed to be called 'Prinz Eitel Friedrich was launched as Noske, mocking the Reichswehr minister (Gröner). Gröner is the only one to speculate about Fürst Bismarck being the name intended for Ersatz A.
There is some confusion in the articles on Admiralty-class and Ersatz Yorck-class with regard to the chronology of events, all of which seem to have taken place well before Jutland.
The Ersatz Yorck page probably needs to be thoroughly overhauled
The second paragraph uses three different ways to convert 'cm' to 'inch'.
Fixed now
Design
The 'General Navy Department' had a German name, I guess.
I'll have to pull it from HRS - don't have it on hand at the moment.
General characteristics
'longitudinal framing' has an article worth linking.
Well how about that - I didn't even know the article had been created - I guess you learn something every day!
Machinery
The name is Föttinger, not Föltinger (that's a misprint in HRS)
Good catch
The second paragraph refers to Föttinger gears used in all ships. According to Gröner and HRS they were only used in Ersatz A. HRS mentions geared transmissions which sounds more mechanical as Föttinger's design, which involved hydraulics.
Armaments
'Drh L C/12' - might be worth decrypting
A good point - I'll have to check Friedman or perhaps Griessmer (who I think has a glossary of terms and abbreviations)
according to Gröner depression was -8° and elevation 16° max.
RPC/12?
no depression/elevation provided for 15cm guns
'MPL C/13' and 'single pivotal pedestal mounts' are describing the same thing.
I don't see this in the article
It's the third paragraph. "MPL" stands for "Mittelpivotlafette" i.e. single pedestal mount, if I'm not mistaken.
Construction and cancellation
'on the 30 January 1915' conflicts with the dmy dates used
Fixed.
There is a bit of a let down at the end of the section, which discusses the British reactions rather than the fate of the class.
How does kicking the short para on why the ships weren't finished to the end work?
Whoops, I lost track of this in during the holidays - I should be able to get to these issues over the next couple of days (Wednesday by the latest, as I'll have some time in the evening to consult the sources as necessary). Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Leaning to support; just a few questions.
"The Imperial dry docks were only deep enough for ships with a draft of 9 m (30 ft). This meant that an increase in displacement would necessitate a longer and wider hull to avoid a reduction in speed." I don't follow the inference here. If the expected design was close to this draft already, then an increase in displacement would necessitate a longer and wider hull to avoid going over the draft limit, not for any other reason, surely?
"The initial design was approved on 30 September 1912, though [...] had to submit any revisions": what does "had to submit" mean? That they knew revisions would be necessary, and those were the people who would have to authorize them?
See if what I added makes it a bit more clearer
That works.
The forward draft of 9.3 m (given in the "General characteristics" section) exceeds the dry dock limit mentioned earlier -- was this not a problem?
I don't know exactly, but I'd assume this was the planned loaded displacement, and the ships would probably have been emptied of coal and shells to lighten them sufficiently for dry-docking. Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Construction was halted about 15 months before she would have been completed": can you give the date on which construction on Mackensen halted? Same for the other three ships, if you have it.
I'll have to check Groener and or HRS, but I don't think they gave the specific dates.
"4.4 million Marks": suggest linking "Mark" and possibly giving a current (inflated) equivalent in euros, though if 1921 is already into the Weimar hyper-inflation period I wouldn't think it can be done easily.
I've experimented with this years ago in earlier FAs, and the general consensus from those who know far more about economics than I do is that this would be exceedingly difficult to do, and the {{inflation}} template we have measures value differently than one would measure large items like this (I'm already exceeding my knowledge here, as I don't understand the distinction ;) ). Parsecboy (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think note c would be better in the main text; I read the armor section not realizing that it described the Derfflinger-class ships, and that there might have been some differences between their armor and the armor on the Mackensen-class ships.
I shortened this; I don't think you need to repeat what Gröner says outside the quotes. Please tweak further if you don't think the shortening is appropriate.
I am nominating this for featured article because I've put in some considerable labor into the article to bring it from what it was ([13]). I've nominated it before [Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1987 Giro d'Italia/archive1 here]. The nomination stalled due to no reviews, but many expressed that I re-nominate when I have the time, and now I do. I'll get to any comments quickly, so be prepared for prompt responses. Thanks in advance!
Also, I have perused the internet databases in search of information on doping controls and cases at the 1987 giro and have not found anything; so that is why there is nothing about doping in the article. I haven't found a source that claims there weren't doping cases either. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 20:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked at just the lead section and did some copyediting; feel free to revert, as always. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. I had some trouble figuring out where you need hyphens vs. dashes because I don't know what some of the team names mean, but someone will probably figure it out and fix it. - Dank (push to talk) 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those should be dashes, fixed those. And I'm fine with the changes you've made with the lead. And in cycling, the team names are generally sponsors, so that's why there are so many hyphens in the names. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be looking over this anew today. Hopefully I'll get all my comments together in time to post them for today, but I should be finished by tomorrow at the latest. ceranthor15:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
Defending champion Roberto Visentini took the first race leader's maglia rosa (English: pink jersey) after winning the opening prologue, before losing the lead to Breukink the following stage. - "After + gerund" followed by "before + gerund" doesn't work well. I'd suggest changing up the sentence after "prologue". ceranthor20:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fifteenth stage of the 1987 Giro has been recognized as an iconic event in the history of the Giro - Double usage of Giro is redundant. Maybe in the history of the race?
Hard to find much to tweak here, but a few quibbles.
The presentation of the teams – where each team's roster and manager are introduced in front the media and local dignitaries – took place on 20 May, at the Casino of San Remo.[1][2] - In front the media?
From the riders that began this edition, 133 made it to the finish - I don't like "made it to the finish". What about completed the race, or finished the Giro?
It was widely believed that Roche came into the race in great shape after winning the Tour de Romandie and finishing high in a few single day races.[6][7][9] - Finishing high? That doesn't sound right grammatically.
The organizers chose to include one rest day.[7] When compared to the previous year's race, the race was 56.4 km (35 mi) longer, contained one more rest day and individual time trial.[17] - Does that mean that the previous year, there was no rest day? In that case, I don't think mentioning that the race "contained one more rest day" is particularly relevant.
His performance in stage 1a was enough to earn him the coveted race leader's maglia rosa (English: pink jersey),[20] - Doesn't sound like the writing of an encyclopedia to me. I'd like plain "earned him" rather than "was enough to"; either way, this way it's more concise and clean.
The day of racing ended finished with a field sprint that Paolo Cimini barely won after overtaking Rosola in the final meters.[28][29] - The placement of barely seems a bit odd to me. Did he win because he barely overtook Rosola, or do you mean to say that he just barely won? I think this sentence is a little unclear.
You also have the following sentence in "Race overview": Carrera Jeans-Vagabond beat out the Del Tongo squad by fifty-four seconds to win the leg. Pick one style and stick to it throughout the article!
A La Repubblica writer believed it to be the second worst performance by Italian riders after 1972, since no Italian riders finished inside the top four and many famous Italian cyclists did not complete the event.[68] - I'm not sure "believed" is the best verb choice here.
Since it's an opinion, I like opined (that), suggested (that it was)... generally any synonym that expresses an opinion should work fine. ceranthor21:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Fossati, of La Repubblica, considered that stage winners Johan van der Velde and Jean-François Bernard performed very strongly, - Considered is definitely not the best word choice here. It's very clunky and I've never heard it used with that.
Many writers point to the fifteenth stage as the defining moment of the race;[7][30][32][65][61][67][70] some have even said that it is one of the most famous in the Giro d'Italia and cycling history.[7][70] - Who is "some"?
Support - I think this is ready. It seems like the sources check out, but the Italian makes it difficult to make sure they're totally okay. Disc Wheel, do you know of any Italian-speaking editors who can testify to the veracity of the Italian language sources (excluding the clearly reliable ones, like BBC and major news sources)? ceranthor05:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Disc Wheel. Going for a second featured Giro, hey? I've been already copyediting the lead and the team sections, but in the meantime here's some comments/questions:
In the team list, could you specificy the country of origin of each team? We know that nine are foreign, but not which ones. Maybe adding the country between parentheses?
Let me check the Italian sources and get back to you, thats where I remember getting that fact from. If it doesn't say in there, then I likely won't be able to add the countries. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 21:34, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well I found the reference and it just says "eleven Italian (against nine foreign)" so I don't really have much to go on for what teams came from where (I moved the reference up to the line). Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 22:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My only issue with adding the nationalities is that WikiProject Cycling reached a decision that flags should not be tied to the trade teams, but only to the national teams link to discussion. I know they talk of flags there, but I feel like adding the nationality would be the same as adding the flag. What do you think? Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is not essential. But then you do refer to nine teams not being based in Italy, and this can raise the question/curiosity about which of them are not from Italy. Anyway, if you ended up adding the "country of origin", I ask it to be just the name, no flags. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks great, your edits and the map, I attempted to make a map for the 1988 one before you made one for that article and I could not get anything good! I also removed the foreign team bit, just to go by what was agreed upon by the WP:CYC people. Disc Wheel (Talk + Tontributions) 23:06, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComments. I've copyedited slightly; please revert anything I messed up.
"800 m (2,624.7 ft)": I think you can specify the precision of {{convert}}; I'd suggest making this stop at feet, and not go down to tenths. Conversions should be at about the same level of precision on both sides.
"the hatred of the tifosi, the Italian sports fans": I don't know how the source has it, but if tifosi means sports fans in general, shouldn't this just be "the hatred of Italian cycling fans"? Or can one say something like "the hatred of the cycling tifosi (Italian sports fans)"?
I quickly went through the Interactions subsection to give you some new comments to work with, but I need a few days to reread the first half of the article, both to refamiliarize myself with the material and tweak the prose further if need be. I also need to look at the "Overdose" section again and take a look at the changes you've made in response to my comments. Reviewing this is priority number one for my Christmas break, so I should be able to finish it before classes start up again. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
American Lemming's comments from peer review/4th FAC
Lead
Just finished reading through this part. It looks well-written, well-organized, and well-sourced. The first paragraph is a bit on the long side, as is the lead as a whole, but I'm not really sure you can cut anything out without losing something important. My four comments/questions are as follows:
“At therapeutic doses, this causes emotional and cognitive effects such as euphoria, change in libido, increased arousal, and improved cognitive control. It induces physical effects such as decreased reaction time, fatigue resistance, and increased muscle strength.” This wording implies to me that there aren’t any side effects at therapeutic doses, which probably isn’t the case.
After rereading it, I think I agree about the sentence on physical effects. The statement on psychological effects seems more or less neutral, since increased arousal can lead to insomnia or increased wakefulness. Similarly, changes in libido can be desirable or undesirable depending on the individual. I'll tweak the the physical effects clause over the next day or so to address this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Now that I look at it again, just leave the sentence alone. Sometimes less is more, and I think making it any wordier would decrease the intelligibility to the general reader. Besides, it is correct as it stands.
“Very high doses can result in a psychosis (e.g., delusions and paranoia) which rarely occurs at therapeutic doses even during long-term use.” First, “a psychosis” sounds awkward to me. If it’s consistent with medical terminology, then by all means keep it, but otherwise I would drop the “a”. Second, so it’s pretty difficult to die of an overdose of amphetamine? That’s the impression I’m getting here.
There's different types of psychoses, though I agree it sounds weird so I'd be ok with removing it. As for overdoses, it's pretty rare to die from an overdose when medical treatment is sought. The doses that recreational users take are roughly 10-100 times higher than the maximum dose when its used medically. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I've gone and removed the "a".
“Unlike methamphetamine, amphetamine's salts lack sufficient volatility to be smoked.” So if you can inhale amphetamine (see infobox), why can’t you smoke it? Or am I confusing smoking cigarettes and smoking other drugs?
The salts can't be smoked, but they can be snorted (insufflated) as a powder. That's really only a recreational route though. The medical route involves inhaling small amounts of the freebase via an inhaler (e.g., File:Benzedrine_inhaler_for_wiki_article.jpg). Unlike the salts, the freebase is a liquid at room temperature and CAN be smoked. Illicit amphetamine is almost never trafficked/sold as the freebase, which I'm assuming is due to its volatility. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“Amphetamine is also chemically related to the naturally occurring trace amine neurotransmitters, specifically phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine” Two questions here: 1. Does phenethylamine = trace amine neurotransmitters? 2. Is it that amphetamine is chemically related to trace amine neurotransmitters but is most closely related to phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine? That’s what it sounds like to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both phenethylamine and N-methylphenethylamine are trace amines; N-methylphenethylamine is the most closely chemically-related trace amine to amphetamine since it's an amphetamine isomer. If you can think of a better way to word it, feel free to change it! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 19:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a shot at that; please do double-check to make sure it's accurate.
I've made two edits to the lead, and I think that will do. The lead is meant to be the most accessible part of the article, and it really isn't the place to be explaining nuances and technicalities.
Medical
Question about this section in general: when we’re talking about medical uses of amphetamine, we’re almost always talking about Adderall, right?
Adderall (no generic name - i.e., a USAN/INN - even though it's almost always sold as a generic), dextroamphetamine (tons of brand names/generic forms), and lisdexamfetamine (brand:Vyvanse, still patented) are the currently available amphetamine-based pharmaceuticals; it covers this group of drugs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“Magnetic resonance imaging studies suggest that long-term treatment with amphetamine decreases abnormalities in brain structure and function found in subjects with ADHD, and improves function of the right caudate nucleus.” So it decreases abnormalities in brain structure and function in general and improves function of the right caudate nucleus in particular? If that’s so, I would suggest changing the second half to “ADHD; in particular, it improves the function of the right caudate nucleus.”
The caudate nucleus was one example that was highlighted in one of the reviews; there's improvement in function in more than one brain structure along the dopamine pathways that it acts upon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“but high doses of dextroamphetamine in such people should be avoided.” Because of the side effects? Long-term damage to some part of the body?
It exacerbates motor tics in people with Tourette's, which is a harmless but undesirable/annoying side-effect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“task saliency” this may warrant a quick note to define saliency; the Wikipedia article on the subject isn’t terribly helpful.
Good point; I'll go through later today and add this based upon the definition used in the textbook that cited that passage. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“but this is prohibited at events regulated by the World Anti-Doping Agency.” From what I can gather, the World Anti-Doping Agency regulates just about every international and professional sporting event. I think this warrants another note/quick explanation in text, perhaps.
Better and worse. On one hand, I think adding the "regulated by collegiate, national, and international anti-doping agencies" does a much better job of explaining that amphetamine is widely prohibited in sporting events; on the other hand, expanding the tidbit about the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) turned the sentence into a run-on. I've trimmed the part on WADA to fix the sentence, and I think you could cut it out entirely if you wanted to. Your fix (adding "regulated by collegiate, national, and international anti-doping agencies") was a lot better than the one I suggested, and we don't need both. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:30, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“In healthy people at oral therapeutic doses, amphetamine has been shown to increase physical strength, etc.” It may be worthwhile mentioning that there are some minor side-effects, even in healthy people at oral therapeutic doses. Otherwise, why aren’t we all on amphetamine? :)
There's actually a lot of discussion among the academic community about the use of performance enhancing agents in the general population (e.g., this paper elicited quite a lot of responses). It was only recently determined that low doses of ADHD psychostimulants improve cognitive control in everyone via their effect on dopamine D1 receptors in the prefrontal cortex.
Back to the issue: I tried to keep this section disjoint from the side effects section to avoid redundancy and maintain neutrality when covering it. I think it'd be alright to mention that there are additional physical side effects in that paragraph; however, I'm not sure it's a good idea to re-list the physical side effects alongside these, since it's both redundant with the side effects section and isn't relevant to the performance enhancing effect. This list of physical enhancement effects isn't included in the side effects section for the same reason. That said, I'll go ahead and add a clause mentioning the presence of additional side effects if that's what you had in mind. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I would suggest adding something along the lines of "At these doses, the side effects are minimal." That's enough to help the reader keep the existence of side effects in mind without the unnecessary repetition of listing them all in two places. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with that same sentence, it does seem that this is one place where WP:OVERKILL might apply. I understand that the article’s on a fairly technical subject, but do you really need four inline citations of the exact same two sources for four words in a row? I suggest you put all three sources at the end of the sentence, like you do elsewhere. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with grouping them at the end of the sentence, though the main reason I did this is because the performance enhancing use of these drugs has generated much controversy, and until recently there hasn't been much high quality research/review supporting these effects in humans. I imagine that some people reading this article might come into it with a bias, which is why I cited them by effect. I'll go ahead and group the citations if you think it improves readability - let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I recommend doing that. Besides, you quote directly from the source in the inline citation, so if someone doubts whether the sentence is true they can just mouse over the citation and read it for themselves. And as it currently stands it's just hard to read. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there’s anything in the manual of style against a one-paragraph section, but it does look somewhat odd. What do you think about combining the “Contraindications” section with the “Interactions” section? The “Interactions” section does a nice job of explaining why people with certain conditions or on certain drugs (MAOIs, for instance) shouldn’t take amphetamine.
I actually agree that it would make sense to combine these, since serious drug interactions give rise to contraindications; however, the current layout of level-2 headers is indicated in MOS:MED, so I can't really deviate from the present state. Barring unusual or unique circumstances, there isn't much wiggle room in the section ordering. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After further thought, I think it may be better to keep these sections separate; most of the drug databases we link to in the drugbox don't provide this information together. The FDA uses distinct sections for the information as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; you really can't go against the MOS, especially when you want to get the article to FA status. As the next best alternative, I've added explanatory hatnotes to each section that tell the reader what the section is about and that direct them to the other section if that's not what they were looking for. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be best to use {{see also}} templates here, since some of the contraindications aren't substance-related. It seemed a bit difficult for me to summarize the relationship in a hatnote without it being really long. The first sentence of each section (I think) more or less implies how they're related though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 09:31, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Due to the potential for stunted growth, the USFDA advises monitoring the height and weight of children and adolescents prescribed amphetamines.” This contradicts the statement in the first paragraph of the “Medical uses” section that “humans experience normal development and nerve growth”. Do humans experience normal development when using amphetamine or not? AmericanLemming (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: After rereading the sentence I wrote in medical uses, I noticed there isn't actually a contradiction here. The full statement in medical uses is:
Long-term amphetamine exposure in some species is known to produce abnormal dopamine system development or nerve damage,[35][36] but humans experience normal development and nerve growth.
The "normal development" is in reference to the development of neural systems (not just dopaminergic systems) and the brain, as opposed to the body and physical development. All the citations included in that sentence are confined to this context as well. I've clarified the point in the contraindications section. diff These are the references cited: see P125-127, see page 2-4, see P546. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
“Amphetamine may reduce gastrointestinal motility (i.e., intestinal peristalsis) if intestinal activity is high, or increase motility if the smooth muscle of the tract is relaxed.” I have no idea what this sentence means. You do a really nice job explaining what “contraction of the urinary bladder sphincter” means in plain English earlier in this paragraph; I would use that as a model here. AmericanLemming (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Added clarification earlier - I forgot to reply here after I did this. Please let me know if the current section is understandable! The current version:
If intestinal activity is high, amphetamine may reduce gastrointestinal motility, i.e., the rate at which content moves through the digestive system; however, amphetamine may increase motility when the smooth muscle of the tract is relaxed.
Much better. I've put the definition in parentheses. Personally, I'm curious to know what causes the smooth muscle of the gastrointestinal tract to relax, but I'm not sure if the average reader shares my interest. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OverdoseUpdate: I've finished going through the prose of the Overdose section, though I do plan to go through it again, as it's hard to catch everything the first time around. One general note: I have some issues with the organization of the section, particularly with the beginning and ending and with the subheadings. See the suggestions below. I would like to log in every day and keep an eye on developments here, but in reality we're probably looking at middle to end of next week or possible next weekend; I'm kind of busy through Wednesday. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. This section is technical enough that I think a introduction paragraph is warranted. Give the general reader the bottom line about the most effective treatments, give a simplified description of the bimolecular mechanism of addiction, ditto with psychosis, toxicity, and withdrawal. Don't make them go digging for what they're looking for, especially when some of the content is highly technical.
2. Also, I don't think the "Psychosis" and "Toxicity" sections are long enough to warrant their own level 3 headings when "Dependence and addiction" is a level 3 heading with five paragraphs and those two are half-paragraphs. I suggest either significant expansion, consolidation of the two into one level 3 heading subsection, or addition to the top of the section with the rest of the overdose symptoms.
3. Put the Overdose symptoms into a chart as we talked about above and then move the giant annotated image further down so we're not sandwiching text between images.
4. I have some more ideas for rearranging and adding/moving subsection headers, but I'll wait on those until we've decided what to do with the above three proposals. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that section is arranged according to MOS:MED#Drugs, medications and devices and a current proposal on MOS:MED's talkpage. Addiction is in that section because the phenomenon only develops with chronic high-dose use; it literally requires a pathological overactivation of the mesolimbic DA pathway (either directly through DA receptors or indirectly through a possibly complex mechanism, e.g., alcohol). Toxicity is an indicated subsection of overdose, so it kind of needs to be there. I could merge toxicity and psychosis into one section if you'd prefer. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:37, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And now for the prose comments for the rest of the section:
“Cognitive behavioral therapy” Could we give a brief definition in-text?
“Cognitive behavioral therapy is currently the most effective clinical treatment for psychostimulant addiction” So even though it’s the most effective clinical treatment, isn’t that based on extremely limited evidence? Or does the Cochrane Collaboration review from the “Pharmacological treatments” subsection only refer to drugs?
The last sentence in the “Behavioral treatments” paragraph is pretty much unintelligible to the general reader. While I think the whole sentence is in need of some improvement, the very last part is the worst offender: I’ll start from the beginning of the sentence and take it by parts:
1. “aerobic exercise decreases psychostimulant self-administration” I added a definition of self-administration in the above paragraph, so this is good.
2. “attenuates sensitization to the rewarding effects of psychostimulants” So basically you don’t feel as good when you take the drug?
I'm just deleting that clause because its explanation is a lot longer than the clause itself. I'm not sure it affects reward perception necessarily; psychostimulant sensitization involves an increased of dopamine response in the nucleus accumbens from psychostimulant use, which increases the likelihood of developing an addiction.
3. “reduces the reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior” So you’re less likely to relapse?
4. induces opposite effects on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling to those induced by pathological stimulant use.” What are the “opposite effects” on striatal dopamine receptor D2 signaling caused be aerobic exercise, and what are the effects caused by pathological stimulant use?
“Current models of addiction from chronic drug use involve alterations in gene expression in certain parts of the brain.” Based on what I read later, I take it that “certain parts of the brain” really means the nucleus accumbens. How about “in certain parts of the brain, especially the nucleus accumbens”?
“The most important transcription factors” I would suggest adding a note explaining the role of transcription factors in gene expression.
In progress I need to find a MEDRS-quality source first, but I intend to do this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Done Added this as a note next to the first use of the "transcription factor" phrase. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“since its overexpression in the nucleus accumbens is necessary and sufficient for many of the neural adaptations seen in drug addiction” I assume you’re referencing necessary and sufficient cause here, but the fact that you neither mention the word “cause” nor link to Necessary and sufficient causes is cause for confusion. Also, why is ΔFosB considered a “necessary and sufficient cause” of these neural changes? And what are these neural adaptations, anyway? If the neural adaptations are talked about in the caption to the giant annotated image, you should add “(see caption below image to the right)” so people can read up on that if they want to.
I meant to link to necessary and sufficient; I did it in other articles, but oddly enough, I missed it here. Essentially it means that the plasticity of addiction and ΔFosB overexpression always occur together, never alone. It's necessary and sufficient because it's been observed to produce this plasticity with viral overexpression (using viral vector gene transfer) and their occurrence doesn't occur with a viral block of ΔFosB expression (i.e., viral overexpression of ΔJunD opposes ΔFosB and hence this plasticity with concurrent drug use). This is rather technical - the reference that quotes that sentence explains it more. As for the plasticity, some of it is indicated in the psychostimulant column of the table below, which I've transcluded to several articles from FOSB. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“and amphetamine-induced sex addictions.” Do these amphetamine-induced sex addictions occur frequently at therapeutic and/or recreational doses? How does amphetamine cause sex addictions? Does an amphetamine-induced sex addiction mean that you’re addicted to both amphetamine and sex? I’m not harping on this just because it mentions sex; I feel that the sentence as is introduces a condition/disease without really explaining it.
I clarified the text a little and added the appropriate quote to the reference ("In humans, the role of dopamine signaling in incentive-sensitization processes has recently been highlighted by the observation of a dopamine dysregulation syndrome in some patients taking dopaminergic drugs. This syndrome is characterized by a medication-induced increase in (or compulsive) engagement in non-drug rewards such as gambling, shopping, or sex"). It's simply compulsive sexual behavior as a result of amphetamine use. There is a notable interaction between reward perception with sexual behavior and amphetamine use, and an overactivation of DA networks involved in reward perception and reinforcement mediate that phenomenon. I actually rewrote sex addiction recently to try to explain that concept better (and because I got into an edit war with another editor...). Let me know if you think it needs more work in the article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“Psychosis” subsection: I feel that the current length of this section doesn’t do the topic justice. We don’t need four full paragraphs about it, but how about 8-10 sentences instead of the current four?
“Toxicity” subsection: Same concern as with the Psychosis subsection. Again, I’d feel much more comfortable with the article’s comprehensiveness with 8-10 sentences here instead of three.
There really isn't much to say about amphetamine toxicity in humans. Direct toxicity simply does not occur. I could probably write a whole paper on direct DA toxicity in rats, but including that in the article would be sort of POV because it's misleading. The mechanics of indirect toxicity are mediated entirely through oxidative events related to excessive dopamine release. I could probably add a sentence or two on its mechanics, but these are necessarily going to be fairly technical descriptions compared to the text currently in that section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as I come to think about it, how about we expand the above two subsections slightly, delete the subsection headings, and then move them to the topic of the section where the other overdose side-effects are found?
Due to the the MOS indications that I mentioned in a #previous bullet, and the points I raised in the above two bullets, it may be best to simply combine the two sections if you'd prefer to have fewer subsections under the Overdose heading. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“Manufacturer prescribing information does not indicate the presence” Which manufacturer? Or are we talking about US FDA prescribing regulations? I’m confused. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This actually refers to the prescribing information from all manufacturers of amphetamine pharmaceuticals. The prescribing information is under copyright, and they vary in format, but they're pretty much standardized in the information in they provide (I can link you to a few examples for amphetamine pharmaceuticals on pubchem if you'd like to see what I mean), even though it is copyrighted. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
@AmericanLemming: I've pasted this from the review so that I can address/reply the points by issue here. I've added the table for the symptoms - let me know what you think. There was a small addition of content in the behavioral treatments section since you last checked it as well. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead through Side effects
Reading through these first few sections again I made a few tweaks to the prose, but I have a lot fewer comments than I did the first time around. Rather than 30-40 I've only got five. AmericanLemming (talk) 03:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: “Amphetamine is also used as a performance and cognitive enhancer” So while using it as “a performance and cognitive enhancer” is almost always illegal, such use is not considered recreational?
Recreational use is really just using a drug for the pleasure it provides. Virtually all drugs that are used recreationally (except certain hallucinogens/deliriants) are rewarding and consequently produce some form of high or desirable feeling. That property unfortunately also makes them addictive drugs. As for performance and cognitive enhancing use, anyone who is prescribed amphetamine pharmaceuticals can technically "misuse" it for such a purpose by taking it when it's needed for such a purpose as opposed to taking it a fixed number of times every day around the same time. It's also possible to acquire a prescription for an amphetamine without actually having a relevant medical condition... I'm not sure how common this is, but healthy individuals (often students) can feign symptoms of ADHD to acquire a prescription for amphetamine or methylphenidate for use as a cognitive enhancer. This technically is legal in spite of being a nonmedical use for a highly controlled (US schedule 2) substance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
That is, are “illegal drug use” and “recreational drug use” usually but not always synonymous?
Lead: “which includes prominent substances such as bupropion, cathinone, MDMA (ecstasy), and methamphetamine.” Can all these compounds be synthesized from amphetamine and/or are they commonly synthesized from amphetamine? We might want to mention that.
They're not really synthesized, per se. They represent a compound which contains amphetamine in its skeletal structure (i.e., if you look at a structure diagram of one of these chemicals, the amphetamine skeletal structure is contained within it as a substructure. You can think of substituted amphetamines as any chemical that can be formed ("described" might be a better term) by adding chemical groups onto the amphetamine compound. I don't think it's even possible to synthesize methamphetamine from amphetamine - Boghog expanded the chemistry section since I'm really not chem-savvy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Lead: “Unlike methamphetamine, amphetamine's salts lack sufficient volatility to be smoked.” What exactly is the significance of this statement? That is, why is it in the lead? Does it make amphetamine less practical for recreational use than methamphetamine?
IIRC, smoking methamphetamine is the most common route of administration for taking methamphetamine recreationally. This basically says amphetamine salts can't be smoked, only the volatile liquid freebase can be (amphetamine is almost never stored as the freebase), making it much more difficult to smoke. If you think it's not worth including, we can delete it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I've removed it. The general reader isn't going to be able to make sense of it without context, and given space constraints in the lead, we don't have room for that context. It's also somewhat off-topic; the article's about amphetamine, not methamphetamine. AmericanLemming (talk) 09:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Medical: “Therapeutic doses of amphetamine improve cortical network efficiency,” as in the mesocorticolimbic pathway?
The ref indicates that it improves efficiency in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (which is part of that pathway) and the posterior parietal cortex (which isn't part of that pathway). These are included in the reference's quote parameter, so I imagine if someone is curious about which cortices become more efficient, they'd probably look there and see the quote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Contradictions: Um, aren’t hypertension and elevated blood pressure the same thing? I ask because the whole “These agencies also state that anyone with…elevated blood pressure, etc.,” makes it sound like there’s some difference between them.
Overdose
I just finished going through all of my old comments from this section and looking at your changes and responses. I'm now satisfied with the organization and comprehensiveness of the section, but the prose still needs some tweaking, some of which I can take care of and some of which I'll need to ask you about. I really like the table, by the way; it does a much better job of presenting the same information. Also, I think you should reread the section to make sure I haven't oversimplified anything in my relentless quest to make the article accessible to the general public. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:41, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not comfortable with the second paragraph. I think it does a pretty good job of summarizing the section, but I wrote almost all of it, so I’m not sure how accurate it is.
I tweaked it a tiny bit when I added some detail on how ΔFosB expression affects addictive behavior, but it looked fine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
I’ve reworded every sentence in this section (it feels like I have, anyway), and I’m worried that I’ve traded accuracy for readability in some places. You may want to read over the whole thing to make sure the facts are still straight.
I looked over the whole section. Most of the revisions were accurate; I added a little more detail in some cases. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“Increases in nucleus accumbens ΔJunD expression using viral vectors can reduce many of the neural and behavioral alterations seen in chronic drug abuse (i.e., the changes caused by ΔFosB); large enough increases may block these changes altogether.” So it sounds like we have/could have a drug that cures addiction, more or less. I suppose it’s still in animal trials/has extremely severe side effects?
Basically, yes. It's almost correct to say that ΔFosB overexpression alone causes addiction, though it's a little more technical because ΔFosB interacts with other proteins differently and different addictive drugs/behaviors have variable effects on those interacting proteins. It is crucial for an addiction though, so repressing ΔFosB in the nucleus accumbens will result in marked reductions in compulsive reward-seeking/addictive behavior. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
About these sex addictions again. So they only happen if you’re addicted to amphetamine? That is, these are highly unlikely at typical therapeutic doses?
It's more likely to occur than an amphetamine addiction if an individual engages in both frequent sexual activity and frequent amphetamine use. It's still uncommon though. That said, because the rewarding effects of sex and amphetamine cross-sensitize bidirectionally, it's technically possible to see a "sex-induced amphetamine addiction", though I haven't read about one in humans. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“chronic acquisition of these rewards can result in a similar pathological state of addiction.” Most people eat every day, but very few of them become addicted to food. By “chronic acquisition” do you mean excessive/abnormal/more than usual?
ΔFosB isn't normally produced upon acute (a single) exposure to an addictive stimulus; it requires repeated exposure at some minimum intensity (e.g., frequent drug use a above some threshold dose or the amount/frequency of food intake). The more excessive and more frequent the exposure to an addictive stimulus, the more likely it is that ΔFosB will begin to be expressed. This actually is the reason why it's not possible to become addicted to anything upon a single exposure to it, no matter how "intensely" (e.g., the severity of an overdose) it is experienced. Back to food though, only sweet and fatty foods are addictive, since these are perceived as being palatable/tasty (rewarding). You'd have to frequently consume a lot of these types of foods to start eating them compulsively; I can't imagine most people have that type of diet anyway. :P Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“increased activation of dopamine receptors and co-localized NMDA receptors” So these receptors are located in the same cells?
Diagram and caption: “trigger internal signaling events through a cAMP pathway and calcium-dependent pathway that ultimately result in increased CREB phosphorylation.” So I take it these are two different pathways?
It's basically referring to the signaling that starts at the dopamine receptors (the cAMP pathway) and the signaling that originates from the calcium channel/NMDA receptor (calcium-dependent pathway). These pathways intersect/merge once they reach/signal to CREB (as shown in the diagram). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Diagram and caption: “Phosphorylated CREB increases levels of ΔFosB, which in turn represses the c-fos gene with the help of corepressors.” What does repressing the c-fos gene do? I understand it’s implicated in many types of cancer and plays an important role in the cell, but what is its importance here?
Well... because c-fos is an immediate early gene, it does a lot of things. ΔFosB actually has other immediate targets (unlike c-fos, it increases the expression of some of them); I just didn't have a lot of drawing room to show more. The primary diagram I used as a reference simply stopped at that point anyway, so it's probably not losing anything significant by omitting all of them except c-fos. :P Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Psychosis and toxicity: “as a result of increased oxidative stress from reactive oxygen species and autoxidation of dopamine.” What exactly does this mean? Does amphetamine indirectly cause oxidative stress by increasing synaptic dopamine levels, which then increases the production of free oxygen radicals? AmericanLemming (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what it means. A direct toxicity would mean that amphetamine itself is toxic to neurons. This form of indirect toxicity means that the toxic compounds are the reactive oxygen species and autoxidized dopamine radicals. The main difference between a direct and an indirect toxicity is that an indirect toxicity has a threshold dose for when the compounds begins to produce toxicity. All substances, including salt and water, are indirect neurotoxins. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Interactions
“Inhibitors of the enzymes that metabolize amphetamine…will prolong its elimination half-life” What the clinical significance of having amphetamine in your system longer? Does that make it easier to overdose on it?
Eh... an increased elimination half-life doesn't do much more than extend the amount of time the drug is active (going about its business). It could contribute to an overdose if it is used frequently enough, though I've never read of an unintentional amphetamine overdose arising solely from half-life manipulations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
“increase plasma catecholamines” I know we’re mentioned it in the lead, but adding “(i.e. norepinephrine and dopamine)” after catecholamines may be helpful for the general reader. AmericanLemming (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators:
I support promotion of this article on the basis of its prose, comprehensiveness, and intelligibility to the non-expert (that is, people like me). I've only copy-edited the lead and the Uses, Contraindications, Side effects, Overdose, and Interactions sections, but considering I've spent 40-60 hours doing so, the prose in those sections is now flawless and highly intelligible to the general reader. I've spent a lot of time mulling over awkward wordings that aren't necessarily grammatically incorrect and that take a long time to come up with a better way to say them. I've also spent a lot of time familiarizing myself with rather technical medical/biochemical information in order to be able to say things in a clearer and more accessible manner.
At the end of the day, 40-60 hours is a long time to spend on someone else's article, and given that Seppi hasn't edited this page since 14 December and my first comment was on 15 December, he has yet to respond to a single comment I've made the past three weeks. I'm sure he has his reasons: work, school, family obligations, sickness/personal issues, or simply exasperation with the often frustrating process that is FAC. Anyway, I took a look at the peer review, GA review, and all five FA nominations and came to the conclusion that this article was fairly close to FA status by the end of the second FAC (and possibly earlier.) Essentially it failed because Shudde opposed promotion, and Shudde essentially opposed promotion on the basis of prose (and layout, but he was going against WP:MED guidelines on that).
I have significantly improved the prose in the sections the average person is going to read (the average Joe isn't going to care about amphetamine's pharmacology or chemistry). Those two sections are likely of interest only to those who already know a fair amount about medicine/chemistry, so improving the prose for the general reader isn't especially important. My remaining reservations (though "suggestions for further improvement not necessary for FA status" might be a better description) are as follows:
1. I would like to see Seppi take a look at the new comments I've made during the fifth and current FAC.
2. I would personally like to see the current pharmacodynamics subsection expanded and moved into its own article; I get the sense from reading it that the subject matter is complicated enough that its current treatment here doesn't do it it justice. Also, I believe that the equivalent section in the Adderall article is much more intelligible to the general reader (me) and thus should be transcluded here.
3. I would also like to go through the second half of the article with as much care and diligence as I did with the first half, but I'm not going to put any more work into the article until Seppi addresses the comments I've already made (see #1).
That being said, I'm not really sure that the prose in the second half is really in need of that much improvement, especially given its highly technical nature. The prose in the first half is, in my opinion, impeccable and goes above and beyond the requirement for FA status, if such a thing were possible. (Perhaps I feel that way because I've spent so much time on it.) Reading through all the previous FACs I got the impression that the prose was at a pretty good level already. (John, who is incredibly picky about prose, supported promotion on the basis of prose during FAC #2. Who am I to oppose on the basis of prose, now that I've made it even better?)
Other editors have supported on the basis of the article's medical and biochemical/pharmacological accuracy, quality of sourcing, comprehensiveness, etc., during previous FACs. Perhaps one reason why I'm making the argument for promotion is because I've invested so much of my own time into the article and want that work to be recognized with a shiny gold star. Perhaps another is that I want to see Seppi recognized for all the hard work that he's put into the article. Anyway, sorry for the overly long support with reservations post, but I thought it best to let the FAC coordinators understand exactly why I'm supporting, particularly given that said support might not be entirely objective in nature. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick update: Seppi responded to a message I left on his talk page; it appears he was taking an unannounced wikibreak during the holiday season but will start looking at my comments promptly. If he does, there is no need to action this FAC just yet. :) AmericanLemming (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had to temporarily revert to a december 20th revision of the article due to a large problem with the selective transclusions to adderall, dextroamphetamine, and lisdexamfetamine; it wasn't readily apparent to me where the parsing error was in the source, so I decided to manually restore the edits since the 20th. So far, I've reduced the differences between the past and current revision to this point: special:diff/640446238/640869098 (the improved diff gadget - Special:Preferences, "wikiEdDiff" in the gadgets tab - helps a lot in highlighting where there are substantive difference between these revisions). I figured I should mention here that I intend to add the remaining text revisions back into the article by tomorrow morning - I don't want you to think that I'm just massively reverting all the work you put into the article. I'll start addressing these FAC comments once I've restored the edits you made over the past 2 weeks. Sorry for the delay! Also, I added 2 new reviews to the biomolecular mechanisms section and tweaked the explanation on the necessary/sufficient relationship (I put it in a note) while restoring these edits; feel free to revise the text I added if you feel it can be improved! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more or less back to how it was (diff of original vs restored versions) - I made a few tweaks for accuracy in some places and expanded the mechanism section while I was going through the page. The transclusion issues are sort of my fault since I made the source code of the page so complicated; I noticed there were 3 transclusion syntax errors in different sections, which is why I had trouble finding the problem. In any event, if I missed restoring an edit or there's any other issues you see in the article, feel free to fix them! You might want to reread the main overdose section and the mechanism subsection again since I added new content and revised some existing content while restoring the page. I added a collapsed version of {{Addiction glossary}} above the diagram as well to help with accessibility in the addiction section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AmericanLemming: Forgot to ping you when I finished the edits/replies. Btw, do you think I should put in the collapsed addiction-related plasticity table at the bottom of the addiction section? I figure it might add some context for the statement about exercise therapy for amph addiction and amph-sex addiction interactions. Also, Thank you for spending a huge amount of time working on this article with me. I really appreciate your help and hard work on it! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked over both your responses to my comments and all the changes you've made, and I've made a few more tweaks of my own. I've also come up with five more comments from the Lead through the Overdose section. After these are all taken care of we'll just have three sections left in the article to look over.
Lead: “amphetamine” versus “amphetamines”: I know there’s the note and all, but I think we should avoid using the term “amphetamines” because it’s potentially ambiguous. Whenever I see the term I’m never quite sure whether it means “amphetamine” or “substituted amphetamines”. There’s three instances in the “Medical” subsection and one at the very end on the “Contraindications” section.
I'll remove these and use the singular. Edit: I thought that using the singular term would be slightly odd in those places since racemic amphetamine isn't a pharmaceutical - though I think using "amphetamine pharmaceuticals" instead clarifies the point, especially considering that we have a section which covers the types of these pharmaceuticals. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Side effects/Overdose: Sorry about the Cardiac dysrhythmia/tachycardia mix-up; I’m not quite sure what happened there. By the way, does that mean that the Overdose symptoms table should read “Increased heart rate” and link to tachycardia instead of reading “Abnormal heart rhythm” and linking to cardiac dysrhythmia as it does now?
The current article language/wikilink is slightly generalized, but still consistent with the citations. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
Overdose: “since repeated overdoses continually increase the level of accumbal ΔFosB” Would “gradually” fit better here? Otherwise I think we can drop “continually” because “repeated overdoses continually increase” is kind of wordy and having “continually” there doesn’t really add any new information.
Overdose: “Once nucleus accumbens ΔFosB is sufficiently overexpressed, it begins to directly influence the severity of addictive behavior (e.g., compulsive drug-seeking).” By “directly influence” you mean “make worse”, right?
Yes, essentially increased ΔFosB expression exacerbates an addiction.
Overdose: “Once ΔFosB is sufficiently overexpressed, it induces an addictive state that becomes increasingly more severe with further increases in ΔFosB expression.” Is this a cycle where sufficient ΔFosB overexpression leads to an addictive state, which leads to further ΔFosB expression, which induces an even more addictive state, etc.? AmericanLemming (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good article. Balanced in an area where there's information from numerous domains to compare and weigh. Using every way possible to clarify difficult concepts using notes and tooltips etc.
While almost all sections are supported heavily by secondary sources, I still find a number of primary sources in some sections. I found one of these to be over 20 years old (e.g. Imperato et al 1993). They may not have been reproduced or included in the current paradigm.
A number of references currently contains a message that the "chapter" parameter is being ignored. Can this be fixed?
I will see if any other concerns arise from reviews by others (as I cannot claim much expertise in the subject matter) but I have a low threshold for support provided the primary sources concern is addressed. JFW | T@lk22:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't bother with doing so - I replaced it with a new review. I don't mind cutting primary sources because any that are included are unnecessary for WP:V, so if any others are a concern, let me know. The few primary sources covering medical content in humans are all coupled to WP:MEDRS-quality reviews, as far as I'm aware. I'm quite pedantic about citing anything medical regarding humans with medical reviews or high-quality pharmacology references. In any case, I replaced it with a new medical review covering preclinical evidence (I assume this means "lab animals", so I kept that phrase). That sentence was just meant to provide context to indicate that dopamine and acetylcholine interactions from amphetamine are not unique to humans.
In the few other cases that I included the primary sources with reviews, I did so because: (1) I found it hard to find the information in the review when re-checking (the review on flavin-containing monooxygenase, where it's in a table instead of the article) or (2) I thought the material was important, but not widely covered in reviews in a relevent context or relevant databases (e.g., the dopamine beta-hydroxylase references). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is a point that I made at previous FACs: From "Uses", subsection "Medical", paragraph 4: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine in such people should be avoided." Should high doses be avoided in children with tic disorders more so than in children without tic disorders? Axl¤[Talk]10:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't realized my previous comment didn't address your concern - I reworded the sentence to how I interpreted what Cochrane was essentially saying: "A Cochrane Collaboration review on the treatment of ADHD in children with tic disorders indicated that stimulants in general do not make tics worse, but high doses of dextroamphetamine could exacerbate tics in such individuals." If you'd prefer different wording, feel free to edit that line to your liking. I very seldom revert a reviewers changes to an article in the event you're concerned about it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained)
No, not in "such individuals", in "some" individuals. Stimulants do not exacerbate tics. *SOME* people may have issues, though. Here are the words from the Cochrane review:
To evaluate evidence for this reported phenomenon we searched for clinical trials of medications for ADHD used specifically in children with tic disorders. The trials indicate that a number of stimulant and non-stimulant medications are safe and effective treatments for ADHD symptoms and do not worsen tics. High dose stimulants may transiently worsen tics in some children, and worsening tics may limit dose increases of stimulants in some children, but in the majority of children both tics and ADHD symptoms improve with use of stimulant medications.
I don't mind how the statement is worded, though I think this is worth noting: Cochrane's samples were entirely upon individuals with ADHD and some form of tic disorder, so they technically can't generalize the population outside that group without it producing biased statistical inference (i.e., the samples are nonrespresentative of individuals with ADHD in general with or without tic disorders). That's why I assumed their analysis was always in context of the sample and consequently worded that sentence with "such"; in any event, I actually agree completely that dopaminergic-related movement side effects are not specific to individuals with tic disorders. Anyone can develop abnormal involuntary movements and hypersensitive locomotor responses using dopaminergic stimulants because, as in the nucleus accumbens, dopamine (and hence DA stims like amphetamine) induces nigrostriatal ΔFosB in response to chronic sufficiently high dosing.([16] - epigenetics/pharmacogenomics of involuntary motor activity from chronic high-dose L-dopa therapy) Nigrostriatal ΔFosB overexpression, coupled with high-dose amphetamine/methamphetamine, would necessarily produce abnormal motor function and dysregulated motor responses (e.g., substituted amphetamine induced stereotypies). This may or may not contribute to tics though, depending upon which neural pathways give rise to tic disorders. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am wary of adding "elevated blood pressure" in parentheses after "hypertension". Hypertension is more than simply elevated blood pressure. Also, elevated blood pressure is subsequently noted as a cautionary feature that should be monitored. (This statement is in line with the references.)
I am inclined to delete the "clarification" of the meaning of hypertension from the text. (I note that the subsequent cautionary features such as bipolar disorder, psychosis and Raynaud's phenomenon do not have associated short definitions.) If you insist that a short definition should be included for hypertension, perhaps change it to "persistent blood pressure"? Axl¤[Talk]09:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From "Side effects", subsection "Physical", paragraph 1: "Cardiovascular side effects can include irregular heartbeat (usually an increased heart rate)." Not all arrhythmias are irregular. Indeed atrial fibrillation is the only common arrhythmia that is irregular. I am aware that the linked article, "Cardiac dysrhythmia", states that "irregular heartbeat" is a synonym. The statement is inaccurate. The reference seems to be inaccessible at the moment. Axl¤[Talk]10:15, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to "abnormal heart rhythm". I feel somewhat responsible for the inaccurate parenthetical explanations because I'm the one who requested and/or added them. Per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, I've been trying to explain technical terms, here, since the article's unintelligibiilty to the general reader was one of the main reasons it wasn't promoted before. At the same time, we don't want to oversimplify things, either. AmericanLemming (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We somehow ended up linking to a concept which isn't an adverse effect of amphetamine, so I went ahead and made this edit (reasoning in the edit summary) to reestablish concordance with the citations. Let me know of any concerns. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead certainly is too technical, and jumps around between the historical, medical, chemical, abuse, and legal aspects of the topic. I'll break this down by coding each sentence or part of sentence: 1st paragraph; m,hc,c,c,m,ma,la. Second paragraph; h,hm,m,m,m. 3rd; a,am,am,a. 4th; c,ca,m,c. Abductive (reasoning)04:36, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Er... I'm not really sure what you just said in the second bullet. If there's a particular sentence that you think is too technical or unnecessary, just let me know and we can address it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maurice Richard is one of hockey's greatest legends. The first player in NHL history to score 50 goals in one season and the first to reach 500 for his career. An eight time Stanley Cup champion, and a member of both the Canadian Sports and Hockey Halls of Fame. He is also a cultural icon across the country, but primarily in Quebec where his on-ice outburst and subsequent suspension in 1955 precipitated the Richard Riot, today regarded as a violent manifestation of Francophone Quebec's dissatisfaction with its place in Anglophone Canada. Though apolitical himself, Richard's legacy was cemented when he was made the subject of Roch Carrier's legendary short story, The Hockey Sweater.
I was asked several months ago to try and expand Henri Richard's article from a poor stub into something better - and at some point I still will - but I was instead inspired to write about Henri's famous brother. It reached GA status in May and I have run periodic copyedits since to tighten the prose. I believe it is now FA quality, and I hope the community will agree. Cheers! Resolute00:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maurice richard profile.jpg - How do we know that this is PD, if the date is unknown? If it's from 1950, then it's not expired. Also, what's the US copyright on this image?
I could, but that would be a guess. It may be that the creator died in the early 50s, or that the creator explicitly released it PD when it was donated to LAC.
File:Maurice Richard 1945.jpg - How does this meet URAA criteria #2? You'd need to know where it was first published for that
That's criteria 3. What about criteria 2? Unless you know the original publication, or at least an early publication, then it would be difficult to confirm. One way would be to see if copyright was registered in the US (doubtful, but possible) in the year the image was photographed. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The online records extend only as far back as 1978, and there is no record from that date forward. Same with the image below. Resolute01:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Maurice Richard and Toe Blake.jpg - This too. To know if it meets URAA criteria two, we need to know where it was first published (i.e. the publication).
Will do. Is there any specific resolution limit, or is this arbitrary? The FUR should be improved, I notice, and I will do that also. Resolute21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Hhof maurice richard.jpg - Is this trophy given to the teams (like the Stanley Cup) or does it stay put? That'll affect if it meets the FoP criteria or not.
All of these trophies are on permanent public display at the HHOF, though they (or copies of same) do travel periodically. But again, always maintained as public exhibits. I believe it easily meets Canadian FOP requirements. Resolute21:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If they are on "permanent" (for the life of the object) public display, I agree. This should be okay; the FoP template doesn't mention it having to be outdoors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really don't like the lead. It's all his achievements, none of his life. I mean, he was more than just his legacy. You don't mention how he rose up from poverty, or how he was fairly injury prone... and his famous temper is couched in a much more discrete term ("intense")
And Campbell certainly took it as Richard's words, thus the $1000 bond. Perhaps our best statement is that Richard "co-wrote" the article? Resolute00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the phrase to call it "his ... column", which I think is sufficiently open-ended to cover the situation (and what the general public would think of a ghostwritten column). Absent additional information on the extent of Richard's involvement with the column, I think it's accurate enough for this context. isaacl (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True to his word, - feels like editorializing
Modified. I did want to emphasize that Richard followed through on his promise following the riot. I would still like to keep that somehow; is the new text better?
the return of his former Punch line teammate, Toe Blake, - don't seem to recall you mentioning that they'd disbanded
It is noted in the final paragraph of the 50 goals in 50 games section that Blake was forced to retire due to a leg injury. Resolute01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that #Playing style should be after the remainder of his biographical information. It is really jolting to switch from Ambassador to style to Ambassador
That probably sets up the same problem in reverse. Player to personal to player. I moved the fact that Richard was offered the role of team ambassador to the lead of the Personal life section. Does this look better to you? Resolute01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Challenge there is that the modern role of team president (or even historical) would not fit what Richard was. He seemed to be a vice-president of nothing in particular, which is why he split with the club fairly quickly. I can't think of any appropriate link for that. Resolute00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But even if Richard always refused to be seen as a symbol of national affirmation, he is widely considered as one by Quebec's francophone population to this day, and it is still commonly said that Richard was a « Héro malgré lui » («Hero despite his will»). - what's this supposed to be? A direct quote?
Again, something added by another user after this FAC began. On top of being unsourced (and which I cannot find such a source online for), I don't like the editorializing style either. Removed for now. Resolute
Hmm. It is really a long quote. I think the countering quote added by the same IP that put the commentary above in helps in this regard. (and I was able to verify that one.) Does that help, or should I still cut that Melancon quote down? Otherwise, still considering how to handle the lead, and still planning to look at the copyright status of those images. Thanks! Resolute01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd trim it a bit. Rocket is a fairly big subject, and the Quebec separatist movement an even bigger one. Giving a single person a whole paragraph would feel undue either way. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "with his byline": I copy edited the text to this wording to keep note that the column was Richard's (albeit ghostwritten), as opposed to a weekly column attributed to a sportswriter (or a staff). I think there is some value to maintain this distinction, but if consensus feels otherwise, the clause can be removed. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That line was added by another editor at some point. On the GA reviewed version, I had written that Richard authored the column. Unfortunately, it also appears that an editor, while well meaning, added some content that degraded the prose in several areas after I started this FAC. That is why Henri Richard is needlessly mentioned in the second sentence. I will have to go clean it up, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Just checking in right now to thank both of you for the comments and reviews. Resolute23:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was the one who modified the text regarding the column's authorship, since the source noted that it was ghostwritten, so stating the column was authored by Richard seemed a bit too assertive. I can try to re-edit it again. (The change regarding Henri was not done by me.) isaacl (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember, but was Richard still ghostwriting his article at that time? If he was, then noting that it was under his byline would be incorrect. I would rather use a variant of "...that he helped author" unless we are certain he was writing under his own name at that time. I'll have to go back to research the exact status of his article at that point. Resolute01:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Montreal Gazette article cited, the column was ghostwritten by someone else for Richard, which implies the column had Richard's name on it. I'm not sure what you mean by "was Richard still ghostwriting his article"; there would be no benefit to the reporter or paper to let Richard write anonymously. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
Fixed number of columns is deprecated in {{reflist}} in favour of colwidth
Don't use semicolons to create pseudoheadings in References, per MOS:LAYOUT
Two citations sourced to Ottawa Citizen with a date of 1945. Use |year=1945a to disambiguate per template:Sfn#More_than_one_work_in_a_year which applies here as well.
Four citation links with no author or date. #24 accounts for three uses.
There are no authors on those cites because there are no listed authors. They are newspaper cites without bylines. Likewise the publication date on ref 24. There is no listed publication date. The cites are filled out with all available information. As far as two cites being sourced to the Ottawa Citizen in 1945 goes, it seems decidedly odd that {{harvnb}} can't use the fact that they are different dates to create separate anchors, but the year parameter seems to have worked without negatively impacting visible output. Thanks, Resolute15:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of those little boys who so disappointed their Canadian fathers—I never followed hockey, or any other sport. To atone for my sins I'm reviewing sports FACs. Feel free to revert any of my copyedits.
Onésime was a carpenter by trade, and took a job with the Canadian Pacific Railway shortly after Maurice was born.: did he work for CP as a carpenter?
in his weekly newspaper column: Richard had a column?
This might be the most problematic half-sentence in my Wikipedia career. This is a rewording from above discussion. @Isaacl: - what do you think of my latest rewording? Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think just saying it was his weekly column is good enough (according to the article I linked to below, Richard was the source of the material for the column), but your wording is fine, too. I suggest keeping "weekly", but it's not a big issue. isaacl (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Richard was struck in the head with Hal Laycoe's stick.: I wonder how many 21st-century readers will realize the players had no helmets
Probably not many, but I'm not sure a note is necessary given the more vicious nature of the sport at that time is already well introduced. Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Do no more harm. Get behind the team in the playoffs. I will take my punishment and come back next year and help the club and the younger players to win the Cup": (a) if the quote ends here, the period should go inside the quotemarks; (b) I assume this was in French; if so, it would be a good idea to include the original (you could throw it into an endnote).
Fixed part a. For part b, I don't read French so wouldn't be able to easily find the original quote. The French article doesn't appear to include it. Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been looking around but haven't found it yet---I did find this, though---it looks like quite a few songs have been written about the riot. The book's in French, but the songs quoted are in English. Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was terrifying".: again, if this quote ends with a period, it should go inside
Changed. One of those annoying rules I never quite get. I was always under the impression that the period goes inside if the entire sentence is within the quote, but outside if not. Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, yes. I was speaking generally to the three times you called it out but put the comment against the wrong example. ;) Resolute01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Richard was still an active player when Gordie Howe overtook his career record for points.: shoudn't this go in "Playing career" rather than "Playing style"?
Personally I suggest placing any information about the short in a following sentence, a parenthetical aside, or a footnote, since the current sentence has "Author Carrier" as the subject. While it's not exactly wrong to call him the author of the explanation in the short, it's a bit misleading as it can carry the implication that he had more involvement in the production than I think he did. isaacl (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the situation in French Quebec at the time: I wonder if this could be briefly expanded on; the further a person is from Quebec the less likely they are to understand the situation, and many (especially non-Canadians) are unaware of the large anglo minority in Montreal, which was an larger minority before the PQ came to power and caused an anglo rush to other parts of Canada: about a quarter of Montrealers were native English speakers in 1971, now down to less than 15%. I don't expect anything in-depth, but it should be briefly touched on, especially for those readers to whom Quebec equals French. It may be assumed that anti-anglo sentiments were directed at "foreign" places like Ontario.
Oooh, I think that might be out of scope for this article, and that paragraph already gives a basic overview. I did modify a statement to avoid implying both that Quebec is uniformly Francophone and the rest of the country uniformly Anglophone. Ultimately, I think the Quiet Revolution article that is linked would be the best place for a reader to go for more information. Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it could be mentioned in passing somewhere that Montreal had a large anglo minority? I don't expect this article to delve into the whole sticky situation, but since the article brings it up, a tad more context would be good, if at the very least to proactively turn readers away from "obvious" assumptions. Curly Turkey¡gobble!02:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of this article, that really feels like a non sequitur. Montreal's Anglophone minority isn't specifically discussed in relation to either the riot at the time or it's legacy. I am open to suggestions on a statement you think might work, however. Resolute01:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I don't want to see the article dive into a complicated tangent, but the subject should be breached with care. For instance, take a look at this, which points out that the Candiens were owned by anglos and that most of the players trying to take him out of the game were anglos. Of course, it goes into much more detail on the subject than this article should, but I do think it's important context. Curly Turkey¡gobble!01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Team ownership I don't believe is as much an issue as team management at the GM and coaching level. But the Canadiens have assiduously kept themselves neutral with respect to the language issue, and so I don't believe the owner's heritage needs to be discussed. isaacl (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the passage on the club being ruled by anglophones, Selke, Blake, Irvin, etc. were anglophones. Regarding the later passage on the team being owned by anglophones, as the text notes, this is prior to Richard's career; during his playing time, the team had francophone ownership. isaacl (talk) 02:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I'm making my point clear. To those who don't know the cultural background (which includes large numbers of Canadians) some statements are apt to be misinterpreted: that he played with "English boys" could, for instance, come off as a "some of my best friends are black" sort of thing. The briefest (but carefully worded) gloss of what kind of city Montreal was could avoid that kind of thing. You're reading this as someone who knows these things and takes them for granted. Wikipedia articles can't assume readers will have your knowledge. Sources such as this one take time out to give the language background of Montreal to provide a backdrop to the riot. [https://books.google.co.jp/books?id=mFzAU3D_Wx8C&pg=PA98&dq=maurice+richard++bilingual+montreal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UaOTVMegKIji8gWW1YDQDw&ved=0CBQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=maurice%20richard%20%20bilingual%20montreal&f=false Here's a bit on the Canadiens (and Richard) feeling resentful at not getting French-speaking coaches—if you didn't know there was a large English minority in Montreal, the idea that the coaches would speak only English seems bizarre. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may be reading more into my comments that I'm saying. I was offering a view specifically regarding expanding on the background of team ownership, which doesn't factor in with questions of Richard's teammates. I have not weighed in on whether or not additional information regarding the background of the team coaches ought to be included. Specifically regarding your point on English-speaking coaches, it's not because of the city's linguistic composition, but because of the relative number of anglophones playing hockey. isaacl (talk) 04:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not trying to make any sort of poitn at all about coaches. The point I'm trying to make is that readers will make assumptions about Montreal being a "French" city, and that when language issues arise in the article they will therefore be coloured by that assumption. Curly Turkey¡gobble!04:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were specifically regarding ownership, where I do not believe there are any assumptions being made that would be dispelled by examining the linguistic background of the owners. Setting aside the question of whether or not the examples you've given so far are applicable, I think that an understanding of the two cultures in Montreal is helpful in understanding the backdrop in which the Canadiens exist, but I'm not sure to what extent it is necessary to expand on this within the article. isaacl (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The CBC Archive story on the riot directly contradicts that by using statements from Richard himself, and none of the other sources I have read indicate that he was ever "quite expressive about the rights of French Quebecers" in public. He was expressive about how the English establishment in the NHL treated English players vs. French, but that is already noted with both the quote box and first paragraph in the riot section. Without some other sources to back that up, I'm worried that is a fringe view - possibly conflating Richard's statements in the context of the NHL to a wider view that is not necessarily supported. Resolute15:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I never followed hockey so feel free to laugh if this is inappropriate, but I would've assumed there'd be some mention of the Original Six era in the article.
I can't really pick out where it would be an appropriate fit. Richard's career was never mentioned in the context of the Original Six, and even though the majority of it was during that era, his first few seasons were prior to it. Resolute01:40, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 1945 picture has a lot of dead space at the top and right. This is just a suggestion, and isn't necessary for FA, but you might consider cropping it.
"An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute to the forefront": suggest "An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute to a head".
The list of external links looks like it could perhaps be trimmed a little -- do the biographies actually add anything to the article? I'd guess that you've already included anything useful in them.
Cropped the image and removed some links (the histori.ca domain has changed so they were broken anyway, and I removed the French links that were redundant to English versions that remain). I originally had the text as "came to a head", but over the course of this review someone, (perhals Issacl) changed it. I prefer the original wording, so set it back. As for the French version of the article, I don't read French myself, but another editor did come along and add a couple passages based on what was in that article already. Thanks for the review! Resolute02:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not remember changing it, but it was indeed me. I believe I felt "came to a head" relied on the reader being familiar with a particular English idiom, and so I modified it in the interest of improving global understanding. isaacl (talk) 05:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to another phrasing being used, but the meaning isn't quite the same. "To the forefront" means that that the dispute became more visible or more apparent, or that it became the most important issue; "to a head" means that the dispute reached a crisis point of some kind, which is a better description. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For that interpretation, how about "reached a crisis point" instead? In Wiktionary, "come to a head" has various other definitions; #2 is the one that "to the forefront" was describing. #1 is about coming to a conclusion where the underlying conflict is changed in some way; if this is the meaning you intend to relay, then I suggest "reached a turning point" (also a metaphor, but I think a more readily accessible one). isaacl (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I mis-edited it to say "An incident late in the 1954–55 season brought their dispute came to a head"; I've fixed it while we discuss other options. I think "turning point" is better than "forefront", but how about "flash point", or the verb "erupt"? Perhaps "The dispute erupted after an incident late in the 1954–55 season"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify that the dispute predates the incident, how about "The ongoing dispute erupted...", or "The simmering dispute...", which would fit the erupted metaphor? isaacl (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like "simmering". As you say it fits the metaphor; and I also agree that we need an adjective to clarify that the dispute was ongoing. I think referring to the incident and then giving the details of the incident is a bit redundant, so what do you think of combining this sentence with the next, like this: "The simmering dispute erupted after an incident in the Canadiens' March 13, 1955, game against Boston, when Richard was struck in the head with Hal Laycoe's stick"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Adding "simmering" works for me as well, but I wonder how necessary it is to point out that the dispute was ongoing when the entire paragraph describes their ongoing dispute? Resolute04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline is not specified in the previous sentences, so saying that the dispute erupted due to an event can mean that the event was the inciting factor that caused the dispute. Regarding the additional proposal, I agree that combining the sentence in question with the next one improves the concision. isaacl (talk) 04:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made a further copy edit along the lines proposed by Mike. Thanks to everyone for their work in bringing this article to Featured Article status! isaacl (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had a couple of questions that were left hanging, and the FAC just seemed to go dead (I assumed Resolute was away for the holidays or something). There was only one important issue I'd like to still see resolved, but I'm not totally confident it's actionable, so I'm giving this article my support. Curly Turkey¡gobble!05:22, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I was mostly keeping quiet over the holidays and assumed others were too. Appreciate the reviews, comments and supports, all. Thanks! Resolute04:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is about one of the most aggressive and hard to treat cancers. Improving the article has been one of the targets of Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK. I'm very grateful to all the many editors who have contributed. The article has had a thorough peer review, with several editors editing as well as commenting. The article has also been reviewed internally at Cancer Research UK. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update January 5, 2015 I think as of now all the points on all the reviews are responded to, and either settled or awaiting a response from the reviewer (mostly the former). I'm sorry some of you have had to wait a while for this. There has been a lot of activity, both on this page and on the article itself, as well as the holidays. It's been great to see so many people getting involved in this. Many thanks to all reviewers and editors. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great to see you here, John! I am watchlisting, and will review, but not today, and perhaps not tomorrow. Right off the bat, though, I am seeing several incomplete citations; could you run through and make sure all of your citations are complete and in a consistent format? Your PMID sources seem consistent, but some others are incomplete. Also, could you explain minor deviations from MEDMOS suggested sections? More later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Citation consistency and some MOS issues are mostly cleaned up, and I've left some prose and sourcing discussion on article talk.[20] Please ping me for more thorough review when some of that has been processed. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't to make any review comments on sections I've worked on, but I think it's probably ok to help out elsewhere.
In the "Risk factors" section: Some studies have found links with diets high in red meat, processed meat,[35] and sugar-sweetened drinks (soft drinks).[36] The abstract of ref. 36 concludes "a slight correlation between risk of pancreatic cancer and [carbonated soft drinks] consumption has been found." Personally I don't think "a slight correlation" (whatever that may be) would provide strong enough causal evidence to deserve this mention. According to PMID22194529 (technically, another potential MEDRS), "Although we were only able to examine a modest intake of [carbonated soft drinks], there was a suggestive and slightly positive association for their intakes which reached statistical significance in certain subgroups of participants (e.g., nondiabetics, nondrinkers of alcohol)." [21] Hmm, I'd cut it... Fwiw, I'd also perhaps avoid starting the sentence with the phrase "Some studies have..." as this can give an impression of cherry picking of primary studies, whereas the evidence for red and processed meats is actually sourced to a meta-analysis (ref. 35), albeit of observational studies.86.164.164.29 (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cut the soft drinks, although they did actually show up in my survey of advice from NCI, CRUK, ACS et al, which was why they were there. The meta-analysis shows that "some studies have...". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say but it's in regards to the same section as what 86.164.164.29 just commented on so I'll just piggyback off them:
"though see the sections on obesity and alcohol" should probably be cut – there is no (longer?) a section on obesity and the section on alcohol is literally a sentence away.
PMID24403441, a systematic review on nutrition and pancreatic cancer, seems like a useful source for this section. There are a lot of conclusions about particular foods that are drawn from observational studies, so lets skip ahead briefly to the conclusion: "There is an abundance of evidence in the literature on the role of nutrition in pancreatic carcinogenesis. Often the evidence is inconclusive due to confounding factors...The lack of large randomized control trials makes it harder to establish causative associations for various nutrient types. [list of associations follow]."
Oops... I see I confused the numbering of PMID24403441 vs PMID22240790 (sorry). The former is not actually a true systematic review per [22] (and is not indexed on PubMed as such), while the latter, which I'd already suggested at PR, is certainly a meta-analysis [23] (and indexed as such in PubMed, though not as a systematic review). Maybe we could ask for a further opinion from NW here? 86.181.67.166 (talk) 18:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The methods section of the paper:
A PubMed search was performed for publications from 1985 through 2013, using the following key words, including both medical subject heading (MeSH) terms and free language words/phrases: “pancreatic cancer”, “nutrition”, “diet”, “dietary factors”, “lifestyle”, “smoking”, “alcohol” and “epidemiology”.
Articles that described and compared the impact of various dietary factors on risk of pancreatic cancer were first screened according to abstracts and titles and the selected articles were assessed for eligibility as full-text articles. No language restriction was applied. Reference lists from studies selected by the electronic search were manually searched to identify further relevant reports. Reference lists from all available review articles, primary studies and proceedings of major meetings were also considered. The quality and strength level of the results were considered.
It's not the best methodology in the world, as it does not meet several components of the PRISMA criteria and fails to follow several other normal protocols (multiple database searches, multiple reviewers, adjudication of disputed data abstraction). The paper describes itself as a systematic review. I don't know if this is something unique about nutritional science, but I would classify it as somewhere between the type of systematic review that you would see in a more quantitative medical subfield and a narrative review. Which isn't to say it's a bad source; I just wouldn't use it to contradict another source. NW(Talk)22:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well since MEDRS doesn't permit critical appraisal by editors, I suppose I can only note that it's indexed by PubMed as a "review" but not as a "systematic review". Not a major consideration elsewhere perhaps, but... As I wrote in the edit summary, I felt this source was redundant (except for the somewhat speculative "possibly fat"). I sincerely believe the edit in question is one of several improvements I recently made to the Pancreatic Cancer page. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC); previously 109.158.8.201, 86.164.164.29, 109.157.83.50[reply]
I'll leave the relative merits of the paper to you two, and any others who want to add, but I don't see that "redundant" papers always have to be removed, especially when they undoubtedly add plenty of information. In the sections FeatherPluma has done we follow normal wiki-style and have up to 4 refs for things that aren't at all controversial, eg "... MRI/CT imaging is recommended for those at high risk from inherited genetics.[6][39][50][51]". Having seen something of how large specialist organizations go about things, I'm sure the ACS recommendations (which is extremely similar to its CRUK equivalent) is very carefully weighed using a wide range of sources and expertise, but it is not a published paper, and the methodology, sources used etc etc are not made explicit. The same paper is still used in ?2 other sections btw, so removing the named ref set-up had to be corrected, which a bot quickly did. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. But to put it in WP terms, I felt (and still feel) the previous version [24] gave undue weight to that particular "2014 review":
Specific types of food, as opposed to obesity, have not been clearly shown to increase the risk of pancreatic cancer,[NEJM review][Larsson] although a 2014 review concluded that there was evidence that dietary factors increasing risk were processed red meat and "meat cooked at very high temperatures by methods such as frying, broiling or barbequing", and possibly fat.[Pericleous][ACS]
I also felt that "there was evidence" required some qualification (nuancing) for weight, and that the use of quotation was conferring excessive weight to the subordinate clause. I couldn't see any reason why the ACS factsheet[btw, I think it should be p. 19, rather than 21]done was being used to source/support the quotation, given that I couldn't see any mention of that "2014 review". I also felt that two sentences would be better than one here, both for readability and to avoid any possible suspicion of wp:synth, and that it would be useful to some readers to provide a link to Diet (nutrition), at least. I therefore revised the point as follows [25]:
Specific types of food (as distinct from obesity) have not been clearly shown to increase the risk of pancreatic cancer.[NEJM] Dietary factors for which there is some limited evidence of slightly increased risk include processed meat, red meat, and meat cooked at very high temperatures (e.g. by frying, broiling or barbequing).[Larsson][ACS]
On looking at that now I can see that, on stylistic grounds, I rather overdid the hedging to reflect the wording of the ACS document ("mayslightly increase"), as quoted – rather appropriately, imo – in the footnote/ref. I also freely apologise to John, NW and everyone else for inadvertently confusing those two pmids. But overall, I think the edit in question provides a significant improvement.
The "Classification" section basically provides information on histological types, without really summarizing the clinical classification in terms of grading and staging etc, which as usual in Wikipedia disease articles is located (usefully, imo) under "Diagnosis". Broadly per the spirit of a helpful discussion at Cancer Research UK on the fringes of Wikimania and subsequent proposals at MEDMOS, including this one, I think it would be both more appropriate and more reader-friendly to title the section as "Types". As I feel that the heading "Classification" may needlessly be a source of discouragement to our readers – this is the opening section after the lead - I've boldly implemented the suggestion I made at PR... 86.164.164.29 (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Way out of my comfort zone (and makes me queasy), but let's see if I can make it through. I'm only looking at the prose, and through the eyes of a (very) non-subject expert.
One to two in every hundred cases of pancreatic cancer: there can't be 1 1/2 cases out of a batch of a hundred, so perhaps this would be better as "one to two per cent of"
A smoker's chances of developing the disease are reduced if they cease smoking: I personally think the singular they should be freed from the closet, but I thought I'd point it out just in case this wasn't intended.
the top three vary by gender, including breast cancer for women and prostate cancer for men: I wonder if this should be in the article, as it's US-specific
* ("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term): are "invasive" or "ductal" carry any meaning?
Yes, the ones you'd expect: invasive because cancer (and a very agressive one) and arising in the ducts. Meaning is not really the issue, it's a question of the variable names used. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
endocrine cancers (see next section): perhaps "(see the [[#Endocine|Endocrine section]])" in case someone rearranges sections (say, by alphabetizing them)
This is one of the main reasons for the generally poor survival rates. Exceptions to this are the functioning PanNETs, whose over-production of hormones is likely to give a range of symptoms according to the type.: is this supposed to share an inline cite with the previous statement?
In the UK, about half of new cases: is this comparable to other countries?
I don't have comparative figures for anywhere, which may not exist, but it should be fairly comparable for developed countries, perhaps on the high side; probably rather more so than US figures which are endlessly given in these articles without arousing any comment, and are often also at the extremes for the developed world. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Up to two-thirds of people have abdominal pain, < !-- Wolgang 341 cites 2007 study that says "nearly 75%" -- >: "nearly 75%" is more than two-thirds---what's the story here?
Refined per the source to "In up to two-thirds of people abdominal pain is the main symptom" which probably accounts for the difference, though actually such statistics do jump around between different studies. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established ... the majority of studies have found no association: the association is well established, yet the majority of studies find no association?
2 diseases: "While the association between alcohol abuse and pancreatitis is well established, considerable research has failed to firmly establish alcohol consumption as a risk factor for pancreatic cancer." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(e.g. cholangiocarcinoma) and some stomach cancers; thus, it may not always be possible to be certain that a tumor found in the pancreas arose from it.: where should the closing parenthesis fall? Also, lacking a cite
Changed. Re the ref, I have implicit ones, & I'm pretty sure this is correct, but I don't have a ref now I can use. Does anyone? The point is worth keeping I think. Johnbod (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, feedback from someone who is "out of their comfort zone" is a good thing! Suppose your long-lost Aunt Mabel is diagnosed with Pancratic cancer tomorrow? You, as a layperson, should be able to get from this article info you seek. Layperson review is desirable ... so please keep going! (Since you've inquired many times at WT:FAC about how to manage a review, see my section above as a sample of how to use article talk to shorten very long FACs :) I hope you're feeling better soon. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
use of CT scans for other reasons are not all treated: because it's decided they don't need to be?
Yes, the surgery is still usually major, with its own risks, and as mentioned elsewhere, the criteria for choosing to intervene are not fully established. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
three types of precancerous lesion are recognized.: The "first" and "last" are enumerated—you might want to do the same with the second for consistency and ease of skimming
hmmm. Neoplasia just goes to neoplasm, but on further investigation refers to the process of formation of neoplasms, or the condition of having one (or more). And neoplasms is the correct plural it seems. Neoplasm doesn't really explain this very well. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(the so-called "Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4"): this aside seems more confusing than helpful at this scope
Taking a daily low-dose aspirin regimen for more than five years may decrease the risk of developing pancreatic adenocarcinoma (ductal pancreatic cancer) by as much as 75%.: I might append this to the previous paragraph
Treatment of pancreatic endocrine tumors, including the less common malignant tumors, may include a number of approaches. Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. This is mainly because the risk of surgery far outweighs the overall risk of aggressiveness for small tumours.: uncited
If the tumor is not amenable to surgical removal and is causing symptoms by secreting functional hormones, targeted medication for PanNETs can be effective, both in reducing symptoms and slowing the progression of the disease. These are covered in more detail in the relevant section of the main article on neuroendocrine tumors.: uncited
Semi-colon by the time I got to it. But the 5 commas after nearly bust some form of record: "... therapy, such as iobenguane (I131-MIBG), or, experimentally, other hormones, given intravenously." so I've rejigged. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
risk for African Americans is over 50% greater than for whites: I'd expect "black" to be paired with "white", or "African American" with "caucasian" (or whatever the current accepted terms are).
Surely we should take no account of WP articles on racial groups...? I certainly wouldn't expect to see "Caucasian" paired with "African American" myself; I don't think it's a respectable term these days, used for whites. SEER, who produce the US figures, report on "whites, blacks, Asian/Pacific Islanders, American Indian/Alaska Natives (footnote here), and Hispanics (who they note are "not mutually exclusive from" the other groups. Race and ethnicity in the United States Census has more on this, though the census categories jump around like anything between censuses, and are not directly comparable, which I expect SEER tries to minimize. But the main thing is to avoid at all costs giving the impression that African Americans (generally with up to 40% white genetics I believe) will have a similar risk profile to global "black" figures. Typically African people have lower cancer risks because they have very different lifestyle factors and (yet) live less long. I'll link to White American, but am against changing African American, to which "Black American" unsurprisingly redirects. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Officially, in the US: "“Black or African American” refers to a person having origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “Black, African Am., or Negro” or reported entries such as African American, Kenyan, Nigerian, or Haitian." (in the 2010 US census) Page 3 here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pancreatic cancer is the tenth most common cancer in the UK (around 8,800 people were diagnosed with the disease in 2011), and it is the fifth most common cause of cancer death (around 8,700 people died in 2012).: seems to jump out of nowhere---perhaps merge with the other UK rates immediately above?
The one UK figure above is risk, in a bit on risk. I'll see if the whole section can be better arranged, but the flow is fairly logical. No-one ever complains about US figures seeming "to jump out of nowhere", though they often do. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but the person only survived: or "patient"? "the person" could be the surgeon (I'd've just changed it to "patient", but I wnat to make sure that's the right word)
He couldn't be really. Maybe it's ok to use "patient" when referring to a single specific (and long-dead) individual? I think so - what do others think? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor.": who is being quoted, and can this not be paraphrased?
There's nothing wrong with quoting per se, but it often integrates poorly into the surrounding text. The important thing is to be clear what's being quoted—the vast majority of readers with ignore the inline cites, and even if they don't, is the quotation from the author of the reference, or quoted by the reference? Another problem is with the way this particular quote is introduced—very abrupt. If read out loud, there would be no clue at all that this was a quote. Curly Turkey¡gobble!00:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've previously reviewed the article, making minor contributions; I'll try not to repeat myself. I feel the need to congratulate Wiki CRUK John and everyone else who has worked for this excellent result.
"("invasive" and "ductal" may be added to this term)": I still feel that the meaning - i.e., that some sources refer to the same disease as "invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma" and "ductal pancreatic adenocarcinoma"[1][2] - isn't clear; to this attests the comment by Curly Turkey. Some minor rephrasing might be warrantied.
I see the problem, but I certainly don't want to list of the variants (I make it 7 or more, with "of the pancreas" etc). Gone with "dominated by pancreatic adenocarcinoma (variations of this name may add "invasive" and "ductal")". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"This cancer arises in the tiny ducts that carry certain hormones and enzymes away from the pancreas": I'm not sure what the sources exactly say; however, the epithelial cells adenocarcinomas arise from aren't only found in the "tiny ducts", but also in the main pancreatic duct. Moreover, strictly speaking, these tiny ducts carry pancreatic products outside the organ not directly but through the pancreatic duct. Some rephrasing might be warrantied.
I'm a bit baffled by the link to islet cell carcinomas. Is the linked article article about the PanNETs (and therefore an article with a mistaken/obsolete name), or to another pathologic entity? In the latter case, the link might confuse the reader.
The main, far longer, article is neuroendocrine tumor, covering a wider range of sites, which I think is reasonable. Pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor (you had a typo, 86) redirects to Pancreatic cancer; I'm not sure it should. islet cell carcinoma should be merged to one of these (NET or here) I think. Mind you the codes are still there in the ICD/Mesh databases - would they get removed? It doesn't feature in the most recent literature, as the text says. I'd welcome other views. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see exactly what's going on, and can "unbaffle" it. It will take about 2 hours. I can aim to get to this in about 10 days as I have a surge in non-wikipedia activities. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What was "nesidioblastoma" until October 16, and was correctly that topic (despite wrongly having general statistics for "islet cell tumors" - removed) is moved back to nesidioblastoma. Keeping all neuroendocrine tumor content within that main article has proven unwieldy. Pulmonary neuroendocrine tumors already have a specific article, and in usage carcinoid marches forward through time (despite WHO). The traditional pancreatic terms, "islet cell tumor" and "islet cell carcinoma", are now redirected to pancreatic neuroendocrine tumor. PanNET is now linked to pancreatic cancer but no longer redirects there. I reorganized (and will further edit) the contents. I think these changes address these suggestions for this bullet point item. FeatherPluma (talk) 21:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Painless jaundice": The problem here is that, in the line just above, we say that jaundice with pain is much more common than painless one. We could just delete the adjective painless here. On the other hand, cancer (pancreatic, bile duct, ampulla of Vater, metastatic liver) is a typical cause of painless jaundice.[3] This is not a contradiction: a disease can be the most common cause of a given symptom, and this symptom can still be uncommon in this disease.
Yes you are. In painful jaundice jaundice and pain only have a common cause. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Rewritten to:"Jaundice, a yellow tint to the whites of the eyes or skin, with or without pain, and possibly in combination with darkened urine. This results when a cancer of the head of the pancreas obstructs the common bile duct as it runs through the pancreas."
It might be better if every paragraph in the bullet list begins with a mention of the actual manifestation; e.g. one can rephrase: "Nausea and a feeling of fullness, caused by compression of neighboring organs by the tumor, which disrupts digestive processes and makes it difficult for the stomach to empty".
But this point, which has been rewritten by about 6 people including you, also includes the floating stools. I think it's ok & I'm reluctant to reopen this one. We are going round and round in circles on several of these points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I still disagree with the subheading "other symptoms" in this context. It just isn't clear what separates symptoms below the subheading from symptoms above. This must be solved somehow. Just deleting the subheading might be enough.
This bullet point could be added: "Other non-specific manifestations of the disease include: weakness and fatigability; dry mouth; sleep problems; constipation; dyspepsia; and a palpable abdominal mass."[4]
A more general issue: Symptoms and signs are different types of disease manifestations. Are we supposed to make a distinction clear and list them separately? (No distinction is made in the FA lung cancer.)
I was and I am in favor of a subsection dedicated to Metastasis; however, one might expect that, if this will be in the "Signs and symptoms" section, it must include some symptoms of metastatic disease.
Too various, allowing for the major possibilities, aren't they? Also they are not given in any of the main sources I've used on pancreatic cancer, which makes me think we have gone far enough down this path. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks great, aside of the paragraph on rare hereditary syndromes, which looks wedged in the bullet list. Why don't we just connect it to the previous paragraph?
Trimmed at the moment, though I would like to get the relationship between pain and stage back in - currently on the talk page as a MEDRS ref is needed. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, I think the place for Courvoisier sign is the Symptoms and signs section.
Well, that's one that actually is diagnostically relevant. Since MEDMOS doesn't really follow the usual practice for journal review articles anyway, I think a reasonable case could be made, from a WP perspective, for including this sort of diagnostic red flag here. 2c, 86.164.164.29 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree; the same case could be made for painless jaundice. Courvoisier sign is a sign and is probably warrantied to be in the S&S section. NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only now do I notice that the CT image has the arms of a disconnected cross pointing at the tumor. I was thinking of making this a bit more obvious, e.g. by coloring the arms - this could be requested at the graphics lab.
Caption changed, to "... Cross lines towards top left surround a macrocystic adenocarcinoma of the pancreatic head.", but yes, added colour is an achievable improvement. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of Stage III seems a bit out of the blue; the average reader does not know how many the AJCC-UICC stages are. I propose the following rewriting of the first paragraph (my additions in italics):
The cancer staging system used internationally for pancreatic cancer is that of the American Joint Committee on Cancer and Union for International Cancer Control, referred to as AJCC-UICC; it designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are resectable, and so are the subset of Stage III tumors that do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery and are classified as "borderline resectable"; the remaining Stage III and Stage IV (metastatic) tumors are unresectable. The TNM staging system builds up an overall stage by assessing the Tumor size, spread to lymph Nodes and Metastasis. Stage T1 is localized tumors less than 2 cm in size, T2 tumors over that size but still wholly in the pancreas, and the other T stages are defined by the degree of spread beyond. A simpler practical classification groups the tumors as "resectable", "borderline resectable", and "unresectable" because of locally advanced or metastatic disease.
Rewritten along these lines, but with shorter sentences: "...referred to as AJCC-UICC. This designates 4 stages, which correspond to specific TNM stages. Stage I and II tumors are candidates for successful surgical removal or resection. The staging system makes an important distinction within Stage III between tumors that are classed as "borderline resectable" because they do not involve the celiac axis or superior mesenteric artery, and "unresectable". Surgery is likely to be possible for the former, but is not usual for the latter." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's ok - and it also helps give an to the lay reader what TNM evaluation is in practice. (? by isp 86 I think)
The TNM image gallery isn't centered but its heading is. Could it be formatted a bit better? Maybe center the gallery too?
For me the gallery is left-aligned and the heading right-aligned, the latter looking a bit odd. At Help:Gallery tag I'm not seeing options for these at all (on IE). Maybe there are different templates or tags to use. Wiki CRUK John (talk)
By "Heading" I mean the words "Pancreatic cancer staging". And what I mean is this. NikosGouliaros (talk)
Intraepithelial neoplasia merits a wikilink. The article on it is little more than a disambiguation page; imo it should become a redirection page to carcinoma in situ, where our wikilink should also be directed to (despite the fact that this page too is in heavy need of improvement). (Or perhaps Carcinoma in situ should be renamed intraepithelial neoplasia; this is a tricky subject, expert opinion is warrantied, and not very relevant to pancreatic cancer).
I'm not entirely sure that all or most exocrine pancreatic cancers evolve from cysts; is it supported by the sources? (I've no access to the NEJM article). In my mind, intraepithelial neoplasia is the universal preliminary lesion of adenocarcinoma.[5][6] NB: The existence of several types of precancerous cysts that often evolve to frank cancer does not mean that these lesions are the major precursor lesion of adenocarcinomas.
I'm not an expert on the subject; but after rereading this section (in more depth than I did while peer reviewing the article) I wonder if it might not be totally accurate. I admit not having the time to dig into the matter in detail (not being an expert on it).
Thank you for your answer, and your rewrite. It looks excellent![7] (And note that I was mistaken that intraepithelial neoplasia [IN] is the universal preliminary lesion). One could add that IN is by far the most common of the three.[8] However, the first paragraph seems to need adjusting now that intraepithelial neoplasia has been added.
A question though Besides pancreatic serous cystadenomas (SCNs), which are almost always benign, three types of precancerous lesion are recognized. Does it mean that SCNs are precancerous too? NikosGouliaros (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering... is this illustration really so pertinent? (Though I suppose it could be argued that it's illustrating where symptoms are coming from.) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 10:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why the parenthesis "(cysticlesions)" is necessary to accompany "cysts".
"Τhe changes of the last few years have only increased average survival times by a few months": And let's always pay attention never to refer to "average" when it's about "median".
"Watchful waiting of small tumors identified incidentally, for example on a computed tomography (CT) scan performed for other purposes, may not ultimately need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear.": Something sounds wrong here.
Yes, needed a "which" I think, but now rewritten to: "Small tumors that are identified incidentally, for example on a CT scan performed for other purposes, may be followed by watchful waiting. Ultimately, these small tumors may not need treatment, but the criteria for watchful waiting are unclear. " Clear, if a tad repetitive. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Radiolabeled hormone: some PanNETs absorb a hormone called norepinephrine and these may respond to nuclear medicine medication, radiolabeled MIBG therapy (or, experimentally, other hormones), given intravenously.": May I suggest rephrasing?
Now: "Some PanNETs absorb specific peptides or hormones, and these PanNETs may respond to nuclear medicine therapy with radiolabeled peptides or hormones such as iobenguane (iodine-131-MIBG).[55][56][57][58] Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), cryoablation, and hepatic artery embolization may also be used.[59]". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"increased average survival rates": As above: is it truly average or actually median? If unsure, it might be better to just mention "increased survival rates".
As above; the rates are calculated on the medians, but I avoid that term for accessibility reasons (and even more "measures of central tendency"), so your dichotomy is strictly incorrect (a median is an average). But the whole issue can be skipped by omitting any measure I think, and the source often does so in discussing them. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no strong view on it (I would if it wrote "mean" instead of "average"); why don't you just leave it as it is. NikosGouliaros (talk)
The fact that I do not support "Distribution" as a substitute for "Epidemiology" as a section heading still applies (see the discussion in MEDMOS), but it wouldn't oppose a FA candidacy for it.
"In recent clinical guidelines": I'm not sure this offers anything
Otherwise people will tag/query "These are variously estimated ..." I think. Mention of divergence between sources tends to produce such a reaction in my experience. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe add a couple of words on how vitamin K helped with postoperative survival?
Will do, though I now see from this that my source appears to be mistaken in calling this a discovery of 1940, since the key papers came out in 1938 (notes 2 & 3)! Irritating & I'd better say something. Probably a mistaken confusion with the line following. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "the tissue surrounding the pancreatic tumor" is the most accurate definition of "stroma" we could come up with.
Ane the reason is that it gives the impression of stroma as surrounding the tumor like a capsule; stroma is an actual part of the tumor mass.[9] How about "the tissue surrounding the cancer tissue"/? --NikosGouliaros (talk) 08:29, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, a bit, but doesn't explain stroma. I'm not sure whether the link should be to Stroma (animal tissue) or Stromal cell - or why we have the 2 different articles! Wouldn't the explanation be better much higher up, when desmoplasia is discussed? At the moment this doesn't mention stroma, though one of the sources (Ryan) uses the term plenty (though the other, Wolfgang, seems not to). I'll try to add up there. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are citations supposed to be totally uniform? E.g., have all the same links (linkable title, DOI, PMID), uniformly mention either full journal titles or initialsms, etc? I don't particularly mind, but I can start working on it
Yes, very much so, see the top of the page (Sandy Georgia comment). But there has been a lot of re-editing by various hands, especially in the peer review. I think we may need a section on the talk page to confirm what the style for the article actually is - I don't have very strong views, since there appears to be (very wrongly imo) a local consensus that page refs should NEVER be used for articles, except that it should as close as possible to the auto-template style in the standard editing window menu. But various people have adjusted the refs to suit their own preferences and we need to be consistent. Any help on this greatly appreciated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've copy edited the citations from the lead, adding some doi's and url's, and making the use of commas and semicolons more uniform. It's an example of what I have in mind. I haven't touched the journal names though; I see some articles in PMC without uniform style for them.[5]NikosGouliaros (talk)
Am I exggerating if I propose to replace the lead image, because of its inaccurate depiction of the pancreatic duct? We could go for this image, which is the lead image in pancreas; or the CT image that shows the tumor, which will be similar (though perhaps a bit inferior) to the lead image in cancer and lung cancer.
I wasn't aware that had a mistake too; what is it? Both of those images are already used, and I'd rather have one that shows the pancreas in its surroundings in that position. I'll look for another.
Right, yes, I saw that. Will change to the CRUK one for now. There may be better ones but the categorization on Commons is unreliable so they are hard to find. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
^Shimada, K; Sakamoto, Y;Sano T; et al. (2006). "Prognostic factors after distal pancreatectomy with extended lymphadenectomy for invasive pancreatic adenocarcinoma of the body and tail". Surgery. 139 (3): 288–295. doi:10.1016/j.surg.2005.08.004. PMID16546491.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^For current lack of a better source: Chemannur, AT; Smith, JG; Wu, GY; et al. "Biliary disease clinical presentation". Medscape. Retrieved 2 December 2014.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ abAlberts, SR; Goldberg, RM (2009). "Chapter 9: Gastrointestinal tract cancers". In Casciato, DA; Territo, MC (eds.). Manual of clinical oncology. Lippincot Williams & Wilkins. pp. 188–236. ISBN9780781768849.
Overall a great article which saw a lot of improvement over the last months. I am a bit confused over whether it is supposed to completely cover neuroendocrine tumors or not. Depending on the answer to that question it either contains much too little or too much information about them. Considering the big differences, wouldn't it be more clear to have a short general pancreatic cancer and then separate articles for adenocarcinoma and endocrine tumors? (no doubt this has been discussed before, I haven't looked that up).
The information about resectability is very short and simplistic and should be expanded. Vascular involvement does not necessarily preclude surgery, e.g. splenic artery and vein involvement in more distal tumors is usually not a problem as they can be resected en-bloc (with or without the spleen). There is a lot to be said about borderline resectable tumors, where vascular reconstructions (especially for venous involvement) and neo-adjuvant therapy (to increase the chance of free resection margins) are slowly becoming more commonly used. Also the info about resectability is now spread out across at least three sections, it would be helpful to consolidate that. --WS (talk) 10:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, and the earlier comments. The scope issue has been discussed before, and does present a dilemma. At the moment the article is supposed to cover all, and arguably gives too much weight to PanNETs, while still too little information about them - they are a diverse group its hard to generalize about. We have the same issue at Brain tumor, but there the balance is different, and we are planning to consistently adopt the approach you suggest. Here I think the present solution is the best, given the predominance of PAC and other factors. One issue is that pancreatic cancer is the common name and the natural search term.
I'll look at the resectability question - I'd been meaning to add some bits, like looking for the fat-plane. So far I have avoided specifying blood vessels and similar detail, as once you start you may have to do a fair bit, and Pancreaticoduodenectomy and Pancreatectomy (hmmm) have their own articles, though neither touch on this at present. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Liver cancer is a good example with a similar situation (HCC vs cholangiocarcinoma), I think it works very well there to have three articles. I think it is almost impossible to comprehensively cover both in one article and at the least PanNet should be split out, leaving only the necessary bits here. Regarding respectability, that should be covered here as it is specific to pancreatic cancer and one of the most important aspects of the diagnosis. It does not need to be very difficult, as there is no definite consensus, but broadly speaking coeliac trunk/superior mesenteric artery/hepatic artery involvement is generally considered unresectable, SMV/portal vein involvement often unresectable but sometimes done with vascular reconstruction, and splenic artery/vein resectable. Assessing resectability with CT is hard to completely cover as various criteria exist, would keep that very general. --WS (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't changed the situation as I found it, which is that we have "Pancreatic cancer", to which PAC redirects, and neuroendocrine tumor covering all sites. There's been discussion but no great consensus to (effectively) move this to PAC and split out the PanNETs. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be done this way, but as you have nominated this as a featured article, in my opinion it completely fails the comprehensiveness criterion with regard to PanNETs. To get it featured, I think it should be decided to keep this in (hard, probably confusing) or out and keep only the basic information here or in an umbrella article. --WS (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the article is "Pancreatic cancer", of which the many varied types of PanNETs, none predominating in the group, form 1-2% of cases. The comprehensiveness requirement reads "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Which major facts or details do you think are neglected, within the scope of an article on the wider topic? It certainly is more comprehensive than the many review articles, several used as sources here, that are titled using "Pancreatic cancer" but then say (usually at the end of para 1) that they are in fact entirely, or almost entirely, about pancreatic adenocarcinoma. Examples, by first-named author, are: Wolfgang, Vincent, Ryan Syl de La Crz. Most sources directed at the general public have made the same choice as this article. Leading examples are: ACS, NCI (professional, also patient version), NHS Choices, WebMD, and so on. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well on one hand, there is indeed extensive information in the classification and management sections, but on the other hand, any specific information on diagnosis and prevention/screening is completely lacking. Signs and symptoms are very shortly mentioned but only within the classification section, and it is not clear that the information in the symptoms section does mostly not apply to them. --WS (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear in that the list is introduced as "common symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma". I think the symptoms of PanNETs are too various to describe usefully in an article of this type, but I'm willing to be pursuaded otherwise. The two main journal sources (Burns & Edil and Oberg et al) conspicuously duck giving comprehensive lists of symptoms, but I could add that (from B&E) the ~90% of non-functioning cases "typically present with symptoms related to local mass effect or metastatic disease" which is all they have to say on that. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) WS correctly points out thematically that resectibility criteria are examined only briefly herein. However, this is a busily debated / potentially moving target over the past 6 to 7 years e.g. - PMIDs: 16703621, 24787115, 22209537, 22064622, 25519932, 25516657, 25339810, 25071332, 24578248 - and many others. The issue is tangentially touched on within "Research." I would think that a brief encyclopedic synthesis of this corpus is possible, taking WP:NPOV care. I will address the issue tomorrow if I have time. 2) As far as "too much, or too little" on PanNETs, I don't have a strong opinion, although I might opt myself to reduce that content modestly. Such a trim would be procedurally simple, and I think might be a broad modest trim, with a particular focus on "Treatment. I'd be willing to do this - give me a nudge on my Talk page. I might even be tempted to do it boldly tomorrow. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:31, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather it was discussed first. The subject of "Pancreatic cancer" certainly includes them, and I'm more sympathetic to exapanding rather than reducing the coverage of them, where succinct generalization is possible. Expanding resection criteria somewhat is fine, though anything more than a few lines should go to surgical articles, perhaps even a new one. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very good, I'll follow your preference as to PanNET content. Thus, in alignment with input here / other commentators: 1) I've added several WP:MEDRS in response to the comment that there was inadequate sourcing for the section. In so doing, the text mildly consolidates. 2) As far as resectibility considerations for the "adenocarcinoma family" I will add a one or two sentence synthesis with selected reference later today - but this topic is a modestly warm potato that should not to allowed to become disproportionate in an article for general readers. For example, the NEJM review dodges over-engagement by conveying the essence as a sliding scale "continuum of resectibility" i.e. contentious, evolving, and dependent on "risk acceptance". 3) In terms of PanNET symptoms and diagnosis, I think briefly expanding on these as recommended by WS would be reasonable, perhaps along the lines of referencing Burns & Edil and Oberg et al as you suggest. However, substantial enlargement is not needed.FeatherPluma (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've added content, perhaps too much (and over ref) to fully address resectibility - and in doing so added neoadjuvant Rx. I do not hv time to get to PanNET symptoms and diagnosis today. FeatherPluma (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion to FA. All of my concerns have been addressed. One additional suggestion would be to devote one or two sentences of the diagnosis section specifically to the diagnosis of Pannets. --WS (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In people not suitable for curative surgery, palliative chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life and extend life." There seems to be a minor technical problem in the language. The chemotherapy, whether purely palliative versus curative versus both palliative and curative, depends on the intent. Palliative intent does not necessarily mean that the intent is against lengthening life; however, usually palliative chemotherapy means chemotherapy not particularly intended to lengthen life. So, in this instance, is Gemcitabine (or other regimen) really palliative, if the intent is to increase life? Again, I admit that the same agent can be used with palliative versus curative intent. What I propose is to omit the word "palliative" preceding chemotherapy, and use "chemotherapy may be used to improve quality of life (palliative intent) and extend life". Other comments are welcome. --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been doing some edits, here and to the article, as Johnbod, my other a/c, which I try not to do to avoid confusing people. Anyway, we're both going to bed now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While agreeing that "poor prognosis" may be considered an understatement, I think it would be preferable to avoid here the cliché of "dismal prognosis", for the sake of some of our lay readers (personally, I'd prefer "very poor"). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 15:32, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I don't have a strong opinion on this - I just felt that "dismal prognosis" was the sort of pro-speak we were trying to avoid for the benefit of our wider readership. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma has a number of symptoms, but none that are individually distinctive to it or appear in the early stages of disease. - first clause redundant (all conditions have "a number of symptoms") - I would reword to "The symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma are not distinctive, and do not generally appear until the disease is well advanced"
Don't really like that - it may be true that "all conditions have "a number of symptoms"" (though, really, there are no monosymptomatic diseases? Odd if so - oh, 67,300 google results for "monosymptomatic), but pancreatic cancer surely has an unusually large crop. "the disease is well advanced" is a bit less lay-friendly than "the early stages of disease", isn't it? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence remains problematic. It appears to be unsourced (not covered by the NEJM review) and somewhat equivocal (isn't painless jaundice fairly distinctive?). IMO, this is part of a broader issue regarding the way we're presenting Symptoms/==Diagnosis==, and I've made some suggestions for improvement on the article talk page (permalink). Despite the lack of response there I've so far hesitated to make changes based on silent consensus, given the FAC process (I too am keen to be able to support promotion of this article which I've been working on). 86.181.67.166 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The symptoms of pancreatic adenocarcinoma do not usually appear in the early stages of disease, and are individually not distinctive to the disease." with other refs. No, I don't believe painless jaundice is distinctive; our long and rather technical article on it doesn't seem to mention "pain" once, though I expect it should. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Can we move the following to somewhere near the start of the Symptoms section, where imo this sort of content belongs (and would also be also rather closer to the figure illustrating the head, body and tail of the pancreas)?
The symptoms at diagnosis vary according to the location of the cancer on the pancreas, which anatomists divide (from left to right on most diagrams) into the thick head, the neck, and the tapering body, ending in the tail. About 60–70% of adenocarcinomas are in the head of the pancreas, and 20–25% in the body or tail.<ref name="NEJM14" /> The most common symptom for all locations is unexplained weight loss, which may be considerable. Tumors in the head of the gland typically also cause jaundice, pain, [[Anorexia (symptom)|loss of appetite]], dark urine, and light-colored stools. Tumors in the body and tail typically also cause pain. For all locations, nausea, vomiting and a feeling of weakness are present in a large minority (between 35% and 47%) of people at diagnosis.<ref name="Cruz" />
Fwiw, I'm *very* supportive of making disease articles such as this one more accessible to lay readers, but I don't think that simply listing common presentation symptoms under ==Diagnosis== is actually helpful. Any response to my article talk-page suggestions (permalink)? 86.181.67.166 (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree on this. As I've explained before, I'm very keen to keep the "symptoms" section as clear and patient-friendly as possible, and to keep the relationship between symptoms and precise location on the pancreas out of there. So I think that belongs in diagnosis. Johnbod (talk) 14:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The source of disagreement does not regard accessibility, since these things can be written more simply: eg "Most (60–70%) pancreatic cancers are in the head of the pancreas" - period... thereby saving the reader from wondering why the quoted figures don't add up to 100%. (Though wouldn't this information really be better under ==Types== - with the illustration helpfully alongside?) Please see my talk-page post of 2 December (and subsequent suggestions). 86.181.67.166 (talk) 14:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some quantification/elaboration of defining "family history" or genetic loading. This interests me personally as I've had an uncle and great aunt die of Ca pancreas - so giving the reader some idea, even as a footnote, would be good.
Quantification should all be in terms of increased risk, I think, and these are what the sources give (this sort of thing). Actual incidence is probably too variable in human populations to use. Some of the increases are rather low, others alarmingly high. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I support this being promoted - one minor issue for me is see also section - normally I'd recommend putting these in body of article, so a small section on (say) advocacy and support groups...but the article is so long and all it would be is sentences stating the obvious ("X is a group promoting awareness of..yada yada yada") so I can see a strong case for them being listed at the bottom Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 21:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I haven't actually touched the see alsos. In my position as Wikipedian in residence at Cancer Research UK I have a COI here, but I'd argue that probably both in the UK & US as much or more work on pancreatic cancer is done by the big "all cancer" charities like CRUK than the inevitably smaller "one cancer" ones, so if you start a text section, you have to start listing them too, plus groups in other countries ... Johnbod (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great collaborative effort, and testimony to the hard work by a number of dedicated editors.
The word "patient" should generally be avoided and replaced with a neutral term.
I have gone through & replaced with "person" or "case", except in the "history" section. See User:Curly Turkey's comments above - he thought that "The first reported partial pancreaticoduodenectomy was performed by the Italian surgeon Alessandro Codivilla in 1898, but the person only survived 18 days before succumbing to complications" was ambiguous, as "person" might refer to the surgeon. I find this "ambiguity" implausible, but "patient" certainly reads more naturally. CT changed it to patient, Doc James changed it back, but I've now changed it to patient again. I understand the general avoidance of "patient", but I don't see that it applies when referring to specific but un-named historical individuals who died decades ago or more (and from their disease). There's also the one just after about one of Whipple's cases in the 1930s: "Only one of the patients had the duodenum totally removed, but he survived for two years before dying of metastasis to the liver". If anyone doesn't agree with these, please supply arguments relating to such historical examples, and suggestions on alternative phrasings - "case" and "person" don't really work. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The opening line sounds a little bit clunky. While cancer is thought to arise from a single cell, the current phrasing suggests that it is diffuse/hyperplastic growth rather than a mass lesion. I suggest this is rephrased.
It is my personal view that "Classification" should not precede "Signs and symptoms", because as a section it usually requires a lot of context from other sections. It is probably best covered as a subsection of "Diagnosis".
The current position follows WP:MEDMOS. Personally I think (in this case anyway) it is much easier and effective to get this clear early on. It gives even more context than it takes to/from "Signs and symptoms" and "diagnosis", doesn't it? I've noticed that other web pages that don't have it early on get into difficulties, and risk being misleading. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Imo, without assuming some background knowledge (from the lead?) appropriate contextualization is always going to be an editorial challenge (eg describing a spectrum of symptoms depends on background knowledge of tumor types). However, I do share some misgivings about the choice of heading. Apart from the strictly editorial question of whether it's appropriate to expect our readers to know that we're only referring to pathological (rather than actual clinical) classification, the fact is we're not even really getting close to outlining that – and I wouldn't suggest we attempt to do so (though a ref might be helpful[?]). Imo, 'Types' would be a far more appropriate heading, which is both unpretentious and reader-friendly. And fwiw, I don't think a highly restrictive interpretation of MEDMOS should be a reason for veto (per WP:MOSvT??). 2c, 109.158.8.201 (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not quite clear why "Alcohol" is a subsection of "Risk factors" despite only consisting of three sentences. I would suggest breaking out the genetical causes into their own subsection, seeing that genetics is thought to contribute substantially to many cases.
It's in a sub-section to avoid it being taken as part of the list, because it isn't endorsed as a risk factor, but I thought that there has been so much investigation as to whether it is that it shouldn't just be omitted. I'm thinking what to do with inherited genetic factors in the light of Cas Liber's comments above too. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In "Diagnosis", the paragraph beginning with "About 80% to 85%" doesn't have reference despite making a specific numerical claim. Similarly, the next paragraph ("Patients sometimes") duplicates content from earlier in the article, but has no reference. Further on in this section, "Pancreatic cancer has an immunohistochemical profile [...]" has no reference despite being a rather specific claim.
In "Mechanism", I'm wondering whether it might be an idea to move the highly technical content about mutations into a table. I am concerned that the reader will change channels after being put off by the terminology.
I've thought about this, but they come quite far down the article, by which time the reader has probably learned to sink or skim, as it were, and are over fairly quickly. Not all the info is standard, so either there would be information loss, or a pretty messy table. I'm more concerned about the hereditary factors up at risk factors, which I think are a bigger fence for the reader to jump, but some of the scary information on risk %s is significantly variable between sources, & possibly too alarming to put out in a context like this. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(piggybacking again) I'm also having trouble understanding one of the sentences about the genetics of PanNETs, which currently seems focused on Multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1: Instead, common mutations affect MEN1, as in the inherited Wermer's syndrome, DAXX, mTOR and ATRX.[Burns 2012] I think I know what the original writer probably meant, but without access to the full text of the cited source, it's difficult for me to do a straight fix the wording with confidence. (Another source that might conceivably come in handy here is PMID22586144[28].) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've now expanded this a bit [29] (per a good source, imo). A small, vaguely related point: It occurs to me that perhaps names of genes should really go in italics?(done)86.181.67.166 (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC), ex-109.158.8.201[reply]
"Prevention" is a short section, and I am unsure why it needs a tiny subsection called "screening". How about calling the whole section "prevention and screening"?
The "Management" section is very good, although I am wondering if all discussion of chemotherapy could be conducted in a single section. After all, the adjuvant and palliative regimens are effectively identical.
Piggybacking here just to say that I think the subsection on PanNETs still needs some attention (commented here). Also I agree it would be preferable to avoid having a separate "Palliative care" subsection. 109.158.8.201 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-united all chemo, also radiotherapy. The PanNETS section has been re-written & commented on elsewhere. I don't think JFW was suggesting "to avoid having a separate "Palliative care" subsection", which I don't think a good idea. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"History" - is there any source that discussed how the condition was first recognised? Who was the Courvoisier's sign of the eponymous sign? I am a bit unsure about the direct quote at the end of the section. Any reason it can't be paraphrased?
I didn't find any, though I'm sure it's somewhere. Ludwig Georg Courvoisier (1843–1918), a surgeon from Basel, published Casuistisch-statistische Beiträge zur Pathologie und Chirurgie der Gallenwege in 1890, describing the sign as eliminating the possibility of gallstones, but not actually mentioning cancer (according to Wikipedia), which is why I left him out. But he could be mentioned. I also looked for the early radio & chemo history, but couldn't find it easily - I imagine the early chemo results were so poor it hasn't been written up much. Personally I like the quote, and on a general point think Wikipedia medicine doesn't use direct quotation often enough (I think mainly put off by gross overuse by some poor editors). The "virtual explosion" is graphic phrasing I'd like to keep, and would obviously need to quote, and by that time you might as well keep the whole line, imo, rather than a paraphrase that would probably take more words to convey the meaning in a blander fashion. See also Curly Turkey above, who doesn't like this either (but also CasLiber above, rooting for "dismal" prognosis). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment moved from Talk:Pancreatic cancer (as requested): There's an unexplained quotation (following a semicolon): "For the next decade, little attention was paid to this report; however, over the subsequent 15 years, there has been a virtual explosion in the recognition of this tumor."[38] Without consulting the reference, this juxtaposition makes no sense. I'd also question the explosive tone, which seems to jar with the more encyclopedic prose. Couldn't the quotation be inserted in the reference? (Note: I'm also unsure about the reliance on primary sources in the surrounding text - can't we have secondary source/s [PMID24206780?] alongside?) 109.158.8.201 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented on this under the Curly Turkey section above. I don't understand why "Without consulting the reference, this juxtaposition makes no sense". I'm afraid I can't follow some editors in the drive for maximum blandness in prose at every point. That isn't my conception of encyclopedic prose, at least not all the time. We are an encyclopedia, but even medical textbooks allow themselves the odd moments of "explosive tone", and are generally the better for it imo. The fiddly nature of the point being made, about different periods in the past, also makes a direct quotation the most efficient way of conveying this. On the primary studies, I've added a secondary ref for the "1,000 consecutive". I think this and the other one were referred to in DeVita also, but I'm not sure I have the relevant passage to hand now (at home). Even with a secondary ref, the "1,000" is a useful read, and when the text is talking about a specific historial series in a history section, I think it is good to refer to the original primary source as well as a secondary one, as one would in any normal history section or article. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I too support placing notable primary sources alongside the secondary ones in medical history content – as long as the secondary ones are in place. To me, that would typically mean each statement being clearly supported by an appropriate secondary source.
Regarding the use of quotation: I don't see consensus for this particular usage. Also, the WP:QUOTE essay suggests that "Overuse happens when... a quotation is visually on the page, but its relevance is not explained anywhere" – as seems to me to be the case here. 86.181.67.166 (talk) 11:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RE Courvoisier's sign: Based on this review/historical article, which I've used to source/rephrase a statement in the Diagnosis section, I agree with John that no mention of Courvoisier himself is needed here, given that he seems not actually to have mentioned pancreatic cancer in his original publication of 1890 (unsurprisingly perhaps, given the incomplete recognition of the disease at the time he was writing). 109.158.8.201 (talk) 15:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support promotion to FA. The history section is now very good. I would still recommend splitting the "genetics" part of the "Risk factors" section into a separate subsection, but that's no biggie. JFW | T@lk20:49, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A very dear little lemur I knew just died of pancreatic (and liver) cancer... so it's only appropriate that I use this opportunity to learn more and help get this article promoted. Thank you for working on it.
I think the lead should note that the recent onset of diabetes (and the other signs/symptoms) can also be an indicator. Speaking from experience, I feel this is important to note up front.
Hmm, it is the complicated nature of this, as both a symptom and possible cause, with the difference between new and long-standing diabetes, plus age factors that I think makes it too difficult to fit into a list in the lead, without misleading. De La Cruz, p. 627, says "Also, a sudden onset of atypical type 2 diabetes mellitus that is difficult to control in a thin patient 50 years or older suggests pancreatic cancer." - perhaps I should quote that in a note, but so many qualifications make it hard to include in the lead I think. What do others think? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Under "Signs and symptoms", I suggest putting jaundice before pain in the upper abdomen since the latter also mentions the former (before it's discussed).
The "Pancreatic cancer staging" gallery looks very informative, but might be best to split it into two rows with larger images so that the text might be read without clicking on each file.
I have, I hope achieved this by using packed mode, and removing one to a normal picture. On my screen all the 5 pancreas images now fit on one row, though no doubt this isn't true on all screens. I think this is better, certainly. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This looks a thousand times better! There were some issues with the font, where letters were being cut off, so I fixed them in the SVGs... so hopefully I didn't mess anything up. – Maky« talk »21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The two Whipple's operation images might be best put together using Template:Multiple image. This is just a suggestion.
2 items: "Management of pancreatic cancer should be in the hands of a multidisciplinary team including specialists in several aspects of oncology, and is therefore best conducted in larger centers." & "treatment should be undertaken in a specialized center" – These almost strike me as a case of WP:NOTADVICE... because of the way it's worded.
"However, the changes of the last few years..." – I'm worried that this could become dated and misleading in a few years.
Sadly, there is little sign of this! If it does change it should certainly get written up as it would be a massive & transformational breakthrough. The preceding sentence begins "By the end of 2013...", which I think is dating enough. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any discussion on the topic of the recent achievement of growing a pancreas from stem cells? I know that any treatments would be a long way off, but has the possibility been mentioned in the literature?
No doubt, like many other things, but it doesn't come up in the sources, nor was it mentioned by the outside researcher-reviewer. I don't see it would help if the disease has metastasized at diagnosis, and replacing the functions of the pancreas is by no means the biggest problem in treatment. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I know medical articles typically only discuss human disease, but if photos from the lemur necropsy would be helpful, I might be able to get them released. I believe the photos I have showed cancerous growths on the pancreas and liver. If so, I'm not sure what could be said since I didn't see any material on pancreatic cancer in other species at a quick glance. Either way, just let me know. – Maky« talk »08:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've not seen anything on animal tumours, not that I've looked very hard. Veterinary oncology seems normally only concerned with dogs and cats, & rather sketchy on them. Thanks for these comments, and I'm sorry to hear about the lemur. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish more veterinary articles existed so that articles as wonderful as yours could be linked where appropriate. It just leave Wiki feeling very human-centric, particularly for anyone coming online to learn more about the illness in animals. But that's nothing that can be helped here. Again, thank you for doing such a wonderful job with this topic on the human side of things! – Maky« talk »21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When I've asked about this, the general consensus was that, apart from the economics, the treatment of animals would typically be unfairly distressing for them (chemo, radio etc) so even the (I imagine rare) early stage diagnoses are normally put to sleep at once. Cancers seem to vary rather a lot between species, so any development of therapy would need to be species-by-species. There is some research interest in what animal cancers can tell us about human cancers. Johnbod (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: One of my points above was only partly addressed. Once that last statement is fixed, I will gladly give my support. – Maky« talk »21:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All of my concerns have been addressed and appropriate changes have been made. I am happy to give my support. And I'm sure Janga would have given you a nose touch and a little friendly face licking if she were still here and able to appreciate what you've done. – Maky« talk »22:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I'll need longer to walk through all commentary but in the meantime I didn't see an image review above, you can post a request on WT:FAC as necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:53, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've given the article another read-through and made some minor MoS edits. I find it readable, and I'm going to give it my support. I do have a couple of comments:
CDKN2A mutations/deletions (about 95%), TP53 inactivations (75%), and SMAD4 deletions/mutations: I don't know the meaning of "mutations/deletions", but I imagine if it's "mutations" first the first time, it should be the second time as well. Also, I don't know whether MOS:SLASH applies here.
I was going to just switch to "mutations", but since we have Deletion (genetics), I've linked that. I'm well out of my depth here, but is Gene silencing the right link for "inactivations"? It appears in the sources. And for CDKN2A and SMAD4, are all the mutations relevant here deletions, so I can drop "mutation", or only some or most? Or do we even know? "Lancet" & "Wolfgang" have the most on this of the commonly used sources. To pursue. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we haven't set out here to provide any real detail about the mechanisms, I feel John's simple fix of just referring to '[gene] mutations' (in general) could be editorially appropriate. Otherwise, I think a bit more explanation is needed for our general readership. 2c, 86.181.67.166 (talk) 16:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've now tried to address this point here. To clarify what's going on with the activations, inactivations and deletions, etc, we'd really need to tell the reader bit about the role here of each of these genes (oncogene/tumor suppressor/s) (small note: The cited source/s describe the biological mechanism quite clearly, and I don't think it would be a problem to give readers a bit more information on the biological mechanism in reasonably plain English). 86.134.203.235 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC), previously 86.181.67.166, etc[reply]
In "Distribution", you have "11th" and "12th", but "tenth" and "fifth" in the next paragraph. I'd homogenize them.
Support with comments: I read through last week, made notes, carefully watched the edits since. Much that I noted is now taken care of. A few comments though (from a layperson):
"The exocrine group is dominated by pancreatic adenocarcinoma (variations of this name may add "invasive" and "ductal"), which is by far the most common type, representing about 85% of all pancreatic cancers,[2] although the pancreatic ductal epithelium from which it arises represents less than 10% of the pancreas by cell volume.[18]" >> long sentence at the beginning of a section. Had a hard time getting through it.
"A biopsy by fine needle aspiration, often guided by endoscopic ultrasound, may be used where there is uncertainty over the diagnosis, but a histologic diagnosis is not usually required for removal of the tumor by surgery to go ahead.[3]" >> I understand what's being said is that needle aspiration isn't required for surgery; but to me it seems these are two separate procedures and so should be split.
Resection margin - margins are referred to as "edges of the tissue removed". At least in the US, in my limited non-medical experience, margins are always referred to as margins and not edges. Not a big deal but thought I'd mention in case it causes confusion (it confused me).
Isn't a margin always an edge at a rather higher scale? "“Negative Margins” is a term that surgical oncologists and pathologists employ; it means that there are no tumor cells identified at any of the edges of the resected specimen" - US surgeon in the EL at Resection margin- "margin" seems inherently rather unclear to me, so I'm keen to keep the clearer "edge". I had to rewrite Resection margin a while back btw, as it was gibberish, so anyone with ideas as how to make the point clearer here or there is welcome to chip in. We are talking about surfaces here; the margin is supposed to be between the tumour & the cut surface, but on examination it may turn out that the tumour extends further than thought, and there is no such clean margin, and the edge includes cancer. The article says "Even when the operation appears to have been successful, cancerous cells are often found at the edges of the tissue removed when examined microscopically by a pathologist (this will always be done), indicating the cancer has not been entirely removed,[2]". This seems fine to me, I must say. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know what a margin is in regards to cancers and biopsies and so on. The point I think I'm trying to make is that I've always only heard the term "margin" and never "edge". I'm not really fussed about it, but it's something that I noticed and I did click out of the article to look at the link. Maybe put "margins" in parenthesis? I do think the term margins should show up somewhere. It could well be that the terminology is different in the US and UK. Victoria (tk) 03:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is (as the surgeon's quote above demonstrates), and I'm quite sure that most people don't know quite what a margin is in this context. I don't like 86's removal of "edge" at all, & will think of a better way later. Outside of page margins, "margin" seems to me to be a word that is inhererently unclear, however common. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The usual term is certainly "margin" – a word which corresponds in common English to "edge or border"[30]. My feeling is [31][32] that "margin" is a sufficiently common word for anyone able to attempt this section to take in without much trouble (especially with the help of the link). I also tried [33] glossing "margins" with "edges", but to my eyes at least, my attempt looked like an unnecessary thicket of words. Anyway, see what you think...86.181.67.166 (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Palliative care: "CPB is a safe and effective way to reduce the pain, which generally reduces the need to use opioid painkillers, which have significant negative side effects" > One source says "Opioids are the mainstay of pharmacologic therapy for pancreatic cancer pain. Initial therapy may consist of a short-acting agent such as morphine or oxycodone." Another sources says " fewer adverse effects than opioids is important for patients". Should probably be clear that CBP is an option >> when, particularly at end-stage, palliative care is all that can be done. But defer to the medical experts on this.
It says:"Pain can be managed with medications such as opioids or through procedural intervention, by a nerve block on the celiac plexus (CPB)." Doesn't this make it clear it is an option? Johnbod (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Early operations were compromised partly because of mistaken beliefs that it was essential for life to preserve the duodenum" > I had a hard time parsing this. Maybe delete "for life"?
That's all. Oh agree with Cas re the "See also", and also agree to leave the gene mutations as is. I think it's too tricky to explain that the genes are a.) mutated, and b.) are deletrious. Victoria (tk) 02:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note - I am confident that any remaining issues will be dealt with after closing. Thanks to all the reviewers for their contributions to this FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 12:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My last ancient building was a Derbyshire castle, so it must be time for a Leicestershire church. This quiet market town church was once a hotbed of Puritanism under the patronage of Henry Hastings. It doesn't face east, the nave is wider than it is long, and it has a finger pillory.
I've tried to avoid technical terms and not go into too much detail of the architecture to keep the length of the page reasonable, but if there are glaring omissions, I'll remedy if I can Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All good. All the images are properly tagged and are either in the Public Domain or are under Creative Commons licenses—including several by Jimfbleak himself. Curly Turkey¡gobble!23:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've personally struggled with sources for articles on local history - all I could find were self-published books by amateur historians who don't cite their sources. For this church one has a choice of four books - but verification is difficult as the books can be tricky to find. The article uses Williams (1980) but the only library listed as having a copy on Worldcat is Pitts Theology Library in Atlanta. Why didn't the British Library keep its copy?
I agree up to a point, and although much of the descriptive stuff is obvious, I've tried to double check where I have doubts. Williamson, for example, gets the name of one of the Victorian glassmakers wrong. If I have doubts about the facts and can't verify (or if they are challenged) I'll remove them. Jimfbleak - talk to me?12:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 6 "British Listed Buildings" in spite of its name appears to be a commercial site with adverts. The same information appears to be available from the English Heritage site - currently Ref 20.
Starkey, Julia. St Helen's Church... a short tour Ashby-de-la-Zouch:St Helen's Church What sort of publication is this? What makes this reliable?
It's the current official church guide, sold in the church. I accept that it may not be totally reliable , and I'll double-check her claims
I've found the leaflet on the church website. The author's first name is given as Julie and not Julia. It is an attractive leaflet but isn't a suitable source for the church history. Aa77zz (talk) 22:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the core of the present building mainly dates from 1474 - surely it took more than a year to build.
"and is aligned at 25° north of east.[12][13]" Reference 12, Thompson (1927–1928), contains a detailed plan with a compass rose indicating that the church is only 10 degrees from an EW alignment.
The two refs were each referencing one half of the sentence, it's Starkey that says 25 degrees. In the interests of OR, I took alignments at several points inside and outside the church. None were less than 25, and most were nearer 30. I just copied the arrow direction in Williams without measuring it, but it looks as if his draughtswoman got it bang on with the angle you measured. I've separated the two refs, but given the OR and possible errors of my estimates, I'm inclined to keep both the referenced 25 (near enough) and the depicted angle in my plan. Even if the LAHS plan was correct, it would still be an exceptional deviation Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK - I've done my own OR - screen capture of google earth and then measure angle in Photoshop. The result is 27.5 (+/- 0.5) degree. Thus Thompson is wrong and 25 degree is fine. Aa77zz (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A heretical thought: I think one could say that the church axis is almost 30 degrees from EW without a reference. It is not too dissimilar to saying that Ashby lies 18 miles from Leicester - and is obvious from a cursory glance at a map. Aa77zz (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about long delay, I'm back now. I accept what you say,but since there is a source that 25, I'm reluctant to contradict that with a measurement, but I'm open to persuasion. Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the same time as that part of the tower, making it the oldest of its kind in the UK" - Starkey. What sources does Starkey cite?
I've struggled with this. I'm pretty sure she's right, but I'm still looking for a RS source. Similarly, I know what the type is, but struggling to RS that as well Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The arch gateway at the western end of the churchyard bears a skull and crossbones, warning of a plague pit nearby in which the victims of the 1645 outbreak were interred." - What are Starkey's sources? How does she know the age and the significance of the skull and crossbones? (How old is the gateway?)
"The chancel east window contains arms of Richard I and Edward I which are among the earliest stained glass in existence." This needs a good source. English Heritage don't claim this.
"Kirkland of Huddersfield." Organ manufacturers are well documented. There was an organ manufacturer of this name in Wakefield (14 miles away) from around 1875. The firm made a large number of organs - see Kirkland on the National Pipe Organ Register.
There appears to be a problem with the dates. According to the NPOR website Kirkland was only active from around 1874 ie 50 years after the 1824 repair. The NPOR do not specify the maker or the date of the St Helen's organ - but the "Buildings found" box has a cryptic mention of Kirkland:
I haven't tried to decode this. Perhaps Kirkland repaired the organ. I assume some of this refers to the British Organ Archive records. Also, how do we know that 1824 was the "first" repair? First recorded repair? What does your source, Williams (1980) pp. 7–9 have to say? Aa77zz (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the uncertainty about the organ's date, I've removed the 1824 date and stuck with the more recent restorations, verified by Williams and a brass plate on the organ itself. Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"the earliest glass is German, Swiss and Flemish work" Specify roundels in modern windows? English Heritage are more careful with "that are said to have been brought from Farleigh Hungerford (Somerset)"
Interior views - iPhones are not ideal for photographing the interior of churches. I've lightened the shadows (but one can't polish a turd). User:Diliff has taken a number of impressive church interiors but lives in London.
File:Sthelenscolor-02final.jpg appears very slightly crooked - the north wall appears to drop to the right. The plan in the Thompson article indicates that the walls should be square. The direction of the North arrow in the sketch is 30 degrees from vertical - rather than 25 degrees mentioned in the text and 10 degrees in the Thompson plan. I also notice that the buttresses mid-way along the walls to the north and south of the tower are denoted as modern in Thompson but as 14-15th century in your plan. Is this a change in Williams 1980?
The misalignment at least shows that I didn't copy it. I'm reluctant to redo to fix a minor error. I think we have dealt with the angle above. Yes, and William's draughtswoman shows more detail on this feature so I'm inclined to follow her unless you feel that's the wrong decision Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation to 1547: "The parish is in the deanery of North West Leicestershire, the Diocese of Leicester and the Province of Canterbury." I suspect this is the current organization and thus doesn't really belong in this section.
See the churches website. It looks like it is officially called "St Helen's Church" or the "Parish Church of St. Helens". I think that "St Helen's Church, AdlZ" should be the name of the page. A number of churches have this name (not abbreviated), see St. Helen's Church. Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, the church's own website would normally be considered to be correct, I would have thought. If the church's own website repeatedly calls the church "St Helen's Church" then that is the name of the church, for me. Snowman (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See St. Helen's Church, where it is apparent that the usual format for Wiki articles appears to be "St. Helen's Church". I have invited participants of WP Anglicism to advance the discussion about the name of the church with an invitation on the Wiki Project's talk page. Snowman (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, we do need the FAC page and the article name to be in sync when it comes to bot time but I'll take care of it -- hey, that's why they pay me the big bucks... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See File:St Helens (8062003931).jpg. It has got an aerial or flagpole on the top. This would look like a prominent feature that should be included. Also, I am interested in physics, so I usually look for lightning conductors on tall buildings and this image shows one. Should the lightning conductor be part of the article? Snowman (talk) 11:55, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal for churches and other tall buildings to have lightning conductors, but they are not of historical or architectural interest, so the one at St Helen's isn't actually mentioned in any of the texts. I think it is probably something that would be assumed to be present, like gutters to carry away rain water Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The lightning rod was invented by Benjamin Franklin in Pennsylvania in 1749,[2]" according the the Wiki page on lightning conductors, so a lightning conductor would not have been normal for buildings before that era. What about the flagpole? Is the flagpole also a lightning rod? Snowman (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone is suggesting that the lightning rod dates from the 15th century. It's likely that it is a nineteenth century addition, but I don't think that it will be possible to verify that. I doubt that the flagpole is part of the conductor, and I'm not sure if it's a permanent feature, but I'll have a look later today. Again, there is unlikely to be any documentation Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the flagpole does appear to be permanent. The lightning conductor ends at the top of one of the stone pinnacles on the tower. Although the flagpole is slightly higher, its flammability and relative flimsiness presumably make it unsuitable as a terminal for the conductor. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... and is aligned at 25° north of east.[13]". Is the tower at the west end or the east end? I am finding it difficult to workout which side of the tower is which. Snowman (talk) 12:57, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an account of the notes each bell is tuned to? How much does each bell weigh? What was wrong with the bells that needed them to be recast and rehung in 2006? Snowman (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All I could find on the bells is in the article. I have the pre-2006 weight for the tenor bell, the largest, but it's been recast since then, so no guarantee it's the same. I'll add it anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This webpage about the church has a different story about the bells than the Wiki article. This webpage may not meet the requirements for a source for the Wiki, but there may be some truth in the story there. Apparently, in 2006 two new bells were added so there are now ten. Why not phone up the church to find out about how may bells there are? Snowman (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse my ignorance, but I do not know who St Helen is. What is her correction with the church or region and why was the church named after her? Snowman (talk) 13:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Linked already in second paragraph of "Foundation to 1547". Nobody knows why the dedication (more than 1000 years ago) was to this saint, although her article say she may have been British originally Jimfbleak - talk to me?17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if the Wiki article on Henry Hastings' is correct; however, it appears to say that some of the Hastings family are buried at the church. Is this relevant to the article?Snowman (talk) 14:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think considering the importance of the family to the locality, it's very relevant, especially in the case of Henry, a nationally important figure. I can't quite see what your getting at here, are you suggesting that their monuments shouldn't be discussed in the article? I've tried to concentrate only on those with the most significant memorials in the Hastings Chapel. Jimfbleak - talk to me?17:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my comment is somewhat confusing partly because I am not sure who "Huntingdon" is as featured in the Henry Hastings Wiki article. What I am confused about is where Henry Hastings is buried. The picutre of Henry Hastings and the text that says "coffins of the Hastings family" in this church article may suggest that Henry Hastings is one of the family who is buried there. Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've confirmed that Henry is buried in St Helen's. I don't think that there is a memorial, which would fit with his hard-line protestantism, which eschewed any showiness in religion. Jimfbleak - talk to me?11:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The living at St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508". I do not understand this nor the Wikilink on "living" to "Benefice". Is the living in the pleural? Snowman (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is now; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was in the gift of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ...". I think that it would literally mean; "The advowson of St Helen's Church was a property right of Lilleshall Abbey until 1508, ..., but I might be wrong. I would think that advowson is jargon from ecclesiastical Law - it may need a foot note or short explanation in parenthesis. As I understand it from the OED, an advowson is a property right that can be used by the property owner. Snowman (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked a bit. The only practical consequence of the advowson here or elsewhere is the ability to nominate the incumbent; it's not ownership in the sense of being able to sell the church or similar Jimfbleak - talk to me?17:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"... and his countess, Catherine." The actual name on the toome is Katherin (see image at English churches). It looks like stonework at the area beyond the end of the word "Katherin" has been damaged, so it might say "Katherine" as in the text of this webpage. Why does the article say Catherine and not Katherin or Katherine? Snowman (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling was very variable then (for example Shakespeare signed his name with several different spellings, none of which corresponds to that in current use). The text continues "countisse of Huntyngdon". I used modern spelling, and Catherine is used by all my sources as the accepted version of her name. Jimfbleak - talk to me?19:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the introduction; "...by William Hastings at the same time he erected his neighbouring castle.". This may be an oversimplification. There is an account of Hastings involvement at Ashby de la Zouch Castle wikipage, which says that he "started major works to extend and improve the castle" after it had been owned by the crown. Snowman (talk) 13:22, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's stretching it a bit to describe a fortified manor house as a castle, and neither Scott or Hillier describe the previous building as such. That looks like [[[WP:OR]] in the Wikipedia article to me, since their was no previous licence to crenellate. However, I've expanded the text a little to clarify Jimfbleak - talk to me?19:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorely hoping that, upon reading the article, I find out that the church is home to a brood of rare Pyroclastic Pigeons or something like that. A Jimfbleak nomination without birds? *gasp* (yes, this is humor) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The tower, Hastings Chapel, and some buttresses and windows still remain from the fifteenth century works. - Is "works" adding anything? I think losing it would make the sentence clearer
added during this period, along with the removal of the galleries, conversion of a chapel to a vestry and improvements to the Hastings Chapel. - to keep this parallel, I think "added during this period" needs to be changed to something with a noun
Mark James Monk, organist from 1880–1883, fulfilled the same role from 1890 at Truro Cathedral. - is this really worth its own paragraph? Anything more on other organists?
Support - Very good work, I'm pleased to see the branching out. Wouldn't want any editors to feel like they need to roost in a certain place — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – A nice little article Jim, I enjoyed reading this. A lovely contrast to what we're used to from you. One thing caught my eye:
The church reportedly had much stained glass in 1622, but that disappeared during the Reformation." — Two things: Firstly, we have already spoke of this above and I feel it's a little repetitive; Secondly, and should you choose to retain the sentence, I think it needs a slight copy edit so we loose the "reportedly" and the "but that" insertions. Cassiantotalk11:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for support and kind words. The first mention was the general point about the national legislation. I think we need to say that we know that St Helen's actually had stained glass originally (not necessarily the case) and it seems odd then to go straight on to the present windows without saying what happened to the old glass, even if it can be inferred from what's come before. I've tidied the sentence as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked just at the lead section with the idea of copyediting it, but found nothing to do. If you ping me, I'll be happy to watchlist this page and discuss anything in the lead. - Dank (push to talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- Looks to me that Snowman's review is still in progress but, in the meantime, was there a source review above that I missed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that'll do actually. I did want to give Snowman every chance to continue but it's been almost three weeks since he last edited on WP. Perhaps another day or so and then we might just leave anything else to the talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is in very good shape. I have a handful of minor points.
I'm not sure if this is required for FA, but you might consider using the {{inflation}} template to give current equivalents for the costs of the various refurbishments.
"The Hastings Chapel, chancel and clerestory are embattled": presumably "embattled" is an architectural term I'm not familiar with. Is there a suitable link?
Is there any information about the association of the finger pillory with the church? E.g. was it used at the church, and is there any record of when it was last used? Or is it stored there more or less as a museum piece?
Unfortunately there appears to be nothing certain about its origins, although it is likely that it was used in the church for a period of time. Whether it was always there, or from another building or an outdoor location seems undocumented. I don't know when it was last used, unless you count the modern visitors who always have a go at self-pillorying Jimfbleak - talk to me?16:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many architectural elements mentioned that it would be nice to have a picture of that you might consider a gallery, in order to include more pictures. Not needed for FA, of course.
"The church contains a pipe organ of uncertain date by Kirkland of Wakefield": some googling reveals that the firm was established in 1874, so it might be nice to mention that in a footnote to provide an earliest possible date for the organ.
the lead says the fingor pillory is rare. The article does not explicitly say that.
Would it be possible to show the two pictures of the nave and chancel side-by-side, so readers can better appreciate the changes that were made in 1878? I would put the diagram of the layout in the place of the image in the history section
Thanks for review and support. I've implemented both your suggestions. I think 200px looks OK for the double image, but tweak if you disagree, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Philip Seymour Hoffman was one of the most widely respected and admired actors of his generation. In an industry obsessed with looks, he made his way to the top on pure acting merit alone, usually playing losers or contemptible people, roles which mostly received considerable critical attention for their believability and graphic portrayal. Sadly, like many creative people, he was a drug user, and died in February this year from an overdose. Loeba and myself have researched this article to the best of our ability and we believe it is a sound insight into the nature of his performances and career. I think I've seen all but a couple of his early 90s films, Loeba I believe has seen something similar, so we have a particularly good understanding. Bear in mind that unlike "Hollywood superstars" like Tom Cruise or Tom Hanks, Hoffman had a lower profile throughout most of his career and is not an actor who to date has a tremendous amount of biographical information written about him, no biographies or detailed book coverage to date that we can see anyway so I think we've managed to scrape together something particularly comprehensive at the moment. We'd very much like to see this promoted and to appear as TFA on the first anniversary of his death on February 2. ♦ Dr. Blofeld12:51, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support – At Loeba's request I gave this article an informal peer review on the talk page, given the tight timetable if the nominators' ambition for 2 Feb front page appearance is to be achieved. I had few quibbles then, and they were minor and were thoroughly dealt with. The article seems to me to be comprehensive and balanced; it is widely sourced and referenced, and is a good read. I believe it meets all the FA criteria, and I am happy to support its promotion. – Tim riley talk13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This will be drip fed I'm afraid for obvious reasons. Making a start now having had a good read through earlier.
Is there a way we can avoid giving New York twice in the opening sentence of the body? "Born in Rochester, New York and raised in nearby Newport"?
This comment made me realise "hmm, I'm sure I didn't write it like that", and I checked the sources and he wasn't even born in Rochester (according to the obituaries, anyway). I don't know who added it, when, or where they got it from, but for now at least I'm removing it. --Loeba(talk)20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"His mother, Marilyn O'Connor (née Loucks), hailed from nearby Waterloo..." -- "hailed", not for an encyclopedia I'm afraid.
What was he transfixed about? The play, the actors, the stage craft, choreography? If this was "the moment" that he became interested in the stage, we need to say so.
Not really sure what to do here, to be honest. The source (right at the beginning) basically just says he was amazed by the whole experience. I rather think the quote makes clear that this was "the moment"? I've reworked the subsequent sentence in case that was a bit confusing: "Hoffman developed a love for the theater, and proceeded to attend regularly with his mother, who was a lifelong enthusiast." What do you think? --Loeba(talk)20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but "enthusiast", to me, suggests someone who collects memorabilia, photos, posters etc.. Was she an enthusiast or just someone who attended the theatre regularly? CassiantoTalk20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
" It was only at this time that he abandoned his delicatessen job..." -- Your saying it like we know it, but we don't as this is the first mention. I think "It was at this time that he abandoned his job in a delicatessen..." would be better?
"The experience of seeing Hoffman pop up in various films..." -- "pop up"; there must be better phrases to use? Also, another pronoun needed here I think.
Better, although "appear" would be the top of our survey says...! Assuming of course, "appear" isn't used immediately before or after it. Failing that, show up is fine. CassiantoTalk20:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"His fourth appearance of 2002 was as an English teacher..." -- awkward sounding. Suggest: "His performance as an English teacher who makes a devastating drunken mistake marked his fourth film appearance of 2002, in Spike Lee's drama 25th Hour possibly?
"Mike Nichols's political film Charlie Wilson's War (2007) gave Hoffman his second Academy Award nomination, again for playing a real individual – Gust Avrakotos, the CIA agent who conspired with Congressman Wilson (played by Tom Hanks) to aid Afghani rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union." -- Too long to read comfortably. Do we really need to mention Hanks or his character?
I think it's worth keeping Hanks as 1) he was the lead and 2) it explains what Hoffman's character did. But I've split the sentence to make it simpler. --Loeba(talk)11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hoffman's profile continued to grow with the new decade, and he became a well-known public figure." -- presumably he was already well-known by this point? Are we saying that he became well-known away from the screen in other guises?
That's fine, but I think we should mention that it was "because of his films, his profile rose" in that case. People can be known away from films for many reasons; personal life, media life, charity work, scandal, are just a few. CassiantoTalk13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the source, and all it says is "In recent years, he'd become a more recognizable face -- and persona" (and I've reworded slightly to reflect this). But I think that we can't mention why he became better known if it isn't in the source... --Loeba(talk)19:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The film critic Mark Kermode..." -- A slip into BrEng here with the definite article. I'm not sure of the differences, so just asking.
I feel we should move the "death" section to before the "Reception and acting style" section. As a reader, we are given the hint that he died in the later years section, but don't find out the details until two sections time. This causes one to flick down to the death section to find out what happened, thus causing an interruption in the reading flow.
That's fine by me, although I really dislike having "personal life" after death so I've kept that above it. It now goes "Final years", Personal life", "Death", "Reputation". --Loeba(talk)11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, and I'm sure you and I have spoken about this before, I dislike "personal life" sections and would rather things run chronologically. But I appreciate that we are all different in our preferences. I do, however, agree that personal life should come before death. CassiantoTalk13:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Although friends stated that Hoffman's drug use was under control at the time, on February 2, 2014, Hoffman was found dead in the bathroom" -- The second Hoffman is not needed.
Done
"Hoffman's funeral..." -- or here.
Done
"Hoffman was held in high regard within the film and theater industry, cited in the media as one of the finest actors of his generation." -- why am I wanting to say "...and was cited in the media as one of the finest actors of his generation."?
Done
"Despite this status among his peers and critics, Hoffman was never one of the most popular film stars," -- pronoun
Done
Support – My time here is complete. Congratulations on a great article here. I would suggest that you quickly go through and swap some "Hoffman"'s with the pronoun alternatives; there did seem to be quite a lot. He was, it appears, not everybody's cup of tea, and I'm sure as the years emerge, others will come out and say so. I think the lack of negative praise is a direct ramification of someone who has only recently died. In my view, obituaries are a bit biased and are crammed full of praise, to the extent that they sound almost sycophantic at times. I think, as the years roll on, others will come out and say "do you know what, I didn't rate him at all", and only then can we tip the scales on the other side and make it a bit more neutral. I think though, under the circumstances, this is as neutral as your going to get. CassiantoTalk12:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! For such a close review and for giving your support. You may be right that in time negative comments will arise, although, as Blofeld says, even when PSH was alive reviews of his work were extremely positive (other than some of his stage work, which has been added to the article). So I don't personally think the obituaries were overreacting in their enthusiasm. Ultimately, the article is an accurate reflection of third-party sources and I appreciate you recognising that. But yes, if a "backlash" does begin, we'll include that as and when it happens. Thanks again --Loeba(talk)12:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following was accidentally removed earlier with an edit conflict:
I agree with Cassianto about the structure: moving acting style etc below the death/private life would make more sense – deal with the man's life and death, and then have the sections that are more about the review of his life.
There's a lot of overlinking in the "Filmography, awards, and nominations" section (all the awards and films have been mention in the body, so don't need linking again). - SchroCat (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned during Tim's review, I think this is an instance where we should WP:Ignore all rules, as people looking at the section may very well want to click straight to the relevant films/plays/awards. --Loeba(talk)16:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now Cassianto has wrapped up his say, a second, cloer look from me:
His DoB is mentioned twice: lead and IB, and isn't supported by any sources I can see
I checked the GA reviewed version, and the birthdate was originally there in the early life section (supported by the subsequent source). I knew I surely wouldn't have missed something so important when I wrote that part! It must have been removed in the 9-month interim and neither of us noticed the absence. Since it's covered by the obituary source, Blo, I'm going to remove the other one. --Loeba(talk)12:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"In 2010, Hoffman directed the feature film Jack Goes Boating." -> "In 2010, he directed..."
Changed.
A rising actor
"For a month at the end of April to the end of May 1996": I'm sure this could be phrased slightly better
What is "a Mark-Wing Davey production"? As there is no link, it raises the question of its notability, and I think we can safely lose it.
Oh he's notable alright, linked it.
I'd link Rolling Stone: I know you have it in a footnote, but it doesn't register there.
Done.
"Although it was only a small role, Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, in a film that has achieved cult status and, writes Andy Greene, a "huge fanbase"." This could be much better, as it moves from him, to the film and then awkwardly back to him.
I've tried "Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, as the film achieved cult status and a large circle of fans." Hmm, does that sound weird? --Loeba(talk)12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be tempted to drop the fanbase part of the comment, as it's implicit in there anyway: "Although it was only a small role, Hoffman claimed it was one that he was most recognized for, in a film that has achieved cult status."? Just a thought - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The film, set over one day in Los Angeles, featured Hoffman": the film still exists, so it features (best to check for other tenses around the films too, as I noticed it elsewhere)
The films still exist, but I thought for actors we generally always use past tense? I'm sure all my previous actor articles, including the 3 FAs, do. It's because we're telling the story of their life/career, discussing things they already did (Hoffman is still "there" in the film, but in the context of his life story it makes sense to say "He appeared..." rather than "He appears..." --Loeba(talk)12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We open this section about 2000 onwards with PSH in 2000, poised on the cusp, then drop back to 1999, which jars a little
I see what you mean but I'm not sure, we do begin it as "Following a string of roles in successful films in the late 1990s," One way to deal with might be to actually keep his film and stage career separate, something I've been pondering on the last day or two. I'm not sure though if we have strong enough material to keep it separate otherwise I'd probably have changed it earlier. With the new material we've added on stage work of late though and the fact that in some places it does seem to interfere with discussion of his film work the more I think about it I'm leaning on keeping his stage work separate. Loeba, what do you think? I think it might read clearer and easier to digest if we did that actually.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:07, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I know it's a wee bit awkward, which is why I tweaked the wording to "Hoffman had begun to be recognized in 1999", you know, to make clear that we're going to jump back for a second. And then we quickly get back to 2000, so I was hoping it was okay? I do think it works quite well to have a paragraph specifically for his theatre work...if it's really awkward we could change everything to chronological, but I don't think I'd prefer having a completely separate theatre section... --Loeba(talk)12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly wouldn't go for a separate theatre section - that would lose all sense of his professonal development. If you've thought it through and think this is te best way of putting it, then that's OK with me. - SchroCat (talk) 06:04, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical acclaim
"The year 2008 gave Hoffman two important roles": The year gave him nothing – it's an abstract measurement of time. Casting agents, directors, studios give roles, not years.
The flow towards death is a little bumpy here. We talk about his death during the filming of Hunger Games, what happens after his death for the film, then move onto his private life, then go into his death in more detail, and it doesn't feel right.
I'm not sure how we'd deal with that. We can't really discuss his death and personal life and then go back to film career underneath. The bottom paragraph could be moved to the death section but I think it belongs in career.
Agreed, I don't really think there's any way of avoiding it. We need to mention that roles came out after he died in the career bit, but we really couldn't put "Personal life" after "Death" (and the end of that section flows into death, anyway). I don't think putting the personal life stuff in with career is a good idea because they don't overlap at all, there's very little information anyway, and it would make it difficult for readers who literally just want to come to the page to find out if he was married and had kids (for instance). So I think this is the way it has to be. --Loeba(talk)12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for reading through and commenting, good points indeed (even if there's a couple I don't think we can do much about!) --Loeba(talk)12:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Large discussion about neutrality; Ssilvers decides neither to support or oppose
Comment: Since this article is at FAC, I must inject a note of caution here. Hoffman was an effective character actor in mostly artsy films, but this article does not appear to me to be neutral. In the rush to prepare this article for FAC so soon after the actor's rather sudden death, it seems to me to suffer from WP:RECENTISM and hero worship of a recently dead person. It seems to cherry pick quotes, like the opening one from the NY Times, and uses a number of Peacock words, like the multiple repetitions of "acclaim". Hoffman does not show up in most lists of "greatest actors", such as this. Look at the list of actors I mentioned, just off the top of my head, in the comment that I inserted in the article: Hanks, Denzel Washington, Penn, McConaughey, Crowe, Day-Lewis, Cruise, Gyllenhaal, Clooney, Downey, Jr., Bardem, and many more. It is important, for balance, to include discussion of negative criticism that Hoffman received for his weaker efforts, like in Along Came Polly, Patch Adams and Twister. Lots of critics did not like him in The Master and on Broadway in Death of a Salesman. Many critics thought his Capote was overrated. There is also quite a lot of quoting of Hoffman about his own acting, which might be considered self-serving; please consider how much of this is appropriate ("It's ok that the studios don't get me; my work is really too good to interest them... I like to play the really challenging roles...."). I really think the research should be revisited on this point and is worth checking before this article rides into FA. I can't help wondering if it wouldn't be better to wait until a good biographical book about the actor is published to see if it offers more long-term, sober perspective that is somewhat breathlessly missed by the obits and post-death assessments. Good luck. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With due respect Ssilvers, there was hardly a "big rush" to get this to FA, I could have nominated this nine months ago. One of the things though was that a lot of material was written about him at the time of his death, and it was then that some of the more gushing tributes came out to him. But he'd really long been a highly acclaimed actor and absolutely seen as one of the best by his colleagues and you'll find reviews dated back to the late 90s which indicate it. He had a lower profile and was more "artsy" as you say rather than a big movie star. Perhaps some of the praise could be toned down a little, but to call it cherry picking is unfair. I viewed all the reviews and material I could find for every film and that was what I came up with. In no way shape or form have either of us purposefully ignored negative material about him to "promote" him, we've relayed exactly what has been said. Show me the negative reviews for his performances and films from reliable sources and we'll consider them, it's possible we missed some. A few of his films were not well received but genuinely I don't think I've really found a solid review attacking his actual acting work in film aside from one or two I think who found him loathsome or vulgar in films like Happiness or Twister. I think you have a point about too many uses of the word "acclaim" though (even if true) which might be addressed somehow, and of course more biographical material would benefit it, but who is to know when a biography might be published? I don't see it as a real obstacle, at a later date should one be published, great, it can be used to further improve it.♦ Dr. Blofeld14:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting, I appreciate that you just want the article to be neutral. Here's my take: It does give him a lot of praise, but it honestly reflects what's in the sources. We don't say "He was the best actor of the era" or anything, we say he was "one of the greatest of his generation" - that is absolutely, 100% true and was said over and over again after he died. Even when alive, he was just as praised as most of the actors you mention, and more so than many of them. Have you found a reputable "best actors of the 2000s" list that doesn't include Hoffman? I'd be absolutely amazed if that existed. I can't really find any lists from a decent publication, but the closest I found was one I can't hyperlink as its blacklisted, but search for "examiner best actors of the decade" and PSH is there at #7. Popularity - sure, he was never a major box office draw, but the article doesn't claim that either. He did have critically berated films, like those you mention, and the article says they weren't popular. But I've never seen a review that criticises him in the films. The Master - again, some critics didn't like the film but is there really a reputable critic that didn't like him? And even if there is, I don't see why we'd need to mention that when his performance was by-and-large highly acclaimed (same goes for Capote). The article does say that some critics didn't like him in Death of a Salesman, but sure - we could add a negative review for that as I agree that it was a more divisive performance. As for the quotes from Hoffman himself: I always think it's nice to have quotes directly from the individual, and I really didn't interpret the ones that you reword in that way..? One shows that he accepted that he often appeared in the sorts of film/roles that the Academy doesn't tend to like, the other just explains why he played unlikeable characters (and it's very useful for us to give his perspective there, since it defined his career so much). They don't "big him up" or anything. As for using "acclaim" too much, I mentioned earlier than I changed many of these.
So I maintain that the article is appropriately neutral and reflects third party sources. I'd be interested to hear what others think. --Loeba(talk)00:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers, I don't think this edit to your comment above was very fair, as it makes my comments about him being one of the best of this generation irrelevant. Whereas that's all the article claims anyway. It doesn't matter if he's not on any "greatest of all time" lists, because we don't suggest he has that status at this point (although I strongly expect that future lists will begin including him). I know you think the NYT quote at the start is OTT, since it does proclaim him at "perhaps the best of his generation", but the fact is that the NYT did publish that. It is definitely significant that one of the most prestigious newspapers in the world felt compelled to describe him in that way. You could say that they were overreacting in the wake of his death, but they didn't make any drastic claims about Robin Williams. It was a sincere and legitimate point on their half, and it is fair to include it in the article.
By the way, look at this review from 2012, while Hoffman was still alive, where the respected (and pretty picky) theatre critic Ben Brantley said "That Mr. Hoffman is one of the finest actors of his generation is beyond dispute." --Loeba(talk)11:30, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This one also comes from 2012: "One of the finest actors of his generation, Hoffman is..." Regarding finding some negative reviews for his film roles, it really is very difficult and would represent a minority view, giving undue WP:WEIGHT. Just ask Peter Bradshaw: "Almost every single one of his credits had something special about it" ([36]). I have, however, now added a negative review for Death of a Salesman. --Loeba(talk)12:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Loeba and Dr. B for your further research. I withdraw the "cherry picking" comment above, and I most appreciate your willingness to revisit the reviews. Very happy seasons greetings to both of you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm giving another read through now and trying to reword in parts to ensure that neutrality isn't compromised, but can't really see anything tremendously wrong with it. If Ssilvers you could find some solid negative reviews on his performances I agree they'd be good to add, but genuinely I couldn't find any attacking his work as a film actor. I will go through the rotten tomatoes lists and try to see if I missed something, but I do think for the widely acclaimed films to add negative reviews for the sake of it will affect the general outlook. Even for his stage work, critics like Brantley who may occasionally give a poor review of a play will say "one of the greatest actors of his generation" even if saying he was uncomfortably cast. It's difficult to be critical when they're saying things like that. So I'd argue in a lot of places to include negative reviews when the vast majority are positive would seem more like conscious picking and not reflective of the general outlook. We don't want it to read like a puff piece, but we also don't want to evade the truth and hide things. On some of the lesser films though I think you can get away without saying anything on the reception.♦ Dr. Blofeld15:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can anybody find any negative reviews of his actual roles in films like Along Came Polly and Twister? I believe I've read one or two which thought his character repellant or obnoxious for a few films like Happiness and Talented Mr. Ripley, but little else. Along Came Polly was certainly panned, but I've not yet seen anything directed at Hoffman as being a really poor film performance. For some of them I'm not really sure it is worth adding quotes, even if you could find them, especially where he had minor roles. Most film reviews tend to sidestep criticising him directly, even if they thought the films were terrible. I found a quote on Synecdoche even though many of the reviews were very positive of his performance. I don't think we can afford to do that on many of his films where it really wasn't the majority consensus. newspapers.com might turn up something critical on his stage work though which me missed, I'll try to look tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:56, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could find very few decent sources in Newspapers.com, it has an awful search engine! Trying to find negative comments on Hoffman from reviews like this, and even if they don't rate the films they call Hoffman's acting "impeccable". Believe me, it is extremely difficult to find negativity about his acting!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers I've restructured the reception too to make it crystal clear that he was never one of the most popular "movie stars" and put it in context. I think the lede quote is fine now. The most admired or ambitious doesn't mean "greatest movie star of his generation". I could add some more negative reviews on his actual films like Boat That Rocked and Along Came Polly, but I can't find anything solid directed at Hoffman himself so I'm not sure it's worth it. I will continue to go through the rotten tomatoes reviews though and see if I might find something.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, and much appreciated. A few more specific comments on the Lead section:
"prolific" in first paragraph. He made 58 films and appeared in, or was somehow involved with, 23 theatrical productions listed on this page. Only 9 theatre roles are listed. This is not "prolific" for theatre appearances at least (as I note below, this list should show the name of the theatre/city in which he appeared in these theatre pieces). This article calls 120 films "prolific". Instead of starting out with an arguably puffy/controversial statement (and awkward usage of the word prolific), why not say something like: "He appeared in more than 50 films and also appeared in and directed theater productions...."
Thanks for your comments. Yes, I agree, actually I was only thinking that last night when viewing his Off-Broadway credit, I'd thought it much much higher. I don't think it was more than 50 films though, I'd thought it somewhere in 35-40 range, over 35 films I think would be OK. Imdb fails to list some of his very earliest ones I believe. I've reworded it as "He appeared in more than 30 films and was involved with theater productions, both as an actor and director, until his death at the age of 46, after which The New York Times declared him "perhaps the most ambitious and widely admired American actor of his generation"." I didn't want to repeat "appeared" twice in the same sentence, it might be reworded differently somehow. Didn't he also produce plays? Involved with as an actor, director and producer might be a good thing to say.
The second paragraph notes that he usually played smaller roles throughout the 1990s and early 2000s, but it should point out that he also played a few leading roles (like in Flawless and Love Liza). By the way, further down it says that Love Liza was his first starring role, but Flawless was a leading role.
In the last paragraph of the Lead, it says that he performed in and directed "numerous stage productions" at LAByrinth. Instead of "numerous", can you say how many? It looks like he did as many for the Public Theatre as for LAByrinth, and perhaps this should be noted. Also, I clarified that LAByrinth is in New York (as opposed to LA, where his film career was based, or any other place). Indeed, his stage career seems to have been largely (entirely?) in NYC, but this list does not have a column for the name of the theatre/city where these productions were mounted (or a footnote about it).
Throughout the article it keeps saying that he "received nominations" for this or that award. You "receive an award" if you win, but you are merely "nominated for an award" if you do not win. It is much clearer to say, with respect to nominations, that he was "nominated for the x award for his 2004 performance in the role of...."
I note that Tim riley asked me to look at this article, and I would not have commented otherwise. I tried to read the article to support the nomination, and I feel rather badly about this, but I am unable to do so. Here is just one example of how the writing makes me uneasy:
The experience of seeing him show up in various films was likened by David Kamp of GQ to "discovering a prize in a box of cereal, receiving a bonus, or bumping unexpectedly into an old friend".
Here is a colloquial expression "show up in various films", and then the quote uses a singular metaphor "A box of cereal". "show up" bothers me, as well as the disagreement between the plural "various" and the singular "a box". I really would like to support, and I admire how much work you have put into this, but I am afraid that I don't feel comfortable with the prose (though you have much improved the balance). Perhaps it is my own bias, as I generally did not really enjoy Hoffman's performances. I do not want to oppose, and if others are satisfied with the prose, I hope that it passes. So, I think it is best if I just leave you these comments and dewatch this page, if that is ok with you. Sorry! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ssilvers Honestly, your comments are most valuable and welcome, but we'd prefer it if you didn't imply we'd intentionally made it a puff piece as we know the score. Genuinely, we tried to follow what the general media consensus was over his actual performances. If you are concerned with the prose, I want it improved to a standard you're also happy with as I value your input as a reviewer. Your involvement with the John Barrymore article I think showed that. I wouldn't be content with this passing and a reviewer/editor as competent as yourself thinking the article is shoddy and a puff piece. That you weren't impressed by Hoffman and are surprised at the article I think is valuable in some respects as you might represent the average viewer who is not all that familiar with Hoffman. I would like to see your suggestions for improvement by paragraph, even if we might not always agree. But I do think there's only so far we can go with trying to neutralise it without affecting accuracy in terms of reception and I think the more you look into sources for this you'll realise how difficult it is to really assume a critical stance. If you're certain that it can't reach a standard (without a biography) which you'd be willing to support then fair enough, but I do want you to know that neither I nor Loeba are editors who are just out for "trophies", we really do want articles we're involved with writing to be approved of by decent people and anybody good enough to spend the time reviewing it.♦ Dr. Blofeld19:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did not mean to imply that, and I am sad that you read my comments that way. To be clear, I am certain that any language that looks like puffery to me is inadvertent. I also do not at all think there is anything shoddy about the prose; I think this is a very serious FAC nomination. As I said above, I think you have largely addressed my concerns about balance. If you really want to address my prose issues (but I only if you *really* do; I don't really have any interest in this article), and you are very patient, I can try to do a section-by-section copy edit of the article (feel free to revert my changes), but I can't promise a timetable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Already I think you've made a number of good points for the lede alone, especially over the prolific issue and the nature of his theatre work which was certainly not all for Lab as implied. I think you could definitely be of much benefit to this article. I'd be happy to see what you have to say, provided that there is a hope of you changing your mind and feeling more confident with it, Loeba, what about you? My main goal is to make it the best possible article we can, given the sources we have right now. I don't agree that we've cherry picked reviews, there's lot of them for most of his films like that, but I think you might have a point on the approach to some of the films and coverage in parts. A lot of material did come originally from quotes and in some places some readers such as yourself might still think it is jarring and affects readability or neutrality. I did spot a few which I thought a bit superfluous when checking through for neutrality. ♦ Dr. Blofeld19:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points Blofeld, but I was already really pleased with the article so my main goal was just to get this on the main page on Feb 2 - a tribute to an actor who has given me so much delight over the years. That's the reason I wanted to put it through FAC, I wouldn't have felt any need to otherwise. So for me, anything that could take time and hold up that goal is risky. We still haven't had declarations from Cassianto or SchroCat - there's a chance they think the article is supportable as it is. If so, we won't need Silvers to go through it (no pressure on either of you two though - don't worry, you can be honest).
As for the "prolific" point, I definitely think 54 films in 22 years and 22 plays in 16 years constitutes prolific. I also don't see it in anyway as a "puffy" statement: in fact being prolific is sometimes considered tacky - I've definitely seen it used in a derogatory way against e.g. Woody Allen, Jess Franco...I don't think the current version is an improvement, as we have "actor, director and producer" repeated very close together. --Loeba(talk)00:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Love Liza is generally considered his first leading role as it was the first time he was sole lead, the driving force of the film. In Flawless he was, at best, joint-lead (although I De Niro is the more obvious lead IMO). --Loeba(talk)00:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue with this in the next couple of days. Based on what I have read so far, I will indicate a support vote based on the resolved points thus far. However, I will update this when I finish. CassiantoTalk00:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support: An excellent, well-sourced, and well-written article on a great actor. Having conducted its GA-review a few months back, I'm happy to see this at the FAC and am happy to support it with no added concerns. Also, I don't see any problems with neutrality with the article, especially since Hoffman was such a universally adored actor. Negative reviews on his acting prowess no doubt represent the minority view and shouldn't be picked up for representation. Great job guys! --KRIMUK90✉14:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know some people can be really uptight on fairuse images in film articles, let alone biographies on wikipedia, but I think we agreed it was very valuable to at least have one image representing him as an actor, and one in a particularly "delicate" role opposite somebody as big as De Niro I thought about as definitive as you could get, perhaps aside from him masturbating in Happiness! Perhaps one of these days wikipedia can make some agreements with film companies to use images, after all, I can't see such images in wikipedia articles as seriously damaging to them, if anything it will raise reader interest and make them want to buy the DVD. The problems might arise from the fact that wikipedia can be used by others for commercial gain though. ♦ Dr. Blofeld16:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, would you perhaps be able to do a source review for this FAC? I wouldn't normally be "pushy" about it, heh, but we are eager to get this scheduled to appear as TFA on February 2, which would mean getting it to TFAR pretty soon. I went through all the sources very closely, so hopefully you won't find much! No worries if you'd rather not, I can try asking someone else. --Loeba(talk)20:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Dr. Blofeld, Loeba, I can not give the two of you enough kudos. This article is fantastic. The research put into it shows, and the sources are great. The prose is excellent with few exceptions (which I will address), and despite some itchy necks involving neutrality, I don't see much of an issue. If nothing negative is written on Hoffman (which appears to be the case), how can you source anything negative? I'm sure when a biography about him is released, this article will grow and improve even more than it has since the GA review in March.
As for my few netpicks (I made a few small changes as I spotted little things, such as fixing "directed directed the feature film Jack Goes Boating):
Lead
It's stated that he gained recognition for playing "losers and degenerates". Isn't loser a big slangish? Not essential to fix, but I'm not sure it's exactly correct either.
I don't think so. Dozens of reputable publications refer to his characters as just that, in fact many use far stronger language to describe them, see the quote in the reception.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Hoffman won multiple acting awards including the Academy Award for Best Actor. His profile continued to grow, and he received three more Oscar nominations for his supporting..." Wording needs to be consistent. Those unfamiliar with the Academy Awards will not necessarily know that the Oscars are the same thing.
Maybe it would, but you say "Golden Globe" and "BAFTA" every time. People familiar with film will certainly know what an Oscar is, but those unfamiliar may not, especially those outside of the U.S. It won't make me deny supporting the article, but I'm gonna have to counter-argue on this one. I really think that repetition would be better than potential confusion in this case. The complete lack of indication that they're the same award is where my concern enters. Sock(tock talk)05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see your point Sock, but it in all my time writing and reviewing actor articles, I don't think I've ever seen the use of "Oscar" flagged-up as an issue. I think "Oscar" is a term that's used widely enough, in fact probably even more so than "Academy Award". --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"He remembered that productions of Quilters and Alms for the Middle Class, starring a teenage Robert Downey, Jr." Comma usage makes it unclear if Downey was only in Alms or if he was in both. I'd suggest removing the Downey name drop altogether.
"Yet it was not until a neck injury brought an end to his sporting activity at the age of 14 that he began to consider acting." Sentences starting with "yet" are always pretty jarring. Maybe something along the lines of "At [the] age [of] 14, Hoffman suffered a neck injury that ended his sporting activity, and he began to consider acting."
"Oscar-winning Al Pacino..." should go, as Hoffman didn't win the Oscar and Al Pacino merely starred in the film.
I think this is worth having, because it was significant that he suddenly, pretty much out of nowhere, appears in a film with a major actor and that went on to win Oscars. Readers can take from this information that it significantly raised PSH's profile. --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough argument, but the wording is still odd. I guess "Oscar-winning" being in front works fine, but Pacino only starred in it. The way it's worded makes it seem like it's his film, rather than one he only appeared in. Maybe something like "Oscar-winning film Scent of a Woman (1992), starring Al Pacino." I'll be fine with dropping this one if you disagree with that suggestion. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"something like "Oscar-winning film Scent of a Woman (1992), starring Al Pacino." -that would mislead readers into thinking the film itself won the award!♦ Dr. Blofeld14:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)That wording isn't really an option, as the sentence right before it ends "starring Steve Martin". The repetition would look poor. I'll have a think if there's any other way... --Loeba(talk)15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Cocksure" fits the character he played perfectly. Look it up in the dictionary.. This describes the character as a "cocksure greaseball" which is about as close a description as you can get I think!♦ Dr. Blofeld13:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cocksure and arrogant are practically synonyms, my main argument is that the definition of this word is not common knowledge as it's seldom used. I can drop this one too. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not common knowledge?? Cocky or cocksure is a widely used term, 136,000 hits in google books alone with many books using it in the title! If it's not familiar to somebody then they need to broaden their vocabulary :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld14:46, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, compare those numbers to "arrogant", with 3,020,000 results on Google Books and an additional 37 million on regular searching. It's not uncommon knowledge, but arrogant serves the exact same purpose and has much wider usage, in my opinion. I'm not going to fight this further as I'm not that adamant that it be changed, but it seems that "arrogant" should do the job fine. Sock(tock talk)15:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theatrical success and leading roles
I don't think that "(despite joking at the time "Even if I was hired into a leading-man part, I'd probably turn it into the non-leading-man part")" is relevant enough to include, as fun as it may be.
Maybe it's in the presentation, because it came off more as a fun fact than as insight to me, and it still does when I read it now. I can see what you mean, but I don't know that the current wording conveys what it's trying to. I also don't really have any suggestions for improvement, so if we can't come up with anything, don't sweat it. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"but few witnessed this" smells like original research. Despite low box office numbers, it's impossible to know how many people have seen the film (for example, I have). If this is sourced wording, I'd quote it.
It's definitely just paraphrased from the content in the source and not original research. I don't think we need to quote someone saying that the film didn't get a big audience (which is all we're talking about - the initial release). --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a case where the numbers can speak for themselves: clearly $210k isn't a big haul, and it received a limited release. This might also be personal preference. I think many of my criticisms are that I work on film articles where it's pretty much all facts, and I tend to stay away from biographies. It still comes across as unnecessary to me, but I'm willing to let this one go too. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"In a very different film", same problem as above. I sincerely think that you should consider writing a biography on Hoffman, because you have the style of one down pat, but it creates a few problems in terms of the verifiability of the language for Wikipedia, at least in my opinion.
Ha, thanks...ummmm I don't know, I think there is a different between "original research" and "common sense observations", which I think this falls under. And we can try and make our writing a bit interesting, can't we? Lots of the best "person" articles that come here, such as those by Brianboulton, have a touch of "biography style" writing just because it makes it more engaging. --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"arguably due to its unpleasant nature", see the OR concerns. If this is sourced wording, quoting would be a better idea. This just sounds like opinion.
The source says because of its unpleasant nature, but I think it clear that there would be a range of reasons, that was why arguably was added as it's just the opinion of the author. Might be best to remove it altogether as I'm not sure I fully agree with it! The film wasn't really that unpleasant, just about a gambler really.♦ Dr. Blofeld22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Golden Globe and BAFTA aren't commonly known by other names. You might want to read this article on Anthony Hopkins on Britannica "pathetic misfits" and duel uses of Academy Award and Oscar.♦ Dr. Blofeld13:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"AP film writer": What is AP? Is it AP film or just AP? Clarity needed. I know it's Associated Press, but that was only mentioned once two sections ago. It actually confused me momentarily, despite my familiarity.
I may represent the minority here, but I totally missed the connection between the title and the Congressman. I'd personally include the repetition seeing as I failed that connection, and I'm usually pretty good at that. The film title doesn't say anything about Congress, so I think it's appropriate to clarify who he is. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bear in mind that many reputable publications such as The Guardian and top critics commonly refer to them as "Oscar bait", it's become a widely used term for a film seemingly made with the sole purpose of garnering Oscar wins and nominations. In fact before long I wouldn't be surprised if one film scholar authored a book on something like "Oscar baiting". What would you suggest instead?♦ Dr. Blofeld22:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You make a valid point with your last sentence, in that I don't really know what you could say instead. It's still a term pretty exclusive to those familiar with film and film awards, but I have no idea how else you could word it. I suppose I'll drop this one. Sock(tock talk)05:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"(with roles by Christopher Walken and Catherine Keener)" is strange phrasing, and it doesn't really occur at any other point in the article.
Heh, I added this quite recently just because those are notable co-stars and this was the only way I could make it fit. Open to alternatives. --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided not to include him (which is why the weird phrasing came about) but you're right, it's not very fair to poor old Mark, who is now mentioned. --Loeba(talk)15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal life
This part mentions that he worked on In Arabia We'd All Be Kings, but this doesn't appear anywhere in the Career section. How significant was his work on it?
Some inconsistency with the lead. Lead says he relapsed in 2012, but this section says he started doing heroin in 2013. It also says he was sober for 23 years, which adds up to 2012 from 1989 if my math is right. Long story short: I'm confused.
I think it was exactly in the period between you writing this review and posting it that I fixed the lead to 2013. The problem arose from the fact that the article used to say he began drinking again in 2012 at The Master's wrap party. It was removed because this wasn't mentioned in the source; I then researched this and found that it was originally reported by TMZ, and could easily be rubbish. But it took me a few days to notice the disparity in the lead. Anyway, the "23 years" figure comes from the Independent source, which would mean he went sober in 1990 and that makes sense. --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's also just a fact and the way these films are seen...it's not necessarily derogatory either: it just means they're films you watch for enjoyment, not intellectual stimulation. If anyone else reading this has an opinion, please share, as it's a tricky one. --Loeba(talk)13:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a place where a brief quotation from him (for instance: if he actually said low-brow, put quotes around "low-brow") could clarify any objectivity issues. I know that tons of people take offense when films they like are called "low-brow", and it's constantly used as a criticism by film critics. The negative connotation of the term, at least in paraphrase form, outweighs the encyclopedic value of it in my opinion. Something alternate like "took roles he was not passionate about" or something would be better than the verbal scoff. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I googled the term, and you're right that it's considered more offensive than I realised. Don't have access to Highbeam anymore, so can't check how PSH or the journalist worded it, but I've changed it to "big-budget studio films". --Loeba(talk)15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"But in a 2012 interview he confessed that this was not easy: "It's hard. The job isn't difficult. Doing it well is difficult"." is pretty sloppy wording, and doesn't need the quote. I'm not even certain this needs to be here, but if it does, it needs to be integrated much better.
Starting sentences with "But" is much like starting sentences with "Yet", in that I find it really jarring, but it's not grammatically incorrect. I'd say that the "But in a 2012 interview" can go away, since the timing of the interview and the fact that it was an interview don't change the fact that Hoffman said it. Seeing as I don't really have any good alternatives, I'm fine with this staying in if need be. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For now I'm going to leave it, just because that whole bit will need some reworking if we're not going to mention the interviews, but I do see your point and will give it some thought. --Loeba(talk)15:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure all of these issues will be addressed promptly, given the behaviour I've seen throught this FAC, so I have no issue maintaining my support before my issues are addressed. Despite my extensive nitpicks (apologies for the sarcasm in some of them, I can't do these reviews too straight-faced), this article is looking absolutely fantastic. Sock(tock talk)19:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your review and kind comments Sock! Yes, I think if you're very familiar with his career you can see that we understand him and it does him justice I think. Will address you points tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I do my best, Loeba! Happy to help review. I don't usually do a whole lot at FAC, but Hoffman is one of my favourite actors of all time, and seeing an article done this well deserved as much support as it can get. Hopefully my replies to your comments help clarify my points a bit, and you may have even convinced me to drop a few of them :) Happy New Year! I'll be back on Friday to look at any further responses. Sock(tock talk)13:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You could add it under occupation, years active or |misc=, but I would try to first get rid of the tags. ---GA
Lead
Perhaps a bit more character of roles rather than types? Some of "No modern actor was better at making you feel sympathy for fucking idiots, failures, degenerates, sad sacks and hangdogs dealt a bum hand by life"?
I've genuinely just spent 20 minutes looking at/playing with the lead to think about how this could work, but it's difficult when its already long. One option would be to completely remove the descriptions of the characters, which would make way for some comments on how he made his roles sympathetic..? I don't know. Dr. Blofeld? The descriptions are quite nice, as they show that he played a range of interesting characters... --Loeba(talk)20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is there's so many roles you could talk about which would bloat it I think. I think the role summaries display his range of acting work without going into detail.♦ Dr. Blofeld12:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No torture intended, it was just an idea. ---GA
Think about the conclusion "an unexpected event that was widely lamented by the film and theater industries." - End on industries? What about the fans?
"by the film and theater industries and fans"? Hmm, not sure about that. I don't really think we need to mention fans (it goes without saying that his fans would be sad). --Loeba(talk)20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not the word fans. It probably goes without saying also that the industries would be sad, - after emotions were raised so far, the term leaves me on the cool side ;) ---GA
Ha, unlikely I'd say but I guess you never know! Thanks very much for commenting. Just so you know, I've added back "Roman Catholic" as this clarification was requested during Tim's review (and it is good to be specific). --Loeba(talk)20:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim: I don't think Catholic is ambiguous once it's linked. Our article is NOW Catholic Church (used to be Roman C C), - I believe our articles using the term should follow, slowly slowly. Thanks, Loeba, for thinking and acting! ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, thanks for acting on my comments. I would still like one sentence in the lead about his way of making strange characters likable, and the lead not end on "industries", but it's no prerequisite for FA ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says "Remembered for his fearlessness in playing reprehensible characters, and for bringing depth and humanity to such roles..." which I think covers it. Thanks very much Gerda! --Loeba(talk)22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When citing sources accessed via databases like HighBeam, try not to combine the database and the original publication details in a single parameter - see the example citation at WP:HighBeam for one method to avoid this
The three pre-2000 films that had RT references have been changed to a different source (and the one I added for Patch Adams supports the comment that it was a mainstream film).
FN34 needs publisher (AP is agency)
Fixed
Sometimes you combine two sources in a single citation, other times have two citations - why?
I combined sources whenever possible (I think), but if the references are used more than once and have a "ref name" this isn't possible.
FN70 is incomplete
Fixed
Fn88, 104, 143, 156 should italicize publication
Fixed
Compare FNs 100 and 109
Fixed
FN111 doesn't match other similar sources, nor does FN116
Fixed
FN115: Hornaday is missing publication name
Fixed
FN151 is not a reliable source for what it's citing
Usually I'd agree that it's not a quality source, but I think it has some use for what it is referencing? We're trying to show that PSH wasn't a major movie star, and that's a website where regular people vote for their favourite actors. It was added after Ssilvers suggested we incorporate this point.
Perhaps there are lists from more reputable film sources like AFI or Empire or something, I couldn't find any at the time though, and as Loeba says it's just an example of polls without Hoffman in it rather than claiming something important.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been searching but can't find any reputable lists online. I've found Premiere magazine's list of the "Greatest performances of all time", but that one does include Hoffman! (at #35, for Capote) I actually wondered if it was worth including? --Loeba(talk)18:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the last one, it's a detailed chronological coverage and might prove very useful for the reader who might not see the source among the many cited. It's there for convenience, and if some rule tells you that you shouldn't then I say ignore it in this case!♦ Dr. Blofeld12:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for that Nikki, amazing that I looked so closely (more than once!) and there were still inconsistencies. You have some sharp eyes. --Loeba(talk)18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources were added in response to another reviewer's concern about neutrality. Negative reviews of Hoffman are extremely difficult to find, and I think they're important for neutrality.♦ Dr. Blofeld21:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"American actor, director, and producer"—he's directed and produced two films. He isn't at all independently notable in those fields, so there's no need to mention them in the first sentence.
I think there is. And he wasn't just a film director and producer, he did a lot for theatre. I'm sure had he continued living he'd have focused more on the directing as he got older.♦ Dr. Blofeld17:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"In 2012, Hoffman expressed his appreciation for Anderson"—abrupt; why is this in a 1996 para?
Reception and acting style is excellent, the best part of the article (and what a beautiful quote to end it with!). Can more of it be incorporated into the lead? The kind of actor he was, the type of roles he got etc. The lead doesn't even mention that Hoffman primarily played character-actor roles. You'll find that having this stuff in the lead will summarise Hoffman and capture his spirit much better than listing out the names of his movies.—indopug (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We do mention quite a few different roles he played which reveals a lot about his character work. I'm not sure we can really say a lot of what is said in the reception without bloating the lede. ", typically playing losers or degenerates in small but significant roles; notably a conceited student in Scent of a Woman (1992), a hyperactive storm-chaser in Twister (1996), a 1970s pornographic film boom operator in Boogie Nights (1997), a smug assistant in The Big Lebowski (1998), a hospice nurse in Magnolia (1999), a music critic in Almost Famous (2000), a phone-sex conman in Punch-Drunk Love (2002), and an immoral preacher in Cold Mountain (2003)." I think tells you that he was primarily a character actor and covers it.♦ Dr. Blofeld18:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, I've altered the lead so that it discusses his typical roles etc a bit more, and reduces the amount of films/plays that are mentioned. Please take a look and see what you think. --Loeba(talk)16:56, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Late comment
In some places you have "publisher=Rotten Tomatoes" (which it isn't); "work=Rotten Tomatoes |publisher=Flixster" is the correct version. You also have a couple of others that need looking at, such as "publisher=Belfast Telegraph" (it isn't: "work=Belfast Telegraph|publisher=Independent News & Media" is correct. (Ditto "publisher=The New York Times": it isn't - that's the work. If you're using the {{cite web}} template, you don't need to use italics to get the correct version, so that's the easiest way to check. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's considered okay to only mention the specific company, without its "main publisher" (ie Rotten Tomatoes without Flixter) so long as you're consistent with it? Nikkimaria? And I know that sometimes the paramater isn't technically correct, but when I was going through and formatting, I just made some of them italic text because it was quicker than changing the parameter...surely that's fine so long as it is rendered correctly? Thanks though! --Loeba(talk)18:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rotten Tomatoes is an interesting one in that it could be described as either a work or a publisher - Flixster is more accurately described as the owner, and need not be included. Schro is correct that you should be consistent in whatever choice you make, though. I also agree with him regarding italicization - the visible output might be correct, or it might not depending on the circumstances, and the metadata isn't correct. It oughtn't be hard to change the parameter name. Also, while I'm here, it seems a {{citation needed}} has appeared? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well it seems hyper-nitpicky to me, to be honest, but I went through and fixed all the parameters. I can't see a citation needed tag? --Loeba(talk)10:48, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose, Graham Beards: I know it's considered imprudent to nudge you to look at an FAC, but I'm going to shamelessly do it in this instance..! As stated at the outset, the goal here was to get the article on the main page for February 2. I just looked at TFAR, and "officially" we need to nominate there by Monday - eek. We're at 7 supports and have had an image and a source review. Hoping you'll be able to look in here soon :) Cheers --Loeba(talk)22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This extinct bird is interesting but rather obscure, and a thorough review of its scattered literature has only been published this year, so it could finally get a proper article here. The article was recently copyedited thoroughly and became a GA. The choice of infobox image may seem odd, but it is the only known life drawing of this species, and also the only image we have that depicts the bird's crest accurately. Most other available images have some inaccuracies. FunkMonk (talk) 09:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Were there no human populations on Réunion before the French? If not, ou might want to state so explicitly so people don't wonder about the native populations.
There was no native population, it had been visited before, but first permanent settlements were French. What if I say "all connected to activities of human settlers on Réunion"? Won't that make it clear that they weren't there before`? FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't really say anything like what you request. How about the latest addition I made? "all connected to the activities of humans on Réunion, which it survived alongside for two centuries." Though it is not directly stated the islands were uninhabited before some date, I don't see how it could mean anything else. FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the island of Réunion and proposed a new binomial, Fregilupus borbonicus: had the name of the island been changed at this time? It may not be immediately obvious that "borbonicus" refers to the earlier name for the island.
Sources about the bird don't say. Isn't it clear from the preceding "then called "Bourbon"? The name is also used in some of the quotes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other recently-extinct birds: recent at the time, or recent today?
Both (as this species was one of the last to go extinct from the island), but "recently extinct" generally means something that went extinct within the last few centuries... FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bird-of-paradise is sometimes hyphenated in its article and sometimes not. Do you know the story behind that & whether it should be hyphenated here? Also, Bird of paradise and Bird-of-paradise are different articles, and Birds of paradise points to the latter. This article links to both articles.
I read this on my smartphone - saw a couple of minor things, only found one now, but others were trivial. pretty comprehensive. I am a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose. Will look again to see what I missed ...hmmm..but looks fine.Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:05, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. You might want to consider explaining varius. 'varius L. varius various, diverse, variegated (variare to variegate). Jobling, James A (2010). The Helm Dictionary of Scientific Bird Names. London: Christopher Helm. p. 399. ISBN978-1-4081-2501-4.. FWIW, p 164 confirms your etymology of the genus name too.Jimfbleak - talk to me?07:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:CITE doesn't appear to require it, but it sure would be nice if you could give more specific page references for you sources. I'm thinking particularly of ref#2, cited 17 times to a 75-page article.
"The bird was discovered during the 17th century..." – Technically early explorers probably "discovered" it (knew of its existence), but it was described or "discovered by science" during the 17th century. This is usually more of an issue when the lands are inhabited prior to Western exploration. I know it's nitpicking, but I feel it's good to get out of the habit of using that phrase.
Do quote boxes need to have the source spelled out (rather than just cited)?
You mean as in "until Sieur Dubois's 1674 account"? If that, then the cited source is not simply the same as the original account that is spelled out. The old account is reproduced in the cited source, so they are not the same... FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that when I look at a quote box (as I skim through an article), I wonder who wrote/spoke those words. However, it just dawned on me that you meet the requirement outlined at WP:QUOTE by giving that information in the sentence preceding the quote box. – Maky« talk »07:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Slavery was abolished in 1848, which led to further cultivation of pristine areas..." – How did the abolishing slavery lead to further cultivation?
This is well-written, the sources look solid, and the formatting is good. I would like to see more author links in the References (Alfred Newton, Albert Günther, James Cowan Greenway, Julian P. Hume), but this is a minor quibble. My main concern is the lack of specific page citations, which both hampers verifiability and makes it difficult to check for close paraphrasing. Very nearly half of the article's citations are to "pp. 8–44" of Hume's 2014 monograph. Three other cites (Cheke, Amadon 1956, and Berger) also point to papers that are 40–80 pages long without specifying page numbers. Can we get these tightened up to cite specific pages or narrow ranges for relevant sections? Maralia (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We can. But is it really needed for articles only cited once? In my FAC experience (15+ articles with this type of sources), journal articles are usually not cited this way, it is mainly for books. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True, but journal articles are usually not 50+ pages long! When they start approaching the size of books, we should perhaps consider otherwise. That being said, I'm fine with leaving these journal cites as is, since they are single-use and the statements are not controversial. My main concern is Hume, as it forms nearly half of the cites. Maralia (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to chime in, I thought about bringing this up, too... mostly because my past FACs have had this come up so often that I've started citing journals the same way I cite books. That's why my newer articles have a "Literature cited" section instead of a "Books cited" section. I've found it's also very helpful when citing video content so that people don't have to watch a full 30- or 60-minute interview to find the material I'm citing. With short references, it's up to the author. But with longer ones, it's best to cite the page to help those of us who either want to check your paraphrasing or want to find the material for our own research. – Maky« talk »21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a cantata by J. S. Bach, one of two serving as his audition pieces for the post of Thomaskantor in Leipzig for which he became known. He had to show off, being not a favourite (Telemann and Grauper were) and the only candidate without university training. You may have met his more youthful BWV 172 before. This work is setting standards for the later cantata cycles. The article received a GA review by Cwmhiraeth in March 2013. After expansion of the background and especially the audition, I could win peers Montanabw and Tim riley for an informal review, thanking both for questions, copy-editing and a nice new table of the recordings. Looking at 7 February as the date of the first performance, I dare to skip a formal peer review and invite more questions about improvements. I happened to receive thoughts on collaboration and compromise on my talk page today ;) Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I don't think my turning the list of recordings into tabular form disqualifies me from supporting this article, if the coordinator is happy with that. As Gerda's Bach articles so often do, it filled me with enthusiasm and sent me off to listen to the piece. The prose is fine, the coverage comprehensive and balanced, and, so far as the text goes, in my judgment the FAC criteria are all met. Lovely stuff. Tim riley talk16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Estomihi. —Why this obscure term only in the lead instead of the more familiar one it links to?
Because it's the name Bach used, in a way I hesitate to use one he didn't know. The same question came up in the GA review. - open for discussion. --GA
Gospel—capitalised throughout, should be lower case, especially since you are not linking to a specific gospel,
it's the same Gospel, the prescribed for that Sunday, every time, just the link not repeated every time. - in the FA mentioned above, it's Gospel. open ... --GA
co-reigning Dukes—lc dukes
The people are linked, where duke is linked. Really repeat? --GA
Pentecost. —link
done, but then Easter also. --GA
Mostly written based upon texts by the court poet—"written" is redundant
replaced by "inspired", to hint at their cordial collaboration --GA
arrested him in prison for disobedience. —so he was actually in prison when he was arrested? Seems odd
lacking the proper term, dropped "prison" for now, - help please, I am not so familiar with prison as some of my DYK may make believe ;) --GA
The court was Calvinist, —link
done --GA
therefore most of Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, —most...mostly
done --GA
He later parodied some of them to church cantatas—to me "parodied" conveys humorous intent, which doesn't quite seem right
it's a term frequently used in Baroque music, and nothing negative or humorous about it, - now a link supplied that should explain --GA
on an occasion even two candidates—doesn't make sense
tried harder, - could be dropped if not good enough --GA
which the disciples don't understand—"don't" is too informal
right, thank you --GA
My Jesus, draw me after You—capitalised "You" looks very odd, even if technically correct
Its quoted from the source. --GA
musicologist—overworked in this section
You are right. Born in a discussion where a person without an article was simply named, and some description requested to be added. What can we do, if several are given the chance for a summary? - I dropped two of four. --GA
Support and one follow up OK, I'm happy enough with most of your answers to support now, still not happy about capitalised "Dukes". I understand that a named duke(s), like Duke of Edinburgh or Dukes of Lancaster, is capped, but here it's just used as plural with no qualifying name, so surely lower cased? Jimfbleak - talk to me?10:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
query from WereSpielChequers not my subject area, so mostly my comments are about how this reads to a general reader. I think that as regards prose it is pretty much at FA standard, but have some nitpicks, apologies if this is just a display of my total ignorance of the subject:
since the best could ot be obtained, I'm pretty sure this is translation or transcription error and therefore ot should be not?
you are right, typo fixed --GA
You mention that one part of his career was in a Calvinist court, but perhaps to give context there should be some mention that the rest of his career was presumably in Roman Catholic parts of Germany?
Surprised, I confess. With my bias, I thought everybody knew that Luther was about as Lutheran as Luther himself. Introduced the term in the section on Leipzig. Should it be mentioned earlier? --GA
"saw more possibilities for a future academic career of his sons in Leipzig:" I'm not quite sure of the meaning here, especially as the quote refers to studies rather than career, and don't think of his sons is the best way to put this.
you are right, fixed --GA
"Of all candidates, Bach was the only one without a university education." Do we know that? Or do we know that he was the only one of the evaluated candidates not to have a university education? Would Bach was the only one of the seven without a university education. be better?
I will have to check, - I think "of the candidates evaluated" is meant by the source, but this would include Telemann as #8. --GA
Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position. seems inelegant to me. What do you think of Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. This was two days after the town council had agreed to offer him the position.
Well, I am not yet convinced that is better. Try to find something to express that the official date was the 17th, but that they didn't wait to make him an offer, leaving the official test as just a formality. Open for better wording --GA
There is a section on recordings, but if the sources cover this I would have thought it worthwhile to have some mention on ongoing use of the work. Excuse my ignorance, but the sort of questions that this raises for me include: Has it been continual fashion since or has it gone through periods of disuse? Is it widely used within German Catholicism, Catholicism generally or has it spread to other branches of Christianity such as Anglicanism? Or even beyond to secular use?
Two topics, recordings and perception, legacy or something like this. Recordings: the recordings came in a standard of listing when I met the topic, see for example BWV 172, - this is the first article with a table, thanks to Tim. Should the source (bach-cantatas) be mentioned? - The other: this is the same as for most cantatas, nothing special for this one: the composer's works fell out of fashion soon after his death. It was the 1950s, then again the movement to revive original Baroque sound in the 1970s which let people discover them again, mostly secular. Yes, Thomaskirche still offers them in services, other churches occasionally do a cantata service. --GA
there are several mentions of continuo at least one of which is linked to Figured_bass#Basso_continuo and one mention of Basso continuo which is itself linked to Baroque instruments. Is this deliberate, if so why?
I made the links consistent, - the best/shortest description for the purpose of this article I think is in Baroque instruments. Open --GA
Comment I looked at just the lead section, and found nothing to change. Good work.
I'm sorry, I'm not familiar with how we generally deal with acronyms such as BWV in music articles (and yes, I know what Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis means). The custom at FAC is to either explain or spell out acronyms or provide a footnote, unless just about everyone will already know what they mean. For instance, you might stick a footnote on the first or second occurrence of BWV and say simply "BWV numbers (Bach-Werke-Verzeichnis) are used to catalogue Bach's works".
This would be a good case to ignore all rules in service to the reader, then - not all look at the infobox. Most English-speaking people know what US is, BWV not so much. Either linking or a footnote are good options. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tried a footnote, not so happy about separating "BWV" from the number though. --GA
Lead image should use upright scaling instead of fixed size
I defined no size now. How would I do "upright scaling"? I don't like the image smaller than the title and the captio, but would not know how to achieve it. --GA
The defaults look fine to me. The problem with fixed size, Gerda, is that if someone has their prefs set for something other than the default (which is 180px I think), the results can be really odd-looking if, for example, someone sets their prefs for 300px because they have low vision (or, for that matter, if they hate images and set their prefs at 100px, then same problem). So, if you want to make an image larger or smaller than usual (for any reason), "upright=1.5" (to make it 1.5 times larger) or "upright=0.8" (to make it 80% of full size) or something will cause it to scale appropriately no matter what browser or prefs are set. (For example, I did this at Rosie_Napravnik#Career to make the photo of the horse and rider look bigger. Montanabw(talk)19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
File:Thomaskirche-1885.png: when did Kutschera make his engraving? Also, should include full source details instead of just a GBooks link
File:Leipzig_Nikolaikirche_um_1850.jpg: can you clarify the licensing status here? What is the status of the original image?
The Nokioaikirche image was created by Ludwig Rohbock (1820-1883), so I added a pd-old-100 tag to it. The person who took the photo of the two-dimensional image clearly didn't understand which tag to include (or, based on the rant at his commons userpage, has an issue with photographs that are faithful reproductions of 2-D works). But either way, I think it's fixed. Montanabw(talk)20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Thomaskirche image was created by an engraver born in 1830, so I think we are safe with that image being a PD, either PD 100 or at least PD-70+. Montanabw(talk)02:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recordings: I assume that the recordings are not the only ones ever recorded. Explaining your selection criteria may be useful for the casual reader. I will refrain from adding personalised ASIN codes to Amazon. ;-)
Sources: I personnaly prefer to separate sources actually cited in the article from generic ones. The generic ones could be listed in the article Bach cantata but why repeat them here? For example, the two following refs do not even specifically mention BMV22:
Koster, Jan (2011). "Weimar 1708–1717". let.rug.nl. Retrieved 16 December 2011.
Sartorius, Michael (2012). "Bach's Leipzig / 1725–1750 / The City of Leipzig in pictures". baroquemusic.org. Retrieved 11 March 2013.
Creating a "Further reading" section seems more appropriate imho.
Recordings: these are 11 of 12 listed on Bach-Cantatas (now referenced), - the 12th would repeat most performers and have more red links for soloists, could easily be added if wanted. Btw, there will we be no more red links in February.
I looked at the "extra" sources once more, dropped what I found to include no added information (including Sartorius, nice images but better for the later Leipzig time), used the others as references. Koster is there to reference the history before this cantata, therefore kept, unless you think the political situation in Weimar should be referenced to a different source.
We link Bach in the lede, but fail to do so on his first mention in the body.
done --GA
The last para of the "Background, Mühlhausen, Weimar and Köthen" section, could do with a "Bach" being removed and a pronoun being put in its place. For example: "In Köthen, Bach found an employer who was an enthusiastic musician himself. The court was Calvinist, therefore Bach's work from this period was mostly secular, including the orchestral suites, the cello suites, the sonatas and partitas for solo violin, and the Brandenburg Concertos. He composed secular cantatas for the court for occasions such as New Year's Day and the prince's birthday, including [[[Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a|Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht, BWV 134a]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help). He later parodied some of them to church cantatas without major changes, for example [[[Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134|Ein Herz, das seinen Jesum lebend weiß, BWV 134]]] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help)
I would hesitate to replace the first pronoun, because "he" couldmean the employer just mentioned before. The third one changed to pronoun. --GA
"Bach was interested, because he saw more possibilities for future academic studies of his sons in Leipzig" -- Not sure the comma is needed after "interested".
"By August, the town council had already chosen Georg Philipp Telemann as Kuhnau's successor, but he declined in November. In a council meeting on 23 November 1722..." I would give 1722 after August instead seeing as it is a new paragraph. We could then assume chrono order using that year from there.
good catch --GA
"Bach and Graupner seem to have been the preferred candidates at this point..." -- Seemed to whom? Watch for POV here.
The source says so, implying "to the town council", others seem to have had no say,
The source is given for the paragraph, and "why" the source regards is explained (because they were given 2 cantatas), what else? ---GA
Sorry, am I missing something? Who considered them to be preferred candidates? Seemed to who? The way it is currently worded suggests that you do Gerda, which is a POV. If it was the council, I would say so:
"The decision to invite Bach was made by the council on 15 January 1723. Bach and Graupner were [the councils]? preffered candidates at this point, because they were invited to show two cantatas each, while other candidates were requested to show only one. Two candidates even had to present their work in the same service. Graupner's performance took place on the last Sunday after Epiphany, 17 January 1723. Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position."
Spot checks done; selected sources Jones 2013, Crist 1989, Loewe 2014, Randel 1996, Mincham 2010 referred to by the article are now verified; occasionally the text is reproduced here verbatim without quote marks, (i.e. Crist 1989, p. 36), but this is probably fine. In the Bibliography, titles of book sources containing links are URLs to the Google Books source, linking directly to the first page referenced by the article (as opposed to the overview page), which is fine. I think the arrest of Bach referenced by Randel 1996 also appears in Loewe 2014 p. 54; there may be other examples of facts claimed by this article appearing in more than one source from the bibliography; I notice this article not once uses more than one source to back up any particular fact (the article uses Template:sfn but never once Template:sfnm). No research errors or technical errors that I can see. I was unable to verify one of the most highly referenced sources, Dürr 1971, as I didn't go to my library. :-) Very nicely written and well-researched article, prepared by an obvious expert on the subject. I located and listened to the cantata while reviewing it; magnificent. Prhartcom (talk) 17:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, it had quotation marks all along. Thank-you Graham. I checked three more sources: portions of the article referring to Gardiner 2006, Koster 2011, and Oron 2014 (which is the source for the article's table; only partially verified) and all is well with them. FYI, I believe I found one of the items in the bibliography, Edward McCue, not being referenced. I believe all of this article's references to sources are in order. Gerda, would you like to separate the soloists in the first four rows of the table as they are separated in the remaining rows? Prhartcom (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, first of all, but I do have a few comments:
Lede - "...and a chorale in the style of his predecessor in the position, Johann Kuhnau." I was a bit confused by this on the first reading, because it wasn't clear that Bach had succeeded Kuhnau as Thomaskantor. Could you add a brief mention of which position you're referring to? My suggestion would be: "...and a chorale in the style of his predecessor as Thomaskantor, Johann Kuhnau." or "...and a chorale in the style of the previous Thomaskantor, Johann Kuhnau." I know that you mentioned it earlier in the lede, but based on the distance between both mentions, it's not entirely clear that's the position to which you're referring.
Audition in Leipzig - "Two days before the event already, the town council agreed to offer him the position." This reads awkwardly. Is "already" an unintentional remnant from a previous revision? At any rate, I think that the word "already" could probably be removed without compromising the meaning of that sentence.
Audition in Leipzig - ""This is the Leipzig audition piece" (Das ist das Probe-Stück für Leipzig)." If you're going to include the original (German) version of the quote, it makes more sense to me to mention it first and then include the English translation in parentheses. However, if there is established precedent for showing quotes in this manner, then please feel free to disregard this suggestion.
Thomaskantor - "performing the ambitious cantatas Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, followed by Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, both in 14 movements each." in my reading, this sentence is a little bit confusing because it makes it seem as though the "ambitious cantatas" being referenced are 'Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75' (some may not know that it's one item); that is because the comma effectively separates the sentence, making it seem as though the descriptor only applies to the first part. (Apologies if that is worded confusingly). I would add a colon, as such: "performing two ambitious cantatas: Die Elenden sollen essen, BWV 75, followed by Die Himmel erzählen die Ehre Gottes, BWV 76, both in 14 movements each."
Music (1) - "((Luke 18:34): Sie aber vernahmen der keines ("However they understood nothing")." it looks like there should either be one more or one less parenthesis here.
Reception - ""The audition cantatas … show Bach feeling his way towards a compromise between the progressive, opera-influenced ad the conservative, ecclesiastical styles."" Is 'ad' a typo of 'and'? If so, was it in the original quote? If it was, a little (sic) should probably be added.
Reception Ishoyama's full name and profession are only mentioned in this section, although his surname is used earlier with no explanation. I would suggest moving his full name and title to the earliest use and replacing it in this section with just his surname. The same occurs with Julian Minchum and John Eliot Gardiner, so I would suggest changing those as well.
That's it! This article is very informative, and as an abject layman, I found it easy to navigate, which is a good sign of article quality, in my opinion. Nicely done.-RHM22 (talk) 23:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about... the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests. As the album is third, this is the third time we nominate this article for FA. Before I nominate it I went through it, not spotting any major issues with the prose or the references, and I think it satisfied the criteria pretty well. I would left the rest to the users who comment. Special thanks to Status (talk·contribs) who also helped me to bring the article to GA status. — Tomíca(T2ME)14:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, an album can not produce singles, it can generate them.
I agree produced is not the best word, however, what about spawned?
Why don't you write the producers with their stage names: Tricky Stewart instead of Christopher "Tricky" Stewart, L.A. Reid instead of Antonio "L.A." Reid, and so.
I think you've misinterpreted the ref describing "Umbrella". The Guardian called it an "improbable R&B summer smash" (not rock)! It further said it reminded the author of a "rock power ballad", but that's not the same as being a rock power ballad.
Regarding the live performances, isn't there some choreography when the songs are played onstage? I haven't watched Rihanna's concerts, but there certainly are dancers, screens, or specific outfit when she performs.
The commercial performance, as well as the charts and tables are professionally done, perhaps the strongest side of the article, so I have no complaints on that.
I'm not sure I would title the picture set "Major writers and producers on Good Girl Gone Bad", since Tricky Stewart worked on two tracks, Ne-Yo worked on three, and Justin Timberlake worked on only one. I feel that the individual captions alone suffice because they give more specific details about their respective collaborations. The sentences for Tricky Stewart and Ne-Yo also need periods at the end of them because they are complete sentences.
In regards to the Justin Timberlake caption, I feel like "and learned much from the sessions" is too open-ended and unclear. I would recommend just dropping this part of the sentence and leaving it at how much Rihanna enjoyed working with him.
In "Composition", you could move the first sentence into the first full paragraph, so we don't have a little stub of a paragraph hanging out on its own in the beginning.
In the "Singles" section, it would be helpful to either a) find a better picture of Bey and Jay where both of their faces are more clearly visible, or if that's not possible, b) make the existing image a bit larger.
Since I couldn't find a better pic of them too, I decided that the Jay Z part was more notable regarding "Umbrella" ofc, and added just a picture of him. — Tomíca(T2ME)16:53, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is a little short on its own, I feel like "Accolades and legacy" could be merged into a couple of other sections. The first paragraph would fit well in "Critical response", and the second paragraph would flow nicely in the "Commercial performance" section.
"Re-issue and remix album" would fit well as the third subheading beneath "Marketing and release", since both discs are undoubtedly promotional efforts to boost the performance of the original record.
What is the difference between the deluxe and limited editions? There are a variety of deluxe editions mentioned in the track listing so that for me isn't an issue, but I don't see anything about a specific limited edition.
Comment - Hi @Tomica: one thing I noticed in the Certification table that many of the references are manually coded in the certref parameter so that they can be used elsewhere in the article. However, you don't need to do this. The refname parameter can be used easily like the {{singlechart}} and {{albumchart}} templates now. Article space can be reduced much in this way. —Indian:BIO[ ChitChat ]09:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The prose needs a bit of polishing - I copyedited the lead a bit. Also, be wary of redundancies and too-short sentences - see this. Will make other striaghtforward changes as I go. Please revert if I accidentally change the meaning.
Good Girl Gone Bad was recorded in Westlake Recording Studios and Conway Studios in Los Angeles; Battery Studios and Roc the Mic Studios in New York City; Chicago Recording Company and Pressure Studios in Chicago; Phase One Audio Group in Toronto; Lethal Studios in Bridgetown, Barbados; Espionage Studios in Oslo; and Parr Street Studios in Liverpool. - weird use of semicolons here.....I'd use commas.
Weeks later, the three met in New York City, where Timberlake had conceptualized a song for Rihanna. Timbaland, who conceptualized a song for Rihanna under the title "Rehab", was producing a beat, over which Timberlake improvised his lyrics - "conceptualized a song for Rihanna " repeated - reword to something else..."written"..."penned"..?
Cautious support on comprehensiveness and prose - can't see anything that I can come up with a better alternative - some bits (e.g. Live performances segment) a bit listy and could do with some more comments to make less so but not a dealbreaker. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:34, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A great article Tom, and it's great to see you working on more FAs! I have some comments:
What I feel like isn't stressed is that GGGB is the major turning point in Rihanna's career. It's the first album were she makes her stamp in the ground of early 2000s music, the first were she makes a cohesive body of work and the first were her overarching dark, sexual image emerges. I think what I'm trying to say is that there needs to be a part of the article where the reader gets the impression this is where the good girl went bad, and this should also, crucially, be stressed in one or two sentences in the lead. At the moment, the lead summarises the article's parts well, but it isn't telling me why this album is important—to Rihanna's discography and pop music. I'm sure there are some retrospective articles on GGGB.
Better, but I think this needs to go a lot deeper (and note you've only included that in the lead). Reading over Rihanna's main article, it claims "she rose to widespread prominence and became a household name with the release of her third studio album, Good Girl Gone Bad". If this is true (and I think it is), this needs to be stressed not just in the lead, but actually in the article. I would research some new articles that discuss the impact of this album. This Entertainment Weekly article alludes to something I mentioned beore about GGGB being where what I said was "her stamp in the ground" and what they say is her "newfound staying power". The Rihanna page also tells me this is the best-selling album of her career, which, if also true, I believe is crucially ignored here.
Is there no sales update out there? 7m as of 2009, which is five years ago (how time has flown!)
In Composition, is there more you could say about the overall music, lyrics or themes? (For sure talk about the lyrics of some songs, you've done so limitedly)
Every song is described in the section. I also found one notable sentence in one review. The rest is already in CR. I hope it's not a biggy. — Tomíca(T2ME)15:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all album articles should contain some lyrical analysis. Perhaps look at the singles pages for sources and describe the lyrics of those songs. A more complete description of how the album sounds would be beneficial, AllMusic can help.
I personally don't have a problem with the Digital Spy source, but I know some editors loathe it. Can it be replaced? (I wouldn't worry if not)
@Tomica: That's fine Tom! There is certainly no problems with the existing material, but I think there is some room for development. In particular, the article should capture the nature of the album: what Rihanna wanted it to be, how different it was from her previous material (particularly for its themes and tone) and how GGGB impacted music of that time and Rihanna's subsequent work. I'm actually reminded of what Journalist told me during my first FAC for 4 and how my article lacked a slant, I think that problem exists here. Spend time on describing the statement Rihanna is trying to make with the album, which I see as a deliberate, drastic, provocative change of image, and how this has imapacted her as an artist, particularly how this album established her, and has obviously influenced all subsequent work (no Rihanna LP has since returned to the Carribean pop of Music of the Sun or A Girl like Me, but albums like Rated R and Talk That Talk are noticeably darker like GGGB). I know this is quite a big ask, and I don't expect this to be quick-fix, but try to dig deeper with the sources available. Cheers, —JennKR | ☎17:26, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised I can put my point above in your own words. In the description of this FA you say "the third studio album by Rihanna, a game changer for her and her music career. During this era, Rihanna changed her style, became more liberating and lost the good girl image, as the title suggests." This is the exact thing I take away from GGGB and yet this is only hinted at in the article. —JennKR | ☎18:15, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've also just realised it may seem I'm only referring to the lead, but I'm actually referring to the article as a whole. How these changes come about is up to you—they could be placed throughout the article, they could materialise in a section about the album's impact, etc.
@JennKR: With all due respect Jenn, most of the things you asked me are already in the article. I tell how she changed her image, changed her sound, why she named the album Good Girl Gone Bad. And tbh the album doesn't feature that dark sound or has a major inspiration like Rated R did, of course that album was inspired by Chris Brown and their altercation. And when I talk about a game changer I also want to tell that this album unlike her previous received positive reviews, gain major commercial success and impact thanks to the singles. Everything is noted. Also point that there are no much sources (I used maximum of it) since this album was released in 2007 unlike 4 which was available in 2011. If you read carefully, the whole article is about impact. All in all users who commented thought that it was well written, referenced and I believe I can not go beyond this to be honest. All the best. — Tomíca(T2ME)18:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I do still feel this should be FA, Tomica, I just noticed one additional thing- for the PopMatters review, you mention comparisons to Gwen Stefani, Kelis, Beyoncé, and Pink, but don't include any quotes or detail on the comparisons. Just fix that and it'll be more comprehensive. Snuggums (talk / edits)19:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomica: I also believe the article is well written and referenced, and you have in fact dealt with how her image changed, I just don't agree when reading it that the album's impact has been considered explicitly. You say that this a "game changer" because it was largely positively reviewed and a major commercial success because of its singles, this is partially true, as some of its songs are some of the most notable of Rihanna's career. However, it's also a "game changer" for her because it's her first cohesive record—the one that gave her a standing in music, the one that introduced the good girl gone bad persona, and I feel like the evidence points to this, but its never actually spelt out in the article. I think the problem I find is that this article could have been written no differently in 2009, just before the release of Rated R, where we had no idea where Rihanna's career was going and how big it was going to be. I don't want to just know that GGGB was succesful commercially and critically (which is, of course, part of impact), I want to know how this impacted Rihanna's career. I appreciate that this is difficult, especially because it's in that awkward position of not being old enough to have lots of retrospective articles, but not new enough to have lots of articles detailing its making, production, release, impact, etc., but I think some research should be at least attempted. I mean one of the first sources I looked at was Biography.com's entry on Rihanna (see here), and one of its sections (the only one dedicated to a particular work) is for GGGB, which says to me that this is a work with impact. Can there be more consideration of the album's impact, particularly on its maker and her subsequent work? I think this article is certainly FA worthy, I just want it to go deeper in this area. Best wishes, —JennKR | ☎19:51, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@JennKR: Okay, so first of all thanks for the sources. I created this section which I think that summarizes the impact in whole of the album and included some pretty much describing image and music quotes. I hope you like it and are satisfied with it. @SNUGGUMS: apart of that I don't think the review has something better to include tbh. Also after that comparison he gives some sleazy comments which are awful to read not to quote or paraphrase lol. — Tomíca(T2ME)10:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomica: Sorry for my late reply, I wanted time to go through the section properly! Yes, this is exactly what I had in mind. I'm just checking, are you positive this can not go any further, particularly when considering the impact on her subsequent albums? Admittedly, having had a look for sources, they are quite hard to find easily, but the ones that are unearthed seem to be quite useful. Aside from that:
I think that the points that (1) this is the major turning point in Rihanna's career; and (2) this is where her image changed dramatically and permanantly, need to be stresed in the lead. If you think of the people who will read this in years to come, I think that the take-away is that this album is where things changed. I think this could be done—if necessary—with the expense of loosing some detail in the first paragraph (e.g. the long list of producers, which could be cut down to major contributors, if you needed to).
I pointed out above that GGGB, according to the Rihanna main page, is the best-selling album of her career. Is this true? I think it would be an oversight at the FA stage to not include this detail in Commercial performance and the lead.
@JennKR: Glad you like it! I added another quote from AllMusic which is also useful. And I think it's already good as how the section looks. Btw, her subsequent albums, Rated R was a whole different story we all know it, with Loud she goes back to her roots and gets dance-poppy, Talk That Talk is a whole different sexual story, while Unapologetic is Rated-R-meets-Talk That Talk, I wouldn't say GGGB influenced them directly. I added a sentence in the lead for the image change I think it looks good. And since I can not find a source to update the sales, I am not sure whether it's good to mention that. Plus I didn't find a direct source stating it's her best-selling album. Think my rsp will satisfy your needs. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME)13:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Link the names of works on first mention only if you are going to do it (for example, fn 2 and 16)
Vibe magazine is cited differently in two different places (2 and 16)
Publishers are missing from many of the references, and you are inconsistent even within the same work in providing it or not providing it (for example, MTV News).
Usually you are providing just the name of the site as the work for web references (for example, fn 9), but sometimes you are are using the URL even if it's not the name of the web site (for example, 143 and 144)
The Rap-Up citations in general are low-quality, because you are linking the reader directly to videos which for the most part seem to have been removed. On several of them I had to scroll up to find the text, if any was given.
Can I assume the myriad citations to chart positions don't contain any WP:BADCHARTS violations?
@Laser brain: Thanks for the source review first of all. I think I fixed all of the above issues with the references. I added publishers for all the references (at least the ones that have), fixed the pointed names of the websites, I also added language field in the charts section, I removed/replaced the Rap-Up references that didn't have the given information in their content. And for the charts, there are not badcharts violations at all. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME)14:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
About ready to promote this now that source issues have been resolved but I have to ask, re. the lead, what is a "turnover point"? Do we mean a "turning point" in her career, as Jenn suggested above? If so, suggest you use the latter phrase, which seems far more common and easy to comprehend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Raynolds was a man of many achievements. A West Point grad and member of the U.S. Topographical Engineers, he was a decorated U.S. Army Colonel upon retirement and temporarily breveted to General for meritorious service during the American Civil War....was the first to climb Pico de Orizaba, the tallest mountain in Mexico, and led the first U. S. Government sponsored expedition into the region that later became the world's first National Park; Yellowstone. Raynolds was a renowned civil engineer who oversaw the construction of many lighthouses... some of which are still in use and are on the National Register of Historic Places. This article is currently rated as a Good Article after being well reviewed by Nikkimaria and copyedited by Bishonen. Tell me what else I can do to get this article to Featured level. Thanks! MONGO20:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"described by Raynolds as "a small band compared to their neighbors, but are famous warriors ..."": Rewrite that, please, so that it makes sense as a sentence.
"A combination of failure to reach the fabled sights of the Yellowstone region as well as the outbreak of the war relegated the Raynold's Expedition to near obscurity, but his map was in high demand and was published in 1864.": I don't know what that means; people must have known that he went there if they knew about the map.
In the expedition section, discussion of the Wind River and Bighorn River needs a bit of clairification so that the reader knows they are not different rivers, just different parts of the same river. (I know it still confuses me at times).--Mike Cline (talk) 08:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Heading east, the reunited expedition recrossed the Rocky Mountains and traveled via steamboat downstream to Omaha, Nebraska where the expedition members were disbanded in October 1860. Not accurate as once at Three Forks, the expedition was already on the Missouri river and East of the Rockies. Did they travel via the Yellowstone or Missouri east?? Where did they catch the boat--Fort Benton, Bighorn, Fort Union?? --Mike Cline (talk) 08:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note @Mike Cline:; there has always been a technical issue at FAC where templates slow down the page load time and cause issues once the FAC is archived. Mike, if intead of the tq template, you could use the manual font color method that Casliber uses, for example at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Telescopium/archive1, it would help the transclusion problem that sometimes occurs in FAC archives. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
are there any details that can be provided to flesh out the Early life section a little more? For instance, who were his parents? Do we know where he went to school, etc?
Found further details on his ancestry but I confess it might be hard to adequately reference even though the details are neither surprising nor sensational enough to warrant much indignation due to mediocre referencing. In other words no claim to being descended from royalty or other famous persons is made.MONGO14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
a widow is mentioned, are there any details about her? When did they marry? What was her name? Did they have any children?
What you've added looks great and satisfies my request for more information, but now it appears unreferenced. For instance there are two unreferenced senteces in the Early life section: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died. William and Mary had no offspring." And another later, "William and his wife Mary, who died in 1898, were interred together in West Lawn Cemetery in Canton, Ohio." If you can't find a reliable source for these details, I think it would be best not to include it. Sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed his wife's name since it cannot be referenced. The information I have read states he was married "early in life" which I altered to "at a young age", that his wife outlived him and that they had no children. I've adjusted the various passages in the article to reflect this information and added a citation to reflect his place of burial which that source says is "Westlawn Cemetery", but the modern spelling is "West Lawn Cemetery" which is wikilinked.--MONGO06:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"File:William F. Raynolds.jpg": this might look more visually appealing if it were rotated to face into the article. Is this possible, at all? (note, this is not required by policy, just a suggestion)
I have seen that as a MOS suggestion before and its a good one...maybe I can download then reupload a reversed image and see what it looks like.MONGO14:54, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done
watch capitalisation "Brevet Second Lieutenant" probably should be "brevet second lieutenant" (same for "Brevet Brigadier General") per MOS:MILTERMS;
Done
year range format, constructions such as "1859–1860" should be "1859–60" per WP:DATERANGE (except birth-death parentheticals);
Done
not sure about the comma here: "named Raynolds Pass, (44°42′40″N 111°28′11″W)"...I don't think commas are necessary before brackets;
Done
not sure about the comma here: "Raynolds stated that the Crow were a, "small band...";
Done
this seems a bit repetitious: "Raynold's immediate participation in the American Civil War..." followed closely by "With the outbreak of the American Civil War almost immediately after the conclusion of the expedition..."
not sure about these parameters in the cite book template: "author1=Raynolds|authorlink1=William" in Reference 20. Currently the link points to a dab page for "William", which doesn't seem right. Perhaps "authorlink" isn't the correct paramater to use?
I simply removed the authorlink issue...its an edited version and condensed portion from Raynolds's diaries and trip report, so I just mentioned the editors.--MONGO05:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a slight tweak to this sentence: "William F. Raynolds married Mary (née Hanchett January 24, 1822–January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." There is probably no need to use the subject's full name again, particularly given that most sentences in the paragraph already begin with his name. Secondly, I'd tweak the punctuation. For instance, I suggest something like this: "Raynolds married Mary Hanchett (January 24, 1822 – January 29, 1898) at an unknown date and they remained together until William died." Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Truly appreciate you taking time out of your day, reviewing the article and offering wise suggestions. Much appreciated!--MONGO04:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is inconsistent use of the possessive apostrophe for Raynolds. It appears as Raynolds's (acceptable) and Raynold's (not correct), I couldn't find a Raynolds' which would also be acceptable. Just need a correct and consistent use. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A map of the expedition from the Raynolds reports might liven this up. I've uploaded 4 different maps that came out of the expedition for you to chose from if you decide to use them. Raynolds Expedition --Mike Cline (talk) 16:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments -- recusing myself from FAC coord duties on this occasion:
Completed my habitual copyedit, pls let me know if I misinterpreted anything or you disagree with the new wording.
I think most of the queries I had on points of detail have been raised and resolved above. In light of that, I think structure and level of detail are fine.
I haven't done a source review but always happy to go with Nikki's image checks.
One thing, is the estimate of his estate in today's money?
Hi Ian....thank you. The printed source for the 50-100k amount is dated at 1895, so I assume that was the worth then. Would it be better to clarify that and let the reader compute the difference or do as I have done and made the calculations? Depending on the source that's 1.3-2.7 million which I rounded out some. Do we have a desired format for these sorts of things and or sources that do a reliable conversion?--MONGO16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got it but the template, no matter how I messed with it would not seem to permit a to or and parameter so I added two templates. Hope that looks better.--MONGO01:28, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me. I expect I'll be ready to support this following a clean source review. BTW, saw your edit summary when adding the template -- I'd found it by looking at the section on calculations in MOS, so I figure it's all compliant (that's why I suggested it). ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for all the help. I just saw that boilerplate at the top of that page and the stuff about OR violation so I was like, wow. But I know you know what you are doing. I wish it had a parameter that allowed ranges such as the ones I routinely use for measurements of distance, etc. I might ask and see if a template savvy editor could implement that as I am no expert on such matters.--MONGO01:39, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Anyway, I think this still needs a source review (you could ask at the top of WT:FAC) so if that comes back clean I'll be happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in any hurry but I suppose if this is still needing a ref check after the first of the year I will post a request.--MONGO14:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the source review has been conducted and issues dealt with, and I've tweaked a little the prose changes since I last read the article, I'm ready to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian...it's good to see so many take time out of their day to contribute their thoughts and make edits to this article.--MONGO14:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportOppose provisionally after a partial source review. I am finding issues with almost every citation, and they need to be gone over with a fine-tooth comb.
Fn 1, there seems to be some missing information regarding the volume. An ASIN is also available (B005644AE2) which would help readers locate the resource. Why are title caps not used?
I believe this is now corrected.
Fn 2, Perrin is an editor, not an author.
Done.
Fn 4, need more info on this site. From where did you obtain the publication date (the page has a "last updated" date of October 5, 2013)? Information is available on the page about the author (Bill Thayer). Who is he, and why is his personal page a reliable source? Etc.
Removed and replaced with existing source
Fn 5, the publication date I found of the ebook publication is 2012. Please verify.
Now corrected.
Fn 6, this is a journal and your citation does not match the journal title I found in Worldcat, and it's missing the publisher. Where did the publication date of June 10, 1895 come from?
Is now Fn 4 and has been adjusted.
Fn 9, why is Peakbagger.com a reliable source?
It is not reliable so I removed it.
Fn 11, this is a recreation/guide book for climbers, not a history book. The author does not cite sources. I would consider this a low-quality source for the information you're citing.
As discussed below, while not per se a history book, the author Leigh N. Ortenburger was a dedicated mountaineer whose book in question is considered the bible for climbing routes in the Teton Range of Wyoming and likely a reliable authority on the detail referenced.
Fn 12, same comment really. It's OK for basic mountaineering information, but not history.
I was beat to the punch by another with a much better source, although you need JSTOR to access it.
Fn 13, this is a reprint of text from the journal The Military Engineer (cited at the bottom of the page). You should be citing in the style described in WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Actually that's probably true of fn 7 as well.
Fn 14–17, same comment. You're citing amateur web sites which are citing (hopefully) reliable sources about Raynolds. How do you know those sources are being used accurately?
I stopped here. Please go through all the sources and double-check that you are including accurate information (publication dates, publishers, etc.) and that you are properly citing the original works using the "cited in" format for these hobbyist web sites. --Laser brain(talk)00:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:...for footnotes 11 and 12 is it a problem with the publisher? Why would this information have to be from "history" books? These sources are about mountaineering and the matter they reference is a mountaineering event.--MONGO05:01, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MONGO, I'm thinking that the authors of these books tend to be very knowledgeable about the technical matters they are writing about, but we don't know how well they research and fact-check the other things they write about. For example, I have several books about mountaineering where I live. The authors each repeat a common historical misconception about a Civil War battle that occurred here and is part of local folklore—but they are not historians so they don't know any better and they're just trying to make the books interesting for customers. I'd much rather have a proper historical and fact-checked source for things like that. --Laser brain(talk)05:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those authors are not making any sensational claims and the storyline is not very fantastic really. Frankly, in the case of these two sources you mention I believe you're being overly demanding. Sensational claims need sensational sources, though I would already state that in the case of FN 12 that author is a sensational source. I'll attempt to handle some of the other issues you think need addressing with the sources over the next week or two.--MONGO12:23, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I need to open a jstor account and after that I should have a better reference than the one used in FN 11. I'll get the rest of the refs fixed and do double even triple checking as soon as possible.--MONGO16:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am having a heck of a time with FN 1. The information is from Appleton's, volume 34, page 595 but that asin you provided may be incorrect...any sugggestions? I made the updates mentioned but something is still amiss.--MONGO00:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't explain the disparity between the Google Books and Amazon info, so it's probably fine as-is. The ultimate point is that we provide enough information for someone to find the book, which we have. I can't look it up in Worldcat because all of OCLC's services are down for maintenance today. --Laser brain(talk)18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain:...I think I have them all cleaned up. I tossed the peakbagger ref and the ones to lighthousefriends.com and similar. I also (with the help of BusterD and Mike Cline) was able to replace the reference from the author Secor with a far superior reference that provided the same details and more regarding the climb on Pico de Orizaba. A few refs may be not as well formatted as hoped and I am admittedly sometimes poor at using the best ref templates as could be used. The majority of my sources have url's attached to them for ease of cross-referencing. I've run citation bot several times to clean up my formatting and there are no dead links. Let me know what else you may think needs adjustments. Here is a diff providing a snapshot of the adjustments made.--MONGO21:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you did the review...many of my refs were not up to FA standards. I am usually better at finding superior references so my initial take on your review was that you were nitpicking. A closer look however revealed that some were definitely inadequate. Thank you.--MONGO00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Brevet Brigadier General" was antedated to March 13, 1865 as many officer brevets were. His date of actually getting it approved was March 2, 1867 so he wouldn't have been called Brevit Brigadier General until after March 2, 1867. Since date meant seniority, a bunch of officers that received honorary brevits were all antedated to March 13, 1865 as equals even though the awarded brevit occurred later. It wasn't temporary. I believe he was a Captain on March 13, 1865, a Major on March 2, 1867. See List of American Civil War brevet generals (Union)#Union-R. This is noticed in a lot of documents where he seemingly jumps around in ranks around Yellowstone which was after the civil war but before 1867. He sent reports as Captain and as Major but by the time they were sent to congress, they had awarded the brevet brigadier general (see [41]). He was also a brevetted colonel but I am not sure of the date. A book citation for him in one on the light house assignments in 1882 was "Col. William F. Raynolds, Corps of Engineers, Brevet Brigadier-General, U.S. Army, Philadelphia, Pa."[42] in the 1882 lighthouse board report. Don't know if Corps of Engineers was still separate from the Army. In any case, the important point is that the brevet was not temporary and it was antedated to a date before the end of the Civil War as many were. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to keep his advancement through the ranks as chronological as possible. It's sometimes confusing to word so readers know the difference between brevetted ranks and permanent ranks. I cleaned up as we discussed the issue of the brevet being temporary but aside from routine brevet ranks of second lieutenant given to recent graduates from West Point due to a lack of available and budgeted ranks, upper ranking brevet awards were done mainly for meritorious service and offered no pay or increase in authority. A major brevetted colonel would still not outrank a non-brevetted lieutenant colonel.--MONGO03:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I didn't find anywhere that he was ever in a Brigadier General position of command (which is how Lincoln brevetted certain Generals and it seems Johnson nominated him post civil war purely for service and antedated to March 13, 1865). I couldn't find a way to word or explain it in short order in the lead other than it was antedated and awarded for civil war service. The rank only counted outside his regular command which was why the Yellowstone report to Congress through Stanton looks jacked up. It's cleaner to keep his rank through it's ordinary progression. --DHeyward (talk) 06:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There may be differences as well which you touch on in which ranks within the engineer corp were different than those in the regular army.--MONGO17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about the Battle of Schliengen, in October 1796, between elements of the French Republican Army and the Habsburg and royalist French armies. It has been through reviews in the MIL Hist wikiproject and recently passed A-class. I'd appreciate constructive criticism. It is at least comparable with other articles of similar type that I have brought to FA review.. auntieruth(talk)00:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)
"the Prince Condé", "the Condé": There's no requirement for consistency in titles within Wikipedia, but I think it would help. I see from a link below that this is Louis Joseph, Prince of Condé (it would be better to move the link to first occurrence); I don't see "the Prince Condé" in that article, looking quickly. There are lots of ways to write titles, and I don't know a lot about the subject, but many of them sound jargony to a wide readership.
fixed
"on Freiburg": "assigned to Freiburg" or "at Freiburg" might be a little clearer.
"))": MOS frowns on this.
Yes, I do too. However, the template assigns a parens. What do I do?
The convert template used to handle this, but I don't see it in the list of parameters now. Do it without the convert template, using "or" instead of parens. - Dank (push to talk)
"His position on the heights gave him the advantage in any approach; his troops would be firing downhill on the Habsburg troops, which would have to not only look up into the fire but also would have to march uphill. The French position, in the chain of abrupt and woody heights, seemed nearly impregnable.": There's overlap between this and the next paragraph: "... Moreau had chosen an almost unassailable position, especially for his center. Any Habsburg force would have to cross the Kandern; in most cases, it would have to advance uphill into withering fire."
File:Gouvion-saint-cyr.jpg: there's no source information—where did the file come from? Who made it & when?
swapped it and duc d'enghien for files that I can verify source info. No sure what to do about the portrait of charles. Perhaps I should eliminate this section. I have other images of the battle or battle field. auntieruth(talk)22:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes it is the same charles. I'm not sure it's the same picture, though. the images have the copyright information on them. am I permitted to crop that off? auntieruth(talk)01:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
okay, found one of Charles from the centenary album. That has proper notation on it. YAY! Swapped it, and they all look better. I cropped the others, too. Hope it' allowed to do that. auntieruth(talk)01:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This is tentative (I need to reread the article to make sure I didn't miss anything) but a speed read through shows a good article with all the associated I's dotted and T's crossed. You are missing alt text for two images though, I'd entertain the idea of adding it if you can. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
link Mainz, Karlsruhe, Basel, Altenkirchen, Wetzler, Uckerath and Frankfurt the first time they appear
I think I got all the links.
Link and give the full name of Archduke Charles the first time he appears in the main body. The lead doesn't count.
moved some stuff around and included a better explanation of who these guys (see below too) were.
Add convert template to "211-mile" (Why are we using miles anyway?)
done (why not miles?)
Who is Wurmser? Fürstenburg? Condé? Jourdan? Moreau? Links please. Full name on first appearance in the body. (Fürstenburg is subsequently linked twice.) Explanation would not go astray either.
What is the 74th, 17th and 84th? Regiments? Demi-brigades?
Yes, Demis. By this time, the French had reorganized themselves (one of the many times).
Move the map up to the first section
did you mean the map of the river? I put a different map in.
"16th and 50th Demi-brigades" Here the B should be capitalised here.
idk...I think since it is referring to two, it would not.
"The village of Schliengen lies close to the border of present-day Baden-Württemberg (Germany), the Haut-Rhin (France), and the Canton of Basel-Stadt (Switzerland), in the Kreis Lörrach." How about "The village of Schliengen, in present-day Baden-Württemberg (Germany), lies close to the borders with the Haut-Rhin (France), and the Canton of Basel-Stadt (Switzerland), in the Kreis Lörrach." This gives an extra piece of information in much the same words.
fixed
"After retreating from Freiburg im Breisgau, Moreau established his army along a ridge of hills, in a 7-mile (11 km) semi-circle on heights that commanded the terrain below. Given the severe condition of the roads at the end of October, Archduke Charles could not flank the right French wing." This wording seems to imply some previous knowledge. I would prefer something like "On 20 October Moreau retreated from his position at Freiburg..." and "Archduke Charles could not flank (outflank?) the French right wing because the roads at the end of October were in a bad condition."
fixed
Background section. I take hchc's point that too much background upsets the balance of the article, but I would have liked a couple of sentences to cover the abrupt transition between 1792 and 1796.
added a wee bit
"with sufficient depth to resist the pressure of their opposition." opponents might be a better word.
"had already made itself onerous, by reputation and rumor at least, throughout France." I do not understand this. My dictionary defines onerous as requiring a great deal of effort. Do you mean odious, and if so how?
fixed
"An assault into the German states was essential, as far as French commanders understood," I think "in the view of French commanders" would be better.
clarified
"The ardent Republican" "An ardent Republican"?
clarified
"The Swabian force consisted of recruits and most of them were field hands and day laborers drafted for service in the spring of that year." I do not understand this. Recruits implies voluntary enlistment and drafted suggests conscription. This comment is repeated with slightly different wording below.
fixed
What is the Swabian Circle?
clarified
"As Charles withdrew further east, the neutral zone expanded" What was the neutral zone?
clarified
"the armies of the Coalition and the armies of the Directory sought to flank each other". Not sure, but I think it should be outflank. This applies to other cases where flank is used. A flanking attack is one on the side of the opposing force, but moving round the side of an enemy to outmanoeuvre them is outflanking.
"On 3 September at Würzburg, Jourdan attempted to halt the retreat. Once Moreau received word of this defeat". this defeat? You have not said that the attempt was unsuccessful.
clarified
"The Austrian corps commanded by Latour drew too close to Moreau at Biberach and lost 4,000 prisoners" Austrians taken prisoner?
"The Swabian force consisted of recruits provided by the members of the Swabian Circle and most of them were literally raw recruits, field hands and day laborers drafted for service in the spring of that year." I still do not understand whether they were voluntary recruits, or the Swabian Circle. Were the Swabian Circle a group of aristocrats and the "recruits" their serfs? Below you say "most of the Swabian Circle was abandoned to the French" as if it was an area of land. PS. I see that note 2 (on the second mention of the Swabian Circle, not the first) refers to imperial circles as groups of states, but the relevance is not obvious on first reading. I think it would be clearer to say that the Swabian circle is an example of a group of states organised in an imperial circle.
okay I think this should be clearer now.
Terrain section. You might move the map to the right. With it on the left, the block quote is not indented.
done
Key Figures in the Battle of Schliengen. It is a bit odd that the commanders are not in these images of key figures. I would suggest moving the commanders to have the portraits all together.
"The defeats of Jourdan's army at the Amberg and Würzburg allowed Charles to move more troops to the south." Presumably to Schliengen? I am sure you explain the geography above but it is difficult to keep track.
clarified
"south-west through the mountains from Elzach, through Bleibach and Waldkirch. Just to the southwest" Inconsistent southwest or south-west.
fixed
"(see 47°45′N 7°36′E), .8 miles (1 km) east of Schliengen." Usually shown as 0.8 miles.
Note -- Ruth, do I take it that the paragraph at the end of Summer of maneuvers is sourced to FN15? If so I'd suggest move the citation from the opening sentence of the subsection to the end of the subsection, as my first thought was that there was a significant block of unreferenced text... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
CorenSearchBot shows here a duplication problem, but the site given is a Wikipedia mirror (and it correctly credits the Wikipedia article). Googling three random phrases showed no copyvios - only wikipedia mirrors.
not sure how I can prevent this sort of thing.
This wasn't added as something you needed to fix, merely that I did a check on copyright violations, and why I discounted CorenSearchbot's result. Ealdgyth - Talk19:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
A date for the Declaration of Pilnitz? I'm not excessively familiar with the details of the whole French Revolution/Napoleonic Wars time frame (and the average reader is almost always even more historically ignorant than I am) so a date would help.
added
Campaign in 1796
Missing context for "the army but the thin white line of Habsburg infantry " .. why is it a "thin white line"?
they wore white coats. Just a turn of phrase. I added a note and citation to article.
Is there a source for "The Austrian army consisted of professionals, many moved from the border regions in the Balkans, and conscripts drafted from the imperial circles."? It has a footnote ... but is the source for that footnote also for the sentence?
yes. Moved citation to end of paragraph
"Furthermore, it was an army entirely dependent for support upon the countryside." .. this could mean two things - political/moral support or material support. I think it's a bit opaque to the non-specialist here.
material support.
Summer of maneuvers
Is there a source for the information in the concluding paragraph here?
don't know where that went, because certainly everything was sourced at one point. HOWEVER, I've added the source back in.
"eight battalions and 14 squadrons" - per the MOS - it should be either "8 battalions and 14 squadrons" or "eight battalions and fourteen squadrons" - given the later sentences, I'd suggest "8 battalions and 14 squadrons"
all those are fixed, although it goes against my training to do that.
"included 11 battalions and two regiments of cavalry" as above, either "included 11 battalions and 2 regiments of cavalry" or "included eleven battalions and two regiments of cavalry". Either seems fine to me.
see above
Combat:
Why are we suddenly given coordinates in this section (and the next) when we haven't been before? Consistency, because "castle of Bürglen 3.9 miles (6 km) to the east" doesn't give coords... and why "(see [coord])" instead of just giving the coord?
all coords added here because most of these villages don't exist today as separate entities, and they can be hard to find. Eventually I'll have a map for this, but not yet.
"Ferino's troops sustained "prodigies of valor" from daybreak to nightfall" .. sustained seems odd here - "performed"? If you're quoting Ferino with the sustained, then expand the quotation there.
translations. moved quotation mark.
Most of these are minor and would not make me withhold support, but the unreferenced paragraph needs sourcing, as it includes some opinionish type writing. Ealdgyth - Talk15:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article about an American rocket scientist who is both recognized as a pioneer in 20th century engineering an an icon of modern occultism. The recommendations of the first FA review have been followed rigorously. We have expanded the article's reference body (including academic sources) to avoid over reliance on the Carter and Pendle sources and written more detailed descriptions of the scientific aspect of the subject's career. A copyedit by User:Chaosdruid has also significantly improved and provided a firm grounding for the clarity of its prose. I believe that this article now meets the FA standard. JJARichardson (talk) 23:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it isn't necessary to include "(pictured)" in the caption
File:Parsons_Kynette.jpg: why the EU template for a US image? Also, what steps have you taken to determine whether the original publication included a copyright notice? Same for File:1952_0618_parsons.jpg
File:Marjorie_Cameron.jpg: source and licensing given are questionable. Getty Center attributes this image to the Cameron Parsons Foundation; it seems unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder, and unlikelier still that the image was their original creation. I have flagged this image on Commons for permissions issues, but if you have any more information about earlier publication that would be helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really enjoyed reading this article. I want to see it on the front page. It is the kind of work that we should be doing. Having read the support, you can switch off now, but I do have some quibbles to prove that I did read it.
Consider removing the pixel sizes from the images. They all look like postage stamps on my screen, and may look funny on mobile devices. Removing the sizes will make them default to the users' preferences.
Done this.
The lead should be a summary of the text, and should stand separate from it. Could the abbreviation for Ordo Templi Orientis be provided with its first link? (Do we need the OTO abbreviation?)
Same applies to JPL, which appears as an abbreviation on its first use in the body.
The lead now reads "In 1942 they founded Aerojet to develop and sell their JATO technology; the GALCIT Rocket Research Group became JPL in 1943." I assume this what you meant.
The first reference to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and the Ordo Templi Orientis in the article body have the abbreviations prefixed as in the lead. The legacy/influence section refers to "Jet Propulsion Laboratory" simply because it is a more readable flow within the sentence. JJARichardson (talk) 15:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Direct quotes should be immediately followed by the source.
Following this is slightly problematic, such as with the block quote in 1.2 resulting in the reference being shown awkwardly below the quote. It seems arbitrary to repeat references when the reader can clearly refer to those applied to the paragraphs. To be frank I'm leaning on WP:IAR with this one.
Duplicate links: castable, Karl Germer, Cleve Cartmill, Jack Williamson, The Book of the Law, Ordo Templi Orientis, socialism, communism, American Communist Party, Joseph Stalin, Red Scare, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Note -- Tks all for comments. Looks like we still need a source review for formatting and reliability -- if any of the reviewers above feel they can take that, pls do, otherwise I'll post a request at WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose after performing a source review. In general the citations are quite a mess and need consistency. I'm also concerned about the use of the Parsons book as noted below.
"Retrieved" dates for web sources are not consistently formatted (for example, fn 1 and fn 24).
Fn 12, the publisher should be Hearst, no italics.
Changed to Hearst Corporation.
Fn 24 and 28, here you have citations to articles from the same work formatted in different ways.
Fixed to them having the same web reference format. Also bear in mind that the former is an interview with the subject (Malina) and the latter an article by him.
Several of the web citations are missing publishers
All of the web citations now follow a URL/publisher format.
Dates for web citations are not consistently formatted (for example, fn 12 and fn 68)
Fn 179, specify that subscription is needed. The URL resolves to a subscription page.
I wasn't aware that Fortean Times had become a subscription-only website. This citation being removed won't harm the informativeness of the article. JJARichardson (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fn 193 seems to be a broken or bogus site—please provide an archive link.
I'm troubled by your citing things other than basic facts and quotations to Parsons' own works. For example, you have statements like "Parsons became a vocal social libertarian" and "championed the libertarian social views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States" sourced to his own writings. That's Not Good.
I've rewritten this to "Influenced by Thelema—which holds to the ethical code of "Do what thou wilt"—Parsons championed the libertarian views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States in his article "Freedom is a Lonely Star"..." I hope this is adequately neutral. JJARichardson (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're doing OK here now. The crux of my concern is that any time you introduce writing that could possibly be considered analytical, we need a secondary source. I've stricken my opposition above. --Laser brain(talk)18:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your comments, I've rewritten the end paragraph of the political section to "Science fiction writer and occultist Robert Anton Wilson described Parsons' political writings as exemplifying an "ultra-individualist" who exhibited a "genuine sympathy for working people..." This indicates his comments are an analysis of the writings explored beforehand. I've also noted the academic credentials of Cashill and Urban. Thanks for your support! JJARichardson (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm slightly surprised and confused by this. A summarized description of literary works, putting them into context, is perfectly common on Wikipedia, and in this case also being referred to is other analysts such as Wilson and Cashill. I will see what I can do though. JJARichardson (talk) 17:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with one caveat. I agree with Laser_brain that "championed the libertarian social views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States" is not adequately sourced if that is just to his own writings. You should be able to rewrite that and make it work. Overall, I think the prose flows very well, it seems to be comprehensive, and the sourcing satisfied me. I did not check the images. Karanacs (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten it to "Parsons was politically influenced by Thelema—which holds to the ethical code of "Do what thou wilt"—equating this principle to the libertarian views of some of the Founding Fathers of the United States..." I hope that's acceptable. JJARichardson (talk) 23:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a rodent endemic to the Olympic Mountains of Washington state. I helped a little with getting it to GA a couple years ago. Revisiting the page, I think it is comprehensive enough and otherwise meets the FA criteria, and any issues with it can be dealt with in this featured article candidacy. —innotata23:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Colonies of burrows—Colonies refers to animals not structures; if this is a specialised use, as it appears to be from later in the article, needs to be explained at first occurrence
Being currently in a rodent frame of mind, I propose to review this article. In general it looks well-written and comprehensive. Here are a few points I noticed:
"They enter hibernation in September, during which time they are in a deep sleep and do not eat" - "hibernation" is not a time but a state of inactivity.
"The significant difference of the Olympic marmot's jawbone from the typical Petramarmota is also evident in the Vancouver Island marmot (M. vancouverensis), which evolved separately, but also occurs in a restricted range with a small population. - I'm unclear what this sentence means.
I'm confused about the colour of adults. You mention various moults and various colours but I struggle to follow what colour the animal is at different ages and times of year.
The two parts of the sentence starting "In the fall" are mutually inconsistent. If the colour change is the result of a moult, the colour is unlikely to further fade after surfacing. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Olympic marmots are folivorous (leaf-eaters) ..." - If they are folivores, should not their diet consist entirely of leaves?
Leaves are clearly stated to be the main part of their diet. Typically when people say an animal is an x-vore they don't mean it never eats anything else. I'll address the rest of the comments later. —innotata21:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Passing thought - If they emerge from hibernation in May, mate 10 to 20 days later and gestate for a month the pups are born in about late June. They are weaned 10 weeks later which brings us to early September, just about time for them to start hibernating. How can the pups have built up enough body reserves in this time to survive a nine month period without food?
Since writing the last comment I have read the Edelman source, #2, and see that the reproductive cycle is not as stated in the article, but is 10 weeks from mating to weaning and the juveniles enter into hibernation later than the adults. The National Park Service source, #12, to which some of this part of the article is referenced, is inaccessible. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I am tending to oppose this candidacy. Looking specifically at the Description and Feeding sections I see too many instances of the article text not correctly summarising the source text. Here are some examples but there are many more and I think the article should be gone through carefully comparing its content to its sources. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I can fix this, soon. (Note that while I'm responsible for fixing the article if I want to get it to featured status, I didn't write most of it.) —innotata16:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The middle paragraph of the description section is confusing and still does not reflect the source in connection with the second moult. The part about the adult coat should be rewritten in a more coherent fashion. The final paragraph of the section needs to be consistent with the middle one.
The use of the word "folivorous". Neither source uses with this word and one of the sources states "The inflorescences and upper 6-10 cm of new growth are typically eaten." A folivore is a herbivore that specializes in eating leaves and this marmot does not.
Uses of the National Park Service source at #12 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg. " Marmots have a sharp, piercing whistle that warns others of intruders or potential predators, and notifies hikers that they are in marmot territory." has become "... in order both to alert other marmots and to tell the hiker that he or she is in the marmots' territory." The emphasized phrase is not the purpose of the call.)
Uses of the National Park Service source at #20 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg "... a longer growing season may allow marmots to grow more quickly, mature earlier, and breed more often" has become "... a longer growing season in which marmots could grow quickly and mature earlier, and thus breed more frequently throughout the year.")
I couldn't find any more of the article that is inconsistent with this ref. (The section on young I changed somewhat, but it didn't have actual inaccuracies.) —innotata17:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uses of the Edelman source at #2 do not always follow the original and show some degree of original research. (eg The article states: "Olympic marmots also communicate through the sense of smell to mark their territory. A gland located in their cheek exudes chemicals which they rub on scenting points, such as shrubs and rocks, to indicate possession." This is not borne out by the source, in fact, as per this source, these marmots are not territorial within the colony, and the scent markings are social in nature.)
I see this article was expanded/worked on as a class project which probably explains some of its deficiencies.
In the feeding section it states that the marmot may kill late-hibernating chipmunks, but as far as I can see in snippet view, the source states "On two different occasions in the spring, I saw an Olympic marmot carrying a dead chipmunk in its mouth." I couldn't see the rest of the page, but it doesn't seem likely that it stated that the marmot had killed the chipmunks.
Well, a number of the article's other sources simply say that Olympic marmots kill chipmunks; I think an earlier paper mentions this behavior, so I'll see if I can find it. If I can't find any more specific information, I suppose I should change the text to reflect that Barash only provided anecdotal accounts of them carrying dead chipmunks. As for whether they killed the chipmunks, Barash says marmots can't kill chipmunks above ground, but probably do kill them while they are hibernating. —innotata16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Changed it: they definitely scavenge for carrion, as many marmots do, and possibly they kill hibernating chipmunks as well. —innotata06:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The second paragraph in the lead has the animal's weight mentioned at both the beginning and end. This duplication seems excessive.
Eh? There's no duplication, as it mentions the typical weight, and then sexual dimorphism. I brought these sentences together. —innotata16:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The third paragraph in the lead mentions dried grasses, but these are not mentioned in the same way in the feeding section.
"During a study in the Olympic Mountains, 36 droppings were compiled and two of them contained marmot hairs." - I don't think "compiled" is the right word here.
"Bears probably rarely prey on marmots, as their presence close to colonies generally does not raise alarm calls unless the bear advances up to 6 m (20 ft) from the colony." - The first part of this statement is borne out by the source but not the second part, as far as I can see.
"Cestodes and fleas use the Olympic marmot as a host, showing a secondary role for the marmot within its ecosystem." - It is difficult to view having parasites as a "role" and this is certainly not mentioned in the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've resolved all the issues raised, apart from the chipmunk-eating one (and see my response; will get around to looking presently). —innotata16:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's looking better. I did a little copyediting. A few more points:
"... when colonies stabilized and survival rates rose to around 4,000." - A survival rate is a percentage figure. Do you mean the total population increased to 4,000? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One image caption states "Clinton Hart Merriam, the discoverer of the Olympic marmot". He didn't discover it (I'm sure the native Americans knew it was there), he was the first to describe it.
"Bears probably rarely prey on marmots" - Are these the black bears mentioned earlier in this paragraph? If they are grizzly bears you could mention that and wikilink them.
The range map was based on information in the IUCN Red List. It would be easier for me to me to make new maps, so I'll do that if I get the time. —innotata22:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Found and added the related IUCN-page (for now) - all OK. You can still improve it later, when you like (no need to hold up the review for a minor nitpick). GermanJoe (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a read soon. I overlooked this nomination because it started with "olympic", and I hate sports articles, so only noticed it was about an animal today... FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article doens't have any image that shows the entire animal. The ones that are available are not very good,but I think we should have at least one until a replacement can be found. Here are the "best" ones:[46][47][48][49][50]FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. There's not much confidence to branching within Petramarmota, so all that can be said is that the species could be the most basal Petramarmota (ie, it is the sister taxa to all the others). —innotata01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"and interact with other marmots only in the morning and evening. In between these times, Olympic marmots can sometimes be found lying on rocks where they sun themselves for warmth, grooming each other, playing, chirping, and feeding together." Doesn't this contradict itself?
"On some occasions, the other marmots in the colony will make a trip over to the satellite male's burrow since he cannot leave that area, often about two times an hour." For what purposes?
The source doesn't explicity say, so I hesitate to change this. To keep tabs on him in some way, for the respective reasons of the dominant male and the females. —innotata07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"By 2006, numbers had dropped to 1,000 individuals" From what? The earlier estimate is explained as inaccurate.
Some unknown number higher than 2,000; as stated in the article, conservationists knew the old counts were underestimates, but that more accurate new ones were even lower. That's how it looks, at least. —innotata07:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"to overcome initial bipartisan opposition to a new state symbol" What was the former?
No, the opposition was to adding a state symbol, a "state endemic mammal" as well as a "state bird" and "state flower" and so on. This is a common thing here, some states have a couple dozen symbols, and mine has a state photograph and state muffin. I think this makes sense in context, but I suppose it could be changed to "another" or "an additional". —innotata01:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"with adult males weighing on average 2.2 kg (4.9 lb) more than females". Sexual dimorphism is the proportional difference, and I think it should be stated here as percentage or ratio rather than absolute difference.
"Zoologist R. L. Rausch classified the Olympic marmot and other North American species as subspecies olympus of Marmota marmota (which now only includes the Eurasian Alpine marmot)" It might be my ignorance of taxonomic classification, but I cannot make sense of this. North American marmots are sub-species of a genus of which the only member is a Eurasian marmot?
"Continuing alarm calls indicate that a predator is close, and thus increase vigilance in the marmots; a single alarm call results in the marmots still curiously looking around for the predator." This appears to say that the single call is the first when a predator is distant, so why "still" looking around, not "start" looking?
" a burrow is often home to a newly born litter and a year-old litter." Presumably as a female gives birth every second year, these would have different mothers?
"they have four different types of whistles,[26] differing in this from their close relatives, the hoary marmot and the Vancouver Island marmot." What is the difference?
I tried my hardest to find nitpicks, but it looks like the animal reviewers still have it. I did find a WP:NUMERAL issue ("until they reach 2 years of age" should be two). And since the long citations end in a period, would it be more visually pleasing for the short citations to also end in a period? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good; fixed your numeral issue. As for citations, I don't care. It's using a pretty standard style, that's used in probably thousands of articles… —innotata21:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy section says that M. olympus is the most basal member of Petromarmota, but a more recent study (doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2003.09.015) recovered it in a more nested position, sister to M. vancouverensis. I'm not sure anyone has provided a biogeographic interpretation of that result though. The claim that the species originated during the LGM is sourced only to a 1948 publication, and should ideally be supported by a more recent source. After writing this I found another study with even better data (doi:10.1644/10-MAMM-A-272.1) that again places this species sister to all of Petromarmota except flaviventris, and claims that it diverged about 2.6 Ma (long before the LGM). This study should definitely be cited. Ucucha (talk) 03:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Geez, a single cladogram would not help explain any of the above, as you'd see if you read Ucucha's comment in full. Only one study supported it not being most basal, and it didn't really provide an interpretation of this result. All the information a cladogram would show would be branching in the rest of Petromarmota, which isn't really of interest here in addition to having low confidence. —innotata21:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to it today and tomorrow. Sorry, I didn't expect the FAC to take this long when I nominated the article, though. —innotata01:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Marvel Science Stories was part of two booms in science fiction magazine publishing, in 1939 and again in 1950. It was unusual in that it carried more sexual content than most science fiction magazines of the time, partly because it came from a publishing house that emphasized "sex and sadism" in its magazines. The content would barely raise an eyebrow these days, but "aliens lusting after unclothed Earth women" was enough to bring irate letters from the readers. The article is on the short side for a featured article; my personal guideline is that an article with less than 1000 words prose goes to GAN instead of FAC, and this is a little over that mark. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image check - all OK
Both images have sufficient source and author information.
Was "Survival" a full-length novel? I'm only asking because I'm curious - and because I wondered whether Erisman intended to feature a novel-length piece for each issue?
It appears to have been about 60 pages, which would make it a bit short for a novel, but well within the range that would be advertised as a "lead novel". None of the sources comment on whether it was policy to have a lead novel, though, so I don't think I can either. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:05, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought not, and you're right, 60 pages is a little short. It's interesting to me that there was a market for sf writers (and others) in the pulps. Anyway, I enjoy reading these. Thanks for doing this nice series. Victoria (tk) 00:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I broke a sentence in two here because I had some trouble getting through it all. There might be a better way of doing it though.
CorenSearchBot shows no vios. Googling three random phrases showed no copyvios - only wikipedia mirrors and other wikipedia articles (I did note that the phrase "it did not begin to coalesce into a separately marketed genre until the appearance in 1926" is apparantly a favorite of yours...)
"there were two more stories in the same two issues by him under pseudonyms" what were the stories and pseudonymns?
If I can use the ISFDB as a reliable source I can add this information. The relevant page is here. As a practical matter the ISFDB is very reliable on facts like what the contents of a magazine are, but I'm not sure if it qualifies as a reliable source by our standards. The problem is that anyone can submit information to be added to it; but that information has to be vetted by the senior editors on the site before it can be displayed. (Full disclosure: I've done a fair amount of editing for the ISFDB and have added some information to it myself.) Personally I think it doesn't qualify, but I should mention that the SFE says: "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published, with every edition known to its compilers of every work being listed (the present encyclopedia confines itself to first editions, significant revisions and variant titles); its strongest area of coverage is North America-based writers over the last half century or so", which is a pretty strong recommendation from a reliable source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hot on the heels of "a man jumping in front of two boats" and "cleavers not spoons", I humbly submit to you this meagre offering. It seemed unlikely that anything would match the excitement of the 2002 race but this race took the proverbial biscuit. Dramaz beforehand with broken oars and wrists, and the closest finish in the long history of the event. The winning margin is estimated to have been approximately five hundredths of a second over the course of an 18-minute race. That's close. Anyway, as ever thanks for your time and energy should you feel the urge to review and comment here. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As in the previous FAC, this is nicely put together and covers everything it should. One minor quibble first: the blades in "close contact". They are either in close proximity, or they are in contact. Close contact is a tautology.
Happy to support. A really readable article (even to me for whom rowing is pronounced differently and is a domestic activity), balanced, well referenced and comprehensive. I have commented elsewhere that "The race is conducted as part of the Henley Boat Races, but in 2015 is slated to be held on the River Thames" seems geographically dubious, as Henley is on the River Thames, and a tweak there might be desirable. Also, I'm sure the nominator has an eye on WP:DATED, and will adjust the "slated for 2015" aspect next year, but I just mention the point (with a certain tentativeness, having in my time raised the same point at FACs by eminent contributors including Wehwalt and Ssilvers and being fairly robustly reassured). Otherwise, nothing but praise. This is one of the finest in a developing series of Boat Race articles that are collectively and individually a feather in Wikipedia's cap. Tim riley talk13:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tim, yes, thanks for the support and I most certainly acknowledge that I'll need to update a fair few articles, around 60 or so come next Easter. Having said that, it's nothing compared to the fact that the official Boat Race website has changed from "theboatrace.org" to "theboatraces.org" (and removed /men and /women qualifiers) without bothering to add a single redirect. I've probably made 200 edits fixing that little treat! But hey ho. Thanks again for the time you've spent on my articles and your support, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I see this review is overdue some comments, so here we go:
In the lead, "along the River Thames" is a bit vague. I would say "along the tidal stretch of the River Thames in south-west London", and I'd include the length of the race here, to give full force to the one-foot winning margin.
"In the reserve race Goldie beat Isis and Oxford won the Women's race." I don't think that this is leadworthy information, since neither of these facts is relevant to the race itself.
In the main text, Background section, rather than just saying "south-west London" you should give the starting and finishing points (Putney to Mortlake), and perhaps emphasise that the race is rowed upstream. (note "south-west" should be hyphenated)
I'm not sure about the term "bow-man". I may be wrong, but certainly at my (keen rowing) school we called him the "bow", and that's the term I remember from commentaries, press reports, etc. There is a linked article which seems to verify my feeling about this.
"The Cambridge crew had a 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member advantage" would be a little more elegant as "The Cambridge crew had an advantage of 7 kilograms (15 lb) per crew member."
In the main race description I can only discern two changes in the race's lead: at Hammersmith Bridge when Oxford overtook Cambridge, and on the approach to Barnes Bridge when Oxford regained the advantage. The article lead says "The lead changed three times during the course of the race" – when did the third occur?
Yes, this is leaning on the BBC description of the race. Both their and other wordy descriptions would imply that Oxford taking the lead from the start is included as one of the "changes", hence Oxford took the lead to start, then Cambridge overtook, then Oxford regained the lead, three lead changes... The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by this. Someone has to be the first to get their noses in front – this cannot be considered as a "change" in the lead. If Cambridge briefly took an initial lead and were then quickly passed by Oxford, OK, but did this happen? If so, it should be explicit in the race description. However, up to the Mile Post the Middlesex side has a slight advantage, before the big loop in the river starts to favour the Surrey side, so Oxford being initially in the lead is rather more likely. Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The actual race description, a mere 277 words, does appear rather brief, given the crescendo of superlatives in the lead which introduces this account. Such an exciting race should surely be more fully described, and I am sure that a little more detail could be added. For example, you could point out the significance of the toss, and of Cambridge's choice of the Surrey side. Also, you mention Oxford's slightly higher stroke rate at the beginning of the race, but there is no further mention of stroke rate at other points in the rate. I would really like to know what the respective stroke rates were in the final minute or so of the race, when Cambridge closed in on Oxford's lead. There is a whole book about the race (Blood Over the Water); shouldn't this be a source?
I will see if I can expand the race section a little without going into complete jargon meltdown (ratings etc I think are a little too dull for 99.9% of our readership, and often give a false impression in any case, a higher rating doesn't mean a faster boat as you know...) or synthesis (the heavier crews, selection of station etc are all steeped in statistics, which I can cover here, but I'm not sure how relevant any of it is to this specific race...) I can look into the book, but I guess it'll kibosh this nomination should you insist I need to get that source. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you can achieve some expansion without going into "jargon meltdown"; I've read numerous sporting articles where this has been achieved (as well as others where it hasn't). My comment concerning relevant stroke rates was merely a suggestion, but it might enable you to mention what the relative rowing tactics of the two crews were – at present this is not touched on. And I do feel you need to explain the significance of the toss, which is of some importance, otherwise why mention it? Brianboulton (talk) 15:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, regarding the toss, I mention it because it forms part of the overall description of the day. I could describe the significance of the choice of station in each of the 160 boat race articles, but wouldn't it make more sense to leave that kind of generic detail to The Boat Race article? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I am not asking you to explain how the toss had impacted on all the previous 160 races. What I had in mind was something like this: "Cambridge won the coin toss and elected to start from the southern bank (the "Surrey side") of the Thames. In doing so, they yielded a slight initial advantage to Oxford, which they could hope to reverse after the first mile, when a major loop in the river's course favours the Surrey station". Personally I would find such an additional sentence helpful. I'm not insisting that you consult the Blood Over the Water source, although I think it would be interesting to do so, as it provides a perspective from the race's participants. I will not, however, oppose on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, it depends on the way the wind blows as well. There's no clear cut advantage, as the stats show. To claim such would be synthesis, and I'll leave it to the main article for a more comprehensive analysis of the 160 races to determine whether or not it makes a significant difference. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a brick wall, just a disagreement over the fact you want to include stuff in every one of the 160 articles which is generic; I believe this detail should go in the The Boat Race article, unless particularly relevant to a certain year's race. Thanks for your comments though. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the (albeit brief) descriptions of the reserve and women's races? The article is about the "Boat Race", not races, and we already have the results of these supporting events.
I feel that the article needs a little further work, particularly the incorporation of material from what appears to be a highly relevant source, unused at present. I hope, however, that any additional material will retain the plain, spare prose style, which is a pleasure to read. Brianboulton (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the detailed review. I've fixed several of your points, one or two I'm not too sure of, one or two are still outstanding and I will address as soon as I can. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that TRM (temporarily blocked) has asked on his talk page for this FAC to be withdrawn. I leave it to coordinator discretion whether to action this request (and if so how quickly), or whether this is now (thanks to the work of the reviewers above, as well as TRM) so close to the finishing post that it can be allowed to complete the course, with or without TRM's assistance in the last push. BencherliteTalk13:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given some of the outstanding comments, I'm not sure if the article/review can be successfully adopted in TRM's absence (though feel free to try and convince me otherwise). I have however left a note at his talk page to say I'm happy to leave this open a bit longer if he'd consider returning to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a result of a collision between the Cambridge boat and a launch, a member of the Cambridge crew was replaced just two days before the race. As a result of his replacement, the race featured two sets of brothers, both on opposing sides, for the first time.
As a result ... followed by next sentence starting with same.
"The Boat Race is a side-by-side rowing competition ... " except according to The Boat Race, it was called that in 2003, but it is now the BNY Mellon Boat Race ... can a parenthetical be added to clarify that? All of the "Background" section is history, but the current name doesn't seem to be mentioned. (I may have missed it.)
It is called that (for sponsorship reasons) but much like Football League Championship (currently referred to as the "Sky Bet Championship") our articles aren't tagged with sponsorship names etc. The more recent articles include a mention as to who sponsors them or sponsored them, including this one by Aberdeen Asset Management. Or do you think I need to add something like ".. which as of 2014 is referred to as the BNY Mellon Boat Race for sponsorship reasons..."? This would become another maintenance issue when the sponsor changes (yet again...) in due course mind you... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the sponsors change that often, maybe best left alone. Although adding a brief clause wouldn't hurt either. Your choice. I was flummoxed by why there was a "The" in the article title, which led me to the main article, which led me to that info ... so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cambridge's Tim Wooge, the 30-year-old stroke rowing in his third Boat Race, ... I don't know what this means? Is it rowing jargon I'm unfamiliar with, or is there a missing word? What is a "30-year-old stroke"?
Watchlisting. I don't know if this is a copyediting comment or if I'm asking for a personal favor, maybe some of both: could you reduce the number of superlatives in the lead? There are a lot of things in the world that people feel just as passionate about as this Boat Race, and I think the main thing stopping writers from loading up their articles with superlatives (on and off Wikipedia) is a kind of compact: other people are restraining themselves, so I'll restrain myself too. I get nervous about what other writers might start getting away with when I see a lot of superlatives in a lead. - Dank (push to talk) 10:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to reduce it a shade, but the point is that this is supposed to have been the most incredible race in an event which has taken place since 1829. To lose by, what, 0.05 seconds over a 20-odd minute race is crazy, there's no other sporting analogy I can think of that comes close. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am grateful to anyone who takes interest in this, but lately the comments are simply copyediting requests and nothing more. This nomination could use some further suggestions as to what would encourage contributors to support. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have a couple of good reasons to be interested in just the lead; one is, I'm looking at all of them, and I don't have time to read and support everything at FAC. For the other reason, I'll have to wait for the relevant RfC to close before I'm comfortable talking about it. - Dank (push to talk) 22:25, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the RfC is closed and I have a new hat. Your point is quite valid, and I'll have a chat with the FAC and the other TFA coords. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relucant oppose because I think you need to get hold of a second-hand copy of Blood Over Water (1p + postage on Amazon at present!) and use that in the article. Not that many boat races get a book written about them, and I don't think this article would be comprehensive without reference to it. Sorry. BencherliteTalk10:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've since got hold of the book, a primary source (shiver) no less, full of opinion. But I'll see if there's anything useful in it that I can bring to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my oppose for now, not on the basis that the article is ready for promotion, but on the basis that I trust that TRM will be able to sort the wheat from the chaff in that book in good time and I wouldn't want the FAC to have to restart on my account. Once he has found anything of use in the book and added it, the article should be close to perfection. Well, as perfect as a Tab can write, that is... BencherliteTalk12:50, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bencherlite's friendly dig (Oxonian, we assume) is interesting, because in reviewing various articles in this series I have never had the slightest idea where The Rambling Man's sympathies lay. Full marks for immaculate neutrality throughout. Tim riley talk15:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated. I have found myself (or at least someone else has found me) literally unconscious at the end of one of these events. Having had to replace the Blue cox for my college on one occasion, and trying to tell a Canadian Olympic medal-winning rower that he wasn't quite doing what I needed him to do didn't go down well at all... I've had a quick perusal of the book that Bencherlite notes, it's mostly guff and backslap but I'm certain I can derive a couple of helpful quotes from it. Stand by. And thanks, as ever, to those of you who have the time and energy to comment. Always appreciated. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although the 1984 race was held on a Sunday, it had been postponed from the Saturday following a collision between the Cambridge boat and a barge. - works best as a footnote, not part of the running text
David Livingston, the Oxford number four, noted that in the practice start for the race, Oxford achieved a stroke rate of 49 strokes per minute, which he described as "beautiful". - again, any way to expand that or work it in somewhere?
I've removed it for the moment, I haven't had time to read through the puffy book that it seems others think is important that I include information from. I may try to read it again but I can't guarantee it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
representing the largest disparity between the crews since the 1990 race and the lightest Dark Blue crew since the 1975 race. - perhaps remove the two "race"s?
WP:EGG simply states that links should be "intuitive". It is not a pact that all articles should be represented exactly as titled. That being said, my concerns would be addressed by finding a way to avoid repeating "race" in the same sentence. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any play-by-play coverage of the women's and reserve races?
Not that I can find. It's unfortunate that, although the three races are the prominent ones, just the main one (until 2015) gets the 99% share of coverage. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't. If you simply Google "400 million boat race" you'll see it reported in many reliable sources, including the BBC. I don't think it's then up to me to derive how they got to that number. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Images are okay - Both freely licensed, own works (a status supported by the EXIF data and other considerations) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisco 1492 (talk • contribs) 15:43, December 28, 2014
Support on prose, though there is one minor nitpick: the Quarrell source has an error message showing up, saying that it is missing a URL. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this article for FAC because it recently met the MILHIST A-Class criteria, and I believe meets the FA criteria. It was a significant revolt that preceded the communist-led uprising that occurred in Yugoslavia post the launching of Operation Barbarossa, and was in direct response to massacres of Serbs in eastern Herzegovina carried out by the fascist Ustaše regime in the Axis puppet state—the Independent State of Croatia. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Independent_State_Of_Croatia_1941_Locator_Map.png: what source was used to create this map? Same with File:NezavisnaDrzavaHrvatskaDistricts.png, and the other two maps are sourced to the first one
Thanks Nikki. The map(s) I'm following up with the creator on Commons. I've fixed the dead link on the family file, but all it says is that it is PD. The USHMM's generic copyright information is here. What do you think? On top of that, I think it would be a reasonable assumption that it would be PD-Yugoslavia/PD-SerbiaGov because Belgrade, Serbia is where the Museum is located. The former Museum of the Revolution and Nationalities of Yugoslavia has been absorbed by the Museum of Yugoslav History.
I'm not sure I follow your argument - the Museum of Yugoslav History may hold the picture (and they might have more specific information on its original source and copyright status), but they are likely not the copyright holder, and without further information I don't know that we can conclude that this is a government work either (SerbiaGov is more limited than USGov). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not a big MILHIST guy, so I reckon I'd be of some help here. A few initial comments:
Is "NDH" a commonly known term? In English, moreover? I'd prefer simply seeing it referred to as "Croatia" if this isn't contextually ambiguous for another reason.
G'day, thanks for your comments. The use of plain "Croatia" to refer to the NDH, a fascist puppet state that pursued genocidal policies towards the Serbs, Roma and Jews living on its territory, is considered POV, as it equates the modern state with the fascist one.
Fair enough. I'm well aware that the former Yugoslav, Serbo-Croatian-speaking (well, in the eyes of most linguists) countries have rivalries that would make the rap world jealous, and I'm not trying to support one side or the other... or the other other, so please point out if anything I suggest leans that way. Tezero (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What's the Ustaše?
the fascist and extreme nationalist organisation that ruled the NDH. It is linked, do you see a need to explain it further in the lead?
a paramilitary police. I've added a link to the lead.
The intro ought to cover the uprising's aftermath a little, especially considering its decent detail of the other sections.
"ambushed a truckload of Italians" - I'm not sure I see the significance. Were they Italian soldiers? Diplomats? Reporters? Accordionists? Pizza chefs?
soldiers, fixed.
And by "the Italians", do you mean Italy as a nation, the group this small band was a part of, or just the small band itself?
The Italian quasi-occupation forces, I've tweaked it.
The intro also doesn't give a single mention of what kinds of weapons were used. I'm an American; I need guns and blood with everything - and with the gory details, if ya don't mind! It is rather odd, though, to explain this much about the logistics of the skirmish and nothing about what it was actually like down there.
I understand the motivation, but I'm not sure that specifying the actual weapons used is necessary or even desirable in this case. The frontline WWII Yugoslav rifle was the 7.92mm Mauser bolt-action M24 series made under licence in Yugoslavia, and the reservists were issued a locally-converted Austrian 7.92mm Mannlicher M95 series rifle of WWI vintage. Nearly all the troops that just went home after the April war would have been equipped with one of those rifles. Also, Yugoslav society was pretty weaponised at this stage, and there would have been a lot of civilian weapon types used by the rebels, from shotguns to single-shot rifles. So far as machine guns were concerned, the Yugoslavs had a huge range of automatic weapons they had acquired from available sources between the wars. I have never seen a source that specified the weapons that were used in the June revolt. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 08:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least you can specify that they were using rifles, as opposed to, I don't know, machine guns or tanks. I'm sure some source specifies that much. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer if Background and Prelude were split up into at least a couple of subsections each, especially as Background contains a few gargantuan paragraphs.
Done.
"threw their bodies into a nearby pit" - either simply state "sinkhole" or delink
Done.
Please link "Muslims" somewhere, perhaps to an article like "Islam in Bosnia" (haven't checked to see if that exists).
Bosniaks, done.
The section 27-28 June doesn't have the best flow imaginable; the first paragraph is hugely larger than the second, and every one of them except the last starts with "On such and such a day/time, such and such happened."
Para split.
Also split the paragraph beginning with "After the relief of Nevesinje".
Done.
Same with the single paragraph in Aftermath, especially because that constitutes the entire section.
Done.
I'll be honest, the subject matter is very dry to me so I wasn't reading this in depth. I'll try to give a few more detailed comments later. Tezero (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"a similar committee was formed in eastern Herzegovina" - what ethnic group? More Montenegrins? Eastern Herzegovinans? All Herzegovinans? And would they have been okay with joining the other pan-Montenegrin movement? Basically, similar in what way?
in that they were separatists, have expanded on it. Let me know what you think?
"link the region to that city" - ???
have tried to clarify.
"This was a measure that had already been implemented against Serbs by the Germans" - This doesn't necessarily have to go, but why is it relevant?
establishes precedent, have expanded slightly
"Professor Alija Šuljak" - Professor of what? Why is his occupation notable?
University academic, PhD. Goes to the fact that the Ustase were not just uneducated peasants.
"the newly raised" - awkward
have changed to "recently formed"
"platoon-strength" - ???
added link and de-hyphenated.
"velike župe" - It may well be both, but is this in Bosnian or Croatian? Probably worth a mention.
templates added.
"The NDH implemented genocidal policies against the Serb, Jewish and Romani populations" - Well, that escalated quickly. Any more details? Were any actually killed under these policies? If so, how many, and in what way? How long did it go on?
Absolutely, have considered deleting that sentence before, as it essentially summarises the following section. Deleted now.
"In response, Serbs attacked not only Ustaše officials and facilities, but also conducted raids themselves, killing Muslim villagers" - placing "attacked" before "not only" implies that the next clause will simply list another group they attacked. Either switch these phrases around or reword the second clause.
"was beaten off" - I'm sure the rebels practiced a fair amount of metaphorical circle-jerking, but this wording is informal.
Fixed.
"the balance of the battalion" (2 locations) - ???
replaced balance with "rest", but not really sure what you meant.
"finding a very unclear and serious situation" - placement implies that this situation will be immediately expounded on, but it doesn't look to be
have tried to clarify this.
Merged a two-line paragraph into previous one; revert if noxious
Fine.
"who killed three and wounded 17 soldiers" - killed 3 civilians or 3 soldiers? If the former, specify; if the latter, change to "who killed three soldiers and wounded 17".
adopted suggestion.
"After the relief of Nevesinje" - awkward
reworded and linked to siege
"the Ustaše sustained three dead" - awkward
reworded.
"(Serbo-Croatian: Narodni pokret za oslobođenje Nevesinja)" - Same in all varieties? Linguistic distinctions are an extremely sensitive issue here.
the most neutral template language in this context
"co-operation" - why the hyphen?
Australian English generally hyphenates when there are two vowels.
"and news of Operation Barbarossa" - ???
added a bit.
"was "in the tradition" of the" - why does this need to be quoted?
doesn't, removed scare quotes.
Is this all that can be said for the attempted uprising's aftermath? No more of a historical legacy?
it's complicated, and not covered in sources. Essentially, because this was not a communist-led revolt and preceded the communist-led one, it was largely ignored by the communist government after the war, and works on it discouraged.
Yeah, looks fine. I suppose the other instances of variety-Serbo-Croatian text make sense in context, and I don't think I have any other objections, so I'll support. Nice work on a fairly niche WWII event. Tezero (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OlympicMarmot6.jpg){kind=link}
![[49]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olympicmarmot.jpg){kind=link}
![[50]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OlympicMarmot3.jpg){kind=link}