Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

July 2012

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:08, 30 July 2012 [1].

History of Mars observation

[edit]
Nominator(s): RJH (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I like to think it satisfies the criteria, or at least is within close striking distance. The article covers observation of Mars from Earth. (It is meant to be complementary to exploration of Mars; the latter describes the direct exploration of Mars by spacecraft. The two are basically daughter articles of the main Mars article.) I've tried to cover all of the scientific highlights. What do you think? Regards, RJH (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good Comments. 8 days without any feedback? Frightening. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well... just a couple of days actually. RJH (talk)

After a brief lead review, I am satisfied with the clarity and accessibility of the introduction. The details of the review have been moved to the FAC talk page to avoid clutter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the publisher locations and changed the aforementioned publishers to say Macmillan. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check.

  • Thought I'd do a source check and started with footnote #1. Didn't like the sound of the book title. Visited the webpage of the listed publisher (which, incidentally, doesn't match the publisher name at the hyperlinked page). These people publish books about UFOs and the healing power of magnets. So: what on earth (or on Mars) makes this a reliable source? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • better, ta.
  • Footnote 4 - no plagiarism; yes underpins first half of para; ref 5 may underpin the second half.
  • Footnote 10 - couldn't locate page numbers to check, but what i did read is consistent with text.
  • Footnote 15 - no plagiarism; yes underpins text.
  • Footnote 26a and b - too close to original at one point, which I have tweaked; yes underpins text. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 32 - er, no. Please go back and look at this source. Although a bit technical it appears to explicitly doubt that Flamsteed's observations confirmed Cassini's results. Rather, Flamsteed selectively edited his results to choose those that were close to Cassini's. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • See the end of page 116. Flamsteed measured Mars' position at different points in the Earth's rotation, whereas Cassini's measurements were from different points on the Earth; two different techniques for measuring the diurnal parallax. Flamsteed's results produced a series upper bounds, with a final upper bound estimate of 10 arcseconds. Cassini then reproduced Flamsteed's method and supported the results of Flamsteed, but it was Cassini that tweaked the results in this experiment. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all i was going to check. Please respond to the two key issues above. Thanks. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your checks, hamiltonstone. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Early telescope observations section could do with an opening line (even though obvious) about what observers could see or conclude about Mars without a telescope. i.e. that it had no features? Otherwise just sorta launches into things.....
Good point. I've added a couple of introductory sentences and clarified how much detail Galileo could (or could not) see. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the paras in the Refining planetary parameters are a bit small, rendering the flow of prose a bit choppy - if you can combine any I think it would be helpful.
Okay I added a few cited comments, rearranged a couple of paragraphs and merged some others. Does that read any better? – RJH (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall looking good, not seeing any deal-breakers prose-wise or any gaping holes in content....Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Casliber. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportQueries. Good article, happy to support if you could look at my queries below.

  • Orbital models para 4. Are you intending to make a distinction between "angular size" (linked) and "angular diameter" (not linked)? They sound like the same thing to me. If they are not the same, some explanation / linking is in order. If they are the same, why give the arc-minute estimate as "2" the first time and "2.0" the second time?
    • Fixed. In this case angular size and angular diameter are synonymous, but I changed it to the former. RJH (talk)
  • Orbital models para 4 versus Early telescope observations para 1: consistency / clarity issues. We have "...the Indian astronomical text Surya Siddhanta estimated the angular size of Mars as 2 arc-minutes...", which is then explained to be based on an "inaccurate guess". In contrast we then refer to "...the measurements of Ptolemy, who found a value of 1.57 arc-minutes. This is close to the resolution of the human eye" but in the next section we learn the maximum diameter is in fact "25 arcseconds; this is much too small for the naked eye to resolve." First, 1.57 arc-minutes is around 100 arc-seconds, and is not, according to naked eye, "close" to the resolution of the human eye, but is less than half that resolution. If it is a fact that the max. diameter is 25 arcseconds, then surely Ptolemy's figure is just as much a guess as that of the Indian astronomers. Yet that section refers to "estimate" and "guess", while the text on Ptolemy refers to "measurements" and "found a value". It seems in fact Ptolemy was guessing as much as the Indians were, and the text should reflect that.
    • I've tweaked the text. Is that clearer? RJH (talk)
  • Early telescope observations, para 3. This begins by telling us that Cassini "tackled the problem of the physical scale of the Solar System". It then gives the results on Mars parallax (a value within 10% of actual). However, we never learn what the result was of the original intention behind the observation: determining the physical scale of the solar system. Do we know what conclusion was reached?
    • I've added a sentence of explanation. Does that work? I'd rather not have the text go off on a tangent, so it's pretty brief. RJH (talk)
  • para 4. "measured the axial tilt of the planet's poles to the orbital plane as roughly 28.5°." Really? "roughly" to within half a degree??
    • I've removed "roughly". (Note that the resolution of the human eye is 0.07°, so half a degree is pretty rough. Shrug.) RJH (talk)
  • Martian canals: "His term canali was popularly mistranslated in English as canals". Please add what the correct translation would have been - this would help explain Schiaparelli's intention / analysis.
    • In the previous section it says, "In 1869, he observed two dark linear features on the surface that he referred to as canali, which is Italian for 'channels' or 'grooves'." RJH (talk)

hamiltonstone (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your observations and support. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- image check, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I briefly looked at the images and all of them are good except two:

File:Mars_views_001.jpg: It is not strictly speaking a NASA image. It is a collage of different images including some from NASA. I am worried about an image "from 1960s', which appears to lack an appropriate license.
I selected a different illustration. This one appears to be in the public domain.
File:ALH84001.jpg: The links are dead. So, I can not check whether this is a NASA image.
That NASA site seems to be messed up. For now at least, I replaced it with File:ALH84001 meteorite Smithsonian.jpg, which has a CC-share-alike license. We can always put the other one back if the site gets repaired.

Regards, Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overlinking—albedo is linked thrice, including twice in lead, and you certainly don't need to repeat "obvious" links like Sun, Mars, Moon, since we aren't likely to forget what they are while reading the article. Please check.
  • "Detailed" appears twice in consecutive sentences in lead
  • became popularized among the public—I think you mean popular with
    • One of the senses of popularized is, "to present in generally understandable or interesting form". Regards, RJH (talk)
  • discovery of the telescope,—invention, not discovery
  • red shifted—one word, redshifted, and would be hyphenated even if two
  • orientalist Percival Lowell—technically true, but much better known as an astronomer, which is also more relevant to this article
  • removed reference to occupation / expertise, but if other editors don't like that, then suggest add "astronomer". My view is that that would be redundant, since one can take it as read that most people named in this article are astronomers. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • has taken the highest resolution images of Mars ever captured from Earth—in what sense is the HST on Earth?
    • Well, that's why I wrote "from Earth", rather than "on Earth"; from a technical perspective, the HST is at the same distance from Mars as an Earth-based telescope. Do you think it would be better to say, "from the neighborhood of Earth"? Regards, RJH (talk)
I think the "popularized" bit is clunky, but no big deal. I'm happy with Lowell as it is now, the "orientalist" made it sound as if he was doing astronomy on his days off. HST probably better as is, unless someone else nitpicks the same point. Supporting above now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jim. Percival Lowell did spend a decade or more traveling the East and writing about the region, so I don't think it's that much of a stretch to call him both an astronomer and an orientalist. But no matter. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:54, 30 July 2012 [2].

Maya Angelou

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after almost five years of working on this and other Maya Angelou articles, I feel that it's finally ready for the FAC process. It's one of the most collaborative articles I've worked, with lots of editorial assistance, including two WP:PRs. It represents a huge amount of research. I believe that this article is finally worthy of its subject, an important literary figure of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Thank you for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet comments
  • The opening of the second paragraph is awkward: "Angelou's long list of occupations has included..." My argument is that the list, once it includes a certain occupation, forever includes that occupation. List items do not leave the list. It should be "Angelou's long list of occupations includes" unless the present tense is not wanted in the paragraph.
    Okay, done.
  • It is distressing that there are no images of Angelou as a singer or dancer, and that there is no image of the album cover from Miss Calypso. I think an effort should be made to discuss the photo shoots that Angelou did in the mid-1950s with G. Paul Bishop described briefly here, some of them shown here at the late photographer's website which is now run by his son. (G. Paul Bishop Jr is a portrait photographer like his father.) Perhaps one of these can be shown to the reader under a non-free fair use license, because it is discussed in the article text. Binksternet (talk) 23:16, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article at one time had the album cover you suggest, but it was removed after one of its PRs. I'm familiar with the images you bring up, and one of them also used to be here, but again, it was removed after a reviewer's suggestion. I'm sure that Bishop is important, but Angelou has probably participated in scores of photo shoots. What makes his shoot more important that all the others? And why is her time as a dancer more important than her time in other projects? Why isn't it just as "distressing" that there are no images of her in The Blacks or in Roots, which are arguably more important than her relatively short time as a dancer? I can guarantee that if we added any of the images mentioned, someone else in this very same review would recommend that it be removed. It's been a challenge to find appropriate and free images for this article. I've tried lots of images throughout the years, but have come to the conclusion that this article, like other BLPs, should have only the freest and more appropriate images in it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

? "Angelou preferred to be called"...why preferred in past tense if she's still alive?PumpkinSky talk 12:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, that's a problem if you're trying to keep the tenses consistent. I chose to use past tense. Have any recommendations to solve it? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Angelou expressed a preference in the past, and we assume the preference continues today. We can frame the preference in time, or simply place it in the past. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How about: According to her biographers, it has been Angelou's preference..." I'm not sure that I like it; it feels awkward. Any ideas? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source check. I don't have access to the books. Conducting a check on the online sources.

  • FN5 – a. "Angelou's older brother, Bailey Jr., nicknamed Marguerite "Maya", shortened from "my-a-sister" Not mentioned by source.
b. tour bus. Yes supported by source.
c. times married. Yes supported by source.
d. lecture circuit in eighties. Yes supported by source.
e. younge quote. Yes, as written in source
f. Balzac quote. Yes, as written in source.
  • FN18 – birth of son Clyde. That Guy Johnson was a poet, yes; other facts in sentence not in the online version of source.
  • FN32 – a. Legendary quote. Yes, as written in source.
b. Postpones quote. Yes, as written in source, but grammar doesn't scan.
c. Homilies quote. Yes, as written in source.
d. Mayfield quote. Yes, as written in source.
e. Setting a precedent. Not convinced the source is indicating that Mayfield "insisted that Angelou's autobiographies set a precedent not only for other black women writers, but for the genre of autobiography as a whole". The para in the article appears only to talk about black biography. Can you get the original Mayfield source?
f. Zeitgeist quote. Yes, as written in source.
g. World quote. Yes, as written in source.
  • FN48 – a. Didn't celebrate birthday. Yes, reflects source.
b. Campaign for Clinton. Yes, reflects source.
  • FN60 – Scope of appeal. Yes, reflects source.
  • FN83 – Recipe book. Yes, reflects source, except not that "stories that preceded each recipe": the structure of the book sounds more complex, according to the source.
  • FN108 – National Medal. Yes, reflects source.

This is an absolutely fascinating and generally well-written article about an amazing person, but some of the source issues (FNs #5 and #18 in particular) make me a bit nervous. Can you please review? hamiltonstone (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I did a thorough source review of this article. I made more than a few corrections/improvements. It was tedious and took forever, but I think that it was a worthwhile and necessary task. In the midst of the review, I made a startling discovery that the reviewers here might be interested in; see Talk:Maya_Angelou#Plagiarism. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This has progressed well. However, I'm still not seeing a source for the fact "Three weeks after completing school, at the age of 17, she gave birth to her son..." - the source only seems to indicate his later name. I'm still not clear why he article says Mayfield was talking about autobiography as a whole (rather than black autubio), and I'd welcome your comments on this. Ta. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Support. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've always wondered if it was worth citing events taken from Angelou's autobiographies. The birth of her son is related in Caged Bird, so I went back and made the specific citation. The Mayfield statement, as Als states in his article, is implied. I can see how it could be considered unclear, so I clarified it. I'm fairly certain that everything else is accurate. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the reasons to cite the autobiographical sources is that it can flag limitations to reliability. People aren't necessarily very reliable sources about themselves. They lie about all sorts of things, but also mis-remember their past, particularly when they are writing many years removed from the events they describe. Putting in the cites to Angelou's work can help readers exercise caution. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I get this. Angelou's autobiographies are background for the years before 1968, but 6 out of 56 of the sources in the sections that discuss this time period are from the autobiographies. I have run into this while working on this article; mostly in the timing of when things happen. Even Mary Jane Lupton, one of Angelou's biographers and reviewers, I think, had to deal with this, as expressed in ref 78. I think that I've done well in addressing the problem here, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Angelou's major works have been labelled as autobiographical fiction" labeled on account of American English.
    Oops, fixed. I work on too many Brit and Aussie articles! ;)
  • Variety is the work, not the publisher for Ref 140
Fixed.
Right. The stuff you learn here! Thanks for the feedback; looking forward to more. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness having read this over. Been a while since I last read I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings – Angelou has lived a very interesting life. Lemonade51 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um guys, this has been languishing here for a little while. Did I miss addressing any concerns? (I'm pretty sure that I addressed them adequately.) Does the lack of expressed support mean that it fits the criteria, or should I be concerned? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this soon. You may also want to ask Binksternet if they have any additional comments or is willing to weigh-in with a Support/Oppose. --Noleander (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

  • Attribute? - "The challenge for much of the history of African-American literature was that its authors have had to confirm its status as literature before they could accomplish their political goals, which was why Angelou's editor Robert Loomis was able to dare her into writing Caged Bird by challenging her to write an autobiography that could be considered "high art"." - That sentence (at least the "challenge ... accomplish" part) sounds like a personal opinion; hence should not be presented in a factual, encyclopedic voice. Recommend attribute that thought explicitly to the source asserting it.
    Done by adding the phrase "According to..." to the sentence.
  • Avoid "however" - "McWhorter, however, found both the language .." and "McWhorter recognized, however, that much of the reason .." - usually "however" or "but" can be removed and the sentence gets better. Neither of these sentences are really contradicting the prior sentence, so I'd recommend removing.
    Done. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk)
  • Simplify: "As Angelou's biographers have stated, Angelou had "fallen in love with poetry in Stamps, Arkansas". - That is an odd way of writing it. Everything in the article, presumably, came from a biographer. Suggest simplify to "Angelou fell in love with poetry in Stamps, Arkansas ... [include year/age and perhaps some explanation of why/how] ...".
    Actually, no, not everything comes from a biographer. Much of it comes from scholars and reviewers, people who are analyzing her works. I use that phrase to attribute the Gillespie et. al book throughout this article. Are you saying that I need to change each instance?
When I read that sentence, I get confused because I (like most readers) have not read the bibliography, and I presume there are multiple biographies (each with one author). So "As A's biographers have stated" means that 2 or more of those books include that identical quote. That is implausible, so it makes me stop and think that must be a mistake. Maybe the article, near the top, defines "biographers" as Gillespie, Smith, and Jones (authors of a single work)? I might have skipped that explanation. Also, even if there is only one major biography today, what if another one is published next year? then that phrasing becomes inaccurate (see WP:DATED). Consider changing to "As Gillespie has stated ...", where it is understood that Gillespie refers to the team of authors. --Noleander (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done as you've suggested. BTW, Gillespie is the only bio of Angelou out there. I mean, there has been lots written about her in the popular press, and most of the literature about her includes a short bio, but Gillespie is the only book that's devoted to telling her life story. I imagine it's because of her autobiographies. I avoided using it after it was published in celebration of Angelou's 80th birthday in 2008 because all the writers are close to her and ironically, I was concerned about puffery. But I think that its content is important enough, and it clears up some timeline issues.
  • Details? - " Her attempts at producing and directing films were frustrated throughout the 80s." - Why were they frustrated?
    That was my attempt to summarize what Gillespie et. al said about Angelou's frustration with Hollywood. I can see how it can be considered as opinion, so I removed it. Perhaps Angelou's attempts to get some projects filmed says it all.
  • Specifics? - "Evidence suggests that Angelou was partially descended..." - What evidence? DNA? Family history?
    Fn 75 supports this assertion. I would think that referring to the documentary would be adequate. If not, I can go back and include more specifics about the evidence.
  • Format: - "terature they wrote. [34]" - space before footnote.
    Got it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put footnotes at the end: "Scholar John McWhorter agreed, seeing Angelou's works, which he called "tracts",[97] as "apologetic writing".[97] " - It is best for the reader to have all the footnotes at the end of the sentence, unless there is a compelling reason. There are two quotes there, but they are by the same source, and have the same cite, and are only 2 words apart: so one footnote at the end is sufficient.
    Fixed, went through article for other occurances. If you see others that I've missed, please point them out. What about ref 12 in the last paragraph of the section "Personal life"? Currently, they're a few quotes from the same source; should they just name the source once?
  • Vary wording: "Author Hilton Als has insisted that although Caged Bird was .... Als also insisted that ..." - Used "insisted" twice; change one to "concluded" "asserted" "claimed" "stated" "believed" etc.
    Got it. If anyone sees other instances of consistent wording, please point it out too.
  • Bundle cites: - "She has served on two presidential committees,[109][91] and was awarded the National Medal of Arts in 2000,[110] the Lincoln Medal in 2008,[111] and the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011.[112]" - consider consolidating all footnotes at the end of the sentence so it is more aesthetic. For explanation of how to do that, see WP:CITEBUNDLE.
    Like I said above, the stuff you get to learn here. I went through the article and bundled what I thought was appropriate. Again, let me know if I need to do it more.
  • Pics when younger? - I shared the concern expressed above by another reviewer about the lack of pics from her younger days. On the other hand, if they are not available, then that is not a bar to FAC status. Suggestion: If none are freely available, consider one particularly illuminating photo (showing her in some key career position, e.g. singing professionally) and consider degrading the image (reducing the resolution) so it could - perhaps - be used following the fair use rules. See WP:NFCI for explanation of what constitutes fair use. For example: to use a copyrighted pic of her singing, it must be accompanying text that analyzes/critiques her singing. Also, the picture used in WP must be reduced in resolution (fuzzier) than the original copyrighted picture. Let me know if you want any help with this.
    Yes, I'd like some help. Images have always been my weakness in WP. I add an image to an article that I think follows procedure, and another editor comes along and tells me that I did it wrong and it has to be removed. I have access to some good and possibly appropriate images, so let me know.
Okay, do this: (1) read WP:NFCI; (2) look at some examples of other copyrighted images used in Featured Articles (e.g. image File:Du Bois with Mao Tse Tung 1959B.jpg in article W. E. B. Du Bois).; (3) Find a picture of Maya Angelou's earlier years that meets the following criteria:
  1. The picture is needed to give the reader an understanding Angelou's life
  2. The picture is encyclopedic and informative
  3. The article specifically analyzes or examines the activity shown in the photo (e.g. her singing, performing, etc)
  4. There is no non-copyrighted alternative to this picture
  5. The picture conveys information in a way prose alone cannot
  6. It is best if the picture is of an especially notable event or performance in Angelou's life
After you have the image, let me know, and we will:
  1. Degrade the image by making it reduced resolution (fewer pixels) I use Adobe Photoshop, but there are dozens of other ways to do it.
  2. Upload the degraded picture to WP (not to WikiCommons)
  3. Include a "fair use rationale" with the image that explains the above six points in detail
--Noleander (talk) 12:48, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We'll take this part of the improvement to a talk page, since you've made it clear that adding images won't affect this FAC. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overall, a fine article. Leaning towards Support once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nole. I appreciate the helpfulness. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky

  • FN 12, a web site, has no retrieved date
    I hope you don't expect me to find the actual date it was retrieved; I've been working on this article for a few years, you know. ;) I added today's.
  • FN 34 needs date of article added
  • Fixed.
  • FN 47, 76, 95, 96, 100, 103, 114, 120, 147 are books, they should be in same format as the other books
  • 47 and 100 aren't books; they're journals and formatted correctly. Fixed 76.
  • FN 92, 111...Washington Times/Foxnews, respectively, should be the publisher and Associated Press should be listed as "|agency=Associated Press", AP is the news agency, it doesn't publish things itself
  • Not according to Template:Cite news. But no sweat; I've always thought that calling the AP a "publisher" is inaccurate too. I don't think it matters much, since both attributes look the same anyway.
  • as this is heavy on book refs, this article is a prime candidate for conversion to sfn/harv refs
  • Personally, I don't like the harv ref format. Please understand that my preference is solely due to aesthetic reasons and it isn't so strong that I refuse to convert them here though. Unless you tell me I don't have to, of course. ;) Seriously, though, I think that as long as the references are accurate and consistent in format, it doesn't matter what format is used. With a few errors which are correctable, the refs in this article are both those things, so I'd really rather not convert them if I don't have to. But thanks for the feedback and for catching the last few errors. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 12:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Leonxlin

I've only read the lead so far, and I hate to be so cranky, but I think the tone could be a lot more dispassionate (WP:Writing better articles#Information style and tone, WP:PEA). To be sure, it looks like editors have been very careful to avoid pure puffery. I would be much happier, though, if some of it were cut down a bit:

  • She has published six autobiographies, five books of essays, numerous books of poetry, and is credited with a long list of plays, movies, and television shows. May I suggest less subjective wording, like a list spanning four decades or similar?
  • I changed "numerous" to "many" because it's a little difficult to count her works of poetry. Do we count her volumes of poetry alone, or the poems published on their own? And what about her poems included in her other books and in Poetic Justice? I changed "long" as you suggested, except that it's over fifty years.
  • She is one of the most decorated writers of her generation, with dozens of awards and over thirty honorary doctoral degrees: How about just "She has received dozens of awards ..."?
  • Ok.
    This is the one comment from Leonxlin with which I don't entirely agree. If sources have referred to her as "one of the most decorated writers of her generation" (or similar words), then I think the phrase should be retained. It serves to give us comparative information about Angelou in relation to other writers. We don't know how many honorary doctorates etc are handed out, so this phrase gives us additional information: not just that she is decorated, but is more decorated than most others. It also gives the lead a better 'sound' as it is read. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first and most highly acclaimed, I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings (1969), tells of her first seventeen years, and brought her international recognition and acclaim. Do we really need acclaim twice in a sentence? By mentioning the book in the first paragraph, I think readers will get that it was her most important work.
  • Removed the phrase "and most highly acclaimed".
  • Angelou's long list of occupations includes pimp, prostitute, ... I would argue that this kind of wording violates WP:ASTONISH, though I admit it's hard to come up with a better wording. Can we at least get rid of long?
  • Yes we can, and I did. ;) I've struggled with this sentence a lot. I'd like to keep it because it describes Angelou's career and all the things she's done and accomplished through these occupations.
  • Removed "heralded as a new kind of memoirist". The old wording parallels the critics' language. Plus, I was trying to avoid direct quotes in the lead. I think that removing the offending phrase will make everyone happy.
  • highly respected: how about just "respected"?
  • Done.

Leonxlin (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leo, I think that your issues are about my weakness as a writer of leads. I find it the hardest kind of writing here. As this article's main editor, I leave the peacockiness to others, to the critics, which are, for the most part, complimentary of Angelou as a writer and as a person. It's ironic that you bring it up, since as I state above, I avoided using the Gillespie book because I suspected (and was mostly correct) that it was fluffy. I relented on the advice of another editor and when I looked at it, I found that although it's self-congratulatory in many places, it fills in many of the holes left by uncertainties in Angelou's autobiographies and interviews, answered many questions, and made this article more comprehensive. I tried my darndest to leave it all out, though. That being said, I don't think there's much fluff in the body of the article, although I admit I could've overlooked it because I do greatly admire Angelou. That's why we have multiple editors and reviewers, so I appreciate the assistance. I really want students to get accurate information about Angelou, since her books are commonly used in schools, but I want the article to be respectful. I think that I've been mostly successful. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes; I feel much better now imagining this on the front page someday. I think I understand the feeling of wanting readers to understand how great something is. It's clear some craft went into some of these sentences. I'll try to get to the rest of the article sometime soon. Leonxlin (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • She took modern dances classes during this time: should it be "modern dance classes"?
    Urgh, right.
  • There are a number of red links in the biography. I will just leave WP:RED and WP:WTAF here, and leave the case-by-case judgments up to those more familiar with the article.
  • Personally, I hate red links. I understand that their purpose is to help create new articles, so be assured that every current red link has been placed with that in mind.
  • renewed her friendship with James Baldwin, whom she met in Paris in the 1950s: the pluperfect "she had met" seems appropriate here.
  • Clyde's becoming a poet is mentioned twice, once in an explanatory note. Doesn't matter too much though, I guess.
  • I think that important enough to mention twice, especially since they occur miles away from each other in the text.
  • The I also wear a hat quote does not have a period at the end. Is this intended?
  • The first sentence of the "Critical reception" section appears to be missing a period as well.
  • Angelou is one of the most honored writers of her generation.: the only quibble I have of the sort I mentioned above in the lead. While it's from the article the claim is not unreasonable, this sort of statement is vague (one of how many writers?); plus, when we're talking Tonys and Grammys, it's clear that we're not just talking about a writer here. May I suggest starting the section with "For her work, Angelou has been honored by..."
  • Challener insisted that sounds like he has an opponent. (Does he, or is there some reason for him to be so insistent?) The standard verb for presenting a thesis, I believe, is argue.

I will see if I can get to the last two sections soon. I don't think anything too damaging will appear though, so right now I'll just put in my

  • Support on 1a, 1b, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, and 4. (It appears others have taken care of the references and the images.)

Leonxlin (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:26, 29 July 2012 [3].

Poppy Meadow

[edit]
Nominator: — M.Mario (T/C) 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Expander: — M.Mario (T/C) , Frickative and Malleus Fatuorum[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after two thorough FAC nominations, two GA Reviews and 1 Peer Review, I think this article is fetaured status now. New info has arisen since the last nomination, so there may be problems to be fixed, however I think the article is very close to becoming FA status. Thanks! — M.Mario (T/C) 09:49, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Supported below

  • The "alt" for the lede image should not be "A promotional image of Poppy Meadow, portrayed by Rachel Bright", That doesn't help the reader, should what she is doing, wearing, etc. Example: "A man with short brown hair and a buttoned shirt in front of a microphone." That's just an example I got from another article. Please fix not done
  • References should not be used in the lede of article, that is suppose to summarize article, so refs. should be in the actual article not done
  • Storylines: How can you "become engaged" you "get engaged" not done
  • Development: "On 24 October 2011 it was announced that the pair were to leave the show" should be comma after "2011"
  • Storyline development: "In the 19 September 2011 episode", which episode is that? - not done The 19th September 2011 episode...? Episodes do not have names in EastEnders.
  • Doesn't say anything about casting, could it be added? - not done-- There is none, as she was a guest character originally.
  • Reception: Should be an introduction rather than jumping to reviews right away how about starting with: "Poppy Meadow received mixed reviews from television critics". If it didn't get mixed reviews, change to either "positive" or "negative" not done This starting sentence is more for episodes, not for characters. Throughout the Reception there is many places which say this, just not in that form.
  • Reception: Although it should say "Huffington Post", it should still be linked to "The Huffington Post" done
  • References: Ref. 5: Trinity Mirror should be linked on Ref. 5, then unlinked on Ref. 10 done}}
  • References: Ref. 6 should link to Digital Spy, and Hachette Filipacchi UK partly done
  • References: Ref. 9: Hachette Filipacchi UK should now be unlinked per the above done
  • References: You have a unnecessary "These critics include:" in the References section - not done No this is correct.
  • References: Ref. 40: Huffington Post should say "The Huffington Post" done
  • Add an external link to IMDb for Poppy Meadow, which is here not done

TBrandley 14:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some replies from Malleus Fatuorum
  • "The 'alt' for the lede image should not be 'A promotional image of Poppy Meadow, portrayed by Rachel Bright', That doesn't help the reader, should what she is doing, wearing, etc. Example: 'A man with short brown hair and a buttoned shirt in front of a microphone.' That's just an example I got from another article. Please fix"
There's a profound misunderstanding of the purpose of alt text evident throughout Wikipedia; it's not there to describe the image, it's to serve as a substitute for it. I've changed the alt text to "Photograph", as the caption is adequate to describe the image but the Wikimedia software forces us to have something.
  • "References should not be used in the lede of article ...".
That's simply untrue.
  • "How can you 'become engaged' you 'get engaged'"
Of course you can become engaged, which is arguably less informal than "get engaged".
  • IMDb is not a reliable source.

: I will fix some issues now, but in the last FA review I was told to unlink some works and publishers on references, this time however we are being told to link them? — M.Mario (T/C) 15:56, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Supported below

  • Should baby-swap be hyphenated? Going by the Beeb style guide, it shouldn't, likewise The Guardian or Daily Mail, it's only Digital Spy who choose to hypenate it. done
  • "Poppy returns months later, to help Tanya Branning (Jo Joyner) after Tanya" consider "Poppy returns months later, to help Tanya Branning (Jo Joyner), who is hired by Janine Butcher (Charlie Brooks) to do..." in order to avoid repetition. done
  • "describing her as as" remove extra 'as' - Where is this? done— M.Mario (T/C) 17:07, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

– Lemonade51 (talk) 16:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support given comments have been addressed. Nice to see Poppy back on the soap, albeit limited screen time. Perhaps the best example of a bit-part character on TV I could think of. Lemonade51 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Supported below I don't know what an "EastEnder" is, but I'm willing to review the article, if you pardon my ignorance. The article seems to be in decent shape, I have a few questions and suggestions on the prose though.
  1. In the lead you note the affiliations of most critics, but don't do so for Heritage. Was that intentional?
  2. I think you should use endashes in the infobox instead of emdashes.
  3. Consider delinking some duplicate links (unless you think there's enough distance between them), check Tanya Branning, Jo Joyner, Janine Butcher, Charlie Brooks, and Anthony Moon.
  4. "chatting in The Queen Victoria about their daily life and current affairs." Not sure if it's a preference issue, but I'd say "daily lives" here.
  5. "Tyler Moon (Tony Discipline) flirts with Poppy, who rejects his advances, until after having revealed that she is having problems with her boyfriend she decides to date Tyler, to make Julian jealous." Is there a good way to tighten this sentence? It feels a bit wordy to me.
  6. "She was introduced by executive producer Bryan Kirkwood on 11 January 2011 as the best friend of established character Jodie Gold (Kylie Babbington) in scenes that filled in for those cut from a controversial baby swap storyline resulting from the death of one of the babies." I'd consider ending the sentence after "storyline", I think that's enough detail for the lead.
  7. "but Poppy discovers his secret and warns him and Lauren that if they do not tell Jodie then she will." Seems a bit wordy, maybe "but Poppy discovers his secret and threatens to tell Lauren if they do not."?
  8. "Tyler tricks the two girls into meeting up" Is "meeting up" the best way to say this? How about "meeting each other"?
  9. "Poppy has shown to forgive Anthony, and her, Fatboy and him go for drinks" How about "Poppy is shown to forgive Anthony, and they go for drinks with Fatboy."?
  10. A spokesperson for the show commented that Poppy has become "a successful nail artist" since her departure.[19] However, as Poppy's storylines progressed, viewers learnt that Poppy is, in fact, not a "successful" nail artist, as she says this just to impress Tanya”. You quote “a successful nail artist” in the first sentence, but just “successful” in the second.
  11. I made some copyedits as I went through, feel free to revert if you don’t like them.
  12. There are a lot of quotes in “Characterisation”, might want to try to paraphrase some of the short ones. Ditto for the reception section.
  13. ”Hawkins assessed the situation Poppy was in; "as everyone knows, Poppy's loyalties lie with Jodie” Is the semilcolon correct here?
  14. ”and said that while the character was also interested in Jodie, he was put "on the spot" by Poppy and therefore did what he thought was expected of him in asking her out.” This feels a bit wordy to me, is there a good way to tighten it?
  15. You have “RTÉ” in the storyline section, but RTE in the previous section.
  16. ”A Inside Soap writer predicted that Anthony had landed himself in a big mess” This might just be a preference issue, but it doesn’t sound right to say that she predicted something that had already happened (at the time of the prediction).
  17. ”A source told RTÉ” A source from the show?
  18. ”a The Huffington Post critic” Might just be me, but I’d prefer “a critic writing for The Huffington Post”. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replies
1. No obvious reason why Heritage's affiliation should be omitted, so I've added it. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fixed.Malleus Fatuorum 01:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. Changed "life" to "lives". Malleus Fatuorum 21:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rewritten, see what you think, Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Done. Malleus Fatuorum 21:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Reworded as per suggestion. Malleus Fatuorum 19:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think "meeting up" is fine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Changed to "Poppy forgives Anthony, and they go for a drink with Fatboy." Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Done. — M.Mario (T/C) 12:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. They seem fine. Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I think this is fine, the quotes cannot (especially in Characterization), be made shorter) — M.Mario (T/C) 12:59, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. No, the semicolon isn't right. Changed it to a colon. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. I've rewritten that area, see what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 16:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16: Changed to "”A Inside Soap writer predicted that Anthony was heading for trouble ...”. Malleus Fatuorum 18:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17: Presumably, but all the source cited says is "A source said", so we can hardly say more. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18: Agreed, changed. Malleus Fatuorum 00:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes guys, I'm close to supporting, but I'll go over the article one more time before doing so. Hopefully I can get to it soon. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see we have "controversial baby swap storyline" in the lead and then "controversial baby-swap storyline" in "Development", I think the latter is correct?
    Indeed, and I see you've already fixed that. Malleus Fatuorum 01:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the style of reality-drama series" Should this be a hyphen or an endash?
    A hyphen. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Development" you have "confirmed" in consecutive sentences, might want to use a different word in one. "return" is used a lot too.
    Rewritten. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, as Poppy's storylines progress viewers learn that Poppy is not in reality a "successful nail artist", she was just trying to impress Tanya." I'd suggest "However, as Poppy's storylines progress viewers learn that this is not true: she was just trying to impress Tanya." or something similar.
    Rewritten as "A spokesperson for the show claimed that Poppy had become "a successful nail artist" since her departure, but as Poppy's storylines progress that is revealed to be untrue; Poppy was trying to impress Tanya." Malleus Fatuorum 01:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bright called Poppy "fabulous", "cool" and "dappy" compared to her in real life." I don't recall hearing the word "dappy" before, I assume this makes sense in the UK?
    "Dappy" is a modern British slang word, a merging of "dippy" and "daffy"; I've added a note to explain. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead you say "Poppy returned to the series in June 2011 as a supporting character and comedy element, in a move that was generally welcomed by the tabloid press", but it looks like more than just tabloids welcomed her back, right?
    All look like the tabloid press to me, which do you think aren't? Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support pending resolution of my final nitpicks, spotchecks etc. While this is an unfamiliar subject to me, I think this is in great shape, particularly considering that it's about a minor character in a soap opera. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re lead I don't think we can promote with the current over-detailed lead paragraph. I have discussed this in talk and (twice) trimmed it per WP:LEAD. I am disinclined to edit-war and having it like this makes me lean towards opposing. --John (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I personally feel that the lead is fine in length. For example, look at FA classed article Pauline Fowler (third paragraph), and this was passed. I feel the lead flows well, and shows non biased information, that reflects the article. — M.Mario (T/C) 15:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you personally prefer that version, as it was you who reverted my change without discussion. The Pauline Fowler article is a lot longer and covers a far more substantial character. I didn't make the change lightly; I discussed it in talk first. I repeat, I don't think it can pass with the current lead. --John (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I should have expressed my opinions on the talk page first, and I apologize for that. I do feel the article is better with the current lead. Im not sure whether you wont support the article per FA criteria, or personal preference. — M.Mario (T/C) 20:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion 2a covers the lead. At the moment the article does not, in my view, meet this criterion. If it was merely personal preference I would hardly be discussing it here. --John (talk) 21:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if that sounded ignorant. I have cut the lead, better? — M.Mario (T/C) 22:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Supported below

  • "moves out of her mother's home and into a flat with Jodie" what is a flat?
I'm not going to change it to "apartment" as in England, that makes it sound a nice place, when in fact it wasnt. A "flat" is literally what English call a apartment. Does it need linking - not sure.
Well I just wanted to know, in that case the talk page needs {{British English}} so others can understand that it is written in British English and not American English. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Poppy returns months latert to help" typo found
Done
  • You link The Sun what about The Mirror?
Linked in the Lead.
What about the "Development" section? Best, Jonatalk to me 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've linked Tanya Branning (Jo Joyner), Janine Butcher (Charlie Brooks), Anthony Moon, the Daily Star, the Daily Mail, Daily Mirror, twice in the article body
Done
Done
  • It's The Guardian not Guardian
It reads better in the way it is.
I'll let someone else debate on that because I've been told to keep consistency regarding things like this. Best, Jonatalk to me 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why link Digital Spy in the second occurrence? Secondly it shouldn't be italicized since it is not a printed source like a newspaper.
Done
  • "Commenting on Poppy's 2012 return the BBC said:" can you reinstate this sentence? I don't like the "the BBC said" part.
Done
  • Compare FN#4 with FN#1
  • FN#6 should Digital Spy be italicized? According to Wikipedia it is not a printed source but a website. FN#9 has it with a different publisher, which one is it?
Done first part, the publisher changed from Hachette to Hearst sometime in August 2011, so the publisher is Hearst for some, Hachette for others.
Alright. Jonatalk to me 18:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ALT for image is needed, you need to further explain what the image is instead of saying "alt=Photograph".
See above points, the photograph does not need this.
I hope this helps and once you have done all of these I will support the article's passing. Best, Jonatalk to me 15:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ive done most of the points above Jona, just some have already been explained in the rest of the review. — M.Mario (T/C) 16:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done the first point, but with Poppy being a small article, I think readers wont dont need newspapers linking twice. Much thaks for your comments! — M.Mario (T/C) 19:36, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now support the article as my concerns have been addressed. Best, Jonatalk to me 22:09, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: The EastEnders website describes Poppy as "a little bit 'uncomplicated'", but "no push over" and that she "brings out the best in everyone".[7]
  • Source: Poppy may come across as... how shall we say... a little bit 'uncomplicated'...But she isn't necessarily the pushover that she seems. But don't be fooled into thinking she's a pushover. This soft-hearted girl has courage...The best thing about Poppy? How she brings out the best in everyone...[7]
  • Article: In the 19 September 2011 episode, Poppy discovers that Jodie's fiance Darren (Hawkins) has cheated on her.[6]
  • Source: I can't see where it says this.
  • Article: Poppy's introduction to EastEnders in what Jody Thompson of the Daily Mail described as "a bizarre and utterly irrelevant chat"[1] was criticised by Daniella Graham of the Metro, who said that "viewers were left questioning why on earth anyone thought this pointless sub-plot was necessary."[2]
  • Source: Instead, a bizarre and utterly irrelevant chat between Jodie Gold and brand new character Poppy Meadow in the Queen Vic was put into the show instead.[1] As Jody and Poppy moved on to chat about peanuts, viewers were left questioning why on earth anyone thought this pointless sub-plot was necessary.
  • Article: In Poppy's return storyline, she arrived back in Walford to help Tanya (Joyner) with Janine's (Brooks) wedding preparations. A spokesperson for the show claimed that Poppy had become "a successful nail artist" since her departure,[20]
  • Source: "Poppy is drafted in by Tanya to help prepare Janine for her big day. But now working as a successful nail artist, who knows how long she'll stay?" [20]
  • Article: Poppy also decides to leave London and goes to live with her mother in Essex,[7]
  • Source: Poppy packed her bags and moved back to her mum's in Essex when she discovered that best mate Jodie'd kissed her boyfriend Anthony. [7]
  • Article: According to an EastEnders spokesperson, there was potential for Poppy to return in the future;[15]
  • Source: "Like Norman, Poppy had always been a supporting character, not a regular, however we may well see her return again in the future." [15]

Reply

I have fixed the highlighted issue. — M.Mario (T/C) 14:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:05, 29 July 2012 [4].

HMS Hermes (95)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This ship was the first purpose-built aircraft carrier ordered by the Royal Navy. Begun during World War I, she was not completed until well after the end of the war as the RN evaluated its experience with its existing carriers. Slower and smaller than most of the other carriers completed after the war, she spent most of her career overseas. Early in World War II, she spent her time searching for German commerce raiders before she was transferred to the Indian Ocean. Hermes was sunk off Ceylon in early 1942 when the Japanese made their one major raid into the Indian Ocean. This article passed a MilHist A-Class Review back in November and, I believe, meets the FAC criteria.Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What is the justification for the co-ordinates entered at the top right-hand corner of the article? I can understand these being given in an article on a fixed geographical or topographical feature, but a ship is a moveable object. I am guessing that they refer to the location of the ship's sinking, but there is nothing in the article to confirm this. If this is indeed the case, the information would be far better given in the text rather than left isolated and unexplained. Brianboulton (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that those are the coordinates of her sinking, but since nothing I have actually gives that info, I've removed them as unsourced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 23:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
    • Fixed.
  • File:HermesSinking.jpg: source link returns 404 error. When was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a captured Japanese picture and probably falls outside the normal rules of copyright. That said, Shores et al, credit it to the authors's collection, while McCart credits a Lt-Cdr Larrabee. I'm willing to bet that I can find other sources for it as well and will continue to poke around until I find something with a more definite source.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Australian War Memorial has two photos of Hermes sinking which are marked as being public domain: [5], [6]. Nick-D (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Nick, I've swapped out the questionable one with one of those. They're PD in Australia, but I'm not sure what their exact status is in the US.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I guess the relevant question is when did the photos go out of copyright in Australia? If they were public domain on 1 January 1996, then they are PD in the US. If not, then they had their copyrights extended in the US.
            • Not sure who made the immediately preceding comment but the photos would have gone out of copyright in Australia in 1992, so they fall under PD-1996, i.e. out of copyright in the States. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - mostly nitpicking, as usual.
    • In the lead: as far as I'm aware, a sentence should never start with a numeral - maybe check with Dan on this, I could be wrong.
      • Rewritten.
    • Also in the lead: does the Mediterranean Fleet really qualify as "overseas"? I've always understood the term to mean non-European waters (for European navies, of course). Especially in the British context, since the Mediterranean Fleet was their primary command for a long time.
    • Still in the lead: maybe clarify that the AMC she rammed was a British ship
      • Good idea.
    • Who was the DNC at the time of her design? The designers' names are given, so no reason to give d'Eyncourt's, especially since we have an article on him.
    • It might be worth noting in the "1930s" section that tensions between Britain and Italy were rather heightened over the invasion of Ethiopia - the average reader might be confused by the British would consider intervening. A note would probably be sufficient.
      • Added.
    • Maybe clarify that the Lady Southern Cross is an aircraft.
  • This is a really good article, and I look forward to supporting it once these minor issues are addressed. Parsecboy (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- didn't get a chance to comment on the article when it was up for MilHist A-Class Review in November 2011 but did copyedit the first part and made a comment on the talk page, which I reiterate below:

  • Looks pretty good but I think the lead is too long and detailed, particularly re. how she was the first designed but not first commissioned carrier. At the very least I would lose (or move to main body if the citation is required there) The design of Hermes preceded and influenced that of Hōshō, and she was launched before Hōshō was laid down, but was commissioned more than six months later than Hōshō. As another example, at the end of the lead, you don't need ...that the Japanese did not attack.
      • Trimmed, how does it read now?
  • After re-reviewing/copyediting, a few other (minor) comments:
  • Aside from the above, pretty happy with prose, structure, detail, referencing and supporting materials. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 09:37, 29 July 2012 [7].

Lettuce

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I initially started working on this article for the WP:The Core Contest held earlier this year. After the contest was finished, I continued working on the article, and took it to GA status and through a PR with the help of Sasata, Casliber, Manfrombuttonwillow and TheRamblingMan, among others. This is the first plant article I have ever completed significant work on, so I look forward to seeing your comments and suggestions. Thanks in advance! (Oh, and this is a WikiCup nomination). Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (by GermanJoe) after a complete read-through, though i am hardly an expert in lettuce (beyond eating it ...). Looks comprehensive, well-written, -structured and -referenced. Some minor prose nitpicks and suggestions not influencing my overall support:

  • Lead - "Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) is a temperate annual or biennial plant ..." ==> my ignorance probably showing with the first point, but is the biennial part mentioned in the main article? "Cultivation" explains the overwintering varieties, but that's not exactly the same as being biennial, is it?
  • "... first cultivated by the Egyptians" ==> "...by the ancient Egyptians" (WP:OBVIOUS, for a clearer timeframe to start).
  • "...lettuce has often been [targeted] as ..." ==> "...contaminated lettuce is often ..." is more straightforward (or is there any controversy about lettuce as cause?)
  • Taxonomy - "The Romans referred to lettuce as lactuca (lac meaning milk in Latin), which is now used as the genus name, due to the white substance exuded by cut stems.[8] This word has become the genus name, ..." ==> The "genus name" - information is duplicate in both sentences.
  • '..."lettuce"...', "... romaine ..." ==> should be italicized without quotation marks (WP:MOS), when it refers to the name itself as term.
  • Description - "They have a wide range ..." ==> Needs a new specific subject for "they" (last sentence is only about certain yellow, gold and blue-teal leaves, this one is supposedly for all leaves?).
  • "Once plants move past the [eating] stage, ..." ==> "edible" is more formal.
  • History - "The variety under cultivation by the Egyptians ..." ==> "The cultivated variety ..." ("by the Egyptians" is redundant here, the whole para is referring to Egypt).
  • "... of changing the name of a variety ..." ==> "... of changing a variety's name ..." to avoid the of ... of ... structure.
  • "Documentation from the late 19th century showed there to be ..." ==> "shows", could be tightened to: "Documentation from the late 19th century shows between 65 and 140 distinct varieties of lettuce ..."
  • "...; however, domestic lettuce's wild relatives produce a leaf that more closely resembles tobacco." ==> resembles in what regard (form, scent, taste, ...)?
  • Production - Table source - the embedded citations within the tables make maintenance more difficult (see WP:LINKS and MOS:ECITE). All references in the references section would be better to handle (same for second table below in the article).
  • "...have become much larger in scale ..." ==> "... have increased...", avoids "scale"-repetition.
  • I've done some other reworking on this paragraph, although I didn't use your exact suggestion. See what you think... - DB
  • "Folk medicine has also claimed it as a treatment for pain, rheumatism, tension and nervousness, coughs and insanity; scientific evidence of these benefits in humans has not been found, although similar effects have been demonstrated in mice and toads." ==> Which effects specifically were demonstrated? ("Insanity" and "coughing" for mice?) The studied scientific effects probably need to be listed on their own and briefly described (they are notable enough as the only "proven" medicinal effect).
  • The source just says "some of these effects have been shown in mice and toads." It gives a bibliography at the end, but doesn't have footnotes, so I can't be sure which of the studies listed at the end it is discussing. I'm also not sure that additional information is really relevant - if anything, this is probably trivia. - DB
  • template "ports" - at the moment the majority seems to want to delete and/or merge this template (and it doesn't fit in "cited literature" anyway). I would remove it and list the portals in a small "see also" section. Just a suggestion.
  • I switched it to template:portal, which it probably should have been using in the first place and did some rearranging. See what you think. - DB

GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments and support, German Joe! I have added individual replies to the things above that I had questions on; the rest I just addressed, so they should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 20:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Done, thanks for the quick fixes. I corrected a minor format bug and moved the table sources to the top (purely for optical reasons, the isolated "source:" was a bit distracting). As the whole tables are each based on one source, this should be ok. GermanJoe (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below a pleasure to read, looks pretty well written. Some minor comments:
  • "The 16th through 18th century saw the development of many varieties in Europe, and by the mid-18th century varieties were being described that can still be found in gardens." Is "century" correct here or should it be "centuries"? Also, minor issue, but is there a good way to avoid the repetition of "varieties"?
  • Yes, "centuries" is correct. I've replaced the second "varieties" with "cultivars" to spice things up a bit :) - DB
  • I think I've taken care of all of the overlinking. Let me know if there's anything I missed. - DB
  • "measuring 3 to 4 mm long" Might want to covert this.
  • I was told during the GA review that plant articles didn't generally include conversions for measurements this small. However, if you think it is necessary, I can include it. - DB
  • "The domestication of lettuce over the centuries has resulted in several changes through selective breeding; these include slower bolting..." This is fine, but I'd suggest "The domestication of lettuce over the centuries has resulted in several changes through selective breeding: slower bolting..." Mark Arsten (talk) 16:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. - DB
  • There are a few WP:PLUSING constructions in the article, not a big deal, but might want to rephrase some.
  • I think I've taken care of these. If you see any others that need to be fixed, would you mind pointing them out? - DB
  • Check for instances of "United States" that could be abbreviated to "US".
  • Abbreviated several instances. - DB
  • "The researcher posited that this may be due to the product's short shelf life, indigenous microflora competing with the Listeria bacteria, or possible properties within the lettuce that cause the bacteria to be unable to cause listeriosis." & "including hepatitis A, calicivirus, and a Norwalk-like strain," Is the serial comma intentional here? I don't think you used it earlier. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source and images - spotchecks not done.

  • Be consistent in how you notate multi-author works
  • Could you please point out where they are inconsistent? I looked through, but couldn't see any that were out of spec. - DB

Comments by Buttonwillowite (talk) Hey DB, it's me again.. Just re-reading the article and I realized that there isn't any real history of how lettuce became so common on our supermarket shelves. Because it is so perishable, for the vast majority of its history it was largely restricted to local markets for a limited period of time, right up until the advent of the refrigerated railroad car (it used to be packed in ice, but now it is cooled using a vacuum-type system which allows the product to be packed in the field, a rather critical development which allowed rich growers to bust lettuce packing-house unions and further concentrated power in the hands of a few large multinational corporations who could afford the expensive vacuum systems, and may have also contributed to the increase in E. coli infections occurring through lettuce that we've been seeing over the last several decades [8].. but I digress).

Anywho, nowadays (in the US, at least) the product can be found year-round at relatively stable prices, which is a rather amazing anomaly. I don't know much about the world market, but I do remember reading that McDonald's used to airlift lettuce to Japan from the Salinas Valley in California. I think these facts would be interesting to include, although they are rather US-centric. I can try to track down some sources, if you agree that it would be worthwhile. Buttonwillowite (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here's an interesting article that discusses the shift towards bagged lettuce: Page 1 Page 2
  • I've integrated a bit from this into the Production section. I've also added a bit from the above journal article (on E. coli uptake/survival during vacuum packing) to the Food-borne illness section. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read through this, and I don't really think it has anything to add. It's 15+ years out of date, so I'm leery of using any of the genetic info that it contains (many strides have been made in plant genetics in general and lettuce specifically since then), and the history section pretty much covers everything that we already have, and ends in the 19th century. If there was anything specific that you were looking at, though, that I missed, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a picture of a page from a book I read recently, and has a short history of lettuce production in the US: [11]. I'll read some of it again to see if there's anything else that would be good to add. It's from the book "Trampling Out the Vintage". Buttonwillowite (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow I'm doubtful that a biography of Cesar Chavez will have much to add to the article that isn't hopeless trivia or US-centric, but if you come across anything interesting, please let me know. Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me know if there's anything interesting there when you get it. I think the article is good as it stands with regard to comprehensiveness, but it's always nice to find little "fun facts" to add in and make things more interesting. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the "Cultivars" section, it is stated that stem lettuce is used in east Asia in stews and creamed dishes, but I believe that stem lettuce is the primary type of lettuce grown in east Asian countries, and considering that China apparently accounts for almost half of all the world's lettuce production according to the article's FAO statistics, I think it would be worth mentioning this under the "Culinary use" section. Let me know if you need a source. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, any added discussion on chinese production and consumption of lettuce that you can find would be most welcome. Buttonwillowite (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a couple of sources on stem lettuce/Chinese consumption and will add them in, probably tomorrow. I've been swamped in RL and haven't had much chance to work on this, but have begun to add replies above regarding the articles that I've read. Thanks for looking through this again. Also, if there is additional detail that you were thinking should be added, please let me know. I'm mainly concerned with not making the article US-centric... Dana boomer (talk) 02:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've integrated some additional material on Chinese production and consumption in the Culinary use section and a couple of different places in the Production section. Let me know if there is specific stuff that you were looking for that I've missed. I should be able to get to the rest of the sources above tomorrow morning. Dana boomer (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now finished reading/integrating all of the articles above. I've added a paragraph in the history section on the evolution of the lettuce industry in the past 100 years, so hopefully this addresses your concern in that area. Please let me know if there are additional issues that you see. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again Dana! I agree that it is essentially complete. I'm still waiting to see if I will be able to gain access to that last thesis and will let you know if it's worth anything. I'm planning to support, but I want to look over it a bit more before making my position formal.. Buttonwillowite (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check (ok, 2 could use a slightly better tag).

  • File:Iceberg_lettuce_in_SB.jpg - Cc-by-1.0 - OK
  • File:Lactuca_sativa_seeds.jpg - PD-USGov (author attributed) - ok (should be tagged with the more specific PD-USGov-USDA-NRCS tag)
  • File:Kropsla_vruchten_(Lactuca_sativa_fruits).jpg - GFDL / Cc-by-sa - OK
  • File:Lettuce_romaine_variety.jpeg - PD-USGov-USDA (author attributed) - ok (should be tagged with the more specific PD-USGov-USDA-ARS tag)
  • File:Planche_Lactuca_sativa.jpg - PD-self - OK
  • File:Lettuce_mix.jpg - PD-self - OK
  • File:Starr_081031-0356_Lactuca_sativa.jpg - Cc-by-3.0 (authors attributed) - OK.

All files have author and/or source information, where needed and are either PD or PD US-government. Some sub-departments of USDA have own, more specific license tags instead of the generic ones, an easy fix. GermanJoe (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC) ==> Done GermanJoe (talk) 06:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, GermanJoe. I have switched out the tags on the two images mentioned above, so everything should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "an aggressive weed": I don't understand what "weed" means in this context.
  • I've linked weed - basically a non-cultivated variety. - DB
  • "The name for cos lettuce": "cos lettuce" hasn't been defined at this point; I take it it's another name for romaine?
  • Yes. I've restructured this spot, see what you think. - DB
  • "3 to 4 mm long": different wikiprojects handle conversions differently; most would add a conversion template here.
  • As per the above, I was told during the GA review that plant articles didn't generally include conversions for measurements this small. - DB
  • "Work in several of these areas continues through the present day.": Which areas, per that source?
  • All of them, actually. Changed. - DB
  • "a weedy plant": What does "weedy" mean? Is it different from "weed" above?
  • Re-written a bit. - DB
  • "Lettuce appears in many medieval writings, especially with regards to its use as a medicinal herb.": "with regards to", "related to", "concerning", etc., are quite common in the media and in academic writing ... but then, many academics and much of the media seem to be on a quest to appear to being saying something, without actually saying anything specific enough to be challenged. In good writing, it's better to be specific. Would this be wrong, per the source? "Lettuce appears in many medieval writings, especially as a medicinal herb."
  • "previously-used": no hyphen per WP:HYPHEN, Chicago and Garner's.
  • Two above points done. - DB
  • Support Comments finally reading through this article (again) now on prose and comprehensiveness - sources not spot checked - I'm happy with calling L. serriola an aggressive weed. MOre notes now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Might seem obvious but should warrant a note - why is production combined with chicory....rationale for this should be explained in text or as a footnote. Otherwise looking well-polished and good to go methinks....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cas! I've added a brief mention of this in the text - I'm not exactly sure why the FAO combines the two, so I just said "for reporting purpose". Check and see what you think? Dana boomer (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I must apologise for getting to this so late. It has been on the periphery of my interest for ages, since I encountered it months ago during the last Core Contest. I saw a FA in the offing then, since when much work has been done, not least through the thoroughness of this FAC. I have just a couple of points:

  • In the lead, "Despite its beneficial properties, contaminated lettuce is often..." This reads oddly. I think the meaning is "Despite its beneficial properties, lettuce when contaminated is often..."
  • There is reference in the "Medicinal lore" section to lettuce as a religious symbol, but I see no examples of where this is so. Also, the last line of the article reads: "The religious ties of lettuce continue into the present day among the Yazidi people of northern Iraq..." I don't think any previous "religious ties" have been established, beyond beliefs in folk medicine which are hardly religious in nature. Maybe a little rewording in this section?

Otherwise a thorough and creditable job. Brianboulton (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: Other bacteria found on lettuce include Aeromonas species, which have not been linked to any outbreaks; Campylobacter species, which cause campylobacteriosis and Yersinia intermedia and Yersinia kristensenii (species of Yersinia), which have been found mainly in lettuce.[46]
  • Source: Yersinia enterocolitica was the only species isolated from grated carrots, whereas Yersinia intermedia and Yersinia kristensenii were mainly isolated from lettuce. The presence of Aeromonas ... strains have been isolated from a wide range of seafoods, meats and poultry as well as from seed sprouts, lettuce or salad greens...Campylobacter enteritis has also been associated with lettuce
  • Article: For example, ancient Egyptians thought lettuce to be a symbol of sexual prowess[40]
  • Source: lettuce symbolisms in, 2:378
  • Article: Nutrient deficiencies, including a lack of boron, phosphorus, calcium, molybdenum or copper, can cause a variety of plant problems that range from malformed plants to a lack of head growth.[28]
  • Source: This information is given on pages 137-140, not on page 129.
  • Article: Lettuce grows best in full sun in loose, nitrogen-rich soils with a pH of between 6.0 and 6.8. Heat generally prompts lettuce to bolt, with most varieties growing poorly above 75 °F (24 °C); cool temperatures prompt better performance, with 60 to 65 °F (16 to 18 °C) being preferred and as low as 45 °F (7 °C) being tolerated. Plants in hot areas that are provided partial shade during the hottest part of the day will bolt more slowly. Temperatures above 80 °F (27 °C) will generally result in poor or non-existent germination of lettuce seeds.[28]
  • Source: Lettuce grows best in rich, loose soil with a pH between 6.0 and 6.9. It likes full sun..grows best at temperatures between 60 and 75 F, but will tolerate temperatures as low as 45 F. Plants exposed to high temperatures will bolt. Page 137, not on page 129
  • Article: Lettuce is closely related to several Lactuca species from southwest Asia; the closest relationship is to L. serriola, an aggressive weed found in much of the world.[7]
  • Source: Lettuce, Lactuca sativa L., from the Compositae (Asteraceae) family...its closest wild relative is weedy L. serrola, which abounds in the Mediterranean basin and south-west Asia. It is an aggressive summer weed in much of the subtropical and temperate climate zones of the world.
  • Article: Leaf – Also known as looseleaf, cutting or bunching lettuce,[32] this type has loosely bunched leaves and is the most widely planted. It is used mainly for salads.[29]
  • Sources: Looseleaf, Leaf, Cutting or Bunching...These are the easiest kind of lettuces to grow, and they form no heart or head, as the name indicates.[32] Leaf lettuce, the most widely adapted type, produces crisp leaves loosely arranged on the stalk. Nearly every garden has at least a short row of leaf lettuce, making it the most widely planted salad vegetable.[29]

No issues apart from the different page ranges noted above, please check these. Graham Colm (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Graham! Are we perhaps looking at different copies of the Bradley book? I double checked, and for my version (2009 paperback), the information is definitely on page 129. Pages 137-140 cover completely different plants... Dana boomer (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 12:39, 28 July 2012 [12].

Derek Jeter

[edit]
Nominator(s): – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After this article failed FA review in December, I was crestfallen. I took time off from this article, save for requesting a peer review in January. That was a great decision. I was too deep into this article to see its flaws.

While I was away from this article, I spent time improving other articles. If you look at my userpage, you'll see lots of DYKs, GAs and FLs, many of which I worked on during the winter. I believe that improved my researching and writing ability immensely.

In April, with the start of the 2012 Major League Baseball season beginning, I decided it was time to revisit this article. I printed a copy and used a red pen to note changes that needed to be made during my commute, and I noticed areas that were in fact incomplete (especially postseasons) and where prose needed some serious improvement. I followed the advice in the peer review and addressed comments from the last failed FAC. I also asked for and received a pre-FAC review from Wizardman (talk · contribs), for which I'm grateful.

I fully understand why this article has failed its previous FACs (the first one, it was not near ready; the second, it was still further than I thought; the third was closer but still not there). I now feel that I have what it takes to promote this to FA status. I have other articles I want to nominate here, but given my personal affinity for Jeter and all of the work I've done on this article since 2009 (over 600 edits to this one article), I want this to be my first FA. I appreciate any comments that can help to improve the quality of this article, and hope that this is the last time I have to nominate this article before it can pass. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Even though I hate the Yankees I can't help but love this guy and his passion for the game.

  • "RBIs" since this is an abbreviation for "runs batted in", do we really need the s. Also I'm a little concerned about how often this is used throughout the article, but only in the first instance does it say what it stands for. "MLB" also has this problem.
    • I agree that it should be "RBI" and not "RBIs", and I've made that change throughout. As far as the acronyms in general go, my understanding is that you spell it out for the first usage in the body of the article, and then use the acronym for the rest of the article.
  • "0-for-7" the reader may not know what this means.
  • "Jeter tagging out a runner" he has a name you know! It's Miguel Tejada.
    • It is, I didn't notice. It says so now.
  • "The Flip," shouldn't the comma come after the quotation mark?
    • I'm not an expert on punctuation and quotation marks, but I think you're right.
  • Why is an image taken in 2006 used in the "1999–2002" section?
  • "he endured a 1-for-36 slump, he batted .168" I'm confused here, 1 for 36 would be an average of .028, and I think someone that doesn't follow baseball would be even more confused!
    • I hope that my edit there has clarified what that means.
  • "his batting average increased to .277" I think "improved" would be a better word to use here.
    • Yep.
  • "as his range factor rose to 4.76" this isn't a stats I was familiar with, I had to click the link to find out what it was. Is it really notable enough to mention here?
    • Probably not. I'm only a little familiar with it myself, and it's not widely accepted (it's a sabermetric stat the old-timers hate)
  • "the 2007 season was Jeter's sixth overall and third consecutive season with at least 200 hits." The first part of that statement makes it sound like he'd only been playing for six seasons.
    • Sentence rewritten, I hope that's more clear
  • "Finishing third in the AL with 203 hits, the 2007 season was Jeter's sixth overall and third consecutive season with at least 200 hits. He also finished fourth in both at-bats (639) and plate appearances (714), sixth in times on base (276), and ninth in batting average (.322)." needs a ref.
    • Added a ref.
  • "as the Indians defeated the Yankees." might be worth mentioning the series score.
    • Mentioned
  • "He is the only member of the 3,000 hit club to record all of his hits with the New York Yankees" might be worth mentioning he also the only member to record his 3,000th hit as a Yankee.
    • Mentioned. The same source used for that sentence backs it up.
  • "Ripken said he felt Jeter has a chance to reach 4,000 career hits." this threw me off a bit. Statements from a team-mate and his manager make sense, but why do we suddenly have some random retired player who never played for the Yankees talking about him? a bit of context might help here.
    • I feel that Ripken is highly relevant. Ripken and Jeter are both shortstops with significant tenure who are both members of the 3,000 hit club. I can remove it if that isn't persuasive. I think the quote speaks to Jeter's longevity, and that coming from Ripken (the owner of MLB's consecutive games played streak) means something.
  • ".450 (9-for-20)" shouldn't they be the other way round?
    • Yes, it should be.
  • Given the title, does the "Led League" list really need to say "Led AL" for ever single entry?
    • No, that was redundant. I hadn't written that section, just got accustomed to it.
  • Refs #29, #30, #122 and #153 need dating.
    • Dated all that I can. This Forbes page doesn't have a proper date.

Overall it looks to be very close to passing. BUC (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm got the same issue on my work computer, didn't have that on my home comp. By resizing the table from 75% to 74%, the problem is solved, at least on my monitor (I think I have the same 1024x600 resolution, but am too lazy/busy to check). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Cleaned up a few things in the article, including a faulty link, and found the following bit, which I find questionable: "in the 2004 ALDS, as Jeter's Game 2 home run gave the Yankees a 2 games to 0 lead". His homer didn't give the Yankees anything; they fell behind later in the game in extra innings and had to rally to win. It reads like Jeter hit a game-winning home run when that wasn't the case, and if a random Division Series game is to be mentioned, I'd personally go with the 5-for-5 game against Detroit in 2006. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look at that 2004 ALDS bit. That was my writing, as I was trying to beef up the narrative of his postseason performances, but I don't remember the details of that series specifically (I've tried to block out 2004). – Muboshgu (talk) 03:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I deleted the bit about the Game 2 HR in the 2004 ALDS. It's not that important, and the properly sourced bit about his .316 average and team-best 4 RBI in the series should suffice as a description of his performance in that particular series. I added the 5-for-5 performance of Game 1 in the 2006 ALDS. Only the sixth player to record 5 hits in a playoff game? That should be in his bio. You have a better memory for individual games than I do. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good. While doing further copy-editing, I found one more issue worth bringing up here. The 2009–present section has "Jeter doubled down the right-field line for his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous record for the most hits by a shortstop in major league history." Later, we have "Jeter became the second player to reach 3,000 career hits as a shortstop (the first was Honus Wagner)." This is going to seem like a contradiction to non-baseball fans. Wagner played some at other positions, but since that isn't indicated anywhere it is confusing. Maybe a footnote of some kind would help? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:27, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be on vacation with no internet access from May 27 through May 31, and am unlikely to have any time for wikiediting on May 26 as well. Any comments that are made in the interim, I will address when I return in June. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: This is getting close to FA quality now, though I found a few more issues from 2009 onward; any simple copyedits I went and made myself.

  • "107 runs scored (in the top 10 in MLB)," I'm fine with the note for hits, but this one doesn't seem too necessary; I'd either make it more specific on what place he was or just remove it.
  • "However, he broke Rickey Henderson's franchise record" Rm however, it doesn't really fit with the sentence.
  • "Jeter suffered a calf injury that required his fifth career 15-day disabled list stint, and his first since 2003." What day/game?
  • The 3000th hit paragraph feels a bit much, but at the same time I'm not really sure what would be removed. I'll leave that to other reviewers if they think it's a problem.
  • "Ripken said he felt Jeter has a chance to reach 4,000 career hits.[124]" Not sure if this is necessary. It is possible, but skepticism doesn't really fit in an encyclopedic article.
  • How did he do in the 2009 WBC? Stats are noted for 06 but not the other one.
  • ", and fifth in base on balls (64) and sixth stolen bases" rm first and

Not a huge amount to fix, once this is resolved I'll support the article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and made those changes, though I haven't (yet) touched the 3,000 hit paragraph or Ripken quote. Jeter's 3000th hit was a big moment, perhaps the biggest of his career. I think the paragraph gives it its due weight. I'm open to a little pruning, but I don't see what needs to go. As for the Ripken quote, I'm okay removing it if that's consensus (you're not the first person to comment on its inclusion), but I feel that Ripken's comments have some sufficient weight behind them, because of who he is. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it a little more, I commented out the Ripken tidbit. It probably doesn't belong. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I won't push on the 3,000 hit thing since it's probably okay. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Bagumba
  1. "clubhouse presence, on-field leadership": Non-sports readers might take "clubhouse presence" literally. Perhaps combine the both under plain "leadership".
  2. "the Roberto Clemente Award": change "the" to "a" as the rest of sentence enumerates numbers of instances of each achievement.
  3. ".351 batting average in the World Series": World Series was already linked before
  4. "Derek and Sharlee lived ..." perhaps should use Jeter instead of Derek in this sentence per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Family_members_with_the_same_surname.
  5. "the only place Derek Jeter's going is to Cooperstown": items in quotations should generally not be linked per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#General_points_on_linking_style.
  6. "0-for-7 with five strikeouts": Strikeout was already linked in "High school"
  7. "Jorge Posada and Andy Pettitte, who played for the Hornets that season and, with Jeter and Mariano Rivera, would form the Yankees' Core Four ..." the introduction of "Core Four" here seems too forced.
  8. "He was named to the All-Star team after finishing second in the league in triples (11), third in hits (152) and 11th in batting average.": citation needed
  9. "and as a precaution, the Yankees signed Tony Fernández to a two-year contract.": seems less winded to make a separate sentence.
  10. "cross the picket line": wikilink to Strikebreaker would be helpful.
  11. "the Yankees reportedly offered Jeter the opportunity to work out for the MLB team": Can we get rid of "reportedly". This isn't breaking news or based on anonymous sources. Attribute to Michaels and say Jeter denied it, or don't mention it.
  12. Would be helpful to mention Pat Kelly's field position.
  13. MLB debut: be useful to say what he did, and/or have a citation to boxscore.
  14. "demoted to Class AAA Columbus": mention replaced by Fernandez
  15. "the first Yankee rookie to do so since Tom Tresh in 1962": Since Jeter played the previous season, readers might be confused why he was a rookie. a wikilink to rookie and a footnote explaining why he still qualified is needed.
  16. "hit third in the batting order": should explain the significance for non-baseball readers. Also, not much mention in this article of his usual batting position. In 2006, there is mention that Damon batted "lead off, with Jeter batting second in the lineup" with no background of where Jeter was before (leadoff?) Either mention in Career section or consolidate it to "Player profile".
  17. "In the postseason, Jeter batted .455 in the ALDS, .350 in the ALCS, and .353 in the World Series": Was going to say World Series was overlinked here, but it is linked to 1999 World Series. I would have ignored the link thinking it was a repeated link as there is no visible reason to think it was a different link. Similarly, when opponents are linked, I always wondered why the specific opponent's season article is not linked. Not a FA showstopper, but worth pondering.
  18. "Rodriguez signed a ten-year $252 million contract earlier in the offseason," should mention who he signed with (i.e. not the Yankees yet)
  19. "their third consecutive title, and Jeter's fourth championship overall.":mention 4th in 5 years with Jeter per "Derek's dollars" existing reference.
  20. The Flip: Aside from awards and timeliness of the play, more is needed to convey in words why it was physically an amazing play. In the ref "Baseball's most amazing plays", Posada said "I knew if Derek got the ball and turned to throw we'd have no chance, but he flipped it backhanded."
  21. "September 11 terrorist attacks": should use the common name of "September 11 attacks"
  22. Mr November: a lot of sentences to build it up, not sure it's due weight relative to his career. Could some of the background be in footnotes or otherwise shortened?
  23. "On Opening Day of the 2003 season": opening day was already linked
  24. "Blue Jays catcher Ken Huckaby at third base" Blue Jays was not previously introduced or linked
  25. "11th recognized captain" why use "recognized"? If significant, more details needed.
  26. "leading to speculation that the Yankees would move Jeter from shortstop, as Rodriguez had two Gold Glove Awards at shortstop and Jeter had none." Pointing out the Gold Gloves is enough to show the speculation without having to explicitly say "leading to speculation" Consider something like, "Although Rodriguez had two Gold Glove Awards at shortstop and Jeter had none, the Yankees had Jeter remain the team's starting shortstop, with Rodriguez moving to third base."
  27. "During a July 1, 2004 game against the rival Boston Red Sox ..." I was wondering where this was going at first. Mention the Play Of The Year award first, and then describe the play.
  28. "and were poised to face the Red Sox in the 2004 ALCS." Reword, as they did in fact play them.
  29. group defensive accolades and mention the 2004 GG with the Play of the Year side-by-side
  30. "At one point, Jeter had the most at bats of any active player not to have hit a grand slam": clarify that it was the most at-bats (155) with the bases loaded without a GS. Also the source said "his 156 homers coming in were the most without a slam by active big leaguers." I think it's more the number of bases-loaded opportunities along with the fact that he does have some power that is the notable part; you would think plenty of non-power hitters or those without based-loaded opps go a long time or never hit a GS
  31. "Without center fielder Bernie Williams": what happened to him?
  32. "Instead, the Yankees signed Johnny Damon to play center field and lead off": wiklink to Leadoff hitter
  33. "stolen base success percentage (87.2), and batting average with runners in scoring position (.381), fourth in OBP (.417), and fifth in infield hits (26), " SB%, RISP, and IH should be removed. I'm OK with common stats being sourced only from a stat site, but would recommend only mentioning others if they are at least supported in prose in a reference to show their significance.
  34. "He also finished fourth in both at-bats (639) and plate appearances (714), sixth in times on base (276)": same comment on stats referenced from stat site
  35. "One possible cause was a prolonged slump that he suffered after being hit by a pitch on his wrist." Needs sources about who said it was a possible cause. And when was the injury? Did Jeter acknowledge it? Otherwise, just mention the injury and reader can decide if it was a cause. I'm wary of this section presenting before injury stats and then after injury stats from a stat site. It seems like original research, especially since the first 1.5 months is arguably a small sample and players slump for many reasons.
  36. "Before the injury, Jeter was hitting .324 with a .774 on-base plus slugging (OPS)." Strange that OPS, if significant, is only first mentioned in 2008
  37. "Despite Jeter's strong September showing,": any numbers to quantify?
  38. Final 2008 BA not mentioned. While listing of stats every year seems repetitive, and I dont have any suggestions on how it should be handled, it also doesnt seem consistent that few of the "usual" stats were mentioned in 2008.
  39. "Following the final game in Yankee Stadium history, Jeter made an impromptu on-field speech": more notable is that he was asked by the Yankees to speak. Not comfortable with "impromptu", as he was told days before. It is unclear in the ref whose fault it was that it was not confirmed earlier.
  40. "asking them to pass on their memories from the venue while making new memories at the new Yankee Stadium" unsourced, and a bit over the top
  41. "his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous record for the most hits by a shortstop in major league history": second part should also be "as a shortstop" instead of "by a shortstop", or just say "his 2,675th hit as a shortstop, breaking Luis Aparicio's previous major league record."
  42. Mention Hank Aaron and Clemente award in 2009 in body
  43. "behind Minnesota's Joe Mauer and teammate Mark Teixeira": mention he is a Yankee teammate, to distinguish from Mauer's teammate
  44. "The 2010 season was statistically Jeter's worst in many respects." Should be able to find a better ref for this than a mid-season article from the same season.
  45. "The Yankee captain batted .270 with a .340 OBP and .370 SLG and an Adjusted OPS of 90, his first full season with an OPS+ below 100." needs ref. First (and only?) mention of Adjusted OPS and OPS+ so late in bio is also a bit inconsistent. Mention his BA and OBP being career lows. Comparison to his previous low would put into perspective too.
  46. "He reached an agreement with the Yankees on a three-year contract with an option for a fourth year" Considering other salaries are mentioned earlier in the article, its inconsistent to not mention here. There should be some mention on the tone of the negotiations and factors behind the terms of the contract and overpaying for his being a NY icon [13][14]
  47. "Jeter began the 2011 season batting .260 with a .649 OPS." Over what time period on number of games?
  48. "Rehabilitating from his injury in Tampa, Jeter worked on his swing with Denbo." Denbo was mentioned so long ago, might be good to preface he was his minor league manager.
  49. These sources [15][16] mention that Kevin Long's attempt to redo Jeter's swing led to frustration and was "ill-advised". This says Denbo restored his old swing. This area needs to be expanded more.
  50. "one of only two players (the other being Wade Boggs) to hit a home run for his 3,000th hit" should specifiy in MLB history, (as opposed to Yankee history)
  51. His OPS in 2011 was only marginally better than 2010. There should be some sources available that put 2011 in perspective as another "twilight" year
  52. Existing ref "How the Yankees' Derek Jeter has turned back the clock" mentions his increased ground-ball rate attributing to his drop. Consider adding.
  53. "Despite concerns that Jeter's age might catch up to him in 2012" 1) The concern was that age had already caught up to him since 2010 2)the "streak" was actually a continuation of success at the end of 2011
  54. "Only Ken Griffey, Jr. (.524) and Yoandy Garlobo (.480) had a higher batting average with a minimum of 20 at bats" It read as if Garlobo was a teammate on the national team
  55. "He has an average of 194 hits, 118 runs scored and 23 stolen bases per year over the course of 152 games played" As of when?
  56. "Jeter has only played fewer than 148 games a season once in his career, when he dislocated his left shoulder on Opening Day 2003." He only played in 131 in 2011
  57. "He has more home runs to the opposite field than to center or to left, using his swing to take advantage of the short right-field fences at both the old and new Yankee Stadiums." This is verbatim from the source. The sentence before that is also pretty close to word-for-word.
  58. "In an age where professional athletes often find themselves in personal scandals, Jeter has avoided major controversy": a bit exaggerated. There was the uproar over his mansion[17], the criticism over partying from Steinbrenner, the NY tax issue, ...
  59. "Always respectful, he referred to Torre as "Mr. Torre". I'm sure he is respectful, but can do better than one narrow example (and from a 1998 source).
  60. "Jeter holds MLB postseason records for games played (152), plate appearances (679), at-bats (559), hits (191), doubles (31), runs scored (107), total bases (290) and strikeouts (125). Jeter is also third in triples (4), third in home runs (20), fourth in runs batted in (59), fifth in base on balls (64) and sixth stolen bases (18)." Source needed. I dont see where the b-r.com source says they are records. The leaderboard section lists standing only for regular season.
  61. "was probably the most ineffective defensive player in the major leagues, at any position." when was this written. Over what time period was the assessment?
  62. His defense could be dealt chronologically with with the rest of his career, or at least mention and provide a link earlier that there is a section on his defense. It is jarring to read all the Gold Gloves and only see toward the end there is a different perspective.
  63. Additional information for adding content on defense
    1. This credits his quick release on defense. Also says he went from costing runs to saving runs.
    2. "past a diving jeter" is referenced often and might bear mentioning in a neutral way[18][19][20][21][22]
    3. Here's one source that his offensive reputation and highlight-reel plays helped him win GG.[23] It also points to non-sabermetric stats like putouts and assists. Jeter won GG in 2006 despite Álex González having fewer errors and higher fielding pct[24] Other sources on impact of reputation[25][26][27][28] Here is another on his highlight reel plays[29]
    4. ESPN on lack of range skewing Jeter's fielding percentage and his lower chances relative to other SS[30]
    5. This NY Times article says ARods arrival at 3b helped Jeters defense, allowing him to cheat to his left[31]
  64. Statistical highlights: do we really need less common stats with no explanation or wikilink like plate appearances, runs created. Why is times on base listed but not HBP ... I can do without either.
  65. Milestones: seem mostly a repeat of career section. Integrate whatever wasn't. Alternatively, a timeline in tabular format with a date column and achievement column is more presentable and could be used if this is to be kept.
  66. "New York State alleged that Jeter should have paid state income tax from 2001 to 2003, as Jeter bought a Manhattan apartment in 2001;" He owed taxes because he allegedly lived in NY, not just that he owned property there.
  67. "Jeter established his residence in Tampa, Florida, in 1994" More accurate to say he claimed residency instead of "established"
  68. "wasn't totally focused" and that "it didn't sit well" with him: the quotes are not supported by the source
  69. "He has also renewed his close friendship with teammate Alex Rodriguez after a rift between them developed several years ago.": some more words on the rift needed
  70. "The organization's name derives from the baseball double play (where "turning two" refers to making two outs on one play) and indicates the goal of the Foundation to give youths a place to "turn to" instead of drugs and alcohol": not supported by source
  71. "During the 2009 season, Jeter and Mets star David Wright represented their foundations ..." seems like news/trivia, and the outcome isnt mentioned. I would think there are more notable achievements of the charity.
  72. Fleet Bank, Discover Card, Florsheim, Skippy, XM Satellite Radio: need sources for endorsements
  73. Gillete Fusion: just make it Gillete
  74. "In 2006, Jeter was the second-highest paid endorser in baseball" who was first? Where does $7 million figure come from in source?
  75. "He was ranked as the most marketable player in baseball according to the 2005[195] and 2010 Sports Business Surveys": sources say 2003 as well
  76. "His likeness was seen briefly on The Simpsons during the eighth episode of season 19": unsourced, needs to meet WP:IPC
  77. "If you're going to play at all, you're out to win. Baseball, board games, playing Jeopardy, I hate to lose.": would be more interesting to have a quote from someone else during or about his minor league days. Place this in the body in "player profile" perhaps.
  78. "I have the greatest job in the world. Only one person can have it." Seems like self-promotion. I'd remove from quote box for his own bio, but can place in body; not sure of the context as it's subscription only
  79. Be useful to attribute dates in quote boxes.
  80. Move pictures in Derek_Jeter#1995.E2.80.931998 and Derek_Jeter#Defense to the left side so subject is looking towards center of page per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Location.
  81. succession boxes: They dont seem notable enough to be worth the clutter relative to the other navboxes. Also there is already a navbox for NYY captain.
  82. "Derek Jeter: March to 3,000 Hits" ext link: now that he's passed it and this is supposed to be FA, why is this considered "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" per WP:ELNO
  83. citation format: some like MLB.com have as publisher MLB Advanced Media, while a lot of ESPN refs have publisher as plain "ESPN" instead of "ESPN Internet Ventures". Inconsistent.
  84. "Fernandez Fields Move to Second Well: Injury to Kelly Creates Another Chance." says subscription required but there is no url
  85. Bibliography: Is this used as general reference or are they intended a external links instead?
  86. Wasn't he fatigued from 3,000 hit chase and requested out of the All-Star game. The mental impact seems worth mention.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

87. His biography The Captain: The Journey of Derek Jeter listed in Further Reading should be read and used as a reference. It's difficult to believe this is a fully comprehensive article when no biographies on the subject are cited.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when I'll read the biography, personally. In lieu of reading the biography, would it be acceptable if I use a review of the book mentioning its more newsworthy tidbits? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the book myself, but I think I read some review that mentioned it goes into the relationship with Arod, which would help address point #69. Perhaps another reviewer who has read the book can comment, or maybe you can provide a convincing argument why a book is not needed in an FA.—Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone has read the book, that would be very helpful. I'm in the process of getting Joe McGinnity up to FA status, but since he's an older player, there isn't much available online. I got an excellent biography on him which I'm using to go into significant detail on him. Jeter, however, came about in an era with more readily available news coverage. The book may give more info on the A-Rod/Jeter dynamic than was already reported in the media, but the fact is that it was reported in the media. Point #69 is just one that I was holding off on until I accomplished the others. Maybe by the time I cover it, you may agree that citing the book isn't required. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
69 was an example of what the book could be used for, not a requirement that it be used for 69. I note that some of the advice at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria#See also also prefers books as references where possible. I'm not concerned about web sites going away (and a lot of the links here are from newspapers anyways), but I'm of the belief that a 400-page book is usually more comprehensive than 100s of 1-2 page articles. We can continue mulling as other points are still outstanding.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't help but notice that the biography of Jeter published last year has become an issue due to its absence here. I've read large portions of the book, and I believe that the content of this article represents what is in the book pretty well. The one thing the book could help with is in talking more about why Jeter has wide popularity among fans. The book is searchable on Google Books here, so maybe you can find some of that content; searching for specific items on Google Books works much better than trying to read an entire work and glean context from it anyway. As for the Jeter–A-Rod relationship, an excerpt related to that can be found on ESPN.com. If you want to use this, let me know and I'll provide page numbers etc. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can trust Giants2008's recommendation based on his reading of the book. Covering those areas would be sufficient for me.—Bagumba (talk) 01:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments. I will work to add some of that, flesh out the A-Rod bit and remaining unresolved bullets, and hopefully we can close out this sucker in a week or so. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, this article is extremely close to achieving FA quality, based on the 4 FA criteria points. Looking through it, there is just one possible issue I spotted:

  • "Shane Spencer retrieved the ball and made a wild throw that missed cut-off man Tino Martinez and dribbled down the first-base line." Not to get all technical, but judging from the MLB video on "The Flip," at 0:12, both Martinez and Alfonso Soriano are shown as the cut-off men on the line (with one backing the other one up) and at 0:27, the announcer says "both cutoff men were missed." This ESPN source also mentions it, so I think it would be beneficial to add Soriano to the sentence, since this would make Jeter's play look even more exceptional (the throw having missed not one, but two cutoff men, yet Jete was still able to make a play off it).

Other than that, this article looks set to pass. Once resolved, I'll give my full support to make this an FA. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Forget it. This small minute issue does not severely detract from the article's quality, so I'm not going to let it withhold my full support for this already exceptional article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm getting to your comment. I've been trying to get through Bagumba's as quickly, yet thoroughly, as possible, which is tough considering all the articles I have coming up for GA reviews now (damn backlog review drive, I had hoped those would trickle in but now it's an open faucet) and, ya know, my real job. I will get to it, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, Jeter now has the most All-Star hits as a Yankee [33]. Not sure if it is that significant, but you might want to add it if you want. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I didn't notice. I'll add it now. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per this: Jeter is the all-time MLB leader in hits by a shortstop - He hasn't passed Ripken yet and then he becomes the AL leader - but that does not count Honus Wagner with - 3415 hits...Modernist (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are mistaken. It is verified in this article that Jeter is the all time hits leader as a shortstop. Many of Wagner and Ripken's hits came at other positions. Jeter in fact passed Luis Aparicio to become the all-time hits leader for a shortstop. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This article is vastly improved from the previous times I have seen it here, and I meant to comment earlier but waited for some of the work to be done. I apologise for jumping in now, late on. Also, I think it is very close to FA level now, but still needs work, and my oppose is (hopefully) temporary. My main concern is that the prose needs a bit of a polish. There are several lumpy parts and some sections do not flow. In addition, perhaps a little too much use is made of baseball-speak where more friendly, accessible language for non-baseballers may make the article more readable. Overall, good work and I look forward to switching to support. I've read to the end of "Minor leagues" so far. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These items seem malleable enough. Hopefully that's a pretty weak oppose. Let me see what I can do in a few minutes... – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A five-time World Series champion, Jeter has been a central figure of the Yankees during their success of the 1990s and 2000s due to his hitting ability, baserunning, and leadership on the field and in the clubhouse": I think this sentence tries to do too much, and would be inclined to cut everything after "leadership". In addition, it runs the risk of slight POV as we have editorial voice which is saying he was a central figure because he was good at stuff. Maybe "critics regard him as a central figure". I would also suggest "central figure during the Yankees ["run of success" or just "successes" would be better here] of the 1990s and 2000s…"
    • Changed to "is regarded as a central figure" and cut off the sentence at "leadership"
  • "Jeter continued to contribute during the team's championship seasons of 1998–2000": A little weak. Contributed how? To what extent?
    • It's a lead, the summary of the body. How much more should I jam in here?
  • "Throughout his career, Jeter has contributed reliably to the Yankees' franchise successes in the postseason. He holds many postseason records, and has a .351 batting average in the World Series. Jeter has earned the titles of "Captain Clutch" and "Mr. November" due to his postseason heroics.[4][5]": Three instances of "postseason" in three sentences.
    • Cut out the first of the two, but I think the next two should remain as the records and the clutchiness are different, plus merging the two sentences creates a run on.
  • "As a child, Jeter's parents made him sign a contract every year that set acceptable and unacceptable forms of behavior.[12] Dorothy instilled a positive attitude in her son, insisting that he not use the word "can't".[13]" To me, this is unnecessary detail for an article such as this and has little impact on the article. If a source could be found to say something like his parents simply instilled a positive attitude, or that he was close to them, that may be more appropriate.
    • This is meant to suggest his parents' role in shaping his personality. I think that'll become a bit more clear as you get further in the article. If you reach the end and still think it doesn't work, I can address it.
  • "Watching Yankees player Dave Winfield inspired him to pursue baseball": Maybe "a career in baseball"
    • Okay.
  • The first paragraph of "High School" is a rather uncomfortable list of statistics which needs smoothing out.
    • Took a shot at the first sentence. Not sure what else to do with it at the moment, but I can think about it.
  • "Newhouser felt so strongly about Jeter's potential that he quit his job with Astros": Should this be "the Astros"? And, to me "quit his job" is a little informal, although that may just be an ENGVAR thing.
    • Yeah I think that's ENGVAR. After taking a minute with that, I think it's grammatical, but an American editor should confirm that for us.
  • "Though Yankees officials were concerned that Jeter would attend college…" I know what this means and why they were concerned, but there is some possible confusion here in terms of "why would this worry them?"
    • Added the clause "forgoing the opportunity to sign a professional contract"
  • "The Yankees selected Jeter, who chose to turn professional and signed with the Yankees for $800,000": Yankees…Yankees.
    • "The Yankees selected Jeter, who chose to turn professional, signing for $800,000"
  • "Jeter batted 0-for-7 with five strikeouts": For the general reader, could this be rephrased as "did not [hit? My baseball is not good!] in seven innings, rather than use a baseball stat.
    • 0-for-7 means zero hits in seven times at-bat. The link to the 0-fer, spoken about somewhere above, was meant to link in a way to easily show that this was a pretty bad game.
  • "Jeter struggled, batting .202 in 47 games." The first part of the sentence seems tacked on, and maybe should be smoothed with the previous sentence "For the rest of the season, Jeter struggled…"
    • "Jeter continued to struggle during the rest of the season"
  • "In addition to being frustrated with his play, Jeter was homesick" Not sure this is quite grammatical here. Without some common theme, these two ideas do not really link. And "frustrated with his play" sounds ugly. Maybe "frustrated by his lack of success"?
    • "Frustrated by his lack of success and homesick, Jeter accrued $400-per-month phone bills from daily calls to his parents"
  • "Weighing 156 pounds (71 kg), he did not have the appearance of the Yankees' future leader.": I cannot see the relevance (or importance) of his weight.
    • He was scrawny. "Weighing 156 pounds (71 kg), Jeter's scrawny appearance did not match his reputation as the Yankees' future leader."
  • "to allow him more at-bats": There are a few examples like this where baseball-speak is preferred to more accessible language; why not "more opportunity to bat" or similar?
    • "allow him the opportunity to accrue more at-bats"
  • "making nine errors in 48 chances": Don't make the reader follow the links, make it more explicit here in this sentence. I'm lost without clicking a link, and that is never great.
    • Added "and struggled defensively", which tells you that 9 errors in 48 chances is bad.
  • "Baseball America ranked Jeter as the 44th-best prospect in baseball prior to the 1993 season": This comes across as a little harsh as 44 is not a number immediately associated with brilliance; why not "rated Jeter among the top 100 best prospects in baseball, ranking him at 44".
    • 44th is pretty good. Changed to "rated Jeter among the top 100 prospects in baseball prior to the 1993 season, ranking him 44th"
  • 3rd and 4th paragraphs of Minor leagues become a bit list-y again, just reciting teams and stats. Could do to be smoothed.
    • Can take a look at that.

I would recommend, even at this late stage, asking a copy-editor to have a look for that final polish. If you have no objections, I may be able to do a little of that myself when I look at the rest of the article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think your suggestions made this a better article. By all means, I would be grateful if you'd copy edit further, or bring more points you find vague to my attention. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More Comments: Read down to the end of 1999-2002, and made some copy-edits, but not sure my baseball is up to copy-editing this one too much. Still some pretty large prose concerns, and there is a general lack of polish to the article. I don't think we are a long way away, but I really think the whole article needs going over very carefully and checking for redundancy, "baseball speak", repetition and clumsy phrasing. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "During MLB's 1994–95 work stoppage, Gene Michael, the Yankees' general manager, offered Jeter the opportunity to work out for the MLB team with replacement players in spring training prior to the 1995 season. Jeter denied receiving the offer, and did not cross the picket line.": Again, there are links to follow, but to someone unfamiliar this, the lack of context makes this baffling. What picket line?
    • That's the metaphorical picket line. Strikers vs. scabs, that sort of thing.
  • MLB is expanded in the lead; is it worth expanding it in the main body as well?
    • My understanding is the rule is expand it once in the lead and once in the body. Since that wasn't done here, I did it in the "Draft" section, at the first use of the term.
  • "he went 0-for-5 with one strikeout": Similar to the above, I really don't like this as it is impenetrable to non-baseballers. I vaguely follow it because I have a woolly understanding of the sport, but it does not make for easy understanding.
    • I'm not sure how else to explain it, given that the links are in the article. We can't use Jeter's article to define what a strikeout is.
  • "To solidify the shortstop position...": Solidify seems an odd choice of word.
    • "provide depth to the team"
  • "...Steinbrenner approved a trade that would have sent pitcher Mariano Rivera to the Seattle Mariners for shortstop Félix Fermín, but Michael, now the vice president of scouting, and assistant general manager Brian Cashman convinced Steinbrenner to give Jeter an opportunity": Not sure the names are needed here. What about "Steinbrenner planned to bring in another shortstop, but assistant general manager Brian Cashman convinced him to give Jeter an opportunity."
    • Well, Mariano Rivera is a big deal. Given their tenure together with the Yankees, I feel it's worth adding his name. As for Fermin, an interested reader can click on the link and see who the Yankees nearly acquired to use in place of Jeter. I think that's worthwhile.
  • When rating Jeter as a future prospect, on what grounds were they judging him? Why was he still highly rated when it appears he had not achieved much?
    • Prospect ratings are so subjective. They're not basing it merely on minor league performance, but scouting and projections.
  • "the Yankees started Jeter at shortstop on Opening Day, the first Yankee rookie to do so since Tom Tresh in 1962.": The first rookie to do what? Start at shortstop? Start on opening day? A little vague, and the repetition of Yankee is clunky.
  • "He hit his first MLB home run that day. With his speed and ability to hit and run, Jeter complemented leadoff hitter Tim Raines from the ninth spot in the batting order.": Says who? Looks like editorial voice.
    • Yeah, not written well. My bad.
  • "Coming off of his Rookie of the Year campaign": Off of is very clunky.
    • "Following his Rookie..."
  • "On the season, he batted .324 with a league-leading 127 runs": I've never seen "on the season" used this way in a formal encyclopaedia article before. Also, in the same section, "At season's end".
    • I personally don't see a problem with either wording. It's slightly different wording to try to not repeat phrases.
    • Okay, Hamilton commented on it too, so now it's "In the season"
  • "and is widely considered to be one of the greatest of all time": I'm not sure 2 refs from 1998 are particularly convincing for saying that they are "widely considered". It needs something better.
  • "Jeter and the Yankees went to salary arbitration before the 1999 season": Why?
    • It was his first year he was eligible for it. I've rewritten to say so. In MLB, the team renews your salary for the first few years, almost always near the league minimum. Then you're arbitration eligible for a few years. Then you become eligible for free agency. Again, we can't detail all of that in the article, hence the wikilink.
  • "appearing in his second All-Star game in the process": In the process of what? This is preceded by a list of stats.
    • In the process of compiling those stats. I changed it to "that year"
  • 1999-2002: first paragraph ends with another list of stats which makes for hard reading.
    • Slightly rearranged
  • "Steinbrenner did not want to set a salary record and delayed a response while Juan González and the Detroit Tigers negotiated on a reported eight-year, $143 million contract extension. When that agreement fell through, so did Jeter's tentative deal.": I'm struggling to see a connection between these two events.
    • Steinbrenner didn't want to give out the biggest contract in baseball, so he waited until after Gonzalez was to sign a deal bigger than Jeter's. That Gonzalez deal didn't happen. I tried to clarify that.
  • "including a go-ahead two-run single": What is this?
    • The two RBI single put the team ahead for good. Rewritten.
  • "Jeter became the second-highest-paid athlete, trailing only Rodriguez": Highest paid athlete in all sport? America? The world?
    • All athletes worldwide. The link in the sentence demonstrates that.
  • "not an attempt by Rodriguez to criticize Jeter.[64] However, in the April 2001 issue of Esquire, Rodriguez criticized Jeter. Rodriguez was quoted as saying "Jeter's been blessed ..." I've tweaked this, but it is terribly clunky and hard to read. In a short space, we have 3 "Rodriguez", 3 "Jeter", and 2 "criticise". There's a few similar examples of redundancy, and the article should be carefully checked for these.
    • In fairness, I just wrote that yesterday (or the day before?) from scratch. I figured I'd be working on it in the next few days, as that story is one of the latter points remaining from Bagumba's list. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:24, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jeter made a notable defensive play...": This is then described in detail. Why does this one incident justify such a long description? Why is it notable? Who said so? And as a non-baseballer, I'm struggling to see from the description what was so notable about it.
    • The Flip is a big f'ing deal in baseball circles. Even amongst Jeter haters, who recoil at the mention of it and how it's used to propel Jeter to such legendary status. I'll take out the "Jeter made a notable defensive play" sentence since that's a bit redundant to me.
    • Well, I could, but then I'd have to figure out how to rewrite the intro to it.
  • "Despite Jeter's highlight moments that postseason, Jeter slumped at the plate": Highlight moments? Jeter ... Jeter.
    • Rewritten
  • Section ends with another list of stats. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: I've now read to the end, but I'm afraid the more I read, the more concerned I am. While I have listed some problems below, the overall feel of the article is not quite right. The main issue for me is that it is written for baseballers. There is no concession, beyond a few small points, to the general reader, and the responses of the nominator to my points and those of Hamiltonstone below do not seem to suggest that he sees it as a problem. For a FA, while there is no need to explain the rules and history of the whole sport, there should be enough explanation and context so that a reader can comfortably read it without becoming lost. In addition, I do not think links alone are enough; in a FA, the reader should not be made to click any more than is absolutely necessary. Getting this balance right is the key to readable prose in a sports article, and I do not think we are there yet. Besides this, there are other prose issues as I commented earlier, and I feel that the stats are overdone quite a lot in the article, and make for dull reading. Fewer stats and more commentary would be a way forward. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mean to imply that I don't see the merit in what you're saying; I do. This article has to be accessible to the general audience. However, it seems to me that a number of your comments (and Hamilton's) are beyond the scope of Jeter's article, and do require someone with no baseball knowledge to click some of the links. I'm in the process of working on the prose, giving context to the numbers. I haven't gotten to all of the listing-of-stats comments you've brought up yet, but will in the next few days. I think I may be a bit frustrated that this nomination, now two months old, has gotten a number of !support votes, only to now see you and Hamilton are bringing up legitimate issues. I don't mean to come across as obstinate because of that. I am working through all suggestions as best I can, but since I'm so deeply attached to this article (just look at the percentage of edits on this article that are mine), it's hard for me to see some of its issues. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to lead the Yankees to a 2 games to 1 series lead" and "With the score tied at 3": Shouldn't the numbers be given in words?
    • For both examples, I decided those details weren't necessary, so I deleted them. If I would've kept them, I agree they should've been spelled out.
  • "against the rival Boston Red Sox": The way this is written, it appears that they were playing a "renegade" team called the Red Sox; I think it should be "their rivals, the Boston Red Sox". But there is immediate repetition of "Red Sox" which is tricky to avoid but reads poorly.
  • "Nixon hit a pop fly down the left field line..." ????
    • Pop fly wasn't linked, and I've fixed that.
  • Again, I am not sure why this Nixon incident requires such detailing. While appreciating that you can probably make a good baseball argument for its inclusion, I'm not sure it is appropriate for the general reader of a FA.
    • I pared down on excess wording. It was a major play in the context of his career and needs to be included. Hopefully the way I changed the paragraph helps the flow and makes it more clear. It can also help with one of the last remaining points on Bagumba's checklist, putting the defense (awards and criticism) into chronology.
  • I'm not too convinced either by long sections of stats and awards in the 2003-2008 and 2009-Present sections (again, I feel I should point out that this is a potential FA, not an article in a sports publication: I cannot see the general interest in the Grand Slam stat), nor by further discussion of player signings. While each one may feel essential when writing it, the overall impression is a little draining for the reader.
    • Fair enough on the grand slam, I was borderline on mentioning that. Do you have any suggestions to make this less "draining"?
  • Also, lots of repetitive sentences in this section: lots of sentences starting "he" or "Jeter", and far too many "however"s. I'm also becoming overwhelmed by the number of times "batted" is used in the article; some variety would be beneficial.
    • There aren't that many ways to express a batting average.
  • Another issue I have is that by this point, we are well into his career. Yet reading the lists of stats, games awards and achievements, I really do not get the impression that this was a special player (which I believe he is, even with my lack of baseball), but just some guy playing baseball. Where are the accolades (not just the XYZ award) received at the time, comments by coaches, etc. After the early part of his career, there seems to be nothing, just another batting stat.
  • "with Damon moving to second and Jeter to the leadoff role, based on the rationale that Jeter had a higher OBP than Damon, but grounded into double plays more often": I'm afraid this means nothing to me.
    • Reworded - "based on the rationale that Jeter was more likely to get on base than Damon, but also more likely to ground into double plays, which would nullify Damon if he got on base ahead of Jeter". Does that make more sense?
  • "Jeter and Rodriguez began to rekindle their friendship together during the season, as Jeter acknowledged that Rodriguez was making an attempt to change, and Jeter began to accept Rodriguez's personal differences.": Three "Jeter" in one sentence, and this comes completely out of the blue with no context or follow-up.
  • Five paragraphs on 2010 and 2011 is completely out of proportion to any of the other seasons. Are the seasons so significant in the context of his whole career, or is this a touch of recentism?
    • I think they are. To the earlier point about the earlier 2000s being lists of stats and awards, I don't recall there being much to say about Jeter (aside that he was awesome, which I can work on expanding). In 2010 and 2011, we had discussions of his downslide. Also, various career milestones were achieved. That said, we can work to cut down the 2010 and 2011 and expand the earlier years a bit.
  • "He suffered a calf injury on June 13 that required his fifth career 15-day disabled list stint, and his first since 2003": First what: calf injury or stint on the disabled list?
  • "Jeter finished the day with five hits in five at bats": Now, this is nice and accessible for the general reader; could some of those 0-for-5s be changed to be more like this?
  • 7th paragraph of 2009-present has far too many instances of 3,000th and to the general reader, some of these feats seem a little trivial and not worth such great detail.
    • Cut one of the "3000th"'s out. I'll think about what to cut from the paragraph.
    • I cut the bit about hitting the home run for his 3000th. That was the more trivial bit, as the fact that no Yankee had ever joined the club, despite the franchise's storied history (Babe Ruth, Mickey Mantle, Joe DiMaggio, many others), did get a lot of press.
  • "Jeter has avoided major controversy": By your own admission above, there are "Jeter haters". What of these? Why do they hate him? I also notice a few instances of controversy within other comments on this page. What about these? It even says a few paragraphs down from here "The controversy over Jeter's fielding..."
    • The Yankees are a high profile team that many people hate. Jeter is a proxy for that. Some people hate Jeter because they feel he's treated with kid gloves by the media, maybe that should be added. I will change it to say "major controversy in his personal life" or "major personal controversy".
  • "Always respectful, he referred to Torre as "Mr. Torre".": Why does this one instance require inclusion? Why not a more generic reference to his "respectfulness"? To whom was he respectful?
    • Thinking about how to deal with this one... It's one of Bagumba's comments above.
  • Rather than more stats in the "Post-season" section, why not compare his performances with his rivals or other great players?
  • "He is credited positioning himself well and a quick release in his throwing motion.": This does not make sense. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Came to this article just because it seemed to be languishing somewhat. Don't normally review sport-related material, so not looking at this in-depth. Inclined to agree with Sarastro.

  • Just glanced at one paragraph and didn't understand its first sentence: "With one year remaining until he would become eligible for free agency..." No idea what free agency is, and it isn't linked.
  • The first sentences in the body of the article that talks about his baseball performance read: "For the baseball team, Jeter batted .557 in his sophomore year and .508 average as a junior.[1] In his senior year, he batted .508 and compiled 23 runs batted in (RBI), 21 walks, four home runs, a .637 on-base percentage (OBP), a .831 slugging percentage (SLG), 12 stolen bases (in 12 attempts), and just one strikeout". Trouble is, unless you know something about baseball, these figures mean absolutely nothing. Was he good at any of these things? Bad? Indifferent? Can editors give some sort of indication from the sources as to whether these were promising figures or not?
    • Context added
  • "He finished second in the SAL in triples (11)". What's a triple? No link.
    • Linked. The rest I'll get to tomorrow
  • "On the season, he batted..." What does "On the season" mean? Or is this a typo, and should read "In the season?"
    • Means the same thing, I think. Since Sarastro commented on this too, I changed it to "In the season"
  • Para beginning "During Jeter's contract negotiations..." To a lay person, this all reads like relatively inconsequential detail that doesn't particularly pertain to Jeter's playing career. Baseball people may get a significance to this sort of detail that I don't, but I'm not sure why it's included. There are individual snippets like that elsewhere - stuff about the to-ing and fro-ing of contract negotiations that seem pretty unimportant. I understand why we want to know those occasions when, for example, he was awarded a huge contract, or the first time he got arbitration, or if he was traded between teams, but otherwise...dunno.
    • Money is a big part of sports, especially in the era of free agency where some of the best players change teams whenever they become free agents. Jeter is one of the rare players to stay with the same team for his entire career (so far, anyway. *knock on wood*). What a player earns is a part of the story, and the article would be incomplete if it didn't include information on his salaries. You understand why we need to include the ten year contract that made him the second highest paid player in sports. The negotiations he had in 2010 were pretty nasty in the press, and so I think it can't be avoided, lest the article appear to whitewash a negative incident. For the sake of completeness, I think his earlier salaries made through arbitration are important information as well, and it might be jarring to add salary information in only the big contract and his current contract, without giving context on what he made prior.
  • Similar example, relating to teams/coaches rather than money: "Without center fielder Bernie Williams, who was not retained after the 2005 season, Torre reportedly considered moving Jeter or Rodriguez to center field in 2006.[90] Instead, the Yankees signed Johnny Damon to play center field and lead off..." Really, why does a reader seeking the important info about Jeter care about Torre's inner thoughts, particularly when they don't actually get implemented?
    • Shortstop is considered by many to be the most difficult and demanding defensive position. Many great Hall of Fame shortstops (Ernie Banks, Robin Yount, Cal Ripken, Jr., for instance) have changed positions as they got older. Given Jeter's advancing age, and questions about his defensive ability, there has naturally been much discussion since about 2005 about whether or not Jeter should change positions, and if so, when and to where. Not mentioning this would leave the biography of Jeter incomplete.
  • Under 1999-2002 it states "His season totals in batting average, runs, hits, runs batted in, doubles (37), triples (9), home runs (24), SLG (.552), and OBP (.438) are all personal bests". Just checking: the present tense means be never improved on any of these figures in a seasons. Given there are nine different statistics involved, this seems a little unlikely, but if that's right, then fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • He was at his peak then. It was certainly one of his best seasons, and those are all personal bests to this day, and likely for good as he's unlikely to top any of those numbers as he gets closer to 40 years of age.[34] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2003-2008. What is an "All-Star break"?
  • what is an "extra-base hit"?
  • Why is the 1994-1995 Major League Baseball Strike referred to as a "work stoppage"? I don't understand why this link needs piping - the article title seems clear. hamiltonstone (talk) 09:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but also more likely to ground into double plays, which would nullify Damon if he got on base ahead of Jeter". Sorry, but this is incomprehensible to a lay reader, and can't be fixed with a link. Just simplify or drop the rationale altogether, and just tell us they were switched (characterise the reason in more general terms). Really, this is not an article for a baseball magazine. I want the article to make FA, but it has to lighten up a little. hamiltonstone (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my attempt to make it more understandable to the lay person. Since it didn't work, I'll drop it.
  • He has been awarded the title of "Captain Clutch". While I can surmise what is meant by Mr November, "Captain Clutch" completely evades me. Either explain it (please, not another link), or delete it.

Those of us likely to pick up a baseball bat by the wrong end out of inexperience might struggle with this article. In other respects it looks pretty good, carefully referenced, and a very engaging read (for a sports enthusiast!) :-) hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: The Yankees drafted Jeter, who chose to turn professional, signing for $800,000
  • Source: Since Jeter had received an $800,000 signing bonus, he felt as if every pair of eyes was scrutinizing him.
  • Article: Coming off of his strong 1993 season, Baseball America rated Jeter as the 16th-best prospect in baseball.
  • Source: 16. Derek Jeter, ss, Yankees
  • Article: Jeter batted .234 and committed two errors in 13 games before being demoted to Class AAA Columbus; Fernández replaced Jeter at shortstop.
  • Source: Shortstop Derek Jeter, who hit .234 and made two errors in 13 games, was demoted because the Yankees want to shift Tony Fernandez from second base to shortstop.
  • Article: In the 2002 postseason, the Anaheim Angels defeated the Yankees in the ALDS on their way to winning the World Series.
  • Source: Jeter, who dislocated his left shoulder on opening day in Toronto, had not been to Yankee Stadium as an active player since the first round of the playoffs last October, when the Anaheim Angels knocked off the Yankees to begin a monthlong joyride.
  • Article: Jeter went 1-for-2 in the game, moving into fourth all-time with a .458 average among players with a minimum of 12 plate appearances in the All-Star Game.
  • Source: Full reference is not given (145: Jenks, Jayson (July 11, 2012). "Back in game, Jeter rises on star chart".)
  • Article: Regarding his official residence, Jeter settled a tax dispute with the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance in 2008.
  • Source: ALBANY, N.Y. -- Derek Jeter settled his case with tax officials, who had said the New York Yankees' captain should have paid three years of taxes as a New York state resident.
  • Article: He had cameo appearances in the comedy films Anger Management and The Other Guys.
  • Source: The Yankees captain and five-time world champion is playing a fictionalized version of himself in the upcoming Will Ferrell flick "The Other Guys," which was being filmed yesterday at Nathan's Famous in Coney Island...It's not the first time Jeter's played himself on the silver screen; he also had a cameo in the 2003 Adam Sandler-Jack Nicholson comedy, "Anger Management."
  • Article: Jeter has won five Gold Glove Awards, more than all shortstops with the exception of Smith, Aparicio, Omar Vizquel, and Mark Belanger.
  • Source: It was his fifth Gold Glove, which Aaron Gleeman of NBC Sports noted is more Gold Gloves than Ozzie Smith, Omar Vizquel, Luis Aparicio, and Mark Belanger.

Image review

I believe it was done in one of the three past FAC's, if not all three. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Words to avoid, replace "claim" with "noted", "stated" or similar, especially in the section about his income tax or lack thereof ("claim" can carry an implication of doubt). Also for Tony Tarasco's "claim" about his questionable catching abilities :). GermanJoe (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll take hold of that today. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the Tarasco "claim". As far as Jeter's taxes, isn't "claimed residency" the proper phrase? After all, it was called into question. I don't think we can put it forward that he did establish residency. And it's not that he simply stated he was a Florida resident, he claimed he was on legal documents. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CLAIM, "To write that someone claimed or asserted something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying a disregard for evidence. Similarly, be judicious in the use of admit, confess, and deny, particularly of living people, because these verbs can convey guilt when that is not a settled matter."
Since the statement was called into question, I'm not confident that this usage of the word "claim" is appropriate and NPOV given the context. Let me know if you disagree. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably ok as part of a commonly known legal phrase (in German it would be the great noun "Lebensmittelpunkt"), but i would rephrase it without the bad cl-word, just to be on the safe side. GermanJoe (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to say I am confident the usage is appropriate. I'll see how to rephrase it, unless any English experts say it's ok. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:53, 26 July 2012 [35].

Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 03:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another landmark television episode; this time we have the watershed moment when Twin Peaks moved from murder mystery to more familiar Lynchian territory. Unmistakable sound design, rich theatrical sets and a dancing little person. Of course. The article has received a thorough GA review from Astrocog, a peer review from Crisco 1492 and Midnightblueowl; and a copy-edit from Dementia13. As was flagged in my last FAC, reviews from the Den of Geek website have had their notability questioned; this was sidestepped last time round by trimming them out to shave a long "Reception" heading down somewhat but perhaps a direct decision could be reached this time on whether to use or ditch the site as a source. I would warn anyone wishing to review this that it contains a pretty egregious spoiler for the series as a whole; if you're interested in watching it you might not want to read the "Themes" section. Hope you guys enjoy it as much as I enjoyed watching it. GRAPPLE X 03:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Supported below well, I finally got around to reviewing this, glad to see someone working on a Lynch article. Some comments:
  • One issue is that I feel the article is very heavy on quotes. While you do have to use a lot of them in an article like this, I'd recommend trying to see if you can paraphrase a few. Also, you should probably attribute the quotes in the Themes section in text.
    I've tried dropping a few minor phrases from quote marks (single words like "heuristic", I suppose, don't need to be directly quoted) and paraphrased a bit. I'd already paraphrased a fair bit, especially the section about Ferrer's casting, so I'm a little wary of avoiding too much attribution. If you think there are other specific quotes I could rephrase myself then point me to them and I'll get them sorted out easy enough. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd consider delinking "mystery" in the lead, and maybe linking "baguettes" if there's a good target.
    Done, both. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the second paragraph of "Reception" you start a few consecutive sentences with "Lynch..." I'd try to rephrase one or two there.
    I assumed you meant "Production" as the "Reception" heading uses the name three times and all in quotes; in the production paragraph I've tried to incorporate "the director" where possible. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to be consistent with the use of italics for "A.V. Club".
    Italicised all. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some repetition here: "The location used for the brothel One Eyed Jacks was used"
    Changed to "The location used for the brothel One Eyed Jacks appeared". GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the works of Sherwood Anderson, Flannery O'Connor and Truman Capote" Maybe a brief intro would work well here, "mid-20th Century American writers" or something.
    Inserted your wording; would have used a genre instead of "American" but I'm not sure if Anderson wrote the kind of crime fiction the other two did. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The female cast members were deliberately lit with soft lighting from a close range, as the "glow" this gave the actresses helped to create a "veneer of innocence and comfort". I think you could cut out "this gave the actresses" since it's stated before the comma. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased this one quite a bit. GRAPPLE X
    Thanks for looking at this one for me, I appreciate your comments. And don't worry, I'm no stranger to working on Lynch. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I like the idea of linking the DVD titles to the episode lists like this: "[[The Simpsons (season 7)|The Simpsons: The Complete Seventh Season]]" & "[[List of Twin Peaks episodes#Season 1 (1990)|Twin Peaks: The Complete First Season]]"
    Just a stylistic habit of mine, I figure a link that isn't harmful or redundant is worth going for. As I tend to credit the first director of a season and "et al", I figured a link to the season in question would be a good addition in lieu of full credits. I don't mind stripping them out though since it's nothing important at all (the one for Twin Peaks itself did seem a wee bit iffy to myself as well to be honest with you). I've removed them for now. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything of use in Pervert in the Pulpit: Morality in the Works of David Lynch By Jeff Johnson? It looks like this episode is discussed on pages 153–4. Also, have you read Dolan's chapter in Full of Secrets, it looks like Episode 2 is mentioned two or three times, not sure if there's much of use there. Otherwise, it looks like you've covered all the good sources.
    As for the former, I had it listed in the article but not actually used, when I reviewed it to see if I had neglected it I saw that nothing in it is really detailed enough to warrant mention, and anything mentioned thus far has been covered by another author or source; the phallic sandwiches, the relative involvement of various crew across the series, etc. As for Dolan, I had a read through it there now. There's brief mention of this episode (called "Episode 3" in the book thanks to the confusing title series that goes "Pilot", "Episode 1".. etc), but mainly in noting how the second season changed things rather than in how this episode initially did them; I could glean a bit from it about how the dream sequence is presented here as simply a dream, untethered to anything else, and how this changed as "Episode 9" showed it to be an actual world and not one man's dream; to me this is probably more germane to Episode 9 but I won't take much convincing to add it here. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dream sequence's distinctive reversed speech was achieved by having the actors learn to speak their lines phonetically backwards, and then playing this audio in reverse." This sentence reads a bit awkwardly to me, can you think of a good way to make it more clear?
    Attempted it, managed "Dialogue heard in the dream sequence uses a distinctive reversed manner of speech. This was achieved by recording the actors' line phonetically reversed, and playing this audio backwards". Any better? It is sort of difficult to word but if you hear it it's grokkable. GRAPPLE X 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dream sequence has also been described as "the scene that separated the men from the boys", with The Washington Post's Tom Shales noting that it further polarized the series' audience, attracting loyal viewers and putting off others" Is Shales being quoted in the first part of the sentence? Mark Arsten (talk) 18:18, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. I've reworded that to make it clearer. Thanks again for your continued input. :) GRAPPLE X 18:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ok, I'm satisfied with the fixes and explanations, and am now ready to support. No opinion on the Den of Geek thing. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I just watched the episode, and I can now vouch for the accuracy of the plot summary. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
Disclosure: I helped at the article's peer review
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Comment: i think you should change the article's name to Zen... Episode 2 isn't a title at all, and you can avoid the unfortunate "Episode 2 is the third episode". There's also wp:commonname and the note [nb 1] explains things well enough. Next: as this an ensemble-cast show, listing them all in the infobox and the lead is a drag; Wikipedia is not IMDb. I suggest dealing with this by naming an actor only when his Character is mentioned.—indopug (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:COMMONNAME would still favour "Episode 2", most of the academic sources and some reviews use that title, as do the home media releases; "Zen, or the Skill to Catch a Killer" is the rarer one, only being used by a few (mostly more recent) sources. I included the mention as it solves some confusion if people search by the unofficial titles. I've removed some of the listed cast in the infobox to trim that down, though the series does feature a large cast of recurring characters so this will seem a bit lengthy compared to other series. GRAPPLE X 20:40, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:19, 23 July 2012 [36].

HMS Agincourt (1913)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66[reply]

It has been quite some time since I've been at FAC, but I hope you enjoy this article, which was developed by Sturmvogel with me as a collaborator. Agincourt had, as one author put it, a 'curious career'. The ship was ordered by Brazil as the next step in the South American dreadnought race, essentially to serve as an instrument of national prestige. Unfortunately for naval supporters in Brazil, now was when the country experienced a major naval revolt and an economic depression... so they sold the ship to the Ottoman Empire. Equally as unfortunate for the Ottomans, the ship was completed just one week after the start of World War I, and Winston Churchill was suspicious that the Ottomans would enter the war on the German side... so he sent British marines to seize the ship (driving the Ottomans into the war). So, as a British ship, Agincourt served in the war before being scrapped a few years after its conclusion, an entirely unremarkable career for something which was previously so controversial. Thank you for your time. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick notes: this is a co-nomination with Sturmvogel 66, who wrote most of the article; the article passed a GAN in December 2011 and a Military history A-class review in June 2012; this is part of the OMT project and the last South American dreadnought to come to FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice article. I think it overstates the role the ship's absorption into the RN had in Turkey joining the war. The seizure of the ships was a factor, but the Goeben and its exploits pushed things over the edge. Needs a mention. --John (talk) 00:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks John, as always. How does it look now? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks great. I appreciate your edits to accommodate my criticism and have made some further adjustments to give a fuller picture. --John (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Crisco 1492
  • "led to her sale while under construction to the Ottoman Empire. " - Her may have to be replaced by "the ship" or "the hull" or whatever is applicable. The sentence may be misread as "sold Brazil" or something equally ludicrous.
  • "but much of the ship's crockery and glassware would shatter." - Why the "would"? Did this ever happen?
  • "Agincourt was working up until" - Is this correct, or would it be "Agincourt was worked up until"

Comments: Looks very well-written. Note that I have a CoI because I collaborate closely with Ed, who's the Signpost's editor in chief. Here are a few minor points from my looking through the lead.

  • "Rising international demand for coffee and rubber in the early 20th century brought Brazil an influx of revenue in the early 1900s." – didn't much like that close repetition.
  • "a drive on the part of prominent Brazilians" – "by prominent ..."?
  • Theme and rheme: "The National Congress of Brazil inaugurated a large naval acquisition program in late 1904. Three Minas Geraes-class dreadnoughts were envisioned under the plan, though it was two years before any ships were ordered, and even longer before construction began." – I'd be inclined to keep the ball running by making "Under the plan" thematic (first position) in the second sentence. Optional remove comma before "and".
  • "As" is such a poorly engineered word in English. I genuinely don't know whether this is a because as or an at the same time as as: "As Brazil's relations with Argentina were warming and the country's economic boom was losing steam, the government negotiated with Armstrong to remove the third dreadnought from the contract, but unsuccessfully." Hope you don't mind: I stole it.
  • Previous one – The last two words come as a sudden thud; perhaps ", but these negotiations were unsuccessful" ["negotations" repeated ... unsure]; or "the government unsuccessfully negotiated ..."; or "the government negotiated without success to ...".


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:19, 23 July 2012 [37].

David Evans (RAAF officer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another RAAF Chief of the Air Staff (CAS), following on from Colin Hannah and James Rowland recently. Just to be different, however, this one wasn't appointed a state governor, though he did run for political office, and he's also the first living subject I've ever nominated at FAC. The last RAAF CAS to have joined up in World War II, Evans never saw action in that conflict, but made up for it as commanding officer of Australia's Canberra bomber squadron in Vietnam. Since then he's been outspoken in his opinions of Australia's defence and peacekeeping efforts, which still makes him decent copy for the media. This was promoted to GA and MilHist A-Class last year and since then I've added material from various sources that have become available, acting on suggestions made at the A-Class review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Another disclaimer: I had to use wikEdDiff on this one (available in a user's preferences tab at Special:Preferences, under "Gadgets", then "Editing"); it's necessary when there have been a lot of small changes since my A-class review and I would rather copyedit from the diff rather than the entire text. That diff can be hard to follow, so there may well be small things (punctuation, spacing, etc.) that I would usually catch that I didn't catch here. - Dank (push to talk) 12:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning to support: I read this through carefully and couldn't find much that obviously needed fixing, though a few small improvements may be possible.

  • As you mention in the lead that he graduated from flying school as a sergeant pilot, you ought to give the date when he received his commission.
  • The fact that his full name is Selwyn David Evans ought to be given in the first line of the article, rather than as an aside, later on.
  • On being commissioned, he became "the most junior name in the 1947 Air Force List of serving officers according to seniority." Well, he would, wouldn't he, until the next commissioning. I wonder why this fact is considered noteworthy rather than a statement of the bleedin' obvious, as we scholars say.
  • What is a "VIP captain"? It's not an air force rank that I recognise so perhaps its function could be made more explicit.
    • Well, turn-about's fair play, this was something I found "bleedin' obvious", i.e. an aircraft captain who specialises in transporting VIPs... ;-) Seriously, I felt that the two relevant sentences in the main body provided context -- no? What if I used the phrase "VIP transport pilot" (or "captain") instead of just "VIP captain"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With due repect, m'lud, it isn't that obvious what the term "VIP captain" refers to, and the uninitiated might think it is a rank, a kind of superior captain. And another problem I have is that the link on Governor-General's Flight informs me that this flight was disbanded "for a second and final time on 1 October 1950". If that information is accurate, you may want to revise your wording, which says that Evans served with the flight between 1954 and 1956. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for an Air Force Cross states that the decoration is for "an act or acts of valour, courage or devotion to duty whilst flying, though not in active operations against the enemy". Is there any evidence that Evans earned the award for any action other than doing his job?
    • I always like to provide as much info as I can on why people receive awards but unfortunately it's rare to find full citations at the Australian War Memorial or in the Gazette for AFCs at the best of times, let alone outside a war. Evans himself doesn't even mention his decorations in his autobiography. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about him just missing active participation in the Korean War would be better given in chronological sequence rather than 15 years later.
  • The "Vietnam War and senior command" section seems to be two unrelated sections, rather than a single one. Consider splitting. I also found the paragraphs a little dense in this section, and perhaps they could be broken up a bit, too.
    • I'd agree few or any of the paragraphs in the article are on the short side. There may also be scope for including the Vietnam War in a new section starting with his involvement in jet bombers in the late 1950s -- let me consider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Evans also stood for political office..." No previous indication is given of his political stance or of any interest in political matters. It would be interesting to know if he was prevailed upon by the Liberal Party to stand as their candidate, or whether this was his own decision. Also, is there any record of other political activity after his failure to get elected in 1987?
    • All fair questions, however his run for office receives not one mention in his autobiography, which would've been the logical place to find some detail on motivations and subsequent political activity; I only found what I did by scouring news archives. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would consider these points? Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the election campaign, not sure if this is the right place to put this but here are some potentially useful sources: [38], [39]. It might be worth noting that the National Party candidate was the colourful Peter Cochran, should the article go into more detail on this, and that this took place in an election where the relationship between the Coalition partners was notorioulsy fraught. Frickeg (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Frickeg, thanks for those. I didn't feel that this one episode in a pretty full life warranted too much detail, but happy to include say another sentence referring to the Liberal funding situation and the fact that there were two conservative candidates. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree with that. Probably the Nats should be mentioned, since this was a concerted challenge to the Libs as the conservative representatives in the area, and in the event the Liberal primary vote dropped 13.9% as the Nats rose 12.6%. Frickeg (talk) 07:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments from Crisco 1492


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 08:19, 23 July 2012 [40].

Marasmius rotula

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marasmius rotula is a widespread and common mushroom with some interesting biological properties. The article has been a GA for over two years, and I recently surveyed the literature to make the article as comprehensive as possible. Thanks again to Circeus for providing a pre-FAC quality control check and ferreting out some of my errors. Sasata (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found some Marasmius mushrooms one of the first times I went out mushroom hunting, so I'm always happy to see them again.

  • "In 1946 Alexander H. Smith and Rolf Singer proposed to conserve the genus name Marasmius over Micromphale, which had nomenclatorial priority, with M. rotula as the lectotype.[10] The generic name Marasmius, with M. rotula as the lectotype species, was later conserved at the 1954 Paris Congress on Botanical Nomenclature.[11][12]" This doesn't read so well.
  • Worth looking into whether it is Marasmius bulliardi or Marasmius bulliardii; both this and the article on the species are inconsistent
  • "In fact the species is relatively intolerant of low water potentials, and will grow poorly or not at all under water stress conditions,[35][36] and is unable to degrade leaf litter until it becomes more fragmented and more compacted so that the water-holding capacity increases in the deeper layers of the soil.[35]" Sentence needs splitting
  • "whereas previous studies using similar methods for other Agaricomycetes showed spore discharge over a period of up to six days after revival only" Very important point, but I wonder if it could be said in a slightly different way? The hanging "only" doesn't come across that well.
  • It's perhaps worth noting that "horse-hair fungus" is also used for other Marasmius species? (Marasmius androsaceus is mentioned by Roger Phillips)

There are some great pictures in this article, and the use of quotations really adds some interest. I don't understand the last paragraph, but do not let that be a criticism; it's late, and I'm certainly not a chemist. I made some small edits. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are great, no licensing issues. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • response to an internal timer, or circadian rhythm — I'm not sure I'd bother with internal timer
  • broom cells— could do with explaining at first occurrence
  • 8.0 cm (3.1 in) long by 1.5 mm thick— There is a case for not converting the mm measurement, I've done that myself, but further on you have converted a mm range to imperial. Needs to be consistent
  • trama — Unlinked, unexplained
  • Isolated collections — Does this literally means a collection, or is this mycojargon for growing there?
  • FWIW, I'm happy with the last para (but I do have a chemistry degree)
  • Support I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria though, not much that I can complain about. I'm really starting to enjoy these mushroom articles. I made some minor tweaks as I read through, and just have a few small comments. (Note though that I'm very ignorant of the subject matter.)
  • ” The type species of the genus Marasmius, M. rotula was first described” should there be a second comma here?
  • ” were more readily obtained if the end of the stem was” Should there be a subjunctive here?
  • “The fruit bodies, or mushrooms, of M. rotula are characterized by their whitish, thin, membranous caps” Not a big deal, but I noticed that you listed three things without an “and” here. “Their apical surfaces are covered with yellowish blunt, conical warts” as well.
  • “In 1887, Pier Andrea Saccardo described” I’d suggest removing the comma here for consistency.
  • I’d suggest delinking [[tan (color)|tan]].
  • Check repeat linking: Rhizomorph, Partial veil, Marasmius bulliardii, Rolf Singer.

Source check, spotchecks not done.

  • "RogersMushrooms" doesn't need to be italicised
  • "New Taxa and New combinations of Agaricales (Diagnoses Fungorum Novorum Agaricalium IV)" is currently formatted as something between a book and an article. I'd go for one or the other. (For instance, if it's a book, the capitalisation should be adjusted and a publication location should be added.)
  • Check your spelling of the title of the Bulletin de la Société Royale de Botanique de Belgique article

Everything is evidently reliable; good, published sources, or uncontroversial information from websites of published authors. I personally would go for more wikilinks- notable magazines/journals, publishers and so on. But that's your choice, it's fine how it is. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am happy that this is an extremely strong article, very much worthy of featured status. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks JM. I've fixed the citation issues you listed above. I tend to employ a more conservative link philosophy in the references section, more out of habit than anything else at this point. I've been thinking for a while about starting up a "mushroom MoS", and perhaps the Fungi wikiproject can hash out the details of best practices for style/linking and other similar issues. Sasata (talk) 07:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- I can't think of many less controversial subjects than funghi, nevertheless going through recent FACs it seems to have been a while since you've had a spotcheck of sources, Sasata -- unless I've missed one lately that you can point out? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks and Comments from Cryptic C62:

  • "In his 1821 Natural Arrangement of British Plants, Samuel Frederick Gray introduced the generic name Micromphale, including the species Micromphale collariatum,(Ref 1) which was based on William Withering's 1796 Merulius collariatus.(Ref 9)" Two problems here. Ref 1 calls itself "A Natural Arrangement of British Plants"; note the "A" in front. The other problem is that although Withering 1796 does use the name Merulius collariatus, there is no indication in either source that this was the inspiration for Gray's name for the same species. Is there a third source out there which makes this connection?
  • Added the missing "A". In most fungus articles that I write, the general reference for taxonomical opinions and species synonymy is given in the citation in the taxobox beside "Synonyms" (in this case, Index Fungorum). You'll note, however, that the link between the two names is not spelled out explicitly on the IF page—it takes a bit of "insider" knowledge to know that if Merulius collariatus With. and Micromphale collariatum (With.) Gray are listed as synonyms, the authorship of the latter synonym indicates that it is based on the name of the former–the name in parentheses indicates the original author. In this specific instance though, Gray does indicate the naming sequence Agaricus rotula Scop. -> Agaricus collariatus With. -> Merulius collariatus With.. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for Ref 6 does not indicate what language the article is written in.
  • "M. rotuloides, known only from Trinidad, has smaller, ovoid spores measuring 5 by 2.5 µm. (Ref 33)" No sourcing or paraphrasing problems here, but is this really the best comparison that can be drawn between the two species? I would think that some characteristic that is visible to the naked eye (or tongue) would be more helpful to the lay reader.
  • As far as my Google-Latin translation skills can tell, there are no major macroscopic differences between the two species; only the distribution and the spore size set them apart. This is not uncommon in the mushroom world; in some cases species that are otherwise macro- and microscopically identical are declared different because of sufficient difference in DNA sequence. Will the lay reader care about this poorly known mushroom from an exotic locale that's probably only been collected and written about once? I doubt it. I thought about leaving this out, but criteria 1b requires that the article is comprehensive, and it didn't seem right to omit mention of a lookalike species that is specifically named after the article subject (rotula -> rotuloides). Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence as it is currently written does not suggest that this is the only differentiating feature. The beginning of the Similar species section suggests that the species therein will differ by some macroscopic characteristic; mentioning macroscopic differences for all of the other species except this one just makes the reader go "...so how does it look different?". If the answer is "It doesn't.", then that should be mentioned explicitly. Also, if rotuloides is named after rotula, isn't that also worth mentioning? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, the beginning of this section does say that "... differences in size, gill arrangement, and substrate are usually sufficient field characteristics to distinguish between them." But your suggestion is valid: I've now mentioned explicitly that microscopy is needed to distinguish them, and moved this species comparison to the end of the paragraph to set it apart from the previous species that have macroscopic distinguishing features. Unfortunately, the source doesn't say unequivocally that rotuloides is based on rotula, so I'd prefer not to do so here. Sasata (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species is relatively intolerant of low water potentials, and will grow poorly or not at all under water stress conditions.Ref 37Ref 38" Ref 38 supports this statement, but I'm not sure that Ref 37 does. Unless I'm misinterpreting the data, the results table in Ref 37 seems to indicate that M. rotula is the most tolerant of low water potentials of the species that were studied. The final remarks of the article say that "many of the important litter-decomposing agarics in the genera Marasmius ... were more sensitive to water stress", but the authors don't give any specific statements on which species they were referring to. Your thoughts?
  • I think it does support the statement based on these quotes from the source: "All nine litter-decomposing agarics proved to be relatively intolerant of water stress, ..." and later "... five were more sensitive to water stress and ceased growth at water potentials below –3.0 MPA (referring to the Wilson 1979 paper) ... The results reported here suggest that many of the important litter-decomposing agarics in the genera Marasmius ... may fall into the latter category." The only two Marasmius species tested in this paper were M. rotula and M. androsaceus, so I don't think my summary of their results is a distortion of the facts. Sasata (talk) 04:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm slightly confused as to why there is only one work in the Cited literature section.
  • It's like an abbreviated version of "short-form" footnotes. I cite Gilliam (1976) several times, with widely differing page numbers (and direct links to those pages); it seems like the most economical solution to give this information. All of the other references can be adequately covered by just giving the article page ranges, or, in some instances, specifying a single page within the larger page range.
  • I think the lead should mention the distribution of the shroom.
  • What makes Ref 19 a reliable source? The About Us page doesn't seem to indicate that the author has any expertise in mycology or botany whatsoever, nor does there appear to be any peer-review process for the web content he has created. If "collared parachute" is a commonly-used synonym for this mushroom, surely that would be mentioned in some scholarly journal article, yes? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meep. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 07:25, 23 July 2012 [41].

Cosima Wagner

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cosima Wagner was the daughter of a fairly malign genius (Liszt), and became wife to another of a similar stamp. And she stacked up plenty of negatives on her own account: austere, glacial, unforgiving, obsessive, a rampant anti-Semite... Yet she served Wagner's music well, as both his late muse and as the protector of his legacy. One over-obsequious critic opined, at her death, that she was one of the greatest women who ever lived. Yeah, right; subsequent judgements were considerably less indulgent, though most give her some grudging credit. Trying to present a balanced account of such a controversial life is not easy, but I have done my best. Thanks to peer reviewers in general, and to Ruhrfisch in particular for image assistance. All comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just minor quibbles:

  • I don't generally include ALT, as I remain unpersuaded that such text is of any real benefit; for instance, should one be asked to provide a description in words of a piece of music, for the benefit of aurally-impaired readers? The issue is one on which opinions are always likely to differ. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Schooling and adolescence": could imagine the picture next to the paragraph that mentions the lady
  • same: I don't know if ugly duckling is known well enough - or should be linked?
  • "Marriage to Hans von Bülow": "Frau Franziska von Bülow", why "Frau? (it's not a title) Frau von Bülow is fine. Why "Bülow, not "von Bülow"?
  • I've dropped the "Frau". The question of "von" was raised by Tim riley at the peer review. He points out, correctly, that in English prose the convention is to drop the von except in formal mentions of a person's name, and I have followed this practice. This conforms with all the English-language sources. Brianboulton (talk) 10:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I miss something about Cosima as a mother of her daughters.
  • "transfigured", suggest to also give the German word
  • "Munich and Tribschen": "the sacking both of Ludwig's cabinet secretary and his prime minister"?
  • same: "Cosima wrote to Bülow", "from Wagner and Cosima", "Cosima and Wagner were married" - one first name, one last?
  • "Building the Festspielhaus": suggest the picture later
  • same: "Green Hill", provide the well known "Grüner Hügel" also
  • same: suggest "Bayreuth Festival", once also "Bayreuther Festspiele", otherwise "festival"
  • same: why the Figaro critic in brackets, but not the other?
  • "Parsifal": the par on anti-Semitism comes a bit out of context
  • same: Kapellmeister, German nouns capital
  • "Venice and widowhood": widowhood would be correct for all her remaining lifetime, no?
  • "Mistress of Bayreuth": I would not know how to understand Mistress here
  • The context will be pretty clear to the English readership. If you can suggest an alternative, equally clear term, I'd be happy to consider it.
  • I am most familiar with the verb "hüten" (from which Hüterin is derived) in the context of shepherds and goalkeepers. I do not think there is a standard one-to-one translation of Hüter or Hüterin (masculine and feminine forms) in English, but guardian is a good translation, especially in this context. That said, I have to agree with Brian that Mistress of Bayreuth is very clear in context to this native English speaker. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In general: an excellent approach, looking at many facets of the topic. I would enjoy some more quotes in original German. I don't know if more were available on HER view of historical facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:03, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have your support, Gerda. Brianboulton (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Carr 2007 or 2008? Why include date in short citations when there is only one source by this author?

Image review - as noted above, I reviewed the images and find that they all are free and properly licensed and sourced including the new image of Ludwig II). I peer reviewed this, but need to re-read it carefully; I imagine I will support after the PR, where all my concerns were addressed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I was involved in the peer review and all of my minor concerns were addressed there. THis more than meets the FAC criteria, well done! Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:11, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • PS I do note that "Festival" is capitalized everywhere except in the header "First festival" and twice in the first paragraph of the Parsifal section. For consistency these should also be capitalized. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 12:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support. The question of the capitalisation of "Festival" was raised by Gerda, above - see my response. I am still pondering this, but whatever I do I will ensure that there is consistency in the treatment. Brianboulton (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Although not an expert by any means on music or on Wagner, I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article. If the subject is a little disagreeable, I think this gives a very rounded view of her. Just a few minor comments, which do not affect my support and may be cheerfully dismissed out of hand. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "In December 1859 she was saddened by the death of her brother Daniel, at the age of 20…", and later, "In December 1859 she was saddened by the death of her brother Daniel, at the age of 20…" I'm a little uncomfortable ascribing feelings like this without any obvious way of seeing what she was actually thinking or feeling. But maybe I'm missing something, or maybe the sources are clear.
  • I'm not too clear about the "and later" part of your comment, since you merely repeat the phrase just quoted. On the matter of Daniel's death, the source describes Cosima as "numb with grief", so my wording is pretty restrained. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lizst sort of vanishes early on. Did he have any views of her marriage to Wagner? And her conversion? Do we know what his relationship with her was like in later years? Or her opinion of him?
  • Lizst definitely took a back seat in Cosima's life after her marriage to Wagner, who was her father's age and his equal or more in musical terms. You get an idea of Liszt's diminished status in Cosima's eyes through her behaviour when he inconveniently died during a Bayreuth festival. She went through the motions, but would not allow the festival to be disrupted. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wagner announced the first Bayreuth Festival for 1873": This sounds quite definite, but then we later read that it was deferred. What about "scheduled the first Bayreuth Festival"?
  • He made an announcement – probably a "pronouncement" if I understand Wagner's style. Then circumstances forced a delay. "Scheduling" is I think a more recent idiom and I would prefer the present wording to remain. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some contemporary opinions of her in the early part of the article, but nothing later. Is there anything significant that people at the time said about her? What did they think at the time? What did her family think of her? I appreciate that this may all be unknown. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we have her as "a magnificent-looking woman, a perfect queen" at the time of the first Festival. Thereafter the sources don't really provide snapshots, but we understand the type of woman she was by her actions - her business acumen, her hold over her family in all matters relating to the staging of Wagner's works, etc. Of course, in her last 25 years or so, few apart from her immediate family got anywhere near her. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your interest in this article (a far cry from the cricket fields of England) and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I had my say, and little it was, at the peer review. Sorry to be so slow to notice it was languishing here, but frankly, I rarely look at the nominations list these days. But a very worthy article, well worth the star.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 15:07, 22 July 2012 [43].

German battleship Bismarck

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second attempt here at FAC for this article. The primary concern over the article the last time around was the prose; the article has since had a copy-edit from one of the GOCE editors, which should have helped address those issues. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article is an example of Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Continuing. "St. Nazaire": Probably drop the full stop (period) since this is BrEng. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search throughout for "St.".
  • "it was high speed and erratic manoeuvres to evade the torpedoes that inflicted more serious damage.": the high speed and erratic manoeuvres used to evade the torpedoes inflicted more serious damage.
  • "... loosened collision mats stemming the flood from the forward shell hole. Flooding increased, and eventually ...": loosened collision mats, so that flooding from the forward shell hole increased; eventually
  • "attempted to find him": attempted to find her
    • I thought I had gotten rid of all of that "Hitler called Bismarck 'him' so we have to" nonsense...
  • "Fifteen aircraft comprised the second attack, which was launched at 19:10": the second attack comprised fifteen aircraft and was launched at 19:10
  • "The explosion caused serious damage to the port rudder assembly; the coupling was badly damaged and the rudder was then unable to be disengaged ...": The coupling on the port rudder assembly was badly damaged and the rudder could not be disengaged
  • "A suggestion to sever the port rudder with explosives was dismissed by Lütjens, who stated "We cannot endanger the ship with measures of that kind." He felt that the danger of damaging the screws, which would have left the battleship helpless, was too great.": ... was dismissed by Lütjens, as damage to the screws would have left the battleship helpless. - Dank (push to talk) 00:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Search throughout for "Dr.".
    • You don't use periods in title abbreviations in BE?
      • It's not exactly wrong, but "Dr" is more common than "Dr." in BrEng, so mostly as a matter of avoiding frequent "corrections", we're usually going with "Dr" at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "opened fire. Almost immediately after,": opened fire, then
  • "Rodney fired two torpedoes from her port-side tube (a shell from Bismarck had exploded 20 feet off the bow and rendered the starboard tube useless—the closest Bismarck came to a direct hit on Rodney) and claimed one hit—a claim which, according to Ludovic Kennedy, "if true, [is] the only instance in history of one battleship torpedoing another".: Break that one up.
  • "One of the holes is in the deck, on the bow's starboard side. The angle and shape indicates it was fired from Bismarck's port side and struck the starboard anchor chain.": The hole was fired? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now per my unaddressed comments at: Talk:German battleship Bismarck#Edit warring over references in the Wehrmachtbericht. Sorry Parsecboy; this article has an awful lot to recommend it, but I can't support its promotion with a section which will be incomprehensible to most readers owing to the lack of context, and is basically wartime propaganda of questionable relevance to modern readers. I'd be open to discussing this further, and examples of recent works on the ship which also make a big deal about the ship being mentioned in these radio broadcasts would be helpful, but at best this warrants mentions in the body of the article rather than verbatim transcripts, and even then context is required. I also don't think that the short paragraph in 'Media portrayals of sinking' warrants its own section. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nick is on the right track, but my support for his position is strictly as a copyeditor and as an observer of Featured Articles ... that is, I'm not saying that information about the Wehrmachtbericht shouldn't be in Wikipedia, it should. But never that amount of detail here; Featured Articles are meant to be very accessible ... Main Page stuff. By the time you've got all the readers to understand the significance of the report, translated all the text, explained the impact that such reports had on the German people ... you've gone past the limits of the attention spans of the readers who have made it this far in the article. Remember WP:PSTS, too; Wikipedia's style, and nowhere more than in Featured Articles, is not to regurgitate primary sources, but to summarize them according to their weight and set them in context. - Dank (push to talk) 11:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all good points - I wasn't wedded to the stuff to begin with, so I don't see a problem with removing it. I've removed the direct quotes and added a short summary to the paragraph about media portrayals, and merged that into the previous section header.
By the way, is anybody else having trouble editing today? I keep getting a "loss of session data" error message, even though the edit window was open for less than a minute. Parsecboy (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I got several of those messages last night, so it wasn't just you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what the issue was - glad to hear I wasn't the only one :) Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've struck my oppose, and will provide a full review over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I look forward to it. Parsecboy (talk) 13:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - on what source(s) was File:Rheinuebung_Karte.png based? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I had asked the creator of the image during the last FAC, and a month later he blanked his talk without replying. He either didn't see it or didn't care to answer. At this point, it's probably best to just remove the map, as I don't think we'll get a timely answer from him. Parsecboy (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I've added a fair-use image depicting the discovery of the wreck (here) - the FUR should be fine, but you might want to look at it to double-check. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PumpkinSky

  • Has the image Nikki mentions been removed?
    • Didn't you look? :p
  • "(who was serving on the destroyer Tartar at the time.)" Seems to me the period should be after the closing parens.
  • Ref 117, "p. 538–540" should be "pp. 538–540"
    • Sure should.
PumpkinSky talk 23:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the "p. 538–540" issue (fixed a few other bits, too). Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Comments Sorry about the one week delay; I was much busier last weekend than I expected to be. Here are my comments:

  • The article is really well written - great work. I think that this is the most interesting of any of the battleship articles to date.
  • "Bismarck was the first of two Bismarck-class battleships built for the German Kriegsmarine shortly before World War II" - this is a bit misleading given that neither of the ships was completed before the war.
    • Yeah, I had some trouble with the wording on this; "the late 1930s" isn't entirely accurate either. Perhaps the best course of action is to just remove that bit, since the construction timeline is in the next line.
  • Did HMS Prince of Wales really suffer "heavy damage"? From memory, she was back in action after a few weeks of repairs, and the article states that she was combat-ready not long after the Battle of the Denmark Strait
    • Good point - removed that bit.
  • Note C seems unnecessary given that this material is in the body of the article (where it works quite well)
    • I think you're right.
  • "The two German ships rained shells on Prince of Wales" - this sounds like a huge number of shells were fired, yet it's later stated that Bismark only fired 93 shells during the entire engagement. This kind of wording is appropriate for the Battle of Surigao Strait, but seems an over-statement here.
    • You're probably right, though I'm having a bit of trouble trying to reword it. Do you have any suggestions?
  • I'm surprised that there's no material on the desperate mood among the ship's crew after her rudder was jammed given that this is covered in several sources
    • Added a couple of lines on that, and the demoralizing effects of the messages from Marinegruppe West.
  • The paragraph dedicated to James Cameron's assessment of the ship seems excessive: I don't believe that he's an authority on this kind of topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My above comments have now been addressed. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe worth mentioning? KzS de:Harald Netzbandt was Lütjens chief of staff and next to Lütjens and Lindemann the most senior officer on Bismarck who had already commanded Gneisenau. He was very much involved in the decision processes and posthumously received the German Cross in Gold. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 11:36, 22 July 2012 [44].

Nickel (United States coin)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the criteria. The nickel is a major workhorse of the economy, and costs more than twice its face value to make. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doubleday and Co or just Doubleday?

And Co. I let the template put in the full stop. Yes, I know it's unusual, as is the Garden City location, that's an unusual book. I think it was a giveaway item, mostly, though it is certainly a fine and rather scholarly book. It's not copyrighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Frazier: formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you provide publisher and location for magazines/journals
  • Use a consistent date format
  • United States Mint or The United States Mint?
  • Usually see USA Today instead of all-caps. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done except Doubleday as noted. Thank you. I had put a hidden note in the reference.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below reading through the article, feel free to revert my copyediting. Looks good thus far, very accessible.
  • In the third paragraph of the lead, three consecutive sentences start with "In..."
  • Have you thought about providing modern-day equivalents for the sums of money?
  • "for melting and restriking into US coin" Should it be coin or coinage here?
  • I suggest linking Grain (unit).
  • "and if the nickel was gold-plated" Should this be subjunctive? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking. I generally do not favor modern day equivalents, simply because I really don't believe in them. I've been convinced by Fifelfoo that they are better left out, you can't compare eras where even the middle class had two or three live in servants with today. I'll wait until you're off the article before attempting fixes of the other things.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a problem with the equivalents. I'm signing off now, no worries about edit conflicts. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes you've suggested. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:01, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Few nickels had circulated in the West before the 1880s" Might want to clarify or link West here.
  • "Clarence Hobbs of the Hobbs Manufacturing Company, of Worcester, Massachusetts," Is the company's location relevant here? *"The last Buffalo nickels were struck in April 1938, at the Denver Mint, the only mint to strike them that year." Do you need the first comma here? Mark Arsten (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done those.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alright, I'm satisfied that this meets FA quality as best as I can tell. I can't speak to completeness, but otherwise this looks fine. In other words, up to your usual standards of top-notch work. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review and the nice comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by PumpkinSky
    • There is section on the cost of the coin, which discusses alternatives to the current metal make of the coin. But this does not mention the moves to get rid of the nickel (same situation with the US penny exists too). Perhaps this option could be mentioned.
    • FN 32 "^ Yeoman 2011, p. 109–110." should be pp not p.
    • PumpkinSky talk 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The penny, I've seen info about that, the nickel not as much, except in Canada, where there is at least some effort on. The other, I've fixed. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments just minor spelling errors

Fixed, thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support now PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check images look good. PumpkinSky talk 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have reviewed many of the articles in the American coinage series, a project which still seems to have plenty of life left in it. Only a few relatively minor issues to raise, which won't affect support:-

Background
  • Eckfeldt recalls Washington supplying silver bullion for the half dismes. But later you say "By legend, President Washington supplied silverware ... for the coins". Two slightly different versions.
Washington supplying bullion for the half dismes differs from the idea of "silverware at Mount Vernon". One is considerably more romantic. Eckfeldt never mentioned the silverware in particular, as far as I can tell, though sources on him are scant (if they were not, I'd be moving him towards FA).
  • "coinage [singular] was being heavily exported, as they [plural]..."
  • "the half dime ceased to be struck after 1805. It was not struck again until 1829;..." I imagine a few words could be saved here.
  • Fourth paragraph, second sentence: "Also in 1837..." Nothing else is attributed to 1837; I would remove "also".
Inception
  • Give dates for the Civil War, and maybe specifically identify it (American Civil War). (You'd be surprised how ignorant we are, over here).
  • The Clark cock-up is well explained here (quite hilarious!), but I was a bit mystified by the cryptic reference to this affair in the lead, so maybe add a word or two there?
  • "This made the new coin heavy, in terms of weight per $.01 of face value, to the three-cent copper-nickel coin." There appears to be a word or two missing; "...compared to the three-cent copper-nickel coin" ?
Growth of the nickel in commerce
  • "That year, Mint Director George E. Roberts called on Congress that year..." Definitely some repetition there
Buffalo or Indian Head (1913–1938)
  • I had some difficulty in distinguishing between MacVeagh father and MacVeigh son. For example, which MacVeagh wrote: "Tell him that of the three sketches..." etc? Do all the references to MacVeagh after the blockquote refer to Secretary MacVeagh? Needs to be clarified.
Design and name controversies
  • What's the difference between a buffalo and a bison? Schoolboy answer: You can't wash in a buffalo. (Ignore this)
Western Journey commemoratives (2004–2005)
  • Why did the Mint approach Rep. Cantor? What special powers or authority did he have?
  • "...followed by a depiction of a keelboat like that used by the Expedition by Mint sculptor-engraver Al Maletsky." Needs a bit of work to avoid the impression that Maletsky was a member of the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
Thanks for the comments and the support. Actually, I've gotten through most of the 20th century coins ... I will make the changes Wednesday when I have better internet.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. I understand that you are cruising at the moment, so pick these up when you can. Brianboulton (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got those done. Unfortunately, the source doesn't say on the Cantor issue. I'll do some hunting, but it may be one of those things where they had a reason, but they would rather not say.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the changes you've made. Pity about Cantor, but never mind. I'm sorry you couldn't raise a smile at my "joke" (ho ho ho). Brianboulton (talk) 09:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did have a smile at it, I must say. I will check my paper references after I get home and see if they shed any light. I'd like to know too, and with Cantor a significant figure, it would be nice to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:56, 15 July 2012 [45].

Melville Island (Nova Scotia)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This non-island was the site of a POW facility beginning in the late 1700s, and was used for that purpose at intervals into the 1900s - along with being a receiving depot for escaped slaves, a quarantine hospital, a Foreign Legion recruitment centre, a military prison, a town fair...it might not be as well known as its neighbouring non-island Deadman's Island (probably because of the name), but I believe this article to be a comprehensive and well-sourced account of the site. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Lead - "British Foreign Legion" looks like it needs to be linked to somewhere, or even redlinked - I must say I've never heard of it, and I'm not the best person to suggest a relevant wikilink target for this.
  • I don't know that there is a good wikilink currently, though redlinking is fine - here's a tiny bit of info, if you're interested
  • I've linked McNab's Island to McNabs Island, which I presume to be identical. Any idea which form is correct (i.e. apostrophe or no apostrophe)?
  • I've seen both, so I guess we'll go with what our article uses
  • I'm dropping in wikilinks as I read through. Feel free to revert anything that doesn't seem appropriate.
  • Geography - "Area birds include..." - maybe "Local birds include..."?
  • Should Halifax Citadel be linked to Citadel Hill (Fort George)? This link says the weather station there is inactive.
  • Early settlement - "...for £65" - any idea how much this would be in today's terms?

Simon Burchell (talk) 20:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. Always a pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 23:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

In the opening image, is the island visible in the distance Melville Island, or was the photograph taken on Melville? Interchangeable 01:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former; Melville is the land in the middle of the image, with the buildings on it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that should be clarified. Interchangeable 15:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- interesting subject, Nikki; no ce this time, just comments:

  • The site was first discovered by Europeans in the 1600s -- "first discovered" is a bit tautological; think you can only discover something once so suggest either "first seen" or simply "discovered".
  • Aboriginals linked under Early Settlement but not in the lead.
  • fear of "fever" -- particular reason for putting fever in inverted commas?
  • fifteen French fishermen and 16 other prisoners within a sentence or two -- unless I've missed something, doesn't seem consistent rendering of double-digit numbers, whatever the standard pls check throughout.
  • £1000 in 1804 (£68,634 as of 2010) -- why comma for 1000s in the second figure but not the first?
  • Heh, I wouldn't expect anything but MOS compliance from you, Nikki, nevertheless I find commas for 1000s much clearer with all the four-digit figures and all the years flying around here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a big thing but the first two paras of Napoleonic Wars begin with "The land" -- perhaps start the first para with "Melville Island" (since it's a new section anyway).
  • In late 1805, a group of officers broke parole and escaped; this led the garrison captain to restrict the purchase of prisoner-made goods -- sorry, do we know exactly why one led to the other (a file in a cake or something)?
  • (though Cuthbertson disputes the likelihood of this claim) -- suggest this might be better in a footnote than in the text, otherwise introduce the chap to us as "historian <first name> Cuthbertson disputes..." or some such.
  • Approximately 1535 French prisoners -- again suggest comma for 1000s, all these four-figure numbers are starting to look like years to me... ;-)
  • Accounts of prison life vary: Cuthbertson says... -- fine as is if you introduce him earlier, otherwise pls do so here.
  • He had also been accused of cruelty by American newspapers, though some prisoners defended him and the veracity of the media claims is questionable -- think you want a comma after "defended him".
  • Exactly right -- directly after I saved this bunch of comments, I went back in and removed this one -- guess I didn't save the edit (well, it was late)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference Fascinating Canada : a book of questions and answers -- I'd expect to see title case for what appears to be a book title (same for a few others) and not sure why we have spaces on both sides of the colon here, others don't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except where noted, should be addressed. Thanks for the comments, Ian. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tks. I disagree with the 1000s/commas thing even if strictly within MOS, per my comments above, but won't withhold support on that count -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a lot of the licencing is quite weak; files such as File:1878-melville.gif do not state their US copyright status, although it is in fact clear that such files entered the public domain before the required 1996 date. More problematic, however, is File:1855-Melville Island.jpg, which asserts a life+100, despite the author's date of death not being listed. [It was published in 1855, apparently. It is therefore possible the author lived to 1912.] If that can be ascertained, then there are still corporate/individual issues to consider, and whether the work was published in the US within 30 days or not (1923 being the date if it was. URAA considerations come in if not). Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 12:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bland died in 1893. I've added some tags to the other images. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 17:59, 14 July 2012 [46].

Richard John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parrot of Doom 22:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Largely unknown outside the UK, Lord Lucan's story is one of this country's most famous murder mysteries. Hours after his childrens' nanny was bludgeoned to death and placed in a canvas sack, and his wife savagely attacked, this peer of the realm vanished into the night, never to be seen again. No body was ever found, and despite numerous sightings across the world, for almost 40 years his ultimate fate has remained unknown. A regular feature of the tabloids and broadsheets, including fresh claims made only this year, his story remains as relevant now as it did all those years ago.

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN90: why no date?
  • FN2: should indicate subscription needed. Highbeam and ProQuest links should also
  • FN104: formatting
  • Further reading: an Observer article published by the Guardian? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done and done. Observer articles are routinely published on the Guardian's website. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they're sister newspapers (Observer on Sundays, Guardian during the week). BencherliteTalk 20:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below very interesting article, glad to see it at FAC. Just started a read through, only a few small comments thus far, great reading:
  • Make sure the citations are in numerical order: "a keen poker player.[7][2]" should be "a keen poker player.[2][7]"
  • I don't think it's required, but you might want to add modern-day equivalents to the amounts of money you mention.
  • You might want to mention London in the first couple sections, some readers may not realize where places like Park Crescent are.
  • "Despite the family's rich ancestry, the earl and his wife were agnostics and socialists and preferred a more austere existence to that offered by Tucker, an extremely wealthy Christian." I'm a bit confused here, what did agnosticism have to do with their austere lifestyle?
  • "Her mother remarried, and when her new husband became manager of a hotel in Guildford, the family returned to England." Is the second comma here neccessary?
  • "Lucan also acquired his father's titles;" & "Much to their managers' consternation, his four bank accounts were hugely overdrawn;" should these be colons?
  • "Champion of the West Coast of America" Just check, but is this a title? If not, I don't think Champion needs to be capitalized.
  • "The pressure of maintaining his finances, his gambling addiction, and Veronica's weakening mental condition eventually took its toll" Is the serial comma intentional here? I don't think you used it earlier.
  • "Lucan also applied to the discrete" Is this the correct "discrete"?
  • "He dated his girlfriend, 21-year-old Charlotte Andrina Colquhoun, who said that "he seemed very happy, just his usual self, and there was nothing to suggest that he was worried or depressed",[50] and dined at the Clermont with Graham Hill.[51]" Just checking, this is still on the 6th?
  • "While there she met Roger Rivett and on 10 June 1967 the two married, in Croydon" Do you need the comma here?
  • "She was by then listed on the books of a Belgravia agency" I'd suggest linking Belgravia here. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the citation order.
Modern-day values - I've turned that rock over once before and suffered a bit of a shitstorm because of it, so I'd rather just leave that kind of thing to those who know best.
Added a London to the first line.
Lucan was/is the son of an earl, a peer of the realm. They're all fairly blue-blooded clingers on to the monarchy's tails, who are the representatives of the Church of England. It was pretty unusual for his parents, in their day, to turn away from the church, and even more unusual for such folk to become staunch socialists. What Lucan must have thought, living with an unbelievably rich Christian and returning home to a stingy socialist agnostic, we can only speculate on. There's a good deal to be said about his parents' socialism but I think that's better placed in the 6th earl's article, lest I go off on a tangent.
I think the comma is necessary else the sentence becomes rather short of breath.
"Champion of the West Coast of America" is capitalised in the source, I'm not aware of what the title represents.
I think the first requires a colon so I've changed that; the second, I don't think it serves as an introduction so I think the semicolon is fine.
I've restructured the "pressure of" sentence as it could be better.
Fixed "discreet"
Clarified the Graham Hill bit.
Restructured the Rivett marriage bit
Linked Belgravia. Parrot of Doom 21:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I'm back. Finished my read of the article and I'm close to supporting. Easily the most interesting FAC I've read since the Tichborne case--I wish we had more featured articles like this. I typed these comments up a few days ago, so some may have already been fixed since then:
  • Watch for consistency in comma use after opening time expression, I think you might want to remove these: "On the day Veronica Lucan was discharged from hospital,", "On Sunday, the" & "In 2007, reporters in New Zealand"
I think the first is fine (I tend to read things in my head, like a newsreader would). I've reworded the Corsair sentence. Use of commas after years changes throughout the article, not on any particular rule, but rather on how easy I think they make reading those sentences. The last "In 2007," really should have a "And" or "More recently", but that would introduce a bit of repetition.
  • "67 year old judge — would believe — and I no" & "sack ...Countess runs out screaming", and "BELGRAVIA MURDER — EARL SOUGHT" I believe spaced emdashes are frowned upon.
Ah yes but they're copied verbatim from the source, which I presume has copied the formatting of the original letters (I can check this).
  • "Lucan was last seen driving a Ford Corsair similar to this" Should there be a period here?
I'm not sure. Is it a partial sentence or a complete sentence? Borderline, I'm not fussed either way though.
  • Very minor issue, but this is the WP:PLUSING: "with some officers complaining"
Good spot, reworded.
  • Is there a good way to do this sentence with less commas? "Within days of the murder, reports began to appear about Veronica Lucan's statement to the police, including claims that she had pretended to collude with her husband, to ensure her safety."
Reworded.
  • Do we need the comma here? "including a lawyer hired for Lucan, by his mother." & "Ranson later changed his view, explaining that he considered it more likely that suicide was far from Lucan's thouga
Done.
  • Is the serial comma intentional here: "Ranson later changed his view, explaining that he considered it more likely that suicide was far from Lucan's thoughts, that a rumoured drowning at sea was implausible, and that the earl had left the country and settled in southern Africa." & "his assertions make no provision for the lead pipe discovered in the boot of the Ford Corsair, the claims by some that he discussed murdering his wife, or the lack of a viable suspect for the man he claimed to have seen fighting her."
Fixed the first by rewording. The second, I think the comma works better there. It's a long sentence.
  • "His heir, George Bingham, Lord Bingham, was refused permission to take his father's title and seat in the House of Lords.[118][119]" How unusual was it for something like this to occur?
Pretty unusual yes, it's a technicality but he can't take his father's title without a death certificate. I thought it more relevant to Lord Bingham's article though.
  • I see that you have heavily cited the Ranson and Moore sources, but not used several of the non-fiction works in the further reading. Why didn't you cite more of them? (I assume there are reliability issues?)
From what I can gather from online reviews, the others either repeat what sources I've used, or are complete rubbish (Jungle Barry for instance). Ranson was the detective in charge of the murder case so his credibility is sound, Moore's book (although somewhat biased) seems quite exhaustively researched (she just seems to hate women).
It's been on television a few times. I'd love to see a dramatisation ala Moors Murders. Parrot of Doom 20:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help spotting my many mistakes :) Parrot of Doom 08:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image review from Crisco 1492
File:Lord and Lady Lucan.jpg - You have a, er, different format, but it looks valid. Image copyright is not held by the Daily Mail so it doesn't fall afoul of our rules against using non-free press images
File:Sandra Rivett Daily Mail.jpg - The image is huge for a fair-use image. It can be further trimmed. Image copyright is presumably not held by the Daily Mail so it doesn't fall afoul of our rules against using non-free press images
Cropped and reduced. Parrot of Doom 11:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Ford Consul Corsair1965.jpg looks fine.
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
  • "Veronica and her sister, Christina, were schooled at St Swithun's School, Winchester, and after displaying a talent for art, she went on to study at an art college in Bournemouth." - Might need a way to show it was Veronica who went to study at the art college (which? is it in the sources?)
Reworded.
  • Is "The earl's daily routine consisted of breakfast at 9:00 am, coffee, dealing with the morning's letters, reading the newspapers and playing the piano. He sometimes jogged in the park and, while he had him, took his Doberman Pinscher for walks. Lunch at the Clermont was followed by afternoon games of backgammon. Returning home to change into evening attire, the earl typically spent the remainder of the day at the Clermont, gambling into the early hours, watched sometimes by Veronica." necessary?
Yes, because on the day of the murder that routine changed. I don't want to say so explicitly as I've been trying hard not to risk libel (Lucan may still be knocking around).
These were huge sums of money. They're there to ram home just how close to bankruptcy Lucan was. Parrot of Doom 11:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've filled those citation requests. Parrot of Doom 09:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A gripping story, familiar to most Brits over a certain age (e.g. me). I think, however, that the article needs further work. The following is a list of points picked up during a rapid skim-through; I haven't found time yet for a detailed reading, but hope to do so soon.

  • I found the opening of the lead rather weak. The declaratory sentences should at least state that Lucan was named at the inquest as Rivett's murderer, that he never reappeared, and that he has been the subject of many false sightings in the intervening years. These are the factors that have given the case its allure.
A lead for the lead? I'm not a fan. If people can't read past the first paragraph then perhaps this article isn't for them.
That's an interesting take, but you can't choose your readers. According to WP:LEAD, the first lead sentence should define the subject and say why he/it is notable; that is how readers who know little or nothing of Lucan will be drawn in. Your present opening gives no specific connection between the Rivett murder and the peer's disappearance. I think you should make this connection explicit, even if you feel you must keep the small details in the opening paragraph. Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that makes sense to me. I'm just trying not to call him a murderer, after all, he's never stood trial. I've re-edited the whole lead, how does this look? Parrot of Doom 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better to me, now. Brianboulton (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's far too much small detail in the first paragraph, unnecessary at this point.
See above.
  • "Richard John Bingham" becomes "John" without explanation. By the way, eldest sons of an Earl have courtesy titles, so until he inherited he would have been known as "Lord Bingham".
I considered that but, considering the article also mentions Lucan's son (who is still Lord Bingham) I decided to make things easier for your average reader. So I used John in the section where his sisters are mentioned and switched to Lucan where he begins work. Then, when he inherits the title, I use either Lucan or "the earl". His wife is known as Veronica or Lady Lucan. I've added something to "fix" the "John" problem.
  • Some of the detail in the article seems rather unnecessary, e.g. "Raphael's wife, Eve, later became godmother to Lucan's first child, Frances", and "For a while, Lucan courted Lady Zinnia Denison, although she was uninterested and the relationship remained platonic". There is quite a lot more of this kind of stuff, which pads the article but is inconsistent with the supposed "summary" style of encyclopedia articles.
By all accounts Lucan wasn't particularly interested in women until he decided he needed an heir. Denison was a rich heiress but I can't say that without implying something that might be untrue. I haven't found anything about other girlfriends.
  • You mention his banking salary of £500, but don't say where his other income came from. This was apparently around £12000 a year, a very large income for the early 1960s. And this was evidently before he inherited. Where did the money come from?
That's an important omission that I've now corrected, thanks for highlighting that.
  • "Lucan became increasingly interested in her mental well-being..." Wouldn't "concerned for" be more appropriate wording?
Depends which source you read. If you read Ranson's "he dunnit" book, Lucan was obsessed with his wife. If you read Moore's "oh poor old Lucky he'd never murder anyone, but his wife would" book, Lucan was a devoted loving husband who was incredibly upset about his wife's mental problems. I think "interested" is a fairly neutral way of putting it.
  • "two oldest children" → "two elder children"
Done.
  • The subject should not be introduced in a new section (or paragraph) by a pronoun, as in "Some months later he moved again..."
Done.
  • "The doctor's report made there proved instrumental in the two-week-long hearing, which Lucan eventually conceded." It is unclear what this sentence means.
The following sentence helps clarify this. I might be able to add more but it'd be from an online obituary, a line to the effect of "the judge was unimpressed by Lucan's character". It seems a bit of a throwaway comment though, something that I don't feel able to expand on. I might be able to find contemporary reports in the papers, I'll have a look.
The wording could be improved, e.g. "proved instrumental in the outcome of two-week-long hearing..." And if this was a decision of a court, it's surely irrelevant whether Lucan "conceded"? Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will go over both sources again and see if I can find a judgement. Parrot of Doom 20:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The case was heard in chambers (secret) so there are no contemporary news reports. I've re-read the sources and added a bit more on the judge, here Parrot of Doom 22:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbreviations such as "DCS" need to be explained, as many readers (especially non-Brits) won't be familiar with them
Done.
  • Likewise, you shouldn't force readers to use a link to discover who John Stonehouse was.
Done
  • "More recently, responding to claims by that the two eldest Lucan children were sent to Gabon..." Something missing after "by"? Also, beginning a statement "More recently" is vague; more recently than when?
Typo, done. Many Wikipedia articles are full of "In 2005, ", "In 2007, ", "In 2012, " - I hate it. I think using a bit of shorthand is a good replacement, these types of biography necessarily end with online sources and become breeding grounds for every new mention made. Parrot of Doom 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to provide more comments later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I find these criticisms to be the most valuable, I've written this single-handedly so the more keen eyes, the better! Parrot of Doom 09:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on the first half of the article, mainly smallish quibbles:-

Lead
  • "he called his mother to collect the children..." I'd specify "telephoned", and add "asking her to collect..."
Done.
Early life and education
  • "on their return in February 1945" → "on their return to England in February 1945"
Done.
  • What is the relevance of the earl's agnosticism in the context provided? ("Despite the family's rich ancestry, the earl and his wife were agnostics...") And why is Tucker's religious belief noted?
See my answer to Mark Alsten at the top.
  • "At Eton..." I suggest you give a date for his arrival at the school, to maintain the chronology.
Unfortunately this isn't available to me.
  • Second lieutenant can be linked
Done
Career
  • There's a bit of a gap between 1955 and the meeting with Raphael in 1960. Do we assume that Lucan quietly pursued a banking career during these years? Or what else did he get up to?
Presumably he just worked, gambled and played; the sources I have aren't specific.
  • Again, we need a year for when he left Brandt's, and an indication of the timescale covered in the second paragraph
I only have an approximate year but I've added it.
Marriage
  • "Christina's marriage to the wealthy William Shand-Kydd introduced her to London society's elite, and it was at a golf-club function in the country that she and Lucan first met." The "she" refers to Veronica, surely.
Done.
  • "News of their engagement..." It's that pronoun thingy again
I'm happy with that - at the start of a new section I agree, but otherwise I think it's fine to start a paragraph with a pronoun, especially when the end of the previous paragraph makes it clear who's who.
  • "attended by dignitaries such as Princess Alice, Countess of Athlone..." I have an aversion to "such as" followed by a single name; would prefer "attend by, among other dignitaries, Princess Alice..."
Done (although I prefer amongst).
  • Close repetition of "family home"
Done.
  • "In 1956, while still working at Brandt's, he wrote of his desire to have "£2m in the bank"..." etc. This needs to be stated retrospectively: "he had written..."
Done.
  • Why use the slang "moniker" for "nickname"? Definitely not encyclopaedic.
I hate the word nickname. Moniker is a perfectly good word. I used soubriquet in one article, sometimes it does people good to see unfamiliar or rare words.
It's a perfectly good slang word. So are "bloke" and "geezer", but you don't find them in encyclopedia articles (though I could be tempted in future). Seriously, I think you should reconsider. Brianboulton (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, following the births of George..." etc. The "however" is not justified, as there is no direct relationship with the previous sentence. A paragraph break is probably appropriate at this point.
Leftover from an old construction, done.
Separation
  • Constructions such as "While it is true that a series of nannies were employed at the house, the reasons for this are unclear" suggest an editorial standpoint rather than the requires neutrality. I would replace this with something like: "Of the series of nannies employed at the house, one, 26-year-old Stefanja Sawicka..." etc
Yes I struggled with this - there's no doubt that 46 Lower Belgrave Street was not a particularly nice place to work, but different authors blame that on different people (there's a hidden note to that effect). There's no way we can know the truth but I think your construction works better.
  • "Frances was collected from school later in the day." Say by whom.
Unknown. Presumably Lucan but I can't say for sure.
Gambling
  • "his behaviour became worrisome" - who was worried by it?
Restructured.
  • How/when did Lucan's mother become "Lady Osborne"? (remarriage, presumably, but this should be noted.)
Lady Osborne was Aspinall's mother. I've reworded to clarify. Interestingly, the UK's present Chancellor of the Exchequer is the heir apparent to the Osborne Baronetcy. Small world...
  • "he wrote to her son" → "he wrote to Tucker's son"
Done.
  • As with Stonehouse, James Goldsmith should be identified
Done.
  • The reference to "the discreet Edgware Trust" is a bit cryptic. Despite the bankerish name, they were moneylenders.
I've been unable to find out much about them, other than they were...selective...over who they lent money to.
  • Remove the intrusive "though" at start of para 2
Rephrased.
  • The long sentence beginning "Later that day..." needs attention (two "ands")
Done.
  • Clarify that British gambling laws at the time.. required... etc. Not sure about "required" followed by "open" and "close"; perhaps "required that casinos open ... and close..."?
Restructured.
  • Another unrequired "though" after 7 November"
No I think that's fine, waking early on the 7th was a break from his routine.

Will return when I can

Much appreciated. Parrot of Doom 17:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support, but two queries. There's something excessive about mentioning speedboat racing three or more times in the first quarter of the article. This goes to my broader query as to whether the entire article is too detailed for an encyclopedia. Fascinating and well-written though it is, it takes me rather a long time to get the full picture of Lord Lucan, as distinct from the detailed picture of the alleged murder. But in my view meets all other criteria. Happy to hear other opinions. Good job, Parrot! hamiltonstone (talk) 08:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many will have heard of Lucan and that he "murdered the nanny", but few people know anything about him. Ask your average man on the street (of a certain age) and he won't be able to tell you anything other than the fact that Lucan was a toff. What did he do? What was he like? What were his interests? Basically, he wanted to spend his entire life being a playboy, but didn't have the income to fund it. I think its important to write as much about the man as is available, to give people an understanding of him so that they can place the murder in context and decide if Lucan is/was guilty. It's half a biography on Lucan and half Murder of Sandra Rivett. Parrot of Doom 09:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, and it's a great article, but there's something OTT about two sentences, only a couple of paras apart, both mentioning Aston Martins and powerboat racing. It also makes one think the article is repetitive. Surely we can just have one of those sentences? hamiltonstone (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thing is, the trip to America driving an Aston Martin and boating was a separate thing from his later pursuits, boat racing around the Solent (he led a race before sinking) and trying to get a drophead coupe. Parrot of Doom 22:35, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support Just a quibble, why is Ref 138's work stylised as 'news.bbc.co.uk', its domain? Surely it is 'BBC News'. Otherwise, very comprehensive and generally well-sourced article—have a book about him from Reader's Digest, "Great Mysteries of the 20th Century" or something in the attic. - Lemonade51 (talk) 13:02, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always list the publisher in that manner. For instance, if I read something at telegraph.co.uk, I know it's been published there, but I have no idea if it has also been published in print (which would be listed as Daily Telegraph). So news.bbc.co.uk tells the reader that the source is the bbc's news website. If I saw the same report, but on the television, I'd write the channel name - BBC News 24, for instance. Parrot of Doom 13:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support provided spotchecks are done. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read this article a couple of times now. I'm not sure that enjoyable is an appropriate description, but this is a superb article and extremely readable. Any questions that occurred to me I usually found answered carefully in the next section. Just a few queries, which do not affect my support and may be cheerfully dismissed out of hand. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Skilled player" and "heavy losses" do not really seem to go together. Was he really good, or did people just say he was? Or was he extremely unlucky?
He was certainly very good but like all addicted gamblers, he chased his losses. IIRC he also played craps, which has a much greater element of risk.
  • What was the Edgware Trust, as this is a rather tantalising redlink.
A discreet institution for lending money to rich people.
  • "bludgeoned to death with a piece of bandaged lead pipe": The article does not mention that the pipe found at the scene was taped until near the end of the article. It may help to clarify this on first mention.
Done.
  • On the day of the murder, what happened to the children? Lucan sent his daughter to bed, but nothing more is heard of them until his mother collected them. Trivial, but were they left alone in the house?
The article mentions that Rivett put the two younger children to bed.
  • His wife seems to have had fairly severe injuries, and it seems from the later part of the article that she was attacked with the pipe. Perhaps this could be made clear in the part where he attacked her? Also, while this may be beyond the confines of this article, why were two pipes needed by Lucan (in that they were both "taped"), assuming he was guilty? Sarastro1 (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She wasn't only attacked with the pipe though; according to Lady Lucan, her attacker used his hands as well. I thought it best to stick only to the verifiable, as to include witness testimony as fact would be to prejudice any trial (however unlikely that might now be). As for the two pipes, that remains a mystery. Parrot of Doom 08:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 09:01, 14 July 2012 [47].

Pride & Prejudice (2005 film)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it complies with all aspects of the FA criteria. I have been expanding it since early January (when it was in this state). It has received a GA review from Grapple X and a copy edit from Lfstevens, leading to its current nomination for FA. I can think of no impediments to this nomination's success, but am ready and willing to respond to any suggestions for further improvement. Thanks in advance, Ruby 2010/2013 05:14, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I like this article (especially as much of the film was shot in and around my home town of Stamford), and I had in mind to give it a thorough peer review. But the PR was closed after a few days, with no comments; I think this was a mistake, as it seems to me that the article needs quite a bit of final polishing. I have only read the synopsis, and found the following:

  • You should say what "Longbourne" is, rather than simply mentioning it
  • I thought the lead-up to it ("working farm in rural England") was enough - I didn't want to overload an already dense sentence. Do you think the mention of Longbourn is unclear to readers? Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove comma after "haughty sister"
  • First line, second paragraph: you have previously described Collins as "their cousin Mr Collins", so the words "their cousin" should be removed
  • The description "minster" is somewhat ambiguous. Collins would better be described as a "clergyman".
  • An awkward sentence construction: "Elizabeth dispatches a heartbroken Jane to their aunt and uncle in London, the Gardiners..."
  • Reworded to "When Bingley unexpectedly returns to London, Elizabeth dispatches a heartbroken Jane to the city to stay with their aunt and uncle, the Gardiners, in hopes of re-establishing contact between Jane and Bingley." I acknowledge that this may be a bit wordy. Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charlotte was a spinster, surely. Her fear was of remaining, not "becoming" one (she was a lot less pretty than Elizabeth)
  • More verbal awkwardness in "...to dine there and there meet..."
  • Also, I would put something before "...Lady Catherine's nephews", e.g. "whom it transpires are..." We only learn of the relationship at this point.
  • "exposes" is too strong a term. At this stage the letter makes accusations against Wickham but does not provide proof.
  • The wording "It is further revealed that..." likewise needs adjusting, as we are still in the realm of accusation rather than revelation.
  • "The Gardiners then take..." The word "then" is redundant
  • "There, she accidentally runs into Darcy..." Needs a bit more explanation. She visits Pemberley in the belief that Darcy is away, but he makes an unexpected return.
  • "Lady Catherine unexpectedly visits Elizabeth and insists that she renounce Darcy..." Jumping the gun; no claim on Darcy by Elizabeth has yet been established in this synopsis.
  • I agree, but "renounce" in this context is meant a little differently. Lady Catherine wants Elizabeth to promise her that she will not enter into an engagement with Darcy. I'm not sure how else to convey this without going into great detail. Would "...insists that she end her relationship with Darcy..." work? Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Elizabeth accepts his second proposal..." This might mislead; most readers will have long forgotten the first proposal.

One general point to which you may or may not have an answer. Why was an ampersand used in the film's title. It's not in the book's title, nor in that of the 1995 TV film or other earlier screen versions. Just wondering. Brianboulton (talk) 14:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A good question. I address it in the marketing section (they were trying to go for a post-modern spin on the novel, much like Romeo + Juliet). On a more general note, I appreciate you taking the time to leave some comments. I apologize for closing the peer review early, but after working in last minute touches all weekend, I thought it was ready to advance further. Ruby 2010/2013 16:21, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, this image from the film shows the dragoons marching through Stamford. Note the woman on the right, in non-period dress - what is she doing, I wonder? Brianboulton (talk) 19:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If she ended up in the shot, visual effects company Double Negative probably had her digitally removed! This is actually the first time I've seen this image - I may try to incorporate it into the article. Added it into article Thanks for spotting it. Ruby 2010/2013 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ruby2010, you've done very good work with this article. I only have minor comments for the most part, but think the writing could be made more engaging throughout and that one section that needs a major revamp:

  1. "Co-stars include Brenda Blethyn, Donald Sutherland, Tom Hollander, Rosamund Pike, Jena Malone and Judi Dench" - this seems to be a bit boring to me and redundant to the infobox. I'm not a fan of sentences that are just lists of names, I think they are very uninteresting to read and that people will most likely gloss over them.
Removed the line from the lead Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Lead: the 1995 adaptation is mentioned twice in the last para, about it being more acclaimed and influential. Combine both these into one?
I removed the first mention and mentioned in the second that it was popular Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "particular characters, particularly" eck.
Removed Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Describe Bridget Jones as a popular 90s rom-com? Not everybody knows...
Done Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Why have the track list and infobox when the soundtrack has its own article?
Good point. I removed it. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The critical reception needs to be significantly expanded. Usually film articles here have a couple of paragraphs minimum quoting what the critics had to say. Also, the section seems to have no information other than comparisons with the 1995 version.
As most critics compared the 1995 and 2005 versions, I think this should be reflected in the reception. I did however add another paragraph that only focuses on the 2005 film. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The article throughout makes this comparison with 1995 very, very frequently; it seems to overshadow a discussion of the movie on its own merit. Also, since the 1995 version is mentioned so many times, maybe the first time in the article-body it should be introduced with more information? Who acted in it, who directed, how influential it was? This stuff does emerge as we go along the article, but maybe it should be revealed right off the bat?
The filmmakers were considering the 1995 while making this once, so it shows up a lot in articles detailing the production. I did however add a brief introduction of the 1995 version ("popular," starred Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle). Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Accolades: Like #1 above, this is very dull to read: "The film/actor/actress won A, B, C, D, E and F." May convert to a table at the end of the article, especially since Film Critics awards aren't particularly major? Also, check for overlinking: Chicago Film Critics is linked thrice.
I originally had it in a table, and then converted it into prose after reading other film FAs. I agree though that a table is easier on the eyes. I have converted it back. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Possessive years (like 1999's), I believe, are not acceptable/preferable in formal prose. Use "Film Name (1999)" instead.
Changed 2011's Hanna to Hanna (2011) Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is from a quick glance-through, I'll be more thorough after these are addressed.—indopug (talk) 14:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and the review. I believe I have improved the article per your suggestions. Let me know if there is anything else. Ruby 2010/2013 18:11, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quotations should be sourced in lead even if repeated later
  • Cartmell: spacing of publisher
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean here. I tried to keep all page ranges consistent (p. 170 and pp. 161–70). Unless you are talking about the time ranges? Those are consistent too. Ruby 2010/2013 16:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use single quotes within double quotes for titles that include quotations
  • Pages for Haun 2005?
  • Gilligan 2011 lists journal as Film and Cinema, but link goes to something called Student Pulse - which is correct?
  • Film and book titles should be italicized in article titles
  • Pages for Sadoff 2010? Wells 2008?
  • Page for Edwards 2005?
  • Carrier 2006: publisher name redirects to the general DVD article
  • Source spotcheck. (First attempt at one, bear with me). GRAPPLE X 00:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ref 77: [48] ✓
    Supporting text: "Sarah Ailwood marked the film as "an essentially Romantic interpretation of Austen's novel," citing as evidence Wright's attention to nature as a means to "position Elizabeth and Darcy as Romantic figures ... Wright's Pride & Prejudice takes as its central focus Austen's concern with exploring the nature of the Romantic self and the possibilities for women and men to achieve individual self-fulfillment within an oppressive patriarchal social and economic order.""
    Source text is quoted accurately, presented simply as directly-attributed quotes with no room for paraphrasing.
    Ref 60: [49]
    Supporting text: "Representing Netherfield Park was the late-18th century site Basildon Park in Berkshire, leading it to close for three months to allow time for filming."
    Source text: "Basildon Park, Berkshire, as Mr Bingley's Netherfield. The house considered it worthwhile to close for a crucial seven weeks between August and October, to let the film crew in". Close paraphrasing is not a concern, though the source gives "seven weeks" which is less than two months, rather than three.
    Ref 114: [50] ✓
    Supporting text: "Equally pleased with the film was the San Francisco Chronicle's Ruthe Stein, who wrote that Wright made a "spectacular feature film debut" that is "creatively reimagined and sublimely entertaining"."
    Source is accurately summed up with the quotes taken, supporting text does not contain any paraphrasing concerns.
    Ref 86: [51] ✓
    Supporting text: "According to George Washington University professor Laurie Kaplan, while Wright's focus on Elizabeth is consistent with the novel, the screenplay removed her line of self-recognition: "Till this moment, I never knew myself". Kaplan characterises the sentence as Elizabeth's "most important," and believes its deletion "violates not only the spirit and the essence of Austen's story but the viewer's expectations as well.""
    Text given is supported by the source, paraphrasing is not a concern. Source discusses wider range of issues, though, perhaps it could be used to add another sentence or two elsewhere? Not a fault, just a suggestion.
    Refs 94 and 95: [52] and [53]
    Supporting text: " United International Pictures released it to cinemas on 16 September 2005 in the United Kingdom and Ireland."
    Citations simply support the date given; UIP not mentioned in either so I'd suggest "The film was release in cinemas on 16 September 2005 in the United Kingdom and Ireland" instead. Also might be worth using the BBC review as part of the film's reception as well, as BBC would be a good source to take an opinion from for something like this.
Both concerns addressed. The "seven weeks" was a minor misreading of the source (I read August through October, or 3 months). I have now adjusted to seven weeks. The United International Pictures issue was the result of a recent edit war (see P&P talk page) that I was trying to resolve. I made the change per your recommendation. Thanks for looking them over! Ruby 2010/2013 04:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was just wondering why the budget and box office takings were in dollars? It is a British film I believe, so shouldn't they be in pounds? Apologies if I've missed a prior discussion about this. - JuneGloom Talk 22:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure, actually. As far as I've seen, all other articles on films designated as British (see this category) have used US dollars. I've tried looking for the worldwide gross in pounds (rather than just converting it myself), but have so far come up empty. I think the US dollar might be some kind of standard for film articles? I'll post a query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. Ruby 2010/2013 00:16, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's generally easier to source the gross in US dollars as most sources that'll reliably compile it use that currency. However, if a good source for sterling exists too then both side by side would be a great idea. I've tracked down the lira figure for Italy's Una sull'altra, while Irish film Once gives the budget in euro and dollars, and the gross in dollars only, which I assume is due to the availability of sources for those; it's a good approach if you can manage it. However, dollars do seem, unfortunately, to be par for the course for the most part so it shouldn't be considered an anomaly. GRAPPLE X 00:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I haven't managed to find anything in pounds, unfortunately. Box Office Mojo (of course) uses US dollars, and a Google search didn't tell me anything useful. Unless there's a British equivalent to BOM that I'm not aware of, I think the currency might have to stay as is. :/ Ruby 2010/2013 04:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
British Film Institute has the budget at roughly £22 million, nothing on the gross though. GRAPPLE X 04:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that's a shame. I suppose, with Hollywood being so prominent, most published film items come from American sources and/or financing. Even the books that mention the budget list it in dollars. Thanks again though for your input. Ruby 2010/2013 04:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of worldwide grosses, then ideally the gross should be sourced in euros or US dollars rather than British pounds, since they are the two main reserve currencies. All global box-office should be in one these two units regardless of whether the film is American, British, Chinese etc. In the case of the British domestic gross that should be given in British pounds. You can get the UK weekend figures (in pounds) at http://industry.bfi.org.uk/article/16415/UK-Box-Office-2005, and you can get the UK total (in pounds) and the world total (in US dollars) at http://industry.bfi.org.uk/10022?page=1&step=10&viewby=category&value=16998 (you want the 2005/06 Yearbook). As for the budget, since it was made in the UK it generally should be given in British pounds since that is the currency that the bills were presumably paid in (the BFI site provided by Grapple will do the job there). Betty Logan (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the links! I'll input them into the article tomorrow. Ruby 2010/2013 04:28, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- great to see spotchecks performed on this one but it's been open six weeks with neither support nor opposition -- reviewers are going to have to declare on this or it'll need to be closed with no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, with the qualifiers that I have not seen the film (so cannot express a view about the synopsis), and have not checked sources. Very well written. I only found one sentence that seemed to me to be a problem, and I have edited that. Found the range of views picked up from critics and academics to be wide-ranging, and I was very much engaged by the discussion of screenplay, filming etc, which is material I normally find rather dull. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I began reviewing this article some weeks ago (see my comments above) but was prevented by outside circumstances from finishing my review at that time. I have just re-read the article; as a result of other reviewers' comments I think the prose has been tightened (I've done the odd tweak myself), and in other respects I am satisfied that the article meets the required FA standard. It is, I think, one of the better of the "film of the book" articles in the encyclopedia. There is one phrase that puzzles me: "...comfortable dresses that allowed the actors better accessibility". Better accessibility to what, exactly? The mind boggles....Otherwise, well done Ruby! Brianboulton (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question. I've reworded "accessibility" to "moveability". :) Thanks very much for the support! Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 21:32, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Between its GA review and the above spotcheck I've had a good look at this article, and setting aside my intense dislike of costume dramas I believe it meets the criteria comfortably. As Hamiltonstone I haven't seen it but I'm familiar enough with the source novel and I believe the additional sources discussing the changes have made those clear enough to me that I'm perfectly confident with the summary. GRAPPLE X 21:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Grapple! I know how hard it must have been to look a film like this over ;) Ruby 2010/2013 21:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I'm surprised this hasn't been promoted already. I can't find anything that sticks out anymore except maybe moving the Accolades to after Legacy—this keeps all the prose together.—indopug (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been promoted already because reviewers have only just started supporting promotion in the last 24 hours or so -- I really must give more gentle nudges about people declaring one way or the other, it certainly seems to have opened the floodgates this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thank you ball-girls, thank you ball-boys... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:51, 13 July 2012 [54].

DNA nanotechnology

[edit]
Nominator(s): Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article, my first attempt at promoting an article to featured status, was up for FAC back in January. The nomination got lots of helpful comments but no support !votes, and I was encouraged to resubmit it after the two-week waiting period had expired. I opted to take a little more time to do some extra rewriting, and the article has also gotten a copyedit from WP:GOCE.

Don't be intimidated by the technical nature of this article! I have tried my best to make the concepts understandable to a general audience by explaining things simply and including background information, while including enough details to make the article useful to more technically-minded readers who are looking for an introduction to the field. This kind of comprehensive, understandable treatment of a field of current research is something which would not usually be available to the general public, since most scientific literature tends to be behind a paywall, making it especially important for Wikipedia to have these kinds of articles.

Of course, any feedback is welcome and appreciated, and I am happy to make revisions which further improve the article as part of the FAC process. Thanks in advance for your reviews. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments and questions by Ling
    • "An individual strand displacement reactions involves " number agreement. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "used for either computational or structural uses." Many options for improvement of this text: replace the first "used" with "put to" or "employed"; replace the second with "purposes", etc. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "molecules that are hard to crystallize by themselves".. maybe try "difficult" instead of ambiguous "hard"; does "crystallize by themselves" mean they just do it automagically, or mean doing it with out adding something else? Ambiguous. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "It has been suggested that... It has been suggested that..." Here I am frowning mildly on the use of passive and lack of explicit attribution, but somewhat more sternly on the omission of "also" from the second instance, and in general on the practice of starting sentences with the same phrase. – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 09:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was about to make this punctuation edit when I realized that I am not sure if the phrase following or is a restatement of the term before it or a completely different second item: "Nucleic acid structures can be made to incorporate heteroelements (molecules other than nucleic acids)" – Ling.Nut3 (talk) 10:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All fixed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources. Reference numbers based on this version.

  • Ref 2:
    • Article: "These four strands associate into a DNA four-arm junction because this structure maximizes the number of correct base pairs, with A matched to T and C matched to G"
    • Source does not contain any relevant instances of "max" or "correct". It is not clear to me which part of the source is intended to cover this statement.
  • Ref 8"
    • Article: "...a specific tessellated pattern of the individual molecular tiles."
    • Source does not contain any instances of "tesselation". It does mention "mosaic" several times, a term which is not present in the Wikipedia article.
  • Ref 16: Material covered, no plagiarism issues.

A quick search for DNA nanotech articles from 2012 yields 4000+ results. The following look promising:

I see only one source in the article from 2012. For an article like this, which relies heavily on giving specific examples of experiments and research results, I would think that the most recent examples would be the most relevant, yes? The History section of the article should summarize old progress, and the rest of the body should summarize the current state of information on the subject. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 14:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding Ref. 2, I have added an extra reference that supports this explicitly.
  • Regarding Ref. 8, I believe it is not OR to describe something with an appropriate word that doesn't happen to appear in the cited text.
  • Actually, my interpretation of the guidelines is that recentism is to be avoided. Wikipedia's goal is to cover all notable aspects of a field regardless of age, based on what secondary sources such as reviews say about them. The notability of any specific advance is usually unclear until a year or two after it has been first published, and I generally try to avoid using my own "expert opinion" to decide which of the many very recent results is worth covering. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update from nominator This FAC seems to be going much more slowly than the first one. I've contacted all the participants in the first FAC, as well as a couple of other Wikipedians with a background relevant to this area, for their additional input. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:41, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In the prior review, there were a couple of editors that remarked negatively on the bold-face notations within the footnotes. I see that has not been rectified. It still looks off-putting to me. --Noleander (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can change them into a more standard annotation format. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I quite like the subject headings in the refs, altho maybe boldface is too strong for all the repetition. Could they be put into sections?Dcrjsr (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to move the annotations from the beginning to the end of the references, but using shortened footnotes might be another viable option. It would be a lot of work though, so I'd like to hear what others think. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good Work - This is a quite complete, objective, well written and illustrated article. I've contacted an RNA nanotech expert who I hope might contribute some images & info of that end. The black-background picture of the 4-way tile could really use upping the brightness & contrast, to make it clear that the short-loop ends are separate strands. - Dcrjsr (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • I really hesitate to offer any general critiques because this is so not my field; my only exposure is a little experience with science and engineering, and 20 years of reading the occasional paper and speculating with fellow enthusiasts. But I do want to offer one suggestion: my intuition, which could be wrong, is that DNA nanotech is closer to being ready to tackle really big things than this article suggests in the lead, and I think you might perhaps want to "punch it up". I'm not a Drexlerian, in the sense that I don't think Atomically Precise Manufacturing is the most interesting thing headed our way (personal robotics comes a lot sooner, and with more impact, I think), but Drexler makes a good point about what we can do right now with DNA nanotechnology around the 39-minute point in this video from last November, "Dr. Eric Drexler speaks at the Inaugural Lecture of the Oxford Martin Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology": 1M-atom DNA complexes have been constructed with around 100 "addressable" locations, allowing the complex to be used as a kind of "engineering chassis" to build ... whatever we want. Another role for DNA that might be coming sooner rather than later, with huge effect: it's widely speculated these days that self-organizing structures may have a role to play in lithography soon, and thus accelerate Moore's Law. (I haven't heard DNA mentioned specifically, but since it's a generally ideal material in this role, it might be in the mix.) I don't know if any of this is useful, and I don't keep up like I used to, but I'm wondering if we could mention some "punchier", big-time applications earlier in the article ... nothing speculative, but I don't require an actual test tube of relevant molecules; any "widely acknowledged" potential role would work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, about two-thirds of the way, at DNA nanotechnology#Strand displacement cascades, with an additional disclaimer: I think the only readers who are going to be comfortable with for instance DNA nanotechnology#Extended lattices are ones who already know a fair amount about the subject. There are a variety of tricks to handling complex technical material; sometimes you can push the less familiar parts to the end, or do without. Since this is at FAC, you have to be comprehensive, and people will expect a logical sequence of material rather than a sequence from easier to harder to digest. Since I'm not a subject expert myself, I can't make these calls for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:13, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have discussed with the nominator (on the relevant user talk page) that I am hesitant to Support this article only because my absolute ignorance regarding its subject matter leaves me unable to judge the completeness and accuracy of its content. In a way, that's unfair – there's a penalty for trying to promote articles that cover advanced aspects of highly specialized fields. I am sincerely hoping for SME input that would support the content & coverage. – Ling.Nut (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Emw: I'm not an expert in DNA nanotechnology, but I am knowledgeable about biochemistry and molecular biology and find this subject interesting. Some notes:

Lead

  • "This use is enabled by the strict base pairing rules of nucleic acids, which cause only those portions of nucleic acid strands with complementary base sequences to bind together to form strong, rigid nucleic acid double helix structures."
Can "nucleic acid" be excised from the phrase "rigid nucleic acid double helix structures" without significantly damaging this sentence? The fact that "nucleic acid" is mentioned two times previously in the sentence makes me think so. Using five adjectives to describe "structures" borders on verbose, especially in the lead. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch, I reworded the sentence to only mention nucleic acids once. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but structures incorporating other nucleic acids such as RNA and peptide nucleic acid (PNA) have also been constructed..."
Although mentioned here in the lead, the body doesn't seem to reference any RNA- or PNA-containing structures that have been constructed. The last sentence of the 'Applications' section mentions that there has "additionally been interest" in RNA structures, but seems to indicate that they haven't yet been constructed. WP:MOSINTRO#Relative_emphasis notes that "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article...", so it would probably make sense to mention specific instances of RNA- and PNA-containing structures in the body. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the lead because it's a direct comment on the field's name. I suppose it could go in in the background section instead but that would make mentioning the "nucleic acid nanotechnology" alternate name a bit more awkward. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two refs to the RNA nanotech comment in the lead, an early specific example and a recent review. They make it followable, and could be a start for developing a child article. This satisfies my concern about needing at least a nod to the RNA nanotech subfield, which has some enormous advantages on the 3D-structure aspect. - Dcrjsr (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Antony-22, I agree that a specific note about RNA and peptide nucleic acid structures is appropriate context when mentioning "nucleic acid nanotechnology". (And I agree that the lead is an appropriate place to make that comment about the field's name.) My concern is just that the sentence mentions such structures have been constructed, but the body seems to indicate that RNA nanostructures have not yet been constructed, and makes no specific mention of peptide nucleic acid/PNA nanostructures. The review The Emerging Field of RNA Nanotechnology provided by Dcrjsr mentions some such structures (though not PNA structures) -- perhaps these could be mentioned in the body of the article? Emw (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Yes, I can add a few sentences in the Fundamental concepts section. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very neat, thank you. Emw (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Researchers in the field have created both static structures such as two- and three-dimensional crystal lattices, nanotubes, polyhedra, and arbitrary shapes made by the DNA origami method; and functional structures such as molecular machines and DNA computers."
The parallelism in the sentence above is set up nicely, but its delivery seems off to me. The sentence is on the long side, too. My suggestion: "Researchers in the field have created both static structures such as two- and three-dimensional crystal lattices, nanotubes, polyhedra, and functional structures such as molecular machines and DNA computers. With the DNA origami method, arbitrary shapes have also been made." I think the "static" vs. "functional" parallelism works better than what had been there. I'm less confident about the second sentence, though I think it's an improvement overall. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I separated out the DNA orgami mention into an extended second sentence that talks about the different types of assembly mechanisms used in the field. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rewording looks good to me. Emw (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The File:DNA_tetrahedron_white.png image would likely look better with a transparent background rather than its current white background. If it's possible for Nanoengineer-1 to export a PDB file then I might be able to put together a nice ray-traced, transparent-background, auto-cropped image for the DNA tetrahedron, like the PDBbot images (and I'd customize it to maintain the current coloring scheme). Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Nanoengineer can export as PDB files, and also QuteMol and POV-Ray. I'll get you a copy. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of nucleic acids

  • "Nucleic acids such as DNA are well-suited to nanoscale construction, as a nucleic acid double helix has a diameter of 2 nm and a helical repeat length of 3.5 nm"
I'm having trouble sourcing the 3.5 nm figure for the helical repeat length of B-DNA mentioned above. I've got a copy of Lehninger's Principles of Biochemistry, 4th edition handy, and in Figure 8-15 on page 282 it says "The original model proposed by Watson and Crick had 10 base pairs, or 34 Å (3.4 nm), per turn of the helix; subsequent measurements revealed 10.5 base pairs, or 36 Å (3.6 nm), per turn." Both the 3.5 nm figure in this article and the 3.6 nm figure in Lehninger are inconsistent with the figure of 3.32 nm pitch/turn for B-DNA in the table in Nucleic acid double helix#Helix geometries. Which figure is correct? Given the apparent lack of consensus in these figures, it would probably be reasonable to cite the source of the 3.5 nm figure (or whichever value is eventually determined to best reflect reliable sources). Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's from Seeman, 2010  which is the reference for most of that paragraph. The pitch of DNA is one of those things where you get slightly different numbers based on the method, and few people actually care about getting a precise answer anyway, so the literature tends to be inconsistent. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to assemble in the desired conformation.[5][3]"
I haven't participated in an FA nomination in a while, but if I recall correctly, the numeric order of a group of references should be ascending. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. This tends to happen when a pre-existing ref is added or removed somewhere else in the article, causing all the numbers to change. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The File:Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png illustration has some distracting visual artifacts that could be cleaned up. The blue, red and teal arrowheads overlap with nucleotide letters. The right-angle corners in the middle of the the pink and teal arrows are misaligned. This is more minor, but the numbering starting in the upper-left quadrant seems possibly unnecessary, and at least unconventional. Are the numbers worth including? If so, I'd suggest re-labeling the numbers to match conventional quadrant numbering, i.e. as used here. (Again, this latter point about numbering is mostly nit-picky.) Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, our standards are higher than PLoS's.  :-) I'll make these changes. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes to the image, although it may take a while for the thumbnails to be refreshed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subfields

  • (Non-issue) This is more of a general comment on our coverage of DNA-centric mechanisms, but it be a boon to the encyclopedia and upper-level biochemistry students everywhere if our coverage of these had accompanying animations. I find animations of molecular mechanisms to be a great learning tool, and think an animation would greatly help convey, for example, the gist of something like toehold-mediated strand displacement covered in the last paragraph of 'Subfields'. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The strand displacement figure is in the Dynamic DNA nanotechnology section; I put it there because that part of the article had no images while the Fundamental Concepts section already has two. Animations would be great, but designing and making them takes a lot of thought and time. See, for example, this video. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Design
Structural design

  • I think I understand the gist of 'Tile-based structures' and 'Folding structures' based on this article's coverage. However, I'm having trouble piecing together the individual sentences about 'Dynamic assembly' into a basic high-level understanding. Some specific points that might help clarify things for me, and hopefully other readers:
  • This approach directly controls the kinetics of DNA self-assembly, specifying all of the intermediate steps in the reaction mechanism in addition to the final product. This is done using a nucleic acid hairpin structure as the starting material, which assembles in a cascade reaction in a specific order.
My trouble here is with the second sentence. It seems slightly ambiguous, and possibly inconsistent. Does "assembles" describe individual hairpins, or collections of them? If it describes individual hairpins, then it seems inconsistent to describe hairpins as the "starting material" and then go on to describe the assembly of that starting material -- I think most people consider starting materials to be something that doesn't require assembly, but what one assembles with. If it describes collections of hairpins, then I think it would be worth stating that more explicitly -- that "dynamic assembly" means using collections of nucleic acid hairpins as building blocks to assemble a target structure. Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This class of methods has the advantage of proceeding isothermally, and thus does not involve the thermal annealing step that is required by solely thermodynamic approaches.
Can the reason that dynamic assembly methods are isothermal be explained very succinctly? I think that would help. Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A second point about this sentence: 'isothermal' and 'thermal annealing' are both technical terms, and it would likely benefit readers to better define/describe those terms in context. Do the methods not involve annealing because the hairpins are already self-complemented? Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded this paragraph to be clearer and give a bit more exposition. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structural DNA nanotechnology
Extended lattices

  • Have you ever considered using figure numbers in the thumbnails for this article? Especially in technically heavy areas of articles, I think it greatly help readers to label the images with 'Figure 1. (caption)', 'Figure 2. (caption)' etc. and referring to those figure numbers within the coverage of the corresponding topic. This practice is somewhat rare, but the Mechanical filter article uses it to good effect. I think it would be particularly helpful with this section, where a more explicit link between the text and the image would help users visualize what's being talked about. Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, my impression (which may be incorrect) was that figure numbers were discouraged. I've added sentences to the text pointing out the appropriate images. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That works too. Emw (talk) 21:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic DNA nanotechnology
Strand displacement cascades

  • The last paragraph in this subsection gives some more information on the 'Dynamic assembly' coverage in the 'Structural design' section prior in the article. It might be worth pointing to this section in 'Dynamic assembly', similar to how 'Folding structures' points to 'Discrete structures' for more information. Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Materials and methods

  • ...and concentrations are determined using one of several nucleic acid quantitation methods using ultraviolet absorbance spectroscopy.
The two instances of 'using' here seems redundant in style, but a fix doesn't immediately come to mind. Can you think of a way to neatly eliminate at least one of the instances? Emw (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've combed through so far, this seems to be a high-quality article. I'll continue my review some time within the next few days. Emw (talk) 04:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This article is among the encyclopedia's finest. It is well-researched, comprehensive, and engaging. More notably, in my opinion, the article takes an advanced subject of active research and makes it nearly as understandable as possible to the average reader, while also making the content relevant to those with background in the subject area. I think this article is a exemplar of how to successfully execute that difficult balancing act. I support promoting 'DNA nanotechnology' to featured article status. Emw (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – It's a bit of a dense read so I'm not sure how approachable this article will prove to the subject matter. But I'm not sure what to suggest as an alternative. Here are a few concerns that caught my eye:

  • The File:Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png illustration appears in a different section (Properties of nucleic acids) than where it is discussed (Subfields).
  • Why is the "thermal annealing step" only mentioned under dynamic assembly? It seems significant so I think this step deserves an expanded description earlier in the article, along with the thermodynamic aspects.
  • In "Watson-Crick base pairing rules", is "Watson-Crick" necessary? If so, why wasn't it mentioned earlier.
  • "However, nucleic acid structures are less versatile than proteins in their functionality.": Why? Is it because proteins can use the 20 standard amino acids? Or is there some other factor?
  • Multiple uses of redundant "also" were found. See User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a#Eliminating redundancy.
  • "It has been suggested...", "...has been called...": looks like weasel wording.
  • Can the article give us some sort of time scale for how long it takes to produce useful amounts of an example nanotech product? I assume the processing happens in parallel, so it would seem highly scalable. I saw no mention of this benefit, but perhaps I glanced over it.
  • I only saw one mention of enzyme usage during the processing. Are there any others?

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:22, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I've dealt with most of the issues raised above. The image does refer to the Properties of nucleic acids subsection in addition to the Subfields subsection, because it demonstrates maximizing the number of base pairs. I think you're right that the use of thermal annealing and lack of enzymes deserves more prominent mention; I'll have to sit down and write a few extra sentences about that. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The caption for the File:Mao-4armjunction-schematic.png image points to a second image that is actually a Holliday junction, rather than a four-arm junction. Regards, RJH (talk) 03:57, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Holliday and immobile four-arm junctions have the same structure, just the strand sequences are different. The linked image doesn't contain sequence information, and thus accurately represents both junctions. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • This article has improved significantly since its first run at FAC, where I reviewed. The entry-level explanations in the first sections have improved greatly, which is wonderful to see. The illustrations have been improved. The article as a whole is reflecting a much more coherent picture of the field.
  • But I've been trying to put my finger on what it is that makes this article remain a dense and difficult read in many sections, and I hope I may have found it. It is most noticeable in the contrast between the History section and the technical sections. In those, the prose frequently uses a long, complex word where a short, pithy one could with care be substituted with the same sense. "Characterise the structure" could be "see the shape". The sense of life and joy, and the use of precise adverbs and adjectives to add vim and vigour to the descriptions, are present in parts but not others. "Key insight", "unusual"; these are words that guide the reader. "can indicate whether a structure incorporates all the individual desired strands"; change 'indicate' to 'show', 'incorporates' to 'has', remove 'individual', and see how the readability of the sentence shifts.
  • This article definitely has the promise to be an outstanding FA. Please keep going. But the readability of our exceptionally technical articles is an area where WP is so often criticised; I am strongly hoping this article can be an outstanding example to counter such criticism. Iridia (talk) 06:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely agreed ... I just didn't want to go down this rabbit-hole in my own comments. How do we optimize this for tightness, clarity, and flow, for instance? "A DX array whose assembly encodes an XOR operation has been demonstrated; this allows the DNA array to implement a cellular automaton that generates a fractal called the Sierpinski gasket." Each of these concepts can be written in "English", to give you a very long sentence that doesn't offer a significant improvement for the interested reader who lacks the background. But ... specialists will know that encoding XOR operations was a particularly difficult and significant achievement, "cellular automaton" is a crisp and accurate descripion, and "Sierpinski gasket" is a tight way of avoiding the hand-waving in "we can generate specific patterns of arbitrary complexity". This is why I don't copyedit technical scientific articles; I just can't answer the questions a copyeditor has to be able to answer. But I'd really like to support this article at FAC; Antony is shouldering most of the burden of improving our DNA nanotech articles, and this is a very important field, not well covered in the "popularizing" press. - Dank (push to talk) 11:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll have to go back and re-copyedit those sections. There's always a difficult balance between concision and understandability in this type of article, of how to explain the concepts enough for a layman but not so much that it takes emphasis away from the actual topic, while trying to avoid losing the precision that the scientific terms afford. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from ~SME I'm expert in the related area of protein and RNA 3D structure, am acquainted with a number of DNA/RNA nanotech researchers (Ned Seeman, Eric Schultes, Luc Jaeger, etc), and one of my former postdocs (Thom LaBean) works in this area. He reviewed the article and made a number of comments informally, which have been addressed by the editor. The mention of RNA nanotech I requested has been provided, and I added 2 refs for it; in future it should probably be expanded as a separate section or article, but I don't feel that's necessary for now. I'm not the right person to address the readability for a more general audience (which is being done by others), but I judge that the completeness, neutrality, and technical correctness are excellent. Some of the illustrations could still be improved, but their coverage and what they add to the text (esp the combination of diagrammatic structures with EM photos) is up there with the best of the scientific articles.

Therefore, I would like to vote in support, for FA status when most of the readability issues have been dealt with as well as feasible. - Dcrjsr (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from William Avery

Use of "and/or" is a style breach that needs to be fixed. See WP:ANDOR. William Avery (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is a well written, comprehensive introduction to a complex subject.[55] There are no glaring omissions, and although I realise that some readers might find some terms challenging, I cannot see how they can be rendered more simply without a loss of meaning and precision. I think the nominator has done a superb job here, particularly in explaining how the properties of DNA are exploited. IMHO, RNA nanotechnolgy [56] is a more exciting field of research, given that RNA is a more dynamic molecule; but perhaps this is a subject for another article. I still do not like the bolded headers in the references, but I can live with them. Also, I would trim the polyacrylamide gel figure to remove the wells at the top and the empty gel area at the bottom. Graham Colm (talk) 19:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I like the suggestion of cropping the gel image, which should be simple. With that done, would we have a consensus? And I'll try to help get an RNA nanotech article going in the future. - Dcrjsr (talk) 15:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- didn't see a dedicated image check above but, going through each of them myself, the licensing appears satisfactory, either editors' work, PLoS/Commons, or in one case a valid FUR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 00:29, 13 July 2012 [57].

Ed, Edd n Eddy

[edit]
Nominator(s): Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have brought the article to GA, and after some more work, it is finally ready for FA. Khanassassin ☪ 16:24, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - leaning to Oppose

  • Leads don't generally have references, so you needn't have deleted it altogether. Just an elaboration on who considers it to be "Cartoon Network's best works". It would obviously need to be referenced within the body, but if you say this doesn't exist, then perhaps best to leave out. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

  • No references.
    • As Jpcase stated below, the "Overview" section should be taken as a plot section, which does not require references: it's sourcing the work itself, as seen in many film/book/video game "GAs" and "FAs." --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Production

  • "Feeling pigeon-holed..." sounds a bit WP:EUPHEMISM
    • Oops, sorry, that shouldn't actually be there. LOL. Done.
  • "A deal was ultimately made for Cartoon Network to pick up the show" - not sure "pick up the show" works.
    • It is a commonly used word, and there's really no great alternative...

Additional works

  • You say "Fosters home for imaginary friends episode". If this is an episode then it shouldn't be in itals.
  • Crossover? Sorry what's that?
    • It is an often used word in telivision, as Jpcase stated below. If people really wouldn't understand it, I wiki-linked it, so Done.
I would also split the reflist into two columns to reduce white space.
Done. --Khanassassin ☪ 09:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cassianto (talk) 22:42, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry I misread it. It looked similar to re-runs. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cast

  • Could you think of another word for voiced? Two or three are O.K but there are 9 here including "voices". Maybe "played the part of"?

We could make it clear from the first sentence that all parts are voiced, and then go onto list in prose format who played what part. See this or this as an example of I think what you should be trying to achieve. Alternatively, can I suggest making Cast a section and having the characters as sub-sections? That way, the character can be described and the actor/actress listed individually such as this. Looking around FA articles of similar subject, I do feel as if this part of the article is a little brief.

  • Better. I agree with the separate character article's, but a FA should cover all aspects of the chosen subject. Again, have a look around at similar FA'S and you will find a brief description of some sort about the characters. The characters are an integral part of the series so a bit about them should be mentioned. My only concern is that the reader will want to divert from this by clicking on the character to read up on them when they needn't as all the information will be here to read. I'm sorry, I really must insist on at least a brief description about them.

-- Cassianto (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done. But, I will leave the credits as the only source for the voice actors, since the information about the characters themselves is, again, "sourcing the work itself." --Khanassassin ☪ 18:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional works

  • Done.

Reception

  • Done
  • Tables

OK I generally like lists to be separate from prose articles and I would ordinarily suggest moving them out into an article of their own. However, there is no guideline around this and is purely a personal prefernce, so I'm happy to leave in situ. -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Video Games

OK

I have taken care of the kids/children problem, the extra ], and the Fosters Home for Imaginary Friends episode problem. One of the sentences in the production section was referenced with the wrong source, however I have fixed that, and I am not sure why the section would need more references. Everything stated in the Production section is properly referenced.
To "shop" something means to try to sell it. This use of the word is usually in reference to creative works, as it is in this case. I do not know whether this is a completely formal use of the word or not, but it is a fairly common one. "Crossover" is also a commonly used word and even has its own Wikipedia page, seen here - Fictional crossover.
See comments. I was not familiar with this term and I think this could be simplified by saying "sell". -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Overview section is really just the article's plot section. I've been considering changing the title of the section, so that this point would be better understood, but there were other issues with the page that I wanted to focus on first. As I understand it, plot sections on Wikipedia pages do not require references, as they are referenced by the work itself. Everything stated in the Overview section is a clear fact that can be proven simply by viewing the television show. As such, it is my opinion that this section does not require references.--Jpcase (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a plot could you not call it as such? As I have stated above I tend not to review T.V or film articles, so this would be a first. I have checked and you are right that this seems to be the case. I have striked my comment. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't be correct, since it isn't a plot. It's a section which is sourced by the work itself, similar to a plot, but it's not a plot. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
er...right :-/ Overview is fine then. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the fixes - most of which have been addressed to my satisfaction. However, I am still leaning to Oppose on prose. Once the jargon issues have been addressed and the article has been proof read to ensure words and phrases like it have been eliminated, I would be happy to show my support. -- Cassianto (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "shopped it" and "picked it up" issues have been fixed. Crossover shouldn't be considered Jargon, since it's the official word - no real alternative. Like my comment above states, the "Overview" section is not a plot section, but should be treated similary. So, the issues are really fixed. --Khanassassin ☪ 14:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not, however I haven't heard of it before. As I said the link fixed this so this is now OK. Please see a few other issues I have picked up on -- Cassianto (talk) 16:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All points have been addressed to my satisfaction. I am now willing to show my support in relation to this FAC.

-- Cassianto (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment perhaps not a problem here, but at a WP:FLC nomination, there was a strong oppose from one of the directors (Giants2008), with this edit with drastic concerns over copyvio. Just thought it was worth noting so this process could take extra special care in this regard. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure there is no copyvio here. On that article, I added the sources, lead, infobox, and the new sections about production, reception, DVD releases etc. But, the summaries were there before, and I didn't touch them. My fault. Not a problem here, I can assure you that. --Khanassassin ☪ 18:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, need to be done per comment above (and a quick reminder that done templates aren't meant to be used on FAC pages, per the instructions at the top of WP:FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes may deceive me, but I can't find any mention of Rolf in the "Voicing" subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please make sure all data tables comply with MOS:DTT which includes row and col scopes for screen readers and would also advise that sortable tables should have linkable items linked every time. Also, please make sure you comply throughout with WP:DASH, there are a number of hyphens misused. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the lead
  • Why "original"? Shouldn't that be "Canada-based"? The semi-colon should really be a colon or a dash.<>
  • Needs some copy-editing throughout for better flow. For example, all the sentences of the second paragraph seem very disconnected from one another. (and the two about the reruns are completely unnecessary in the lead)
  • Last sentence uses "longest running" twice (reads clumsily) and gives the impression that the series is still airing new episodes.—indopug (talk) 16:15, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Original" means "part of Cartoon Cartoons, a collective name for the original Cartoon Network series," which is now explained. I think that the sentences in the second paragraph feel a bit more conected (minus the third one) now. In the last sentence, I reduced the number of "longest runing"s to one and made clear that the series has ended. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:52, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

  • 70 (as a whole), 131 (separate) is confusing if never explained. Pick one and let the list expand on that.
  • "During the show's run... regular series airings" - change to active voice?
  • The purpose of the series overview section 2nd paragraph is unclear to me. As someone who is unfamiliar with the show, why am I being told about the lack of other characters? I would much rather hear more about recurring side-characters (if they exist) or about the setting, instead of finding out that "new locations are rarely introduced". Tell me about what exists, not what doesn't exist. Consider moving the voicing section up to series overview since it talks much more about characters there?
  • For the 3rd paragraph of that section, is there a ref for that stuff? Also, it feels borderline like trivia, particularly the AKA bit.
  • "Squigglevision" - dangling semicolon.
  • "The Eds also held personality traits" - the clause explaining who the Three Stooges are tries to pack in too much information. Consider giving it its own sentence.
  • "Grim Adventures of Kids Next Door" - dangling semicolon.
  • "amongst boys amongst boys" - use among.
  • Reception section begins talking about positive reviews but then dives right into Briggs' negative review. Consider moving that to after the first few praising reviews.

Overall, looks good though. Will support, pending response. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Better, but you didn't address all the points I mentioned. Also, please don't strike through my comments. I can do that on my own when I feel they have been addressed. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, looks good. Support. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks pretty good and informative Support. Gamnos (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate notes

Support with comment: This sentence under production, "Antonucci, an advocate of hand-drawn animation, used wobbling animation in Ed, Edd n Eddy as a homage to the hand-drawn cartoons to cartoons of the period 1940 to1980.[1]", should have a space between 'to' and '1980'. TRLIJC19 (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the spacing problem, and also removed the extra "to cartoons"--Jpcase (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does the table of DVDs need to be on this article and the episode list? I know it's convenient, but whenever one gets edited, the other one will need to be edited too. Paper Luigi T • C 05:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the table from the episode list, putting the information in the overview table and lead, and kept the table in this article. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 19:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Article: "Ed, Edd n Eddy attracted an audience of 31 million households, was broadcast in 29 countries, and was popular among both children and adults."
Cite #5: "...was an instant hit with kids and adults alike. With a viewership of 31 million households, the series has enjoyed international and critical acclaim, airing in 29 countries worldwide..."
Article: "Bob Higgins, head of creative at Wild Brain, considered Ed, Edd n Eddy to be a 'landmark in animation.'"
Cite #19: "Ed, Edd n Eddy is a landmark in animation,’ notes Bob Higgins, head of creative at W!LDBRAIN."
Article: "All three main characters, and the Kanker sisters, appear as non-playable "Nano" characters in the massively multiplayer online game Cartoon Network Universe: FusionFall."
Cite #45: Source only mentions Eddy.
Article: "As of July 2012, the most recent game, Ed, Edd n Eddy: Scam of the Century, was released for the Nintendo DS on October 26, 2007"
Cite #42: Date is present.
Article: "The "Fools' Par-Ed-Ise" DVD, the box sets of the first two seasons, and several Ed, Edd n Eddy t-shirts are available for purchase on the Cartoon Network Shop."
Cite #32: Link is broken. Products are displayed.
Article: "David Cornelius considered the Eds to be adolescent equivalents of The Three Stooges."
Cite #4: "They're junior Larrys, Curlys, and Moes for the modern age,.."

Article appears to reflect sources overrall. but I did come across one that doesn't do it exactly and a deadlink. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the dead link. Regarding the "FusionFall" source, for now I'll add the game itself as a source, as I play the game at times myself, and screenshots can also be found, and it sadly seems that no source mentions all the characters. I'll still leave the current source. :) --Khanassassin ☪ 16:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 18:36, 9 July 2012 [58].

Paul McCartney

[edit]
Nominator(s): — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after implementing the previous FAC suggestions, and a thorough copyedit, I believe it is now up to standards. — GabeMc (talk) 06:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Given that this is written in British English, endeavor should be spelled as endeavour under '1960–1970: The Beatles'.
  • Again "New York theater", should be New York theatre?
  • Plural of bongo is bongos, not bongoes
  • "and earned Martin a grammy for his orchestral arrangement", shouldn't the g in Grammy be in caps?
  • "Which faired much better", fared
  • "he correctly perceives will give him clarity for melody without rendering his sound to thin for groove" → too thin
  • "If I had to pick one elecric guitar", spot the spelling mistake -- Lemonade51 (talk) 13:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments Lemonade51, I believe the above concerns have now been resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I fixed some of the Americanisms with a script. One comment I have is that the HarvErrors is showing a few errors, let me know if you need help fixing them. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a citation to "Miles 1989, pp. 84–88.", but I don't see any sources from Miles in 1989 in the bibliography, typo? ditto for "MacDonlad 2005, pp. 133–134." Otherwise the Harverrors are cleared up.
  • Also, I don't see any citations to Benitez 2010 or Davies 2009, might want to move them to further reading. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments Mark Arsten, and for your help fixing the cites, and clean-up. The Miles cite was intended to be 1997, and MacDonald was misspelled. I think that should clear up the HarvErrors you brought to my attention. I also moved Benitez and Davies to further reading. Thanks again! — GabeMc (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to oppose at present

The prose is wobbly in parts. I'll need two or three goes at this, and here's the first:

  • Childhood
  • Second para leaps from 1952 to 1961 and back to 1954.
I'm not sure what you mean here, the second graph in "Childhood" goes from 1947 → 1952 → 1953 → 1954, and does not mention any dates in the 1960s. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, you mean the mention of his A-level exams at age nineteen, okay, it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first member of his family to own a car, his mother rode a bicycle – not clear who was the first member with a car – McC or his mother.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • an early memory her leaving – missing an "of"?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he traded it for a £1 – who traded it – McC father or son?
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musical career
    • fête – I prefer to use the circumflex, but I believe the MoS doesn't. You might like to check.
    • Cavern club – as "club" was part of the place's name I think you should capitalise it
    • produced what many critics consider to be some of their finest material - I entirely concur, but you really must have a citation or two for this
    • the stand-out track "Maybe I'm Amazed" – citation needed
    • its a "one-man album" – it is (or at a pinch it's, but that really won't do for a Featured Article)
    • Bill Harry. In 1971 he collaborated with her – who did, Harry or McC?
    • born to the McCartney's – why the apostrophe?
    • the later involved McCartney's – doesn't make sense. Do you mean "the latter"?
    • Which fared much better – very odd to start a sentence with this pronoun
    • over the course of just two days – editorialising a bit; perhaps lose the "just"
    • Liverpool Oratorio – prose is fine here, but I think we really ought to have a sentence or two on its critical reception
    • Prince Charles awarded him an Honorary Fellowship of The Royal College of Music – surely the RCM awarded it and the Prince of Wales presented it
    • encouraged to do so by his late wife Linda – via a medium or before she was late?
    • seventeen-month long battle – trouble with hyphens here; you could just blitz the "long"

That's all for now. More shortly. In the interests of full disclosure I should mention that I went to the same grammar school as McCartney (but later) and had the same English master, A J (Cissie) Smith (a distant relation of George Harrison, I believe), in whose honour I contribute these pedantic quibbles. – Tim riley (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful and insightful comments Tim riley. I believe I have now resolved all the above concerns, and I look forward to your further comments. Thanks for your time, the article is much improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 01:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry for the delay in submitting my second batch of suggestions. I am snowed under at present, but I promise to do my very best to have more comments within the next few days. Tim riley (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, no hurries, thanks for your time and effort! — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to find time to add further comments within 48 hours. Profound apologies for the delay, and I hope I shall still be in time to contribute while the review is open. Tim riley (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
More Riley comments
  • General
  • You begin many paragraphs with "He" – which I think should be replaced with "McCartney".
Great suggestion, I think this issue is now resolved. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2001–present
  • In 2005 he released the rock album – this is a very long sentence and needs splitting.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • three sold out concerts – I think you probably need a hyphen for "sold-out"
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • was released in February 2012, that same month – stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicianship
  • As a musician, McCartney was largely self-taught, musicologist Ian MacDonald - stronger punctuation mark than a comma needed here
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He played a piano – I don't really think we need a wiki-link here: see WP:OVERLINK
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Tim riley (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Tim Riley, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. — GabeMc (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per choppy prose and punctuation. I will give a more detailed rationale later. --John (talk) 09:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This oppose is obsolete, and without an updated rationale, it should be disregarded. user pinged ~ GabeMc (talk) 11:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There have been major improvements, though I was easily able to find some surviving problems with ENGVAR, PEACOCK and so on. I think it could still benefit from another look from an experienced copy-editor ("brilliant prose"? It isn't quite there yet) but overall I weakly support this article's promotion. --John (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking another look, and thanks for your copyedits, and support. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments and copyedits Ling.Nut3, I have fixed the above concerns and look forward to any further comments you make. — GabeMc (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Two sources, Miles, Barry (1998), The Beatles: A Diary—An Intimate Day by Day History and The Beatles (2000), The Beatles Anthology are in the sources, but not referred to in citations.
  • Is there a reason for the "Main article: Linda McCartney" tag? It seems awkward on a subheading, and since Jane Asher, Heather Mills, and Nancy Shevell all have main articles, why not just link?
  • In the Musicianship section, it lists various instruments he played. Should there be a sentence or two about him as a drummer?

Cheers.

Thanks for your comments, good eye, Miles 1998 and the Beatles 2000 are not currently cited to in the article, so I have moved them to further reading per your suggestion. I removed the Linda tag. Also, good call on the drumming, I have included some details in the musicianship section as you suggested. Thanks for your time and input! — GabeMc (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Switched to support. Cheers! Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an excellent article, worthy of Featured status. I understand how difficult it is to organise an article on a musician, and how hard it is to cover such a well-known subject. Well done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:24, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The overall weighting is better than in the last FAC, but there are still some major missing pieces here.
Thanks for taking the time to make comments, I'll do my best to resolve them. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about the gradual leadership role shift in the group from John to Paul.
Good point Wasted. I think it's fixed now. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about most of the big singles during the last two years being Paul's.
I've edited this text string: "McCartney's contributions to the band's hit song's include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966), "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44]" to this: "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include: "Can't Buy Me Love" (1964), "Yesterday" (1965), Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" (1966). He was also the primary writer of five of their last six US number ones, which were: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[46]" Which should address this issue, let me know if it does not. Also the article later mentions that "Hey Jude" was the band's biggest single ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about Paul being the immediate cause of the band's breakup (although of course it was headed that way anyway).
If you mean that he was the first to sue for dissolution, then this is fixed now. If you mean he caused it, then that's really just an opinion that is not exactly supported by most of the sources I own (50+ books). There were many, many factors, (drugs, Yoko, marriage, the fact that they had been together for 13+ years, etcetera) and to blame Paul is overly simplistic, would require a WP:SYNTH, and its a bit dangerous IMO, afterall, this is a BLP. To do that topic justice would require a sub-section that really belongs at The Beatles and/or The Beatles' break-up anyway, not here IMO. I could perhaps be convinced otherwise, but please provide specific sourcing, versus a wild goose-chase for me to prove/disprove. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I just mean the former. Remember that to the outside world, the news came in April 1970 that the Beatles had broken up due to McCartney leaving them. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've now added the 10 April 1970 date for Paul's public leaving. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing about the 3-against-1 split among the Beatles the characterized the immediate post-breakup period, both legally (McCartney's lawsuits, Eastman vs Allen Klein, etc) and musically (especially John and George, with Ringo collaborating with them and not yet Paul, although Ringo was obviously less hostile than the other two).
Fixed I think, but are you expecting info on their post-beatles musical collaborations at Paul McCartney? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of his drums playing (on five Beatles tracks, then during several solo/Wings albums, especially Band on the Run) should be included.
Fixed. But I'm only aware of his playing drums on three Beatles tracks, which two did I miss? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Ballad of John and Yoko" (a hit single) and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" (maybe Ringo too on that one).
I added "TBOJAY", missed that one last night, but "WDWDIITR" is Ringo, according to MacDonald, Miles and Lewisohn. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "Why Don't We ..." had Paul playing drums in its first recording, but the recording used on the album has Ringo. I should have double-checked ... Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • More description of his piano playing could be added, especially since it's featured on some of the Beatles' most famous late-era songs and with disparate styles - the Fats Domino of "Lady Madonna" to the liturgical of "Let It Be".
Good suggestions Wasted, I added some detail, and will look for more. Please do point me to any sources you are aware of. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His synthesizer playing/arranging should be mentioned. He was one of the early users of the Moog - somewhere in the Carr-Tyler book it praises him for getting something useful out of it without going overboard - and it became a key part of many of his later songs, e.g. some of Band on the Run, "Wonderful Christmastime", etc.
I did my best to flesh out some detail here. I'll add more as I find it. Which Carr-Tyler book do you mean? I'm only aware of one, low-quality (IMO) out-of-print, expensive picture-book. As far as Moog use in the Beatles, Harrison played in on two songs (as well as an entire solo album in 1968) and Lennon only once, Paul only played it on "Maxwell's SH" to my knowledge, MacDonald agrees.(MacDonald, 2005, p.366) — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your synthesizer examples of "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" and "London Town" seem a little obscure. His most prominent post-Beatles synth parts are probably "Jet", "Band on the Run", and "Wonderful Christmastime", with "With a Little Luck" maybe coming fourth. The Carr-Tyler book ({{cite book |last=Carr |first=Roy |authorlink=Roy Carr |last2=Tyler |first2=Tony |authorlink2=Tony Tyler |title=[[The Beatles: An Illustrated Record]] |publisher=Harmony Books |year=1975 |isbn=0-517-52045-1 |ref=harv}} is actually very good, a NYT best-seller, and filled the gap in Beatles history books between Hunter Davies and the spate in the 1980s. The quote from page 110 is in reference to the Band on the Run album, but also him in general, and says "... he also plays the Moog synthesizer with more taste than most other exponents of this Frankensteinian instrument." And in any case, this section would be a good vehicle for including mention of "Wonderful Christmastime" in the article, which is probably one of the five most played post-Beatles McCartney songs of all when you factor in the many all-Christmas-from-November-on radio stations. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1) I specifically mention "Loup (1st Indian on the Moon)" because I have a reliable source (Benitez, 2010, p.46) that explicitly states Macca actually played the Moog on it himself. That you think "London Town" is an obscure mention is an opinion, Ingham calls the song "particularly memorable".(Ingham, 2009, p.117) Again, I also have a WP:RS that states Macca played the keys on it (Blaney, 2007, p.123). 2) Per Blaney 2007, the keyboard parts on "Jet" and "Band on the Run" were played by Linda, not Paul.(Blaney, 2007, p.85) In fact, according to Blaney, Macca played keys on just one track from BOTR; "Picasso's Last Words". 3) I've added "Wonderful Christmastime", but I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for inclusion of the Carr-Tyler book, which while it may well be "actually very good" as you say, they are likely incorrect to state that Macca played the Moog parts which they praise. Again, according to Blaney, Linda played almost all of the one-finger, monophonic Moog parts of which Carr-Tyler speak. Also, it's highly unlikely (IMO as a musician) that the syth part on "WCT" was even a Moog, as the parts are polyphonic and they modulate (something a Moog from 1979 could not accomplish), it was most likley a Sequential Circuits Prophet-5, though I am still looking for a WP:RS that explicitly states this. That Paul played keys on the track is enough for now. 5) "With a Little Luck" was already mentioned in the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I wasn't aware that Linda played those parts, but I'm sure he wrote the part and determined what it would sound like. And I wasn't implying that "Wonderful Christmastime" has a Moog. I'm glad that song is now in the article, but in your sentence "McCartney also played a synthesizer on the Christmas song, "Wonderful Christmastime", a perennial holiday favourite", the text "the Christmas song" is pretty redundant. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops. Fixed the wikilink. Thanks for the catch! ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mention of the criticism he endured for keeping Linda in his bands (especially on tour) given her somewhat limited musical abilities. The point is he didn't care what anyone thought, he was determined to have her in his musical life just as in the rest of his life.
Agreed. I added some details to that effect, will add more as I find it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • McCartney's interest in electronic music is overweighted in the "Beatles" section. Yes, I know ever since the 1989 tour McCartney has been promoting this in order to counter the 'Paul just wrote the pretty songs, John wrote the hard-rocking, artistically challenging material' nonsense. And it is worth a brief mention. But Paul did write beautiful melodies, which were inherently more sophisticated and developed than John's. And "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" were both more important in broadening the horizons of what the Beatles could do on record than any of McCartney's electronic experiments. And to give most of a paragraph to this electronic experiment and never mention at all McCartney's role in side two of Abbey Road is just plain wrong.
I think it's fixed now. Let me know if/where you want more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian criticism of Liverpool Oratorio seems overweighted. It, or at least aspects of it, got some favorable notices too.
I did my best here, if you are aware of a more favorable review, please do point me in the right direction. As far as I can tell no "real" classical critique gave it an overall favorable review. I could be wrong, and as I said, if you can provide a better example I would be glad to use it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been. Through the mid-1980s his records sold well and he got a lot of radio airplay, but since then he hasn't really. What was his last new song to get any kind of airplay in the U.S.? Probably "My Brave Face" back in 1989, maybe "Freedom" a bit after 9/11. That's it. His concert tours have been very successful, but it's off of old material. To illustrate, has any song later than the early 1980s appeared on any tour after the one to promote its containing album? That's kind of a metric for whether aging performers/composers have vital new music or not.
"The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been."
A very confusing comment. The fourth sentence reads: "He has been described by Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and "the most successful songwriter" in UK chart history.[1][2]" In "Recognition and achievements" it says: "In 1986 he received acclaim from the Guinness Book of Records Hall of Fame, who presented him with a rhodium disk to commemorate his standing "as the most successful musician of all-time."[1]" The article mentions his three most succsessful songs, and every single #1 he ever had in the US, and in the UK. The lead ends with "He is one of the UK's wealthiest people, with an estimated fortune of £475 million in 2010".
As far as the radio play stuff. Are you asking me to summarize the end of his popularity according to who? Can you suggest a source for this? — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have written, "The article doesn't make clear what McCartney's level of commercial success has been from the mid-late 1980s to the present." The answer being: Album sales, somewhat successful. Singles and radio play, not successful at all. Concert tours, very successful but based upon old material. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I could cite that without a WP:SYNTH, or a WP:OR. An astute reader should be able to tell that his last #1 hits came in the 1980s. I know of no way to cite radio play, or any sources that detail which songs he has played live over the last 42 years (minus the 1980s) of touring post-Beatles. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can certainly state somewhere that his last number one hit came in year X, his last top twenty hit came in year Y, things like that. Any of the Joel Whitburn-type sources can verify that. You can say that his last platinum studio album came in year Z, the RIAA database will verify that. You can use a source like this MW/WSJ one to show to McCartney, like many older artists, had struggled to get radio airplay for his newer material. This Chicago Tribune piece confirms that McCartney was dissatisfied with the low radio airplay he was getting. I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should? - but these sources can be used to confirm the point about diminishing airplay for new material. I'll keep looking for sources on what's played in concerts. Wasted Time R (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now currently mentions: "[When] his last number one hit came", "[When] his last top twenty hit came " and "[When] his last platinum studio album came". I'm not at all interested in the over analysis of his radio play per song, album, state, region, country or decade, radio play is a dying format anyway, should we discuss his 8-track and cassette sales as well? As far as the songlist at his live shows, the article currently establishes that as of 2002 his live sets of 36 songs included 23 Beatles songs. The article also mentions that in 2005 his shows consisted of 35 songs, with 23 Beatles tracks. The article also makes clear that during his most recent shows in Mexico City, just last month, the band played 23 Beatles tracks in a 37-song set, that's enough detail on his performances of Beatles songs I think, we have clearly established that the balance of his live-set has remained roughly consistent since 2002. P.S., paulmccartney.com is good source for "what's played in concerts". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment: "I realize that currently the article doesn't cover any of his record company switches - maybe it should?", there is now a comprehensive sub-section devoted to 50 years of record label data, thanks again for the great suggestions. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also one element of style that consistently bothers me while reading the article is the overuse of in-text attributions. If something is clearly true and supported by many sources, it's okay just to state it as fact! Some examples:
  • "McCartney was dubbed "the cute Beatle", according to Miles." This was added based on a comment I made in the previous FAC, but there's no need to limit it the in-text opinion of one writer. There are many references that will say this, look at this Google News archive search for example.
"the cute Beatle" is a direct quote from Miles, who has not been established yet, therefore this quote needs to be attributed in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't need a quote. You can write something like, "... McCartney was known as the 'cute' Beatle" and source it. That's not a quote, it's a label, and it doesn't need in-text attribution.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""one-man album with Paul playing all the instruments" himself, writes Beatles biographer Bill Harry." Why the in-text attribution? Do you or someone else really doubt that McCartney played all the instruments on McCartney himself?
Ditto. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You should paraphrase this and cite it, no quote is needed.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the feature film Give My Regards to Broad Street, a musical which included Starr, and "was savagely panned by the critics" according to Harry" Was it not panned by critics according to anyone else?
Ditto, I'm merely attributing a quote in-line because it is unclear who is saying it. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite.
I disagree here, and prefer to keep the direct quote/in-line attribution. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""religion did not play a part in their upbringing" according to biographer Barry Miles" Are there other biographers who think differently? If so, that should be presented (with "Let It Be" presumably as partial evidence). If not, this should just be presented as fact and sourced.
No, the sources overwhelmingly agree, I cite Miles because he is being directly quoted, and BTW, "Let It Be" is not at all about the virgin Mary, or religion, Paul's mother came to him in a dream telling him to "Let it Be", or so he claims, her name was Mary. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite several of the stronger sources.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney designed a series of six postage stamps issued by the Isle of Man Post in 2002, and according to BBC News, he is the first major rock star in the world to do so." Either we believe this is a fact, in which case it should just be stated, or we think it is it is suspect, in which case (since this is a fairly minor matter) it should be removed.
Well, the BBC is the source for the claim, so they are attributed in-line, lest the material be challenged later (see below) — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrase and cite. If someone doesn't believe it, they can see what source you are using. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree here. "the first major rock star in the world to do so" is a somewhat bold/ambiguous claim, which I would much rather quote and attribute to the BBC in-line. — GabeMc (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is now fixed via paraphrase. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither the weighting/omissions list or the unnecessary in-text attributions list are exhaustive; they are just some that I noticed going through the current version of the article. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a work/time crunch at the moment, so will follow up on the above later, but some other things:
  • The chronology towards the end of the "1960–1970: The Beatles" section is now all jumbled.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are still ordering problems in this section. "McCartney's contributions to the band's early hits include ..." should come earlier, and before the discussions of "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby". The "For Abbey Road ..." description should go a little earlier, and I think the breakup/aftermath material should be its own paragraph. (The current juxtaposition suggests the Abbey Road medley disagreement was a major factor leading to the breakup, when of course it was just one of many.) The "Between 1963 and 1970 ..." summary should either go near the beginning or near the end, not in the middle of the section. There is a missing link to The Beatles' 1966 US tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this issue is now fixed, though I'm not sure where you expect the Abbey Road material, as it is now mentioned in the chronology during the summer of 1969, when it was recorded. — GabeMc (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To illustrate that the legal/business squabbles went on a long time, McCartney's absence at the band's inclusion in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1989 (or whenever it was) should be included.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one of the points about "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby" is that the former was their first song to include strings, and the latter the first to include no pop instruments at all. In addition I think something indicating the breadth of McCartney's style during the Beatles is warranted, perhaps text like "While McCartney was featured in many of the group's best-known ballads, he was also responsible for frenetic rockers such as 'Long Tall Sally', 'I'm Down', and 'Helter Skelter'."
I added the requested detail on "Yesterday" and "Eleanor Rigby", but as far as "the breadth of McCartney's style", I think this is already well covered in the "Musicianship#Vocals" section. Though any suggestions for specific material not already included there is always welcome. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's in the later section, but I still think some kind of mention is due in the Beatles section that he was responsible for some of their fiercest rockers. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As John was equally "responsible for some of their fiercest rockers", this is beginning to border on a WP:NPOV issue IMO, so which song/s do you specifically request I summarize and/or mention in the Beatles summary section that are not already covered in the "Musicianship" section or elsewhere? — GabeMc (talk) 02:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were the consequence of his drug arrests? Wasn't he barred from entry into some countries for a while? Where did the 1984 and 1997 arrests take place?
Fixed. Details added. — GabeMc (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really needs to be more on his concert tours. The live albums from them are not significant, except for Wings Over America, but other things about them are. The Wings University Tour illustrated his desire to be in a working band and to escape some of his Beatles fame by operating in a low-key manner and not playing any Beatles songs. The Wings Over America Tour was very high profile and a big success but notably with only five Beatles songs played in most shows. The 1989 World Tour was a milestone in that it was the first time, two decades after the fact, that he fully embraced his Beatles past and fully integrated that material into his shows. Since then his tours have explored more of the Beatles catalogue. Some brief metrics on the commercial success of the tours can be given: how many dates, the total gross, rank within other tours for the year, Billboard or Pollstar awards if any. Sources do exist for all this, see for example this Billboard article declaring his Driving Tour the tops in 2002. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your insightful suggestions, the article is greatly improved due to your effort. I believe I have resolved the issue of lack of detail on his tours. Let me know if/where you think we need more/less detail. — GabeMc (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the material is good, except that a) you are missing links, each of these tours has its own article and b) the material should be integrated into each of the appropriate "Musical career" sections (Wings, 1982-1989, etc). There's no reason to treat the tours separately from his other musical activity at the time (singles, albums, films, etc). The "Tours" section should just have the list of tours, the same way the "Discography" section has a list of albums. You can also be a bit more concise about describing the Beatles content of the tours, meaning there's no need to name specific Beatles songs played. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Linked and integrated, great suggestions, thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better, a few further comments on this aspect:
  • "while "Scrupulously avoiding Beatles songs" during their performances, writes Ingham." is another example of an unnecessary in-text quote and attribution. Just paraphrase and cite by saying "while not playing any Beatles songs" or something like that.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wings mananger, John Morris comments ..." the tense is unclear (is he saying this then or now?) and the whole quote seems unnecessary; just say the most of the tour was played in halls. \
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would drop the whole ", including the Little Richard hit, "Long Tall Sally", which McCartney performed during the encore, the only song he played during the tour that had previously been recorded by the Beatles" text, which is unnecessarily complicated; the previous text gets the idea across
I respectfully disagree. The point here is to inform the reader of the first example of a song performed by Wings that had been previously recorded by the Beatles. I prefer to retain this material for that reason. It also illustrates that a Little Richard cover was his first choice when "breaking" the seal on the Beatles recording catalog, which reinforces Richard's influence on Paul. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add a parenthetical that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows.
Good suggestion. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not concerts, but there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful; it was recorded under trying circumstances (band members quitting, Lagos, etc) and has appeared on several "best albums of all time" list. \
I agree, good suggestion, thanks. I added some detail. Let me know if I missed anything crucial. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If anything, you put too much on it. The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right. I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one", omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones), and omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones). At the end where you say "They also recorded six US number one singles ..." you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, the Wings section is now longer then the Beatles section primarily because of the Wings tour info, which about doubled its size and which you (rightly I think) told me to integrate into the section. As far as: "I think you can omit "It was a US and UK number one"" What about your above comment: ""Live and Let Die" was a top ten US hit too, and you might add ... that it became a pyro-filled centerpiece of his later live shows." Only BOTR and Venus and Mars were #1s in the UK and the US, so it's notable. As far as "omit the mention of Grammys (they weren't major ones)" please see: "there needs to be more on Band on the Run: it is by far his most critically acclaimed post-Beatles work, as well as his most commercially successful". Per: "omit the mention of "Jet" and "Helen Wheels" (you generally don't mention songs in this section unless they were number ones)." Please see above, also, not exactly accurate, I mentioned "Live and Let Die" (at your suggestion I believe, and thanks, I agree), which was not a number one in the UK or the US. "Jet" and "HW" were hits, the only other two from BOTR that could be called hits, so their inclusion is appropriate to help illustrate BOTRs commercial success. Further, "you might also give the total number of top tens in both the US and UK for Wings." Yeah, I might, but you just said there is now "too much" detail in the section. I'll do some research later and I've included Wings top ten totals for the US and UK. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is for the article to cover the most important things, but do so succinctly. Whether songs reached number one is not the only criteria for giving them attention here. If you go to any McCartney show, what three post-Beatles songs get the biggest audience reaction? "Maybe I'm Amazed", "Band on the Run", and "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make McCartney's Super Bowl halftime show? "Live and Let Die". What was the one post-Beatles song to make the Queen Jubilee Concert a couple of weeks ago? "Live and Let Die". So that's why I think a little extra attention is warranted to that song. Regarding Band on the Run, I would just say something like: "..., the acclaimed album of the same name, became Wings' first platinum LP. It was recorded in 1973 in Lagos, Nigeria, under difficult circumstances after the sudden departure of two group members. It was the band's first LP to top the charts in both countries and the first ever to top Billboard's album chart on three separate occasions. One of the best-selling LPs of the decade, Rolling Stone named it Album of the Year for 1974 and later gave it a spot on their list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. It is regarded by many as McCartney's finest post-Beatles work." That's about half the length of your text but gets the point across equally well. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll trim what I can, but lets just agree to disagree on this one. The BOTR material is one medium sized paragraph, hardly excessive IMO for a 140,000 byte article, when you consider BOTR is likely his greatest post-Beatles accomplishment. That it was made in Nigeria is a trivial detail that belongs at the article page, and that you want me to add that back, yet cut other material in the name of brevity seems to me a dichotomy. — GabeMc (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uhh, I think the "dichotomy" is that you've nominated this article twice at FAC, meaning after careful, thorough examination you thought the content in the article was just right. The first time, Band on the Run was not even mentioned in it, and the second time, all it said was "the 'acclaimed' album of the same name, Wings' third, was a massive success that became their first platinum album." So now all of a sudden you think the text I proposed is too skimpy!? Wasted Time R (talk) 04:01, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the first nom was premature, this second one much less so. In my past experience, an FAC nom was typically ignored for several weeks before any comments even started to come in, so I wrongly thought I could "whip it into shape" before any serious comments, my bad, FAC is not a workshop. My point here, now, is while I have greatly appreciated your helpful, thoughtful and insightful input throughout, I also retain some creative license, i.e. my input has value as well. In a nut-shell, I just think the medium sized graph on BOTR is not excessive in the least. That you want me to mention that it was recorded in Nigeria, now that's excessive IMO, since the article does not mention where any of his other albums (Beatles, Wings or solo) were recorded. I sincerely thank you once again for all the great input that has helped me to improve the article, but it is not my understanding of FAC that a nominator must exactly follow each and every suggestion offered without any autonomous opinions of their own. — GabeMc (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree that the nominator should fight for his or her vision of the article and does not have to agree with, or implement, all of the suggestions at FAC. I'm just not sure what your vision for the article is, given the swings in weighting that have happened between 2nd FAC, 3rd FAC start, and 3rd FAC now. But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Macca was in both the Beatles and Wings for roughly the same length of time, so I hear you in principle on weight, all things being equal, however word-counting and content analysis are not equal. As I said above, the Wings section details each of their tours (at your suggestion), the Beatles section does not. Remove the tours info from the Wings section and it would no longer be larger than the Beatles section. Also, the Beatles were a band Macca was once part of, whereas Wings was his band. The Wings section goes into detail about albums that the Beatles' section does not. At any rate, if you absolutely insist that the Wings section cannot be longer than the Beatles section, then what specifically do you think is missing from the Beatles section that should be included and/or what excessive detail is there in the Wings section that would significantly reduce it's size if removed, without compromising comprehensiveness? Also, for the record, as the article currently reads: the Wings section contains 1321 words; the Beatles section: 1038, a difference of only 283 words. Keep in mind also that the Wings section covers over 11 years (1970-81) whereas the Beatles section covers less than 10 (August 1960-April 1970). So is less than 300 words really so undue for a section that covers one full year more? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insisting on anything, absolutely or otherwise. What I would drop is the naming of the members (other than the McCartneys and Laine); it's handled well in the Wings article, with a nice bar chart indicating periods of membership. I don't see a need for it in this article (and neither did you, on either of your FAC submissions). Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) You keep mentioning how poor quality the article was at it's prior FACs, or even the start of this one, or what content it included or didn't include then, FTR I agree with you, it was poor-quality then, it's much better today, can we please move on Wasted? What matters is whether or not the article is FA quality now, you keep mentioning that prior versions were not FA quality and you have made your point on that perfectly clear, I don't dispute it, never did really and I do not think it needs to be restated ad nauseum. Anyone can check and see what a miserable state this article was in on 25 April 2012, when I began my extensive copyedit, of which you've proved a valuable asset. Indeed, it's clear that the article has come a very long way in two months, as it looks pretty decent right now, exactly two months later. 2) Anyway, if I did trim out the Wings members names, and their joining/quitting, it would result in a net reduction of less than 100 words, which is well within my editorial discretion. In sum, I prefer that the Wings section names each member. Also, see your comments immediately below, "Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent ... it is an important point." Is an "important point" worth 100 words or so? If more editors than just you complain about it how much space is devoted to naming the former members of Wings, I'll gladly trim them out, but then, why do I even mention his current and former band line-ups by name? Indeed it was you who suggested I specifically add the name of the drummer who played with Macca for only one tour ever. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Also, FTR, the Beatles section is now longer than the Wings section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed, unless I missed it, there's nothing in this section about the constant personnel changes that Wings underwent. You don't have to name all the members, but it is an important point.
Seems like excessive detail for an overview article of musician Paul McCartney when there is already a topical article dedicated to the band Wings, but sure, I added details to include every member, when they joined and when they quit. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with you that naming all the members is excessive detail! So I'm not sure why you added it in response to my comment, when all I suggested is stating something near the beginning of the section like "Wings underwent frequent personnel changes, with the McCartneys and Laine the only constant members." Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was fairly easy to just name them all and I would prefer to retain this info now. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording on the 1975-76 Wings Over America/World tour suggests there were more Beatles songs played than there were. I would simply state that there were 5 Beatles songs played in the 29-song shows. If you then want name them, you can.
Fixed. I retained the five song titles as a matter of personal preference. I cannot currently pin-point whether there were 25, 29 or 30 songs played per night, my guess is it varied. Harry says the shows included 30 songs, yet he lists only 25. He does state that the shows were two-hours long, so I included that for perspective. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wings was formally disbanded in 1981, and Laine claimed shortly after that a significant cause of their dissolution was McCartney's reluctance to tour, fearing for his personal safety after the 1980 murder of Lennon." I've always had the sense that Wings just ran its course, both commercially and artistically. And that McCartney's drugs charges in Japan had as much to do with it as what happened to John. Is this really the major reason that sources give for it ending?
Yeah, I'm sure Wings running it's natural course was a major factor also. As far as the Japan drug charges, they were dropped and Macca got off with 10 days in jail, so I'm not sure how that would compare to the murder of one of his greatest friends and former bandmates. Also, though I do not include it in the article out of respect/safety for Macca, according to at least two high-quality sources ((George-Warren, 2001, p. 626), (Benitez, 2010, p.97)) Paul was getting death threats against him (George-Warren) and his family (Benitez). Benitez calls the threats, "the final blow" for Wings. Further, Macca did not tour again for over a decade, something that Wings running its course and/or the 1980 drug charges would not likely have been a notable factor in. Afterall, he was busted twice in 1972, convicted in 1973 and busted again in 1975, yet these encounters with the police left him undeterred, indeed he was busted again in 1984. In summary, most sources are vague as to why Wings split, stating merely when they did. The sources that aren't vague generally hint at McCartney's fear he "was gonna be next", a paraphrased Macca quote I can't locate at the moment. At any rate, the article is merely stating that Laine made this claim in 1981, which is indeed a statement of fact, supported by more than one WP:RS. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few details so as to not make it seem Lennon's murder was the only reason Wings split. Good suggestions as always, thanks again Wasted Time R. — GabeMc (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later that year he launched the Paul McCartney World Tour ..." Should indicate that it was with a six-person touring band he formed, since you mention the same for his later/current band.
Fixed, band members added. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not sure adding all the band members is needed, just that he did so. If you do keep all the names in, you need to add the drummer switch for the New World Tour. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I named them all for internal consistency, since Macca's other bands are named. I've added a bit on the drummer switch for the New World Tour. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the New World Tour" - tour names are not quoted.
Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He toured in support of Driving Rain ..." By this point, the "in support of" notion is obsolete and shouldn't be used. Established rock artists such as McCartney, the Stones, Springsteen, U2, etc. make much more from their tours than they do from their albums. If anything, a new album exists to give them a reason to tour, not the other way around.
Good point. Fixed. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's outside the scope of this article, but the four 2002 Driving tours articles should really be coalesced into one, since they were just differently branded legs of the same thing. (That's how Steel Wheels/Urban Jungle Tour is handled, as well as Zooropa and Zoomerang being included in Zoo TV Tour.) That would make the writing and linking less awkward in this article.
I agree 100%, the four "mini-drivin'" tours should be merged together. I would certainly be willing to contribute to this effort, but having never merged any articles myself, I would need some assistance from a more experienced editor in that regard. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ball is rolling on this merge and it could/should be accomplished soon. — GabeMc (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC) The 'Driving' articles are now merged, thanks to Evanh2008. — GabeMc (talk) 03:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good work on pushing the merge. I neglected to mention it in the previous comment, but the Driving tour was also named the Pollstar tour of the year, see this source. You can include that, very briefly: "and was named top tour of the year by Billboard and Pollstar". Wasted Time R (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Pollstar detail, thanks for the source. — GabeMc (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Out of time again, more later. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking the time to comment and to put forth the effort. The article is greatly improved due to your suggestions. — GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some new comments from me:
  • The list of early Beatles songs he was the contributor of should include "I Saw Her Standing There". Even though not a single, in the U.S. at least it has become one of the best known of all Beatles songs to the younger generation, due to its ubiquitous use during breaks at sporting events and at bar/bat mitzvahs and the like.
Agreed, it is now included in the list. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the discussion of McCartney's bass playing should refer to the Höfner as the "violin" bass, since that's how many people think of it. You could also mention that he returned to using it in the late 1980s.
Well, the thing is, it's erroneously called a "violin" bass, it is actually shaped as a viola. So no, I would rather not spread that misnomer, no matter how popular. That is/should be covered/explained at the topical article dedicated to the instrument. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC) The article now specifies when Macca switched back to the Hofner c.late '80-early '90s. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An upcoming tribute album is expected in June 2012 ..." June is almost over and it hasn't materialized. I would suggest removing this, and adding it back in if and when it happens. In fact, I'd wait to see if it gets much of a reception, since tribute albums have become a dime a dozen at this point.
I agree, it's now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mentions of "Coming Up" as both a Wings hit and a solo song will confused the reader who doesn't know the back story. I would either omit the second mention or label it an alternate version.
This is fixed and should be clear now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's good advice, thanks again for taking the time out to help Wasted! ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment - I'll try to ce out the unneeded in-line attributions. I would however, like to point out, per WP:QUOTE:

Quotations must be verifiably attributed to a reliable source (see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence). Wikipedia policy for proper attribution of quotes is found in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Other guidelines are found in WP:MOSQUOTE and WP:CITE. Attribution should be provided in the text of the article, not exclusively in a footnote or citation. A reader should not have to follow a footnote to learn whose words a quote is. Any quotation that is not sourced may be removed at any time, however, a good faith search in an effort to find a source before removing a quote is appreciated (see WP:UNSOURCED and WP:PRESERVE).

Also this exchange,

Comment In the lead section: "According to the BBC, his Beatles song 'Yesterday' has been covered by over 2,200 artists—more than any other song." This is a statement of fact, not opinion. If there is no serious dispute about it, it need not and should not be attributed in the lead. If there IS a serious dispute about it, it should not appear in the lead. My guess is that the former is true, and "According to the BBC" should be cut. DocKino (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, great point, I agree. It's a sourced statement of fact that should not be contentious. I think I only had it there to cover my butt, thinking people would want to know who made this claim. I've made an edit that I believe resolves this issue. — GabeMc (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Which thirty hours later resulted in this thread, a subject I cannot remember being challenged in years, if ever. — GabeMc (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment References to BBC News are inconsistent. Some use BBC while others use BBC News. Also think that publisher should be BBC and work BBC News. Keith D (talk) 23:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, good eye. I have made the useage consistent throughout, preferring BBC News as the publisher, per two other related FAs (The Beatles and John Lennon, for project consistency) and a previous FA suggestion by Brianboulton. If I used the "work" field, BBC News would be italicised, which, as a non-print source would be in error. — GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These are now fixed, thanks for the catch and for taking the time to help! — GabeMc (talk) 21:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Noleander

  • General: Should add {{personality rights}} to the images. May not be an FA requirement, but a good thing to do.
I would be happy to, will work on this later tonight. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Accomplished. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, images of buildings taken from public streets are covered in England by FoP, however, I claim to be no expert on this matter. — GabeMc (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Paul, George & John.png - Can you supply some more detail on this license? It is in dutch, and I don't (yet) see where the photographer gave up the copyright.
Well, this site says: "All of the images in the archive as the source of sound and image, are to be used under Creative Commons license". Not sure if that is enough, if you think it wiser to just remove the image I would be happy to do so. — GabeMc (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've now swapped out File:Paul, George & John.png for File:The Beatles in America.JPG, a public domain image. — GabeMc (talk) 01:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a tough one. All the other images on this site are credited to "Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton". The image in question, is actually a screenshot from a video credited to www.whitehouse.gov, though clearly PBS was also involved in the filming or maybe just the airing. So is the screenshot the property of PBS or the White House? If you think it would be better to just remove it and/or replace it with one from the same source yet explicitly credited to Samantha Appleton I cetainly will. — GabeMc (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is probably safer to just use one of the still photos from that web site, since the photographer is named. --Noleander (talk) 06:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only other two images on the site that include McCartney aren't that useful, and the section really does not need another image anyway, I deleted File:Mccartney gershwin.png from the article to resolve this concern. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander image review. --Noleander (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and helpful advice. GabeMc talk, 07:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (by contributor) - I've been helping out a little with this FAC, but since none of my contributions have been very significant (mostly punctuation fixes, in fact), I believe I'm qualified to !vote. The article has greatly improved in the past few weeks, and I believe it now meets all the Featured Article criteria. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Source spot check Having failed to complete my editorial comments above (pressure of other things, and not reluctance), I think I owe it to the nominator to volunteer to do the requested spot check of sources. I shall be at the British Library on Thursday this week, and will order the necessary books. If anyone else gets in first I shall make way. Tim riley (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Later: I have ordered Harry 2002 The Paul McCartney Encyclopedia, Benitez 2010 The Words and Music of Paul McCartney: The Solo Years and MacDonald 2005 Revolution in the Head: The Beatles' Records and the Sixties. Review to follow on Thursday. Tim riley (talk) 16:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim Riley! ~ GabeMc (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While a lot of hard work has obviously gone into the substance, this article requires a serious, thorough copyedit. It is just chockful of grammatical errors (punctuation appears to be a particular problem). There are also many instances of poor handling of quotes. Here's a typical example of a problem that occurs at least a dozen times:

MacDonald considers McCartney's Mellotron intro on "Strawberry Fields Forever" a "main feature" of the song's "texture".

Quoting things as simple as "main feature" and "texture"—and two of those in a single sentence? That may be suitable for a Zagat guide, but not an encyclopedia article. Again, that's one example of many. N.B.: I happened to pull that example from the very brief Keyboards subsection, in which there are no less than five grammatical errors, most of them involving punctuation. An outside copyeditor needs to be brought in to give the whole thing a fresh eye.—DCGeist (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to comment DCGeist! I agree and I've fixed (with a paraphrase) the specific example you gave above and I would be happy to fix any other specific examples you are willing to bring to my attention. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I will go through the article tonight and paraphrase as many unneeded quotes as I can. I'll also work on the punctuation issues you've mentioned, though I must admit that I find your comment in that regard somewhat vague as to what specifically is in error, RE:punctuation. Any specific examples and suggestions you are willing to provide would be most helpful. Thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Since your above comment from the 25th, I've gone through the article top to bottom, and I've paraphrased as much of the quoted material that seemed to need paraphrasing. I don't really see any more of the "quote" issue you commented on above, but if you see anymore, please do let me know so that I may resolve the issue. Thanks again for your contribution to this FAC. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that, with one exception, all of the grammatical errors in the sample Keyboards subsection have been corrected. It's not clear to me if you or GoingBatty are responsible for the corrections. At any rate, if you wish, I can recommend to you a few online guides to proper comma usage. The improper use of commas was the primary grammar problem I saw in Keyboards, and I continue to observe it (along with other misused punctuation) throughout the article.
For the moment, here is the remaining error in Keyboards, which resulted from an attempt to correct a misused comma:

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series. In the present case, either of the following would be grammatically correct:

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs including "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

McCartney played piano on several Beatles songs: "Every Little Thing", "She's a Woman"...and "The Long and Winding Road".

I hope your efforts to recruit a copyeditor to go over the whole piece pan out.—DCGeist (talk) 17:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the specific tip DCGeist, I am sure it will prove helpful. I would appreciate links to any online guides you find useful. I'll go through the article with that specific tip in mind, thanks again! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source spot-check

I have checked for accuracy of citation and innocence of close paraphrase against Benitez, Macdonald, and Harry (2002).

  • Benitez: 6, 8, 38, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 77, 80, 81, 82, 117, 139, 159, 161 and 171 – all fine
  • MacDonald: 137, 138, 148, 150, 152, 153, 158, 160, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 170, 175 and 177 – all fine
  • Harry 2002: 1, 6, 16, 29, 54, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 65, 70, 71, 72, 75, 76, 78, 79, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 100, 103, 104, 105, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 121, 174, 178, 186, 200, 202, 203, 216, 217, 218, 219, 256, 257, 258, 259, 262, 265, 266, 267, 268, 280, 282, 287, 288, 294, 296, 298, 326, 329, 331 and 332 – I admit to a certain amount of skipping towards the end of this very large sample, but I checked the majority against the source. The only query I have is at ref 71, where, unless I'm looking straight through it, the source does not say that this was PMcC's first time singing Beatles songs with Wings, nor that there was a 2-hour set list.
RE: Harry, 2002, p.848–50. On page 848, he writes "a two hour show with approximately 30 numbers". You are correct to say that Harry does not explicitly state that this was the first time Macca played Beatles songs live, but he does include his set-lists from prior tours that include no Beatles songs, and the set-list he provides for the tour in question does in fact contain five Beatles songs. Also, Ingham, 2009, p.106, states that in the previous tour, the band "scupulously avoid[ed] Beatles songs", and on p.107, while describing the tour in question, he writes: "featuring a modest handful of McCartney's Beatle tunes". Also, McGee, 2003, p.85 states: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". In Blaney, 2007, p.116: "And for the first time, McCartney included songs associated with the Beatles, something he'd been unwilling to do previously". I've added these sources as in-line cites to the statement in question, which I believe resolves this isssue. Please correct me if I am wrong about this. Thanks for taking the time to help! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Tim riley (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise I am most impressed with the precision and clarity of the citations. – Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the compliment, and for your time and thoroughness Tim Riley! Much appreciated! ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Noleander

Lead
  • Quote attrib? - "Guinness World Records as the "most successful composer and recording artist of all time", with 60 gold discs and sales of over 100 million albums and 100 million singles, and "the most successful songwriter" ..." - It is good to attrib subjective opinions like this; but do both quotes come from Guinness?
Yes, both quotes are from Guinness. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Childhood
  • Wording: "..., where his mother, Mary (née Mohin), had twelve years earlier qualified to practise as a nurse...." - The 'had 12 yrs earlier" seems a bit awkward. Maybe simpler just to say "His mother was a nurse" or similar. The 12 yrs may cause more problems than it solves.
Great suggestion, I believe this is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence too long: - "Paul has one brother, Michael, born 7 January 1944, and though they were baptised in their mother's Roman Catholic faith, religion was not emphasised in their household; Jim was a Protestant turned agnostic who felt Catholic schools sacrificed the education of their students for the sake of their religious teachings." - Break into 2: (1) he had a brother; and (2) religion was not emphasized because agnostic, although they were baptized. Not reversal of sequence in latter.
Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " By 1952, he was at Joseph Williams Junior School." - Odd wording. Just say "He attended JWJS from 19xx to 19xx" or similar.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And then?: "he met George Harrison, who had also passed .." - Did they start a friendship at that point? Did they attend the same school? GH is mentioned then dropped.
Good point. I've fleshed out some detail there, to make it clear that the two became friends right off. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "McCartney's father was a trumpet player and pianist who encouraged his sons to be musical, having led Jim Mac's Jazz Band in the 1920s ..." - The phrase "having led" is awkward: leading the JMJB is not a direct cause of encouragement. Suggest reword to be simpler.
Great suggestion, I believe this issue is now resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbose: "guitar and, after some adjustments, .." - Not sure "after some adjustments" is needed.
Agreed, I removed the text string "after some adjustments". ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "and has stated that Little Richard was his idol .." - The "has" is not needed. May be better as "and Little Richard was his idol ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quarrymen
  • Define: "and his skiffle band, " - Most readers (US?) will not know that term: can a couple words be added here to explain so those readers dont have to click on the link?
Actually, skiffle originated in the US so the assumption that US readers will be ignorant about it is like saying UK readers will need Jazz or Blues music explained to them. Also, the Quarrymen played a mix of skiffle and rock-n-roll, not only skiffle tunes, so to call them a skiffle band is not as accurate a description as could be IMO. At any rate, per your suggestion, I've copyedited the section for balance, and I've added some detail on what skiffle is, and made clear that rock-n-roll was also a significant aspect of the Quarrymen repertoire. Though really, this does seem to beg the question, "why not explain what rock and roll is as well". So this addition could lead to excessive detail, we shall see. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "recruited prior to the first of five engagements ..." - No need to say "the first". May be simpler to write "recruited before a five-engagement tour of Germany" or similar.
Fixed. Though for clarification, they weren't touring Germany, they were booked as a resident band in Hamburg. I think this is made clear in the article now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
60-70
  • Wording: "From August 1960, the Beatles were booked by Allan Williams to perform in Hamburg." - Confusing. Was AW their agent starting in 1960? Hamburg was a single event, true, so "From 1960.." doesnt apply to a single event. Maybe rewrite as "They were represented by agent AW starting in 1960. His first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg extending over a 2 year period..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " Their fans' frenetic glorification became known as "Beatlemania"; during which McCartney was dubbed the "cute Beatle"." - "during which" requires a time span. But " frenetic glorification" is more of an attitude than a time span. Rewrite as "known as BM. McCartney was dubbed the CB because ... ". See if sources explain why he was considered cute, or at least ID the first person to do so.
Correct me here if I am wrong, but isn't the time span for BM established in the preceeding sentence? "they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later", also I think why he was dubbed the "cute Beatle" is self-explanatory, not? If Macca were called the "tall Beatle", or the "short Beatle" or the "big Beatle" then this would be easier to quantify. As far as finding the first person ever to refer to Macca as the "cute Beatle", well, that sounds like a wild-goose chase to me. Sure, I'll look for it, and I'll do my best to find it, but I'm not gonna spend hours and hours on this one trivial bit, hope you understand. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double negative?: " their first recording that did not include more than one band member." - Rewrite as ".. their first recording that involved only a single band member."
I agree, great suggestion, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Importance: " After the song's recording McCartney contacted the BBC Radiophonic Workshop in Maida Vale, London, to inquire about recording an electronic version of the song; he never followed up." - It seems odd to have a fact about what did not happen. Either remove, or explain why that is significant: was the absence of an electr version later important to the band? If so, why?
I removed insignificant material per your suggestion. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too long: "When visiting artist friend John Dunbar's flat in London, McCartney would bring along tapes he had compiled at then girlfriend Jane Asher's home, mixes of various songs, musical pieces and comments made by McCartney that Dick James made into a demo for him." - Too much going on. Break this into 2 or 3 discrete thoughts.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: "...and splicing the various loops together, which he referred to as "electronic symphonies"." - This implies that the individual loops (pieces) were called symphonies; when you mean the final spliced product was called that. Reword.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellipses? - You have two adjacent quotes: "a neoclassical tour de force"; "a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song." - if those are from the same source, it is much better to use ellipses ... between them, in a single set of quote marks.
I agree, and normally I would have, but in this case, the quote frags are 52 pages apart in the book. Can we omit 52 pages and use ellipses to connect them. I've fixed this per your suggestion, until further clarification, assuming you are correct in this instance. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Movie? - "... the group were filmed for a promotional trailer for the animated film Yellow Submarine, " - Was is more emphasis placed on the trailer vs the feature length movie?
The Beatles had absolutely nothing to do with the feature film other than the trailer, and the film's use of four unreleased recordings (among the other Beatle songs used in the film). What detail if any, would you suggest I add here? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Identify subject: "Generally admired by critics for its visual style, humour and music, seven months later, the film's soundtrack album was issued to a less enthusiastic response." - The "greatly admired" is referring to the subject of the prior sentence: but the target should be re-identified in this sentence. Also, is "greatly admired" referring to the trailer or the full movie?
Fixed (by another editor). ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hackneyed: "relations within the band were deteriorating quickly,.." - no need for "quickly" here.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetative: " the situation became particularly strenuous during the recording of The Beatles, commonly known as The White Album, and especially the following ..." - No need to say "particularly" or "especially" - too editorial. Just state the facts (specific arguments or differences of viewpoint or quotes) and let the reader figure it out.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detail? - "McCartney soon found himself pitted against his bandmates, leading him to .." - If the band was just disintegrating (all 4 equally responsible) need to reword. But if it really was 1-against-3, then a few words of explanation are required here: What specifically about Pauls vision/behavior were the other 3 opposed to?
I think this is now sufficiently detailed, let me know if you think it requires more details. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? - "McCartney's representation, his in-laws the Eastmans, .." - Did an entire family represent him legally? Better to name an individual, if there was one.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detail: - "stating that unresolved legal disputes would make him "feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with [Harrison and Starr] at a fake reunion." - If PM was not on speaking terms with 2 or 3 of the band members from 1970 to 1988, that should be mentioned explicitly.
It's not as simple as, "PM was not on speaking terms with 2 or 3 of the band members from 1970 to 1988", at various times during that period, he was on speaking terms with all three, just not specifically in 1988 when an active lawsuit was pending. To accurately document when Macca was and when Macca wasn't speaking to G, J, or R, and the various sporadic lawsuits filed against each other and others would require a topical article of it's own, IMO, perhaps this should be covered with the appropriate amount of detail at the Beatles, or the Beatles lawsuits. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusing: "Before their break-up in 1970 they produced what some critics consider to be their finest material, .." - Implies that they produced (joint?) material after the breakup. Are you trying to compare their solo works after the breakup with the joint works before? If so, clarify.
I think this is now clarified and fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parenthesis: " which was the band's most successful single.." - Try to put that in parenthesis, so it doesnt interrupt the list so much.
Fixed, I just removed the clause as the commercial success of "Hey Jude" is well covered later in the article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1970–1981
  • Wording: " in which the band played almost entirely Wings and McCartney solo material with the exception of a few covers," - The word "almost" can be omitted, since "with the exception" covers that.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? - "Recorded in 1973, after the departure of guitarist Henry McCullough and drummer .." - It seems strange to name musicians not involved; wouldn't it be more useful to name their replacements?
Thing is, they were not replaced for the album of which the graph is speaking to, BOTR, but you make a great point about the lack of clarity there, so I believe I have now resolved this issue with a graph restructure. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Album? - "McCartney released Thrillington, an orchestral ... " - Add word "album" so readers dont think it is a single piece.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change? - " that included the live début of the Beatles songs ..." - It sounds like there was a major shift from "avoid playing B songs" to "it is okay to play a few". Do the sources say when that change happened? or why?
Yes they do. The article makes clear that it was during Wings' 1975-76 tour that Macca was first willing to play Beatles songs live, "The tour marked the first time McCartney was willing to perform Beatles songs live". The "why" part is less clear, though one of the cites for the claim, McGee 2003, p. 85 says: "Paul decided it would be a mistake not to ... [perform] a few Beatles songs". I could certainly add more detail there if you think it's needed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needed? - "The album also contained the songs "Waterfalls", "Temporary Secretary" and "One of These Days".[81]" - Not sure that sentence is helpful.
Fixed, removed unhelpful sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why attribute? - "According to Benitez, by 1979, McCartney felt he had accomplished ..." - The attribution to Benitez is awkward; can it be eliminated? or is there some dispute or POV about the observation?
I agree, and I removed the unneeded attribution. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1982–1990
  • Wording: "what would be McCartney's most recent US number one .." - What does "most recent" mean here? Does that mean his final #1 (as of 2012)? If so, reword to make clearer.
The "most recent" language comes from User:Wasted Time R's above FAC suggestion that the article needs to make clear when Macca's most recent hits were. You can view the subsequent discussion here with them here, which occured when another editor, User:Evanh2008 questioned this language at the McCartney talk page based on WP:RECENT. Do you recommend changing "most recent" to "as of 2012", or adding "as of 2012" while retaining "most recent"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: "The Pipes of Peace LP is McCartney's most recently recorded RIAA certified .." - reword so wont be out of date if he records another. See WP:DATED.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: " the song is McCartney's most recent US top-ten single. "
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "released Снова в СССР, a Russia-only album ..." - does that mean released only in Russia? or in the russian language? Maybe say "an album released only in Russia .."
Clarified. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long sentence: " In 1989 he joined forces with fellow Merseysiders Gerry Marsden of Gerry and the Pacemakers and Holly Johnson of Frankie Goes to Hollywood to record an updated version of "Ferry Cross the Mersey" to generate money for the appeal fund of the Hillsborough disaster, which occurred in April that year when ninety-five Liverpool F.C. fans died as a result of their injuries." Break in two? Consider dropping the two band names.
Fixed via trimming, I don't think it still needs to be broken in two, please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: " remains McCartney's most recent UK number-one album".
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
91-2000
  • "In 1991 McCartney ventured into orchestral music, when.." - I think the comma should be removed.
Rephrased. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "He collaborated with Carl Davis to release Liverpool Oratorio; .." - (1) say "composer Carl Davis"; (2) "release" is not the best verb for a live classical premier: try "mount" or "produce" or ??
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grammar: " He collaborated with Carl Davis to release Liverpool Oratorio; involving opera singers..." - Break into 2 sentences at the semicolon. Maybe "The performance featured opera singers ...". Also, if it was never performed live again, perhaps that could be mentioned?
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article now also mentions that after the London premier, it was performed around the world, and that it was a UK #1 classical album. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " In response, McCartney wrote a defensive letter to the paper, which they published, where he states: " - (1) I'd remove "defensive" and let the letter speak for itself; (2) "states" - Should be past tense; (3) "wrote" and "published" are repetitious. How about "The paper published a letter McCartney submitted in response in which he stated: ..."
Great suggestion, now implemented. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First? - "which released their first electronica album together, .." - Was it their only? "first" implies multiple. ... Ah, I see there is another one in year 2000. Never mind.
Never minded. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " ... was followed by the New World Tour, which produced the LP Paul Is Live later that year." - Produced is ambiguous in a music context. Consider "generated" or "occasioned" or "gave rise to".
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inform vs happen: "and in December 1996 he was informed that he was to be named in the 1997 New Year Honours and knighted for services to music. His ceremony took place in March 1997." - Unless there is a good reason, I would drop the 1996 informing & only state the fact of the 1997 ceremony.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: " His latest UK top-ten album, it ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " something he said he had planning for years" - Remove "he said" unless there is some suspicion of POV or inaccuracy.
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove commas: "He contributed a song, "Nova", to a tribute album ..." - Consider "He contributed the song "Nova" to ... ".
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long sentence: "In May 2000 he was awarded a Fellowship by the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, and in August he released the electronica album, Liverpool Sound Collage with Super Furry Animals and Youth, utilising the sound collage and musique concrète techniques that fascinated him in the mid-1960s." - Break into two.
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2001-pr
  • Wording: "Having witnessed the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks from the .." - Would it be better as "After witnessing the .."?
I agree. Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Long sentence: "Having witnessed the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks from the JFK airport tarmac, McCartney was inspired to take a lead role in organising the Concert for New York City, and his studio album release in November of that year, Driving Rain, included the song "Freedom", written in response to the tragedy." - Break into two at "City, and"; those are two separate thoughts & at least merit a semicolon.
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "McCartney's top-grossing Driving World Tour included stops .." - (1) is that the same tour from the previous sentence? If so, introduce the name in the prior sentence; (2) What does "top grossing" mean? Top for for any artist in the year of 2003? Or top for PM's personal career?
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year? - "He has also participated in the National Football League's Super Bowl, performing "Freedom" in the pre-game show for Super Bowl XXXVI[126] and headlining the halftime show at Super Bowl XXXIX" - Probably best for readers to state the year, not the SB number. As in "for 2004's SB " or "in the 2006 SB", etc. But it is not a big deal.
I added the years. Super Bowls are idiomatically referred to by Roman numerals. Because the American football season covers two years, it would reduce clarity to use a term like "2002 Super Bowl". I think both the year and Roman numeral are useful, to clear things up for non-football fans and those outside the U.S. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "He has also participated in .." - (1) No need for "has"; (2) In general, the word "also" should be avoided, it usually adds nothing to an encyclopedia article. Everything is "also" to the event before it. Just omit "also" everywhere unless there is a compelling reason for it.
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous: " the rock album Memory Almost Full followed in 2007 and in 2008, his third Fireman release.." - It reads as if the MAF album was released in two separate years.
Fixed. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " Among the last of the great classic rock artists who had not previously made their catalogue available online .." - better as "Among the last of the classic rock bands to make their music available online ...". Also, did PM have is solo work available on iTunes before 2010? or was it both the Beatles and his solo work that was withheld?
Fixed wording. PM did have his solo work available on iTunes before 2010, at least since Memory Almost Full. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "In 2011 McCartney released the original orchestral score ..." - (1) no need for "original"; (2) The start of the sentence should indicate that it is for a ballet or dance. Maybe "In 2011, Mc wrote his first music for ballet, in collaboration with .PM. They wrote the score for OK, under a commission from ..." or similar.
Tweaked. szyslak (t) 16:53, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I tweked it a bit further, linking to Dance versus using ballet twice in the sentence. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: "McCartney remains one of the world's top draws; ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambiguous: " playing to over 100,000 people, his two performances .." - 100K each performance? or total?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Musicianship
  • Simpler: "McCartney has stated that he does not use .." -> "Mc does not use .." unless some good reason
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simpler: "bass during live shows and when recording, .." -> "bass, ..."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When? ; ".. around this time for that reason .." - When is "this time?"
Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "McCartney confirms the influence of Motown on his playing, in particular that of James Jamerson, whom he described as a hero and included with Brian Wilson as his most significant bass influences." - Reword to something like "McC was strongly influenced by Motown, in particular by JJ. McC was also influenced by [ describe here BW's style] BW." I presume BW is not Motown, so separate sentence is better.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simpler: "He has also mentioned Stanley Clarke as a favourite bassist" -> "Another favorite bassist is SC".
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Acoustic
  • Simpler: " on many, if not most of his acoustic recordings " -> " on many of his acoustic recordings"
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electric
  • Clarify: "McCartney said this of the song: "If I had to pick one electric guitar it would be this." - Shouldn't "song" be changed to "guitar"?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: "He also contributed what .." - "also" not needed.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dated: "In recent years he has primarily used .."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Vocals
  • looks good
Thanks. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keyboards
  • Clarify: "MacDonald considers the piano part in "Lady Madonna" as played in the style of Fats Domino and he describes "Let It Be" as having a gospel rhythm." - (1) "as played" is not optimal. Mabye "to be in the style of FD"; (2) Who is "he" refereing to: FD or MacDonald?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Drums
  • Link - " the Beatles songs "Back in the U.S.S.R.", "Dear Prudence", " - should link DP song.
Linked. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Early Influences
  • Ambiguous: "Along with Perkins, McCartney calls Little Richard an idol .." - Do both Perkins and PM call LR an idol? Or does PM consider both Perkins and LR to be idols?
Fixed/clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Misleading: "McCartney calls Little Richard an idol and freely admits that his own penchant for the falsetto vocalization .." - "freely admits" should be used by talking about a shameful or sinister act, but this is talking about a legitimate artistic inspiration. Maybe replace with "McCartney calls Little Richard an idol whose falsetto voc inspired PM's own vocal techniques" or similar.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Creative outlets
  • So what? - " he passed one subject – Art" - Need to know how many subjects, approx, there were total. Two? twenty?
Removed, I can't pin down exactly how many exams he took, some sources say only two, and some sources say he passed English, not art. I added some similar detail with sourcing. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awkward: "brought McCartney into contact with Barry Miles, whose underground newspaper, the International Times, McCartney helped to start." - Maybe better as "brought McCartney into contact with Barry Miles. PM later helped Miles start the u.n. IT." or similar. Or maybe the original is okay; not sure.
I think this looks good now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year? - "While living at then girlfriend Jane Asher's parent's house, .." - when is this?
Clarified. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Year? - "He later wrote and released several pieces of modern classical .." - when?
Fixed/clarified.
  • Wording - " Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the ..." - Not sure "officially" is needed. Maybe "QEII presided over the opening of ..." or similar.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Painting
  • Simplify: "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, whose flat was visited by many well-known artists, some of which McCartney met, including; Andy Warhol, Claes Oldenburg, Peter Blake, and Richard Hamilton, and it was at Fraser's flat where McCartney first learned about art appreciation." - probably should be a colon after "including". - Consider rewording to "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, and it was at Fraser's flat where McCartney first learned about art appreciation. Through Fraser [and other art scene venues] PM met A, B, C..".
Reworded. Clarification request, according to User:DCGeist's FAC comment above, "Except for series that encompass one or more grammatically complete clauses, use either a colon or an expression such as such as, for example, or including, but not both to introduce a series.", so, what is best practice in that regard? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the semicolon was not correct. The colon is not ideal either. Best is "including A, B, .." without thee colon. --Noleander (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify: " The first UK exhibition of his work was opened in Bristol, England with more than 50 paintings on display. " - " The first UK exhibition of his work was 50 paintings [in a gallery] in Bristol, England."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move: - "McCartney had previously believed that "only people that had been to art school were allowed to paint" – as Lennon had." - That sentence is probably better up at the start of the paragraph near the "started painting in 1983" sentence.

I agree, moved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ambiguous: " he is the first major rock star in the world to do so." - first to design any stamp? or first to design stamps for Isle of Man?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: " Ono and McCartney presented art exhibitions in New York and London." - Were these joint exhibitions? Or separate but happened to be at the same time?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Writing
  • Clarify: "his father was interested in crosswords and invited he and his brother" - Who is "he"? the father or PM?\
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "about the death of his childhood friend, Ivan Vaughan." - Did IV die in childhood? or in adulthood?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:59, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Film
  • Clarify: " an interview by Mary McCartney with her father. " - Who was the interviewer & the interviewee?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
lifestyle
  • Wording: "McCartney's introduction to drugs started in Hamburg, Germany; ..." - Introductions are events and should not "start". Better as "McCartney's was introduced to drugs in Hamburg, Germany; "
Thanks, great point. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wording: " when the Beatles would play for long hours they were often using Preludin to maintain energy, .." - try "They would often use Preludin to maintain their energy when performing for long periods of time."
Again, fine suggestion, thanks for taking the time to teach me! Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who? - "when the Beatles were introduced to marijuana by Bob Dylan in a New York hotel room in 1964.[211] His use of the drug .." - Is "His use.." referring to Dylan or PM?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simplify: "McCartney admits that he used the drug .." -> "McCartney used the drug .."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Girlfriends & Wives
  • " he had become involved with another woman, Francie Schwartz. .." - I take it FS does not warrant her own paragraph here?
No she does not, there involvement together was limited to a brief sexual fling, she is not notable. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "see artists such as: Fabian, Bobby Darin, .. " - No need for a colon here.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beatles
  • Move footnote: "On 24 April 1976,[296] the two were watching an episode .." - Move FN 296 to end of sentence.
  • Rewords: "In McCartney's effort to avoid talking with him only about business, they often spoke of cats, baking bread, or babies." - Awkward. Rewrite: "In an effort to avoid ..." ?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve? "He was later criticised for what appeared, when published, to be a superficial response: "It's a drag".[296] He later explained, .." - Maybe: "He responded "It's a drag". He was later criticised for what appeared to be a superficial response. He later explained .."
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve: "Harrison said this about working with McCartney: .." - The "said this" doesnt sound correct to me. Maybe: "Discussing his relationship with Mc, Harrison said: .."
Great suggestions, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? - "Harrison spent his last days in a Hollywood Hills mansion that was once leased by McCartney." - Unless PM donated the building for Harrison's use, that seems confusing & misleading. Implies charity, when it may have been just coincidence.
Good point, trivial datum removed, issue resolved. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No attrib needed: "According Harry, Starr once described ..." - No need to attribute to H unless there is some bias or dispute involved. The attribution interrupts the flow.
I agree, this is now fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Recognition
  • Pronoun? - " from the Guinness Book of Records Hall of Fame, who presented him .." - Should that be "which presented him" ?
I agree, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move parenthetical comment: "In the US, as a songwriter or co-writer, McCartney is included on 32 number-one singles " -> move ", as a songwriter or co-writer, " after the "singles".
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote? - "Although Elvis Presley has achieved the most UK number-ones as a solo artist with eighteen" - No need to mention records that are held by others. Suggest move this into a footnote.
Moved to Notes section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No quote: "the "Fab Four" to receive a .." - I believe quotes are not needed there, since it is a very common nickname (vs quoting a specific individual's statement).
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Business
  • Clarify: "..making him Britain's highest media earner." - What is a "media earner"? Someone who is paid in books? Maybe "highest income within the media professions" or similar.
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify: "... with Parlophone and Capitol retaining label billing." - What does that mean?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who released: " continued to be released by Apple Records until Wings' "Junior's Farm"/"Sally G" single,.." - If not Apple, who released JFSG?
Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain: "Despite the lack of publishing rights to most of his Beatles songs, McCartney continues..." - This seems like an important fact that should be higher up in the Business section, instead of buried in the final paragraph. I'm not a music person, and I do not quite grasp this. Add more words to explain. Maybe "From 1963 to 1968, when the B published most of their hits, the rights to publish their songs where sold/given to NL. As other artists recorded B songs, royalties were paid to NL, which passed on 1/3 to 1/2 to the individual members of the Bs. NL was sold to MJ, and then to Sony. As of 2012, the B catalog is still owned by Sony." I don't know what I'm talking about here, but you get the idea.
I guess I disagree a bit on this one, and to me, it's nice right at the end to wrap up the story. I believe the two graphs in the sub-section spell out the situation well. It's buried in the last graph, and not higher up in the Business section because essentially, Macca had little or nothing to do business wise with NS, other than writing songs published by them, and temporarily owning some of their stock. He has since only reduced his business position in NS, now defunct/absorbed by Sony/ATV. Please correct me if you disagree, I would be happy to add deatil to improve the section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion
  • Great article! Leaning to Support, once the above are addressed.
Thanks for the compliment, and the thorough and insightful review. ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to help out Noleander, your comments are much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the edits made in response to the many suggestions above have much improved the prose of this article – just about enough to meet the FAC standard, I think – and there was never any doubt about the comprehensiveness and depth of the research. I was particularly impressed by the nominator's method of citing references, which is probably the clearest I have run across (I may have to rethink my own methods after this) and makes plain for all to see how thoroughly the nominator has absorbed his/her sources and set the information out accessibly and logically. Well done! Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from JG66

Hi GabeMc. A few specific points about the text, which reads pretty well for the most part, I think:

  • Under The Quarrymen, does "St. Peter's Church" need the point in St − seems very American English.
Good catch, they wouldn't use that point in the UK. Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there really any need to define skiffle? There's a link to the genre of course, and the definition bogs down the discussion, in my opinion.
It was added at the specific request of another reviewer, so I'm not sure what I should do with this one. FTR, I'm fine either way, but it's also not too ridiculous to educate the reader here in what is a realtively small section anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's not too ridiculous, and I understand it's not easy when another reviewer has suggested something different. No big deal, but I wonder whether the sentence might read better without the bit explaining "that originated as a musical form in the US in the first half of the twentieth century". Just a thought. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I kinda like the "made in the US" bit, as I think many readers assume skiffle originated in the UK, and because it makes clear that the Quarrymen's repertoire consisted of rock & roll and skiffle, both with origins in the US. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a hyphen necessary in "mid-August 1960"? It wouldn't be needed if the timespan were "early" or "late" August 1960.
Good catch, fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under The Beatles, not quite sure what "upon returns to Liverpool at the Cavern Clujb" means. The "upon returns" phrase jars somewhat.
Clarified, I believe. ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are a few specifics, but more generally:

The Beatles
  • The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable.
Good point. I agree, and others have mentioned it as well. The material is much better as a Musicianship sub-section, and it is one now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another factor in this issue is that while some detail has been given to Mac's experiments with backwards tapes, there is no actual mention of "We Can Work It Out", Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's until the very end of the Beatles subsection. I know that MacDonald and others have noted how Mac was distracted to some extent during 1964 by his relationship with Jane Asher, while Lennon dominated the songwriting at that point, so it's a surprise to see those Beatles works not getting a mention earlier in the article − they're works where Mac really stated a claim to greatness, no? This becomes increasingly more obvious, as Magical Mystery Tour and Yellow Submarine each get a surprising amount of attention. Just a suggestion, but I think the text at this point should discuss Mac's growing urbane sophistication (plenty in Miles, MacDonald, Sounes, etc); he's really the arty Beatle-about-town in '65−67. Rubber Soul, Revolver etc could be given as examples of this change.
I mentioned "We Can Work it Out" earlier in the section. As far as more details on specific albums, I hate to invoke sub-articles, but that all sounds like stuff that should be covered in detail at the Beatles, or the appropriate album/song page. This overview article is already getting bogged down in detail a bit, IMO. As far as Macca's "claim to greatness". That sounds like WP:NPOV territory to me. His nightlife around London was absolutely typical of any musician his age, at the time, and not particularly notable. Also, some aspects are covered in other sections, if you read the whole article, in totality, that picture is painted, if somewhat vaguely. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry − "We Can Work It Out" was there all along. Perhaps I didn't express myself properly, though, in my comments about McCartney's increasing sophistication and its reflection in The Beatles' music. I was referring to Mac's mixing in circles that included Robert Fraser, John Dunbar, Tara Browne, Michelangelo Antonioni, via the Ashers − yes, this was very typical of musicians then, but the point is (as acknowledged by McCartney, Miles, MacDonald and Sounes) he was the only Beatle fully exposed to this influence, living full-time in London and being unmarried and without children. I agree the level of detail in this section needs to be limited, but I'd still say a sentence or two covering this mid-period Beatles development very generally would be a useful addition. Looking back in the article's edit history to about four days ago (wow, you've been busy!), I can see you led from discussion on "Yesterday" to a mention of a possible electric version of the song and on to the recently deleted point about Mac visiting Dunbar and making experimental tapes; while it was right to lose that level of detail, what those extra two sentences did was segue nicely into the mention of "Paperback Writer" being "a satire of pop ambition" and "Eleanor Rigby", "a neoclassical tour de force", and the growing sophistication of McCartney's compositions during the period was implied over the three or more sentences without being stated directly. Now, along with those deleted details, the implication has gone, and I think something does need stating directly on the subject. (Certainly, the flow into that point about "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby" seems a bit abrupt.) Again, the lack of any mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's until the very end of the section is very surprising, in my opinion. And if you are concerned about the article getting bogged down in detail, why those two sentences about the Magical Mystery Tour soundtrack's commercial fate, when "However, the film's soundtrack was more successful." pretty much covers the point? (Don't mean to push the issue − just wasn't sure you understood my original comment.) JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as this comment, please see your above comment, "The segue from "Yesterday" discussion into the one regarding visiting John Dunbar's flat comes as a bit of a surprise; a definite hiccup, so to speak. Seeing that the text goes from a such a speedy, generalised approach in the previous paragraph and through the previous sentences in this one, it feels like we get bogged down in the tapes discussion. I can't help thinking that a very brief mention of McCartney's early experimental work is needed here, and then a more detailed subsection for these experiments could be included under Musicianship. As I say, the change in pace is very noticeable." So I guess I'm a little confused and seem to be getting a mixed message here from you on this point. I'm not sure how that info could be chopped up while retaining meaning in the parts. FTR, the graph wasn't deleted, I moved it to a sub-section of Musicianship, as you suggested, so to also mention it in the Beatles section would be to introduce redundancy, not? More specifically, what do your suggest I add to the Beatles section that is not already covered in the Musicianship sub-section "Tape loops"? ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting difficult! No, of course, the tape-loops mention wasn't deleted altogether − but deleted (removed) from this section. I understand the message might appear mixed: to go into some detail regarding Dunbar, tape loops and their use in "Tomorrow Never Knows" (as you had it previously) did strike me as a noticeable change of pace, yes, something that could be avoided because you rightly include a section on Musicianship; a general mention of Mac blooming artistically during the Rubber Soul to Pepp's period, through his immersion in London's countercultural scene, might break what I referred to as a "speedy, generalised approach" (not much, though, I'd suggest, if handled deftly), but it is an important point to make in a subsection that serves as an overview of Paul McCartney's Beatles career. And I don't really see that there's any NPOV issues in that, or that any very general mention here might make a later discussion on tape loops redundant. To me, if I were to make a bulleted list of points to cover in this section, a rough sketch, its items would be exactly as you have it until the end of your discussion on "Yesterday". Next point(s) would be the mid-'60s phase culminating in Sgt Pepper's. To repeat and/or clarify what I wrote below last time around, I'm referring here (and in most of the points I raised, I think) to what comes to mind at a particular point in the article − in this case, as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology: personally, I read the post-"Yesterday" text down to mention of Brian Epstein's death and wonder where discussion of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepper's has got to. Fine, there's an Oh good − there they are moment at the end of the subsection, before Wings, but back when one's reading about 1965−67, it feels like an obvious omission. Again, this feeling is exacerbated by the surprising level of detail given to Magical Mystery Tour: "Released in the UK as a six-track double extended play disc (EP), in the US the material was issued as an identically titled LP ... setting a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol LP up to that point." (I mean, all up, three sentences discussing MMT's commercial fate ... And who/what is Capitol in the Paul Mac-Beatles story? Point two: he co-wrote "She Loves You", the biggest selling single in the UK for quite a while; the lack of that detail earlier on makes this MMT description even more out of place.) Yellow Sub to some degree also − the phrase "In early 1968, the group were filmed for a promotional trailer" seems unnecessary; the Mac-centric point which you include is that it was "a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition". (Don't want to throw another spanner in the works, but now I'm wondering about the lack of a mention of "Hey Jude" in '68 ... I know, I'm sure someone else has said delete it!) But to rewind to what I was trying to say in my comment above this one, the sentences that have gone from this section over the last four or more days (possible electric version of "Yesterday"; Dunbar & tapes) did at least serve as a good segue into your discussion of "Paperback Writer" and "Eleanor Rigby", both in the flow of text and also in the implied message of growing sophistication in Mac's songwriting. (There was no explicit mention of Mac's artistic growth or of those '65−67 albums, no, but at least the message was implied.) What's left now is a jump into talking about two singles that weren't from the year discussed previously (1965) that doesn't seem like a natural progression. My suggestion is that the point about Mac's maturing as an artist now needs to be made explicitly somehow, incorporating mention of Rubber Soul, Revolver and Sgt Pepp's. As far as specific text to insert, all I could find − and it serves as inspiration rather than anything necessarily usable, I'm afraid − is from MacDonald p. 153, 1998 edn (discussing We Can Work It Out): "From now on, his partner [McCartney] would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of The Beatles." Sorry, if I had a day to spare I'm sure I could do some research and come up with something succinct to plug the gap. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added summary material on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper per your suggestions. I hope this resolves some, or maybe all of your concerns, at least with the Beatles section. ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this article has really changed since I last looked at it a few days ago. I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here. The material added on Rubber Soul, Revolver, the end of touring, Sgt. Peppers, etc is mostly not specific to McCartney. It is all material that readers can better find in The Beatles and the individual album articles. This section should be focused on McCartney's role in the Beatles. So to mention that McCartney was the driver behind Magical Mystery Tour is okay, but all the stuff about, say, how the recording process worked on Sgt. Peppers - why is that here? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wasted, per your comment, "I would really caution against repeating too much general Beatles history here." Could the same be said for Wings? The added material speaks to the band's growth in general, and to Macca's increased leadership specifically. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:09, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
McCartney was responsible for almost every aspect of Wings, so I don't have a problem in that respect. But with the Beatles, most of the changes described are just as much John's and George Martin's doing, and to a lesser extent George Harrison's. The reader who doesn't understand this will be misled by this text, and the reader who does understand it doesn't need to see it repeated here. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please be more specific with your criticisms. What info was added that does not directly pertain to McCartney, and what specific material do you suggest I remove? ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'll respectfully remind you of your above comments at this FAC Wasted Time R, "The "Wings" section is now longer than the "Beatles" section, which doesn't seem right.", "But I don't think I'd be the only reviewer who thinks that weighting the Wings section more heavily than the Beatles section is backwards". ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further, currently the Beatles section contains 1968 words, the Wings section has 1440. So, I don't think this a WP:UNDUE issue, is it? ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of length. For example, instead of going on about how the Beatles did not play their Revolver material on tour – which was attributable to many factors and not McCartney specific – you could mention "For No One" and "Here There and Everywhere". The latter is McCartney's favorite of all the Beatles songs he wrote (at least in the interviews I've seen - he talks about the chordal pivot from the bridge back into the verse) and is currently unmentioned in the article. Instead of the long Emerick quote – and from the Lewisohn book I have the impression that it was John, not Paul, who was the driving factor behind trying to produce a different 'sound' in the studio using devices such as ADT – you could mention that "Penny Lane" was McCartney's reflection upon his Liverpool origins and that the distinctive piccolo trumpet part was his inspiration following seeing a Bach concert on TV (foreshadowing his classical music involvement). Also, is McCartney becoming the "de facto musical director of the Beatles" from 1965 on really a consensus view? I've never gotten this impression. This seems like one writer's opinion getting too much weight here. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The mention of the Revolver material not being able to be played live explicates the Beatles' notable transition from live act, to studio band, the first group ever to do so. I've mentioned "Here There and Everywhere", because as you said, it is one of Macca's personal favs, and "For No One", as MacDonlad describes it as one of Macca's "most perfect pieces"(2005, p.205). I've used a unique and more informative Emerick quote, from his book (with Massey). Lewisohn, though the most reliable source for facts, was never in the studio with the Beatles as was Emerick, who goes on and on in his book, about Macca wanting to experiment and try new recording ideas during Pepper. So you are wrong to assume it was only Lennon who pushed for studio innovation, that is a tired cliché IMO. I've added the detail you suggested on "Penny Lane", good suggestion, thanks. I've also mentioned "She's Leaving Home", per your suggestion. As far as the Lennon-McCartney power struggle. 1) per your comment, "McCartney becoming the "de facto musical director of the Beatles" from 1965", the article says the usurpation began in 1965, not that it was completed. 2) MacDonald is absolutely correct/supported by sources to suggest that the beginning of Macca's usurpation of Lennon's musical dominance was indeed late 1965, the high quality reliable sources widely agree. Lennon had a nervous break-down that year, and he later became addicted to LSD (if that's even technically possible, but Lennon was a massive user, on par with Hendrix and Barrett according to many a RS). Lennon had generally dominated the band's singles until late 1965, and Macca began to dominate the A-sides with their very first release of 1966, "PW/R". Anyway, the article claims that by late 1965 Macca began to usurp Lennon, and that he became de facto leader in 1967, after Epstein's death in August of that year, which the article makes perfectly clear. Wasted, I'll ask you again. What material was added that does not directly pertain to McCartney, and what specific material do you suggest I remove and why? ~ GabeMc (talk) 00:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove or greatly condense: the Hamburg period description, "My Bonnie", "Love Me Do", the first list of albums, short promotional films/forerunner of videos, no Revolver in concerts/end of touring (end of touring is currently in three consecutive paragraphs!), the whole Emerick quote (this one doesn't demonstrate any McCartney connection any more than the other one, and I disagree re studio effects - John was obsessed with altering his voice, Paul never was), "Strawberry Fields", the detail on Magical Mystery Tour's commercial results, and the "Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970" sentence (redundant based on what's now before it). You will claim that some of these things, like the end of touring, are very important in band history ... sure, but so are many other things that you haven't included, like that the Beatles were the first band to write all their hit songs, play all their own instruments, put all good songs on albums instead of one or two singles and the rest filler, have high-quality album covers, revolutionize personal style with their long hair, showcase an original sense of humor in press conferences, set records that still hold for simultaneous hits on the US singles chart, have the first really good film vehicle, etc - and I'm only listing things from 1963 and 1964! You cannot possibly relate the whole story of the Beatles here, so my feeling is, don't try. Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:28, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, thanks anyway. If I removed all that material then the Wings section would be larger than the Beatles section, which you've said twice cannot happen. Also, please keep in mind, as I'm sure you already know, others edit the article, and others have made some great suggestions that led to content additions. So I would rather not disregard all comments by others, because you do not approve of the newer content. This is a community effort, which is good. Several people have given advice, diversity of opinion is a good thing. Also, I like the way it is now, sure, maybe a tweak or two, or three is needed, but hey, at the end of the day, you, I, have to like the article to put so many hours into editing it. I mean, if I can't use that little amount of space to summarize the most defining period of Macca's life, a full deade, then I'm fine with that. You are now arguing over about 3.5 medium sized paragraphs. There are currently 2089 words in the Beatles section (about 3.8 pages in a word.doc), and 1440 words in the Wings section (about 2.8 pages in "word"), so there is no issue with weighting as you seem to imply. For evidence of this, according to Lobo's comment below, the article is currently 14,000 words, so if 2,000 are dedicated to 10 years, then that means 1/7th of the article is dedicated to the most notable 1/7th of McCartney's life. As far as your comment, "Just relate the story of Paul in the Beatles." Well, I honestly believe I've done that, quite well if I do say so myself, with much help from my friends thankfully. I'll wait to hear from some fresh perspectives, but for now I just disagree with you, and I retain that right. I will copyedit with your suggestions in mind however. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi GabeMc. Here's what I've come up with as a guide for content and scope in the Beatles section. (Don't really know the protocol, so I've cut & pasted the whole section below, minus images.) I have to say, I mostly agree with what Wasted Time R has written, about there being way too many things in there that aren't Mac-specific at all. My suggestion about that all-important middle period ('65 to '67) was a couple of sentences, with one or two additional points later in the section perhaps − I'm not quite sure how it ended up leading to so much new info. (Wasted's right: talk of whether Revolver songs were played on tour, discussion on recording techniques used for Sgt Pepper's − that's all band-article material, or one on Geoff Emerick or George Martin, not a section within Mac's article.) Perhaps even more could be cut from this; on the other hand, maybe a few of Mac's album tracks need highlighting, as has been suggested most recently. (I was thinking of She's Leaving Home, personally.)
Please note this really is a guide − so I've made no attempt to source anything new I might've added in the following text, but all statements are easy to source within the works you've used, I'm sure, certainly in the ones I've referred to in earlier comments. Also I've cut & pasted this from Word, so any new quote marks will be wonky no doubt, new links (if I've bothered adding them) may be out. The important thing from my point of view was the scope of the piece, not minor copy-editing points. PS. I realise the final line of the section has now been made redundant, but it's left in anyway for now. Anyway, hope all this is of some use ... JG66 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort, but really, your massive copy-paste (see below) is not appropriate here, or helpful to this FAC. It would have been much easier/appropriate to bullet point your specific suggestions for changes, versus copy-pasting the entire section here. 1) it really bogs down an already long FAC, 2) Since 95% of your copy-paste is from the current version of the article nearly verbatum, it gives the false impression that you are copyediting the entire section, or that the entire section needs a re-work IYO, versus the reality, which is that you are in fact suggesting extremely minor removals of material. I personally like the text as it now reads, but I will keep your suggestions in mind as I continue improve it. Thanks again. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content

The Beatles were represented by Allan Williams, their informal manager, starting in 1960.[1] Williams' first booking for them was a series of performances in Hamburg.[2] During their extended stays there over the next two years, they performed as the resident group at two of Bruno Koschmider's clubs, the Indra, then the Kaiserkeller. Periodically, the band received breaks from playing in Hamburg, and would return to Livepool, performing regularly at the Cavern Club.[3] In 1961, Sutcliffe left the band and McCartney reluctantly became their bass player.[4] The Beatles recorded professionally for the first time in Hamburg, performing as the backing band for English singer Tony Sheridan on the single "My Bonnie".[5] The recording would later bring them to the attention of a key figure in their subsequent development and commercial success, Brian Epstein, who became their manager in January 1962.[6] Epstein negotiated a record contract for the group with Parlophone that May.[7] After replacing Best with Ringo Starr in August and releasing their first hit, "Love Me Do", in October, they became increasingly popular in the UK in 1963 and in the US a year later. Their fans' frenetic glorification became known as "Beatlemania", during which McCartney was sometimes referred to by the press as the "cute Beatle".[8] In 1963 and 1964, the band released four studio LPs: Please Please Me, With the Beatles, A Hard Day's Night and Beatles for Sale.[9] McCartney's contributions to their early hits included "I Saw Her Standing There", "She Loves You", "I Want to Hold Your Hand" (1963), "Can't Buy Me Love" and "She’s a Woman" (1964), all of which were co-written with Lennon.[10]

In 1965, the Beatles were appointed Members of the Order of the British Empire (MBE) by Queen Elizabeth II. The same year, they recorded the McCartney composition "Yesterday", featuring a string quartet. Included on the Help! LP, the song was the group's first recorded use of classical music elements and their first recording that involved only a single band member.[11] "Yesterday" later became the most covered song in popular music history.[12]

By the end of 1965, with “We Can Work It Out” and the album Rubber Soul, McCartney had begun to usurp Lennon's role as the dominant musical force within the band. From that point on, musicologist Ian MacDonald writes, McCartney "would be in the ascendant not only as a songwriter, but also as instrumentalist, arranger, producer, and de facto musical director of the Beatles".[13] Rubber Soul is described by critics as a significant advancement in the refinement, and thematic profundity of the band's music.[14] The song "In My Life", of which both Lennon and McCartney claimed lead authorship, is widely considered a high point in the Beatles catalogue.[15] Recording engineer Norman Smith states that the Rubber Soul sessions exposed indications of increasing contention within the band, "the clash between John and Paul was becoming obvious", he writes, and "as far as Paul was concerned, George could do no right — Paul was absolutely finicky".[16]

In 1966, one week before the start of the group's final tour, they released Revolver. Featuring sophisticated lyrics, studio experimentation, and an expanded repertoire of musical genres ranging from innovative classical string arrangements to psychedelic rock, the album marked an artistic leap forward for the Beatles.[17] The LP's release was preceded by the single "Paperback Writer", a McCartney composition which Beatles biographer Jonathan Gould describes as "a satire of pop ambition".[18] Revolver featured the McCartney song "Eleanor Rigby", which included a string octet. Described by Gould as "a neoclassical tour de force ... a true hybrid, conforming to no recognizable style or genre of song".[19] With the exception of some backing vocals, the song included only McCartney's lead vocal and the strings arranged by producer George Martin.[20]

After touring almost non-stop for a period of nearly four years, and giving more than 1,400 live performances internationally, the group gave their final commercial concert at the end of their 1966 US tour.[21] Later that year, McCartney was commissioned for what would be his first musical project apart from the Beatles, a film score for the UK production, The Family Way. The score was a collaboration with Martin, who used two McCartney themes to write thirteen variations. The soundtrack failed to chart, but won McCartney an Ivor Novello Award for Best Instrumental Theme.[22]

Sensing unease upon the end of the band's touring period, McCartney then pressured the other Beatles to start a new project, which eventually became Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.[23] Widely regarded as rock's first concept album, McCartney was inspired to create a new persona for the Beatles, a vehicle for experimentation, and to demonstrate to their fans that the band had matured as musicians.[24] McCartney explains, "we were fed up with being the Beatles. We really hated that fucking four little mop-top approach. We were not boys, we were men ... and [we] thought of ourselves as artists rather than just performers".[25]

The band adopted an experimental attitude during the subsequent recording sessions for the album, beginning in November 1966.[26] The sessions produced the double A-side single "Strawberry Fields Forever"/"Penny Lane" in February 1967, and the LP, featuring the McCartney-penned title song, followed in June.[9] The Sgt. Pepper cover was based on an ink drawing by McCartney, depicting the Beatles standing in front of a wall featuring framed images of their heroes.[27]

"After Brian died ... Paul took over and supposedly led us you know ... we went round in circles ... We broke up then. That was the disintegration. I thought, 'we've fuckin' had it.'"[28]

~ John Lennon, Rolling Stone magazine, 1970

Epstein's death in August 1967, created a void, and the group was left perplexed and concerned about their future. McCartney, stepping in to fill that void, gradually became the de facto leader and business manager of the group Lennon had once led.[29] McCartney's first significant creative suggestion was to propose that the band move forward on their plans, to produce a film intended for television, which was to become Magical Mystery Tour. The project was "an administrative nightmare throughout", writes Beatles historian Mark Lewisohn.[30] The film—largely directed by McCartney—garnered the group's first significant antagonistic critical response.[31] However, the film's soundtrack was more successful: augmented with tracks from the band's 1967 singles and issued as an LP in the US that December, it set a record for the highest initial sales of any Capitol album up to that point.[32] The accompanying non-album single, “Hello Goodbye”, was written by McCartney, and he would likewise supply the A-sides for the Beatles’ next two singles, “Lady Madonna” and “Hey Jude”, both released during the following year.

The band’s animated movie Yellow Submarine, a production based loosely on the imaginary world evoked by McCartney's 1966 composition, opened in cinemas in July 1968. Though the film was generally admired by critics for its visual style, humour and music, the movie's soundtrack album would be issued six months later to a less enthusiastic response.[33] From June through October 1968, relations within the band became particularly strained during the recording of The Beatles, commonly known as the White Album. It was the band's first Apple Records LP release, and the new label was a subsidiary of Apple Corps, formed as part of Epstein's business plan to provide the group tax relief.[34] Like the other Beatles, McCartney would increasingly use Apple as a vehicle for his extracurricular projects, producing and writing hit singles for the likes of Mary Hopkin and Badfinger.

Tensions within the band increased in January 1969 during the Let It Be sessions, another film project instigated by McCartney, originally titled Get Back after his song of the same name. With McCartney alone in wanting the Beatles to return to live performance, he was filmed lecturing his bandmates: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away ... we were always fighting [his] discipline a bit, but it's silly to fight that discipline if it's our own".[35] The resulting album and documentary film would be shelved until 1970, when their release would be accompanied by two more McCartney-penned hit singles in “Let It Be” and “The Long and Winding Road”.

In March 1969, McCartney married Linda Eastman, and in August, the couple had their first child together, Mary, named after Paul's late mother.[36] For Abbey Road, which was to become the band's last recorded album, George Martin had suggested "a continuously moving piece of music", urging the group to think symphonically.[37] McCartney agreed, but Lennon opposed the idea. They eventually agreed upon McCartney's suggested compromise, featuring individual songs on side one, with side two including a long medley.[37] In October 1969, a rumour surfaced that McCartney had died in a car crash in 1966 and been replaced by a look-alike, but this was quickly proven false when a November Life magazine cover featured him and his family with the caption, "Paul is still with us".[38]

By 1970, following business disagreements over the group's management, McCartney found himself pitted against his bandmates, leading him to announce his departure from the Beatles on 10 April.[39] He filed suit for the group's formal dissolution on 31 December 1970. More legal disputes followed, as McCartney's representation, his in-laws John and Lee Eastman, fought Lennon, Harrison and Starr's business manager Allen Klein over royalties and creative control of musical projects. The band was formally dissolved in an English court on 9 January 1975, though sporadic lawsuits against their record company EMI, Klein and each other persisted until 1989.[29] When the Beatles were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1988, their first year of eligibility, McCartney did not attend, stating that unresolved legal disputes would make him "feel like a complete hypocrite waving and smiling with [Harrison and Starr] at a fake reunion".[40]

Between 1962 and 1970, the group released twenty-two UK singles and twelve LPs, of which seventeen of the singles and eleven of the LPs became number ones.[41] The band topped the US Billboard Hot 100 twenty times, and recorded fourteen number-one albums as Lennon and McCartney became one of the most celebrated songwriting partnerships of the 20th century.[42] Between 1965 and their break-up in 1970, they produced what some critics consider to be the band's finest material, including the innovative and widely influential albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, The Beatles, and Abbey Road.[43] McCartney was the primary writer of five of their last six US number-one singles: "Hello, Goodbye" (1967), "Hey Jude" (1968), "Get Back (1969)", "Let It Be" and "The Long and Winding Road" (1970).[44]

  • There doesn't seem to be any mention of Apple, which was Mac's idea apparently − I'd think Apple's a pretty significant point in any of the ex-Beatles' stories. And wouldn't his work with early signings to the label merit a mention? Only George Harrison and Mac really followed up on Apple's original promise; in Mac's case, only for the first year or so., until Klein's arrival.
Great suggestion, good catch, I've added some detail on Apple, and will add more as I find it, but for the record, Apple was part of Epstein's business plan, to avoid taxes, so I wouldn't exactly give Macca credit, even if it was in some way his "idea". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the discussion of the 1968−69 period, I'm surprised at the the lack of a mention of George's emergence as a songwriter to rival Lennon-Mac − in fact, I think I'm right in saying that it's not until the Personal relationships/Beatles subsection that Harrison's even mentioned as a songwriter in the band, when in fact it's acknowledged that his emergence was a key factor in the their eventual demise.
That's not even covered at the Beatles, currently a FA. This article is about Macca, not Harrison. Also, I seriously doubt Harrison's three or four high quality songs per year were "a key factor in the their eventual demise". ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I read something about it (the significance of Harrison's growth as a songwriter) in Herstgaard the other day and in a Rolling Stone Press book. That's a worry that it doesn't even merit a mention in the band article − logically, it affected the whole group dynamic, just as Yoko's arrival did. Anyway, yes, I take your point − not an issue that's needed here perhaps. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Harrison coming into his own was certainly a factor in the break-up, I don't deny that, but there were so many factors that the material would bring WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV issues I predict, as well as bogging down the Macca article with excessive detail about Harrison. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the same period, you have mentions of Mac "lecturing the group" and that "relations within the band were deteriorating", but the overall impression underplays what he brought to the party. Both Harrison and Starr attribute their temporary walkouts to Mac; and he was buying up Northern Songs shares on the sly. These points are well documented, and if an article is hoping to be an FA, shouldn't it be prepared to cover some notable, more grubby details also? Again, as supported by numerous sources, he was a bossy so-and-so. Plus, while George and Ringo played with better musicians than Mac post-Beatles (and none of them seemed to have a problem), Mac had frequent changes of line-up in Wings. Glyn Johns, Dave Spinozza, Eric Stewart and Denny Laine are all on the record as saying how hard he was to work with, how he never listened to others' advice.
So you want the article to make clearer that Macca "was a bossy so-and-so", I think if you read between the lines a little enough of that comes out. There are Starr and Harrison quotes to that effect, also Lennon's quotes aren't that flattering. The article has a quote from Macca "lecturing the band". I don't think the article should get too deep into why the Beatles broke up. 1) WP:BLP, 2) WP:UNDUE, this article is about Macca, not the break-up of the Beatles, 3) there is already an article, the Beatles' break-up, linked to in the second graph of the Beatles. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this point goes hand in hand with one under Wings, about the lack of any mention of critical negativity towards his '70 solo work, about the picture being a little too roseate at times. Mostly though, as with the issue about Rubber Soul, Revolver, etc (above), I was referring to thoughts that come to mind at a particular point in the article as one reads about a year in the Beatles chronology. (My earlier suggestion about mentioning Live Aid was another example.) Anyway, it's good to hear you're considering addressing that Wings point at least. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, good suggestions, and as I said, I'll do some research and see if I can't balance this aspect out a bit. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like George working on 1970 Billy Preston and Doris Troy albums, the McCartney album was a Beatles-era activity − worth a mention therefore in this section, perhaps where "Paul Is Dead" rumour is discussed?
That would totally break the current flow and muddy the solo versus Beatles work, no need, the official announcement came one week before the album's release, so to say it was released after the break-up is not at all misleading or inaccurate. They were well past the point of no return by 10 April 1970. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really agree with the first point you make here, but never mind. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if the flow wouldn't be broken per se, I think Macca's first solo work need not be squeezed in at the end of the Beatles section, would be awkward IMO because as my second point states, Macca announced he was leaving the band one week before the album was released, which makes it perfectly accurate to state that McCartney was released after their break-up. I also think it's the most logical place to start his solo career, being his first solo album, and released after the Beatles broke-up. ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wings
  • Throughout this subsection, and further to my point above about needing to address the more inconvenient points of notability, there's a noticeable lack of comment regarding the very low opinion critics had of Mac's solo/Wings work throughout the '70s, bar Band on the Run. Certainly McCartney, Ram, Wildlife and Red Rose Speedway were reviled at the time for the most part. In the grand scheme of things, in the '70s and beyond, his lyrics are widely acknowledged as being pretty awful, even on Band on the Run, and let's not forget, this guy was one half of the Lennon−McCartney songwriting partnership. I think a major weakness of the article, at least in this Musical career section, is that his many achievements are listed but there's almost no mention of his fall from greatness in artistic terms. This applies to his work way outside the Wings timeframe, but haven't many in the UK press repeatedly said that his substandard releases and the fact that for so long he's been the most public ex-Beatle cheapened the Beatles legacy? eg his pursuing grudges (Long and Winding Road/Let It Be), attempting to get "Yesterday" assigned as a McCartney-only song? It doesn't seem as though any of these points are touched on in the article (apologies if I'm wrong about this, but I'm coming from the point of view of someone reading the musical career section, which I'd think would be the most widely read part). Hunter Davies, McDonald and Sounes point out how prone Mac is to rewriting history; George Harrison observed how, from the late '80s, Mac's announcements regarding possible Beatles reunions were always timed to coincide with an album or tour of his own. Personally, it worries me slightly that this section doesn't seem to go anywhere too un-roseate or controversial − like it or not, it's part of the picture of the man's musical career. He's a workaholic and he works very hard at protecting his image, as Yoko Ono does with Lennon's. (Sometimes I wonder whether wiki's McCartney album articles have been written by MPL employees ...)
I'll keep this in mind, and introduce some balance after a bit of research. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording in the Band on the Run discussion needs revisiting, I suggest. The frequent mentions of 'LP' and 'album' jar quite a bit.
Good point, thanks, I think I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it's good to see the critical reaction acknowledged at least for London Town and Back to the Egg, is it really fair to say the first of these albums "passed with little ... commercial notice"? (I'm sure you'd know better than me, but "With a Little Luck" was a US number 1 and the album was top 3, no?)
Great point, I've tweaked the prose a bit, and added some detail for accuracy and balance.~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
1982−1990
  • Live Aid was a major event in Mac's solo career at the time and while it's mentioned elsewhere in the article, I believe, it does seem odd not to see any comment on it here. Especially as "Spies Like Us" merits a couple of sentences.
Great catch, not sure how that got missed. I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. You've done a great job of pulling the article together. I don't mean to sound too anti-McCartney; in the musical career section in particular, I think build up his presence at the time of unquestioned greatness (Work It Out, Revolver, Sgt Pepper's) but for the article to be even a GA, it has to state the other cold reality also. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time and making the effort to offer some great suggestions JG66. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, hope these comments help, GabeMc. JG66 (talk) 16:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Big help, great suggestions JG66, I will keep them in mind as I research and edit. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Accedie
  • Just one small quibble so far, other than grammatical nits that I'm picking at myself: you alternate between present and past tense on the quotes from McCartney (e.g., "On his bass playing, McCartney states, 'blah...'" in one section and then "On the album, McCartney stated, 'blah...'" in another), which is somewhat confusing. Are you using present tense when the quote comes from the recent past and past tense when it comes from closer to the time of whenever the "blah" actually happened? I'd prefer just one tense or the other, as long as it's used consistently (though past seems much more intuitive than present to me). Accedietalk to me 19:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A lack of consistency in this area may be blamed on my fixing this issue in the sections where I've done a thorough copyedit so far. Clearly, any introduction to these quotes should be in past tense. szyslak (t) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that past tense is best, and I will do my best to improve the article's consistency in that regard. ~ GabeMc (talk) 23:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose.
  • Second paragraph of the lead has exactly the same problem as was discussed in the first FAC.
Specifically, which verifiable facts would you remove from the paragraph, and why? The graph is currently summarizing the article per WP:LEAD. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still too much emphasis on trivial crap. Why do the meaningless sections get full paragraphs, but the ones that people would actually want to read only get bulleted lists? WP:SUMMARY should be read and adhered to. The biggest offender is This section is about social and other general interactions. For creative collaborations, see Collaborations between ex-Beatles. What it should say is This section is about creative collaborations. For other unimportant shenaniganry that one would expect to find in a biographical but not an encyclopedia article, read a biographical book. Other examples:
What material specifically do you think is "trivial crap" and which "bulleted lists" do you think should be summarized in prose? Per your suggestion, I've now summarized Macca's musical collaborations with Starr. It was already covered for Lennon (two jams) and Harrison (one backing vocals over-dub). ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1966, McCartney met gallery-owner Robert Fraser, and it was at Fraser's flat where he first learned about art appreciation." Sentences like these make me wonder if the author realizes that inclusion in a 700-page biography is not sufficient reason to include something in an encyclopedia article.
Macca is a painter of 30 years with over 500 completed canvasses to his credit, so it is notable where, when, and why he first became interested in art. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miles would become de facto manager of Apple's short-lived Zapple Records label" Relevance?
Why is a little background info on Macca's official biographer, a former Beatles employee, not relevant? Many sources find Apple, and Zapple notable enough for a brief description, as this article currently does. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "McCartney attended the 1968 FA Cup Final played by West Bromwich Albion against the Everton Football Club, and after the match, shared cigarettes and whisky with other fans."
Demonstrates a non-musical, or non-professional side to his personality/life, hence it's inclusion in "Lifestyle". ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is now removed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 10:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sir Paul McCartney's agent was Hubert Chesshyre, LVO, Clarenceux King of Arms" I mentioned in the last FAC that this claim was not covered by the source that was then given, and I see that the solution was to simply remove the source...?
Fixed. I searched for several hours for a WP:RS to back up this statement but could not, so I just deleted it, as it didn't add that much and/or wasn't that needed anyway. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Or between two Flaunches fracted fesswise two Roundels Sable over all six Guitar Strings palewise throughout counterchanged." Are we supposed to be able to understand this? Also, source?
Ditto. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lobo: The article has certainly improved a lot since the last FAC, and I commend GabeMc on all the hard work. I'm afaid I do still find much of the content after "Musicianship" (and even some of the stuff there) to be bloated and given too much importance. For instance, all of "Creative outlets", in my opinion, could quite easily be compressed to one paragraph giving a summary of his interests and achievements in these areas. Just to prove my point, here's an alternative: "McCartney is an avid painter who has exhibited his work in public. He has also written a book of poetry and a childrens' book." That alone could more or less cover the first two subsections! I'm not suggesting it should be that brief, but it also proves how padded this section is. The "Drugs" section is even worse since it has little relation to his notability, and - to be brutally honest - I don't even think the football section should be there. So he loves football...okay, so do 90% of other British men! I really think this is trivial. Personal relationships...again, we have a lot of unnecessary information here, such as "Rhone felt McCartney had a compulsion to control situations, choosing clothes and make-up for Rhone, encouraging her to grow her hair out like Brigitte Bardot's,[297] and at least once insisting she have it re-styled, to disappointing effect."

  • Two specific points: 1) I'm not keen on this phrasing: "The loss of McCartney's mother was later a point of relation with John Lennon". 2) No mention of him headlining Glastonbury in 2004? (*cough* which I was there for *cough*)

All in all it's an impressive article, but it is just too detailed at times IMO. The sections most in need of attention, for me, are "Creative outlets" and "Lifestyle". Please don't let my comments be a downer, I'm sure this fault is only a result of your enthusiasm for the man and the article. That can only be admirable. :) But I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until the less important sections are substantially trimmed. --Lobo (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed your first specific point, a good one. As for the second, well ... if I added every notable festival that Macca has ever played in 42 years as a solo artist, it would only serve to increase the verbosity of which you disparaged in your general comments, which I might be tempted to resolve by trimming a few sections, but as you are the only reviewer who has really ever gone there, specifically, I'll hold off for now, since really, you can say "I wouldn't feel comfortable supporting until ..." all you want, but unfortunately, you might not support anyway, no matter how much material/edits/personhours I delete. Macca smoked pot for 40-50 years, habitually, according to many reliable sources, and he was busted five times, once for cultivation, so it is certainly notable. He has painted over 500 canvasses, and had major showings where thousands showed up, 45,000 at one, so that's also notable. Many edits went into the FB section, many not mine, so to delete the work of others to please one off-hand comment seems rash. He is indeed a rabid fan, or was, and two graphs in the bio of a 70 year-old man does not seem excessive. If and when others complain about similar concerns I will reassess. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough about Glastonbury, it just seemed like that section was very detailed so I thought I'd point out an omission. I have no objection to there being lots of detail about his musical career by the way. I wasn't saying his painting, drugs etc shouldn't be mentioned, it should, I just think the article dwells on these things more than is necessary. And in such a long article (oh my god, 14,000 words!!! I didn't know it was that long!), I'm inevitably going to be looking at what could be trimmed. Although, I'm starting to think it may be the introductory bit to "Creative outlets" that makes this section look so bloated to me...I can't really see a need for it? The football, I'm afraid, I really do think should be deleted (other than perhaps a sentence about him being a fan and supporting both Liverpool teams) - it trivialises the article IMO. I'm surprised no one else has commented on it. When I get home from work, I may start a discussion about it on the talk page. I know it is horrible deleting stuff that you spent time researching and writing, but trimming out the fluff is also a big part of article refinement. I most likely would support if this was done, since I can't see anything else wrong with the article. I sincerely think this would be an improvement, but I understand your reticence in acting upon it as well...just think about it. People are actually more likely to read your work if it doesn't look too daunting. ;)
That sentence I picked out - it was actually "..was later a point of relation" that I found a bit strange. Would it be accurate to say "McCartney and John Lennon would later bond over this..." or something similar? Because I think that would be clearer, if so. Congratulations again on all the work you've put into the article. --Lobo (talk) 06:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I much prefer "point of relation", the reliable sources do not say they bonded over it per se, in the sense that it was something they discussed at length, and which strengthened their friendship, just that they had a common frame of reference, as a sad child who lost a parent. A commonality of experience, hence, "point of relation". The introductory bit to "Creative outlets" sets up all the material to come. To remove it would undercut the section. It needs an intro, IMO. I've trimmed most of what I believe should be trimmed out, and I like the article as it reads now. Is 14,000 words to many for one of the most famous and successful entertainers of the last 100 years ... who also happens to be 70 years old? Huh? Who says 177,000 bytes is the limit for McCartney's bio and why? These seem like arbitrary limits you are applying without any rationale. As if you think the sections that bore you need to be deleted, or the article isn't good enough. As far as article length, as I said above, currently the McCartney article is about 178,000 bytes, look at others to compare

Please keep in mind, you do not have to agree with or like every section for it to be FA quality. It seems like you have an issue with his lifestyle and creative outlets sections in general. Are there prose or punctuation issues, or anything less vague that can be addressed? ~ GabeMc (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Alright Lobo, I stayed up all-night, and edited the sections you suggested editing. In total I trimmed over 11,000 bytes, around 6% of the article you last saw. So I'm calling your bluff, I trimmed. Now what? I did my best to trim the sections you suggested trimming. Thanks for taking the time to comment. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, after looking through the article, I feel confident that the following areas can be adjusted for brevity without adversely affecting the article. These are out of order, so bear with me.
The Beatles - I don't think the paragraph on the Pepper cover is terribly important. You could trim it without affecting the article. I think also the last paragraph of this subsection (beginning "Between 1962 and 1970") is also unnecessary. We've already covered the major singles and albums in detail, and don't need to summarize here. Other than that, this section looks perfect to me.
Drugs - This section is reasonably succinct, and I do think most of the content should stay. This sentence:

In 1997 he spoke out in support of decriminalisation of the drug: "People are smoking pot anyway and to make them criminals is wrong".

is entirely unnecessary, however. We already have the bit about him signing the Times advert in 1967, so no one reading the article really needs to know that he also talked about it thirty years later. You could also tweak the bit about the Times thing, maybe cut out the name of the group that produced it and the celebrities who signed it. Maybe something like this:

His attitude about cannabis became public in 1967, when he, along with sixty-four others (including the other three Beatles and Epstein), added his name to a 24 July advertisement in The Times which called for its legalisation, the release of those imprisoned for possession, and research into its medical uses.

would work? The way I see it, the names of the others who signed it really aren't that important. The Beatles and Epstein should be mentioned, obviously, but the others aren't terribly important, for our purposes.
As an aside, does the "never arrested by Norman Pilcher's Drug Squad" clause need to be there? I'm sure there are lots of English policemen he was never arrested by.
Football - I would say trim all the specifics, as was suggested by Lobo, and mention that he supports both clubs. I could be wrong on this, though.
Anyway, Gabe, I'm with you on the article not actually being too long, per se, but I think it does spend a bit too much time on some things. I feel strongly that the "Musical career" section was fine before some of the additions. I don't dislike it now, and I still think it meets the FA criteria, but I think it has gotten away from summary territory for certain, and it seems like that particular guideline is something those who commented here should have thought about before asking that it be expanded in those areas.
That said, all my concerns are now a matter of taste, so on some level the changes I mention may not be necessary. I don't think any of the above concerns are (or should be) a barrier to getting this already inordinately long FAC successfully passed, as it has met all the criteria for quite some time. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 08:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is getting a bit ridiculous IMO. To address your concerns, 1) if Macca sketched the Pepper cover, then it is notable enough for inclusion, as the most famous cover ever. 2) The last graph of the Beatles covers their chart, and lasting success and influence, something the summary section does not do. 3) I think it's notable that he has been openly for pot legalisation from 1967 until recently. It establishes his continued opinion. 4) I just disagree, with the drugs thing, wikipedia is getting too touchy. Why hide all the controversy? 5) I nuked the FB sub-section, I fought too hard for that one, out of respect for Brits, and those that had dedicated time into crafting it, but it's not worth it to me at this point. I don't even like football, nor do I care that Macca does. 6) What specifically about the "Musicianship section" is excessive IYO, as most of the material was added there at the direct request of other FAC reviewers, in particular, User:Wasted Time R. Thanks for your comments Evan. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:16, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will stay up all-night, and trim as much detail as possible from the sections Lobo and Evan suggested trimming. Please remember, I'm just a human doing their best. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Per Lobo's suggestions, I trimmed out over 11,000 bytes. I believe all the remaining content is important to the subject, well-weighted, and worthy of inclusion in a featured article. ~ GabeMc (talk) 12:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I can honestly say that I have done my very best up to this point to resolve everyone's comments. If I missed any key points please remind me, perhaps in a new section down here, as I may have missed something in the wall of text above. This FAC is now to the point where I am resolving concerns caused by my resolving of previous FAC concerns. Perhaps I'll write an essay called, "The FAC feedback loop". ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:14, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: In some articles, particularly those about non-controversial science topics, it can be very easy to determine what content belongs in the article, and the FAC becomes a matter of tweaking it and finding little mistakes. For a topic such as this one, however, it can be a huge pain in the ass to find a structure that everyone is satisfied with, as I'm sure you've noticed. In such cases, the polishing of individual sentences really is a waste of effort, as much of the work can get lost in the shuffle. FAC is consensus-driven, and it seems clear to me that no consensus will be found here. I suggest spending some time away from the article, allowing the entire readership to push and pull the article into its most agreeable shape, rather than relying on the often contradictory opinions of a few well-meaning reviewers. Once it has arrived at a stable state, the refinement can begin. Just my two cents, of course. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Or, maybe we've just reached the point where almost all of everyone's requests for inclusion have been granted, and now the article is much longer, causing comments to come in requesting trims. FWIW, I agree that some trims were needed, and I have already trimmed almost everything that was specifically contended, as far as I know anyway, I may have missed something in the above text. IMO, no actionable objections are currently left unresolved. Please correct me if I am wrong. ~ GabeMc (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: A week and a half after I emphasized the need for the article to receive a comprehensive, skilled copyedit, that has still not happened (though given the extensive substantive editing that has occurred, perhaps it was best to hold off the copyedit until that wound down). The quickest glance at the middle of the article shows that multiple grammatical errors—and I mean multiple errors even in individual sentences—remain.

Among the seven or eight online guides to proper comma usage I looked at, the following two struck me as potentially the most useful: [59] and [60].—DCGeist (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there are "multiple grammatical errors" as you say then perhaps you would be kind enough to give a few examples here so that they can be resolved and the article improved. Many editors have gone through the article since you last commented, at least 4 or 5, not counting me. So it appears you can see errors all the rest of us have missed. Please, do share some specifics, or this is merely an unactionable objection, with no rationale to support the concern you want others to look for. Also, I think it is a bit inappropriate of you to even comment here, now, when you and I are in the middle of several talk page disputes at the Beatles. I could be wrong, but to comment here negatively, while there are open RfCs and content disputes with which you and I are directly involved, seems improper, IMO. Maybe someone can clarify this point. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:23, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Currently open content disputes between User:DCGeist and myself: here, here, and here. Also, while I hate to ABF, I cannot help but feel this has something to do with the whole "The/the" Beatles issue, which has mysteriously reappeared recently after 18 months of silence on the issue, I hope I am wrong about this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:43, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We were involved in those "disputes"—I thought they were content discussions—at The Beatles a week and a half ago. You didn't presume back then to argue that they disqualified me from vetting this FA candidate. As for now, why in the world would I want to give you any more help after this gratuitous display of bad attitude? The fact that your grammar is poor and you have been unable to recruit or retain a competent copyeditor is your problem (and, unfortunately, the article's), not mine. As an example for the benefit of the delegates, I provide the sentence with multiple errors that it took me about two seconds to spot when I went to look at the current state of the article:

While London Town (1978), was supported by the US number-one, "With a Little Luck", and was a top-five in both the US and the UK, critical reception was less favourable, and McCartney expressed disappointment in the release.

The prose in much of the article does not come close to meeting the FA standard for similar reasons, and on that basis I oppose its promotion.
P.S. GabeMc's comments are veering into very silly territory, but just for the record, aside from enforcing consistency, I couldn't care less about the endless "The/the" debate.—DCGeist (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, your example above has one, maybe two unneeded commas. Am I incorrect about this? Please tell me how many errors there are in the graph, I'm curious. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There were three commas that were wrong (not simply "unneeded") in the sentence. So, to answer your question: Yes. You were incorrect about that. There are no remaining objective errors in the graf consequent to Rothorpe's intervention; however, the second sentence, judged on prosody, is most sour. The pertinent FA criterion calls for prose that is "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard." The prose of this article is sporadically engaging, never brilliant, and well short of professional standard. Guess what: A serious copyeditor could change that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DCGeist, your oppose seems little more than a sour grapes retaliation against me, I will reiterate, it is not appropriate to oppose an an FAC while you are currently in the middle of more than one content dispute at a related page with the nominating editor. Please, can any admins verify whether or not I am correct in this assertion? ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of the comma usage guides you linked to seem to be dealing largely with the serial comma, which is optional per WP:SERIAL. Of course, the MoS seems to be increasingly unpopular these days, so that may be part of the issue. Yes, the excerpt you posted is grammatically screwed-up. The majority of those problems have been solved by I and others, I believe. I intend to go through the article tonight for one last, thorough copyedit. Since I'm a professional writer, I think I should be able to satisfy at least the "competent" criterion you mentioned. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's schedule that copyedit for tomorrow (Friday), actually. Sorry. I'm easily sidetracked... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 06:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To both GabeMc and DCGeist: Neither of you are assuming good faith about each other. I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago. In fact, I think he has/had legitimate concerns about poor grammar. I also don't think it's fair to blame GabeMC himself for the errors, nor is it very nice to tell him to his face that he "has poor grammar". But even if he were responsible for every single, solitary grammar mistake, that wouldn't matter to me. I copyedit articles, not people. Also, I would appreciate another look at the prose quality. I've just done a thorough copyedit, mostly after DCGeist's "oppose" !vote, and more changes are on the way. DCGeist, do you think I and the others have come close to giving this article a "comprehensive, skilled" copyedit? (If you think my copyedits are half-assed and incompetent, I promise my feelings won't be hurt.) I don't deny there's room for improvement, as there will be if/when this article is promoted. I do, however, feel that the prose meets or almost meets FA standards. szyslak (t) 13:30, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Szyslak, well said. I will not assume bad faith on DCGeist's part, but to clarify, he and I are not currently in a "The/the" dispute "from months ago". We are currently in dispute over several other issues, which began weeks ago and are ongoing. I should not have dragged "The/the" into this, for I have no reason to believe it is a factor in Geist's !vote. I agree that DCGeist's personal attacks on me are inappropriate, and I stand by my comment that I feel it is improper to oppose an FAC when you are currently in more than one content dispute (at another article) with the nominating editor. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no idea about any motives DCGeist may have had, I agree that opposing a FAC nominated by an editor you're in dispute with doesn't look good to say the least. It would be understandable if one were to wonder whether he just doesn't want you to have your star. szyslak (t) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Szyslak, if you insist on dragging out the off-topic discussion of personal motives, then at least make a little effort to get your facts straight. My last contributions to any Talk thread at The Beatles were made on June 25, within a half hour of when I made my first contribution here regarding the issues with grammar. GabeMc in his response here several hours later did not then think to characterize our Beatles Talk exchanges as "disputes", nor did he when I again weighed in here on June 27. On the contrary, he thanked me for my help on both occasions. Only when I noted here that there still remained many grammatical problems in the McCartney article a week-and-a-half later did those Beatles exchanges—to which I had contributed nothing since June 25—magically transform into "disputes" that supposedly disqualified me from vetting any FAC in which GabeMc might be involved. Szyslak, it does not look good at all when you make derogatory insinuations about fellow editors in evident ignorance of what has actually taken place. That said, I hope you are as ready to move on to more productive efforts as I am.—DCGeist (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've insinuated nothing. All I was saying is that it's understandable that GabeMC might have taken things that way. I said above, "I don't think DCGeist is opposing this FAC as revenge for a silly capitalization dispute from months ago" ... or any other disputes, disagreements, arguments, pleasant conversations, or however else you want to characterize the interactions between you and GabeMC. No really, I don't think you have ulterior motives. I do think that if you've been in conflict with an editor, people tend to look at your opposing a FAC they've done extensive work on in a different way. szyslak (t) 07:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. But the point, as I have attempted to demonstrate, is that I had no reason at all to believe GabeMc and I were "in conflict", until GabeMc suddenly determined that exchanges elsewhere that had ended, at least on my part, a week-and-a-half ago constituted "disputes", rather than normal back-and-forth on maintenance and improvement efforts. Ach. There's enough actual (if often equally silly) conflicts on Wikipedia; the last thing we need to be doing is imagining new ones into existence.—DCGeist (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, fair enough. Now I'm sorry I even got myself involved in this discussion thread. At this point, I don't care who is in conflict with whom., or whether a conflict even exists. szyslak (t) 09:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoingBatty, I needed that! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I just want to say thanks to all the editors who have been helping out at the McCartney article putting in hundreds of edits. Regardless of the outcome of this FAC I am proud of the work we have done, and I am proud to have worked with so many excellent and helpful editors along the way. Thanks everyone! It has meant alot to me, and I have learned much as well. I know I'll come away from this a better editor, and I hope that the McCartney article is much improved. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: based off my reading of about 2/3 of the article thus far. My apologies to the nominator, I'd meant to read more, but it's not a subject I find very interesting/know much about and it's a long article (and I read slowly). That being said, my impression based on my reading is that it's at FA quality and that the grammar and prose meet the criteria at this point. I don't think that an article can be written that will satisfy everyone, there will always be questions about whether to include a certain detail or not and exactly how many commas to use etc. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. The issue is not about "how many commas to use." There are, indeed, different acceptable styles for handling commas in certain grammatical situations. The choice of one of those styles over another is neither a problem in general nor an actionable objection in the context of a Featured Article Candidacy. The problem we face here is a massive amount of objective grammatical errors, largely involving punctuation, particularly commas. The nominator is not well versed in English grammar and he has failed to recruit a copyeditor capable of diligently applying good English grammar to the article. I have never claimed that the article is a "horror". It is simply replete with grammatical errors and is not close to representative of our best work.
Evanh2008, both of the online guides I commended to GabeMc deal with MANY issues beside that of the relatively minor issue of the serial comma, which involves only a choice and consistency. Most of those MANY other issues are matters of grammatical right and wrong; this article currently gets them wrong over and over and over again. As my initial contributions to this thread should have made plain to any adult here, I would very much like this article to achieve FA status. However, the prose does not now come close to meeting that standard. And the only real horror here is GabeMc's abusive treatment of those who displease him. I trust it is evident who is truly sucking on those "sour grapes."—DCGeist (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. My content edits have been trivial, but you may think of me as a "contributor" if you wish. I have copyedited this article extensively, repeatedly, from top to bottom. After I worked on the first half or so, there were extensive edits to those sections in response to the featured article process. Since further errors were introduced, I went back and copyedited those sections all over again, some hours after DCGeist's objection above (and more work is on the way, from me and others). I don't take all or most of the credit for this article's improved prose; other editors have done more than their part. And what I really can't take credit for are the other qualities that make this a superb article. The referencing is superb, with a clear, easy-to-follow citation style that should be held up as an example for articles like this. The content is highly comprehensive, telling readers everything they need to know about Macca, and nothing they don't. This article came to FAC as a solid GA, and the sometimes-difficult FAC process has led to immense improvements. Everyone who's worked on this article deserves credit for making this happen. szyslak (t) 13:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all from a randomly chosen brief subsection, Activism, in the middle of the article:

Paul and Linda became outspoken animal rights activists after their vegetarianism was realised when Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb.

"After their vegetarianism was realised" is not English. "Paul saw lambs in a field as they ate a meal of lamb" is very awkward, unnecessarily confusing, and prone to a risible misreading.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The couple debated with Newfoundland's Premier Danny Williams...

There are various grammatically proper ways to handle titles and names; this is not one of them.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

McCartney has been involved with several charity recordings and performances, such as the Concerts for the People of Kampuchea, Ferry Aid, Band Aid, Live Aid, and the recording of "Ferry Cross the Mersey".

This sentence employs the serial comma, though most of the article does not.

Fixed, comma deleted. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

...in 2008 he donated a song to Aid Still Required's CD to assist with recovery from the devastation done to Southeast Asia from the 2004 tsunami.

This passage falls apart with "to assist with recovery from". The final "from" is also incorrect.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In 2009, McCartney wrote to the 14th Dalai Lama Tenzin Gyatso...

Another mishandled title/name construction.

Fixed. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problems in this randomly chosen subsection look to be representative of the sort of problems that remain throughout the article. Copyeditors, please keep an eye out for them.—DCGeist (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to make some specific suggestions, much appreciated. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on DATED I see the discussion above where we acquired all the "as of 2012"s; I now think we have too many of these, and that it may indicate an underlying problem with too many factoids. I have made a more detailed comment in article talk on this. --John (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Many of these additions were made at the direct request of FAC reviewer User:Wasted Time R (see above), and this discussion with Wasted. I'll go through and remove the excess factoids added to resolve prior FAC comments. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree too, even though I restored the "as of" constructions. I would've removed some (the entire claims, not just the "as of"), but I prefer not to mix technical edits with content edits. Many of the "as of" claims are trivial IMO, such as the most recent UK top 20. szyslak (t) 22:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Szyslak, at the McCartney talk page, John has made a list of suggestions for deletion. Perhaps you could find the time to go there and give some input. Again, "the most recent UK top 20" was added at the direct request of User:Wasted Time R (see above for a link to the subsequent discussion at their talk page). ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through the article top to bottom and moved as much chart data to notes as seemed proper. I've retained the most important points in-line (number-ones, album sales) but if I missed anything please let me know. Thanks again for all the great teamwork! ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I loosened it. :P Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - I am finding problems with the references, which I have either fixed or listed on the article's Talk Page. Please double-check them. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – I contributed only in the capacity of adding and removing commas, so my net input was likely close to zero :) Anyway, it's an excellent article, comprehensive without being overwhelming, and it definitely deserves the gold star. Kudos to all who worked on this! Accedietalk to me 18:28, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Crisco 1492
  • That lede is rather short for an article with 60kb of text.
  • "he pursued a solo career and formed the group Wings with his first wife, Linda Eastman, and singer-songwriter Denny Laine." - If they were married already, wouldn't she be McCartney? If they weren't, she shouldn't be referred to as his first wife, but perhaps his future wife.
  • "Harrison joined in 1958 as lead guitarist, followed by Lennon's art school friend Stuart Sutcliffe on bass, in 1960." - I don't think George has been introduced with his full name yet (outside of the lede)
  • Added citation needed tag (direct quote needs reference directly after it)
  • Also in 2011, McCartney married Nancy Shevell - When did he divorce his other wife?
  • "In June 2012, McCartney closed the Queen's" - Her name, for those (few) not in the know

Support Given my comments have been addressed and the article has improved dramatically, I support this based on comprehensiveness and prose. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments I think there is a consensus to promote this candidate. Any remaining issues can be dealt with post FAC, on the article's Talk Page. Thanks to the nominator and all the reviewers for engaging in our FA process. Graham Colm (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 11:57, 9 July 2012 [61].

Bivalvia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this as a featured article because it is the main article of the newly formed WikiProject Bivalves. A thorough GA review was undertaken by Keilana and since then I have tried to make the article as comprehensive as possible. This is my first solo nomination for FA so bear with me as I am unfamiliar with the procedure. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"Bivalves have been an important source of food for humans at least since Roman times." Perhaps the earliest written accounts are from Roman times but I suspect that bivalves were an important food source much earlier than this. Have shells been found at early archaeological sites? Aa77zz (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) They have, and I have added this fact. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citations for first paragraph of Brachiopods? Added. This is FN67 and all higher number references quoted by Nikkimaria in this section are now +1 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN7, 65, 81: page formatting Done
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods Done to the best of my ability.
  • Ranges should use endashes Done
  • FN15 and similar: missing author No author's name is given, as far as I can see. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN19, 32: publisher? Done
  • Be consistent in when you include locations, and when these include states I could omit locations altogether. I think those used are consistent. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36, 52, 53, 58: page(s)? The trouble here is that these sources predate my involvement with the article and I do not have access to the page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This? This? Well, they're not reliable sources, and I doubt whether I could find reliable sources for this information. I could either remove the citations - using shellfish for bait is hardly controversial - or I could remove the statements to which they refer and the citations.
I have removed two of these and found a new citation for the third. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I changed the sloppy table to one which is accessible and sortable. I also used the {{sort}} template, but for some reason the second column does not sort properly. Also I am not satisfied that the capitals are useful and in my opinion fail WP:SHOUT.--GoPTCN 17:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Thank you. I have removed the capital letters. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could infaunal and epifaunal as technical terms be introduced later? They seem both off-putting and unnecessary in the lead I have removed them.
  • Almost everything possible is wrong with the caption starting Systematische Geschichte .... It's in German, there is a url link that contravenes mos (especially as the Smithsonian has an article) it goes to a page that has no obvious relevance, and seems to be repeating what's on the image's page. I have removed the offending caption and its image and replaced it with another.
  • in Evolutionary History, developed has close repetitions. Done.
  • Check that all your Howevers are necessary and followed by a comma I could only find two and I removed one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, the species generally regarded as the largest living bivalve is the giant clam Tridacna gigas, which can weigh more than 200 kilograms (441 lbs) - looks odd as it doesn't have size/length, just wieght, and next sentence has length, leaving the reader unable to compare - I think a length'd be good to add here. Done.
Link or explain byssus.
In bivalves, as is the case in other members of the phylum Mollusca, - why not "In bivalves, as with all molluscs,...."Done.
I'd do a bit of shuffling - to me, the Comparison with brachiopods section sticks out a bit where it is. I'd slot it as a subsection at the bottom of the Anatomy section, as it is about comparative anatomy. I have moved "Comparison with brachiopods" to immediately before "Evolutionary history" and have rewritten part of the latter because there was some duplication. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
that helps too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, the taxonomy sections, biodiversity and evolution are all naturally linked in subject matter, and worthwhile being adjacent to each other. At a minimum I'd move them all up to where the evolution bit is. They need a bit of a rejig. I need to read a bit and think about it.... I would like to keep the Taxonomy section near the end because otherwise it interrupts the general flow of the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To me, having both the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia and Biodiversity of extant bivalves seems to be somewhat duplicative. One might be best as a summary on a subpage. Maybe the second one? I agree with this suggestion and will work on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. First of all, kudos for taking on this article, it's great to see higher-level taxa presented at FAC. I'd like to review this, but am worried about one of your responses to Nikkimaria. If there are sources used here that predate your involvement, and you have not seen them, how can you be sure the article accurately represents the source text, or is adequately paraphrased from the source? Would it not be possible to change the citations to sources you have at hand? Sasata (talk) 17:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I first started editing the article on March 26th, it had 48,695 bytes and 30 sources, one used multiple times. Now it has 116,686 bytes and 123 sources. I think it would be a mammoth task to check all the sources that pre-dated my involvement. If it was a requirement that the editor putting an article forward needed to have checked every fact personally, it would be almost impossible for an article to attain FA unless it had been written from scratch. And what about a collaboration where several editors have access to different sources? When I see some well-referenced fact added by another editor, I am normally prepared to think that they are acting in good faith. Some of the information I will be able to verify but much of it I will not. I will see what I can do. I could ask someone who has access to a Barnes "Invertebrate Zoology" to check that multiple source, but no, that wouldn't do, because I wouldn't have seen the material myself ;-) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been through all the online sources that predated my involvement with the article and replaced the only one with which I was unhappy. I look forward to your full review. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just started taking a look through, and it seems that the refs still need some cleaning up. Could you work on the following:
  • consistently use either title case or sentence case for journal article and book titles Is lower case for journal articles and upper case for books OK?
  • ensure that all available biliographic information is given in the citation for web sites. For example, current reference #4 does not have the author(s) listed, even though this is available on the linked page. Ref#15 is missing an author. etc. Done.
  • it is redundant to give both a doi, and link to the same page that the doi leads to (see e.g. ref #6). In general, only include url links if the article is not behind a paywall, or otherwise include the (subscription required) template. Do you want the urls removed when the article has a doi and is freely available?
  • If they both lead to the same place, it's still redundant. In these instances though, you might want to use the handy {{open access}} template to let the reader know the source is free. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
  • not necessary to include the total # of pages in a book (nor the fact that it has an attached CD), ref#7 Done.
  • please include a direct link to Linnaeus' protolog (it's available at Biodiversity Heritage Library and other places) Done.
  • no page#'s for ref#14? Done.
  • the double periods in the refs can be solved by removing "Inc.", "Co.". "Ltd.", and other similar abbreviations from publisher names. (This is recommended by the MoS, although I don't remember exactly where) Done.
  • page ranges require endashes, not hyphens Done, I think.
  • ref #19 should be formatted as cite journal with a link to the web page Done.
  • ref #21 missing authors and pub. date (find this info by clicking back to the homepage) Done.
  • cleanup (i.e. remove) empty, unused parameters from citation templates Done.
  • this list is not exhaustive, just examples from the first couple dozen refs. Please check the rest with a fine tooth comb. I'll be back later with hopefully more substantive commentary about the content :) Sasata (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC) I have worked through all the journal references applying the above suggestions. Books next! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I am aware, I have dealt with all the reference matters listed above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry to be a pain about the reference formatting, but if you master this now, your future FACs (I hope there will be many!) will be much smoother. Again, this list is not comprehensive:
  • there's still a few "Inc."s and "Co."s causing a double period All removed, I think.
  • many page ranges still use hyphens instead of the proper endashes All removed, I think.
  • the subscription needed tag is only required if a link is directing the user to a paywalled site. If only a DOI or JSTOR link is given, this template is not needed. I have now removed the unnecessary tags.
  • ensure all of the journal titles are not abbreviated (I saw Amer. Zool., there may be more) Done.
  • the open access template needn't be used if the url leads to a PDF download (the reader can see the PDF icon and knows the article is free) All removed.
  • if there's a choice between linking to an open access article (e.g. Tëmkin 2010), or linking to the free downloadable PDF, I think the former should be preferred (that way the reader gets to access the information on a web page, but has the option of downloading the PDF if they so desire) Done.
  • it seems the DOI is busted for Taylor et al. 2007 & 2011 (refs #114, 118). Missing an issue # too. #114 is OK, issue added. For #118 I have reported the error so I hoped it would soon be sorted. Otherwise, what should I do about a busted doi?
I have now replaced the faulty doi with the url (now #120). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • missing info in Franc 1960 (ref #124). Is this a book? Who is the publisher, what are the page #'s, etc. It's a book but I don't understand the url I found well enough to be sure I have filled in the template correctly.
  • why is only one author listed before et al. in ref #127 (contrary to multiple authors listed in other refs?) There are about 50 of them, do you want them all?
  • I have added the other 49 :)
  • locations for books are not given consistently All removed, I think.
  • author and publisher missing for ref #50 (you have to go back to the homepage and navigate a bit to find it) Done.
  • It's getting late here so I will deal with Cryptic C62's comments tomorrow. Its a pity I chose such a large article for my first attempt at FAC! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the table in "Diversity of extant bivalves", shouldn't the title of the first column be "Name" or "Taxon"? Why are some taxa in bold? Why is Anomalodesmata in parentheses?
I have reorganised and I think improved the table. It was not previously in alphabetical order. Anomalodesmata used to be considered a subclass but has been demoted and its orders are now included within Heterodonta. I have removed it. Early on in this FAC, GoP improved the table and made it sortable. I'm not sure that having it sortable is a good thing as it does not retain the orders in the correct subclass. I could, I suppose, resolve that by including the name of the subclass on every line. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a bit odd to use a 1971 PhD thesis to cite the fact about the southern black bream eating bivalves. Couldn't this fact be sourced to a more recent, more accessible publication? I have given a different example of a predatory fish species, citing a more recent source.
  • the "Defensive secretions" subsection isn't long enough to warrant a new heading, and the first and third sentence repeat information ("produce a noxious secretion when stressed"; "When … attacked … secretes a toxic substance") Done.
  • "Here they are largely free from bottom-dwelling predators such as starfish and crabs but require more labour." More labour for the juveniles, or more labour to harvest them? Done.
  • "Ian McNeil, writing in 1990, stated that the button "... was originally used more as an ornament than as a fastening, the earliest known being found at Mohenjo-daro in the Indus Valley. It is made of a curved shell and is about 5,000 years old." Typically, specific quotes and in-text attribution are used when for whatever reason it is important for the reader to know who said it, and exactly how it was said; I don't think that need applies here. Done
  • In the symbolism subsection, how about mentioning the use of bivalve shells in funeral and burial rites? This is known from early American civilization (e.g., Archaic shell mounds of Kentucky's Green River area); prehistoric China and India, and Mesoamerica (there's probably more, I'm just going off a quick Google Books search)
I'm not sure about this and couldn't find much when I searched. I did, however, find an interesting article on the traditional use of shells by the Winnebago Tribe and I have added that information to the "Other uses" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to this source, bivalve shell structure can be divided into three main types: the oyster (latticed sculpture), and scallop (radial sculpture), and the clam (concentric structure). Seems like good overview information that might perhaps be suitable for inclusion?
Its not the structure but the sculptured decoration. I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence "One of the most widely accepted systems was that put forward by Norman D. Newell in his Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" seems to imply that this book is solely Newell's creation, but our article on the topic indicates that it's a multi-author, multi-volume, decades-long work, so the wording needs to be tweaked. Done
  • I've finish copyediting the article, and think it broadly meets the FAC criteria 1a,d,e; 2; 3; and 4. I'm not in a position to judge 1b (comprehensiveness), though I find it reassuring that Invertzoo was involved in helping to write the article. I'm still concerned about the lack of page numbers for many book sources (criteria 1c–"well-researched"). It was precisely this same reason that the brain FAC was not promoted. To quote the spot-checker Fifelfoo from that FAC, "400 page passim. citations aren't appropriate, and indicate sloppy verification." I don't see why this article should be held to a lower standard. For this reason, I can't support this yet, sorry. Sasata (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have found alternative sources for all except one of the books with unknown page numbers. The exception is Marcus Huber's Compendium of Bivalves, now #50. I am making efforts to find the page number for that. Does anyone have a copy or access to one? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Based on the recent improvements, I think I can get behind this. One final nit: I can't find evidence for the existence of current ref #79 (Fishelson 1979); the only mentions on the net appears to be from mirrors of this page. Fishelson doesn't even mention this volume on his academic web page, unless it's actually supposed to be Zoology. British Encyclopedia for Youth (In Hebrew). Since the fact it's supporting is double cited (and the other source clearly supports the article text), perhaps you might consider removing it as extraneous? Otherwise, great effort on an important high-level taxon article! Sasata (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the Fishelson source. Thank you for your help in improving this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead comments. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The gills have been modified into ctenidia" This phrasing suggests that humans made the modification. Perhaps "have evolved" would be an appropriate replacement? Done.
  • "Most bivalves bury themselves in sediment on the seabed." Why? Is this to hide from predators, or to search for food? Or just for fun? Done.
  • "The shell of a bivalve is composed of calcium carbonate and consists of two rounded halves called valves, which in most species are more or less mirror images of each other." Most species, meaning not all, and "more or less", meaning not really. The second clause doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose, and may be more misleading than saying nothing. Rewritten.
  • From "The adult maximum shell size..." onwards, the second paragraph of the lead presents detailed overly trivia about size. It should instead give the reader a broad understanding of size, as the purpose of the lead is to summarize key ideas, not to repeat factoids. Also, the average shell size would be much more informative than the maximum ever recorded. Also, the units are all over the place here. I see mm converted to inches, meters converted to decimal feet, meters, converted to feet+inches... it's just a barrage of data. Removed this section. The information is now included in the "Diversity" section with the units more consistent.
    Definitely better, but not quite there yet. "the majority of species are at the lower end of this range" is rather vague. Considering how much variation there is between the big guys and the little guys, this phrasing leaves the reader guessing what "normal" is. A possible workaround would be to give the size of one of the most common species.
I have reworded it.
  • "Bivalves have been a traditional part of the diet of maritime nations over the years." Lots of problems here. "over the years" is a useless filler phrase, as it gives no indication of the actual time frame. "the diet of maritime nations" wrongly implies that entire nations consume bivalves (do people in Nebraska even know what clams look like?), whereas "coastal communities" or something similar would be more accurate. Done.
  • "... new culture techniques over the last few decades. There is now..." Which decades? When is "now"? See WP:ASOF. Time-related language needs to be more precise than this. I have rewritten this part.
  • "Bivalves have also been used in the biocontrol of pollution, in making jewellery, sea silk and buttons and are the source of pearls and mother-of-pearl." Too many unrelated ideas crammed into one sentence. Done.
  • These suggestions have now been attended to. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated to the lead: am I correct in seeing that the 2010 proposed taxonomy of the Bivalvia section is a summary of a single journal article, without any indication as to whether or not the results have been accepted as consensus? This is a blatant misuse of a top-level section, and could even be considered POV-pushing. Something needs to be done about this, and the current solution of moving the content to a daughter article is not adequate. That article currently does not meet the WP:Notability standards, and should be deleted unless reliable third-party sources can be added to back it up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC) I have renamed this section and made it lower in level. WoRMS, the World Register of Marine Species, has adopted this taxonomy and I have added an extra reference. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much better. The problem now is that each of the subclass subsections (hee!) are of the same level as the 2010 taxonomy section. Actually, I'm not even sure that the subclasses should be subsections. It clutters up the TOC and floods the screen with [edit] buttons. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rearranged it and I think it is better now.

Comment There are several refs that are online dictionary links, but ref 8 is not formatted like the rest. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Well spotted! #8 is formatted the same as the others now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now PumpkinSky talk 21:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think a 1925 source for the evolutionary emergence of bivalvia is appropriate, and the article should explicitly state when bivalvia first emerged. At the moment, all the article tells me is that they appeared later than the Early Cambrian. (However, there is a cited note in the infobox that suggests this might not be correct). Evolutionary emergence (or dominance) is pretty significant and (once adequately sourced) can be mentioned in the lede. In many other respects the article is excellent. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have rewritten this section using new sources. The 1925 book gave rather more detailed palaeological information but I agree that views may have moved on since that date. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I still think there should be a sentence in the lede stating when the bivalvia first evolved. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:46, 8 July 2012 [62].

Thomas J. Hudner, Jr.

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. It's about a Naval aviator, the last living Medal of Honor recipient from the Korean War. —Ed!(talk) 14:21, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sources and images but no spotchecks, PD attribution tag present. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Source spot check comments:

  • I ran the Duplication detector through the article, comparing it against the websites listed (looking for strings of 5 words or more):
    • I found this [63]: wording seems common and probably not copyrightable, so I don't think there are any issues;
    • This: [64]: no issues with this as it is a PD source and the one string longer than five words is the title of an appointment;
    • This: [65]: again PD source, so no major issues. There are a couple of strings longer than five words, but they seem relatively common;
    • This: [66]: again, PD source, no major issues and largely common phrases.
    • This: [67]. Not a PD source, but no issues. Common phrases or titles of works/ships etc.
  • Overall, these seem find to me and appear to support what they are sourcing.
  • A couple of other issues:

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Caption: "Hudner speaks with Secretary of the Navy Donald C. Winter .." - should say (right) to tell reader which person is Hudner.
  • Who? - " Present at the commissioning ceremony in Boston, Massachusetts, were Daisy Brown Thorne, who had remarried, Pamela Brown, .." - Who is Pamela Brown? Brown's daughter?
  • Crop picture: - The picture with Winter has a lot of wasted background ... a cropped version should be created.
  • Details? - " ... before intentionally crash landing his aircraft a .." - This sounds like a phenomenally difficult and courageous thing to do. Are there any details on how he was able to pull that off?
  • Wording: "and "about 90" people in his life told him .." - that "in his life" phrase is a bit confusing, and some readers may not grasp what is being said. Try to reword, maybe eliminate it entirely: " ... about 90 people have told him .." etc
  • Date? - " In 1955 and 1956, he was transferred to .." - Transfer seems like a single-point-in-time event, so why 2 years?
  • Clarify: "Naval commanders felt the pilots on the carrier were better trained, .." - Better than who?
  • Wording: "Hudner flew 20 missions in-country." - Could "in-country" be explained for readers who are not familiar with the term?
  • Why question source? - "bombed the crash site with napalm two days later, reportedly reciting the Lord's Prayer over the radio .." - Why use the word "reportedly" there? Is the source suspect for some reason on that one fact?
  • Why claimed? - "During his initial years in the military, Hudner claimed to have no interest .." - Why use the word "claimed", is there some reason to doubt the source? See WP:CLAIM.
  • Dated? - "He currently resides in Concord, Massachusetts, with his wife, Georgea" - is there a way to reword that so it won't get out of date if he moves or passes away? (WP:DATED)
  • Leaning to support, once the above are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support, based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 14:10, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Ed, I've just copyedited the lead as I think we had too much repetition of the subject's name. In a long paragraph, or when there's a chance of confusion because you're mentioning other people, it's fine to repeat the name occasionally. Otherwise, you should probably use pronouns more often. Anyway, pls check the rest of the article and see if anything needs to be done on that basis. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through and fixed a few more instances of it. I think it's more balanced now. —Ed!(talk) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 15:47, 8 July 2012 [68].

James Rowland (RAAF officer)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from Colin Hannah, here's another RAAF Chief who became a State Governor. Compared to Hannah's, Jim Rowland's governorship was uncontroversial but not without its interesting side, one author describing him as "the first vice-regal whistleblower". His Air Force career also broke the mold in a few ways, as he was the first RAAF Chief who:

  • Joined the Air Force in World War II
  • Commanded the RAAF personally, rather than through a committee
  • Was from the Engineering Branch, as opposed to the General Duties Branch, i.e. the pilots' club.

This is currently GA, and A-Class at various Wikiprojects. Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. No edits, a few comments, none stopping my support. - Dank (push to talk)

  • I don't personally have a problem with this sentence, but I'd have to turn in my copyediting merit badge if I didn't point it out: "The CAS was nevertheless required to be a member of the Air Force's aircrew stream so, although already a qualified pilot, Rowland had to transfer from the Technical Branch to the General Duties Branch." Consider this change: "... aircrew stream; Rowland, a qualified pilot, had to transfer ...". You can kind of get the meaning from that, and there's a general sense among copyeditors that if you can kind of get the meaning without the qualifiers, then 3 qualifiers in a row ("so, although already") must be more than you need.
  • According to Air Force historian Alan Stephens, Rowland considered that the "collective wisdom" engendered by the Air Board had been generally beneficial to the RAAF, and believed the new arrangements led to "'paralysis and arrogation of decision making', and empire building in the Public Service component". [I left out my usual quotes here]: I take it that Rowland said "decision making" etc. and Stephens said "Public Service" etc., but perhaps that could be a little clearer. If you do need quotes within quotes, here and below, replace '" by {{' "}} and "' by {{" '}}.
    • Yes, that's right. Heh, I wouldn't be in business here without Al Stephens but just occasionally I'd like to alter his expression... Implemented your suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "set in train": Any objections to "set in motion"? Here's the Google ngram.
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 18:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Nice work as usual Ian. This is relatively short for your articles on RAAF chiefs, but I imagine that this reflects the odd fact that sources are harder to find for more recent military officers, and Rowland appears to have enjoyed a controversy-free career (helped by heading the RAAF during one of its duller periods no doubt). I've added a couple of odds and ends about him today, but I don't think that this reaches the level where I can't review the article.

  • Thanks, I liked both those additions. I had in fact perused the F-111 book and was going to add something along the lines you did but got impatient trying to word it neatly, went on to Williams' interesting governorship tidbits, and never made it back to Lax... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My comments are:

  • "Rowland joined the Pathfinder Force" - 'joined' implies that he volunteered for this duty - is this correct? Otherwise 'was posted to' or equivalent might be better.
  • "Rowland led trials on many of the Air Force's early jets" - this is a little bit awkward (mainly as 'led trials on' is sort-of passive). You could replace this with something like "Rowland led trials programs involving many of the Air Force's early jets".
  • At the risk of becoming unpopular, the page range in citation 1 is probably too wide given that it's referenced seven times in quite a few different contexts. Can you reformat this to individual pages?
    • Heh, there's less to that than may appear to meet the eye. High Fliers is a book of mini-bios, much like the Australian Dictionary of Biography. The pages are quite small and the printing quite large, plus one of the pages is a portrait of the subject, so there's only three pages of prose, which together hold no more info than the average ADB article, and probably less. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a suggestion only, you might want to briefly note what No. 3 Aircraft Depot's role was given that we still don't have an article on it (and this role was much more interesting and important than the unit's name suggests!). Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really wish you'd stop reading my mind... ;-) I was going to add a line on what it did, then thought bugger it, now I've done all the service flying training schools I might start on redlinked aircraft depots as a distraction -- if you can wait a little while, that might be the simpler solution as far as this article goes... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • FN10 (Nelson, From Wagga to Waddington, pp.37–38): no problems, though you could explicitly note that master bombers had to circle over the target area at considerable risk to themselves.
    • I double-checked Nelson and I think he only implied the above rather than stating it explicitly, at least on the pages I've used -- perhaps I missed something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I must have read it elsewhere. It's true though! ;) (and explains why so many of the master bombers ended up being both decorated for bravery and shot down)
  • FN17 (Stephens, Going Solo, pp. 354–357): no problems, though it appears that the minister reached this conclusions separately to Rowland which doesn't quite come through in the text of the article at present
  • FN18 (Susans, The RAAF Mirage Story, p. 12): no problems
  • FN25 (Stephens, The Royal Australian Air Force, pp. 296–297): no problems
  • FN27 (Stephens, Going Solo, p. 80) and FN28a (Stephens, Australia's Air Chiefs, p. 11): checks out, and your phrasing to clarify what are Rowland's words and what are Stephens' in this somewhat complex passage is well handled
  • FN35 (Dennis et al., Oxford Companion to Australian Military History, pp. 338–339): says that McNamara was the "second RAAF officer" to be the Chief of the Defence Force, not the first (this is presumably counting Scherger's period as the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee as being equivalent to the CDF, which I think is broadly correct). Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The emphasis intended was on "commanding" the three services, which CCOSC never actually did. I could probably reword, but now I re-read it I think it's debatable whether that guff is in fact necessary, given we link to a decent article (yes, all right, it's one I took to GA...!) about McNamara anyway -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments are now addressed. Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many tks, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below looks good, only a few small comments thus far.
  • "senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force, serving as Chief of the Air Staff (CAS) from 1975 to 1979." I'd add (RAAF) after Royal Australian Air Force.
  • " on the family's 3,000-acre rural property" Might want to add a conversion here.
  • "At 17, he entered the University of Sydney to study aeronautical engineering but left in May 1942 to enlist in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) as a pilot under the Empire Air Training Scheme." Might want to add a comma before "but" here.
  • "in solitary confinement, he was scheduled" Is solitary confinement common enough to be delinked here? ditto for " being "the first Viceregal whistleblower" for"
  • There is some inconsistency with comma usage: "In 1952 he was appointed" vs "In 1957, he raised concerns"
  • "a consequence of defence reorganisation in the wake of the "Tange report" in 1973" Might want to add a brief mention of what the "Tange report" was. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Alright, the few quibbles I could come up with have been resolved, and I'm satisfied that this meets the FA criteria. A worthy addition to the Australian Milhist series. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • Should RAAF Staff College be linked?
    • Yep.
  • I thought the National Medal was a long service award?
    • Doesn't the citation imply as much?
  • Why isn't Air Vice Marshal James Flemming red-linked? He is in List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals.
    • I think I've stated elsewhere I'm dubious about red-linking 2-stars just because they're 2-stars, even if according to our current notability standards I could do so. I mean he may well qualify for an article for more than just his rank anyway, I haven't gone into it...
  • "University of Sydney" is linked on its second appearance.
    • I think I meant to link to the list of chancellors, as in the lead -- done.
  • Link "Labor" to "Australian Labor Party"
    • Done.
  • In "Labor Premiers", "premiers" should not be capitalised.
    • Done.
  • "As Governor of New South Wales, Rowland held a dormant commission to serve as Administrator of the Commonwealth" That is completely true, but he actually served as Administrator not merely because he was the Governor of New South Wales, but as the senior state governor, if you see what I mean. Also, you should probably link "Administrator of the Commonwealth" to Administrator (Australia).
    • Fair enough -- added something but feel free to tweak if you think it can be better expressed.
  • Any idea what he died from ? (NB: Lady Faye also died from cancer, in 2011)
    • Him -- 'fraid not, but will keep an eye out. Her -- will look for newslink and put it in if I find it.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 16:47, 7 July 2012 [69].

Douglas MacArthur

[edit]
Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • The big issue in the previous FAC seems to have been that the article was considered too large by FAC standards. On the day the FAC was archived, I'm getting: Prose size (including all HTML code): 127 kB, Prose size (text only): 76 kB (12667 words) "readable prose size". Today, I get: Prose size (including all HTML code): 118 kB, Prose size (text only): 71 kB (11654 words) "readable prose size". So, the first questions are: have FAC standards changed, and if not, is the trimming sufficient? (I don't have any view on this, I'm just trying to get us past the first hump.) - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • FAC standards have indeed changed. A number of much larger FACs have since been approved, and today this article would not even make the top 100 in terms of size. I did cut it back severely, both during the FAC and since. My personal view about article size is that articles need to be as big as they need to be, and this one probably needs to be larger. It covers a long and very distinguished career - enough for it to qualify as a Vital article. So a great deal is expected. I think that in the severe pruning, the reader may have lost the ability to form an opinion on MacArthur's generalship. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • What would you like to add? - Dank (push to talk) 02:24, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • We lost some material about his World War II campaigns, and some bits about his private life. I believe that the former is adequately summarised, but I was just afraid that the summary style means that reader must seek a deeper understanding in the subarticles, which in this case still often do not exist. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arthur MacArthur, Jr.,": Just a note that the second comma stuff is brutal for copyeditors because it's evolving and everything looks wrong to someone. This is fine with me; it's also fine to omit the second comma if there's some other punctuation there, which there is, in this case.
  • "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was an American general and field marshal of the Philippine Army. He was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army during the 1930s and played ...": We get criticized from time to time if the lead in FACs is too ... "he was this, he was this". It wouldn't hurt to tighten this lead; there are many options. How about this? "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur ... was a Chief of Staff of the United States Army and a field marshal of the Philippine Army during the 1930s who played ...". Here's another opportunity: "... MacArthur attended the West Texas Military Academy, where he was valedictorian, and the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he was First Captain, and graduated ..." If he was valedictorian, then he attended, so: "... MacArthur was valedictorian at the West Texas Military Academy and First Captain at the United States Military Academy at West Point, where he graduated ..." - Dank (push to talk) 13:17, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two more second commas needed: "San Antonio, Texas" and "Army Chief of Staff, Major General Leonard Wood".
  • Otherwise, So far so good down to Douglas MacArthur#Veracruz expedition. You've already picked up plenty of support on this one; well done on a long, difficult and very important article. - Dank (push to talk) 13:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images but no spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Clarify: "... withdraw to Bataan, where they held out until May 1942. In March 1942, MacArthur, his family and his staff left Corregidor Island in PT boats ..." - Readers not familiar with the geography may not realize that Corregidor is next to / part of Bataan, so the two sentences may be perceived as not related. Can the connection be made stronger somehow?
    • Changed to "nearby Corregidor Island"
  • Clarify: "Somehow MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became in the popular imagination the one who did." - A bit too poetic, and many readers wont be able to understand the point (frankly, Im not 100% sure what it is trying to say). Also, grammar is not quite right: "the one who did" requires a "the ..." earlier in the sentence. Suggest rewrite sentence in plainer terms.
    • Reworded: Ironically, MacArthur, who did not advocate the use of nuclear weapons, became associated with threatening their use.
  • Huge sentence: "Douglas MacArthur was born 26 January 1880, at the Arsenal Barracks in Little Rock, Arkansas to Lieutenant General Arthur MacArthur, Jr., at the time a U.S. Army captain and a recipient of the Medal of Honor for action during the American Civil War, and Mary Pinkney Hardy MacArthur (nicknamed "Pinky") from Norfolk, Virginia." - Should break into two. Also, who is from Norfolk? Just the mother? or both parents? Originally from Norfolk, or living in Norfolk at the time of birth?
    • Pinky was born in Norfolk. Why is this important? Because Norfolk is where the Douglas MacArthur museum is now located.
  • Wealth? - Do the sources indicate how (relatively) wealthy his parents/family were? If so, that should be included in the Education and early life section.
  • Hidden reason: "..Louise obtained a divorce, ostensibly on the grounds of "failure to provide"." - If the reader is told it is the ostensible reason, they should also be told the (historian's guess at) the real reason.
Yes, I understand that "failure to provide" is a legal term that was used in the divorce paperwork. My point is that the word "ostensibly" should either be removed or explained. Keeping "ostensibly" means that some underlying reason is suspected, in which case it should be explained to the reader. Or, just remove "ostensibly". --Noleander (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. It was preposterous in view of Louise's vast wealth. Unfortunately, material about this was cut in the trimming process.
  • Wives in InfoBox: The infoBox has several male relatives (including a son without a WP article), but neither of his two wives, both of whom have their own WP articles. Recommend including wives.
  • Footnote #272 is missing a period at the end (but not sure if that is what Nikkimaria is talking about above).
  • Wording not ideal: "For someone who served so long, MacArthur made little impact on the Army. " - First, the mere fact that someone served a long time would not lead one to think they should have an impact (e.g. 30 yr enlisteds; or even most 30 yr generals) - instead should say "For a five-star general who served 40+ years ..."; Second, is this the editor's opinion, or do the sources say that? If the latter, need a footnote on that sentence, since it is a rather dramatic statement.
  • InfoBox formatting: In the "Rank" item: I'm seeing some ugliness caused by the five-star icon: the left parenthesis is raised up above the text (above "Army" and "United"). Should be fixed for an FA article.
Chrome / Mac OSX. If it is only me, don't worry about it. Aha .. the problem is the Skin I choose in my WP preferences. The problem shows up in the Modern skin, but goes away in the Monobook skin (have not checked the others). --Noleander (talk) 01:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, a great article! Leaning towards support.

End Nolender comments. --Noleander (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Questions:

Tim riley (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – The article is authoritative, in good prose, balanced, properly illustrated and formidably referenced. I don't see its length as in any way a drawback. In some long articles one has the impression that the author has thrown in every obtainable fact regardless of importance, but this article is very much to the point throughout. Tim riley (talk) 12:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, close to support -- a monumental undertaking, well done. A few thoughts for improvement at this stage; will complete this in next day or so:

  • Junior officer: He passed his examinations for promotion to first lieutenant in Manila in March 1904 and was promoted to the rank in April -- Minor point but was it unusual to have to pass an exam for promotion? I'd prefer to trim this to He was promoted to first lieutenant in April 1904.
    • No, that was normal at the time. It's really only a problem for people familiar with the moderrn system, whereby you are promoted to first lieutenant on receiving your first posting. Re-worded as suggested. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War I: The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918. In the final advance on Sedan, it became involved in what MacArthur considered "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history." -- Don't really like "considered 'narrowly'" even though it might be grammatically okay. Can we say The 42nd Division returned to the line for the last time on the night of 4/5 November 1918, to take part in the final advance on Sedan. MacArthur later wrote that [or In MacArthur's words] the assault "narrowly missed being one of the great tragedies of American history."?
    • The Big Chief often uses Victorian grammatical idioms that are perfectly correct, but sound odd to the modern ear. Re-worded as suggested.
  • Between the wars:
    • MacArthur became romantically involved with socialite and multi-millionaire heiress Louise Cromwell Brooks. Rumors circulated that General Pershing, who was fond of Louise, had exiled MacArthur to the Philippines. This was denied by Pershing as "all damn poppycock." MacArthur married Louise on 14 February 1922 at her family's villa in Palm Beach, Florida. In October 1922, MacArthur left West Point to assume command of the Military District of Manila. -- Think we need a bit more context: 1) First sentence seems to cry out for a date or "during his posting to West Point", or some such; 2) When was Black Jack supposed to have exiled him to the Philippines to keep him away from Louise, given Mac went to Manila after he married her?
    • However, he encountered southern prejudice against the son of a Union Army officer, and requested to be relieved. -- Do we mean he encountered southern prejudice "because he was the son" of a Union Army officer? If so, think we should use the latter wording to spell it out.
      • Yes. Re-worded as suggested. Forgot to say his father was with the Union Army. Added a bit. Of course this thread ultimately leads to his entombment in Norfolk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We have not come 3,000 miles," he told them, "just to lose gracefully." -- Given this emphasis on Mac's grand designs, I feel we should learn something of the result, say a sentence.
  • World War II:
    • Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again... -- First time you've mentioned Moresby, so the "again" needs context or rewording.
    • "the New Guinea campaign's bloodiest and most strategically useless battle." -- I think such opinionated quotes (however widely held) should be attributed in the article text. There are a number of quotes in the subsequent Luzon subsection that could use similar attention. Likewise "one of the most impressive and divisive oratorical performances of recent American times" in Relief.
      • Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. "bloodiest and most strategically useless battle" has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A question for you: Do you think we need the medal of honor citation at the bottom (or somewhere else), or is the picture of the plaque good enough? The plaque is no longer readable with the images shrunk. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as I don't think the Relief section adequately summarises the subject. President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur seems more even-handed in its treatment. I have several good book sources I can perhaps use to help support a more NPOV wording here but at present I am afraid this will not do. --John (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I wrote President Truman's relief of General Douglas MacArthur as well, so I have all of its source books and articles here. Bearing in mind that a summary is all that can be included in this article, what additional points should it cover? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that this section is, as you say, a summary, I don't think the two long quotations are essential. They could be summarised and shortened. I don't like the whole paragraph that begins That day...; I think it could be rewritten to flow better. Finally and most importantly it reads like it is trying extra hard to avoid criticism of the subject; there should be no place for The relief of the famous general by the unpopular politician led to a constitutional crisis and a storm of public controversy.[256]; the adjectives are out of place in a neutral depiction of this episode. I'm immediately thinking of Dan van der Vat and Martin Gilbert who have both written quite good critical accounts of MacArthur's relief. --John (talk) 22:45, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Legacy section needs work as well, per section 1b. There should be no prejudice against including a proportional measure of sourced negative commentary here. I especially don't like "ironically".--John (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing at all much about his private life? --John (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC) I amended this because I see mention of his two marriages and one mistress. Weren't there more? Wasn't he also a famed drinker? Where is the man MacArthur in this account? I am not seeing it, I just see a very favourable military history. I need to see more detail and more balance. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prosewise, there are too many sentences like "Anticipating that the Japanese would strike at Port Moresby again, the garrison was strengthened." The whole thing needs a going-over to tighten the prose. I'd say right now I oppose for completeness and prose quality. --John (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date I still very strongly oppose based on the over-favourable coverage of especially the later part of the subject's career. I believe it doesn't currently even meet GA standards in this regard. --John (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC) A read of Talk:Douglas MacArthur#Nuclear threats in Korea; did he or didn't he? and the following section will show some interesting discussion outlining some of the obvious problems this article has. Until they are addressed this cannot be promoted. --John (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • John, as a matter of protocol I'd suggest you unbold the "oppose" immediately above as you've already placed one earlier -- I'd do it myself if I was wearing my delegate hat in this FAC, but I've recused myself so I can review. I'd also suggest to you that whether your oppose sways other delegates or not will depend on how they see your arguments, rather than rhetoric such as your last sentence above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • We must have very different understandings of the word rhetoric! In case anyone else is confused, this article currently fails on criteria 1b (completeness of coverage) and 1d (NPOV).--John (talk) 05:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • But it does have a scholarly section on it, which satisfies completeness of coverage and NPOV. Even in James's 2,000 page bio of MacArthur he spends only a two or three pages on it, as opposed to a few hundred pages on the occupation of Japan. It seems about right to give it as much space as the George Washington article devotes to the cherry tree anecdote. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It don't doubt that it seems about right to you. NPOV however would dictate a more even-handed and comprehensive approach. I am happy to work with you to help make this a more balanced article. If you are interested I will see you in article talk. --John (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • NPOV does not mean equal weight. The fact that it was proven Mac never stated, in an explicit manner, that he will use nuclear weapon against China during December 1950, and the fact that the nuclear controversy was start by Truman's gaffe, should not be buried in endless analysis on Mac' intentions. Jim101 (talk) 20:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • NPOV does not have to mean equal weight but neither should it mean zero weight. This is just a sample of what is wrong with the article at the moment. --John (talk) 12:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm probably not going to have enough time to review further, but I do have a few nit-picks in various areas...

  • Don't think McArthur's first name needs to be repeated in the second paragraph. I don't see any other family names provided earlier in the lead that could cause the confusion needed for repetition.
  • What is the rationale for using the international style of date formatting (## Month Year) instead of the typical American style (Month ##, Year) for an American subject. Not the biggest deal in the world, but I am curious.
    • I can jump in here... US military uses day-month-year. At MilHist we decided that for US military articles, either format was acceptable as long as applied consistently. Cheer, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Junior officer: Somewhat strange that California isn't linked, but Texas is. Personally I wouldn't link either; there are already long stretches of blue in this section, and more probably isn't desirable.
  • Battle of Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne Offensive: "moving to the Argonne section where it relieved the 1st Division there on the night of 11 October." The word "there" strikes me as a redundancy; it adds next to nothing to the prose, and removing it doesn't seem likely to change the meaning; in fact, it would be an improvement.
  • "on the night of 4/5 November 1918." The en dash style of formatting seen earlier in this section is more MoS-friendly than using a slash, from what I understand.
  • Field Marshal of the Philippine Army: "Over the next two years, the MacArthur and Jean were frequently seen together." Second "the" needs to be removed since it's fouling up the sentence.

Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment: Has Ian Rose's comment above been addressed? (See: "Hawkeye, returning to this review, I don't think the above point re. 'bloodiest and most strategically useless battle' has been actioned (the second is moot now as the quote's been removed)". Graham Colm (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has now. The quote has been removed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 13:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012 [70].

A Journey

[edit]
Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This autobiographical account of Tony Blair's years in Downing Street was promoted to GA in January 2011, but a shot at FAC the following month was unsuccessful. I created the article in August 2010, but didn't take part in the promotion process. More recently I've returned to it following my last FAC, and submitted it for peer review. It has received an extensive peer review by both The Rambling Man and Daniel Case. Daniel has also done a significant copy edit. I now believe it meets the standard required so am putting it forward for its second FAC. As always any assistance with images, graphics, etc, would be very helpful. Thanks. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images:
File:Princess diana bristol 1987 01.jpg - I'd crop this to focus on her head, like this. Removed
File:Bush 43 10-19-04 Stpete.jpg - I'm not sure the copyright holder is the uploader. We have many free images of Bush, so replacing this will be easy. Replaced with official portrait. (PD)
File:Tony Blaire's Visit to Dublin - 4th. September 2010.jpg - This falls afoul of the freedom of panorama laws in BritainIreland, as it is not a "permanent" fixture. Should be removed. I'll be nominating it for deletion. Removed
  • Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk.
  • Biased support I worked extensively on the article around Christmas 2010, took it through the GA process and unsuccessfully nominated it for FA. I haven't been active here for about a year because of exams and other such things, but I am happy to see an article which Paul MacDermott first created being taken through FAC again. I have read through the article again and am satisfied that I did not leave any errors and Paul has brought it up from GA standard to FA standard. wackywace 18:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is generally accepted that a Prime Minister does not discuss details of conversations he has with the Sovereign." - source? Although I think this is self-evident from "The Queen reportedly felt . . ." and hence the Note is unnecessary. Also, why are the reviews restricted to the US and UK? And why is an entire paragraph devoted to Zakaria's review, while British reviewers only get one sentence?—indopug (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref added for "It is generally acccepted".
  • Shrunk NYT quote and merged with previous paragraph.
  • Re:UK and US reviews. They're the two countries where Blair has had the greatest influence. Will look for other reviews though: Perhaps The Australian, Straits Times, Irish Times, etc. Other suggestions welcome. Paul MacDermott (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There don't appear to be many reviews outside Britain and the US, but I've found a few - from The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), The Globe and Mail (Canada) and The Hindu (India). Shall I add them? Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If those references have anything relevant to say then, yes, they should be included. If the "Reception" section is getting too long, then consider splitting out some content to create a "Style/Themes/Genre" section with the content that is descriptive of those elements. There are several comments in the Reception section that cover the wrting style/tone and how Blair approached the memoir genre. Though, nothing quite communicates the writing style/tone like a short passage quote directly from the book. maclean (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's certainly enough material in the article to do something like that. I'll look into it. Also I found one or two more international reviews, but they only seem to report the content rather than actually commenting on it. I'm quite surprised not to have found more about it on the international scene, particularly as Blair is a key player on the world stage. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have been working on this offline for a couple of days so apologies for the delayed response. I've slimmed the reception section down a bit, and split the political reaction from it as I feel that is a separate issue. Also taken out a couple of reviews in favour of balance. What is left now are those I see as the most important. Also added the international section, but can remove this again if people don't think it adds anything to the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must say I find reading the synopsis of a biography in the present tense weird, but if that is consensus then so be it....
Morgan said it had been purely his imagination - whose imagination - Blair's or his own....
His own
It is a shame there is no more detailed analysis of how it contrasts with other memoirs of the same time - e.g. Mandelson's The Third Man: Life at the Heart of New Labour...if any of tehse could be found with this or any other memoirs I think that would greatly enhance the article.
This article from Prospect Magazine briefly touches on this, though it is mainly concerned with how Blair is described by Peter Mandelson and Alastair Campbell in their memoirs, compared with how he portrayed himself. I'll see what else is about.
Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I meant. Nice find. It provides some nice contrasts. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I've got five, four of which I think have potential. Of those, however, the Lancaster University source requires access to Palgrave Journals so in reality there's actually three. I'll post some of the best quotes on the talk page and put something together from it.
ok, have written a draft section from information I've gathered together which can be found on the talk page. Let me know what you think.
Information added. I've also tweaked the lead slightly to account for the extra details.
prose in the first para of the history section is a little stilted, but I appreciate adherence to sources and can't honestly see any way of massaging it.....

Overall, within striking distance of FA over the line on comprehensiveness and prose. I can help if there are any political analyses in journals with fulltext available though JSTOR Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they have some that would be very helpful. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 12:08, 6 July 2012 [71].

Cave Story

[edit]
Nominator(s): Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cave Story, the indie platformer that took the internet by storm, is ready to be a featured article. It just passed GA, a process which embiggened several sections of the article. I believe the article succinctly captures what makes this game special, so come at me, reviewers! :) Axem Titanium (talk) 17:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note Transcluded at this timestamp. Graham Colm (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to review this article. I played this game a few months ago and loved it. L1ght5h0w (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've only reviewed one other article so far, so I'm still trying to find a good way to get my comments written down so they are in a nice and easy to read format, so please bear with me. I think I'm going to go by section.
Plot
Storyline
1. The following sentence is a bit long, if you ask me: "Two of the Doctor's servants, Misery and Balrog, are looking for Sue Sakamoto, a girl who had been transformed into a Mimiga, but mistakenly abduct Toroko, another Mimiga, instead."
Split the sentence. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Also, I believe abduct should be abducted.
Plot sections are in the present tense. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Following this sentence, the article states the player finds Sue in the the Egg Corridor, but makes no mention of the player going to look for Sue, or why the player looks for her.
It's not so much that you go looking for her, so much as that the Egg Corridor is the only place to go and you happen to find her there. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. In that same part, it mentions she finds an egg of a Sky Dragon that could allow her to escape the island. It just seems to me like part of the story is missing there.
Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm just looking in the wrong places, but could you specify where/how you clarified the problem?L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the Setting section, I mention that the research team has become stranded on the floating island, hence the need for a Sky Dragon to escape. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see now. Thank you for clarifying. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. It goes on to say that Sue attempts to rescue her brother. Who is her brother? Why is he on the island? And when did Toroko get kidnapped?
Clarified backstory. Also, Toroko got kidnapped when it says she was abducted. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completely missed the part that said Toroko got kidnapped. However, after you split that sentence and I read it again, it was much easier to find. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. "Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka." It seems like another bit of the story is missing between where Jenka tells the player they are a "surface warrior" and this sentence, like how we find out about the red flowers being in the storehouse, and the existence of the storehouse/key.
Fixed. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see "More comments" below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. "... and that they were not the killer robots who slaughtered Mimigas in the past." Where/how did we learn about the killer robots? They have not been mentioned before.
Clarified backstory. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reception
8. "EGM stated that ..." I believe you need to spell out Electronic Gaming Monthly, and then optionally have (EGM) following it, like this: "Electronic Gaming Monthly (EGM)".
Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other things
I found multiple wikilinks to the following:
  • Metroid
  • Castlevania
  • Nintendo Power
In the case of the Nintendo Power, there is one in the lead section and two in the Reception section. I believe according to the MoS it is acceptable to have one link to something in the lead, and then one more link to it somewhere else in the article.
Done. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me on anything if I'm wrong. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, finals period snuck up on me. I'll be free to work on the article in a few days. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem L1ght5h0w (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes you asked. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More comments by L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

After re-reading this section:
  • "Booster sends the player to the Sand Zone to destroy the red flowers before the Doctor can find them. While there, the player meets Curly Brace, a female robot who also has no memories of her past, and Jenka, an old witch who is Misery's mother and guardian of the red flowers. Jenka calls the player character a "soldier from the surface", one of many who were sent to the island to slaughter the Mimigas. Balrog steals the key to the storehouse where the red flowers are kept from Jenka. The Doctor forces Toroko to eat a red flower as a test, but King arrives to try to stop him and is killed in the process. The player is forced to kill Toroko, who has gone into a murderous rage as a result of the flowers."
A few things are hard for me to determine:
  • If Jenka is the guardian of the red flowers, why are "the red flowers [kept] from Jenka"? It seems like if Jenka is the guardian, she should have access to them. But the way the sentence reads, it seems the flowers are locked away from Jenka, and not that Jenka locked them away to "guard" them.
  • Regarding the storehouse again, does the player just figure out that the flowers are in them? Or does someone tell them? Not necessarily suggesting a change here, I just would like to know.
  • How did King die?
  • Did the Doctor recover any of the red flowers? Or did the player destroy them?
Thanks for clarifying these things. Now, how do I support this... L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:16, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It should be noted that I have only checked for copy editing mistakes and some confusion pertaining to the story line. I have read the entire article and have found no more items needing copy edit attention. With that said, some may still exist that I did not catch.
Going back and checking the criteria, I believe the article meets all criteria except possibly 1(c). I could be wrong though. Also, I apologize for editing this page 10 thousand (and 2) times. L1ght5h0w (talk) 17:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. What aspect do you feel is missing with respect to 1c? Is there a section which is weak on referencing? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The story part, but after thinking about it, there really may not be a better way to reference it than quotes from the game itself (which you have done). L1ght5h0w (talk) 14:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks for clarifying. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Great work so far, but a few things:
  • From lede: "After its initial release on the Internet, Cave Story slowly gained popularity as an indie game." Awkwardly worded - this could be interpreted as: the game, despite not being an indie game, gained popularity as one, or, It gained popularity because it was an indie game. You should just categorise it as an indie game, and then say it gained in popularity - not "as an indie game".
  • From Gameplay: "pressing down on the control pad." Overly specific? You don't give specific controls for other abilities (i.e., weapon-use). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both fixed, I think. How do you feel about the wording now? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Improved. Good luck with the nomination. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images: File:Cavestory.png has a rather weak rationale. It's not quite clear what element of gameplay needs to be illustrated, as such. It's not like there's extensive discussion of the healthbars or anything, while the graphics are well-indicated by the lead image. Unless there's a stronger reason for this to be there, I think it should probably be removed. If it is kept, a size reduction would probably be useful. The other two images are fine. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced the image with a more interesting/illustrative one. The new one depicts more gameplay systems. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, better. J Milburn (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You also need to tidy up the reviews table. Why include the Edge score if you never actually refer to that review in the prose? You reference two IGN reviews in the prose, yet only show one score in the review box. That score does not indicate which version it is for, neither do any of the others. They should make it clear, as they're not always the same. - hahnchen 22:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if this is an actionable objection. Cave Story Plus, as noted in the article, is basically a PC/Mac port of the WiiWare version (with one new level) and was not reviewed by any of the major game review websites or magazines as a separate game. Metacritic only lists 6 reviews for it which is hardly a "critical consensus", compared to the 25+ reviews for the WiiWare and 3DS versions. Also, the PC Gamer (the only notable review site of the six, as far as I can tell) review seems to have dropped off the face of the internet. That said, I added dual reviews for all listed websites into the review table to illustrate the difference in score the sites gave to each version. I included the Edge review to provide a proper balance of US/European reviews and print/online reviews, but I can't expand upon it since I don't have access to the physical magazine in question. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you didn't want to include a Metacritic score with only 6 components. I don't know the scope of the extra level, so didn't know how big of a deal it was - sometimes people use level and chapter interchangeably. You do have access to the Edge review as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Reference library/Edge, User:X201 & User:Steve should have that issue. I know for a fact that I have it, but I won't have access to my collection for at least 2 weeks. I generally don't think you should list reviews in the box which you don't reference elsewhere - but that's not a dealbreaker. The biggest issue though regarding balance, is that this is a Japanese game through and through, and you have no Japanese reception. - hahnchen 19:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking around for Famitsu scores and I realized something: Cave Story 3D hasn't come out yet in Japan. The indie game scene in Japan is completely different from America/Europe in that it's mostly dōjin soft, which has dubious copyright status, hence why most game review magazines and websites in Japan won't review dojin games as a general rule. That's why you won't find any WP:RS reviews of the original indie PC release. Cave Story 3D is the first "buy it in a brick and mortar store" retail release of the game, so it will most likely get a Famitsu/Dengeki/etc. score which I will find as soon as it is available. I will contact X201 and/or Steve about Edge. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's note: I believe I've addressed Hahnchen's objection but the user has not edited consistently since May 27. I will continue to try getting a response. The Edge review has been incorporated, btw. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@hahnchen: Generally both the Metacritic and the Gamerankings are left in because they use two different metrics and can occasionally come up with two very different results. Removing Gamerankings would put this article out of step with most other video game articles. This is also Sven Manguard 14:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In this particular case, I think almost every review listed by GR is also in the MC aggregate, and the very few that aren't are NN publications anyway. Do you have any comments about the rest of the article/prose/etc.? Axem Titanium (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I don't. This is also Sven Manguard 18:44, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, would you consider supporting the article in that case? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments (prose only) from Noleander -

  • "The player character awakens in a cave with no memory ..." - does the player character ever get a name or not? If not, should probably say so.
  • Ambiguous: "If the player saved Curly Brace earlier, the player may find an item to restore her memories..." - Who is "her" referring to? The player or CB?
  • Name? - Isn't "balrog" the name of the monster in the Lord of the Rings movie? Why is that name used in this game?
  • Clarify: "worked with Amaya to bring the game to Nintendo's WiiWare service .." - What is the WiiWare service? is it a game that is on DVD that play on the Wii? etc. Reader shouldn't have to click on the link to figure out what WiiWare is. Does the WiiWare version run on Wiis or PCs or ??
  • Terminology: "Amaya quit his day job as a salaryman to become director of Cave Story 3D." - Many readers may not know what "salaryman" means; and "day job" is too informal for an encyclopedia. Change to "quit his job as a software developer to become ..." Also, his new job, if he is working 9-5 and commuting etc may still be a "salaryman".
  • See Also: Has a link to Ikachan, but that is already linked in the article body.
  • Clarify: "At a Game Developers Conference project post-mortem, he emphasized the role of pragmatic design in shaping the game." - That sounds interesting ... can you give more details on what "pragmatic design" means in this context?
  • Ambiguous: "This version contains several .." - Which version? Prior sentences refer to both "original" and "WiiWare" versions.
  • Acronym: " GBA" - needs to be spelled out the first time it is used.
  • Define: "After its initial indie release, ..." - Define "indie" where first used. In general, the article should be understandable (without having to click on too many wikilinks) to readers who have minimal understanding of gaming.
  • Infobox: says "Version 1.0.0.7" - What is that referring to? Arent there multiple versions out there? Freeware? WiiWare? 3DS? Do they all share a single version numbering sequence? Or do they all have independent version numbers?
  • Overall: the article is fine, and doesn't seem to have any big issues. It is a rather focused topic, with few sources, so it is unlikely to have POV or coverage problems. So, prose is the primary thing to address. Leaning towards Support once the above items are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support (prose only). No opinion about comprehensiveness. --Noleander (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:51, 6 July 2012 [72].

William the Conqueror

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC), User:Agricolae[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after extensive work and revamping, I feel this is the best article possible for the subject. Everyone should know about William the Conqueror - his invasion of England in 1066 is one of "those dates" that even Yanks can remember. But there is a lot more to William than his invasion of England, and this article tries to put him in context of his entire life. After numerous copyedits, an extensive peer review process and lots and lots of work (including the most excellent family tree charts by Agricolae, who has no idea I just co-nom'd him for this... surprise!) This is what it looked like when I began work this January. It's doubled in size and the sourcing has been greatly improved as I've done a complete reread of the two main biographies of William to update the sourcing. I've also incorporated a number of other works on the Conquest and the time period, but the major sources remain the scholarly biographies of William. This is a wikicup nomination for me, but it's been a labour of love for myself as well as all my wonderful helpers. I present - William the Bastard who became William the Conqueror, a rather dour but extremely important historical figure. (As a bit of trivia - this is my 51st FAC... scary thought!) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Nevertheless for now I oppose; it's a procedural fail per criterion 2 at present unless it makes an effort to comply with SEASON which is part of MoS. --John (talk) 17:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've replied on the talk page - WP:SEASON is not as categorical as its being presented here. As a note, editors besides myself have weighed in on the talk page of the article, and so far all agree. Note also that I did compromise on one section where complying with SEASON didn't alter the meaning of the sources too much. The sources do not allow me to get more precise than a season nor is the season unimportant - we're discussing military campaigns with these three contested points and using "early in the year" instead of "spring" does alter meaning of the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:36, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Johnbod
  • Pretty much there, though I had to add a lot of links, but:
  • "...his personal piety was universally praised by contemporaries". Hmmm! I doubt most of the English felt this way, and the legends surrounding his visit to Durham suggest that the then-powerful voice of St Cuthbert-from-beyond-the-grave agreed. The English view of William only survives in a few comments in the ASC etc, & later remarks and legends, but it is most unlikely that even the English clergy felt like praising William for anything much.
    Bates, in the ODNB, states "William's personal piety was consistently praised by his contemporaries." I can only follow my sources - he doesn't qualify this by nationality - in fact Bates then states that Gregory VII praised William. There's no doubting that the English didn't much like William - but its worth noting that Wulfstan of Worcest, later a saint, continued to serve William after the Conquest. If you have some secondary source that shows that a contemporary condemned William's personal piety, Im more than happy to include it, but I haven't turned this up. Note this is personal piety - not his political actions. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Later English sources stated that Harold had been elected as king by the clergy and magnates of England." I see modern historians rather turn up their noses at the term Witenagemot, but if ever there is a moment to use or at least link it, it is surely here?
    This is why I've avoided using Witangemot - neither of my main sources uses the term, nor does the ODNB article on Harold use the term. As you point out, most recent historians do not use the term, so I've avoided it likewise. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a reason to avoid a piped link. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If my sources don't use a term, why should I link to it? General sense is that the "witan" was not really a "institution" rather something more like the curia regis which replaced it - a term used to refer to the various councillors that the king could call upon for advice. Our article is a bit out of date on scholarship - still relying on a lot on older sources. Note that Maddicott's work on the origins of the English parliament basically does not use the term Witan throughout - he feels that it gives the wrong impression of some sort of formal institution. Thus, this is why I've avoided the term or avoided linking to it. If our article didn't spend so much time on 100 year old views, I might be less bothered to link to it, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is the article we have on the topic, whatever its title, and the more modern view is fully expressed via John Maddicott and others, though I agree the article is not internally consistent in this respect. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hastings... where he built a castle as a base of operations". Isn't what he did better described and located as say re-occupy & dig a ditch round the existing Roman fort at Pevensey Castle, no doubt reinforcing & gating it in wood? If there was a castle at Hastings it must have been a very temporary structure in wood, which probably should be said.
    Oh. Gods. Can we avoid the vexed question of what exactly William built at Hastings and whether he brought it over with him or built it fresh or what? My source doesn't say anything beyond the basic "he built a castle" and the debate is probably best covered at Pevensey Castle's article... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption to death of Harold pic: "although whether this is an accurate depiction is unclear"; isn't it more that "which of the two wounded figures is meant to represent Harold is unclear". To be pedantic, it is not a "tapestry" (main text), not being woven, but an "embroidered hanging" say. "but that may be a later reworking of the tapestry to conform to 12th-century stories in which Harold was slain by an arrow wound to the head" - really? Huscroft suggests that the arrow in eye figure was reworked? All sorts of strange suggestions get made about the piece; does this have decent art historian references? What sources I have seen say is that both figures are original but the identity of Harold is unclear - he may be intended to be the figure felled by the knight.
    I've just replaced the pic with a generic one depicting combat at Hastings - easier than getting into the minutiae of which person is Harold and did they arrow get added later and all that - this would be better covered in either the tapestry's article or in Harolds - (I do plan to rework Harold's article soon).
    The new one is an especially poor quality image though. Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose points seem to crop up after 1070. This sentence could surely be improved, perhaps by splitting: " While William was in Normandy, Edgar the Ætheling returned to Scotland from Flanders, and the French king, seeking a focus for those opposed to William's power, proposed that Edgar be given the castle of Montreuil-sur-Mer on the English Channel, which would have given Edgar a strategic advantage against William,[45] but he was forced to submit to William shortly thereafter, and returned to William's court."
  • Revolt of the earls. This rather confused narrative doesn't bring out the ethnic dimension very well. "Ralph was originally from Brittany and still held lands there" - except that he seems have been born in Hereford, & is probably better described as "Anglo-Breton". Whereas Roger was a Norman who had come with William, & Waltheof one of the few remaining English lords in place. Better to say that clearly than all the detail of the fighting.
    • But ... we don't know that Ralph was born in Hereford. The ODNB here states that he was at least part Breton - his mother was Breton, and that he spent most of his life before 1066 in Brittany. Our article on him is based on the old DNB, and can't be relied on. I have, however, added a bit on Ralph and Roger and Waltheof's backgrounds to help bring this out. The fuller details of their motivations and backgrounds would be best in their own articles or in the Revolt of the Earls article ... the main reason for the details is that William was secure enough to stay in Normandy while the revolt was supressed and only arrived later to deal with the Danes and then go back to deal with Ralph. Again, I'm following my sources ... which don't bring out the "ethnic" element that much... although we have no contemporary motivation ascribed to the rebels, most historians seem to think it was the loss of their father's authority that motivated them - at least Ralph and Roger. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Orderic Vitalis describes it as starting with a quarrel between Robert and his two younger brothers, William and Henry, including a story that the quarrel was started when William and Henry threw water at Robert, it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless." Are these mutually exclusive?
    • The impression I got (which is just that, an impression) from the sources is that they dont' believe the quarrel story. Orderic wasn't above embellishing his narrative with stories to liven it up... this may be a point here. Bates definitely "poo-poos" the story of the quarrel between the brothers (mainly because of the inclusion of Henry into it, he was quite young at the time) but does think that the details of Robert rebelling are mostly correct. This is why I phrased things this way, do you have a suggestion for a better way to make it clear that the quarrel story (which is moderately famous) is likely embelished? I'm open to better phrasings. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similar: "William also visited Wales during 1081, although the English and the Welsh sources differ on the exact purpose of the visit. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that it was a military campaign, but Welsh sources record it as a pilgrimage to St Davids in honour of Saint David." It would surely be entirely typical for it have been both, combining business with piety in the usual way, as at Durham. "main/original purpose" perhaps.
    • I've added a bit here. Bates is the only biographer who really touches on this little episode, but he sees it as more military in character - taking advantage of shifting power bases amongst the Welsh. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "most of the native Anglo-Saxon aristocracy had been replaced by Norman and other continental magnates." - a considerable understatement, surely. "Almost all" would be more like it.
    • Depends on how you define aristocracy - it appears that many of the thegns (who after all were the majority of the "nobles" even if not quite as high of status) were not dispossesed. They remained, but were pushed down the social scale. Many of them appear to have intermarried with the incoming Normans over time ... a lot of work has been done recently on this subject - which is covered a bit more in the Norman conquest of England article. I've tried to keep the high points of the effects of the conquest here in William's article, but effects that he was not directly involved in (such as intermarriage or the like) are better covered in the conquest article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His seal, of which 6 impressions still survive, stressed his role as king but separately mentioned his role as Duke, and was made for him after he conquered England" - to be pedantic, I imagine this is his final seal; he must have had an earlier one before 1066.
  • Administration. Nowhere is the fundamental change of the replacement of Old English by Norman French as the language of administration and justice mentioned; this should be here and in the lead. The feudal system is not my thing, but did not William impose a fully continental version on the more tentative A-S one? All personal landholdings were now held from the king, which not been the case before, no? Or has Michael Wood been bullshitting all these years?
    • Again, this is where scholarship has changed somewhat. Now there isn't as much emphasis on "imposing a continental version of feudalism" on England - in fact, there is a significant school of historians that now sees the whole concept of "feudalism" as it was formerly taught as a late medieval invention. Much of this is covered in the Norman Conquest article - it appears that William's administration originally used Old English for a while and that it was only later that it yielded to Norman French. I've been somewhat influenced in what to cover here and what to place in the Norman conquest article by what Bates covers in his biography of William in the ODNB - Bates never mentions the change in language once in William's article. Bates says of the whole "feudalism thing" the following: "Until very modern times, it was generally argued that William's power in the English kingdom (and as a result the strength of the kingship that he passed on to his successors) was based on the systematic introduction of what was too facilely termed ‘feudalism’; the quotas of knight-service agreed between William and his tenants-in-chief and the bishoprics and chief monasteries of the kingdom were seen as the basis for a new kind of feudalized kingship which allowed the king to bind his chief subjects to him by oath and service and to exact so-called feudal incidents, such as reliefs, wardship, and aids. Although the introduction of service quotas and the collection of reliefs and the like were undoubtedly a feature of post-1066 kingship, the core of William's authority resided in the monarchical legacy of his Anglo-Saxon predecessors, and, in particular, in the numerous rights and revenues he had inherited from them, in the all-encompassing power of the king's peace, and in the extensive jurisdictional powers he held." Current historical thought sees William as much as a continuer of English government as a replacer of it. I have added a "main" template to the "consequences" section of the Norman conquest article to help direct folks to the fuller explication. One thing I've been trying to avoid is going well over 11,000 words. We're already well north of 10,000 - trying to avoid stuffing too much that was not directly related to William's life into his article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "some such as Richard Southern claiming that the Conquest was the single most radical change in European history between the Fall of Rome and the 20th century" - not some minority claim by Southern, as implied, but pretty much the traditional view of English historians for centuries.
    • Most English historians would say that it was the most profound change in English history, yes, but in European? That would be quite a stretch - there are a lot of "important dates" in European history... that's what Southern is arguing that it's the most radical change in European history, not just English history. Personally, I'd have to go with the French Revolution, myself... talk about about-faces! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the reign of Queen Elizabeth I of England, Archbishop Matthew Parker saw the Conquest as having corrupted a purer English Church, which Parker attempted to restore." - Not sure this point from the world of Reformation polemic is worth mentioning.
  • I'm not bothered by the WP:SEASONS point. At all.
  • Overall, I have to say I was rather disappointed by this; there's a lot of wood but some of the trees are missing. It's rather a dry read that is somewhat short of the bigger picture, and the drama of his career. Until I added a link to a note there was no mention of the wider context of Norman expansionism, in Italy at the same time, and very soon after in the Crusades. The magnitude of the change brought by the invasion to English life and culture is under-played. The endless military campaigns rather predominate, but perhaps it felt like that. Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is partly because I've tried to keep the overarching meta impact of the conquest in the conquest article - not in William's article. It's a biography and we should cover his life. And he spent most of his life on military campaigns. Yes, the Norman conquest of England article is also being scheduled for FAC - I plan to work on Harold's article also when I can find the time. As for William's impact on the norman conquest of Sicily - he was a minor and fighting for his duchy during the main events in Sicily - he had little concern or impact on them. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Johnbod (talk) 13:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the review, I always appreciate your attention to detail and ability to make me look at things with fresh eyes. I'm not dogmatic on anything above - if you can thing of ways to meet my concerns while also satisfying yours I'll be thrilled. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not entirely content on some points above, but certainly a very thorough & well-sourced piece. Looking forward to Harold & the Conquest! Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • All ODNB sources except Bates "William I (known as William the Conqueror)" spotchecked, (ie: Barlow "Edward (St Edward; known as Edward the Confessor) (1003x5–1066)"; Williams "Godwine , earl of Wessex (d. 1053)"; Thompson "Robert, duke of Normandy (b. in or after 1050, d. 1134)" ; van Houts Adelida (Adeliza) (d. before 1113)"). Barlow good. Williams good. Thompson good. van Houts good. Checked for accurate description, paraphrase, copyvio, source quality. Source quality in general is fantastic.
  • Minor: is footnote [58]a mispositioned? It appears to support the entirety of that sentence. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:49, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the other source also supported that info - the weirdness was likely a function of my way of building an article - which is to read a bit of source material, paraphrase, and insert where it belongs in the article. This can mean that things are sourced to one source when they can often be sourced to other sources ... I've moved it since it was rather ugly. Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Physical appearance and character - I'd say "Physical" is redundant here - what other type of appearance is there? And succinct headings are good.....
Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
''it is much more likely that Robert was feeling powerless. - "powerless" to me means "weak" - I think a word like "frustrated" is better here as he wanted (but did not have) lands etc.
Bates (and Douglas) both argue in terms of Robert's power .. not frustration. I think I'd rather stick with powerless here... but I'm not that bothered if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting context/usage I guess - ultimately I am a neophyte in the area, so am happy to leave it given the specific context. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately I've only found very minor quibbles - no deal-breakers I can see. Nice read. Prose flowed well enough that I forgot I was copyediting....and just read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well written and comprehensive. Even the footnotes are fascinating; having read through the article there's nothing I can comment upon - well done, good to see such a thorough article on such an important figure in English history. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - covers the literature well and is nicely written. Enjoyed it. As a *very* minor point, the bit that goes " Edwin (of Mercia), Morcar (of Northumbria), and Waltheof (of Northampton)" might read better without the multiple brackets (e.g. "Edwin of Mercia, Morcar of Northumbria..."). Hchc2009 (talk) 16:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Supporet I peer reviewed this and find it meets the FAC criteria. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 02:51, 6 July 2012 [73].

Tammar wallaby

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article has imporved since its last FAC and I now feel it gives a good summarization of the species. I would like to thank User:Axl and User:Rumiton for their help and User:Sasata for suggestions. LittleJerry (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks to me like a generally well-written and interesting article. Since I know nothing of the subject, I'll have to wait for more comments before I can consider a declaration; meanwhile here are a few issues I picked up in my read-through:-

  • I would clarify that by "range" you mean geographical range, if indeed that is the case.
  • I would expect to see in the lead or main article some indication of the total numbers of the species extant. Is it possible to do this?
  • "It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who named it for where it was found—an island he knew as Ile Eugene in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia". You should clarify that this naming refers to the binomial name, not to the common name ("tammar") generally used in this article.
  • The "Phylogeny" chart presumably means something to zoologists and biologists, but is impossible for someone (e.g. me) without specialist knowledge to interpret. A more informative caption would help.
  • The identification of page numbers by superscript characters is not a good idea, since many readers won't understand this convention. In the thousands of WP articles I must have read up to now I've not encountered it before. Why not put the page identification in the reference, as per normal?
  • Ref 30 links to an abstract; it looks as though login is required - if so, this should be noted.
  • The toolbox is showing a dead link. Check this out - it may be misinformation.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed points 1 & 3. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2: Unfortunately, none of the sources available actually gives the exact population number, not even the IUCN.
  • 4: Better?
  • 5: I felt citing it this way is nicer as it keeps the reference section looks cleaner and because I'm mostly relying on papers. I did the same for the giraffe article. I do however plan to use your method in the future.
  • 6: Ref 30 links to the Ph. D dissertation abstract and you can download the article there. No login is required to do this.
  • 7: The toolbox works fine for me. I can't find any deadlinks.

LittleJerry (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are OK from a copyright perspective, but File:Phylogeny of Macropodidae.png should really be replaced with Template:Cladogram. This provides added linkability, and (I believe) fewer accessibility issues. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, with my view settings, I can't actually see any lines on the cladogram. I left a note about it here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Noleander

  • Missing connection: "The island's French name was given in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste." - Clarify that the word "Eugene" is significant here because it is the source of the scientific name of the animal.
Better?
The sentence is a bit convoluted now ... can it be split into two? - " It was first described in 1817 by the French naturalist Anselme Gaëtan Desmarest, who gave it the name eugenii based on where it was found; an island he knew as Ile Eugene—in honour of Eugene Hamelin, commander of the ship Naturaliste— in the Nuyts Archipelago off South Australia which is now known as St Peter Island." --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Restate subject: "Its common name is derived from the ..." - I presume "Its" here refers to the wallaby, which was last mentioned 4 sentences earlier; several nouns have interceded. Rename the wallaby here.
Fixed.
  • Basic facts first: Population section starts with "Since European occupation, tammar wallaby populations on both mainland Australia and some of the islands have been greatly reduced or even eradicated. " - Yet the InfoBox indicates that there is no (or little) population problem. If the latter is correct, that should probably be stated in the first sentence of the section. Maybe move final paragraph up to top of section.
Moved last paragraph.
  • Clarify: "... and its peripheral testosterone is more concentrated. " - Concentrated in what? the blood? What does peripheral mean in this context?
Removed mention of peripheral testosterone.
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it causes less trouble.
  • Clarify: " may face aggression from other males, which can delay ejaculations." - If you're going to include a sentence like that, you'll need to explain it :-) Why is the ej delayed? Mental stress from the other agressors? Or physical pushing matches?
Removed "which can delay ejaculations".
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just clarify. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know but it causes less trouble.
  • Define: "... reproductive success by mate-guarding. During the estrous period,... " - What is mate-guarding. Does the following sentence define mate-guarding, or is it an independent observation?
Yes, the following sentence describes mate-guarding.
  • Confusing timeline: "It is a seasonal breeder and births largely occur during late January and early February ...The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth, and suckles her young in her pouch for the next seven months... Gestation in the tammar lasts 26.5 days.. " - I'm very confused at this point: If the gestation is about a month; and if they give birth annually in January, that means they mate 1 month earlier, in Dec. But then it says they conceive immediately after giving birth, which would be Feb/March, meaning 11 months of gestation. If the fetus/embryo is dormant for several months, shouldn't the gestation be > 6 months? Suggest reword so other readers don't get similarly confused. Spell out that timeline more clearly. Readers shouldn't have to struggle to work out the timeline.
Fixed.
A sentence appears to be mixed up: "The female tammar conceives again a few hours after giving birth. and suckles her young for up to 350 days. " It is not just the period: the two parts do not relate to each other. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.
  • Full story? "Tammars used for scientific study are housed in outdoor areas with access to water and shelter, which is closer to their natural habitat than a laboratory." - Is that entirely true? Are there no animal rights groups that protest over treatment of wallabys in labs? Were they mistreated in the past and things have gotten better lately? Even if they are kept outdoors, are their any animal rights concerns over their use in experiments, etc?
Removed the last sentence.
I didn't mean for you to remove it ... just add more material, if available. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On couldn't find any material on animal rights groups or anything.
  • Smell? "Tammars appear to respond more to the sight than the sound of predators. " - Not smell? the article earlier talks about using smell to find the pouch.
Added in information on smell.
  • Alt text for images: - Consider adding "alt" text for images. See WP:ALT. Use the "alt text" button in corner of this page to display alt text. Probably not required for FA, but it is useful for seeing-impaired readers of WP.
I don't really understand this.
Read WP:ALT ... it is a simple matter of adding the "alt" keyword into the image descriptors within the article. Something like: ...|thumb|alt=A grey-brown furry mammal with big ears chewing on a leaf|right|... --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subspecies? "Skull differences distinguish tammars from Western Australia, Kangaroo Island and mainland South Australia. " - Is there a scientific word for these different groups? Subspecies? Population groups?
Fixed.
  • Red vs green in map: What is the significance of the red vs green regions in the InfoBox map? Explain color key in the map caption (even if colors explained in map WP page, reader shouldn't have to click-through to read it).
Fixed.
  • Unneeded word: "However, tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial.." - Eliminate "however" here ... it is almost never useful.
Removed.
  • Footnote #1 missing period at end.
Fixed.
  • Caldogram: Maybe it is just me, but I find cladograms to be super informative, so it is a bit annoying that I cannot read the text in this one. Also, when I click on this image, the font quality is pretty poor: jagged. Recommend improving the font in the cladogram, and also enlarging it in the main article so readers can read the words without clicking. This is more of a suggestion than a requirement.
Agreed. I removed the image.
I didn't mean for you to remove it, just improve it. Another reviewer above suggests using {{cladogram}} template. Can you try that out (even though it may not work well with your particular configuration). I'll let you know how it looks on my platform. --Noleander (talk) 21:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to make a cladgram. Maybe I'll ask Graham Colm when he gets back.
I created a cladogram and put it in the article. Can you change the plain text species like M. parma into links M. rufus but instead link to the actual article, for each branch in the cladogram. For example: [[Red kangaroo|M. rufus]] Do that for all the species in the cladogram. That will make it super useful. --Noleander (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Is there any way we can make the cladgram appear on the left side?
I moved it to the left side by adding "align=left". For future reference, the way I figured that out was to go to the cladogram template page {{cladogram}} and read the documentation. It lists the handful of tweaks you can make to the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poison: The Evolution section has over 50% of it devoted to resistance a particular poison. That seems a bit odd: evolution would encompass all sorts of traits: size, color, immune system, eyesight, intelligence, etc etc etc. Singling out this one poison for emphasis is peculiar.
Moved information on posion resistance.
  • Overall a great article, very close to FA status. In particular, the prose is FA quality and does not suffer from some problems that are common in FACs. Leaning to Support once the above items are addressed.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. LittleJerry (talk) 17:00, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the improvements you are making. You may want to focus more on quality than speed. Ask yourself how each edit can make the article better for the reader, rather than just satisfying the whims of the reviewers :-) --Noleander (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

:LJ: Would you mind interspersing your replies between the original comments ... just indent them with a colon or two. That way I can see which goes to which :-) --Noleander (talk) 17:39, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • More comments from Noleander:
  • Quote? - "Sequencing of the tammar genome found "innovation in reproductive and lactational genes, rapid evolution of germ cell genes, and incomplete, locus-specific X inactivation"." - Why quote the source there? why not paraphrase?
I have a tough time paraphrasing stuff on genetics.
Okay, I'll see if I can work on it when I have some time. A couple of other quotes that need to be paraphrased:
  • "its wide distribution,.."
  • "high levels of effective inbreeding ..."
  • ""very plentiful in many parts of t ..."
I mention these quotes because I'm pretty sure they would be a show-stopper at FAC. Articles should use quotes sparingly, only when it is a notable/famous remark; or when the statement is highly opinionated; or when the statement cannot be paraphrased for some reason; or in a few other rare situations. If you're not comfortable paraphrasing them, I'll do it soon. --Noleander (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased the other qoutes.
  • Caption: "Cladogram of the Tammar wallaby[2]" - reviewer above wants the caption expanded to explain what the meaning of the chart is.
I don't understand this.
  • Define: " tammars in the Eyre Peninsula and around Adelaide were decimated by battues " - No reader will know what a battue is; define or explain here.
Replaced.
  • Diet: should say if herbivore; carnivore, etc.
Fixed
  • Give reader a sense of size in lead: "The tammar is among the smallest of the wallabies, with females being smaller than males..." - Add "about the size of a large cat" [assuming that is true, I read is in a source] so reader can visualize the scale of the pics in the article. Until I read that source, I thought they were much larger, 4' tall or so.
Fixed.
  • More precise: " .. making them distinct populations groups." - Why not say "subspecies"? that carries more meaning.
Added more.

End Noleander comments. --Noleander (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. LittleJerry (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Support" based on recent improvements. See comment below in sourcing: one source needs to be supplemented. --Noleander (talk) 14:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Source review by Noleander
  • FN #5
    • article: Male tammars may live for around 11 years, while females live for 14 years.
    • source: Lifespan is approximately 11 years for males and 14 years for females.
  • FN #10
    • article: Tammars from these areas were introduced to Kawau Island in New Zealand by colonial administrator Sir George Grey in 1870
    • source: When colonial administrator Sir George Grey released a handful of tammar wallabies onto New Zealand’s Kawau Island in 1870, he may have inadvertently
  • FN #15
    • article: Four releases have been made, and a stable wild population of 100–120 animals now exists.
    • source: "The breeding program's been really successful. It started back in 2003 and we've done four releases now down to Innes National Park [on Yorke Peninsula in South Australia] ... maybe about 100 to 120 animals down in the wild," he said.
  • FN #20
    • article: As it lands, the energy of the jump is converted into strain energy made when its leg tendons are stretched. As it leaps back off the ground, the tammar can recover much of this energy for reuse though elastic recoil.
    • source: "In these gaits, the kinetic and potential energy that is lost when the animal lands is stored and subsequently recovered from the recoil of spring-like elements in its limbs and trunk, reducing the amount of work that the muscles must perform to reaccelerate the animal’s body during each stride.
  • FN #25
    • Tammars appear to have some colour vision: its eyes have only blue sensitive and green sensitive photoreceptor cones, allowing it to see colour in the blue-green band of the colour spectrum, but not the higher wavelengths in the red-yellow band. Nevertheless, in the band where it can see colour, it can differentiate between two monochromatic colours with wavelengths as close as 20 nm (2.0×10−8 m)
    • Source: not avilable
  • FN #30
    • article: The syndrome is known as tammar sudden death syndrome and the pathogen is an orbivirus of the family Reoviridae. It does not occur south of Sydney. Captive populations of tammar wallabies in New South Wales have subsequently suffered infections in summer months.
    • source: Source is good on this, but does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome" … need another source for that name.
  • FN #35
    • article: They can also use their acute sense of smell to detect a predator.
    • source: Not available.
  • FN #40:
    • article: For the first half of the year, the presence of the joey in the pouch prevents the blastocyst from developing and experiments have shown that removing the joey within this first half will stimulate the blastocyst's development. However, after this the blastocyst remains dormant even after the joey has left. It begins to develop by the summer solstice in the end of December and the female gives birth around one month later.
    • source: not available.
  • FN #45
    • article: .. and the full genome was sequenced in 2011
    • source: [publ in 2011] We present the genome sequence of the tammar wallaby, Macropus eugenii, which is a member of the kangaroo family and the first representative of the iconic hopping mammals that symbolize Australia to be sequenced.

Summary of source review: The article appears to accurately represent the sources. One minor issue is: Source does not contain the phrase "tammar sudden death syndrome"; need another source for that name. End source review. --Noleander (talk) 14:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source which calls it by that name. LittleJerry (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you check WP:ALT one more time ... all you have to do is include a "alt=A grey furry mammal, chewing a leaf" etc to the images. --Noleander (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the need for these. LittleJerry (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The need is for seeing-impaired readers, including blind users of WP. They often have software tools that read out loud the text of web pages they are visiting. When there is a picture with a caption, their software will generally read the caption, but they have no idea what is in the photo. The purpose of "alt" text is to provide text that their software tools can read out loud, so the user can get a feeling for what is displayed in the picture. WP:ALT explains that the "alt" text should not replicate the caption, but instead should paint a picture - using words - of what is in the illustration. --Noleander (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. LittleJerry (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note -- Hi Jerry, I could't see in the main body of the article where you clearly cited the assertion in the lead (which I trimmed slightly) that "It may have been the first macropod seen by a European". It looks to me like its first sightings by Europeans are described and sourced, but not the fact that it was the first of its kind to be seen. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:19, 4 July 2012 [74].

Aries (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aries is more well known as a sign of the zodiac than a constellation. Even though it is small and dim, it still has a lot going for it, including some beautiful deep-sky objects and of course, a rich mythology. This mythology is due to the fact that Aries was the location of the vernal equinox in ancient times, when astronomy was just becoming more than a twinkle in human civilization's collective eye. As far as I can tell, this is the most comprehensive article on Aries available anywhere. I hope you enjoy reading and raking it over the coals offering helpful suggestions! ;) Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support now....Comments from PumpkinSky OR raking over the coals as you asked...

  • Image check The image in the infobox is listed as coming from a magazine, which is generally copyrighted, but it's licensed as CC. Can you explain this?
  • Ariesurania.jpg seems clearly PD. While probably not required, could you format it properly and move to Commons? I'm even willing to move to commons for you if you format it more like the infobox one is.
Thank you so much! I deleted the image so some other poor admin wouldn't have to. Is there anything else I need to do with this image shenanigans? Keilana|Parlez ici 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by a dragon.[10][2] The Golden Fleece..." the refs should be in numerical sequence
  • Refs 2, 10, 12 are broken, pls fix
  • Ref 50 should be pp not p
More later, this has definite potential, good start. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! I'm looking forward to hearing more. Keilana|Parlez ici 21:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PumpkinSky talk 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Keilana|Parlez ici 02:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Keilana|Parlez ici 22:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – My concerns were addressed. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 22:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It's decent overall and probably close to FA ready. I'm a little concerned about the redundant language ("also" and "another") and the occasional, overly brief sentence. I spotted a few spelling errors, so the text should be run through a good spell checker. The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading. A few more observations:
    • Thanks for your review! I rewrote what I think to be the vast majority of the redundancies and couldn't find any more spelling errors. How does the language look now? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I think I'll let the grammarians worry about that one. RJH (talk)
  • "Stars within 10.00 pc (32.62 ly)": we need a way to confirm this list. Either the specific stars should be listed in a footnote or else a reference provided to confirm the count.
    • Well, this database lists TZ Arietis and Teegarden's Star, but I can't find any others in Aries. I'll look for another source; do you know of anywhere that may list that? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really. The List of stars in Aries article usually lists the distances, so that's a starting point (although it's not a reliable source). It's possible that van Leeuwen (2007) may have parallax values for many of the stars.[75] RJH (talk)
        • Hrmm, I could get parallax values through VIZIER just like I could through SIMBAD, but I can't figure out how to get it to list by constellation or to list within certain coordinates. Any ideas? (For what it's worth, it's very late here and my critical thinking skills go down the toilet late at night.) Keilana|Parlez ici 05:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • As long as the source allows you to look up all of the stars, you could just list the stars in the footnote and provide the single reference. People who need to confirm the membership should be able to perform look ups using the online data link to VizieR from the Bibcode's url. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of my concern with using the list of stars is that it doesn't have a lot of the ridiculously dim but close stars so the number would not be terribly accurate. If I just look at the list, then yes, 4 stars within 10 pc is accurate. I did try to parse van Leeuwen's data but I really have no idea where to start. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • Personally I'm okay with just citing the ones we know about. In the footnote you could always just say something like, "The following stars in Aries are known to lie within 10 parsecs", which would be true. I don't think we can hope to be utterly accurate since new stars are still being discovered. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe the hatnote is needed, per WP:NAMB.
  • The first use of absolute magnitude needs to be linked.
  • The first paragraph in the "Stars" section is much too long, making for tedious reading.
  • "NGC 821 is an E6 elliptical galaxy, a type that is fairly rare because it suggests potential early spiral structure": This statement doesn't seem quite correct; E6 only suggests an elliptical (rather than spherical) shape. The suggestion of an early spiral structure is unique to just this E-type galaxy,[76] as this feature is normally found later in a lenticular galaxy.
  • "...they are often observed in the radio spectrum": "often" is both vague and ambiguous. Perhaps just explain that this is the technique used to observe the meteors.

Regards, RJH (talk) 19:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 16:09, 4 July 2012 [77].

Boeing 757

[edit]
Nominator(s): SynergyStar (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has improved significantly over the past year, attaining GA (along with the related, and now FA-class, Boeing 767 article) and most recently A-Class status. During the recent ACR, this article was given a detailed copy-edit by a member of the Guild of Copy-Editors, and reviewers subsequently made the recommendation to proceed to FAC. I look forward to everyone's constructive input, and aim to advance this article to FA status. Thanks in advance for your consideration and advice!

Please note that when sibling article Boeing 767 passed its FAC earlier this year, previous FA delegate User:SandyGeorgia noted the successful completion of source spotchecks with this edit, and at the same time requested my mention of having already undergone such checks in my next FAC. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for the Aviation Project's A-class review, and made a few tweaks. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support and copy-editing assistance! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • FN69: missing author
  • FN133 and similar should use dash in title, not hyphen
  • You have no citations to several Bibliography entries - should either cite these or split them to a Further reading section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Formatted. Periods checked, FN69 author restored, FN133 and like use dashes, and non-cited works moved to Further reading. Thanks for the source review! SynergyStar (talk) 01:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a well written and very comprehensive article - great work. I have quite a few comments, but most of them should be easy fixes:

  • "The 757 has since been commonly used for domestic and transcontinental flights" - this is vague. A flight from (say) London to Manchester is 'domestic', but so is a flight from (say) Boston to San Diego, which is an entirely different kettle of fish. Likewise, a 'transcontinental' flight can be very long range (Sydney to Houston, for instance) or pretty short.
  • "As of 2011, 898 of the narrow-body twinjets are in airline service, and Delta Air Lines is the largest operator, with 185 aircraft" - can this be updated? If not, the tense should be changed
  • "featuring aerospace materials and propulsion advances" - awkward wording
  • "New features included ... under-wing engines" - this is a bit confusing given that the 727 had under-wing engines (as did many other aircraft, of course)
  • "On August 31, 1978, the 7N7 received its first airline commitments when Eastern Air Lines and British Airways announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft" - this implies that this was the first Boeing had heard of the orders, which is unlikely. Presumably the companies had completed their initial negotiations prior to this date.
  • "while higher weights for improved takeoff performance in hot and high climates were optional." - can you please clarify what this means? I think I get it, but lots of readers won't.
  • "cargo capacity needs and passenger preference for wide-body aircraft were both regarded as limited on the shorter routes targeted for the 757" - the use of the word 'limited' here is vague, and 'the shorter routes targeted for the 757' is a bit passive.
  • "British Airways and Rolls-Royce unsuccessfully lobbied the British aircraft industry to manufacture 757 wings" - how would this have worked? Surely Boeing had responsibility for choosing its subcontractors, and would have told British companies to go jump if they couldn't meet its requirements at a competitive price.
  • "Production ramp-up for the 757 coincided with the winding-down of 727 assembly, allowing the Renton factory to sustain productivity levels." - This is really unlikely. Surely there was some loss of productivity as the plant tooled up to produce 757s and retrained its workers and the new supply lines and production processes were put in place (I'm pretty sure that Boeing openly acknowledges a productivity curve on new designs, and actually factors this into its planning and costings).
  • An interesting fact about the 757, and as is alluded to in the article, is that it never gained a great number of sales outside the US and (to a lesser extent, I think) Europe. For instance no Japanese carriers are listed at List of Boeing 757 operators, relatively few other Asian carriers are identified as operating these aircraft, and the type is rarely seen here in Australia (while I'm no plane spotter or frequent flyer, the only 757s I've seen at Australian airports are RNZAF and USAF aircraft). Material explaining why this was the case would be useful - at present the article focused on what the 757 is good at, but a description of where it's not suitable for would help even things out. Presumably the aircraft isn't commercially optimal for the shortish range and high passenger volume flights common in Asia or the long range flights needed to reach Australia from just about anywhere.
  • "Each wing features a supercritical cross-section and is equipped with five-panel leading edge slats" - can you please translate this into plain(er) English, or at least link to definitions?
  • "a cruising speed of Mach 0.8 (533 mph or 858 km/h)" - is this the same for all variants of the 757?
  • "which together reduce overall weight by 1,490 pounds (680 kg) versus preceding aircraft." - this comparison is really difficult to understand. What aircraft is the 757 being compared to here? The weights of earlier aircraft obviously differed considerably (eg, this aircraft obviously weights more than a DC-3, but less than a 747!).
  • "In the 1980s, other narrow-body Boeing aircraft, including the 737, adopted the 757's interior" - this implies that these aircraft made this change themselves! I'd suggest tweaking this to something like "In the 1980s, Boeing altered the interior designs of its other narrow-body aircraft to be similar to that of the 757".
  • "Intended as a replacement for the 727, the type offered improved efficiency, increased capacity, and longer range" - the article has already mentioned this at least once.
  • All the figures for the numbers of different variants in service are as at July 2011. Can this be updated?
  • "The first operator to use the 757 as an official transport" - had any operator been using it as an 'unofficial transport' before this?
  • You should probably note that Iron Maiden nick-named their plane "Ed Force One". I'd also suggest including one of the photos of this aircraft available on Commons as it's probably the most unusual markings ever applied to this rather dull type of aircraft!
  • Reference 18 ("Boeing 757: introducing the big-fan narrowbody") is to eight pages, which is much too broad to allow readers to easily verify facts. Please replace this with references to the individual page numbers. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changes made. Thanks for the detailed comments! Adjustments in response are as follows:
  • Please note that a "transcontinental" flight (Boston to San Diego) is not an "intercontinental" flight (Sydney to Houston). The lead now specifies: "used for short and medium range domestic flights, as well as transcontinental U.S. services". A second correction: the 727 has no under-wing engines at all (it has a "clean wing design"). The phrase "tail-mounted" has been added to clarify.
  • Reworded: "new materials and propulsion advances in the civil aerospace industry"; "On August 31, 1978, Eastern Air Lines and British Airways became the first carriers to publicly commit to the 7N7 when they announced launch orders totaling 40 aircraft"; and "while a wider fuselage had been considered, Boeing's market research on short-haul airline routes found low cargo capacity needs and reduced passenger preference for wide-body aircraft." The "Boeing altered the interior designs..." suggestion has been added verbatim.
  • An explanation of "hot and high" MTOWs has been added. A new ref clarifies that Boeing, BA, and RR lobbied British industry. The Renton factory statement now says that the 727/757 transition was merely timely. Leading edge slats has been linked again, and Mach 0.8 referenced to all variants. The weight savings is stated as an overall reduction and not a comparison. The repetitive 727 replacement statement is removed, and "official transport" is now "government operator."
  • All July 2011 census mentions have been adjusted to past tense; the next Flight census is likely in August 2012. Refs have been added on the 757's difficulties in Asia (mainly not big enough). There are also other mentions that the 757 was seen elsewhere as too big for a narrow-body aircraft.
  • The Velupillai (1982) citations are now split by page number. "Ed Force One" is mentioned; not sure how to fit in another govt/private photo into the article though. Originally there were two photos (C-32 and RNZAF), it was a challenge to fit the Argentinian presidential one after a drive-by editor added it. I'm open to suggestions if a fourth pic is to enter the section. Thanks for the comments and suggestions! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 08:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have now - very quickly! - been addressed. Great work. In regards to the "Ed Force One" photo, I'd suggest taking out the photo of the Argentine Government aircraft - the "Air Force Two" use of the Boeing 757 is highly notable, the photo of the RNZAF aircraft in Antarctica is fascinating, but this Argentine aircraft isn't all that interesting or well known. I'm pretty sure that Iron Maiden put out a book on their tour which had a significant focus on "Ed Force One", and the aircraft is mildly famous. Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions, and your support! The photo has been replaced as you suggested, and now it fits with one gov't, one military, and one private photo. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
"The maximum take-off weight (MTOW) was set at 220,000 pounds (99,800 kg), which was five tons more than the 727." It would be better to avoid mixing units and to express the additional take-off weight in pounds/kilos. The use of 'tons' is also problematic as they can be short (2,000 lb) or long (2,240 lb). Aa77zz (talk) 08:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Converted. Short tons was linked with the number, but it's now 10,000 pounds (4,540 kg) which is better. Thanks, SynergyStar (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As GA reviewer, I was notified when this article was nominated for FA. The editors here have done a very great job on this article. It passed GA with flying colors and has only gotten better. I will leave a more in depth comment later, until then keep up the good work! Thanks, Nathan2055talk - contribs 20:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your initial comments! Just to note; the article has returned to being fairly quiet, and this evaluation currently awaits an image licensing review and further contributors. Several past A-class reviewers have been busy. Regards SynergyStar (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for posting the image check request! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Image check below; just to note, a request was posted for the Nathan to add further comment, he seems to be quite busy. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I left the FAC open for the best part of a day following this note, in case of further comment, but I think there's been enough time now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Maybe mention the role of two 757s in the september 11 attacks, in the lede? There is an unlinked reference to "fuselage plugs" under the 757-300 variant, and i'm not sure the reader would know what these are. Otherwise, I'm a support, though haven't checked sources. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! Searching for "fuselage plug" didn't come up with any Wiki explanation, so it's been adjusted to "extending the fuselage before and after the wings." As for the September 11, 2001 attacks, the lede now has a related summary: "The airliner has recorded eight hull-loss accidents, including seven fatal crashes, as of June 2012." 9/11 could be mentioned directly, provided that fellow editors deem it necessary. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. On the one hand, the sept 11 attacks are the most famous case of aircraft-based terrorism; on the other hand, the fact that they involved 757s was really incidental to the nature of the attacks. So I'm happy with that. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support and comments! Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review I've just checked all the images, and they're fine: all are either covered by an ORTS ticket, have been checked after being uploaded from Flickr or are PD-US Government. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Nick. Synergy, apart from a couple of minor tweaks to prose, just one minor structural/formatting point from me: the subheader "Related lists" under "See also" seems redundant when there's nothing but lists there anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, usage on "mid " vs. "mid-" is changing. Google ngrams tend to strongly favor the space these days; see for instance mid-1979 vs. mid 1979. - Dank (push to talk) 15:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D for the image review, it's much appreciated! Thanks also to Ian Rose for the prose enhancements. I've removed the "Related lists" subheader as it does seem redundant. Regards, SynergyStar (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, Dan, hyphens aren't a particular barrow of mine, I just try to follow common usage -- if the usage is changing (and if the change doesn't look like a fad!) then I don't have an issue with losing the hyphen in this instance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I've been playing around with Google's ngrams, and they don't seem to be accurately reflecting hyphen usage ... not sure what's up with that. The dictionaries support losing the hyphen, but I'll have to keep looking for a proper corpus. - Dank (push to talk) 03:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 23:43, 1 July 2012 [78].

Banksia ilicifolia

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I felt the need to "complete" it and make it the best account of the species available. I feel it is of the standard of the other 20 banksia Featured Articles, or if not can be brought up to speed pretty quickly. So have at it. (Thanks to J Milburn for yet another thorough GA review...) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Nice article, as always. Partial comments (more later)

Lead
Description

Guettarda (talk) 06:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More.

Taxonomy
Infrageneric placement
Distribution and habitat
Ecology
Cultivation
  • The tone of the writing changes here. It's not a problem, but it does feel like it was written by someone else. A more consistent style would improve the overall quality.
  • Sentence 3: "plus prominently..." - "plus" is a bit colloquial. "Combined with" or "in combination with" would be better.

Guettarda (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • tree in the plant Proteaceae family—I don't think we need to be told that a tree is a plant, but if you think it's necessary it would be better before "family" anyway.
  • 10 metres (33 ft) high (also later) —I'd prefer "tall" to "high", here and later. To me, "high" refers more to location, but not a big deal.
  • English Holly—either lose the "English" or change the link to Ilex aquifolium.
  • red-tinged with maturity this acts as—semicolon after "maturity"?
  • Prolific botanist—I'm not clear why his prolixity is relevant here.
  • although some leaves have all or mostly entire margins—I think I know what you mean, but "smooth" or something similar might be clearer.
  • For the "See also" Taxonomy of Banksia, shouldn't it be Taxonomy of Banksia ?
  • range from convex or concave—should it be "to"?
  • publication of the species—species description?
  • Twenty-eight Parrot —if you change the link to point to the "Subspecies" section, it might be clearer why the name here is different to the linked article title.
  • acari... coleoptera... hymenoptera... thysanoptera—taxa above species level should be capitalised.
  • In "Infrageneric placement", i wasn't even able to guess at the meaning of "circumscription" in this context (whereas other relatively technical passages I was often able to infer the meanings). Can this be reworded or explained?
  • The term "subtribe" is used only once without explanation or wikilink. Given the many different terms used to describe different groupings / classifications / levels of grouping, this isn't really satisfactory. My more general remark is that, for an encyclopedia article about an organism, there seems perhaps too much detail and discussion of classificatory schema. Is this a Banksia thing? Has it been debated previously? Happy to hear if others think it's fine. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I found that I could just remove the 'subtribe' reference - and this level of detail is consistent with the other banksia FAs - giving enough to give context but not superfluous. I'll have a think and look-over again though. I've trimmed a bit which is not immediately pertinent to B. ilicifolia - bit tricky as I've read it many times. If you see anything else you feel is extraneous I'll have a look and prune if possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 200: Booking them in Hamburg in 1960, 243: "Williams had never formally served as the Beatles manager".
  2. ^ Miles 2001, pp. 23–24.
  3. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 21–25: Hamburg, 31: the Cavern Club.
  4. ^ Miles 1997, p. 74: McCartney: "Nobody wants to play bass, or nobody did in those days".; Gould 2007, pp. 89: On McCartney playing bass when Sutcliff was indisposed., 94: "Sutcliff gradually began to withdraw from active participation in the Beatles, ceding his role as the group's bassist to Paul McCartney".
  5. ^ Spitz 2005, pp. 249–251.
  6. ^ Miles 1997, pp. 84–88.
  7. ^ Spitz 2005, p. 330.
  8. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 59: "Love Me Do", 75: Replacing Best with Starr., 88–94: "Beatlemania" in the UK., 136–140: "Beatlemania" in the US; Miles 1997, p. 470: the cute Beatle.
  9. ^ a b Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
  10. ^ For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 90: "Can't Buy Me Love", 439: "I Saw Her Standing There"; Harry 2000a, pp. 561–562: "I Want to Hold Your Hand"; and MacDonald 2005, pp. 66–68: "I Saw Her Standing There", 83–85: "She Loves You", 99–103: "I Want to Hold Your Hand", 104–107: "Can't Buy Me Love", 171–172: "We Can Work It Out"; For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
  11. ^ Buk 1996, p. 51: Their first recording that involved only a single band member; Gould 2007, p. 278: The group's first recorded use of classical music elements in their music; Lewisohn 1992, p. 180: MBE.
  12. ^ MacDonald 2005, pp. 157–158: "Yesterday" as the most covered song in history.
  13. ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 172.
  14. ^ Levy 2005, p. 18: Rubber Soul is described by critics as an advancement of the band's music; Brown & Gaines 2002, pp. 181-82: As they explored facets of romance and philosophy in their lyrics.
  15. ^ Spitz 2005, p. 587.
  16. ^ Harry 2000b, p. 780.
  17. ^ Gould 2007, p. 348.
  18. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 325: "a satire of pop ambition"; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: Revolver&#39, s release was preceded by "Paperback Writer".
  19. ^ Gould 2007, p. 350: "neoclassical tour de force", 402: "a true hybrid".
  20. ^ Harry 2002, pp. 313–316.
  21. ^ Gould 2007, p. 347: 1,400 live performances internationally; Lewisohn 1992, p. 230: final commercial concert
  22. ^ Blaney 2007, p. 8.
  23. ^ MacDonald 2005, p. 254.
  24. ^ Miles 1997, p. 303: McCartney was inspired to create a new identity for the Beatles; Harry 2000a, p. 970: Rock's first concept album.
  25. ^ Miles 1997, p. 303.
  26. ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 232.
  27. ^ Miles 1997, p. 333: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (primary source); Sounes 2010, p. 168: On McCartney's design for the Sgt. Pepper cover (secondary source).
  28. ^ Wenner & George-Warren 2000, pp. 24–25.
  29. ^ a b Benitez 2010, pp. 8–9.
  30. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 238–239.
  31. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 455–456.
  32. ^ Harry 2000a, p. 699.
  33. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 487: Critical response; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 278: Filming of the promotional trailer, 304: Yellow Submarine soundtrack release.
  34. ^ Gould 2007, p. 470: Apple Corps formed as part of Epstein's business plan; Lewisohn 1992, p. 278: The beatles first Apple Records LP release.
  35. ^ Brown & Gaines 2002, p. 299: "We've been very negative since Mr. Epstein passed away"; Lewisohn 1992, pp. 276–304: the White Album, 304–314: Let It Be.
  36. ^ Sounes 2010, pp. 171–172: Paul and Linda's first meeting., 245–248: On their wedding., 261: On the birth of their first child Mary.
  37. ^ a b Gould 2007, p. 563.
  38. ^ Gould 2007, pp. 593–594.
  39. ^ Lewisohn 1992, p. 349: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (secondary source); Miles 1998, pp. 314–316: McCartney's departure from the Beatles (primary source); Spitz 2005, pp. 243: Lennon's personal appointment of Klein, 819–821, 832–833: McCartney's disagreement with Lennon, Harrison and Starr over Klein's management of the Beatles.
  40. ^ Harry 2002, p. 753.
  41. ^ Roberts 2005, p. 54.
  42. ^ Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351: US and UK singles and album release dates with peak chart positions; Gould 2007, pp. 8–9: "one of the greatest phenomena in the history of mass entertainment", "widely regarded as the greatest concentration of singing, songwriting, and all-around musical talent that the rock'n'roll era has produced"; Spitz 2005, p. 856: "not anything like anything else ... [a] vastness of talent ... of genius, incomprehensible".
  43. ^ Harry 2000a, pp. 1–3: Abbey Road, 107–109: The Beatles, 916–917: Revolver, 969–979: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band; Levy 2005, pp. 8–11: Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, 14–15: Revolver, 18–19: Rubber Soul, 28–29: The Beatles, 33: Abbey Road.
  44. ^ Bronson 1992, p. 247: "the band's most successful single"; For song authorship see: Harry 2002, pp. 358–359: "Get Back", 410–411: "Hello, Goodbye", 415–416: "Hey Jude", 508: "Let it Be", 533: "The Long and Winding Road"; For release dates, US and UK peak chart positions of the preceding songs see: Lewisohn 1992, pp. 350–351.
  45. ^ Cite error: The named reference Douglas230 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/July_2012&oldid=504961500"