Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 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 21:35, 30 September 2012 [1].

Rhythm Killers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is well written, notable enough, and fulfills FA criteria. Dan56 (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the references are from a well-known publication such as The New York Times, I don't think it's necessary to specify that it is published in New York by The New York Times Company. You could simplify many of the references by removing the location and publisher. GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I was told once about being consistent with citations like that; if I can include it for a lesser known magazine like i-D, then maybe for the rest? Dan56 (talk) 15:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at Template:Cite_news#Publisher, I'll omit the ones with the location in the name. Dan56 (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to direct you to see Template:Citation, which has similar information. IMHO, you could use them for a little known or ambiguous source without having to use them for NYT and USA Today. GoingBatty (talk) 15:46, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean omitting the location, publisher, or both? Dan56 (talk) 15:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Omit both, per Template:Citation, which states:
  • publisher: Not normally included where the publication is a periodical which has its own Wikipedia article (e.g. Newsweek, Billboard).
  • publication-place (or place or location): Omit when the publication is a periodical whose name specifies the location (e.g. The New York Times, The Times of India)
Removed publishers from periodical citations. I left the Washington, D.C. locations for papers like the Washingtonian and Washington Post to disambiguate from the state of Washington. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like that you WebCite'd the links, however, when the link is still live, the cite should specify "deadurl=no" so the cite link is to the original (and the archive link is to the WebCite page). -- J. Wong (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Album ratings should specify the publication, specifically, in the case of album guides, e.g., rather than Rolling Stone (1992) it should be Rolling Stone Album Guide, and rather than Spin it should be Spin Alternative Record Guide, to distinguish them from the periodical publications.
P.S., Here's a link to the original Spin review published in the magazine: [2] -- J. Wong (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks about that "deadurl". That does seem more practical. I thought the Spin Record Guide score would be better than "favorable", but the original will do as well. Dan56 (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.P.S., Here's a link to an archive version of a posted copy of the originally published Rolling Stone review: [3].
-- J. Wong (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. Dan56 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments on sourcing and files:

  • Links such as this, this, this and this should be brought to question for reputability. I'm not so sure I feel confident about a Discogs link at the bottom of the page either.
  • The audio files lack detailed rationales, which should be added. Explanations on how the particular files add to the article are needed. General preloaded rationales (that are currently there) are just the starting point. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:44, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced the WhoSampled source with one from The Daily Telegraph and added more comprehensive rationales for the files. I'm not sure about IMDB (replaced it with a book source I found with this search), but the Rhapsody reviewer Nick Dedina has written for Allmusic, and the content from CD Universe is from Muze, which also provides product page information (content background, review snippets, release dates, etc.) for other music retailers. Like Allmusic, Muze is published by Rovi Corporation. Dan56 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes CD Universe itself a reliable source for composition info? It's a retailer, not a music critic site. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 11:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's Muze's content that cites the composition info; Muze shows up at the bottom of the page where the copyright is, as for other retailers (example (release notes). Their information is also used by Allmusic and Rotten Tomatoes, which wouldnt validate it? Dan56 (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's still questionable, I can make this change, removing the one piece it cites, replace the second's source, but keep the reissue date it cites, as a media information provider should know that of their product. Dan56 (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good. Seeing as how the Muze release notes do not have an author specified, I wouldn't use it for reviews and song content info. Release dates are OK. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 14:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support... with just one concern. This is a very complete, well-written, interesting article. (It's convinced me to check out an album I never would have otherwise, which I think is the mark of a great Wikipedia music article). My only objection, and it is a fairly minor one, is the mention of Downtown music as an influence. Seeing this really piqued my interest—a funk album with influence from indeterminacy and noise?—as it didn't seem plausible. I was very interested to see the text and source backing that up. All that I found was Allmusic saying the album had "a bit of ... experimental downtown flair", which I don't find compelling evidence. It's not clear that the Allmusic quote is referring specifically to the same Downtown music scene that includes John Cage and La Monte Young, nor is there any evidence (in the article) that the artists themselves acknowledged such an influence. Otherwise this is certainly FA-quality work. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Flair" seems like a stronger word than influence; more like a style. The album has a lot of aggressive, noisy elements that occasionaly popup, but it is just an element. A similar work (funk of this kind) is Funkcronomicon, also a Laswell production; he seems to be known for an experimental and "collision" aesthetic, and is likely the reason for this. Also, downtown music is further mentioned in the article in the "content" section: "downtown saxophone by Henry Threadgill. [19]" Couldnt find any quotes from the artists about anything other than Sly and Robbie's instrumentation in the studio. But like you said, it's just an influence, and the article on downtown music makes it kind of ambiguous. Like Allmusic's mention of downtown, hip hop is also verified elsewhere as an influence. Dan56 (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You might have to find some .rar file or torrent online to cop this album, like I did. Shame that it's out of print. Dan56 (talk) 02:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine, but the music samples are a little questionable. A detailed explanation of what the samples are adding to the article is required in the rationale. Further, each song has literally a short sentence devoted to it; are these really needed? Even if you are going to try to justify them as illustrations of the musical style of the whole album, do we really need two? J Milburn (talk) 16:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first sample illustrates the sung dance songs and P-funk vocalists who worked on the album, and the second illustrates the reggae (toast/rap, not sung) and downtown (mentioned in previoua comments) influences incorporated troughout the album. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Only illustrating one of them would be a little one-sided, and only two seems conservative. Dan56 (talk) 17:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, that's not great. Potentially, yes, I can see that two files are appropriate, but we need to see further improvement to the rationales. For an FA-quality rationale, we'd be looking for a detailed explanation of what the file is there to illustrate and why that needs to be illustrated, tying the file to the specific text of the article. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is this more specific? If not, do you have an example of an appropriate rationale? Dan56 (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's still a little general. That could be about any sample in any article. It could be worse, though. J Milburn (talk) 14:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Dan56 is one of the most consistently talented editors on this website, and I believe the article is another example of that. It's a really interesting article on an album I hadn't even heard of, it's referenced impeccably and the writing quality is quite impressive. For a lesser-known album, coverage of this degree should be recognized. Bruce Campbell (talk) 22:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are spotchecks, of sources for verification and close-paraphrasing, next? Dan56 (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - Yes. I would like to see a few spotchecks. Graham Colm (talk) 10:00, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Posted request at FAC talk page. Dan56 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's spotchecks

  • Article:After their work with Black Uhuru and the group's line-up change, Sly and Robbie pursued more international music endeavors.[2
  • Source:After Michael Rose left Black Uhuru (following the group being awarded the first-ever reggae Grammy in 1984), Sly and Robbie delved further into the international arena.

(notice the ugly fused participle that we would not allow here)

  • Article: For their next album, they sought to record a like-minded album to expand their audience.[9]
  • Source:The third and final volume of Sly & Robbie's late-'80s attempt to crack the American market trades the goulash of hard rock, worldbeat, and disco of Language Barrier and Rhythm Killers for something a bit simpler.
  • Article:The album's songs are characterized by deep bass, striking beats,[19]
  • Source: Not available
  • Article:The album's songs are arranged into a gapless suite on each side, both of which begin with covers of early 1970s R&B songs.[16]
  • Source: This is hard to read with my old eyes but I can decipher "Through its two side-long suites, each kicked off by a classic early-70s R&B cover.."
  • Article: Rhythm Killers was voted number 25 in The Village Voice's Pazz & Jop critics' poll for 1987.[57]
  • Source:
23.Rosanne Cash: King's Record Shop (Columbia))
24. The dB's: The Sound of Music (I.R.S.)
25. Sly and Robbie: Rhythm Killers (Island)

No issues found. Graham Colm (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 29 September 2012 [4].

Joseph Desha

[edit]
Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is presently a good article, has undergone a peer review, and recently passed a MILHIST A-class review. After a little buff and polish using my shiny, new Questia account (thanks, Ocaasi (talk · contribs)), I think it is ready for FAC. Born in Pennsylvania, Desha moved to Tennessee and was a soldier in the Northwest Indian War. After relocating to Kentucky, he began a political career. He was elected to Congress and was one of Henry Clay's War Hawks in the lead-up to the War of 1812. He participated in the war as a major general in the state militia. After the war, he returned to Congress with a more conservative viewpoint, opposing large standing armies and spending on internal improvements. He unsuccessfully sought the governorship of Kentucky in 1820, but won it four years later. While in office, he helped set the state's financial and judicial systems back decades by facilitating the Old Court-New Court controversy, probably single-handedly ruined Transylvania University's chances of becoming a world-class university due to his opposition to its president, and pardoned his son for a murder he obviously committed, only to see the son flee to Texas and kill again. At the end of his term, he threatened not to vacate the governor's mansion because he didn't like his successor. Understandably, this was the end of his political career. :) Looking forward to responding to your comments. Acdixon (talk · contribs) 12:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quickly flicking through I saw this: "Returning to Congress after the war, he was the only member of the Kentucky congressional delegation to oppose the unpopular Compensation Act of 1816, a vote which helped him retain his seat when nearly every other member of the delegation was defeated for reelection." A bit long, and "when" is ambiguous. To start with, consider "... of 1816; this opposition helped ...". Tony (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments: This is a fine article. It's well-sourced, well-written and all around well done. I think it meets the FA criteria. I did the peer review, and it was in excellent shape then, too. I'll make a couple comments, which I may expand upon later after a more detailed look. In any event, happy to support:

  • This, I suppose, is optional, but it might be worthwhile to put the references into a templated ref format like Harvard, etc., for more convenient jumping between references and bibliographic entries. A lot of busywork, I know.
  • In the following: "Desha's younger brother, Robert, would later represent Tennessee in the U.S. House of Representatives" I think the past tense ("later represented") is perhaps better than the conditional ("would later represent"), but I confess I'm not familiar with the guidelines on these constructions for history articles, so I'll leave it to you to consider. --Batard0 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I may respond to that, I'm happy either way. History articles on Wikipedia often use "would", in the future-in-past tense, if they're quickly mentioning a future event (relative to the narrative). I don't mind if people do that automatically without giving it any thought, but in fact, there are cases where the past tense isn't likely to cause confusion, as here. - Dank (push to talk) 16:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article looks well-written and well-sourced to be worthy of a Featured Article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Be consistent in how you cite the Morton source
  • Why include title in short cites for some sources but not others?
  • Risjord or Risjold?
  • No citations to Johnson & Parrish
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if so how these are formatted. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 13:52, 29 September 2012 [5].

Hobey Baker

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article was previously nominated for FA last year, but failed due to copyediting concerns and the like. Well a year has passed, and it has gone through a peer review, so I'm hoping it will make it through this time. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified that, so it makes more sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Contraction shouldn't be there in "As the Princeton hockey team didn't have its own hockey arena...". Also a redundancy with two "hockey"s in there.
  • Post-university years: Why does it mean that "the constant physical focus opposing him on the ice had taken its toll"? Does that mean that opponents were targeting him? If so, it seems more readable to just say some version of that.
  • World War I: There should probably be an en dash in "Yale-Princeton" in the first paragraph of the section.
  • In the photo caption here, for consisteny I'm thinking that "World War One" would be better as "World War I".
  • Death: "The model of plane Baker was flying...". Needs "the" before "plane".
  • Space needs removal before reference 60.
  • Ref 60 has a formatting error.
  • The full Falla cite has a busted ISBN link. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Took care of all this. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • In addition to Giants's points:
  • "Scott then began a relationship with an American diplomat in Paris, Philander Cable. These two events gave Baker a lack of direction in his life; he dreaded going back to work in an office and considered himself a sportsman rather than a businessman.": How did the gay (I assume) relationship create a lack of direction in his life ... or was it his aversion to office work that did that? What does a "lack of direction" look like, that is, what was the evidence for it?
  • "This went against tradition and superstition for pilots, as a final flight was usually fatal." If true, then it wasn't superstition ... but my guess is it wasn't true. - Dank (push to talk) 02:59, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote inside another quote inside a text box probably isn't a good idea. If the "In heavy rain" part is a quote, it would probably be better to paraphrase that part ... it isn't particularly quote-worthy ... so that you can draw attention to the blockquote, and probably leave it the way I had formatted it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I should have everything here cleared up. As for the quote issue, that was simply me rushing through things without actually noticing what I was doing. Is all good now. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This went against tradition and superstition for pilots, as a final flight was only used in regards to one that killed the pilot.": I don't know what that means; what does the source say? Everything else looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 03:19, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the wording around, but am not sure on my part. If you want a go at it, I'll leave the relevent wording from the source here: "...violated both tradition and superstition. "One last flight," in pilot's lore, was feared to be just that." If you like it, the better. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Fixed all these here. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpposeComments: This article has improved enormously since I reviewed it at GA last year, and I think it is pretty close to meeting the criteria. However, for an article with three supports, there are quite a few issues, including a typo for "twelve" which I fixed. There are a few parts which are hard to understand, or where some odd phrasing is used. There is also some redundancy in the prose, and a couple of long sentences. None of these issues are a big deal in themselves, but I think they need to be addressed one way or another. However, this is generally great work, and I will be happy to switch to support once they have been cleared up or clarified. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "after a plane he was test piloting crashed": Should this be "test-piloting". Or could we just have "piloting" in the lead?
  • A few instances of "considered" and "regarded" in the lead. I generally prefer something more concrete, such as "X called him…" and "Y believed that he was…" but this may just be a personal preference. I do think that "considered" and such words are a little weak.
    • I think I agree ... when it doesn't have a ref that nails it down in one click, so I've copied the ref from the Legacy section (to the Hockey Hall of Fame, which presumably can be trusted on this point). I also agree that "considered" is sometimes overused, but it's used in exactly one phrase in this article (a phrase that's borrowed in the lead). If this were an article on Balkan politics, then we'd want to say exactly who said what, and probably state their credentials. For an undisputed evaluation of a much-loved hockey star, saying that one guy said he was great would undermine the point. - Dank (push to talk) 21:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC) Striking. It's complicated, but I'll try to comply with this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • My main issue is that it is weak, but I know this is tricky in sport articles. My own approach to this is to try to use a quote or paraphrase from a "definitive authority", and otherwise use press/commentators/critics. Which is not much better and gets repetitive! So I'm not sure what the answer is, and I'm fine with any solution or leaving it unchanged. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was asked to comment here by Dank. If this is perceived as a problem, I think the best way forward is to try to provide enough citations in the body to indicate that various people share whatever sentiment is indicated. For example, the first sentence of the second paragraph has one source in the lead and body: the Hockey Hall of Fame. Providing another source in the body that verifies these claims would go a long way toward backing the "regarded" and "considered" bits. They don't bother me that much, but I see that they can be made stronger with a little work. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • I added something there to note who thought he was good. I have a preference to try and keep footnotes out of the leads in articles, as I find it makes the article look cleaner. In that regard I make an effort to have everything written there backed up within the article. If there is any more work needed, let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1921, Princeton opened its hockey arena, named the Hobey Baker Memorial Rink in honor of Baker": Minor, fussy point, but maybe change the focus of the sentence a little: "In 1921, Princeton named its new hockey arena the "Hobey Baker Memorial Rink" in his honour."?
    • Agreed, and I went with something similar.
  • "Alfred, known as Bobby to his friends…": Do we need his nickname in an article on his son?
    • I'm not comfortable taking it out, if that's how he was known, especially since he was also an athlete and people might want to look him up ... but if Kaiser wants to take it out, fine.
  • "Malcolm Gordon, who was one of the first people to help develop hockey in the United States, was the coach of the school team and recognized Baker's skill; Baker was known by his classmates to be an exceptionally fast and agile skater": A very long sentence, even with a semi-colon, and I'm not sure that the two parts really go together. Also, an overabundance of "was" here. Maybe just "Malcolm Gordon, one of the first people to help develop hockey in the United States, was the coach of the school team and recognized Baker's skill. Baker was known by his classmates to be an exceptionally fast and agile skater".
  • "He spent nights skating on frozen ponds to improve his ability to move with the puck while not looking down": How does skating help him to move the puck. And move how? Pick it up? I think we need some precision here. Maybe "He spent nights skating on frozen ponds, practising his ability to [better description of what he did; would "dribbling" work with hockey?]".
    • It's "practice" for both the noun and verb in AmEng. Any precise description that I can think of is going to sound juvenile to a sports fan: "He practiced hitting the puck back and forth with his stick" ... shudder. If anyone can think of something, I'm all ... eyes. [Inserted: maybe, to manipulate the puck while not looking down? Does that sound better?]
      • Sorry about the practice/practise; I'm afraid I occasionally lapse into BritEng! Please just ignore me if I do. On the phrasing: is there a word (such as dribbling) which describes this in hockey-speak? I think that would do it, particularly with a link. I don't think we should try to be too clever in finding a phrasing for non-sports people when we can just link something this simple. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agreed to let his talented younger brother continue on…": Maybe an engvar thing, but "continue on" sounds odd here. Almost a tautology. Why not "continue in education".
    • "continue in education" doesn't work for me; it isn't idiomatic in AmEng, and suggests that maybe he went elsewhere. I went with "stay in school".
  • "By the time Baker left St. Paul's his sporting achievements had helped make him one of the school's most popular students.": I think we need a comma here somewhere.
    • You're right, because that fits best with the comma style of this article. Fixed. In general, I struggle to get people to include commas after 10- and 15-word introductory phrases. Sigh. - Dank (push to talk) 22:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He had been awarded…": Why not just "He was awarded…"?
    • Sure, why not. done.
  • "It was during the 1913–14 hockey season…": Why not just "During…"?
    • Stet. It provides a slight emphasis that's appropriate in context.
  • "Favored to win the game…" An odd expression. Why not just something along the line of "favourite" or "bookmaker's favourite", unless I'm missing a different meaning here.
  • "Throughout the game Baker kept going offside…": Maybe "Throughout the game, Baker was repeatedly called offside…"
    • He probably did keep going offside, so I don't understand the objection.
      • To me "kept going offside" is a far less elegant construction than "called offside" or even "went offside". Nor do I think the use of "kept" in this sense sounds particularly good, and "repeatedly" or "continuously" sounds more professional, but this may be a personal style preference. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the game ended regulation with a 1–1 tie…": I don't think the game ended anything! I think we need a link for regulation here, and maybe "regulation time ended with the score tied 1–1", or similar.
    • See below.
  • "the game ended regulation with a 1–1 tie, so two extra periods, lasting five minutes each, were held. These also ended in a draw, so the team captains agreed to a sudden death period": so … so
    • See below.
  • "Through sixty minutes of play, only five Harvard players and one Princeton player had been replaced by substitutes, and it was reported that Baker was not even breathing heavily at that point.": I'm struggling to see the point of this sentence, and in particular why the comment about not breathing heavily is included. If the point is that, in contrast to the other players, he was not tired, it should be made explicit.
    • It's both more precise and more evocative to say he wasn't even breathing heavily.
      • I'm not too sure why my quote from the article above has been changed to say "not even breathing heavily", which is the copy-edited version of the text, rather than "not breathing heavily" which was the original text. No matter, adding "even" does solve the issue I was attempting to explain.
  • "Twenty-three minutes into sudden death…": Should this not be in figures, per MOS?
    • MOSNUM requires (or used to require, I haven't looked lately) consistency. You didn't have a problem with twenty or sixty, so why with twenty-three? Looking through very quickly (I generally check as I'm editing), I see "92 points" and "63 yards", but I believe that's okay because of convention and because they're units (of a sort). Still ... we (at Milhist) are generally pretty easy-going on number formats ... if you want some specific rule followed, tell me and I'll try to be consistent.
  • I believe I raised this back at the GA review, but I think the Princeton-Harvard game is too detailed. The response at the review was that, as the only full game in which his play is described, it tells us how Baker played. But all it seems to tell us about him is that he kept being offside and was not breathing heavily at the end of regular time. I don't think this really tells us much about him. If he made a match-winning contribution, that would be different, but as it stands, I don't see the need for all that detail.
  • "but Baker is estimated to have scored over 120 goals and 100 assists in three years": Who is estimating? (Fitzpatrick, judging from the ref for this sentence)
  • "As well as skill, Baker was known for his sportsmanship. In a hockey game against Harvard on January 22, 1913, Baker took the only penalty of his collegiate career, for slashing; Princeton lost the game 5–4 in overtime.": Possibly engvar problem here, but in British sports, if you take a penalty, you are the person who tries to score after the opposition have "fouled". But I assume from the rest of the sentence, that he was the person who caused the penalty to be taken. Maybe this could be clarified?
  • "Through his Princeton classmates…" Perhaps (and presumably) "Through the influence of his Princeton classmates…"
  • "Baker sought a better escape…": An escape from what? Better than what? An odd way to begin a section.
    • I went with "Looking for new adventures,". I didn't change "he", but some people prefer to restate the name in any new section (or new paragraph for that matter); I don't have a preference.
  • "Baker led a squadron of twelve aircraft, to have ever flown in military formation": Something missing here.
    • Oops, that might have been mine. Fixed.
  • "Though he managed to complete all the courses easily, Baker was discouraged to be sent to a school in England for training and then back to France to teach Americans what he had learned in England, in an attempt to create pilots as quickly as possible.": I think this came up at GA too, but I'm struggling to make sense of this, and how all these events connect together. Why was he sent back? Why was he discouraged? Why did he then teach Americans what he learned in England? What did he learn? Why was he sent back if he completed everything easily?
  • The World War I section is longer than his sports career section. Is Baker particularly notable as a pilot? Apart from having a lot of information available, owing to his status as a sportsman I imagine, he does not seem to have had a war career out of the ordinary. In that case, do we need so much information? I'm not sure the balance of the article is right. Unless I'm missing something about his military career in the war.
    • Look at all the memorial stuff ... he is remembered as a war hero as often as he's remembered as an athlete ... in particular, the way he died is remembered. The balance seems right to me, although I wouldn't mind cutting a sentence here and there in the World War I section.
      • If his death is remembered, fair enough, but was the rest of his military career as well remembered? But more than happy to go with Dank if he is happy with this. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The military side of his life contributed to the overall legend of Baker. That and the fact that there is both a dearth of information regarding this part of his life, and how it all culminated in what some called a suicide, makes me reluctant to remove it. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The model of the plane Baker was flying was easy to crash-land if necessary": was … was; missing comma? Also, "the model of the plane" suggests scale model to me, rather than what type of plane.
    • Good point; changed to "The plane was generally easy ..." The usual solution is to name the model of plane, but I don't know it here.
  • The death section seems to say that there were rumours he committed suicide. Where were these rumours? Were they published at the time. And "not accidental" seems to suggest foul play, but I don't think that is what is being said here. Maybe make it more explicit, if the sources are strong enough. If they are not, I'm not sure we should be hinting like this.
    • I had a problem with this too, although I didn't know what it was until now: we need to know where the rumors were being repeated ... if widely, in the press, then that's noteworthy enough. If people were whispering, it's not important enough for the article. If the paragraph stays, I'm fine with changing "not accidental" to "suicide". Kaiser?
      • I added a direct quote that pertains to this. However I don't have the Salvini book in hard copy at the moment, and have had to rely on the online version, which limits the amount of detail I can look at. As for the 1966 Davies book that I just added, I looked for a copy of that when originally expanding the article, and was unable to find a copy. Hopefully this helps though. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "considered" in the legacy section. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: I'm more than happy with the changes so far, and I struck my oppose as it was based more on the number of small issues than anything major. Just waiting for a response from the nominator on a last couple of issues before moving to full support. And anything Dank has addressed and I have not struck is not an issue for me and would not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Happy to fully support now, great work. Disclaimer: I completed the GA review. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:22, 23 September 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 17:36, 27 September 2012 [6].

Common toad

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has achieved good article status and has been through a peer review and I believe it is good enough to become a featured article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Hi, welcome (back) to FAC. I see LittleJerry talked you into this, so I'll blame him if anything goes wrong :) You've written a lot more than I have, but I hope my copyediting comments will be useful.
Thank you. Your comments and copyedits are most helpful. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe this is just an artifact on my screen, but the first toad image has a purplish hue. I don't know if that's intentional.
I have replaced the image.
  • "a group of closely related taxa": "taxon" is a very common word among biologists ... not so much among 13-year-olds (or adults for that matter), and the linked article didn't help much. At least the lead of an article on toads ought to be readable by smart, curious schoolkids who are willing to follow a few links. How about this? "a group of closely related animals" - Dank (push to talk) 20:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "race": Do toads have racial characteristics?
Changed to "type".
  • "north African": either North African or (maybe) northern African
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: publisher missing, formatting
Done.
  • FN3: page(s) missing, formatting
Done.
  • Ranges should use endashes
I believe they are all done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use consistent italicization
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for journals
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN42, 44: formatting
I replaced these with easier to cite references.
Done. The whole of chapter 10 is online with no page numbers. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know how to do that. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You could put in a request at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop. Albacore (talk) 17:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have made a request. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing yet from the Graphics Lab. Personally I like the vertical layout. Do others have views on this? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed this request. I will do it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made this, what do you think?[7] FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That would be fine, although I must admit that I prefer the vertical one, the dimensions of which are more appealing. For the moment, I have resized the image in the article so that it fits better. Do you think that looks OK? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It definitely looks better, but another thing is that the MOS says that text shouldn't be "sandwiched" between images, and that section has a "wall" of images on both sides. If this image was horizontal, you would have room to left align more of the other images, for example, and there would not be so much "sandwiching". FunkMonk (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I see you still have the information from the deleted low quality source in the discussion of toads and witches. The witchhunt book contains some information not included it the article. I think you should have it replace the now uncited text. LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Some material added, other uncited material cut out. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I found a better source for the claim about Zoroaster, but since be lived in Iran can it even related to this species? LittleJerry (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Zoroaster removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support: My concerns have been addressed. I do however think you should check out that coat of arms image since the description labels them frogs not toads. LittleJerry (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technical check I'll do a proper review when I have more time, just some results from running duplicate links, dab and link tools Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All links to external sites are working
  • Link "genome" and "steroid", link "Least Concern" and "IUCN Red List of Threatened Species" at first occurrence Done.
  • Up to you, but the original Linnaeus source is {{cite book | last=Linnaeus | first=C | authorlink=Carolus Linnaeus | title=Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata. | publisher=Holmiae. (Laurentii Salvii). | date=1758| language = Latin |page=120}} Done.
  • In the light of Eau's comments below, I think you need the original. If you change the page range to 210–212, that covers all the then known toads, and all the frogs except the tree frogs Hyla, which Linnaeus had already put in a separate genus. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to show subspecies consistently, fine to say they are sometimes treated as full species, but you put "split into B. bufo and B. verrucosissimus", as if you accept them as full species, and then immediately treat them as subspecies.
This is difficult. Should I accept the findings of the 2012 study, give them all full species status and remove the subspecies section entirely? Another point, they can't seem to decide whether the specific name should be "verrucosissimus" or "verrucosissima". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main thing is to decide one way or another, it's your judgement whether the research is accepted enough to drop the ssp, but as long as you have a defensible position, and are consistent, it's your call. I had a similar problem with Water Rail, where some authorities split the eastern race Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth saying that Bufo is Latin for toad? Done.
  • First two lines of description have three large and two grow Reworded.
  • small warts — not actually warts, look like warts Done.
  • The paratoid glands of both are parallel rather than slanting as in the common toad.[9] It also... — "It" refers back to the glands Done.
  • Pelophylax kl. Esculentus — kl.? Removed.
The edible frog is apparently a hybrid between P.ridibundus and P.lessonae, and the kl. is apparently short for klepton. The wikipedia article on this frog uses it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a large appetite — compared to? Done.
  • The sloughed skin is eaten — by? Done.
  • bufotoxin called bufagin — toxin better, we haven't been told yet what bufotoxin is yet Done.
  • They questioned how an air-breathing animal could survive at such depths — So how can it? Reworded.
*First para of "Reproduction" overworks pond Done.
  • The males mount on the females' backs— don't need on Done.
  • predation by otters and increased competition from the frog Rana perezi which both seem to be extending their ranges — your two subjects are "predation" and the frog Done.
  • cinobufagin, — does this occur in this species? It seems not. I have removed it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clever men at Oxford — I didn't think we linked inside quotes? Done.
  • Image captions shouldn't normally include the name of the article's subject If an image is of a common toad walking, do you approve the caption "Toad walking" or what else would you suggest?


  • "The common toad was first given the binomial name Rana bufo by the Swedish biologist Carl Linnaeus in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae in 1758.[3]" Your citing this to Linnaeus (in translation) amounts to original research. Please find a reliably secondary or tertiary source.
  • I've suggested above using the original source, better than a translation. For his binomials, it's normal to ref to Linnaeus, and I can point you to several existing FAs which do that. I don't think that this is a valid point unless you doubt that attribution Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although done, it is OR, and should be limited to the taxonomy box. If the genus name has been changed, the entire name shouls be cited at least once with the correct authorities and this would include the taxonomic citation usable for this statement. The Linneaus can be uses in addition but not stand alone. Please list existing FAs that do this, and I will correct them. Eau (talk) 13:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In this work, he placed all the frogs and toads in the single genus Rana." All frogs and toads known at the time? All European frogs and toads? All specimen-available frogs and toads from lands explored by Europeans? This statement also requires a citation.
  • "It later became apparent that this genus should be subdivided, and in 1768, the Austrian naturalist Josephus Nicolaus Laurenti placed the common toad in the genus Bufo, naming it Bufo bufo." Unsourced.
  • "The toads in this genus are known as true toads and are characterised by having no teeth, dry warty skin and horizontal pupils." This source gives no description of the characteristics of the genus. Maybe you mixed up the source, or there is a subpage?
I have removed the statement.
  • "Bufo bufo is now considered to be a species complex, a group of closely related species with unclear dividing lines between them." The reason for a species complex, though, is recent speciation, and the article you cite does delve into this.
I have altered the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is believed that the modern subspecies are descended from a common, preglacial ancestral form." No, the other four subspecies are believed to form a "group of ancient related preglacial subspecies," this does not describe their descent from a common ancestor.::I have altered the wording. Would it not be fair to say that subspecies, by definition, have a common ancestor? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is believed that the range of the ancestral form extended into Asia but that isolation between an eastern and western type occurred as a result of greater aridity and desertification in the Middle East during the Middle Miocene.[6]" This source appears to remove glaciation as a dividing line for ancestral forms as used above.
I don't believe the article states that glaciation is a dividing line for ancestral forms. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exact systematic relationships between the subspecies remains unclear.[5]" Do you mean taxonomic relationships or systematic relationships?
Well, the Systematics page of wikipedia states "The term "systematics" is sometimes used synonymously with "taxonomy"". Nevertheless I have changed the word systematic to taxonomic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some authorities consider B. verrucosissimus to be a species in its own right while others consider it a subspecies of the common toad, B. bufo verrucosissimus." Which authorities consider it to be a subspecies, which a species, and why?
I have removed the statement.
  • "Similarly, there is confusion as to whether B. spinosus should be recognised as a species or as a subspecies.[7]" This is a blog. If Naish published on toads, these can be used as a source, but I disagree with using his blog, particularly on issues of taxonomy. Taxonomy is a rigorous science and does not use blogging for establishing taxonomies.
Darren Naish is a research fellow at tthe University of Portsmouth, a very respected tetrapod paleontologist who has published a number of papers. He is the author of the Tetrapod Zoology blog and is making the exact point that I try to make in the article. I believe this can be regarded as a reliable source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More later.

I know Darren Naish, and you read this sentence wrong, and transcribed the information incorrectly, and a blog is not the place to decide the uncertainty about a species/subspecies. If there really is such uncertainty it will be cited elsewhere.

Comment. Just noticed it was up for FAC. I don't have issues other than the ones I brought up during peer review, but I wondered if a horizontal version could be made of the tadpole image. It protrudes very far down, in a way which interferes with many unrelated sections. Image licenses look good, though the two first ones could need description boxes on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you've covered it well. Though I was told in a GA recently that I should add description templates to images on Commons I used which lacked ones, and the one in the taxobox and description sections here do. FunkMonk (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
There still seems to be an issue with subspecies. You mention different subspecies in the article body, but not in the taxonomy section. If any are recognised, they should be listed under taxonomy. Done. If possible, authorship of the synonyms should be listed along the names.FunkMonk (talk) 15:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done.[reply]
And another thing, could maybe be nice to mention in the image captions where the photos are taken, as this might have implications for what subgroups the pictured individuals belong to.FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Done where possible.[reply]
There is still mention of subspecies: "The subspecies Bufo bufo gredosicola is restricted to". FunkMonk (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep nagging about the species/subspecies issue, but now the taxonomy section mentions both a separate species, Bufo spinosus, and that Bufo bufo spinosus is a junior synonym of Bufo verrucosissimus. The synonym list for Bufo bufo also lists Bufo bufo spinosus. What is correct? FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the taxonomy is exceptionally confusing, and rather than change the Taxonomy section again now (and probably get it wrong again) I will rely on Eau's kind offer below. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are working so hard on this article, I cannot believe it. There are still areas you just do not get about writing about biology, though; you can't just remove information you don't understand. If you remind me Friday afternoon, I will see what I can do to finish up the problems, but I am too busy right now. I do appreciate how much work you are putting into this, and I would love to see an article like this on the main page, but I am unwilling to ask you to keep correcting things you don't have the background for. I also appreciate that you are learning, listening to what people say, but you have a huge gap in your ability to deal with the highly technical (bio), and we have to move forward. Eau (talk) 09:08, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am most grateful for your help in this field in which I agree I have insufficient knowledge. Yesterday I changed the list of synonyms to that provided by a better source (Frost 2011) and it currently states that Bufo (Bufo) spinosus and Bufo spinosus are both synonyms of Bufo bufo. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Most of the images appear fine from a copyright perspective. One possible exception is the Mr. Toad picture which may not be in the PD in certain countries. LittleJerry (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a pre-1923 US edition of the book, with original drawings made for it by a US artist, so it should be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the image locations at FunkMonk's suggestion made above on September 8th. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant for population identification. FunkMonk (talk) 05:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten parts of the "Taxonomy" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The new additions are nice. I noticed a few inconsistencies. If Bufo spinosus has been split off, then it shouldn't be listed as synonym of Bufo bufo? Then you also mention Bufo bufo gredosicola as valid, yet it is also listed as a synonym. Are there perhaps other valid subspecies? Bufo bufo bufo would certainly be valid, otherwise I assume Bufo bufo gredosicola wouldn't be possible to separate as a subspecies? FunkMonk (talk) 09:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone with Frost and stated that Bufo bufo gredosicola is a synonym and I have removed Bufo spinosus from the list of synonyms. This conforms with both AmphibiaWeb and Wikispecies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've been thinking for a while that it could be interesting to have a photo of a skeleton in the taxonomy section, to display some anatomy. This is the best one I could find[8], maybe something to consider. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I see three variations of Bufo spinosus are still in the taxobox, though. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the synonyms list. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks:

Article: "It is largely found in forested areas with coniferous, deciduous and mixed woodland, especially in wet locations."
Cite 16: "The Common Toad is associated mainly with the forest zone (in conifer, mixed and deciduous forests), where it prefers conifer forests with marshes."
Article: "The common toad cannot be legally sold or traded in the United Kingdom..."
Cite 36: "In Britain, the common toad is protected by law from sale and trade."
Article: "Atropine, phenytoin, cholestyramine and lidocaine may prove useful in its management."
Cite 44: Article lists these as treatments.
Article: "The common frog (Rana temporaria) is also similar in appearance but it has a less rounded snout, a more angular shape and a damp smooth skin, and usually moves by leaping"
Cite 17: "Common Toads often breed in the same water as the Common Frog (Rana temporaria) and may be confused with them. At 8 to 13cm (3 - 5in) the toad is larger than the frog (6 - 9cm, 2.5 - 3.5in) which prefers to hop whereas the toad generally walks. The toad has a rounder snout than frogs when viewed from above and on close inspection, the warty skin of the toad identifies it from frogs."

The article appears to reflect the sources overall, although the last source one doesn't mention shape. LittleJerry (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - All issues I have brought up on the talk page and during peer review have been addressed. To me it looks well written and to cover the subject comprehensively. I've made a few cosmetic edits, but I don't think my involvement in the article is too big for me to vote. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 25 September 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 17:36, 27 September 2012 [9].

Somerset County Cricket Club in 2009

[edit]
Nominator(s): Harrias talk 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From my previous nomination: "I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it comprehensively covers the topic, and provides a neutral and well-written analysis." I have gone through all the comments from the previous nominations, particularly those from Nev1 in the last nomination. The most significant change to the article in the addition of an aftermath section, but a number of other tweaks and changes have be made in response to the previous feedback. As always, I look forward to all your comments and suggestions. Harrias talk 15:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I reviewed this article at the last FAC and there haven't been that many changes aside from the aftermath section addition, so I don't have much to add to my prior comments that were addressed. The one sticking point in the new section for me is the financial paragraph, which is quite stubby at one paragraph. Is there anything else that can be added, or a better location for it where its shortness doesn't stick out so much? Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not really sure where else it could viably move within the article. There is a little bit more information provided in the yearbook about the number of improvement the club were making which make breaking even a positive thing, I could add something about that to pad the paragraph out a little more if you think that could work. I'm trying to find more information on attendances for the year which would fit in there, but I haven't been able to find anything thus far. Harrias talk 14:51, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "financial paragraph" in its entirety reads "Financially, Somerset broke-even in 2009, generating a gross turnover of £4.5 million, and increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005." First, the verb is "to break even", not "to break-even", so the hyphen needs removing. Secondly, what does "increased their investment into the team by roughly 50% from 2005" actually mean? That they paid their players more? That they brought in expensive new players? Or something else? At present the wording is too vague to be useful. Brianboulton (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've expanded the paragraph a bit more, and removed the bit about investment into the team, given that the source did not expand on the topic sufficiently for me to be able to answer the question, and thus I agree it is a bit too vague. Removed the hyphen from "broke even": I wasn't sure whether it took it or not, and based it upon out article Break-even (economics). Harrias talk 11:41, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Not directly related to this FAC, but any reason why the cricket season infobox links "wicket-keeping" but not "runs" or "wickets"?
  • Picky, but ref 1 doesn't actually say all of Kieswetter's catches were as wicket-keeper...
  • "They were captained " -> "Somerset were captained..." (or "was captained" depending on how many US readers you expect to have to negotiate this old chestnut with...)
  • "topped the batting tables" context, i.e. for Somerset or overall in English cricket?
  • "had looked at times" bit speculative, even in hindsight, can we reword this more neutrally but give over the same message?
  • Our article on "Cricinfo" now calls it "ESPNcricinfo". In fact, you use the latter in your sources.
  • It would be really nice if you could get all your tables to meet WP:ACCESS per MOS:DTT for screen-readers.
  • "Justin Langer (Captain)" no need for capital C in my mind.
  • Not sure in the utility of linking both "medium-fast" and "medium pace" and "fast-medium" and "medium" all to "fast bowling" (I'm thinking non-experts here).
  • Not perhaps the remit of this FAC but is there a way you could split the fast bowling page into subsections that you could link these terms to? Or improve the page to remove the tag? Not that big a deal for me, just wondered how we could help the non-experts understand these subtleties... The Rambling Man (talk) 06:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • " total of 742/5 " does a non-expert know what this means?
  • "was only reached in " ->"was reached in only".
  • ", as was " -> "along with" to avoid repeating "as".
  • "only managed to play five" no need for "managed to" unless you qualify it I think.
  • I would consider linking some of the more crickety terms to the glossary we have, e.g. "collapsed", "innings", "a slow pitch", "required rate" etc.
  • Shouldn't use bold in tables (or anywhere really) for emphasis per WP:BADEMPHASIS.
  • Where are the "Adjustments" referenced in the table key?
  • Table heading, why is Highest Score not just Highest score?
  • Batting average (and other similar "shared" phrases) would benefit from being hash-linked to the appropriate section in the article.
  • Is there any article (or section of article) for how points are awarded in a County Championship game?
  • Expand ECB before using the abbreviation.
  • "Team marked † were eliminated from the competition." Teams. (See all tables)
  • "England and Wales Cricket Board " you previously just referred to this as ECB (but see my earlier comment).
  • In Aftermath section, "England Lions" is a dab link.
  • "for the 2010 season" suitable article to link to?

The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments mostly of the nitpicking variety.
    • I noticed a few instances of "noun plus -ing" e.g. the imbalance in favour of the batsmen resulting in all but one match at the ground being drawn.
    • Despite a season in which Marcus Trescothick was described by David Foot as "imperiously assured", Somerset failed to win enough matches to pose a real challenge in the 2009 County Championship. These two things don't seem that closely connected, one man does not win a cricket championship.
    • This placed the majority of the bowling burden upon Charl Willoughby Forgive my being over-literal, but by definition he could only take a maximum of 50% of the burden. "an increased burden" or "majority of the wicket-taking burden" perhaps?
    • Could do with mentioning somewhere early on that County Championship matches are played over four days.
    • Not sure about "aftermath" as a section title due to the connotations of ill-effects. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there is that "Postseason" (generally without the hyphen) has a very specific meaning in North American sport, and I'm worried it might be confusing or misleading for those readers? Harrias talk 21:47, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Reaction"? Though that's not brilliant either. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: It's always tricky to make this sort of article accessible to the general reader without dumbing down too much. I think the balance is just about right. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Their performance in the Twenty20 Cup saw them qualify for the Champions League Twenty20.": Maybe "Through their performance in the Twenty20 Cup, the team qualified for the Champions League Twenty20"
  • "They enjoyed a successful season…": POV? By what standard were they successful? More precision here, I think.
  • "but the batting-friendly pitch at their home ground": Maybe a little jargony for the lead?
  • "saw the county finish with too many draws to claim their first Championship title": I never like "saw". Maybe "meant that"?
  • "Somerset qualified for the quarter-finals as one of the best third-placed teams": The 3rd place rule may be too much for the lead; possibly just say that they qualified.
  • "accruing almost 3,000 runs in all competitions in 2009…": Anything wrong with "scoring"?
  • "which saw him named": A third "saw" in the lead.
  • Maybe some links for batting positions in the background section?
  • "Despite a season in which Marcus Trescothick was described by David Foot as "imperiously assured",[3] Somerset failed to win enough matches to pose a real challenge in the 2009 County Championship.": Something not quite right with the structure here. Maybe "Although Marcus Trescothick had a season which David Foot described as…"
  • "flat pitch": jargon here. You can just hear people asking "aren't all pitches flat?"
  • "and saw him named as both PCA Player of the Year and the PCA's Most Valuable Player of the Year for 2009": Saw…
  • "all scored centuries to rescue a draw": Rescue seems a bit journalese.
  • "a position they would not drop below for the remainder of the season": Maybe "and they did not drop below this position for the remainder of the season".
  • Possibly, too much weight is given to the T20 semi-final and final, in the overall context of the season.
  • Strategy and tactics are covered in T20, but not in the other competitions. Is there anything similar available?
  • This is a tricky one. If the detail is not available in other forms of cricket, fair enough. But does that mean that we should include the T20 detail, just because it exists? I think the risk here is too much weight on T20 in the overall context of the season. Not too sure on this one. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see your point here. The T20 section is shorter than the Championship, but clearly longer than the FPT or the Pro40. But I think that possibly reflects the prominence that Twenty20 cricket is given now. It gets the largest crowds, and significant coverage in the press, more so than 40 and 50-over cricket typically. Also, the fact that Somerset were finalists and qualified for the Champions League Twenty20 as a result makes it important to the season. That said, I do agree that there is probably a little too much detail on the semi-final and final! Harrias talk 10:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somerset bowled strongly in the competition": A bit POV, given the source.
  • "Wicket-keeper Carl Gazzard": Two links in succession make it look like one long pipe; any way to improve this?
  • Are there any official judgements on the season, such as a coach's report in the yearbook?
  • I quite like the idea of the last section being called "reaction" rather than "aftermath".
  • I second Brian's comments about the financial section being a little vague.

Sarastro1 (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: Just about there I think. There are one or two things still to address which I have left unstruck. And it may be worth adding a few more links: for example, fast bowler, opening partnership. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments: I reviewed (and supported) a previous nomination of this; I'll read through again (might take me to the end of the weekend) and hope to be able to support again. Meanwhile, I'll add comments here as I have time.

  • "He was aided by seam bowlers Alfonso Thomas and David Stiff, who returned to the first-class game for the first time since 2006": this sentence structure doesn't make it clear whether it's just Stiff, or both Stiff and Thomas, who returned to the first-class game for the first time since 2006. Assuming it's just Stiff, I'd suggest reversing the order of names so that the descriptive clause directly follows his name but precedes Stiff: "... seam bowlers David Stiff, who ... , and Alfonso Thomas".

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to support above; couldn't find anything else to fix. Please do tweak the sentence I mention above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted. Had to reorder the subsequent sentence too to avoid close repitition. Harrias talk 19:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Support: I don't have time to make a detailed prose check but in the main it seems OK; maybe Mike, above, will find a few glitches. What is truly excellent is the presentation of the statistical information. No stone left unturned, and beautifully done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also switched to support. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – My only concern was related to the financial paragraph, which has been expanded and otherwise improved since I was first here. I went and cleaned up a couple of things there, and I'm satisfied that the rest of the article is up to FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:10, 26 September 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 17:36, 27 September 2012 [10].

Corona Australis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC) & Keilana (talk · contribs)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because we feel it is of equal standard to other constellation Featured Articles and can't see anything else to improve. My only niggle is whether to devote more space (and expand upon) the material about the molecular cloud. Otherwise we're pretty happy...let us know what else we can do...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • {{page needed}} tags need to be dealt with
  • Why are some pages hyperlinked and others not, even within the same book?
    • I'm assuming this is because some were accessed via the online edition and others were accessed via a library. Is this a problem? I can probably hunt down most of the physical copies if I need to.
I've never figured out how to hyperlink to more than one page in a google book. I figure linking to one and then letting the reader find the other pages is better than linking to none at all Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Google doesn't offer preview for all books, or for all the pages of a book. The mechanism in place in this article allows as many links to specific pages as you want, albeit at the cost of the refs being more complicated. The reason the links are on the specific page numbers (ass opposed to in the {cite book}) is to allow unlimited page linking within a book. The urls in the biblio are to the whole books, not specific page numbers because a) there's only one url per {cite book}, and b) a reader following a fn-link for p. 123 to the biblio might well get then taken to a preview of p. 456. And snippet views are even messier because the urls get huge.
gbook links are capricious. They come and go, availability varies by region. Far too many editors are really sourcing to google books, not the actual books. I'd cut all the page specific links and let them find what they may via the ISBN link or at most a gbook link to the whole book. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 13:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aww, I find a link to any page more helpful than none at all, but we can go with numbers consensus on this page Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's the foolish consistency mindset seeking links for all-or-none, ignoring the realities of Google's practises. Gets those very impotent italics right, though. The FAC process frequently misses the forest for teh little saplings. Anyway, the mechanism is on offer in this article to allow linking to as many specific pages within a specific work, if desired. I restructured them, but they were extant for the most part, and I expect more could be added, Google willing. Take it or leave it; it's messy to maintain and most editors are not going to be able to cope with it. If cut, the {{refn}} linking to {{harvnb}} in the {{refs}} would become standard inline {{sfn}} calls. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by Duplicate detector tool found the following repeated in main text (excluding lead and infoboxes) star forming region, Telescopium, Sagittarius and Theta Coronae Australis Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got 'em all Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - regarding magnitude facts:

  • "Southeast of Theta and southwest of Eta lies the open cluster ESO 281-SC24, which is composed of five 10th to 11th magnitude stars, the brightest of which is the yellow 9th magnitude star GSC 7914 178 1." ==> Is there a typo in the magnitude numbers? Otherwise i don't understand, how 9 is between 10 and 11 range-wise. GermanJoe (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joe, I think the reason GSC etc. was mentioned was because it is brighter than the 10th-11th magnitude stars that compose the rest of the cluster. The sentence is a little unclear, though - do you think it should be rewritten? Keilana|Parlez ici 21:04, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"the brightest of which" won't work in that context, but i tried rephrasing it. Feel free to revert, if i changed the intended meaning. GermanJoe (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's good. The source talks of a string of stars and GSC 7914 178 1 so is reworded okay. thx :) 06:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Have splitted out author in ref per FAC....but still not linking...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to list the last names in the harvnb-template aswell. Like "harvnb|last1|last2|last3|year". With more than 4 authors you'll need to create a new harvid, but up to 4 just listing them works (not stalking at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should work with only three listed, you can also use et al. I"ll take a look in a bit. PumpkinSky talk 12:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm starting a read of the article now, will hopefully finish soon, but it might take me a few days. The lead looks fine, just a couple small comments thus far:
  • "are defined by a polygon of 4 segments." Should "4" be written out "four" here?
Funny, I thought I'd done that already. Never mind, done now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it can be seen from southern Europe,[7] and the southern United States.[8]" Can we remove the comma here?
I'd kept the comma in for the rule of always having refs after periods or commas, but agree that makes the punctuation not the best, so have removed the comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
split now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, here's the rest of my comments, the article looks great, just a few minor questions and comment:
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma.
I am not a fan of the extra comma before the last item, but it is useful for referencing. I've just looked through and I think everywhere there should be one there is one....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, check for consistency when using a comma before "respectively".
removed stray comma. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some copyedits, hopefully all agreeable. (feel free to revert any if you like)
It's funny, I would not have inserted the first "it" you put in, but whenever I write a subordinate clause leaving "it" out, someone invariably adds it again, so must be me.... Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you might be able to remove "located" in a few locations.
done. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both components are F8V dwarf stars with a magnitude of 5.01 each." Do we need "both" and "each" here?
It is unusual that the stars are identical. I've managed to get rid of one "both" Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These star systems are known as Contact binaries" Should "Contact" be capitalized here?
nope - lowercase. fixed Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though it is visible in large amateur telescopes, 3.9 degrees west-southwest of Beta Sagittarii, amateur telescopes will not show more than a suggestion of its spiral structure." Is there a way to avoid the repetition of "amateur telescopes" here?
rejigged as the magnitude will indicate what can see it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "called" is used a lot in the second paragraph of "history", might want to cut down on that if you can.
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
century all to lower case now Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Corona Australis may have been recognized by ancient Mesopotamians in the MUL.APIN". I'd argue that it wasn't recognized by them in the MUL.APIN, but described or catalogued by them in the MUL.APIN.
Agree - but used the word "recorded" which I think carries the best connotation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Corona Australids are a meteor shower that takes place between 14 and 18 March each year". The PDF cited at ref #58 calls this shower the Beta Corona Australid shower, but on doing a Google search I find many references to the Beta Corona Austranid shower as well; are they the same thing? Also, the article says that the shower peaks in mid-March, but this h2g2 site claims it peaks in mid-May. Colour me confused.

Malleus Fatuorum 19:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. "Austrinid" would derive from "(Corona) Austrina", but this name has really declined in use against "Corona Australis". The BBC page is an h2g2 blog or wiki, and I have seen things there which I have (frustratingly) not found elsewhere. (internet pages ruffling) found something! Interesting....will ad in a tic Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe Corona Austrina ought to be mentioned as an alternative name in the lead? That h2g2 site isn't the only one claiming that the shower peaks in mid-May rather than mid-March, so that's a bit concerning. Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, Corona Austrina is mentioned in the lead as an alternative name (first sentence). Essentially there are two minor meteor showers - the Corona Australids which are seen in March, and the Beta Coronae Australids (which are very very minor and only mentioned in two publications....and h2g2) which appear in May. I have mused on Corona Austrina not being in the lead as it is somewhat archaic, but still pops up here and there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So it is, silly me. I hadn't noticed you'd added a bit about the Beta Coronae Australids, so that looks good now. I have to say though that "a shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis were described as the Beta Coronae Australids" looks very strange to me. Is it commonplace in astronomical circles to refer to a singular "shower" in the plural? Malleus Fatuorum 21:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, good point...hadn't thought of that. All meteor showers are described in the plural as "-ids", yet shower is clearly a collective noun here. "Shower were....?" (just sounds weird but I guess is more grammatically correct?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What about something like "A 2006 meteor shower originating near Beta Coronae Australis, the Beta Coronae Australids, appeared in May, the same month as a nearby shower known as the May Microscopids, but they have different trajectories and are unlikely to be related." Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, they were first described in 2006, but meteor showers appear every year - the wording above makes it look like they only appeared the once... Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry I wasn't able to chime in earlier, but sometimes meteor showers really do only pop up once in awhile. Some recently described showers - seems like this is included - have only been seen once and we are waiting to see them again, as I understand it. Also, as far as I can tell, the singular/plural convention is to use the plural when you have the shower name written out (e.g. "the Perseids were great last year") and the singular when yous say "shower" (e.g. "the Perseid meteor shower was great last year.") Just my 2 cents/pence. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I being ignored? I don't like to be ignored. Malleus Fatuorum 04:42, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh, sorry, I hadn't thought to check on this. Real life and all that. You're not being ignored, promise, I'll get to fixing this in a little bit. My apologies! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:03, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think all the terminology and verbs and such should be taken care of in this section. Would you mind taking another look? Thanks for your patience - sorry this took so long. Keilana|Parlez ici 05:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Looks good overall. Small details:

  • "The variable stars R and TY Coronae Australis light up parts of the nebula, which varies in brightness with them." - probably phrase the 'with them' part less succinctly but with more clarity
I was going to write "in harmony with them/the stars", but then wondered whether the adverb "accordingly" had sufficient enough connotation to convey the same meaning......? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question - where would you split? Para 1 = brighter stars, Para 2 = doubles, Para 3 = others... I guess alpha and beta can have a para each...I'd worry the section looked too choppy then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to define L☉ etc since they're never subsequently used.
ok, reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Deep sky section should probably lose some of the redlinks: it's very densely linked, and hard to read. 9th-10th mag objects probably aren't going to get their own page created unless there's someone very keen.
I was planning on linking alot of the fainter variable stars to Corona Australis Molecular Cloud once the latter article is made. Most of the other objects are galaxies which I think will end up with a page...tricky. I am loth to delink so might try and blue some of the links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Associating South Africa and Australia in the Mythology sections doesn't really make sense: add a para.
Para split Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Australian section is missing the association of Corona Australis with the Gosses Bluff impact crater in Central mythology. Paper is probably by Hamacher et al. and would be recent.
I got it Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support once these are addressed. Iridia (talk) 02:54, 24 September 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 22:18, 21 September 2012 [11].

M-553 (Michigan highway)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

M-553! The county road that was so good MDOT made it into a state highway. Find out why...by reviewing this article!

Ok, in all seriousness, I still feel that the article meets the criteria, and after a quiet review that was archived, I feel that it merits re-consideration at this venue again. Imzadi 1979 → 19:51, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to renominate without waiting two weeks was granted by a delegate at [12]. Imzadi 1979 → 19:54, 20 September 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 22:18, 21 September 2012 [13].

Dodo

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have expanded it to many times the size of the GA version[14], which was not very comprehensive, and was badly structured and sourced (and one third pop culture trivia). Having read a lot of literature about the bird, I can not think of any major issues having been missed (some of the included info is even quite obscure). Both sides of controversial issues have been presented. The most important contemporary images and descriptions have been added, which mirrors most of the comprehensive secondary sources (comparable to Rodrigues Solitaire, but has a better text to quote ratio). I have searched far and wide for rare paintings and photos, and I'm pretty happy that I could find images of all surviving non-fossil specimens (one I had to photograph myself). The article is pretty long, but shorter than for example Tyrannosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 08:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such

How is this done?

Done, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books need page numbers

Done.

  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books

I will add locations to all.

  • FN20: formatting

I removed "/ by Richard Lydekker" from the title, if that's what you meant.

You mean the cite DOI template? They are bot generated, and have not been a problem in other articles.

  • FN33: need full citation

Done.

  • FN68: italicization

The title?

What do you mean? Page numbers? Should be there, if you're referring to Rothschild 1919. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment
All those Quote Boxes are out of place. The quotations are longish, but they should be indented quotes, because in almost every case they follow directly from the context of the article itself.
The quote boxes have the effect of breaking the article into bits, and disrupting, rather than flowing.
The purpose of quote boxes it to set aside a quotation that is relevant to the subject in some way, but is not itself expounding upon that subject. For example, in an article about a writer, one might place a particularly pithy paragraph that the subject had written, with a quote box, so that it is separated from the text. But a quote analysing the author's work, or commenting on him or relating an incident would simple be indented and within quotation marks.
So every quote box needs to go, except the one with the poem.

Amandajm (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The 350 year old accounts of sailors to far flung lands are so open to interpretation that it is most prudent to let the reader see them for themselves to interpret. They also add alot of colour to the prose. I like them all but I suppose could lose the second one if any needed to be lost....Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation issue was discussed at length during the Rodrigues Solitaire FAC, which passed, see the discussion there[15]. As for this article, I have removed several quotes before, and I could sure remove a few more, perhaps one of those in the white Dodo section (not so relevant to this particular bird), as well as something else, the quote explaining how Dodo fossils were excavated can be paraphrased, since there isn't anything about Dodo behaviour or appearance which is up for interpretation. The quote about Dodos taken aboard a ship for food could also be paraphrased. But I disagree that most of the quotes should be removed, per my comments at the other FAC. The contemporary accounts are sometimes so inconsistent that paraphrasing them or interpreting would do more harm than good. FunkMonk (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have now paraphrased the Clark quote, as well as added some more relevant information I overlooked and left out before. FunkMonk (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading Amandajm's comment again, it seems that her issue is not the quotes themselves, but the boxes they're placed in. I have no opinion on that, but I originally used the block quote template, which does not create boxes. This was later changed by other users, so I assumed it was preferred. In any case, I actually think the sub fossil section is better off without the quote. It can now be found in the newly created Mare aux Songes article anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 05:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any more opinions on which quote template should be used? I like the current one, as it clearly separates the quotes from the main text. FunkMonk (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with you and Cas, for what it's worth. The quotes are very much something that should be in the article, and this box is an excellent way to show them. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recall somewhere an MOS ruling that we should not use boxes around them, but I think the boxes are better visually for marking the text as separate from the prose as such, so I like them. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree, the presentation is better with the boxes, and Funkmonk's rationale makes sense to me too Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duplicate detector found the following overlinked in the body of the article (I.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): clade, ostrich, travel journal, terrestrial, clutch, Broad-billed Parrot, Mascarene, Dutch East India Company, Thirioux's Grey Parrot, Peter Mundy, London, Amsterdam, Surat, Red Rail, British Museum, Denmark/Danish, Richard Owen, skeleton, Roelant Savery.
  • Genetically nested within pigeons and doves — I don't like the use of nested here and later, it invites confusion in an article about a bird.
  • seasonal, however, and that individuals were fat during cool seasons, but slim during hot seasons — overuse of "seasons", also check for overuse of "bird" in this section"
  • encounters with Dodos made between the Dodo's discovery and its extinction — clunky, perhaps encounters with the Dodo between its discovery and its extinction?
  • Work the Maure aux Songes swamp has shown — missing word?
I'll fix those things. But to be honest, the article could use a copyedit, two different users already volunteered to copyedit it at different times, yet both simply vanished from Wikipedia before finishing half of it, so I just gave up and nominated it anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Issues should be fixed now, is "grouped" better than nested? FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer it in this context. I've been fortunate in that my current nature reserve-type FAC and the previous two had enough military history in the dunes to persuade the Milhist project to copyedit, but I know that otherwise it can be tricky. I picked up the duplicate detector from them too, makes it easy to pick up overlinking in one's own articles as well as persecuting FAC candidates {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the detector? And some kind of poem tags were wrapped around the Belloc quote in the culture section, but it hasn't done anything but break the reference template. Not sure what the goal was. FunkMonk (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, and the issue with the ref is fixed. The point is to clean-up the markup of embedded break tags and leverage a CSS class. It also has the visible effect of a proper sized break between paragraphs. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on prose quality. Quite a lot of issues with the writing. A sample;

Done. I have also removed many other links that seemed redundant. Please elaborate on "etc".

    • " males being the largest" should be "larger"

Done.

    • lots of "actually"s and "however"s; benchmarks of poor writing. Also "In fact" and "notable"; these terms should not be used much if at all in an article

Done. Removed two "actuallys" (which were added during copy edit) and the "howevers". "In fact" was also added by a copy editor.

    • "the bird itself"; why "itself"?

Removed.

    • "26 museums worldwide"; don't start a sentence with a number

Reworded.

    • "Why is the bird's name capitalised? It looks especially awkward alongside mention of non-capitalised animals like cats and dogs.

See below.

"below" seems to be missing, but the reason for the caps is at WP:BIRDS#Bird names and article titles. --Stfg (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the mid 19th century", "an island of 1,860 km2" and "up to 23-centimetres (9-inch) long"

Reworded.

I'll go along and fix those issues. Please list whatever other issues you have so I can fix them, as most of the problems mentioned appear to be very trivial and easily corrected. In fact, the first half of the article (where most of the problems mentioned are found) has already been copy edited twice by different editors ("overlinking" was done during copy edits), so I'm surprised there are still so many problems there. I find it almost comical that a new copy edit is needed to correct two previous copy edits. As for the name, bird names are always capitalised in Wikipedia articles, I think it's a policy of the bird wikiproject. FunkMonk (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The issues have now been addressed, please express if the changes are satisfactory or not, and elaborate on whatever else you don't like, so the article can be improved. I have brought up the issue of the missing copy editors here.[16] I hope someone will have pity and come save the damn Dodo, if not from extinction, then from rejection. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now being copy edited anew, and many of the suggestions above that I implemented have now been changed back to the former state (wording, wikilinks). I hope this goes to show that much of this is subjective, and should not have an impact on whether the article passes or not. FunkMonk (talk) 07:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now tentatively support following the major copyediting that has taken place. The writing still isn't perfect but I am confident it will be further improved in the normal editing process. --John (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stfg is now kindly giving it one more thorough copyedit, I hope it will address remaining concerns. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments: I'd like to see some spotchecks for verification and to check for close-paraphrasing please. Graham Colm (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks done I checked six of the references to sources that have on-line text, all looked OK to me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:42, 21 September 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 19:11, 20 September 2012 [17].

Phallus indusiatus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For a mushroom, Phallus indusiatus has it all: an exotic fruit body that can be likened to a stinky penis wearing a white mesh skirt, a long history of medicinal and culinary use, widespread distribution, and useful bioactive properties. In Nigeria, one can use it as a spell component to make you invisible or curse your enemies, and in Hawaii, to bring women to spontaneous orgasm. Thanks again to Circéus for providing a pre-FAC review. Sasata (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492
  • Do you have a screen cap from the time, or an archive? I looked for it in the Wayback Machine but couldn't find anything. As the license is irrevocable, it's still allowed if it's established that it was originally CC-BY-SA — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the only "proof" there is now is the assumption that someone checked it during the FPC process. At my request, Mushroom Observer now logs user changes in image licensing, but, alas, this feature isn't retroactive. Sasata (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing much here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prose comments from Crisco 1492
  • "Phallus indusiatus, commonly called in English" - Those names afterwards are clearly English, so "in English" is redundant.
  • "Another notable use was a state banquet held for Henry Kissinger on his visit to China to reestablish diplomatic relations in the early 1970s" - No mention that he was from the US? Admittedly most people from the Anglosphere will get this, but I know an IP or two who will complain incessantly.
  • "is particularly interesting" - according to?
Thanks! Sasata (talk) 06:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Maky:

  • "kinugasa" – is there no kanji equivalent? And if so, I recommend using the template {{Nihongo}} or one of its variants. (After all, you do provide the Ancient Greek lettering.) The same goes for it's Chinese name.
  • I did have the Chinese script in before, but pulled it out as I couldn't easily source it (a request at WP:China has gone unanswered). I could get the kanji from the JP-version of the article, but again would have to get a source. I'll drop a line at WP:Japan. Sasata (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you need a source for both the Romanized and native script. One is merely a "translation" of the other. Very rarely do I see sources give the Ancient Greek spelling. Most usually used Romanized characters. In my opinion, just include both and don't worry about sourcing it. – Maky « talk » 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad others agree. Otherwise it would have been a nightmare for some of my subfossil lemur and Japanese anime articles... You have to AGF at some point, especially when you're talking about translations. – Maky « talk » 06:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the ecological distribution, do the sources not say whether this species may have been spread by humans or look at its genome to see whether the specimens in these different regions are genetically distinct? Sorry, I always ask this question because I'm fascinated by species with cosmopolitan distributions. In some fungus species, I'm sure their spores can travel for hundreds, if not thousands of miles by wind. But in this case, given the sticky nature of its spores, it raises more questions for me.
  • In recent decades, many tropical stinkhorn fungi have experienced expanding distributions as a result of (a) importation of exotic plants from Asia and (b) importation of wood chips and other similar organic mulching material from tropical biomes. However, I haven't seen any related discussion specific to this fungus, and think it would be more suited for the family (Phallaceae) article (also on my "to-do" list!). I'm not aware of any phylogenetic studies comparing DNA sequences of collections from different continents. Sasata (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough for me. – Maky « talk » 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image caption: "Dried bamboo pith fungus" – Can more information be added to this caption? I don't recall seeing the phrase "bamboo pith fungus" in the text to explain it, and the caption is pretty bland. Personally, I prefer to see an interesting fact stated in image captions (cited in the text).
Much better! – Maky « talk » 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great article. Not much to suggest. It's making me crave stir-fry with mushrooms... as well as mushrooms in general. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 01:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Maky: Article meets FAC requirements in my opinion. – Maky « talk » 05:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Personally I wouldn't bother linking "Chinese"
  • Well, it's piped to Chinese language, and I'd like to keep it in this case to be consistent with the nearby similar links to Ancient Greek and Japanese language (I think the links are appropriate in a paragraph discussing common names in different languages). Sasata (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • elder Vaillant,[N 1] — I may well be wrong, but I thought we didn't have annotations inside quotes?
  • new species Phallus rochesterensis. — comma after species?
  • layer of greenish-brown and foul-smelling slime — I know you explain this later, just wondered if you should put the detail at this earlier point, but it's not a big deal
  • subcutaneously implanted sarcoma — a couple of links might be good
  • Hydroxymethylfurfural, which occurs naturally in several foods, is not associated with serious health risks. — is this a roundabout way of saying it's safe?
  • ribonuclease (RNase; an enzyme that cutsRNA into smaller components) — I can't see any reason for the "RNase;". It reads oddly, better just as link and gloss, ribonuclease (an enzyme that cutsRNA into smaller components)
  • 6 had orgasms while smelling the fruit body — perhaps you were distracted from the MoS for numbers less than ten?
  • I Look forward to supporting soon.


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 18:54, 20 September 2012 [18].

Eraserhead

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well Henry, what do you know?
Oh, I don't know much of anything.

Perhaps the most surreal of the "midnight movies", Eraserhead launched the careers of David Lynch, Alan Splet and Jack Nance (all but one of those have since received Oscar nods for future works, Nance's snubbing being an egregious mistake). The article was penned over an intensely coffee-fuelled week off, given a Good Article review by Bruce Campbell, a peer review by Midnightblueowl and Mark Arsten, and a copy-edit by Mark as well. As usual I'm on hand to offer quick response to any queries and comments. Thanks in advance. GRAPPLE X 21:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:35, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to review this for me. GRAPPLE X 00:12, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Grapple X. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I copyedited and peer reviewed the article, and all of the issues that I came up with have been resolved. This will be a welcome addition to our featured coverage of art films, joining Mulholland Drive (film) as the second Lynch feature film FA. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't forget the FL work too! Thanks for your support and for your time copyediting and reviewing. GRAPPLE X 01:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportComment Good structure and prose. However I do have a query on comprehensiveness: when I ran "eraserhead" through google scholar, it tossed up references either about Lynch's work generally or Eraserhead in particular, but these aren't in the bibliography: Wilson 2007; Godwin 1984; Godwin 1985; Bettinson 2010; Rosenbaum 1995 (for example). There are also studies that draw on eraserhead for discussion of other topics: for example Studlar 1989. I love this quote from Rosenbaum 1995: "Even the most cursory comparison of Eraserhead with Wild at Heart reveals an artistic decline so precipitous that it is hard to imagine the same person making both films, but it is the latter movie that won the Cannes Film Festival's Palme d'Or." (p. 23). Rosenbaum also makes reference to a New York Times review of Eraserhead that is not quoted in the article: a review that described the film as "murkily pretentious", "interminable" and "sophomoric" (according to Rosenbaum). I wonder if there could be more work done on the film's impact? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a few thematic interpretations I've not used as they chiefly repeat what's already present (sound design, sexual imagery, etc) and I felt it better not to bundle several sources after each point just to give a wider impression of comprehensiveness (for what it's worth, the same situation occurred with Manhunter (film) in that there are twice as many sources available as used in the article, but no unique viewpoints that haven't already been covered). As for Rosenbaum; that quote would be perfect for Wild at Heart (film) but given that it really refers to Lynch's work 15 years after Eraserhead I'm not sure if it's worth shoehorning in commentary on the director's future output beyond what's listed. I will try looking for that NYT times review as another negative opinion would be good for balance. GRAPPLE X 12:14, 16 September 2012 (UTC)i[reply]
    This is the article; it's behind a paywall but if it was a factor in this passing then I'd be okay purchasing it for use. The abstract provides nothing of use, though. GRAPPLE X 12:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't waste the money, bug someone who can access it (or use WP:RX) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Great idea. Made a request at WP:RX. GRAPPLE X 18:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Really was a great idea; obtained a copy of the review and have added it to the first paragraph of "Reception". GRAPPLE X 19:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad the NYT item made it in. On Rosenbaum - one wouldn't shoehorn it into the commentary - it seems to me an important statement about how Lynch's ouevre is judged and would belong in the "legacy" section. If however Rosenbaum was the only critic / analyst who saw Eraserhead as such an outstanding work, then one would probably omit it. To know that, though, one would need to look at some of those others. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming I've found the right Rosenbaum 1995 (an essay in the Lavery-edited Full of Secrets?) then I've added it; it seemed to make sense to me in the first paragraph of "Reception" as it was similar in context to the NYT review (Eraserhead being assessed in comparison to another more recent film). GRAPPLE X 21:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    You used it differently than I had imagined, but thanks for taking a look at that, and explaining your rationale for selection of sources. I've indicated support above. Cheers, hamiltonstone (talk) 03:22, 20 September 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 18:54, 20 September 2012 [19].

Ian Fleming

[edit]
Nominators: SchroCat (^ • @) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC) and CassiantoTalk 10:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the 50th anniversary of the Bond film series, what better way to celebrate than with FA status for Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond. He was a fascinating individual: well-connected, a good war record in naval intelligence and the author of a series of books that ended up as reading matter for the great and good which has also left an enviable legacy on film. Settle down with a shaken martini, light up a cigarette from Morland of Grosvenor Street (with three gold bands on the filter), and read on… - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:21, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class, and made some tweaks. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 15:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Dank—it's much appreciated. Good edits too! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 16:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your help Dank. -- CassiantoTalk 17:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work too, guys. - Dank (push to talk) 17:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happened to the old infobox photograph? It was much better.—indopug (talk) 08:03, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it failed in it's licensing. My co-nom will have to answer that one when he gets back from holiday. -- CassiantoTalk 08:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It did: we removed it under advice. I actually prefer this one too - it's a more Fleming-esque pose

Further World War II should be the Second World War in British English AFAIK. IMO there needs to be more Bond in the lead—there's little from the Writing section, especially the themes, it appears. I feel there's also too much about his family. On a related note, must the infobox link to every (leave alone any) relative of his? In 1960s, why is C-C-B-B not given a paragraph for itself like each Bond book? Surely it's as popular and notable?—indopug (talk) 08:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I was (and still am) for infobox removal, and I think you two were, too. But clearly there was immense fallout over that so let's not go there. Would keeping the infobox but cutting the Relatives out be a reasonable compromise for the pro-infobox editors? (I think Peter should be in the lead as a major inspiration for Bond anyway)—indopug (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not - they were rather anti any further tinkering and I suspect it'll all mindlessly kick off again if there are any further cuts, which having this article as some sort of battlefield for their opinions is something we all want to avoid! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:52, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • re the "I feel there's also too much about his family", as far as I can see, there are only two mentions in the lede; one for his wife and one for his son. I think this is enough, although we could lose the sons name as he is not notable in his own right. Or are you talking about the family mentions within the info box? -- CassiantoTalk 21:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check for conisistency in wikilinking - for example, you link The Independent in both FN4 and FN8, but The Times in 3 and not 7
  • Compare FNs 1 and 21, or 156 and 159
  • FN75: formatting
  • FN102: page?
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for magazines
  • FN206: don't italicize agencies
  • The book appears on the list of reference books for Ian Fleming Publications. Ian Fleming Publications is Ian Fleming's family company, holders of the copyright to all Fleming's works, still connected to the Fleming family and the people who license the Bond name to Eon Productions, the people who bring us all the Bond films. They are, therefore, the official repository of all matters relating to Ian Fleming and James Bond.
  • The preface for the Griswold book is written by Andrew Lycett, author of the Ian Fleming biography (Lycett, Andrew (1996). Ian Fleming. London: Phoenix. ISBN 978-1-85799-783-5. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help));
  • One of the forwards was written by Zoe Watkins, from the Fleming copyright holders, Ian Fleming Publications;
  • The second forward was written by Raymond Benson, continuation author of Bond novels from 1997 to 2003 and writer of The James Bond Bedside Companion Benson, Raymond (1988). The James Bond Bedside Companion. London: Boxtree Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85283-233-9. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help).
  • The book has also been cited in academic works, such as Biddulph, Edward "Bond Was Not a Gourmet": An Archaeology of James Bond's Diet Source: Food, Culture and Society: An International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Volume 12, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 131-149(19) (DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/155280109X368688)
Many thanks for your time on this one NM, it's hugely appreciated. I think we've covered everything, but if we've missed anything then please let us know. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:11, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto from me Nikkimaria. I hope our responses meet your concerns. -- CassiantoTalk 18:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tanks Tate. -- CassiantoTalk 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Further to my previous review, the article has been improved with the removal of two suspect images, and the addition of solid material to support the sketch of Bond- great work. The free images are all fine; their licenses seem to check out. The only potential problem is that the current lead image is, according to the rationale, probably owned by Express Newspapers/Getty Images- our use of press images like this is often very questionable, due to the rather obscure non-free content criterion 2. Basically, if this is a press shot for sale as an illustration of Fleming, when we use it without buying the right to do so, we potentially replace the original market value. As such, it would be preferable to not use a press shot like this- perhaps one which was released as a publicity photo, if one ever was, would be far preferable (a quick Google Search throws up this, which according to a blog, was "a publicity photo used by Signet Books"). Alternatively, one used on the cover of a book at some point may be more suitable (this one isn't ideal, but there may be more- you're more likely to know than I). Basically, if an image is for sale, it's something we want to be avoiding; we'd prefer to use an image which has been, in some way, released for use by the media at some point. J Milburn (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review (again) JM, it is much appreciated. I agree with the replacement of the lede image, and love the first of the two images you have mentioned. I don't particularly like the current lede image as, IMO, it appears characterless and bland. SchroCat and I are in discussions about what's best to do. -- CassiantoTalk 18:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks JM—your thought are hugely appreciated. After consultation with my co-nom, we've gone with your first suggestion of Signet Books. Many thanks again - SchroCat (^ • @) 00:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for taking this issue seriously. I'm happy with the image use in this article. J Milburn (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks JM - your thoughts and input are very welcome in such a tricky area! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- reviewed, copyedited and supported at MilHist A-Class Review. Having checked changes since then and tweaked a couple of things here and there, happy to support for FA. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, cheers Ian. -- CassiantoTalk 04:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news—thanks very much, Ian. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fantastic news: huge thanks for all the constructive criticism that has enabled this article to get to FA. Many thanks to all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:43, 20 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [20].

Andjar Asmara

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is a good look at his life and work. He is from an era where little survives, and unlike my previous biography FACs there doesn't seem to be a book about Andjar. This has gone through a copyedit from several users and expanded after comments from Sarastro1. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments: Supported below I copyedited this last week in preparation for this nomination and I think it is in good shape. Just a few unresolved issues I noticed while c/eing.
  • "He is remembered as a pioneer of theatre and one of the first native Indonesian film directors" remembered by whom? Indonesians in general or film experts?
  • Changed to "Historians recognise him...", as the average Indonesian's answer to "Who was Andjar Asmara" would be "who?"
  • "He believed the troupe to be dedicated to the betterment of the toneel as an art form" Who is "He" here?
  • Clarified that it was Andjar in both the text and footnote.
Ok, good. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you know which year he married?
  • Personal information is very light in the sources, so sadly no.
Ok, no prob. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writing several pieces on the history of local theatre under both his birth name and pseudonym." Is it that he sometimes used one name, and used the other name at other times, or is it that he signed two names on each thing he wrote?
  • Clarified
  • "With Dardanella, in 1936 Andjar went to India" I'd suggest a comma after the date here. You should check for consistency in date commas in general too.
  • A comma after 1936, like "With Dardanella, in 1936,..."? That doesn't seem gramatically sound. Point taken about the other commas.
  • "That same year, he became head of the entertainment magazine Varia, assisted by fellow director Raden Ariffien." So did Ariffien assist him in becoming head of the magazine, or did he serve as his assistant once he became the head?
  • Clarified
Looks good. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Andjar held the position until his death.[1] Meanwhile, he continued to write and publish adaptations of local films in serial format.[32]" It's a little jarring to mention his death, and then say meanwhile he continued to write.
  • Would "Andjar held the position for more than a decade" be better?
  • "After Indonesia's independence, Andjar returned to journalism, moving to Purwokerto to lead the daily Perdjoeangan Rakjat.[1] He later returned to film," Some repetition of "returned" here.
  • Got rid of the "return to journalism" bit as it wasn't adding much of anything to the sentence.
  • "Matthew Isaac Cohen, a scholar of Indonesian performing arts, describes Andjar as "Indonesia's foremost theater critic during the colonial period", noting that he wrote extensively on the history of theatre in the Indies. However, Cohen believes that Andjar also worked to justify the toneel style and distance it from the earlier stambul" I'm not sure the "However" works here.
  • " a critique of the Balinese caste system, which followed lovers from different castes" Is there a way around the "caste...castes" here?
  • Hmm... perhaps "a story of lovers from different castes in a critique of Bali's dominant social system", but that has an easter egg.
  • "Andjar's toneels were generally based on day-to-day experiences, rather than the tales of princes and ancient wars which were standard at the time.[6] Regarding these" The beginning of the second sentence is a bit unclear.
  • How's this?

Leaning support: I commented extensively on this article at an earlier stage in its development, since when it has improved even further. This is a subject on which I know nothing, and cannot comment on comprehensiveness, but I found it very interesting and everything was carefully explained for background. I have a feeling that the prose would stand a further tweak in a place or two, but that may come down to personal style and preference, and I am confident it is at FA level. An excellent piece of work overall. Just a few last comments to clear up before I switch to full support. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:40, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a Malay adaptation of the Dutch-language magazine Filmland that contained original coverage of the domestic theatre and film industry": Could be read that the Dutch magazine contained original coverage, where I assume that this is about Doenia Film.
  • "He published many of his stage plays using the group's backing": Maybe "with" rather than "using"? Also, what stage plays; the ones he wrote in Padang? These are the only ones mentioned so far. And this begs the question: were his earlier plays ever actually performed in Padang, or did he only write them without taking them further?
  • "With Dardanella, in 1936 Andjar went…": Thinking about it, I'm not sure that this quite flows correctly. Better to start with "In 1936, Andjar went with Dardanella…"
    How's this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:55, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Upon his return to the Indies, Andjar formed another theatrical troupe, Bolero, with Effendi, but Andjar left the troupe"
  • I'm a little confused by the serials, both in the lead and main body. In what medium were the serials published? The implication is in book form, but I think clarification is needed.

Support: Changes look good and I'm happy to fully support now. As a minor point, already mentioned above, the article still has "using the group's backing", which I'm not sure sounds great, but this does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:02, 17 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [21].

Sadie Harris

[edit]
Nominator(s): TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs), Sofffie7 (talk), 21:34, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful nomination of "Give Peace a Chance" (Grey's Anatomy), Sofffie7 and I present Sadie Harris. A recurring character on the medical drama Grey's Anatomy, Harris departed in the show's fifth season. The article was listed as a good article in July, and after extensive copyedits, expansions, and cleanups, we believe this article now meets the featured article criteria. Thank you in advance for your time, TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
  • "Introduced as a surgical intern who has an old friendship Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo)" -> I assume "with" is missing after "friendship"; it might also be worth adding something like "series lead" or "central character" to highlight that Meredith Grey is the Grey of Grey's Anatomy (that makes sense, right?)
  • "The character has received mixed feedback among critics" -> I may be mistaken but I believe "from" would be required here, rather than "among".
  • I think In Treatment could be explained a little; mention at the very least that it's a teevee series.
  • " Chandra Wilson (Miranda Bailey) ..." -> Not sure we need the role in an aside here; it's already made clear who/what Wilson is in relation to George without needing a specific role and given the frequent use of both character and actor names losing this one would help things stay clearer.
  • "Stacy McKee, a primary writer for the show, said Harris is Meredith's "pre-Cristina Cristina" and that she shares "a history with Meredith that Cristina can't"." -> this one might need a bit more context than simply linking to Cristina Yang.
  • Probably worth noting to some extent what Alan Sepinwall's credentials are (source is a personal blog though the individual seems notable to a degree). A few words explaining he's a television critic of some renown would help.
  • "she took the blame for breaking Sloan's penis" -> is there a better way to phrase this? I'm no doctor but I'm not sure something without a bone technically breaks.

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

  • Comments from Cassianto
  • Per Crisco really including a few others.
  • "George described her character as "naughty" and "mischievous", as well as "nutty". "With Sadie, there are so many more interesting things going on with her, beyond her sexuality. She is quite broken. All that flirting and naughtiness is a Band-Aid for something else really disturbed," George said. -- I think the "George said" at the end looks poorly placed. Maybe; George described her character as "naughty" and "mischievous", as well as "nutty". She went onto say: "With Sadie, there are so many more interesting things going on with her, beyond her sexuality. She is quite broken. All that flirting and naughtiness is a Band-Aid for something else really disturbed."
  • "Entertainment Weekly's Michael Ausiello said that Harris is "an intern with an open mind towards sexuality". -- Usually better for a paragraph to end with a citation.

Oppose I'm afraid that this article's prose is currently below FA standards

  • "in which it is revealed" - over-dramatic, and suggests that this was somehow 'hidden'
  • "Having joined the show as a surgical intern at Seattle Grace Hospital, Harris begins a friendship with fellow intern Lexie Grey (Chyler Leigh), Meredith's sister." - this mixes up the character's real-world status and her in-show status (Melissa George joined the show, and the character joined the interns in the hospital)
  • Some people and characters are called by the first names, and others by their second names - please standadise on second names
  • "Later, she flirts with Callie Torres (Sara Ramirez), though the relationship is never pursued. Nonetheless, Harris continues to pursue a friendship with Lexie," - the 'nonetheless' is out of place
  • "Although he offers to tutor her, she declines and chooses not to tell Webber, which O'Malley does instead." - who does what is a bit unclear here
  • "When she tries to get Meredith to go back to vacationing in Europe, Meredith declines her offer and Harris departs." - this is the first time that 'vacationing in Europe' is mentioned, but this wording seems to assume readers have prior knowledge of it. Also, is this an 'offer'?
  • "Melissa George received an invitation from Grey's Anatomy's casting agents after seeing her recurring guest performances in the television drama In Treatment (2008)," - read literally, this says that George was invited after she saw her own performance (I'd suggest replacing "after seeing" with "after they saw")
  • "to meet the show's executive producers Shonda Rhimes and Betsy Beers." - this doesn't connect with the rest of the sentence
  • "Her initial deal" - whose? (this could refer to George or Shonda)
  • "Furthermore, the fact that her character was not very liked by the viewers also lead to the non-extension of George's contract" - this is a bit awkward, and it contradicts the previous two rather feel-good sentences; was the character discontinued because George wanted to work on other projects (other than appearing as a regular character on a highly rating show?!), that her story arc had concluded, or that she was annoying viewers?
    • George wanted to leave to pursue other projects, which fit in because Harris' storyline came to a natural close. The fact that the viewers didn't like George just added to her departure, which is why "furthermore" is used. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • That seems like PR stuff to be honest, and it doesn't gel. An approach based around 'Several reasons were given for George's character leaving the series' would work better; at present we've got the (somewhat difficult to believe) claim that George wanted to work on unspecified 'other projects' rather than this show, a statement that the character was going to end anyway (which means that George would have had no choice in the matter), and a statement that the character's unpopularity "also lead to the non-extension of George's contract" (which would also would have meant that George had no say, and the scriptwriters might not have been able to keep her if they'd wanted to). Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She went onto say that Harris' personality branches much further than her sexuality." - what does this mean?
  • "George also stated that she was influenced by the outspokenness of Lisa Rowe, a sociopathic character from Girl, Interrupted (1999) played by Angelina Jolie." - unless George contributed to the scripts (which isn't stated), it's unclear what this is getting at - was the character influenced by Lisa Rowe, or George's portrayal of her? (or both?)
  • "Meredith's best friend is Cristina Yang (Sandra Oh); the latter becomes jealous of the friendship between Meredith and Sadie." - this appears in the middle of a paragraph without any context
  • The structure of the 'Reception' section is pretty unclear - the various reviews are placed in no clear order. Given the Australian media's generally sympathetic treatment of Australian actors who appear in major American TV series, I'd suggest separating these out as a starting point.
  • Without having ever watched this show, it appears that the 'Storylines' section only includes some of the storylines relating to this character given what's mentioned in passing in the rest of the article.
  • As a general comment, I think that the article currently over-uses quotes from George and other people involved with the series; there are all pretty vacuous PR talk, and could be easily paraphrased.
  • The quotebox in the 'Casting and creation' section isn't linked to the rest of the section (which doesn't discuss George's experiances on set) Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed; nice work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Image review: No complaints: all image's have good rationales. TBrandley 14:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: The article looks good for the most part. A few suggestions from me would not hurt, I thought:

  • "Introduced as a surgical intern who has an old friendship with the series' protagonist Meredith Grey (Ellen Pompeo), she eventually forms a friendship with Lexie Grey (Chyler Leigh), and departs after it is revealed she cheated her way into the surgical program." - reading this aloud feels a bit repetitive, probably because of "friendship".
  • "...received an invitation...", could be written as "was invited".
  • "...after the casting agents saw her in In Treatment (2008), a television drama." - again repetition, "in In". Could writing it as "after the casting agents saw her in the 2008 television drama In Treatment work?
  • Some words in the intro are a bit additive and unnecessary: "suddenly", "much" (in "much speculation"), "or not", "in an attempt"
  • I find there is a lot of the use of "it" when the pronoun does not specifically refer to anything, like "it was revealed (or confirmed/made known) that." and "it was her her decision to". What is "it"?
  • "She was initially written as a lesbian, but later changed to bisexual." - "but later changed to bisexual" sounds strange. Perhaps "but was revised as bisexual".
  • "She went on to say that Harris' sexuality is not the main aspect of her personality." - "went on to say" is wordy...a simple "said" or "added" is just right.
  • I'm finding more redundancies further down: "Jon Caramanica of the Los Angeles Times, less than impressed, was critical of her character development," - why "less than impressed" and "critical"? They imply the same thing, so cut one. "Less than impressed" also sounds euphamistic.
    • Reworded.

The prose is clear, but not perfect yet. It can be tightened with another look. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 15:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from TBrandley moved to talk


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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [22].

HMS Furious (47)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furious was built as a modified Courageous-class battlecruiser by the Royal Navy during World War I, but was modified while still under construction with a flight deck that replaced her forward gun turret. She served as an aircraft carrier during the war, but was laid up afterwards and would have been scrapped in accordance with the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922 if she had been rebuilt to a much better design as flush-decked aircraft carrier. She was one of two prewar aircraft carriers to survive World War II, but was obsolete by the end of the war and scrapped a few years afterward. This article went through a MilHist A-class review last month and I trust that it meets the FAC criteria. I expect, though, that there will still be minor issues that need to be addressed and I look forward to working with the reviewers to fix those so that it meets the standards.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments

  • To save design time the installation used in the light cruiser Champion, the first cruiser in the RN with geared turbines, was simply repeated. - Repeated doesn't seem like the right word; they took the Champion's basic design but installed at least 2x the turbines, boilers and shafts. Maybe you can just describe the difference?  Done
  • The complement figures in both infoboxes lack citations or prose mentions.
  • The speed figure in the infobox for CV version (30 kt) is uncited; the prose indicates the trial speed after the full conversion was 28.8 kt.
  • I don't understand why the ship had a 'retractable charthouse' at the forward end of the flight deck and the wiki link here is probably not helpful - I doubt they kept the charts on a retractable platform! What about 'flying bridge'? Its seems pretty unique so maybe a description is probably preferable to a link. Kirk (talk) 14:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the navy called it a charthouse. A charthouse was not a platform, it was the place from which the ship was conned and would have been at least partially enclosed. Normally, ships are conned from the bridge, whereas in smaller vessels there is often smaller structure called the charthouse. In this case, because of its relatively small size, the word for the smaller vessels has been applied. A flying bridge implies a structure high up, in an elevate position well above the main deck, not appropriate here. The usage of naval terminology can be tortuous and arcane, this is a typical example. - Nick Thorne talk 22:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I meant was the wikilink's definition doesn't match this type of navigation platform. It was kind of a flying bridge - a google search revealed it was not a 'house', just a open air platform raised up above the flight deck and probably was only used when there were no aircraft taking off/landing; that's what I was getting at with a description instead of a link. Kirk (talk) 03:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chesneau's book has a photograph of the the structure, it was quite large and was on the centreline. I think we should stick with the references regarding what to call this, but I have modified the section to expand a little in the navigating facilities. Re-reading the reference it is not clear that the structure was used for conning the ship, it may well have been used as a place to use charts as the usual definition implies. In the photograph it is quite clear that this was not simply an open platform. - Nick Thorne talk 05:18, 20 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [23].

System Shock 2

[edit]
Nominator(s): — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because after three nominations from 2009 and several improvements i have made to it (the original contributor os long gone since March 2011), i consider that it is now up to standard. I have improved a bit the prose and rewrote all the references, as well as other minor details on the article. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 18:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i would like to add Noj r (talk · contribs) as co-nominator. He did an amazing job on the article and he's the one who nominated at FAC the last three times. Sadly, he's out of Wikipedia (for what i saw) since March 2011. — ΛΧΣ21™ 22:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: Supported below Alright, I've started my review. I rewrote a couple sentences in the lead, hope you don't mind. I haven't gotten beyond the lead yet, but here are a few thoughts:
  • "In 2007, Irrational—then 2K Boston/2K Australia—released a self-proclaimed 'spiritual successor' to the System Shock series" The name change may be too much detail for the lead.
  • Agree. Removed.
  • "Many critics later determined that the game was highly influential, particularly on first person shooters, and far ahead of its time" I'm a bit unclear about what "far ahead of its time" means here.
  • It was considered ahead of its time in comparation with the rest of the videogames released by that year. It means that System Shock 2 was incredibly innovative in terms of graphics, genre bending and gameplay, as well as story and sound design.
  • "Like its predecessor, gameplay in System Shock 2 is an amalgamation of the role-playing game (RPG) and first person shooter (FPS) genres." You might want to be a bit more explicit about which aspects of the gameplay are from RPG and FPS.
  • Mmm well. I'd be hard to explain, although i consider it quite obvious. Well, i may add that "System Shock 2 achieved this gameplay design by rendering the experience as a standard first-person shooter but seamlessly adding a character customization and development system, which are considered as signature role-play elements."
  • I added this: "The developers achieved this gameplay design by rendering the experience as a standard first-person shooter but seamlessly adding a character customization and development system, which are considered as signature role-play elements."
  • Also, as the game contains notable horror gameplay elements, i'm not sure if this will be worthy to add on the gameplay section: "Additionally, it contains several horror elements incorporated,[2] which were notable enough to gain comparisons with more horror-oriented games such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil.[3]"
  • I'd suggest breaking the first paragraph of "gameplay" in two, perhaps after the first citation.
  • Done.
  • "An in-game currency, called "nanites", may be spent on items at vending machines. This includes ammunition supplies and health packs." What does the "This" in the second sentence refer to?
  • It refers to the items, reworded.
  • "O/S units allow special one-time character upgrades to be made (e.g. permanent health enhancement)." What is a an "O/S units"?
  • Working... I gues it means operating system. I haven't played the game in a while. Will play it to remember.
  • "When new objects are encountered in the game, especially enemies, their organs can be collected. Combined with chemicals found in storage rooms, the player can research the enemies and improve their damage against them." What is combined with chemicals here, the player or the enemies?
  • Fixed.
  • The last paragraph of the section suffers from short sentences, I'd suggest trying to combine or enlarge some of the shorter ones.
  • Will do.
  • A few more comments, sorry if they're jumbled. The biggest thing seems to be some awkward organization that could be rearranged a bit, and some copyediting for flow and conciseness is needed.
  • "The soldier awakens in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun with amnesia due to a computer malfunction." I'm confused here, he has amnesia because a computer malfunctioned? Or did he wake up because a computer malfunction? Or both?
  • Is this better: "Due to a computer malfunction, the soldier awakens in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun with amnesia." It awakes due to the computer malfunction.
  • Rewrote: "Due to a computer malfunction, the soldier awakens with amnesia in a cryo-tube on the medical deck of the Von Braun."
  • " The grove crash-landed on Tau Ceti V." Should this be hyphenated?
  • Don't know. It means that the grove landed while crashing on Tau Ceti V.
  • "A rescue team is sent to the planet surface where they discover strange eggs;[16] these eggs infect the rescue team and integrate them into an alien communion known as the Many. The infestation eventually overtakes both ships." You switch between infect and infest here, was that intentional?
  • No it wasnt. Fixed.
  • "He is then confronted by SHODAN, a malevolent artificial intelligence that devastated Citadel Station, a fictional space station, in the previous game. It is revealed she has been posing as Polito to gain the soldier's trust." So SHODAN is a female artificial intelligence? You might want to state that.
  • Done, added "female" before "malevolent".
  • "SHODAN congratulates him and tells of her intentions to merge real space and cyberspace by subverting the reality-altering mechanics of the Von Braun's faster-than-light drive." Could this sentence be simplified at all? It is a bit complicated.
  • Let me see what i can do. It may be complicated, yes.
  • I have fixed it.
  • "Many critics found the weapon degradation system to be irritating.[3][6][38][47] Members of the development team have also expressed misgivings about the system.[25][48]" You could probably combine these two sentences, although I'm not sure you need 6 refs.
  • Fixed.
  • "The RPG system was another point of contention." This is a good example of another short sentence that could be expanded or combined.
  • Combined.
  • At one point in the article spiritual successor is in quotes and at another it isn't. This should be standardized.
  • Fixed.
  • I'd suggest splitting the last paragraph in two. Also, some of the first paragraph of Legacy seems like it might fit better in Reception.
  • I moved the first paragraph of Legacy (well, some of it) into the Reception section.
  • Ok, those are my comments from my first skim through, I think this has a shot at passing, but needs some cleaning up first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I haven't re-read the whole article, but a few more small comments:
  • "Despite critical acclaim, the title did not sell well.[47" doesn't seem to flow well with the surrounding text.
  • Actually i'm thinking on removing it. Saying that "it did not sell well" without adding some numbers is useless, IMO.
  • "In 2007, 2K Boston/2K Australia—previously (and again, as of January 2009[64]) known as Irrational Games—released a spiritual successor" I think there might be too much detail here.
  • Me too.
  • "sought to create a game with similar elements. " I'd suggest just "sought to create a similar game"
  • Done.
  • "The team agreed; Electronic Arts became the publisher" who is "the team" here?
  • Changed to "the development team agreed".
  • "was based on Traveller's methodology" Some more explanation of what "traveller" is would be helpful here.
  • Well, it refers to the metodology used in that game, although im foreign about it. Let me see what i can do, but until that, i'll keep it as it is :)
  • "vulnerability was created by focusing on a fragile character, instead of making the player strong." This is a bit redundant here.
  • Removed all after the comma.
  • " tension emerged regarding job assignments. Some developers left the project altogether." Are these two things related?
  • Yes, i merged them.
  • " stating "...inexperience" No need for an ellipsis at the beginning of a quote like this.
  • o.0 Missed it. Fixed.
  • Okay :). Awaiting more comments from you :)
  • Ok, here's the rest of my comments, I'm close to supporting now:
  • "The game begins with the player choosing a career" I believe this is a fused participle.
  • I don't know what excatly that means :( May I write "At the beginning of the game, the player chooses a career"? I will put it that way.
  • "The player can upgrade his skills by using "cyber-modules" given as rewards for completing objectives such as searching the ship, and then spend the cyber-modules at devices " Some repetition of "cyber-modules" here.
  • Rewrote as this: "and then sped them at devices..." Is it good enough?
  • ""Quantum Bio-Reconstruction Machines" can be activated and reconstitute the player for 10 nanites if they die in the same area." The same area as what?
  • Rewrote as "if they die inside the area in which the machine is."
  • "After restarting the ship's engine core and purging an elevator shaft" Purging an elevator? What does that mean?
  • This is too minor. I will remove it to avoid confusion.
  • "OSA agents effectively have a separate weapons tree available to them. Psionic powers can be learned, such as invisibility, fireballs and teleportation.[8]" These two sentences don't really seem to flow well.
  • "Efforts to regain control of XERXES, the main computer on the Von Braun, fail. SHODAN informs the soldier that destroying the Von Braun is their only option," Some repetition of "Von Braun" here.
  • There's some repetition of "later" in the "Release" section
  • Are you sure? I scanned the reception section and it has no such word. It may have been fixed already :)
  • "System Shock 2 received over a dozen awards, including seven "Game of the Year" awards" Some repetition of "awards"
  • Fixedd.
  • "an abandoned underwater utopian community gone awry through the genetic modification of its populace" Is there a better phrase than "gone awry" that you could use here?
  • Replaced with "destroyed".
  • "specifically in reference to System Shock 2's release date, where player decisions will have a more permanent and profound impact on gameplay in the same manner as System Shock 2" Repetition of the game's name here.
  • Fixed.
  • I added one citation tag to the article.
  • Fixed. Someone added the citation but it already wa son the article. I fixed that too.
  • This is explained later. On the reference, the developer says: "Shock 2's character generation system is accomplished through a methodology similar the paper game Traveller where the character chooses from 3 branchs of the military". The text on the article says: "the character customization system was based on Traveller's methodology and was implemented in the fictional military branches". Should I expand it a bit? — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on sources - Who are Gaming-Age? And why is their opinion more important than sources you've omitted? Same with Allgame, their voice is not remotely influential in the world of video games, particularly in 1999. The reception section seems to have a heavy web-slant, when I would have expected a print one. Who authored the CVG review? CVG usually carry their byline at the end of the article, any why are they reviewing it in their August 2001 issue? If that reference is correct, then it sounds like it was probably a throwaway review for the budget rerelease - I don't think it's that useful. Why use this for example, instead of PC Zone's review (Google it), or the Edge review (Issue 77)? List the Computer Games Magazine score in the review box. - hahnchen 15:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the Edge review is on the article. I don't know why the review box doesn't show it. I will fix it and add Computer Games Magazine to it. Additionally, i will add some from the Edge review to the article as well as PC Zone's review. Thansk for the tip. Also, I have not the CVG magazine at hand, I guess the one who does is Noj r (talk · contribs) but he's inactive. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:26, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and Gaming Age is a website that has been active since the 90s. They are similar to GameSpot and IGN, and have worked with them for what it seems. As far as i can tell, the website is reliable and their reviews are made by video game journalists. Here is the profile of Gaming Age in Metacritic. If the site have them to compile its score, i think it's reliable enough. — ΛΧΣ21™ 17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about reliability. It's about influence and importance. Same for the point about allgame, I honestly don't know anyone who has ever given a crap about what allgame had to say in a review, do you? - hahnchen 18:16, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooh well yes, i understand. I've used Allgame several times when references are scarce. Also, i know this is useless to say but the one who ordered the reviews was Noj r (talk · contribs). I will see what i can do to post out the most influencial, although i consider that the result will be the same, as all critics praised the game, and most reviews say the same. — ΛΧΣ21™ 20:12, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I read Edge's review and found nothing worthy to write. Otherwise, i'm impressed by the review on PC Zone. Is completely detailed and great. Thanks for the tip :) I loved it. I added it to the first paragraph. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support A shockingly great article ;). What you can do is to link "port" in "Release". I must admit that my support may be biased as I really like the first part ;) Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 14:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources I share Hahnchen's concerns regarding sourcing: *First, Gaming Age: there's an ongoing discussion regarding it's validity here: basically the current incarnation is transparently pretty bad, but it's been argued that reviews dating from a previous, more professional era (which would include this review) are valid sources. This may actually be a fair point generally. But: I would seriously question whether a then-young web publication, which did not stay professionally viable for long, can be considered an FA-quality source (even if generally okay for say GAs if nothing much else is available). *The other one I want to point out is Game Revolution, which has the opposite problem. If one looks through the numerous archived discussions (at WP:VG/RS) on this site, one will note that it was repeatedly deemed unreliable until recently. If one checks the review cited in this article, only the author's first name is given: Colin. And if you click that you get a forum-style "Member profile". Basically, this site used to have a strong community-fansite feel to it, and has gradually improved over the years. Take a look at the staff page. This has a small list of current editorial staff and current contributors, and a long and dubious list of past ones: listed here is "Colin", still with no second name provided. This is one that I think is now fine for GAs where sources are scarce, but old articles are a definite no-no for FA-quality. bridies (talk) 16:52, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, those sources have been removed, and I've struck those points. I've still some concerns similar to Hahnchen's about, from the other side, a lack of representation of top-quality sources; I believe this is being worked on presently. bridies (talk) 13:37, 18 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [24].

Microsoft Security Essentials

[edit]
Nominator(s): Codename Lisa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the second time this article is nominated for Featured Article. Last time, all opposing points of views were addressed and all Oppose declarations were withdrawn. Article has not changed much ever since (11 edits). Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the article not promoted last time? It does seem that all opposing points of view were addressed and that oppose declarations were satisfied with your response and without further opposition, if not formally withdrawn. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I asked Graham Colm the same question. He says an FAC must receive at least three explicit Supports. Last FAC had received only one from Jasper Deng. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your support, Jasper. But I am pretty sure you should start your sentence with "Support:", or else it won't be counted. Sorry, if I look too agitated on this. Last time I went to the hospital in the middle of FAC and I was practically a newcomer. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the level of detail and prose, which has seen improvements since the last nomination. I think the article gets it right on length, which can be difficult with software articles from what I've seen. Cloudbound (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is generally of a good standard but I question its overall balance: it seems to me rather too positive in tone, quoting absolute rather than comparative figures in a very positive light. The general attitude to MSE across the whole spectrum of reviews is that it does not overly impact on system performance but has relatively poor detection rates and painfully slow scanning speed.[25] There's a fairly recent, in depth comparison of many AV tools from PC Magazine [26] which does not portray MSE in an overly positive light and also references other independent reviews that on balance come to broadly similar conclusions. These are criticisms not even hinted at in the article, I suspect a certain amount of positive bias in reference selection.
Even the sources given have a degree of distortion: reference 57 is cited for an award for "Overall Performance". If you read the reference the official classification is "Overall Performance (Low System Impact)" - there is another performance category in the same report - "On-Demand Scanning Speed" which it does not feature in the rankings for, unmentioned in the article. That kind of selective quoting reeks of a lack of balance.
Of course, it is important not to swing too far the other way, but right now I find the article is simply too uncritical to merit FA status. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 07:54, 10 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Hi.
I did notice what you said, but I also noticed other things too, to which I'd like to attract your attention. First, the poor detection rate source that you introduced pertains the beta of version 1.0. Mind you, this issue did not elude the article coverage at all: The article says "the Beta release of Microsoft Security Essentials did poorly in PC Magazine tests" and the rest of the story.
Second, let's have look at what the article says about MSE protection: "Despite having received the certificate, this product received a protection score of 2.5 out of 6"; "it lacks personal firewall and anti-spam capabilities"; "Microsoft Security Essentials 2.1 has received scores of 3.0 [...] for protection..."; "a faulty definition update caused Microsoft Security Essentials to incorrectly tag Google Chrome as malware". Indeed, how do you regard a protection score of 2.5 out of 6 this as "portray MSE in an overly positive light"? I see from these sentences is that MSE offers the worst protection ever.
Third, source #57, which pertains to Awards section, says "AV-Comparatives.org awarded ... the Bronze award for overall performance" and there is a reason for it: MSE performed better than 15 other products. But why it did not win On-Demand Scanning Speed award? Was it because it was worst than all 19 others by a huge margin or was it because it lost by a very small margin to Panda? Last but not least, if the overall performance is good, how important it is that a subcategory of the overall performance is not so good? So, at best, such a statement is meaningless and at worse it threatens the article's neutrality. The list awards that software in general do not win is always huge, but the reason is not always because they are abysmal.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk)
The very first sentence of the PC Advisor review makes it clear that they are reviewing version 1.0 and not a beta. You use that "stinky review here, but hey it was a beta" in the article in the only critical source you cite. It doesn't hold here. The PC Magazine review was less that two weeks old, and the other reviews it cites are all under a year old. As I noted above, the award was not for "Overall Performance" and it is misrepresenting the source to portray it as such. If it lost "by a very small margin" to Panda in terms of scanning speed which won the gold award then surely it won the silver or bronze awards? Oh no, it didn't get those either.
Instead of addressing these issues you seek to defend the product and excuse poor reviews. That is a fundamental compromise of neutrality and to be honest it makes me dubious of the article as a whole. I'm now of the opinion that this article needs major involvement of outside editors, because you appear to be leaning towards positive description whether that is intentional or not. For that reason I am now registering a oppose on this article's candidacy. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 21:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Quantumsilverfish
You seem to be under some misapprehensions here: Panda won Bronze award, not Gold. Avast and Avira won Gold. Symantec won Silver. Microsoft Security Essentials won none. Please see page 6.
Actually, yes, I was wrong about the source; I thought it is one which I had checked before. So, I humbly apologize for my mistake. Let's start over, shall we? Let's look at what you want; then you tell me what you want changed and I change it, okay? Here:
You have said, "The general attitude to MSE across the whole spectrum of reviews is that... Article says...
...it does not overly impact on system performance...
  • Four source cite its low resource usage
  • AV-Test.org gives it a usability score of 5.0 out of 6.0
...but has relatively poor detection rates...
  • This product received a protection score of 2.5 out of 6
  • Version 2.1 received a protection score of 3.0 out of 6
...and painfully slow scanning speed." Some full scans took over an hour on infected systems; a scan on a clean system took 35 minutes.
So, you, I and the article seem to agree. What is wrong?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I propose another addition to the article: An AV-TEST.org chart shows Microsoft Security Essentials to have been the worst security suite ever in 2011. What do you say to that? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Malleus. Your sentence about that section is true; but with due regards to WP:FACR,I cannot understand why you think it is a blocker. Perhaps, you would care to explain? Beside, do you really think that reason is enough to Oppose the whole article? Don't you think it can be fixed a with a simple edit? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a blocker because an FA's prose is required to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" according to criterion 1a. Let me give you another example. Take a look at the Features section; of its five paragraphs the first four all begin "Microsoft Security Essentials ...". Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I am afraid I am not sure I follow you. Why do you think there should be no mention of the subject of the article in the article itself? More precisely, what harm the arbitrary number of characters, words or phrases in an article inflicts upon its literary value? Or, if you also feel that we are going off topic, please paraphrase yourself. After all, we are here to solve problems, aren't we? And by the way, with regard to Wikipedia:Fancruft, please explain what sort of fancruft do you see in the article. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where did I say that there should be no mention of the subject in the article itself? That would obviously be absurd, but equally I don't want it rammed down my throat in every sentence and at the start of every paragraph. That's pedestrian and boring, not at all engaging or professional. Let me give you yet another example: The Version 2.0 section begins like this: "Almost a year after the initial release of Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft quietly released the second version. Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 entered the technical preview stage on 19 July 2010." Why not say instead something like "Version 2.0 was quietly released almost a year after the initial product release; it entered the technical preview stage on 19 July 2010." Does that not seem less repetitive to you? If you don't agree that something along those lines would be an improvement throughout the article, then I'm afraid my oppose will have to stand. Malleus Fatuorum 18:55, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Anything else? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:10, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a very significant improvement, and if you did the same throughout the entire article I'd certainly reconsider my oppose. But take a look at the Awards section; two sentences, each of which contain "Microsoft Security Essentials". Is there no commonly accepted abbreviation used for the product, such as "MSE"? And the issue I raised earlier still hasn't been addressed. How many times is "Microsoft Security Essentials "mentioned in the Features section? And the first four of the five paragraphs still begin "Microsoft Security Essentials ...".
    You also need to look at the writing more generally. For instance: "Later on October that year ..."; "Microsoft shares grew by 2.1 percent" (shares don't grow); "... a source of influence for PC users to adopt free antivirus software" (either it's an influence or it's not); "... install and use the product on an unlimited number of their computers in their households" (that first "their" is clearly redundant; "On 13 September 2011, at the Microsoft BUILD conference in Anaheim, California, Microsoft unveiled the developer preview";
  • Hi. Now that I see your objection was not only those couple of instance, I'll review the entire article and try to apply a more strict redundancy filter. (Only I wish you had said it in the beginning.) Actually I have completed checking "features" section and in fact I restored one instance of "Microsoft Security Essentials" that I previously replaced with "it" due to misinterpretation risk. And no, "this product", "the product" and "the antivirus" where all no-go there.
And by the way, please do not use "but" at the beginning of sentences of the article. It is unprofessional. "But" always comes in the middle. Instead of "but" at the beginning, consider "nevertheless"/"however"/etc.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you ought to have read what I actually wrote more carefully: "to take just one example random". Malleus Fatuorum 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And you are completely and utterly mistaken about the use of "but" at the beginning of a sentence. Check in any style guide and you'll see that's a superstition taught by primary school teachers, along the lines of the nonsensical "'i' before 'e' except after 'c'". 15:54, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
  • Hi, Malleus. Please do not refactor my message. And your edit warring has rendered this article ineligible for FA. So, stick to your oppose. It does not matter any more. I will continue to sweep the article for redundancies only for the sake doing so. Thanks for ruining all my efforts and breaking WP:BRD. And by the way, use of "However" instead of "but" is not a matter of grammer; it is style. Best regards (?), Codename Lisa (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, you are completely and utterly wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All edit warrior use the same pretext: "You are wrong". However, it does not matter anymore: One failed nomination is no different from the other.
Can someone please tell me how to withdraw the nomination? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would advise you to get a grip on your temper; it seems to be running away with you. I understand that you find it incomprehensible that you might be wrong, but in this instance you most definitely are wrong. Perhaps when you cool down you'll feel grateful for having learned something. Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get your head to gate Codename Lisa, nothing is failed. One extra revert is not edit warring (some say) and FA isn't failed so easily. (It fails easily, trust me, but not so easily.) Continue sweeping the article for redundancies and if he did not withdraw his oppose, just take your chance with the closing moderator. Your chances are very slim but I say you take it. You have already secured three supports and Malleus has already shown multiple instances of disruptive behavior. There is a chance they will not go unnoticed. Fleet Command (talk) 17:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Any "disruption" here has not been caused by me, no matter how you want to misrepresent history. I stand by my opinion that this article's prose does not meet FA criterion 1a, although it is improving in response to the examples I've provided. But FAC is not peer review, and I'm quite shocked that the article had three support votes given the state it was in when I first looked at it. I've fixed a few things myself, and I'm not averse to striking my oppose should the work I think needs to be done be done. But I reject utterly this accusation that I'm some kind of ogre with expectations that are way too high for FAC. Anyone who truly believes that needs to start a discussion on removing the requirement for prose to be "engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard".
    I intend to offer no further commentary in this review, other than to encourage those who have supported to actually read the article for themselves. All of it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:06, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even though I feel Malleus is setting too high of a bar, I have respect for his ability to always create the best prose, and I understand his reason to oppose, because it's hard for many of us to see through his lense.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, everyone and thanks for your comments here, my talk page and my email. I will work on the redundancies in article. Thanks for your support. It is heartwarming to know so many people are eager to see me continue. I will report back when I am done with my scan. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Malleus
I have completed the c.e. and I am awaiting your comment. I gave the article to a linguistics Professor to read and he asked a lot of questions about it but I feel what I did was in vain: He was very impressed by it, just like everyone here, meaning that he might have not commented on what you like commented.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why you would consider what you've done to be in vain, or even why I would be interested in the opinion of a linguistics professor on anything other than linguistics, but hey ho. I'll have another read through later, and hopefully I'll feel able to withdraw my oppose. Malleus Fatuorum 15:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Simple: It is peer review from a pro! And it is in vain because you are not interested in it! (You just said it.) Currently, my objective is to have you remove/take back your oppose. Anything time-taking attempt failing to help is, from scientific point of view, in vain. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)
There are still a few things I'm not happy with. Would you like to know what they are, or would you prefer to continue with your sulk? I'm easy either way. Malleus Fatuorum 16:44, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at this time. It's clear a lot of work has gone into this article, but it still falls short of FA quality on several points.
  1. WP:MOS issues, particularly overlinking – for example, you link Windows 8 twice in as many sentences.
  2. Multiple inconsistencies in reference formatting. Compare for example FNs 50 and 51, or 55 and 56, or 22 and 63
  3. What makes this a high-quality reliable source? This?
  4. Some copy-editing needed for grammar, clarity and flow. Examples: "PC Magazine successfully installed" - no, the author of the review installed it; "shown the ability to eliminate all widespread malware" - unclear whether you mean malware that is widespread within the system or common worldwide; "Later on 15 September, Windows 8 developers blog confirmed" - grammar. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Nikkimaria
  1. Fixed by Malleus
  2. Fixed by Malleus
  3. Everything-Microsoft is written by Robert Boland, whose reputation is established. As for Softpedia, there is a general consensus in Wikipedia that it is reliable. Per my own experience, its editorial board far outperforms that of CNET in terms of accuracy and thoroughness. (CNET doesn't really have an editorial board; it is just Seth Rosenblatt, whose work is at best sloppy.)
  4. You pointed to multiple issues:
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is much closer than it was, there's just a few things still to be fixed. First, and most importantly, I don't have enough information to verify the reliability of the two sources I flagged above. If Boland's reputation is established, could you take pity on a non-software person and give me a clear way of verifying that? Same with Softpedia – do you have a link to a project page or WP:RSN discussion where it was determined that this source is reliable? Second, I'm still seeing quite a few inconsistencies in citation formatting. For example, compare current FNs 18 and 49 - both are to Ars Technica, but one treats it as a magazine and the other as a website. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nikkimaria. Citations problem in your example seems to have been solved, thanks to Malleus.
As for the reliability issue that you have mentioned, Softpedia seems to have strong support. WP:RSN have addressed Softpedia in a couple of instances. The consensus is that since everyone can post software on Softpedia, download description pages are definitely not reliable sources. However, this is not the case with reviews. You may be specifically interested in this discussion which establishes that not everything has a Softpedia review. (That is indeed the case.) Other than that, Opera (software), a featured article uses Softpedia as a source. (Other GA software articles also use it but I though you may not want a list here.) Generally speaking, since Softpedia is a commonly used source in Wikipedia, it can be concluded that there is a consensus that its point of view has due weight.
The case of Robert Boland, however, is different. Admittedly, it is a self-published source whose reliability is tied only to its contents and author. I am afraid besides my own computer experience, the only review that the source has received is the first FAC of this article. I can submit my certificates if needed; but we can always delete the source, no problem. There are other sources that say the same thing.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lisa. Boland can be used as an SPS if you have some concrete way of demonstrating here the author's expertise/qualifications in the topic area. If not, you may have to remove it. Other than that, the only remaining issue are some lingering citation glitches. To give you some further examples, AV-TEST is italicized in FN 52 but not 53, FN68 capitalizes "Blog" while 64 does not, and Ars Technica is wikilinked in FN18 and 36 but not 49 (should be on first, all, or no occurrences, as you prefer). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've been through all the citations, and I think they're all consistent now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And Boland's source is gone. By the way, I have fixed all instances of "Boland" in this page; a Firefox auto-correct add-on have been changing it to "Borland". Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This article is not even a good article. A good deal of problems are caused very recently but that is not a good excuse:
    1. (Fixed) Grammar: "an antivirus software"; it is either "antivirus software", "an antivirus program/utility/product/package/offering" ot "the antivirus software"; do I need to elaborate on their meaning?
      All instances of this should have been fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like fixed but I think "antivirus software product" is redundant; antivirus is better
    2. Images have no alt texts at all. Hint: Restore them. See WP:ALT.
      All images have alt text. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Not good enough; an Alt text must help the blind understand (through a screenreader that reads Alt texts) what people blessed with sight understand by seeing the image. "Screen dump" is not good enough. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Alt text, of any kind, is not required for FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      You completely misunderstand the purpose of alt text Fleet Command. I'll give you a clue; what do you think "alt" is short for? Malleus Fatuorum 14:00, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      This was plainly the right move. Alt text must adequately portray what is depicted in the image for those who cannot view it. In the case of dialogue boxes that means including the text therein unless there is an extremely good reason not to. More a cluestick moment than an FAR failer, considering how easy it is to revert, but important to address pre-promotion so as to ensure this is carried out in future. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 18:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      As I say, you completely fail to understand the purpose of alt text. And as it's not required by the FA criteria there's no point in you banging on about it. Malleus Fatuorum 18:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    3. (Fixed) Bad category: Category:Anti-virus software
      Which of the FA criteria speak to categories? Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed when unifying the hyphenation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:29, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      @Chris: Thanks. @Malleus: It is a GA quickfail (FA articles must meet GA criteria too). I had a couple of GA experiences in the past. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It is by no stretch of the imagination a GA quickfail, and I say that as someone with considerably more than "a couple of GA experiences". Malleus Fatuorum 13:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    4. (Fixed) Source problem: Some statements have lost source; some had a reliable source in the past but now have a personal blog as a source. e.g. MSMPENG. I do understand that some Wikipedians, for no good reason, think that all primary sources are evil. I understand but I don't condone. No excuse can justify the replacement of one Microsoft engineer with the original researches of some random blogger.
      Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Appears to refer to a temporary glitch where, when swapping a less-than-great Polish source for a slightly better English one, I accidentally removed the adjacent microsoft.com reference. Already fixed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Example 1: MSMPENG. Neither sources mention "Microsoft Malware Protection Engine". The new source only says that MsMpEng.exe is "AntiMalware Service Executable". The former needs a source. The new source is also written by some random blogger. It is not comparable with a Microsoft Engineer.
      Example 2: "It lacks the personal firewall [~snip~] found in OneCare or Forefront Endpoint Protection (FEP)." Perhaps I should have included in grammar section instead of a failure of verification but anyway; does FEP really have a personal firewall? Correct me if I am wrong: It does not. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      "Personal firewall" changed to "firewall". Malleus Fatuorum 14:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      And makes you think FEP has firewall? Fleet Command (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello, Fleet Command. I changed to "personal firewall of OneCare" and "centralized management features of FEP". Is it okay? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That needs reworked. It's somewhat unnecessary exposition anyway, so in the worst case both references can simply be removed. For the MSMPENG thing, the issue is that the new source supports the "common core" statement rather than the "expanded name" one, but the references are adjacent to one another. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    5. MOS:LEAD — Lead contains undue details. It is no longer a summary but a biased selection of parts of the article.
      Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Example: Codename Morro, network inspection system and Windows 8 incompatibility are not mentioned in the lead but "Microsoft ForeFront Protection", an independent product is mentioned in the lead. What is this? Advert? I am not saying "include the former and remove the latter" but I am saying: look at the disparity of importance. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't feel there's undue weight, as Forefront Protection is highly related.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    6. (Fixed) Cohesive elements are lost. In a brilliant prose, cohesion is needed, i.e. reader must have no trouble understanding why all of sudden the next sentence says something entirely different.
      Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    7. Use of the extremely tacky acronyms "MSE" and "AV". Acronyms can do magic when used properly but can ruin the prose if used improperly. Therefore, only some of the very popular acronyms should be used.
      The product has a long and unwieldy name, and there are only so many ways one can talk about a subject without using its name. Use of a common abbreviation (used in multiple sources) is an acceptable solution. Only "MSE" (the subject's name) and "AV" (antivirus, a word with no common synonyms which is used repeatedly here by necessity) are abbreviated. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I am familiar with this type of discussion: People in video game articles always try to make an acronym out of the game's name, e.g. use a lot of CCGZH for Command and Conquer: Generals: Zero Hour because the phrase video game is "too long"; but the general consensus is against this. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Mechanically substituting every instance of the subject's name for some generic description is not unequivocally better than using a common initialism. I've no experience of your own example (though personally I'd just use "Zero Hour"), but multiple sources included in this one do indeed use the "MSE" abbreviation. It is not an invention of the article's authors. As for using "AV" instead of "antivirus" in the dozens of places that it's used, that significantly improved the article's flow in some cases (particularly where forced to use the word more than once in one sentence) while avoiding the problem of whether to hyphenate "antivirus". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    8. Some paragraphs do not have topic sentences. All paragraphs must have at least three sentences, including a topic sentence. Long sentences can be regarded as two or three, subject to the demand of the situation.
      Can you provide some examples? Malleus Fatuorum 12:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    9. Article stability is lost: A massive unnecessary change in hyphenation has taken place, changing the article from variation of English to another. This is a complete violation of MOS:STABILITY. Both "antivirus" and "anti-virus" are correct; only the one that was originally used should have been retained.
      Article stability does not depend on minor issues such as hyphenation, which is consistent and correct. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    10. (Fixed) See also section contain "Microsoft Forefront" which also appears on Navbox. This instance is redundant.
      I think a good case can be made for including Microsoft Forefront in the See also section, as nobody looks at Navboxes. Malleus Fatuorum 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      In the lead, See also and navbox? And let's not forget that the only reason it was put there is that some user wanted to mention Sybari in the article, as is evident by the talk page and the edit summary. Irrelevant. Fleet Command (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The product in question is a sister product to this one, and its absence from the article body was inappropriate (navboxes are supplemental to see also sections, not replacements). The talk page only indicates that the original insertion was unsourced. However, the perfect is the enemy of the good, and it is better to include the link and then work on incorporating it better post-FA than to exclude it entirely simply to avoid getting a black mark at FAR. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looking at this further, there's room for improvement here. It's discussed in the body, but only tangentially. On the other hand, the see also section is aenemic, and I still think this is a good fit unless there's a rapid improvement in the article's coverage of Forefront while the FAR is still open. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hello, Fleet Command. For the time being, I removed the link since it is no big loss and a good compromise. But as WP:SEEALSO says, "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Therefore, I think FAC is not the appropriate place to push one editorial judgment, especially in absence of consensus. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fleet Command (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as issues seem to have been properly fixed. Reviews and awards have been combined, categories are fine, use of MSE acronym is fine and preferable to clumsily spelling out the entire name each time. Grammar issue above doesn't exist, so I will assume someone else fixed that. All and all, it is a much more refined and readable version of the article than existed previously. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:25, 18 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [27].

The Hunger Games

[edit]
Nominator(s): Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating The Hunger Games for FA status because, after a series of thorough revisions earlier this year, I believe it now exceeds the Good article criteria and more than meets the Featured article criteria. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GabeMc.

References
  • I don't think IFC News should be italicized, ref [74].
  • Scholastic is not italicized in refs [7], [8], [13] and [38] but is italicized in refs [3] and [25].
  • Same with the School Library Journal, [6], [39] and [27].
  • I believe Christianity Today should be italicized, [17] - [20].
  • Same with Independent Tribune, [16]. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done Thanks much, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
General
Also done. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; right here. It's pretty much resolved, I think, though others may disagree. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Looking over this quickly, Ref #10 needs a filled-out template, and 47 and 48 at least need publishers. Glimmer721 talk 02:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Templified Ref 10 and added work parameters to 47 and 48. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Right at the top, I think the dab link is enough. It holds the other two links which feature in the lead anyway.
  • No publisher name in the lead? And improve "novel by ... novelist"?
  • "The Hunger Games has been released in paperback and also as an audiobook and ebook." Not hardback? This sentence confused me. I suggest moving "hardcover" from the second sentence to here.
  • Inspiration and origins: rename to "Background/Inspiration/Origin and writing" since a lot of the info is about how she wrote it?
  • I don't think any of the second-level subsections are necessary, they give the appearance of an overly-segmented and stubby-looking text. Can Cover be a paragraph in Publication history too?
  • Film: I think you can (easily) expand the film adaption by copying stuff from The_Hunger_Games_(film)#Production. There's a lot of stuff relevant to the book there—how Lions Gate wooed Collins and how they managed to adapt the book to film will be of interest to anybody who has read the novel. Also, how the "script was extremely faithful" etc.
  • Parodies and game: are any of these notable enough to mention here? The parodies are sourced to Amazon (anybody can put up their books for sale there) and the game isn't even directly related to the book.

Apart from the film-adaptation expansion, these are just nitpicks; you've done an excellent job and I look forward to supporting soon.—indopug (talk) 14:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've taken care of all these. Very helpful, so thank for your input! When you get a chance, I'd love to know what you think about the Film adaptation section. I'm pretty sure I picked a good selection of material to copy from the other article, but since you suggested it, I figured you may have some additional input now that it's been done. Thanks again! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so accommodating to my suggestions! I'm almost ready to support, but want to do a final copy-edit first (in a couple of days). In the mean time, a few more suggestions (feel free to disagree):
  • The film stuff is great. I'd recommend cutting down the second para beginning: "20-year-old actress JL was selected to play KE. Although four years older than the character, Collins said..."
  • "The Hunger Games are an annual event..." sentence is long and unpunctuated.
  • "initial print of 200,000—twice doubled from the original 50,000" - confusing. What's the difference between "original" and "initial print"? Also, why not just "four times" for "twice doubled".
  • Reception: TIME and NYT's opinions carry more critical weight than the others; I think they should begin the section, and that TIME's review can be expanded.
  • The Battle Royale stuff becomes a little repetitive. I suggest removing Green and trimming Nishimura. And where is the question of "defend[ing] Battle Royale from plagiarism"? BR is the 'original', why should anyone have to defend it?
  • Religious themes:
  • Just curious, why do the references here feature quotes of the sources?
  • Don't think the last two sentences contribute anything to the paragraph, especially the Fox News one.—indopug (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've dealt with all of this, except for the TIME bit, which I intend to get around to tonight. I'm not sure why there were so many quotes in the refs (I didn't have much to do with writing that section), but I'm fairly certain they were unnecessary, so I removed them. Thanks for all your suggestions! I think the article is looking even better now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:05, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated the Time section with another quote. If you think it could use some more, let me know. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images appear unproblematic, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


rating chart -- it should have one of those rating charts that you see on film and tv article. Waveclaira (talk) 23:36, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure someone else can correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm almost certain that that isn't standard procedure for novel articles. We don't have a template for it, anyway (I checked). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Any such templates are optional--there's no "should" about it. Personally I think they're not very helpful when it comes to conveying critical consensus. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I thought, and I agree completely. Thanks, Wesley! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:12, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final quibble

Support Excellent work.—indopug (talk) 07:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Pretty good read, minor nitpicks follow. Sasata (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • link reality television
  • "… and rights of production have been sold in 38 countries." Does a right of production mean filming rights?
  • perhaps channel surfing should be linked (non-Native English speakers might not know what this is, and, bizarrely, we have an article on it)
  • "… with Collins describing Katniss as a futuristic Theseus, and Roman gladiatorial games provided the framework." provided->providing(?)
  • "… with Katniss having lost her father at age 11, five years before the story begins." awkward noun+ing construction
  • "…an event in which the participants (or "tributes") must fight to the death in an outdoor arena controlled by the Capitol" is the event or the arena controlled by the Capitol? Perhaps the final four words aren't needed?
  • "Katniss's stylist, Cinna, is the only person at the Capitol with whom she feels a degree of empathy." With whom or for whom? If the former, what is the object of their collective empathy?
  • "In an interview with Collins, it was noted that the books …" Why the passive voice? How about "… she noted …"?
  • "Laura Miller of The New Yorker finds that the author's stated premise of the Games – … – to be unconvincing." Needs a grammar fix
  • perhaps link self-sacrifice
  • "in the story Peeta shows up "bearing a warm loaf of bread," and Katniss slowly comes "back to life."" I think the quoted parts could be paraphrased
  • "and rights to the novel had been sold in 38 territories." in the lead, this is 38 countries
  • "the book was released on paperback." on -> in
  • link allegorical
  • 33rd best book -> needs hyphenation
  • "20-year-old actress' shouldn't start a sentence with a number
  • fix the double fullstop in ref #4
  • Scholastic and Entertainment Weekely have duplicate links
Thanks for taking the time to look through the article! I've dealt with most of the issues you raised, but before I move forward on the others, I want to discuss them a little bit.
  • "… with Collins describing Katniss as a futuristic Theseus, and Roman gladiatorial games provided the framework." provided->providing(?)
Not exactly, since that wording would tie in the gladiatorial games with the myth of Theseus alongside Collins' assessment of the character, rather than it being a separate clause. "This, which is backed up by this, and also this," if that explanation makes any sense at all.
  • "… with Katniss having lost her father at age 11, five years before the story begins." awkward noun+ing construction
This may be a dumb question, but to which noun are you referring? I think (at least, my experience thus far with the English language has led me to believe) that the sentence is fine. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong, though. Regardless, I have tweaked the sentence a little so it flows better. If it still needs work, let me know.
The noun is Katniss (see this for more details). It's not a big deal, I just notice this construction more often now that Tony's written a page about it :) Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "…an event in which the participants (or "tributes") must fight to the death in an outdoor arena controlled by the Capitol" is the event or the arena controlled by the Capitol? Perhaps the final four words aren't needed?
I have to disagree here, since the direct "control" which the Capitol exercises over the arena is a major component behind several plot points in the book. I think it's important to clarify in the summary that the obstacles and dangers aren't entirely natural, or just a result of the other tributes, and the present text seems to do that well enough.
  • "In an interview with Collins, it was noted that the books …" Why the passive voice? How about "… she noted …"?
Looking at the source, it seems to be the interviewer who made the observation. Inexplicably, the interviewer isn't named; I suppose I could rephrase it to "In an interview with Collins, the interviewer noted...", but perhaps that comes across as somewhat awkward? Any thoughts on that?
Well, I definitely agree it could be worded more clearly. I'll see if I can fix it here in a little bit. Thanks for your help! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scholastic and Entertainment Weekely have duplicate links
I've looked and looked and I can't find these. Would you mind pointing them out for me?
I just removed them myself. I use the duplicate link checker for this (a very handy tool). Sasata (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:04, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: The novel deals with the struggle for self-preservation that the people of Panem face in their districts and the Hunger Games in which they must participate.[6]
  • Source: I can't see this information in the source. Reference 1. would be better where it says," The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian North America (called Panem) in which 12 districts must each send a boy and girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete in televised mortal combat--reality TV at its deadliest."
  • Article: After writing the novel, Collins signed a six-figure deal for three books with Scholastic in 2006. First published as a hardcover in the United States on September 14, 2008, The Hunger Games had a first printing of 50,000 copies, which was bumped up twice to 200,000 copies.[1]
  • Source: Scholastic acquired the trilogy in a six-figure deal via agent Rosemary Stimola in 2006..Although the book's 200,000-copy first printing (upped twice from an original 50,000 copies) is comparatively modest (the Meyer and Paolini titles have first printings of 3.2 and 2.5 million, respectively), the October title from Scholastic Press has been drawing early raves, particularly online, where commentary has lit up blogs and listservs.
  • Article: The Hunger Games received many awards and honors. It was named one of Publishers Weekly's "Best Books of the Year" in 2008 [41]
  • Source: Subscription required
  • Article: King noted that the reality TV "badlands" were similar to Battle Royale, as well as his own The Running Man and The Long Walk.[30]
  • Source: Also, readers of Battle Royale (by Koushun Takami), The Running Man, or The Long Walk (those latter two by some guy named Bachman) will quickly realize they have visited these TV badlands before.
  • Article: School Library Journal also praised the audiobook, stating that "McCormick ably voices the action-packed sequences and Katniss's every fear and strength shines through, along with her doomed growing attraction to one of her fellow Tributes."[25]
  • Source: Collins creates a fascinating world and Katniss is a believably flawed and interesting character. Carolyn McCormick ably voices the action-packed sequences and Katniss's every fear and strength shines through, along with her doomed growing attraction to one of her fellow Tributes. This engrossing audiobook belongs in all public and school libraries.—Charli Osborne, Oxford Public Library, MI
  • Article: The novel has also been controversial with parents;[39]
  • Source: New Hampshire Parent Challenges 'The Hunger Games'
Thank you, Graham. I believe it's fixed now. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 21:25, 19 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [28].

Augustinian theodicy

[edit]
Nominator(s): ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on this article on an off for almost a year, and believe that it is finally ready to be listed as a Featured Article. It was failed a nomination in April; since then, I have improved the article, dealing with the criticisms from the last FAC as well as making further improvements with the content, sourcing, and prose. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Staszek Lem moved to article talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Image Check - all images are OK in public domain (2 PD-old-100, 1 Yorck project, 1 CC 3.0), author- and source-information is provided. GermanJoe (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Done. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:33, 19 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [29].

Madagascar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of three vital articles about Madagascar. It's at GA level now and has gone through multiple peer reviews and copy edits. Having polished up many of the Madagascar-related cultural and historical articles here, I'm happy this root article is finally at a level I think is up to FA standards. I'm looking forward to your feedback and am available to make rapid edits and additions per reviewers' recommendations. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 18:41, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by MONGO:

  • As I mentioned in April during a peer review (last bullet point), I would like to see a small expansion of the ecological challenges/borderline disaster issues to the flora and fauna of Madagascar. Though the article explains how humans have impacted the ecology of the island over a little more than the last 2 millennium, the emphasis should be more about those changes in the last 125 years, which have been drastic and constitute the bulk of the deforestation and species loss. I think you'll still meet summary style if wording akin to what we find in the daughter article Deforestation in Madagascar is added...

"Deforestation[1] with resulting desertification, water resource degradation and soil loss has affected approximately 94% of Madagascar's previously biologically productive lands. Since the arrival of humans 2000 years ago, Madagascar has lost more than 90% of its original forest.[2] 70% of the forest cover of Madagascar was destroyed between 1895 and 1925, while Madagascar was under French rule.[3] Since 1953, half of the remaining forest has been lost.[4] Largely due to deforestation, the country is currently unable to provide adequate food, fresh water and sanitation for its fast growing population.[5][6] One major cause of deforestation has been the introduction of coffee as a cash crop during the French colonial period.[3]"

  • To most in the English speaking world, we think about this environmental issue since that is about all we hear about the island nation on a routine basis.--MONGO 14:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for taking the time to comment here, Mongo. I agree it would be good to include a little more about the process of deforestation. The challenge is finding data that is correct, as much of the content out there is still being debated. The cite above about 70% being lost under French rule has been discredited by more recent researchers. I will have a look around to see if I can determine whether a consensus has been reached recently, but if it hasn't then a brief summary of the claims and a comment on the lack of consensus might be the best I can do. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added some detail explaining that the deforestation began picking up speed around 1400 years ago and was already complete in the highlands 500 years ago. I'll keep looking for reliable data on more recent forest destruction. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've completed edits to respond to the issue you raised, Mongo. I found solid scientific journal articles that provide greater information about the extent of recent forest loss on the island and the anticipated date of complete deforestation outside national parks (2025, very sad). Lemurbaby (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like you and Lemurbaby have settled this, but I wanted to comment on the quote above from Deforestation in Madagascar. Originally the article had a statement very much like this, but I pointed out to LB that the sources were not scientific, and that there is a lot of historic finger-pointing going on outside of the academic literature—all usually citing old, non-scientific literature. (It's one of those sobering reminders that sources—even reliable ones—are not always correct.) At a glance, the information LB has written looks correct, although I'm not as familiar with the authors and sources she sites. I might run the section by an expert to be sure, since some of the sources are from the 1990s. (I will also be offering my review shortly.) Good job handling this, both of you. – Maky « talk » 00:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes and Lemurbaby made what I believe are adequate adjustments to that section. I suppose the issues I wanted addressed included what the impacts are, approximately when did they happen and what if anything is being done to solve the crisis.--MONGO 02:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

  • "Many high-level technical positions were filled by French expatriates, and French teachers, textbooks and curricula continued to be used in schools around the country. Popular resentment over Tsiranana's tolerance for this "neo-colonial" arrangement inspired a series of student protests that overturned his administration in 1972." - source?
  • Be consistent in whether you include all authors in shortened citations
  • References section includes multiple uncited sources - shouldn't mix uncited and cited in same section
  • FN1: missing italics
  • FN2: need complete citations
  • Consistently use endashes for ranges
  • Question: What is the preferred format for these? I used to use &ndash but have since had those removed by bots or editors from other articles. I've also tried copying/pasting from an n-dash elsewhere, but when I paste it into the article, it looks no different. Suggestions? Lemurbaby (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers and locations for newspapers/magazines
  • Check for minor inconsistencies like doubled periods
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • FN79, 145, 146: formatting
  • Be consistent in how BBC refs are notated
  • Don't mix different types of citation templates
  • Question: The only instance I see that you might have found different was the Cite DOI for the smallest chameleon ref in the ecology section. Is that the one? If that isn't an acceptable format, let me know and I will change it. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Maky:

  • "a type of prosimian primate" – I know I use both "strepsirrhine" and "prosimian" in the lemur articles, but I wonder if it would be best to use "strepsirrhine" here, since that's the official taxonomy and more accurately describes their phylogeny.
  • I believe strepsirrhine was used in an earlier version of the article, and a copy editor later changed it in order to be more accessible to a wider readership as a top-level geography article. There are probably already a good number of readers who will not know prosimian, so I feel this was probably the right choice for this article, even if strepsirrhine is much more precise and correct. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how "prosimian" makes it more accessible to the public, given that when I give tours at the Duke Lemur Center (DLC), many people guess that lemurs are marsupials, of if they do know they are primates, 99% of them have never heard the term prosimian (whereas students who've taken anthropology classes give me funny looks for using outdated terminology). I know the DLC favors "prosimian" because it's easier to explain the Latin roots and play off the general misunderstandings about evolution (that "primitive" organisms evolve into "advanced" organisms.) We're not doing either here, but honestly, whatever... – Maky « talk » 16:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I just realized I was the one who put prosimian in there, as I copied the wording you had proposed on the talk page. Do you feel strongly about strepsirrhine? I do think prosimian is more recognizable, but maybe because I learned it in school 20 years ago, and if it's outdated, then... you'd know best. What's your final recommendation - change it or leave it? Lemurbaby (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The island's iconic traveler's palm (Ravenala) features in the national emblem." – I capitalized "Ravenala" because I thought you were referring to the genus, but if you're referring to the local name, then that probably needs a reference. Anyway, if it is a local name, is it universal across all the dialects?
  • It's the name in official Malagasy. Some dialects may have other names for it. I can't find a source that explicitly states it is the name in official Malagasy, only that it is the Malagasy name for the plant. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "State-controlled logging of precious woods within national parks, authorized in January 2009 by Ravalomanana, has dramatically intensified under the Rajoelina administration as a key source of state revenues to offset cuts in donor support following Ravalomanana's ouster." – I don't think the source supports this statement. Anyway, as far as I know, the logging is not state-controlled... in a manner of speaking. The state authorizes loggers to go in and collect trees that fall over after cyclones, but instead the loggers cut down the hardwoods that don't fall over. The wood is then stashed/hidden, and then given the green light to sale every few years when world-wide demand peaks. They then flood the market, a few people in Madagascar line their pocket, and the new government gets their cut to supplement the international support that was cut by the West following the coup. The same basic thing was happening under Ravalomanana, but to a much smaller extent. If needed, I can try to help find a more recent source and maybe help re-word that sentence if necessary.
  • Good enough. Thanks. 03:30, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm a little concerned about the external link in the "Largest cities or towns of Madagascar" table under "Demographics". Normally external links are only permitted in the "External links" section or under the "References". Is there any way to set this up as a reference?
  • That table was added by another editor and I feel it's a bit out of place, too prominent and adds more detail than is needed in this article. Maybe it could work better in an article about demographics of Mada or something. What if we removed it? Lemurbaby (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having been repeatedly postponed, presidential elections are currently scheduled for 8 May 2012, while parliamentary elections and second-round presidential elections are set for 3 July 2012." – Anything new on this? Otherwise say "were last scheduled".
  • caption: "Toy animals made from raffia" – can raffia be briefly explained?
  • caption: "Child immunization is rising" – This is vague—from when to when, starting when, or compared to when? Basically, I look at the photos before I read the section, and I see pictures that are not adequately explained. It's generally safe to assume that most people won't read the bulk of the text, but will read the lead and look at the pictures/captions.
  • caption: "Malagasy ethnic groups" – Perhaps "Regional distribution of ethnic groups"?
  • "...with about 20 percent practicing Roman Catholicism" – 20% of the 41%, or 20% of the population? I'm having a hard time interpreting the numbers in this sentence, particularly this part.
  • "The zebu (humped cattle), introduced to Madagascar by Bantu-speaking..." – Link and explanation should occur much earlier in the article.
  • "An epic poem exemplifying these traditions, the Ibonia, ..." – Wouldn't "Ibonia" be italicized?
  • "Its nearest geopolitical neighbors include the French island territory of Réunion and the island nation of Mauritius to the east, as well as the island state of Comoros and French island territory of Mayotte to the north west. The nearest mainland state is Mozambique, located to the west." – Missing a citation... though I'm not sure if it's necessary since this information can be gathered from looking at a map.
  • I believe WP guidance for citations is to cite statistics, contentious info and info that is not general knowledge... I'm okay with trusting this can be considered general knowledge because it can be seen on a map. I did look for sources just now and strangely couldn't find anything where this was written out. If a cite is needed I'd probably be linking to a map. Lemurbaby (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and caused more than US$250 million in damage." – Missing a citation.
  • "The French established trading posts along the east coast in the late 17th century." – Missing a citation.
  • "Many high-level technical positions were filled by French expatriates, and French teachers, textbooks and curricula continued to be used in schools around the country. Popular resentment over Tsiranana's tolerance for this "neo-colonial" arrangement inspired a series of student protests that overturned his administration in 1972." – Missing a citation.
  • "These include such projects as coal mining at Sakoa and the extraction of nickel near Toamasina by Rio Tinto, as well as the development of the massive onshore heavy oil field at Tsimiroro and ultra heavy oil field at Bemolanga by Madagascar Oil." – The source does not support this. It makes no mention of Toamasina, Tsimiroro, nickel, etc...
  • Thanks for raising this here. It's something that was also mentioned on the Talk Page, and I responded there that I would fix this in the next several days - but it's better to have that documented here as well. Given my schedule at work for the next couple of days, I expect I'll be able to make this change Saturday or Sunday at the latest, and then I will have responded to all the points raised in the review. Lemurbaby (talk) 20:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several major projects are underway in the mining, oil and gas sectors that are anticipated to give a significant boost to the Malagasy economy. These include such projects as ilmenite and zircon mining from heavy mineral sands near Tôlanaro by Rio Tinto..." cites this ref, but I'm still not seeing the material in it. The other parts of that edit look okay. – Maky « talk » 23:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a beautiful article! Excellent work on a very high-priority, broad topic! I can imagine how much work this must have taken, given what I went through with Lemur. You should be very proud of this. I'm looking forward to adding my support. – Maky « talk » 02:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Excellent work. The article meets FA criteria, IMO. – Maky « talk » 18:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - (Done) most images are OK (checked all, most are PD-own, CC, Flickr), however two issues:

  • File:Andrianampoinimerina.jpg - misses US-tag (pd-old-100, pd-1923 or similar can be added as second parameter to the pd-art template itself). Also summary information is very thin - source, publication date, author name and year of death should be added (when available).
Agree that the images are immensely helpful in conveying the country's enormous contrasts. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support promotion to FA...I have some minor quibbles but none that make me feel the article isn't featured article ready. Lemurbaby has made huge improvements to the article since it was at GAC and Peer Review and has been receptive to addressing other issues as they have been brought up. There is a lack of reference material regarding Madagascar in the western world since the focus is overwhelmingly about the unique flora and fauna and the environmental impacts the island nation is dealing with. This article ensures that, while these aspects are discussed, we also learn about the human inhabitants, their history, culture, language, politics and other things which should be included in this article.MONGO 14:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • "Madagascar later split from India about 88 million years ago, allowing plants and animals on the island to evolve in complete isolation." The last part of the sentence is incorrect; though Madagascar has a highly endemic fauna, its isolation is by no means complete. Lemurs, for example, arrived long after Madagascar split from India. The source itself says this.
  • There are several known species of elephant birds (the precise number is apparently controversial), so it is inappropriate to refer to elephant birds as "this species". Also, is the height given for all species or just for the largest? Mullerornis was significantly smaller, I believe.
  • Are you sure that the "average height" figure is correct? It is unusual to give average heights for families (as opposed to species). I don't have full access to the source (Davies 2003), but from Google Books (showing section on elephant birds starting on p. 103) it seems that either the page number given in the article (pp. 99–101) is wrong or Google Books has a different version of the book than the editor who added the reference.
  • I'm going into this much detail because the number seems unrealistic to me. According to doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2006.02.001, the height of the largest elephant bird, Aepyornis maximus, averaged only 2.7 m. I haven't yet found a height estimate for Mullerornis, but it was significantly smaller than Aepyornis (e.g., see [30]). On the other hand, Hawkins and Goodman (1999, pp. 1019–1044 in Goodman & Benstead, The Natural History of Madagascar) say that Aepyornis maximus reached a height of 3–4 m. I'm not going to make the change myself because I don't have access to the source, but it seems more accurate to say that elephant birds reached a height of up to 3 m—the average surely was lower. Ucucha (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have access to the Hawkins and Goodman source, and it does in fact say 3–4 m, but the sources it sites are from 1931 & 1947. Honestly, height may not be the best measure to use here—I'd favor mass. Although mass estimates are best guesses, height depends on how you reconstruct the skeleton and how the animal carried its weight. But then again, I'm not well versed in ratite morphometrics... – Maky « talk » 03:01, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Security" section says Madagascar became a French colony in 1897, but according to "History" it was annexed in 1896.
  • "Historically, security has been relatively secure"—perhaps substitute "Madagascar", "the island", or something similar for "security".
  • "only seven percent of Madagascar's 22 districts had access to water provided by Jirama"—that is mathematically impossible. If only one district has access, that is 5%; two districts would be 9%. The source talks about fokontany, which are apparently some lower level of government.
  • "... the Islamic religion failed to take hold in all but a handful of southeastern coastal communities. Today, Muslims constitute 7% of the population of Madagascar and are largely concentrated in the northwestern provinces ..." Is this correct? If Islam took hold only in the southeast, why are Muslims mainly in the northwest now?
  • Yes, it's correct. Islam was introduced in the southeast in the 7th-9th centuries by Arab sailors who didn't form lasting communities, but much more recently (the last several hundred years) new arrivals primarily from South Asia and Mauritius established strong and enduring communities in the northwest, particularly in Mahajanga. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are minor points, and overall the article reads very well and appears to be well-balanced. Ucucha (talk) 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support—All comments addressed. The article appears comprehensive and well-written. Ucucha (talk) 14:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (All Done) - mostly minor issues, great work so far:

  • Geography - "Due to its [relatively] lower population densities, ...." ==> redundant, "lower" is always relative.
  • Politics - "The political [arena] in Madagascar [has been marked] by struggle for control. Since Madagascar gained independence from France in 1960, the island's political transitions [have been marked]..." ==> "arena" is a common term in news, but sounds a bit too informal here. Also marked ... marked repetition. Suggest to remove the short summary intro.
  • Security - "The Minister of the Interior is responsible for the national police force, paramilitary force (gendarmerie) and the [secret police]. These bodies are stationed and administered [at the local level]." ==> Can you double-check this please? I guess it's possible, but it sounds strange, that "secret police" would be administered at "local" (town) level (maybe regional level?). Local level is usually the lowest level of administration.
  • Infrastructure - "The port at Antsiranana, considered one of the [finest] natural harbors in the world, handles a relatively low [the] volume of shipping due to the town's remoteness and poor ground access to the capital." ==> "finest" is vague, is it "safest" or "most beautiful" (POV)? Also grammar, "the" seems lost.
  • Religion - "Many of the Christian churches are influential in politics. [The best example of this] is the Malagasy Council of Churches..." ==> Avoid essay-ish examples, just plainly state, what the MCC is and who thinks it's influential and why.
  • Religion - "[Eastern religions] are also present on the island. Islam was first brought..." ==> That's a bit confusing. According to a popular Internet encyclopedia (...) Islam is not an Eastern religion. From an European POV that term is most often used only for far-eastern Asian religions. In any case the term is quite vague and Western-centric and is best avoided. Suggest to remove the sentence (if other Eastern religions like Buddhism are meant, they need more detail). GermanJoe (talk) 12:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (All Done) - don't be discouraged. A nice article, but it's long and has lots of information, therefore lots of comments follow:

  • lead - "Current and future generations in Madagascar are faced with the challenge of striking a balance between economic growth, equitable development, and natural conservation." ==> Remove that part. A true, but unencyclopedic statement - also not particular unique for Madagascar, but for all countries.
  • Etymology - Just checking: Is the whole second half after "The name Madageiscar ..." covered by source [8]? It contains several critical facts about the name's development (first record and usage spread), so should have a source.
  • Geography - "Due to [its] lower population densities, Madagascar's dry [deciduous] forests have been better preserved than the eastern rain forests or the original woodlands of the central plateau." ==> plural. Also "dry forests" should be specific enough to avoid repetition.
  • I find it's important to include both descriptors of this kind of forest. "Dry" is added to differentiate from the climate zones where rainforests occur, and deciduous refers to the quality of the forests themselves separately from the zone they're in. The spiny forests in the dry zones are not deciduous, for example. Changed "its" to "their". Lemurbaby (talk) 04:33, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ecology - "[As of 2008, there were officially 99 species and subspecies of lemur, 39 of which have been described by zoologists between 2000 and 2008.[29]] By 2012, the number of identified species had increased to 103.[30] ==> Remove the first sentence (to a sub-article if needed), assuming the 2012 number is also reliable. The article focus is Madagascar, not lemurs and the history of their classification - too detailed.
  • Environment - "Tavy has [strong cultural meaning], in addition to its practical value as an agricultural technique." ==> vague, what kind of meaning? can a very brief detail be added?
  • "[An example is the island's] elephant birds, a family of endemic giant ratites that went extinct in 17th century or earlier, most probably due to human hunting of adult birds and poaching of their large eggs for food." ==> remove "example" and rephrase as fact.
  • "Numerous extinct giant lemur species [also] ..." ==> redundant
  • Kingdom of Madagascar - "From his initial capital Ambohimanga, and later from the Rova of Antananarivo, this Merina king rapidly expanded his rule over neighboring principalities, [with the intention of bringing the entire island under his control], [59]" ==> check source 59, the first part is covered with some interpretation, but i couldn't find the "intention"-part. If it doesn't have a RS, just state what happened as matter of fact and remove interpretations.
  • French Colonization - "In 1958, there were 68,430 European settlers living in Madagascar." ==> This small phrase lacks context with the surrounding text and would better fit into "Demographics" (or expand it's relevance for history).
  • Politics - "has occasionally been used to impede political demonstrations.[94][40]" ==> switch cites to ascending order
  • Security - "and was [obliged] to surrender following an attack on the royal palace at Antananarivo" ==> forced (for an armed conflict)
  • Infrastructure - "Air Madagascar services the island's many small regional airports, which offer the only practical means of access to many of the more remote regions [of the island] during rainy season road washouts." ==> first sentence already establishes "on the island", can be removed.
  • Education - "The LMS was invited by King Radama I (1810–28) to expand [their] schools throughout Imerina" ==> "its schools" (singular subject)
  • "By the end of the 19th century Madagascar [could boast] the most developed and modern school system in pre-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa." ==> "had" or "had achieved" would avoid the POV-ish "boast".
  • "[created tension among] those desiring a complete separation from the former colonial power." ==> "Created tension with those ..." sounds more logical. Someone advocating a "complete" separation would not support a major French influence altogether - so the tension was likely with that group (?), not among it.
  • "However, the quality of education remains a challenge in Madagascar and student repetition and drop-out rates are high." ==> Is that statement aimed at 1996-2006 from the previous statement or is is the actual situation? If it's describing the actual situation, it should probably be moved after Ravalomanana's second term efforts focussing on quality? Also i am no fan of this "remains a challenge" phrase (later used again), better to use more neutral phrases.
  • Ethnic diversity - "Only two general censuses, in 1975 and 1993, have been carried out after independence." ==> with what results? Are the total populations or other noteworthy facts from those censuses available to add between 1900 and 2011?
  • The reason for mentioning this is to allow the reader to understand why so many demographic figures are estimates and why more recent detailed information isn't available. The data from either survey is too old to bear inclusion, in my opinion. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Language - "eastern Malagasy (spoken along the eastern forests and highlands, including the Merina dialect of Antananarivo) and western Malagasy, spoken across the western coastal plains." ==> use parentheses for both "spoken in"-clauses or none of it (i'd prefer no parentheses, the content is essential part of the main text).
  • Religion - "In addition, the Malagasy believe in a creator god, called Zanahary or Andriamanitra." ==> all Malagasy including Christians, Muslim and Hindu?
  • Yes, the Christians kept the traditional name for the creator god. Some Muslims use the name Allah. The Hindus in Madagascar are South Asians, not Malagasy (and this is both ethnic and political as the vast majority of South Asians have not been given Malagasy citizenship even if they are born on the island). But I'll clarify by specifying "traditionally believe...". Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a complex thing to summarize, and I didn't see a single source that attempts to make a broad sweeping statement about this (I'll keep an eye out for one in the future). For now, I've cited a book that explores the topic on a page where the issue is discussed as it plays out in two ethnic sub-groups. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - (remaining points Done) Among country articles this one is certainly one of the most comprehensive. Overall well-structured and -referenced. A few minor points follow:

  • Geography - "Its nearest [geopolitical] neighbors include the French island territory of Réunion and the island nation of Mauritius to the east, as well as the island state of Comoros and French island territory of Mayotte to the north west." ==> Maybe it's possible to avoid the numerous islands here: "Neighboring islands include the French territory of Réunion and the country of Mauritius to the east, as well as the state of Comoros and the french territory of Mayotte to the north west." ("geopolitical" is redundant here too).
  • Environmental challenges - "At the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, Ravalomanana announced the Durban Vision, an initiative to more than triple the island's protected natural areas from approximately 17,000 km2 (6,600 sq mi) to over 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi) (an increase from 3 percent to 10 percent of Madagascar's land surface)." ==> Too detailed for a "vision" (NPOV). Trim that to the pure fact "At the 2003 IUCN World Parks Congress in Durban, Ravalomanana announced the Durban Vision, an initiative to increase the island's protected natural areas from approximately 17,000 km2 (6,600 sq mi) to over 60,000 km2 (23,000 sq mi)." (the other calculations add nothing new to the fact). Is an actual summary value available - how much of this plan has been realized in terms of area by now?
  • Structure - "In 2011, the capital's population was estimated at 1,300,000 inhabitants[. By comparison], the next largest cities ..." ==> can be merged, the comparison is redundant / obvious.
  • A general remark to Ecology and Environment. Those aspects are important topics for Madagascar, so their coverage should reflect that - no problem. However their sections length is at the upper limit per WP:WEIGHT compared with other sections. When more details need to be added, i recommend to look at the sub-articles and expand those rather then the main article. The main article can't (and shouldn't) cover every detail (WP:SUMMARY).

Aside from those nitpicks great work with such a broad topic. GermanJoe (talk) 14:09, 18 September 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 18:13, 20 September 2012 [31].

Olga Constantinovna of Russia

[edit]
Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is largely a translation of the FA-level article on Queen Olga of Greece at the French wikipedia. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Support. Excellent article, but would really like to see a couple of points on tone resolved, even though the tone may originate in the sources.

  • The following sentence was a bit propaganda-ish, and also off-topic. I'd suggest deleting it: "George I respected the Greek constitution and was never influenced by his family when making a political decision". hamiltonstone (talk) 12:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fortunately for Olga, her domestic was a strong woman who was able to protect her from the crowd of revolutionaries". Whatever that source says, this has the hallmarks of mythologising. One domestic servant protected Olga from a "crowd of revolutinaries". With what? A bazooka? Surely this can't be credited. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I'm happy to make changes on both those points: [32]. I agree with you that when a story only occurs in one source, I think it's prudent to take a more critical stance rather than accept it at face value. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportI look at all the images and they all have copyright, and a great article, so a yes from me!--Lucky102 (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments reading through now. Looking good. Will jot queries below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

... the Greek royal family faced unpopularity - hmmm, I think "popularity declined/plummeted/sunk" flows better. I'll let you choose the verb....
might wanna link old paralytics and consumptives....(the latter to TB obviously..but the former....?)
incomeless - hmm, interesting word. Not too fussed but might say "without an income" myself.....not a deal-breaker though
  • Support on prose and comprehensiveness. Reads nicely - neither of the above are earth-shattering dealbreakers. Not being too familiar I can't exclude other comprehensiveness issues those familiar with the topic might find....Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Changes made on the last two points[33]. I just want to check something in the source before making a change on the first point, which I will do later. DrKiernan (talk) 07:43, 14 September 2012 (UTC) I've changed the sentence on unpopularity to more accurately reflect the sources [34]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
nice work Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 14 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [35].

The Rite of Spring

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stravinsky's music for the 1913 ballet The Rite of Spring has been called one of the 20th century's cultural milestones. It caused a near riot when it was first performed, nearly 100 years ago, and still quickens the pulse. The original production came from an amazing coalescence of creative talent—Stravinsky, Nijinsky, Nikolai Roerich and Pierre Monteux—and has since caused further sensations with innovative new productions from each new generation's top performers. After all that, the article may seem a bit of a let-down, but it is the result of some devoted work, not least from a team of peer reviewers. And let us not forget User:Tim riley, in temporary (we hope) retirement, who provided many of the article's sources and has passed on a number of suggestions from over the water. The aim is to work for a TFA on 29 May next—the centenary of the premiere. Brianboulton (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My say came at the peer review. I've given it a glance over and don't have any additional comments. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One thing more, actually. I did look online, rather comprehensively, mostly using Google Books and Google News Archive for pre-1923 images of the backdrops, and drew a blank. It's certainly discussed pre-1923, but I could find no images. I'm actually suspecting that Roerich kept them out of his exhibits, though I couldn't guess at the reason. I'd like to see the programme from the 1922 US premiere, but I suspect there wouldn't be anything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your support - and for your voluntary research work. As the 1922 US premiere was for the concert version I very much doubt that the programme would have shown the Roerich designs; US didn't see the ballet until 1930. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per comments at PR. Should The Rite of Spring Dancers image have a period at the end of its caption? --CassiantoTalk 22:54, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your peer review work, and for your support here. The period is correct since the caption constitutes a full sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
"episode's main tune.[99][94]" -- refs out of sequence.
"Grove Music Online" -- if this ref is online, where's the URL? (refs 2, 3, )
Ref 6 "Griffiths, Paul (2012). "Diaghilev [Dyagilev, Sergey Pavlovich"]. " has an extra ending ]
Ref 55 needs a publisher
Ref 49, the OCLC number can be linked in the cite template.
Refs 73,74, 75, 77 78, 80, 86, 94, 112, 122 need retrieve dates, most of the your web refs have them
The refs you highlight are all online links to printed sources. I have never given access dates for these, and as far as I know most others don't, either. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 95 should have a comma after Hill, not a period PumpkinSky talk 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Any chance of a sound clip?
  • The article previously included a 12-second computer-generated approximation of the opening bassoon melody. My view was that this did not help readers in their understanding of the music (poor tone, dodgy tempo etc), but rather than remove it, I asked peer-reviewrs for their opinions. None supported its retention in the article. If someone knows how to make a sound clip from a recording and to create a usable media file from it, I'd be delighted, but I'm afraid it's beyond my ability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bakst_daighilev.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Vaslav-nijinsky-in-le-pavillon-d-armide-1911.jpg needs US PD tag
  • File:Massine,_Leonide_(1895-1979)_-_1914_-_Ritratto_da_Leon_Bakst.jpg needs US PD tag
  • I have added the PD-US tags
  • I have added appropriate wording to the file description. This is not, incidentally, an important image as far as the article is concerned, so if you think it should be deleted I'll remove it. Thanks for this review. Brianboulton (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a well-written and well-organized article worthy of a Featured Article. Nice work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am glad that you enjoyed the article. How's Mozart? Brianboulton (talk) 14:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ref reviewoldid

The refs to "Stravinsky and Craft" need a bit of tweaking. One (fn#37 #53) is undated and presumably refers to the 1959 source. The 1981 (Dialogues) source as an invalid ISBN (ISBN 0-520-04404-7 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum), which is probably supposed to be ISBN 0-520-04650-1, which is what the gBooks link is pointing at; that's also saying 1982, instead of 1981, which would make it ambiguous with the other "Stravinsky and Craft" 1982 (Expositions and Developments), who's ISBN (ISBN 0-520-04650-1, again!) should probably be ISBN 0-520-04403-7 ('4'→'3') and is a 1981 paperback. nb: I've fixed the fn#49 and fn#95 issues PS commented on. Fixed the missing urls, too. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tech fixes. I'm not sure what the problem is with ref 37. I have sorted the dates and isbns for the later Stravinsky and Crafts, which I had got rather muddled. Brianboulton (talk) 09:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Note: I got edit-conflicted while making the chaanges but all looks well now.[reply]
(looks like the ec was me; ma'af) I meant fn#53; sorry. It's "Stravinsky and Craft, pp. 47–48" and I'm thinking it needs a (1959), else that ref is unused. Or it's one of the others... Nits aside, it's a fine article and I'll be supporting. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed ref 53 - the missing date was indeed 1959, thanks for spotting that. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Gerda Arendt - my comments at the PR were taken, I am more than appeased ;) For a featured article of such an important work, I would like to see a bit on the translation history of the title. The review of the premiere in the New York Times said "The Consecration of Spring", how come it became known as "The Rite"? I personally would not use "The Rite" for anything said before the title ever was translated to English, that means the history of conception, composition and the premiere. - There is plenty of time until May 29 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly think there is nothing more to be said on this aspect. The work has always been known in English as The Rite of Spring. The title appears thus in the record of an interview which Stravinsky gave the day after the premiere. The fact that a NYT subeditor used a slightly different wording is neither here nor there. None of the large number of Stravinsky scholars whose work I've consulted has ever suggested there is any issue connected to the English version of the name, for good reason; there isn't. Brianboulton (talk) 18:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, learning ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gerda. I am learning, too, as always. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport - an excellent, highly polished article, worthy of the FA status. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:58, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Feel free to ignore any that go counter to any forms of good English use![reply]

  • Shouldn't there be a nbsp; before the ellipses points?
  • Well, I haven't given much thought to nbsp since about 2007. But in relation to ellipses, I think you have a point; they do improve presentation, if only by preventing a line starting with the ellipsis. So I have inserted them (all 17!)
  • For '"...the poor boy': I think there should be a space (a nbsp;?) between the three points and "the"
  • I don't use a space if I start my quote in the middle of a sentence. Likewise, if my quote finishes midsntence, I go... without a space. Other conventions may exist, but my practice is widespread.
  • "work's centenary. [82]": there's a space between full stop and reference
  • a "ghastly cariacature": I'm presuming the spelling is as quoted, so perhaps think about using {{sic}}?
  • No, just my crap copying/spelling. Sorry
  • "abruptedly"? should that be "abruptly"?
  • Same thing, I'm afraid

Apart from these very minor points, a very, very good article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these useful points, all duly attended to. Brianboulton (talk) 23:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates and/or further reviewers: I shall be off-wiki for a couple of days or so, which means a slight delay in dealing with any further review comments, should these arise. I think sources and images are done. Brianboulton (talk) 22:50, 10 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [36].

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is intended to be the main article for a future FT. I've had to select from masses of data, so if I've missed your favourite water beetle, bryophyte or pillbox, let me know. I've had complete reviews for prose at Milhist from Hchc2009 and AustralianRupert, and Dank edited the history section. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "The Wash SSSI": When you start talking about other SSSIs, then it doesn't work any more to say just "the SSSI" referring to the NNC SSSI. I changed this to just "The Wash"; if that's not correct, please tweak it, but leave out "SSSI" if possible.
  • "The salt marshes which form on sheltered coasts, in the lee of islands or behind spits that the SSSI notification document states are "among the best in Europe ... flora is exceptionally diverse".": Doesn't seem to be a sentence. - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "together with the National Nature Reserves (NNRs) at Scolt Head Island and Holkham, and substantial formerly undesignated areas.": Are you saying the date on all of that is 1973?
  • added dates, with references, for the two NNRs
  • "are of European importance", "is of national importance": I don't know what those mean.
  • "Northern Lapwing, Common Redshank and Sedge, Reed and Cetti's Warblers": Copyeditors tend to prefer the serial comma, and this sentence is hard to read without a comma after Redshank. - Dank (push to talk) 00:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Northern Lapwing": the Northern Lapwing
  • "Little Gull": the Little Gull
  • "Green hairstreak ... moth": The Green hairstreak ... moth
  • "clouded yellow ... moth": the clouded yellow ... moth
  • "the silver Y, can": the silver Y can
  • "starlet sea anemone, lagoon sand shrimp, Atlantic ditch shrimp, and the lagoon cockle": the starlet sea anemone, lagoon sand shrimp, Atlantic ditch shrimp, and lagoon cockle
  • "international importance": ?
  • "between April to September.": between April and September.
  • "Cley beach": Not wrong, exactly, but I usually see "X Beach" or "X's beach(es)" or "the beach(es) at X".

Image review

Comment - very interesting topic and looks close to FA, but i will try a more thorough check later. At first glance the lead could use some improvements:

  • "...internationally important protected area in Norfolk [,England]." ==> WP:OBVIOUS.
You should add the ,England-info to the lead sentence. We can't assume, that readers know where Norfolk is - so a larger geographical context is needed.GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and is [now] additionally protected ..." ==> avoid now, recently, currently and similar terms, they will get dated and lack precision.
  • "There is an Iron Age fort at Holkham, a Roman naval port near Brancaster, and a medieval "chapel" at Blakeney." ==> That listing reads a bit boring (there is A and B and C), can it be spiced up with a little more detail?
  • "Management is necessary to protect sensitive wildlife sites ..." ==> Says who? I agree with the statement, but it sounds a bit POVish. Just state, which organisation is doing what, and why.
  • "A more serious threat is the encroachment of the sea on this soft coast." ==> Why compare the threats? A plain statement of facts without the comparison would be better. It's subjective anyway, imagine a few hundred or thousands of tourists moving through this site without supervision ...
  • "Managed retreat [is likely to be] the long-term solution, coupled with the creation of new reserves inland to compensate for the loss of scarce habitats." ==> again better to state, what is actually planned and done without any speculation on the outcome. Something like "To compensate for the loss of scarce habitats, managed retreat in the affected area and the creation of new inland reserves are planned (by whom?)."
  • Added Environment Agency, again I was trying to avoid copying too much from the relevant section

In summary the last lead para appears to take the SSSI's side and sounds not completely un-involved (even on worthwhile projects the encyclopedic article has to keep it's distance). Also replace analyzing statements with factual information, the analysis is better kept to the main text. More later. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - that was some really quick fixing. Aside from the solved lead issues very little to nitpick:

  • In "Threats": should "One of the most vulnerable stretch ..." be "stretches"?
  • "Economic effects" is not optimal as a header, the second half of it is ecological impact. Moving this half to "threats" might work, but would leave the section very small.
  • "The SSSI has a wide variety of habitats." and "Norfolk has a long history of human occupation." are very short as introductions to their sub-topic. They would be more engaging with a little more detail. GermanJoe (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it covers positive and negative aspects of tourism there. Thanks for looking into it (all points Done). GermanJoe (talk) 06:37, 6 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [37].

Nightswimming (Awake)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Davejohnsan (talk), Nikkimaria (talk), TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following my successful FA nomination of "Say Hello to My Little Friend", we present, "Nightswimming". This episode is regarded by many as one of the worst ever produced, and, per other critic reviews, perhaps, even the actual worst. "Nightswimming" recently underwent a peer review from ‎TRLIJC19, an A-class review from ‎TRLIJC19 and Grapple X, a thorough GA review, again, from ‎TRLIJC19; "Nightswimming" received two copy-edits, one of which was by Nikkimaria, and the other by Davejohnsan, both of which did great wonderful copy-edits which helped me be at FAC today. I feel that the article is truly comprehensive: the production section is filled with information, perhaps, the most for an Awake episode, and the page has topics on filming, filming locations, casting, writing, credits, for the production section only, also containing themes, broadcast numbers, and the episode's critical response, followed by external links for the episode. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, with good non-free rationales, which I have expanded very much due to that. As was flagged in my other FAC nominations, reviews from the TV Fanatic and Den of Geek (not my FAC for that one) have had their notability questioned, but have been deemed reliable. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Say Hello to My Little Friend/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Episode 2 (Twin Peaks)/archive1 (Grapple X's separate nomination). Despite the bad storyline of parts/bits of the episode, this article, I hope is a good read for you. Thank you for taking a look at my article, I will for sure be able to addressed all issues. Cheers, TBrandley 00:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Addressed comments from Gen. Quon moved to talk

Source review: I'm maybe a bit out of touch with the main TV critical sources, particularly as relating to US TV shows, so I looked at a couple. Screen Rant says on its "about" page that "reviews are written from the point of view of 'was it a fun/exciting/scary/compelling movie' instead of from some highbrow esoteric level that only other movie critics will relate to". That made me wonder a bit whether reviews from this source will have the required objectivity for encyclopedic neutrality? The other I investigated was TV Fanatic; I discovered this was part of Mediavine which resolved any doubts. I did a few spotchecks, no concerns there. Subject to any comment you might have about Screen Rant, sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on its website, I do think Screen Rant is a good source. TV Fanatic is fine, as above. Cheers, TBrandley 23:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give a slightly stronger rationale for the use of Screen Rant? Obviously you think it's a good source, but why should others share your view? No problem with TV Fanatic. Brianboulton (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Screen Rant operates with a dedicated editorial staff, and is operated/owned by Relativity Media. Itactually appears on Google News, if you search "Screen Rant" there, with their reviews being listed at Rotten Tomatoes. Per this, I still think is is a good source. Regards. TBrandley 00:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Brianboulton (talk) 09:02, 8 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [38].

Deep Throat (The X-Files episode)

[edit]
Nominator(s): GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, based on previous successful FACs, I believe it meets the criteria. I has undergone a thorough GA review from Belovedfreak, a peer review from TBrandley and a copyedit from Lfstevens. I should be quick to respond to anything that crops up, and welcome any comments. A word on the title—the additional disambiguator "episode" is because the article "Deep Throat (The X-Files)" is about the character. GRAPPLE X 00:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Addressed comments and source review from TBrandley move to talk

Comments - Not sure if these have been mentioned already because I would have to navigate to the talk page to find out. Very inconvenient.

  • link to paranormal in the Lede perhaps?
  • "...work on cases linked to the paranormal" probably "investigate" is more correct
  • "Mulder is a believer in the paranormal," I think needs rephrasing as something along the lines of "Mulder is a believer in paranormal phenomena" as the word paranormal is an adjective
  • debunk is too informal for professional standards of prose
  • "Mulder continues and comes closer to the truth than ever before" --- the truth about what? The USAF conspiracy, or the truth about something else? The "than ever before" implies the latter, but it's not clear
  • "only to have it snatched away from him again." -- is too informal. Things have to be tangible to be snatched, and truth isn't tangible
  • change "the eponymous character" to "the eponymous character" to encourage readers to visit that article, rather than have them assume it links to the article "eponymous".
  • "who would serve as Mulder's informant for the first season." -- why are you using would here? It messes with the tense. Why not simply "who serves as"? Remember to use present tense when writing about fiction (Wikipedia:WAF#Contextual presentation, WP:TENSE
  • The final two sentences in the lede are very contradictory . Carter says the effects are good, later says they are the worst. Just strikes me as odd.
  • Also, it should be [series'] not [series]
  • In the Filming section, "It would later appear" has the same issue as previously raised
  • "He and Duchovny then "just goofed off the whole time" while Duchovny, sweating from running in the sun during filming, was "very forward" with his body odor." seems a bit trivial. I don't think it's very encyclopedic to know that Duchovny has BO after sweating from running in the heat.
  • "season 1" --> "first season" or "season one"
  • "...after complaints from Fox ... Fox complained that..."-- too repetitive, but also shouldn't it be "Fox executives" or something? It's people who complain, not networks
  • In Broadcast and Reception it gives the premiere dates for Fox in the US and BBC2 in the UK, then mentions how many people watched the initial broadcast. Is that figure a total of Fox and the BBC's viewers, only Fox's or only BBC's, a worldwide figure?
  • You mention that the episode is available on some DVD anthology set, but there's nothing to say it was released on VHS and DVD season 1 boxsets, or whether it's at places like Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc for streaming. All of which is, I think, desired and encyclopedic info.
  • The lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, but there is nothing about the episode's critical reception or viewership, and doesn't mention that it's an alien-themed episode.

That's all I have, but there may be more that I've missed. Matthewedwards (talk · contribs) 06:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments. I've seen to everything here except for noting any streaming services, as I'm wondering how to cite those. If I find the episode available on any of them, would using the service itself a primary source be alright? GRAPPLE X 17:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum; can find it listed on Hulu.com ([39]) but I can't search Netflix as a non-member. Like I say, is it grand to be citing a commercial service like that as a primary source for what they have on offer? GRAPPLE X 18:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • The fact that it was positively received by critics is mentioned twice in the lead, first in the first paragraph and again in the last
    Removed the first mention. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only production material in the lead is about the special effects - isn't there more to be covered?
    I don't see why not; though I tend to under- or over-compensate. What do you think is important, and I'll bung it in? GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He claims that Mulder is under surveillance, which later proves to be true." When is "later"? Later in the episode or later in the show? (If I remember correctly it's "E.B.E.", though I can't remember if anything turned up in "Deep Throat" or not.)
    I'd need to watch it again to be sure; though off the top of my head there is a scene in "Deep Throat" when a car full of men stop Mulder and Scully on an empty road and take all their findings, check their IDs, etc, which I believe is what is intended here; there's also Mossinger keeping tabs on things too. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The agents subsequently meet local reporter Paul Mossinger, who refers them to the Flying Saucer Restaurant; there they discuss UFOs with the owner." Might be worth mentioning what the owner says about UFOs (that she's seen/heard them), otherwise it doesn't seem necessary to the plot.
    Added briefly, it seemed to flow well enough to tack it on at the end of that sentence. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scully, who has been sleeping while Mulder keeps watch, is awakened..." Think it should be "who had been sleeping".
    Done. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Carter created the character to bridge the gap between Mulder and Scully and the shadowy conspirators working against them, "who works in some level of government that we have no idea exists". Change to bolded word. Also "works" reads funny to me; I assume the quote is referring to Deep Throat, but in the sentence it is referring to the "shadowy conspirators" and so it should be "[work]".
    Added "the", rephrased a bit. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The K in "Key grip" doesn't need to be capitalized.
    Not sure how I missed that one. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pilot" is linked twice in the broadcast and reception section
    Removed; guess I missed it before as it's an easter egg link. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The episode was listed by Entertainment Weekly as number 37 on its list of "The 100 Greatest Television Moments" of the 1990s." If it's a list of greatest moments, then which moment from the episode was listed?
    There's mention of the introduction of the character; but also a quote from Dan Sackheim that seems to be about the episode as a whole. I'll mention the former though as it seems to be the main thrust of what they have to say. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #14 is the only one without a published date
    I don't think I've changed any refs around here (correct me if I'm wrong, it's half four in the morning here); but ref 14 is an sfn pointing to the Kowalski-edited book; it has a publishing year like the other books. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN #30 needs an author
    Indeed it does (mentioned in text so I really don't know how I forgot it). Added now. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find, looks great. So that was how the voice-overs started. I think Carter grew a little too fond of them. Glimmer721 talk 01:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Let me know if I missed anything. Yep, old Carter definitely over-used them; not to spoil anything as I know you're still working through it but anything "deep" or Scully-centric tends to waffle like on Strom Thurmond. GRAPPLE X 03:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above. Glimmer721 talk 00:14, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Thanks. GRAPPLE X 00:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I now Support. Glimmer721 talk 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is the mysterious informant ever actually identified or referred to as "Deep Throat" in this episode?—indopug (talk) 06:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I recall, it's "The Erlenmeyer Flask" before he's called it on-screen. GRAPPLE X 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you mention this in the article? Something like "The episode introduced the Deep Throat character (although he wasn't called so on-screen until 'EF'), played by... ". I watched this episode a month ago and was completely puzzled by the article, "what? That guy had a name?".—indopug (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Spent this afternoon trying to find a source for it, but none of the print or DVD sources mention this (when looking for both episodes in question, too). Not sure how else to present it reliably; how would you suggest going about it? To be honest if I can't find anything solid that spells it out plainly then I'm liable to omit it, as it's only a bit of an aside. The credits, episode title and official book (Lowry 1995) all apply the name from the outset, just not out of a character's mouth. GRAPPLE X 17:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that's a tad excessive. If he's credited in the credits and its common knowledge, it should be good to go.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, no worries.—indopug (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on above improvements. It is really needed to literally use the phrase "worst effects we've ever done" three times though? Bruce Campbell (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmm. One's in the body, one in the lead and another in a caption. I've paraphrased the lead's mention of it; could probably outright remove it from there if you feel it would help. GRAPPLE X 02:36, 10 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [40].

Seated Liberty dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... we think it meets the criteria. The Seated Liberty dollar was struck for a third of a century, though never in large numbers. It was struck in response to deposits of silver by people and corporations. With a glut of silver about to hit the Mint, it was abolished, an action which became known as the Crime of '73 and which led to the great silver/gold debates of the late 19th century. Note that RHM22 is presently inactive, so I'll be handling this for us both. Wehwalt (talk) 23:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review (no spotchecks possible):

  • Citation 50 requires p. not pp.
  • Coin World Almanac': It might be better to use the OCLC ref rather than the Amazon code. The OCLC per Worldcat for the 3rd edition (1977) is 4017981
  • In the bibliography, US states are given in their abbreviated form, except for Ohio. Maybe Ohio is never abbreviated, I don't know; but I thought I'd mention it.
"O." or "Oh.". As the full name is short enough, I did not see any reason to risk variants and so just gave the state its full name.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bibliography is in small print - any reason? It makes us elderly folk peer a bit more than usual.

Other than the above minor issues, sources look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Brian. I just fixed the smallness. It's {{refbegin}} doing a foolish 90%. That really needs re-thinking. You can kill this in your prefs:
  • Gadgets->Appearance, and check:
    "Disable smaller font sizes of elements such as Infoboxes, Navboxes and Reference lists."
Br'er Rabbit (talk) 07:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The matters Brian brought up have been done. Thank you for the review, and for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this article a going-over at its peer review. All seems in order with this latest instalment of a well established and always informative series. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for both.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: The article looks pretty good, seems up the the standard of coin featured articles. I made a few copyedits, hopefully all Ok. A few minor comments:
  • "Julian agreed, noting that the act instituted a de facto gold standard in the United States" Do we usually italicize "de facto"?
  • Some of the notes aren't complete sentences, so I don't think you need periods for them.
  • "the first to be issued were 2,303 pieces paid to a Mr. A. Wright on February 11, 1870." I think you might be able to remove "paid to a Mr. A. Wright" from the sentence, it seems a bit extraneous to me.
It helps to emphasize that the coin was not struck by the government on its own account, but in response to silver deposits, and it's a bit of color in an article which is shorter than my usual. I think it's worth the keeping.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the last two paragraphs of "Later years" you have several of the same citations consecutively cited, you could probably remove some.
  • Check the placement of the letter citations (inside vs outside punctuation): "amidst the constellation irregularly dispersed of twenty-four stars[a]".[11]" & "after the completion of the transcontinental railroad[c]," vs "the designs would remain on those coins for over 50 years.[b][18][19]"
  • "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of them being struck." I'd suggest "of which the mintage is not known as there is no record of their striking." but not a big deal.
  • "they could now only receive Trade dollars, with their limited legal tender status." I'd suggest "which had a" instead of "with their", again, minor issue.
  • "The Charlotte and Dahlonega mints only struck gold, catering to miners in the South seeking to deposit that metal" I'd suggest "who sought to" instead of "seeking to" here.
  • "The Mint acquired a portrait lathe in 1837, which allowed Gobrecht to work in large models for the later versions of the Gobrecht dollar, and for the Seated Liberty dollar, with the pantograph-like device mechanically reducing the design to a coin-size hub, from which working dies could be produced." This sentence feels a bit long to me, I'd suggest breaking it up. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:03, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except as noted, that is everything. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments:

  • I noticed this ungrammatical sentence in a quotation: "The few pieces made for Asiatic and other foreign trade and are not seen in circulation." Please check against the original.

I didn't notice any other issues. Ucucha (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed thanks and wb.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:02, 9 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [41].

Oerip Soemohardjo

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is a high quality look at a fairly important figure in Indonesian military history. It just passed the A-class review and it is easily the best look at the subject on the web. If promoted this would be our first FA on an Indonesian military figure. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Move the first image in Indonesian National Revolution and death to right side per MOS:IMAGELOCATION
  • Per MOS:ACCESS, use actual sub-sections for Footnotes and Bibliography.
  • Categories below should be sorted in alphebitcal order

TBrandley 15:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made (including the last edit, mine) since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Done.
  • Check for template glitches like doubled periods
  • Done
  • Pour: GBooks link appears to go to a different book?
  • Fixed

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum I'm frankly leaning towards oppose because of the quality of the prose. Here are a few specific examples:

  • "Because his parents wanted him to follow in the steps of his maternal grandfather by becomeing a regent, after elementary school Oerip was sent to the School for Native Government Employees in Magelang." Rather awkwardly written I think, and that "becomeing" should have been picked up before now.
  • "Oerip Soemohardjo was born with the name Mohammad Sidik". No he wasn't, he was given the name after he was born.
  • "... at a young age Sidik began showing leadership qualities, commanding groups of neighbourhood children". Commanding them to do what?
  • Added "in fishing and games of football."
  • "After he awoke, his mother send a letter to Widjojokoesoemo ...". How can this article have two supports when it contains errors like this?
  • Fixed.
  • "... but nevertheless paid Oerip's tuition". He didn't pay it, he paid for it.
  • Fixed.
  • " Samarinda, Tarakan, and ultimately Malinau." That's not a sentence.
  • Fixed.
  • "Together, Sudirman and Oerip were able to eliminate much of the differences between former KNIL and PETA troops." Should be "many of the differences", and probably "address" rather than "eliminate".
  • Done.

Malleus Fatuorum 18:45, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note to delegates: The article had an image review by Nikkimaria at its A-class review and no images have been added or removed since then. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry for that. The only other suggestion that I have is that the National Heroes of Indonesia template at the bottom of the article might be better presented in collapsed form, as it is currently quite large. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, thanks for fixing that; I've added my support. There is only one more sentence/pargraph that I think could be improved (sorry, I missed it before). In the last paragraph of the Legacy section, this doesn't quite flow because they are dealing with two different things (streets and memorials), I think: "Several streets are named after Oerip. On 22 February 1964..." So, were the streets named after the memorials were established? If so, I suggest moving "Several streets..." to the end of the paragraph and just tweaking it to: "In addition, several streets were named after Oerip" and maybe including a couple of the notable examples, for instance if there is one in his hometown and or the capital city, etc. (assuming that there are reliable sources for the examples). If the streets were named before the memorials, perhaps just do something like this. "Several streets were named after Oerip after his death. In addition, on 22 February 1964..." This is just a suggestion, though, and it doesn't impact upon my support. Anyway, keep up the good work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 19:59, 3 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [42].

Ex parte Crow Dog

[edit]
Nominator(s): GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all of the FA criteria. It is currently a GA and just had a peer-review. Please note that this article uses WP:MOSLAW and per that styleguide to use local citation guides, references are in the Bluebook format. GregJackP Boomer! 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cryptic C62:

  • The second paragraph of Murder of Spotted Tail should give the reader some indication of whether or not there is any modern academic consensus as to which version of the story is accurate.
  • There is no consensus. There are basically three positions among historians. One block feels that Spotted Tail was a progressive, vision minded leader who was assassinated, one block feels that Crow Dog was standing up for the traditional views of the Lakota people against one who had sold them out, and the final block basically says they don't know, but give both sides of the story. I added a line to the paragraph indicating that there was no consensus. (As a side note, those in the first two blocks are not above taking potshots at the other in some of their articles - almost as if the fight between the two was still going on today). GregJackP Boomer! 21:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trust that your evaluation of the sources is correct, but is the lack of consensus explicitly mentioned in a source somewhere? The reader should ideally be be able to verify such a thing for themselves. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The reaction of the tribes is still bitter" So a statement by one guy that was made 40 years ago is sufficient evidence that the tribes are still bitter in 2012? I would disagree.
  • I added a statement by Larry EchoHawk from 2000. If you want, I can expand with other references, such as Wub-E-Ke-Niew, We Have the Right to Exist:A Translation of Aboriginal Indigenous Thought : The First Book Ever Published from an Ahnishinahbaeo Jibway Perspective (1996); Stewart Wakeling, et al, Policing on American Indian Reservations (2001); Larry A. Gould, Indigenous People Policing Indigenous People, 39 Soc. Sci. J. 171 (2002); and Ken Peak, Criminal Justice, Law, and Policy in Indian Country, 17 J. Crim. Jus. 393 (2011), just as a start. Just let me know which way we should go with it. GregJackP Boomer! 20:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the problem is a lack of references. I don't even think the problem is the claim that the tribes were bitter for a long time, which itself is quite understandable. The problem is the phrasing which implies that Ducheneaux's quote directly shows that the tribes are still bitter. This can be resolved by treating the bitterness of the tribes and Ducheneaux as two separate ideas: "Many members of the Indian tribes were bitter with this outcome for decades afterwards. Wayne Ducheneaux, president of the National Congress of American Indians, testified before Congress on the matter in 1968: [quote]" I hope, of course, that I am not misrepresenting anything. You're welcome to tweak the phrasing if I am. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:23, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll start working on these in the next couple of days. GregJackP Boomer! 04:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments after peer review. It's an excellent article. It's well-written and accessible, a rarity among law articles. Just a couple things I noticed on further reading:

  • You might consider linking Indian agent as discussed above, but better would be to both link it and describe the agent's role in text, i.e. "Indian agent, a representative of the U.S. government in Indian affairs." Or something else if that's not accurate. I see that it's linked later in the article; should be linked on first instance, I think.
  • "The treaty also provided that tribal members would stay on the reservation provided" repeats "provided". You might just say "stipulated" on first instance.
  • "the Black Hills Gold Rush brought prospectors into the Black Hills" could perhaps be worded differently to avoid repeating "Black Hills"; the second instance could be "the area" or "the mountain range".
  • It'd be good to elaborate on "mistaking the other man's intentions" if the source material can support it. What were their separate intentions, and how were they mistaken?
  • I'm not sure how to go about elaborating without adding a lot of material to the section. Crow Dog was concerned that Spotted Tail would try to kill him, as he had done to Big Mouth. Spotted Tail feared the same, as Crow Dog had put a rifle to his chest in July. Unfortunately, I haven't found cites that spell that out exactly, and to make it that concise, I would have to synthesize it from multiple sources. Do you have any suggestions? GregJackP Boomer! 12:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

--Batard0 (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTUS articles fall under WP:MOSLAW, which states that references should be done in the local style. In the U.S., that is almost always Bluebook (sometimes ALWD, but not very often). Smallcaps are used in Bluebook for authors and titles. It is similar on journal cites - in Bluebook it is Vol# JournalName Page# instead of the more common JournalName Vol#:Page#. GregJackP Boomer! 01:11, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with comments - the article is on the short end, but what has been written is very good. What follows are just suggestions for improvement. Take with a grain of salt. Savidan 19:33, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have you looked at the U.S. Reports themselves to verify that the reporter gives the case name as "Ex parte Crow Dog." I have also seen this case cited as "Ex parte Kan-gi-shun-ca (Crow Dog)." Either way, the article title should probably stay the same, but if the latter is used in the reporter, perhaps it should be in the intro/infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says that the case is the beginning of the plenary power doctrine, and I think that's at least a common view, but is this absolutely the first case where the Court discussed the power of Congress vis-a-vis tribes? After all this doctrine is only dicta in this case (since Congress hadn't tried to do anything yet). Perhaps similar dicta predate.
Not that I can find. As late as 1865, the court held in dicta that "Congress has never claimed, and cannot lawfully exercise the power of legislating for Indians, except as tribes or quasi domestic nations" in U.S. v Holliday, 70 U.S. 407 (1865). Crow Dog appears to be the first time that they speak of it. GregJackP Boomer! 22:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps a bit more context on how common "bad men" clauses were in similar treaties. Extra credit if you can nail down a specific time period and region(s) in which these clauses were used.
Done. Added to FN, this was boiler-plate language in 1821-68. All regions, from the northern plains, Indian territory, Arizona, etc. Apparently the Indian Service came up with standard language as Kappler shows 13 separate treaties with that language. GregJackP Boomer! 23:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. See also section link. GregJackP Boomer! 23:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the Dakota Territory trial court or supreme court an Article III court? If not, why did the Supreme Court have original habeas jurisdiction?
Fixed. Appellate jurisdiction from territorial court, sitting as a circuit court of the U.S. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I re-read the opinion, it is clear that it is an original habeas case. Although the court does not discuss the issue, the clear implication is that, with original habeas, the Supreme Court can be the first Article III court to see the case. It would be nice if there were a source to explain more on this, but perhaps that is asking too much. As for "sitting as a circuit court of the United States," that only means that Congress has authorized the court to hear cases that the Judiciary Act of 1789 requires to be heard by "circuit courts." It does not mean that it is an Article III court. Savidan 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says " first time in the history of the country, [that] an Indian is held for trial for the murder of another Indian." The first time in a federal court? Or the first time in a federal or state court? And, had Indians previously been tried for the murder of non-Indians? Not even a murder committed outside of Indian country? I recall reading about this in some of the sources I cited here. Probably the first two Kawashima sources, the Koehler source, and the Ronda source.
As far as I can tell from the sources, the first time in any court that an Indian was tried for killing another Indian. Prosecutions of Indian crimes against non-Indians go back beyond the start of the United States. Provisions for such trials appeared in a number of U.S. treaties in the early years, such as 1795 treaty with Wyandots, et al., the 1791 treaty with the Cherokees, etc. There was no specific language exempting Indian country for the mixed race trials. GregJackP Boomer! 00:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If written at all, was the lower territorial decision reported? If not in a traditional reporter, perhaps in a newspaper or something?
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the Major Crimes Act was in response to Crow Dog is certainly the conventional wisdom. But is there any legislative history or similar that makes this connection?
Done. Footnote and ref. GregJackP Boomer! 00:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • One thing that might be useful in the subsequent developments section is to explain the later developments regarding criminal jurisdiction. I.e. all the permutations of (1) committed in Indian Country/not committed in Indian Country, (2) state court/federal court/tribal court, (3) same-tribe defendant/different-tribe defendant/non-Indian defendant, and (4) same-tribe victim/different-tribe victim/non-Indian victim.
I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 12:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Presumably Crow Dog remained the law after the MCA for crimes other than the 15. Has anything since then changed that?
The MCA is still current law, so "Crow Dog" has been superseded by statute as far as the major felony offenses. I'll try to add more as far as laws dealing with tribal courts, etc., when I get a chance. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added material, will continue. GregJackP Boomer! 12:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps note the territorial court history as prior history in the infobox.
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 21:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on these. GregJackP Boomer! 19:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
changes look good. I still support. Savidan 14:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Images - File:Thomas_Stanley_Matthews_-_Brady-Handy.jpg needs US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. GregJackP Boomer! 02:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with proviso that I've not looked at the images. I reviewed this at GA back in 2010. I had a doubt about one of the images then, but wasn't able to reach a conclusion. Hopefully that won't hold up someone more experienced with image review than I :-). My only other query is whether the very last sentence "Congress has subsequently used this power to breach the Medicine Lodge Treaty with the Kiowa by reducing the size of the Kiowa reservation without their consent" is a bit off topic, as neither that treaty nor that tribe have been mentioned previously in the article. But it is a minor quibble in a fascinating article. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - on the Medicine Lodge treaty, it follows from the plenary power first articulated in "Crow Dog" - I'll try and expand and make it clearer to the reader. GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GregJackP Boomer! 00:52, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As just a general note, I have gotten kind of busy in real life and don't have as much time for detailed work as I would like. I will respond and continue to clear up any issues in the article, it may just take a little longer period. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 14:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's note - Spotchecks for verification and close-paraphrasing are needed. Graham Colm (talk) 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • A preview of George Hyde & Harry H. Anderson, Spotted Tail's Folk: a History of the Brulé Sioux is available on Google books. It would help with spot checking if reference 9 was split into separate references that give narrower page ranges. The currently cited page range of 308-340 seems rather broad for the snippets of facts that are sourced to it. For example "the uncle of Oglala Lakota war leader Crazy Horse." Graham Colm (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Article: A later conflict with the Indian Agent forced the tribal police to disband, and Crow Dog lost his position.[19]
  • Source: Crow Dog had long before lost his position as chief of police,
  • Article: This version makes no mention of another man's wife being the reason for the killing, and states that Crow Dog ambushed Spotted Tail to gain power in the tribe.[20]
  • Source: Henry Lelar, the chief clerk at Rosebud, knew these Indians intimately, and he reported the day after the murder that Crow Dog had deliberately planned the killing with the hope of ultimately succeeding Spotted Tail as chief.
  • Article: He also supervised the tribal police of about 300 men. In contrast, Crow Dog was a "traditionalist"[13]
  • Source: I can't see this information or "traditionalist" in source
  • Article: In another version of the story, Crow Dog was appointed by the tribal council to head the tribal police, which undermined the authority of Spotted Tail. Crow Dog discovered that Spotted Tail was taking money from ranchers for "grazing rights" and he denounced him for it, while Spotted Tail defended the practice.[11][18]
  • Source: ..and at every camp the boss had a receipt, signed by Spotted Tail, for money handed to the chief in payment for grazing rights.
  • Article: as modified by the Assimilative Crimes Act allowed the territorial death penalty to be applied to Crow Dog.[28]
  • Source: No preview available
  • Article: In September 1881, Crow Dog was indicted by a federal grand jury for murder and manslaughter under the laws of the Dakota Territory. In March 1882 the case was heard by Judge G. C. Moody, held at the First Judicial District Court of Dakota, located in Deadwood, South Dakota.[29]
  • Source: ...the case was ultimately headed for the U.S. supreme Court and because Judge G.C. Moody, who had tried Crow Dog, sentenced him to death, and denied the original demurrer on jurisdictional grounds, also heard the appeal in October 1882.
  • Article: Crow Dog had a tremendous impact on tribal sovereignty.[52]
  • Source: In deciding that Alaska was not, Judge McAllister ignored Supreme Court Justice Stanley Matthew's expansive definition of Indian country in his Crow Dog opinion...The U.S. Supreme Court's broad definition was a deliberate attempt to curtail the ability of local courts, including federal district courts and territorial courts, to weaken the Crow Dog doctrine by limiting the extent of the Indian country.
  • Just the one issue to resolve. And I suggest a Bibliography section is created to list the multiply used sources. The references can then just use a sort form with page number. The use of supra (as is ibid) is discouraged. Graham Colm (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I corrected the tribal police cite and the traditionalist cite by deleting the original cite and putting two new cites in to support the text.
The article uses the Bluebook citation style. This is a legal citation style which does not allow for citing back to a Bibliography section. In addition, after the original citation (what they call the long-form), subsequent citations require either "Id." or "supra", see Bluebook Rule 4.1, however "supra" may not be used on short-form cites for cases, statutes, constitutions, legislative materials, model codes, restatements, or regulations (Rule 4.2). WP:SCOTUS articles generally follow WP:MOSLAW#Citations and referencing, and the Bluebook is the style used at SCOTUS. See also WP:CITE#Citation style, where Bluebook is specifically mentioned as an acceptable citation style. I have tried to go back through and double-check all the citations against my copy of the Bluebook, but it is possible that I missed something. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 01:26, 11 September 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 17:19, 11 September 2012 [43].

Ruth Norman

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of the few examples of women who have led new religious movements, Ruth Norman overcame a challenging life to become the best dressed religious leader in the U.S. She made several predictions about the dates of alien visitations and broke new ground in her creative explanations for the failure of said predictions. She was a harmless lady though, unlike some others who started UFO religions. Anyway, this article has been GA reviewed, copyedited, and thoroughly peer reviewed. Hopefully my changes in response to the feedback have made this a top-quality article. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492
Disclosure: I did the GA review.
  • Why not link Ernest Norman in the lede?
  • In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space." - Why not "In 1972, Ruth Norman began publishing Tesla Speaks, a series of messages that she said were given to her by American inventor and engineer Nikola Tesla from his dwelling in outer space; she stated that messages from scientists Albert Einstein and Louis Pasteur were channeled through Tesla" or something similar?
  • Otherwise the changes since my review look good.
  • I am satisfied with the images
Not much at all from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick. I feel band about taking so long to review your articles now :) Alright, well, I've tried to remedy the two issues you pointed out above. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, this looks very good. I commented extensively in the PR and most of my concerns there have been addressed. On reading it again, I have noticed a few prose issues. There is nothing glaring, but there is a slight lack of flow and some cumbersome sentences. Parts just need to be tidied up and a little redundancy removed.I have copy-edited it slightly, and feel free to revert anything I have messed up, and have noted some of my prose concerns. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Claim", "stated" and "believe" seem to crop up quite a lot, but I'm not sure there is a way around that. Also, as mentioned in the PR, perhaps a little too much "students" and "followers",
  • I think there are several times when we could lose "that" from some sentences.
  • "He stated that he channeled historical figures…": A little inelegant with "he…he", but not sure I can think of a better way of phrasing.
  • "and told of people's past lives": Ambiguous. This could mean just going around talking about random people's past lives. Presumably it was more of a "one-on-one" consultation. Maybe "told people of their past lives".
  • "spiritual journeys": Maybe explain a little more in the lead what this means.
  • "Although she had stated that she would live to see the extraterrestrials' landing in 2001, she died in 1993.": Maybe "Despite her predictions that she would live to see the extraterrestrials land, Norman died in 1993."
  • "Unarius continued to operate after her death, adapting to her loss by forming a board of directors and spiritualizing her predictions about alien landings."
  • "In her early to mid-teen years…": Not the best phrasing; maybe make it more precise, like "Between the ages of X and Y…"
  • "Ernest believed that he channeled messages from historical figures and received communications from extraterrestrials.": Could these be brought closer together; for example "Ernest believed he could communicate with both extraterrestrials and historical figures [channeling messages from them (? did he do this for both of them)]".
  • "Using this ability, she helped him record the information he channeled in books…": Seems a slightly grand way to state that she typed his books for him! There must be a simpler way to state this.
  • "Ernest also discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds.[17] The couple also discussed revelations…": Discussed…discussed. Also, not quite sure what "discussed the scientific knowledge of the inhabitants of other worlds" means here. And possibly we could lose "of the inhabitants".
  • "and she determined that she was spiritually an archangel named Uriel": Again, not quite right, this sentence, but can't think of an alternative.
  • I asked at the PR about Tesla, but may not have made myself clear. He just seems a slightly random scientist to chose, in comparison to Einstein. Why did he "contact" her? What was the attraction?
    • Ahh, yes, sorry about that. It took me a while, but I finally found a good source that explained why--there were rumors that Tesla was interested in some pseudoscience topics that appealed to the Normans. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973, she stated that she had experienced a spiritual marriage…": Again, this sentence does not really flow.
  • "She and Spiegel recorded the events of the ceremony over several days…": Recorded how, and why did it take several days?
    • I rephrased a bit, since the source doesn't say how they recorded it. As to why it took several days, I have no idea. Perhaps celestial weddings take longer than those on Earth? There were apparently over 30,000 angels there, so the receiving line alone must have taken forever :) Mark Arsten (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In her view, there were many levels of beings in the universe, and humans were the lowest.": This slightly breaks the narrative of the "Space Brothers".
  • "The students sometimes acted out scenes from their previous incarnations, productions which the group filmed.[41] Participants found these experiences to be therapeutic, citing this effect as proof that the past-life events were real.": Slightly uncomfortable. Maybe "The students sometimes acted out and filmed scenes from their previous incarnations, an experience that participants found therapeutic; they cited this benefit as proof that the events were real."
  • "she stated that the Space Brothers had said that it was acceptable": Again, a little clumsy. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm happy to support now, and all the changes look good. I think the prose could possibly still be tightened in places, but it's certainly good enough to meet the criteria. Just a couple of final nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [44].

The Post-Modern Prometheus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA requirements. This episode is regarded by many critics as one of the best entries the series ever produced, and has been heralded as a classic by many others. "The Post-Modern Prometheus" recently underwent a peer-review and was already promoted to GA status, earlier this year. I feel that it truly is comprehensive: the production section is complete, and the page has sections for filming, themes, broadcast numbers, and critical reception. I have illustrated the article with appropriate pictures, included a screenshot from the episode to illustrate the episode's unique style. To anyone who would like to do a spot-check, I'd be willing to email scans of the books and articles in question. Thank you for looking at this and considering it. Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from TBrandley 20:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source spotcheck
    FN 23 [45]
    Article: "In a review of the entire fifth season, Michael Sauter of Entertainment Weekly said that "The Post-Modern Prometheus" was the most striking of the season's stand-alone episodes."
    Source: "The most striking is The Post-Modern Prometheus, that tongue-in-cheek, black-and-white update of the Frankenstein theme."
    ✓ Could perhaps do with quoting "most striking" but representation is accurate.
    Added quotes.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FN 10 [46]
    Article: "The first five seasons of The X-Files, including "The Post-Modern Prometheus", were filmed in Vancouver. It was the third episode of the program that Carter directed;"
    Source: "He also decided to direct the episode himself, only the third time he has done so on X-Files."
    No mention of Vancouver. The X-Files (season 1)#cite note-Good Forests-9 might be worth appending to cover this.
    Fixed this by adding a ref to the next Meisler book.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    FN 2 [47]
    Article (a): Used to support a scene being "fanciful".
    Article (b): Todd VanDerWerff of The A.V. Club reasons that the ending was not the actual conclusion of the episode, but rather the fanciful and elaborate happy ending that was concocted by Izzy Berkowitz, the writer of the comic book, after talking to Mulder. In this manner, VanDerWeff notes, "the episode abandons logic and reality and, for lack of a better word, transcends."
    Source: Both supported by article, quote is accurate.
    ✓
    FN 16 [48]
    Article: Three citations to various quotes.
    Source: All quotes used as accurately representative of the source.
    ✓ I'm thinking that the unusual casing present in the source could be dropped as an acceptable typographic change though.
    What exactly needs to be dropped?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Phrases like "Modernity's Naturalism" in the middle of a sentence don't need those capitals; although they're present in the source they're needless and it's acceptable to bring them to lower case instead. GRAPPLE X 20:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I see. Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wondering if an image of the Great Mutato would be more descriptive. Can still talk about the black and white there. Glimmer721 talk 22:41, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I changed it to Mulder and Scully taking the Great Mutato to the Cher concert so that A) the black and white could be mentioned B) the makeup of the monster could be noted and C) the entire scene and its interpretation by critics could be added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [49].

Melford Stevenson

[edit]
Nominator(s): John (User talk:John), Malleus Fatuorum (talk)

Melford Stevenson was a controversial English judge described by one of his peers as the worst judge since the Second World War. Renowned for the severity of his sentencing, he almost single handedly quashed student protest during the 1970s. But he also had a lighter side, and I hope you'll agree that we've done the man justice. Malleus Fatuorum 08:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image check. There's only one, with an appropriate non-free use rationale. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to support. Interesting, hilarious and exasperating in turns, as doubtless was the man himself, I enjoyed the article. There seems to be material in the lead that is not in the body text: i'm thinking particularly of this: "Retired Court of Appeal judge Sir Robin Dunn called him "the worst judge since the war", prompting several high-profile legal figures to come to Stevenson's defence,". Suggest this be reproduced at an appropriate point in the article text. Other than that - great job. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't entirely agree with that "nothing in the lead that isn't mentioned in the article body" idea, which is why there's a citation. Take a look at wife selling for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and comprehensiveness. This is a pretty polished article, on a somewhat interesting figure. Just some minor niggles regarding citations:

Thanks for taking a look. I think all those issues have been dealt with now. Malleus Fatuorum 19:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A very readable and enjoyable one. No real problems here, just a couple of minor points; feel free to ignore them. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are two short paragraphs in the lead. Is there any reason they could not be combined with another paragraph?
    Possibly, but as there's an abrupt change of subject in each case I think the present paragraphs are justified. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Stevenson's "fluent delivery, distinctive voice, remarkable sense of timing, and pungency of phrase soon marked him out as an advocate of note."": Does this require in-text attribution?
  • "Stevenson's decision to "subject the prosecution witnesses to a minimum of cross-examination",[15] and his "near silent performance in court",[16] have been severely criticised by Muriel Jakubait, Ellis's sister.": Again, does this require attribution? At the moment, the implication is that these are Jakubait's words.
  • "Stevenson was of the opinion that had he been allowed to, he "could have successfully prosecuted Adams on six murder counts": In what way (at least in his opinion) was he not "allowed to"? Presumably, because he could not cross-examine, but this does not quite come across explicitly in this section.
    The defence opted not put Adams on the stand, therefore he couldn't be cross examined. I'll look at that section again and see if I can make it any clearer. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ODNB article suggests that the there was a delay in his appointment as a judge owing to his eccentric reputation. Is that worth including?
  • Another minor point: the lead gets across some of the criticism he faced, but the main body seems a little light on this. But it may be my imagination. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That may be in the eye of the beholder; others have voiced the opinion that the article is too critical of Stevenson. It's a difficult line to tread, but I think the article is just about as neutral as any other major account of Stevenson's life. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I haven't got far, yet, but here are a few points from the first few sections:

  • It might help readers if you identified Wickham Steed, rather than requiring them to use the link
    I've added a brief explanation. Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Crockford's Clerical Directory, the form "Reverend Stevenson" is deprecated. In this case it would be "John Stevenson..." – but perhaps Congregationalists do things differently.
    I have no idea, but the ODNB calls him "Revd John George Stevenson", so take it up with them. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase "of which he became treasurer in 1972" is in the wrong tense at this point in the article, since it is foreshadowing an event still 50 years in the future. Thus: "of which he would become treasurer in 1972"
    I don't agree; that's a typical American abuse of the subjunctive. MalleusFatuorum 01:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a distinct lack of information about what he did in the 1930s. Perhaps he did nothing remarkable in those years. But the trouble is, it makes nonsense of the "Early career" title of the next section, because the events described—becoming a KC, a bencher, a Recorder, an advocate at the war tribunals, passing 50, etc— are not "early career" milestones. They are indications of recognition in the maturer stages of a legal career. If there is nothing substantial to say about his career in the 1930s, I would still include a couple of general sentences indicating that he made steady progress in his career, blah blah blah, and then retitle the Early career section with something more appropriate.
    Good suggestion, I'll pad that out a little. Malleus Fatuorum 01:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a bit and moved a bit, see what you think now. Malleus Fatuorum 01:22, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Careers of 50+ years are not divided into just two parts, whereby the first 25+ years are deemed "early". Typically, early career means the years where one is working to establish oneself; in Stevenson's case I would argue that this phase ended with his appointment as King's Counsel. The subsequent years, in which he serves as a recorder and bencher, and is involved in high-profile cases, are years of consolidation and achievement. I am not suggesting major structural changes, merely that the offending section title be changed to something more representative of the content. Brianboulton (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Career at the bar"? Logically, the "Early life" section should end at "... articled clerk in his uncle's legal practice", the rest being transferred into the next section, beginning: "Stevenson was determined to become a barrister..." (the term "barrister" should be linked at first mention, for the benefit of non-UK readers). Brianboulton (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that looks good. I have changed the pronoun to "Stevenson" as it's a new section. Also, there is no reason why you shouldn't keep the Ellis and Adams cases in a "notable cases" subsection, though perhaps "Notable criminal cases" would be better. I'll leave that to you. Brianboulton (talk) 15:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back to read the rest. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments: I have read the rest of the article. My main concern is about comprehensiveness; there isn't much of it (1600 words) for the life of a distinctly notable, even notorious member of the British judiciary. A few specific points:

  • He served as Recorder of Rye before his appointment at Cambridge (see ODNB)
  • Just two "notable cases" are described. Even if details are lacking it would be worth mentioning his involvement in a few other cases, for example the Crichel Down affair which was a newsworthy government scandal in 1954.
  • I would have thought his involvement in the Kenyatta appeal was worthy of a bit more detail, rather than the brief mention in the "early" career section.
  • A piped link to liberal elite might be appropriate for "liberal establishmant"
  • Since Prescott's 15-year sentence is mentioned, it should also be noted that this was reduced on appeal to 10 years.
  • The account of his judicial career as provided is pretty well a summary of gaffes, incautious comments and unpredictable judicial behaviour. At the end we have Roskill's comment that "he showed great mercy to those whom he saw to be victims rather than aggressors." It would be a good idea if examples of this benevolence could be cited, to mitigate the Judge Jeffreys picture otherwise given.
    • I've tried to address this by using material from the ODNB article. I can only use what can be sourced and I think I have run out of steam. It's up to reviewers whether they think I have done enough. --John (talk) 12:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the citations I think that "Roskill" should be given his full name, as in the text. Also, in my experience the online ODNB articles are often not the same as in the printed ODNB; they are revised much more frequently. So the citation should give the publisher as "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online".
    "Roskill" is the name the article is published in the ODNB under; as you know, it is not uncommon for the aristocracy to simply use one name. I've added the "online" to both ODNB citations. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While the article is well written, it reads more like recorded highlights than a proper biographical article. One problem is that there doesn't seem to be a full biography of Stevenson, which is perhaps surprising. However, I am not sure that full use has been made of available material, and would like to see the article expanded. Brianboulton (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find your "recorded highlights" comment rather strange, and not a little insulting. If you want to see a "proper biographical article" then you'll have to wait for someone to write a "proper biography". I can assure you that full use has most certainly been made of all the available material, of which there is not as much as you seem to imagine. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand Malleus being a little miffed by the comment as he has done the lion's share of the work on the article; however I too am frustrated by the relative paucity of sources. I will have a look at any possible expansion tonight. I appreciate and sympathise with the comments and accept they are well-intentioned towards improving he article. Let me see what I can do. --John (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for having the grace to realise that my comments are well intentioned and are designed to make the article better. I am surprised that Malleus, who has known me as a reviewer for years, takes such surly umbrage at my relatively mild remarks, but there we are. I appreciate that sources are scarce, but I'm not absolutely convinced that full use has yet been made of what is there, hence my references to Crichel Down and the Kenyatta appeal. Malleus's insistence that a lawyer beyond fifty years of age, who is a Recorder, a bencher and a KC is still in his "early career" is taking obstinacy to new levels; perhaps you can persuade him to see sense. Brianboulton (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Later) You have done pretty well in expanding the article by 300+ words from admittedly scant sources. There may not be much more to be had - though you should mention his recordership at Rye, his first semi-judicial appointment. I hope the "early career" impasse can be settled; otherwise, I have just one remaining issue, which concerns the lead. Notwithstanding Malleus's defence elsewhere in this review, I think the lead at present is an unsatisfactory introduction to the article. The main problem is not its organisation into short paragraphs, but the general organisation of the lead material. Stevenson's claim to fame is as a controversial and outspoken judge, and the body of the article reflects this. However, the first paragraph of the lead is almost entirely taken up with his role in the Peleus affair, as though this was his main distinction. This paragraph needs to be rewritten to clarify for the general reader who Stevenson was, and why he was notable/notorious. The rest of the lead material can be reorganised accordingly. Brianboulton (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. I will try to look at this later tonight. See above for my work on the "Early career" argument; if you agree that this is ok we can hopefully put this one to bed. --John (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I added the Recordership at Rye.--John (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I expanded the lead slightly. How does it look now? --John (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I fiddle a bit with the lead, in my sandbox? I'll come back to you shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 17:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I need to take a break anyway. --John (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've posted a slightly altered lead section. The main change is that I have added some "punch" to the opening sentence, as a means of drawing in your readers - their interest is less likely to be aroused by the bland statement that he was a barrister and judge. A few textual adjustments follow as a consequence, but essentially the rest of the lead is unchanged. Could you ping my talkpage when you're ready to comment, as this page isn't on my watch. Brianboulton (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I corrected a typo and switched around the words in one sentence to reduce the passive voice. I can definitely live with it as it is now. --John (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: the amendments and addition have raised the standard of the article, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Other editors may still find the odd prose glitch, but I am sure these will be minor and will have no significant effect on the article's overall quality. Of course, if someone comes along and writes a full-length biography of Stevenson, then I daresay the whole thing will have to be rewritten. But that is for another time. Well done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492


Comments from Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of brief comments (having commented previously on the talk page at an earlier stage).

  • eBay shouldn't be used as a source for an image, even one being used under a non-free license with a fair-use rationale. The ODNB use the same image, but source theirs from the National Portrait Gallery. I mentioned this on the talk page in my earlier comments, though there I was referring to a different eBay copy of that portrait. Unless you can be 100% certain that the copy on e-Bay is there legitimately, I wouldn't use that. If you want clarification on what sources can legitimately be used as a source for non-free images, I suggest asking at WT:NFCC (or somewhere around there). The NPG images are here. They have a vintage print and a half-plate negative, both purchased in 1996. (On second thoughts, no longer sure about this, so am checking this elsewhere first)
    My understanding is that we have to say where we got the image from, and it wasn't from the NPG, which doesn't have the portrait online. Malleus Fatuorum 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I added more detail to the image page to make the image history and provenance clearer. Other than that, the issue of whether this image should be used or not is something I've raised elsewhere, so I'm striking it here as it shouldn't become an issue at this FAC as long as the rationale is OK (which it is). Carcharoth (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the talk page I mentioned the lecture/talk he gave to the Medico-Legal Society on 9 March 1978 at the Royal Society of Medicine titled 'The privilege of silence'. It seems that lecture/talk was published in the Medico-Legal Journal, volume 46, page 63 (see here for the journal details, and here for the index that lists Stevenson). I may at some point order a copy of this and see what it says. The reason I mention it here is that I think it would be a useful addition to the article in the sense that some readers may wish to follow up reading this article by reading something that Stevenson wrote (or said), and this seems a suitable example. There may be better examples to point readers towards, but is there anything else published that Stevenson wrote outside of legal documents? Did he write newspaper commentary or columns or anything like that?
  • On a point of order, the quote ending the first paragraph in the lead needs sourcing: "One of his fellow judges, Sir Robin Dunn, described him as "the worst judge since the war"." - also, when was this said and where? Was it 1994, some years after his (Stevenson's) death? Is the source later used for those that came to his defence (The Times, 1 November 1994) sufficient to use here? (dealt with this myself)
  • On sources, the ODNB article is used (as it should be). Of the obituaries, the one from The New York Times is used and the one from The Times. Are you aware of the one that was published in The Guardian? It probably doesn't add much, but can be accessed through ProQuest which is available through most UK libraries. The details are: 'Last of the grand eccentrics' (PANNICK, DAVID. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 29 Dec 1987: 13). There are also valedictory articles published when he retired, such as this one from The Guardian: 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' (ADAM, CORINNA. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 10 Apr 1979: 23.). That could be useful (the picture is a different one, though of poor quality, but the article does seem to confirm that he was a member of the Garrick Club), though judging how much to use such sources is a balancing act (clearly, as you've used the obituaries from The Times and The New York Times, you are amenable to sometimes using such sources). He also wrote the following (short) article in his retirement, though it is likely of only passing interest: 'A judge's guide to sentencing the criminal' (Stevenson, Melford. The Guardian (1959-2003) [London (UK)] 17 Sep 1979: 14). The one thing that puzzles me with the sources are the citations to Massingberd 2001. Looking at the source list, this is 'The Very Best of the "Daily Telegraph" Books of Obituaries' - are you quoting from an obituary of Stevenson that was re-published in that book? If so, that should be made clearer.
    We had some difficulty in locating a source definitively confirming that Stevenson was a member of the Garrick Club, but I've found one now and added it. Malleus Fatuorum 14:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure what you're asking for and why with regard to Massingberd 2001, but I've added a note to each of the Massingberd citations saying that the obituary was first published in The Daily Telegraph on 29 December 1987. Malleus Fatuorum 15:42, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would include details of the obituary and the page range within the collection, treating each obituary in the collection as a separate article and citing in that way. Just as you would include the title of the obituary if citing from the original newspaper, so you would include the title if citing it when reprinted in a collection of obituaries. Does that make clearer what I was getting at? Giving the original date of publication (which I had not thought of) is even better. Carcharoth (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I think I've got that now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That's great, thanks. And thanks for incorporating the 'Goodbye to the Garden House judge' article into the sources you have used. That article includes other interesting background as well, such as comments on his record as regards cases being sent for appeal and verdicts overturned at appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a closing quote from that article that seems to round off the story in terms of his appeals record. Malleus Fatuorum 00:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point of order, this time on the ODNB citation. The author citation given in the ODNB is "Roskill, rev.". I'm not sure where the 'rev.' bit should be put in the Wikipedia article's citation, but it should be there. What that indicates is that the article was revised between the time Roskill wrote it for DNB publication (he died in 1996, the same year the article was originally published in a DNB supplement) and the time of ODNB publication (in 2004). In this case, the revision is anonymous, and was someone other than Roskill (this is indicated by the lack of square brackets around the 'rev.' bit). The conventions used by the ODNB for their 'rev.' terminology is given in the 'Help' section if any of that is unclear. The important thing is to include "rev." and put it in the correct place in the citation, though where I'm not sure. You could follow the placement used in the ODNB's suggested citation format. It doesn't matter hugely, as I've read the 1996 DNB version and it looks identical (any revisions appear to have been minor). But if you are citing the 2004 ODNB article rather than the 1996 DNB article, you do need to include the "rev." bit. (now dealt with)
    When this issue has cropped in the past I've preceded the revising author's last name with "(rev.)", which I've done the equivalent of here even though we don't know who the revising author was. Malleus Fatuorum 17:57, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple of matters that may be only of passing interest: (i) does anyone know what the medals he is wearing are, or were for? Do you get a gong for being on the Privy Council and being knighted? (medals now identified) (ii) Are there more details (dates and programmes) available of these "guest appearances on television"?
    The medal on the right looks like the standard 1939–1945 War Medal, the one on the left is one of the Second World star medals, perhaps the France and Germany Star, no idea about the middle one. I haven't come across any source that definitely identifies Stevenson's medals though. Malleus Fatuorum 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As for the guest appearances on television I'm afraid the answer is no, at least none that we've been able to find. Malleus Fatuorum 01:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I found a bit on this. I'll put it on the article talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    What seems useful from that is that he made regular appearances on Granada TV's The State of the Nation in 1979, so I've added a sentence on that. Malleus Fatuorum 12:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, after a quick read through, the article looks great and has improved since the last time I read it. If I'm ever passing through Rye (I'm sometimes in that area of the country) I'll keep an eye out for his memorial tablet in the church, and if I get hold of a copy of that article from the Medico-Legal Journal (unless someone else looks it up before then), I'll pop back with a note if there is anything of interest that could be quoted. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I left a few comments a while ago on the talk page. The article is doing a great job in squeezing the maximum information out of rather scant sources. It is unfortunate that there is no substantial published biography of Stevenson that can be used as as source, other than the ODNB, which makes me suspect that there may be some areas that are not dealt with as comprehensively as they deserve. For example, which of his cases (if any) set important legal precedents? Were his rulings usually upheld on appeal, or overturned?

We obviously can't go beyond what the sources say without entering into the realm of original research, and none that I've come across give an opinion on whether his rulings were usually upheld on appeal or not. Obviously some were and some weren't, but nobody seems to have tallied them up yet. Malleus Fatuorum 01:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But more particularly,

  • a few more of the cases in which he was the judge could be mentioned, such as his (likely) involvement in the trial of the traitor Theodore Schurch (better source needed), but more securely in the first trial of St Albans poisoner Graham Young, the trial of the Cambridge rapist Peter Cook, and perhaps also the first inconclusive trial of George Ince for the murder at the Barn motel in Essex (a famous mistake of faulty identification at the first trial, but acquitted at the second trial due to an alibi from Dolly Kray, wife of Charlie Kray), and the trial of Christoper Bryant for corruption in relation to construction contracts in Birmingham (see City Architect of Birmingham)
    We've failed completely to find any reliable source for the Schurch stuff, which we really did want to include. I'm not certain the other trials are sufficiently notable with the passage of time, but if John disagrees then I've no objection to adding a little bit about at least a few more of them. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • there are recent cases that cite his judgments (for example, on contempt of court, or the requirements for a breathalyser result to be legally valid, with more details on the talk page)
    There are a few, but I'm struggling to see their significance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • the article says Heinz-Wilhelm Eck was "the only U-boat commander to be convicted of war crimes". Karl-Heinz Moehle also a German U-boat commander who was convicted of war crimes (he is in the List of successful U-boat commanders; his trial is Case 54 of Volume IX of the Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, published by the United Nations War Crimes Commission). Further, Hajime Nakagawa (I-37 and I-177) and Toshio Kusaka (I-26) were also submarine commanders and were convicted of war crimes, although you might quibble that Japanese submarines are not U-boats. The source used in the article, uboataces.com (the article calls it uboat.net: a reliable source?) actually says "the Kriegsmarine had only one U-boat commander convicted of war crimes" (emphasis added). It might be more accurate to say that Eck was the only German convicted of war crimes for his actions as captain of a submarine. (Incidentally, the Peleus trial is reported as Case 1 in Volume 1 of the UN reports if you would like a better source for the trial itself.)
    Hmm, not sure about this. Strictly speaking Karl-Heinz Moehle ceased to be a U-boat commander in June 1941, when he was given charge of the 5th U-boat Flotilla. The war crime he was convicted of (passing on the Laconia Order to newly trained U-boat commanders) did not happen when he himself was a U-boat commander. And as you say, Japanese submarines aren't U-boats. We could perhaps add a note explaining that Moehle was not in command of a U-boat when he committed his crime and hadn't been for more than a year before the Laconia Order was issued. If Moehle were to be considered a U-boat commander in 1942 then so would Dönitz have to be. Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Malleus here. U-boats were German submarines (and in WW1 Austrian ones as well), so the Japanese examples are not relevant. Moehle, and Dönitz too, were former U-boat commanders at the times of their trials. I believe the wording of the article is strictly accurate as it stands. If you feel a clarification is important maybe we can figure something out. --John (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition:

  • in his early career as a junior barrister, the ODNB says he did mainly insolvency and "running down cases". Is "running down" insolvency-related, or perhaps car accident/personal injury? The ODNB also says he did divorce and libel cases as a silk, not primarily criminal cases, which may explain why he was first assigned to the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division when he joined the bench.
    I understand "running down" to refer to the process of winding up a company voluntarily, as opposed to being forced into administration by creditors. certainly nothing to do with road traffic accidents anyway. Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • he seems to have turned down the chance of promotion to the Court of Appeal, but like most High Court judges he sat occasionally on the appeal bench. Did he sit on the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council? Anything significant in the appeals he heard?
    There's no evidence to suggest that sat on the Judicial Committee and no reason to suppose that he might have done. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lord Roskill was a retired Law Lord (not High Court judge) when his ODNB biography of Stevenson was published in 2004. The article makes it appear that Roskill was replying to Sir Robin Dunn's comments, but their comments were separated by 10 years: Sir Robin Dunn was a retired Court of Appeal judge when he made his remarks about Stevenson in his memoirs, Sword and Wig, in 1994. The report in The Times in 1994 also quotes Dunn's remarks about Stevenson's "savage sentencing" diverging from guidelines set by the Court of Appeal, and would often be reduced on appeal; and that Stevenson could not resist a witty interjection. It also mentions another quote from Stevenson in a bribery case: "You have tried, and to some extent succeeded, in converting Birmingham into a municipal Gomorrah." (this in relation to the Bryant trial, I think: [50])
  • Marcus Lipton introduced a motion to the House of Commons in 1976 asking for him to be dismissed from the bench, due to comments that Stevenson had made about other judges, for which Stevenson later apologised (perhaps the "constipated Methodists" comment? This was apparently in reaction to appeals in three of his cases being allowed on the same day.)
    The Marcus Lipton thing, coinciding with three of Stevenson's decisions being overturned by the Court of Appeal in a single day may indeed be significant, so I've added that. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stevenson was also involved in The Sunday Times/thalodomide injunction/contempt of court case, which eventually went to the European Court of Human Rights.
    He was involved in loads of cases, but I'd prefer this article didn't degenerate into a list, and instead tried to tease out some kind of a consistent narrative of the man's career. Malleus Fatuorum 02:36, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Based on shape and ribbon colour, I suspect the medals are the France and Germany Star and possibly the Defence Medal and War Medal (which are worn in that order, I believe: see British campaign medals). -- Ferma (talk) 21:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the tentative medal identifications made here by you both (Malleus and Ferma), many thanks to you both for that). It is something that could be added to the image page (with caveats), but not to the article (unless sources are available). One point of correction about Eustace Roskill - he died in 1996. The article he wrote on Stevenson (along with a couple of others he wrote) was published in 1996 by the DNB in one of their supplements. The 2004 date is when these articles were published as an ODNB articles. The points you make about Roskill and Dunn still stand, but I wanted to correct the point about Roskill being a retired Law Lord in 2004 (he was retired in a more permanent sense by that time). Carcharoth (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [51].

Inocybe saliceticola

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a short article, but I think it includes everything it needs. I'm afraid I can't promise tales of poisoning or great economic importance, but I did manage to acquire a photograph of this obscure Nordic species, and I've included my own sketch of the spores. Thank you for your time! J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Mostly minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 18:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your thoughts. J Milburn (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • lead: link habit
    • Done.
  • "and may includes" -> include
    • Done.
  • perhaps add a few words to describe what characters are typical of the section Marginatae (assuming it's more than just association with Salix)
  • "The cap's colour varies from yellow-brown to pale brown, and is palest at the margins." add underlined (or similar)
    • Done.
  • "The slender stem measures from 0.7 to 6.2 centimetres (0.28 to 2.4 in) by 1.5 to 6.5 millimetres (0.059 to 0.26 in)." it's obvious, but perhaps add "long" and "thick" to these measurements. The value "0.28" should have one fewer sig fig to match the input
    • Done.
  • "It varies in colour" clarify "It" ( the stem, or the atypical specimen referred to in the previous sentence?)
    • Done.
  • probably should tweak image placement so that the spore pic isn't pushing in the "Micro chars" subheading
  • "Four spores are borne on each basidia." basidium
    • Done.
  • "The cell wall can be as much as 4.5 μm thick." -> is up to
    • Done.
  • "strongly-protruding excrescences" no hyphen needed after "-ly" words
    • Done.
  • "In addition, they are found in vastly different habitats; I. mixtilis and" think a colon is better than a semi-colon here
    • Done.
  • "… has confirmed that it is I. obtusiuscula and I. saliceticola are separate species." extra words "it is" here?
    • Done.
  • "while the spore are larger." -> spores
    • Done.
  • for consistency, might want to use short form binomials for three Salix species in "Dist & hab"
    • Done.
  • am wondering if a range map might be a more useful image for "Dist and hab" rather than a single species of moss with which the fungus grows?
  • Support. I believe the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Sphagnum_squarrosum_091207.jpg: image description page says "My name (Bernd Haynold) must be clearly visible close to the picture" - would you read this as a request for caption attribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's just a reminder that the picture is not just in the public domain. My usage is consistent with the licenses under which the image is released. J Milburn (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has now been removed and been replaced with a map. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'll mainly be looking at prose, punctuation, and manual of style here, since I don't know too much about the subject matter. It looks pretty well written, only a few small issues:
  • I think that one weakness in the prose is the number of short sentences, particularly in "Microscopic characteristics", the end of the first paragraph of "Description", and the second paragraph of "Distribution and habitat".
  • "the mushrooms of I. hirculus have a much more fibrillose cap, that is, a cap with many more fibrils" Is there a more concise way to put this?
  • "with the original description describing it only as "fungoid"." Not a big deal, but this is the WP:PLUSING construction.
    • Done.
  • There are a few commas that I think could be removed: "particular species favoured by the fungus are unclear, and may include beech and alder taxa", " The longer caulocystidia (cystidia on the stem) measure up to 99 μm in length, and have a more variable shape." & "the abundant cauloparacystidia can have slightly thicker walls, and are often arranged in clusters".
  • "I. salicis is rare in Nordic countries, and is typically collected from dunes." I'm not sure we need the comma here, also, is it rare in Nordic countries because of the lack of dunes there? I feel similarly about "it grows on fine sand, and has not been recorded in Finland".
    • I don't know- the point is that both are features which differentiate it clearly from I. saliceticola. I worry that removing the comma would imply that the two facts are more related than they are. J Milburn (talk) 16:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, that's it from me. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I really appreciate you taking the time to read the article. I've been away this weekend, and have found myself busy now- I will get to them. J Milburn (talk) 18:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The duplicate detector found the following linked more than once in the body of the article (i.e. excluding infoboxes and the lead section): willow and Inocybe
    • Done.
  • conical or nearly so, but as the mushroom matures, the caps flatten into a more convex — surely flatter is less convex?


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 15:33, 8 September 2012 [52].

Auriga (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the next northern constellation article for your collective wonderful consideration. Auriga is a big important winter constellation with a bright, distinctive pentagon pattern. It contains several really lovely star clusters and at least two major scientific conundrums in the stars Epsilon and AE Aurigae. It's in the same vein as the others, sourced to everything I could get my hands on in a 30 mile radius. I hope you enjoy and aren't quite sick of the constellations yet! Keilana|Parlez ici 05:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Asterism—link at first occurence
  • "One" and "many" overused in lead
  • and who was the charioteer of Oenomaus—lose "who was"
  • a race, designed for suitors—lose comma, "intended" may be better than "designed"
  • chariot wrecked—"was wrecked"
  • important religiously—any explanation in what way?
  • 18,000,000 kilometers... 9,600,000 kilometers... 11300000—inconsistent separators, and what's wrong with using millions?
  • 11 miles (18 km) —Why the sudden change to imperial units?. Need to be consistent
  • Other single stars—most of this might be better presented as a table rather than repetitive text
  • Epsilon Aurigae. Epsilon Aurigae—link with comma, lose one of the names
  • Trumpler class—redlinked and unexplained, what is it?
  • were observed in California—why such a limited area?
  • Well, the Aurigids were not very well known and not many people believed that they would actually have an outburst then, so only a small handful of people observed it. The Aurigids are also known for being very very short - a few hours at most - so the chances of it being observed elsewhere in the world at random are very low. California was also in the right place for grazing meteors; the observer, Earth, and meteor stream all have to line up for that to happen. Tl;dr - it's an unusual shower that wasn't well observed. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • California time—even as a Brit, I'm pretty sure this isn't a standard time zone

Support – My concerns have been addresses and I think it's FA worthy. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 21:58, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Wow, you're sure cranking these out. Good stuff! Here are a few nit-picks:
  • Some of the paragraphs are inordinately long, which can make for tedious reading. Consider splitting up the larger ones.
  • Do you have a reliable source for the infobox entry saying this constellation has six planetary systems? I checked the List of stars in Auriga (which is not a reliable source), and one of the six stars that are noted as having planets is also listed as unconfirmed.
  • The Template:Stars of Auriga lists two nearby stars, both of which appear to be within 10 parsecs. The infobox says '1'.
  • I think the lead makes too much fuss about the constellation's size. According to List of constellations by area, it is only 21st on the list; hardly worth a mention.
  • "This association is supported by the fact that depictions of Auriga rarely show a chariot, because Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race, designed for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter, Hippodamia": This sentence is a little awkward and could use some cleanup and clarification.
  • I've rewritten this to say "The association of Auriga and Myrtilus is supported by depictions of the constellation, which rarely show a chariot. Myrtilus's chariot was destroyed in a race intended for suitors to win the heart of Oenomaus's daughter Hippodamia" Is that better? Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of "History and mythology" has three consecutive uses of "defined". Could a synonym be used?
  • "The primary has a diameter of 18,000,000 kilometers...": My concern here is that listing a star's size in kilometres is not helpful in terms of having lay reader's relate to it. How big is that, really? It's much better to use a comparison with the size of the Sun, for example.
  • "The two components are separated by 11[,]300[,]000 kilometers": So their separation is smaller than their combined radii? Does this mean they have a common envelope? Again, it may be difficult for the reader to fully grasp this scale without a comparison. I know it is for me.
  • The source wasn't specific about whether or not they have a common envelope but I would assume that they do. I've added a comparison to the Sun's diameter, not sure if anything else is needed there. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, well with all due respect to the source's author, Mr. Moore, I don't think that's true. Torres at al (2009, p. 13) lists them as "well detached". On page 34 of the latter source it lists a separation of 110 million km. You might consider using that ref. for both the radii and the separation. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hrmmm. I've used that source for the masses, radii, and separation. I'm just assuming that this is new data that Moore didn't have in 2000; they mentioned in the paper that they had improved over measurements made in 1994. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That may well be. But the orbital period seemed too long for it to be a contact binary and a common envelope would have been a prominent feature in the description. Then again they are giants, so what do I know? Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stars are weird! I'm gonna go off the more current source, I think, given that I'm not a professional astronomer (just a student) - I figure the most recent peer-reviewed study is going to have the most current/accurate information. I do agree - if they really did have a common envelope that would have been mentioned in the Torres/Claret/Young paper for sure, as well as in popular sources, given that that's an interesting tidbit. Are you okay with that part of the Capella paragraph as it stands, or do you think it needs tweaking? Thanks again for picking up on that - I totally missed it. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:41, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the same paragraph the text switches to using astronomical units rather than km.
  • First use of "absolute magnitude", "light-year", and "eclipsing variable star" should be wikilinked.
  • "It is moving towards Earth at a speed of about 11 miles (18 km) per second." Umm, actually not, because it has a non-zero proper motion. The component of its motion in the direction of the Earth is 18 km/s.
  • I know you have the first instance of M☉ wikilinked, but really, what readers are going to know this means the mass of the Sun (except for astronomy weenies like me)? I'd like to suggest that the first instance do something like this: 3.09 times the Sun's mass (M☉).
  • Nearly all sources list Beta Tauri as a B-type giant star. O-type stars are massive things, so the distinction is kind of important.
  • The "Other single stars" section is pretty dry reading. The text essentially consists of a series of star names, types, absolute magnitudes and distances. I'm not sure it is quite engaging enough.
  • For Upsilon Aurigae, what is a "GM1-type star"? The 'G' looks like a typo.
  • In the "Eclipsing variable stars" section, the second instance of Epsilon Aurigae is linked rather than the first. It's also a bit redundant to start the second sentence with the end of the first.
  • For Zeta Aurigae, this is a binary system so there are two classifications visible; a K-type bright giant and a B-type main sequence star. The description makes it seem like it is only a K-type star.
  • "...but it varies irregularly": in magnitude? Some stars vary in other ways.
  • "...in aperture to distinguish": usually the word "resolve" is used here, per Optical resolution.
  • "...making it the richest cluster in Auriga": Which, the 150 total stars or the orange star at the center?

There's some good material in this article, but I'm not convinced it's quite up to satisfying the FA criteria yet. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks so much for the comments. I will definitely get to them in the next couple of days, please don't think I'm ignoring them! Real life is being particularly hard right now and the past few days have been spent entirely handling all that - not much energy is left for wiki-matters. I'm trying, I'll try to get through a few tonight but any major things ("Other single stars") will likely wait a couple of days. I'm really sorry and want to give your comments the time and attention they deserve, it just may take longer than I'd hoped. Keilana|Parlez ici 06:59, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I'm in no hurry. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for waiting. I think I've taken care of all your comments; would you mind taking another look? I really appreciate the help. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:14, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8/18 Additions
  • I notice that the article uses units of 'miles' in a number of locations. Since this is primarily a science article, WP:UNITS indicates that kilometres should be used instead. Astronomical units are okay since they are specialized units in astronomy.
  • A number of the stars don't include the luminosity class that forms part of the Morgan-Keenan system. This is particularly so for the table in the "Other bright stars" section. I'm not quite clear why that is being left out since it can tell us something about the star's evolutionary stage. It's okay to leave this out if the star's evolutionary stage is already described, but I think not otherwise.

Otherwise this looks FA-worthy and I'm ready to support. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Queries.

  • I stared at the image of M38, and I cannot for the life of me see what the text describes as "a cross-shaped or pi-shaped object in a telescope and contains approximately 100 stars". I accept that reliable sources may describe M38 in this way, but it doesn't help a lay reader if the available image doesn't appear to support that.
  • I don't think we want clarifying text. To be blunt, we either need an image where a lay person can see the pattern, or we remove the reference to the distinctive pattern in the caption (ugly but probably acceptable solution). Given the image has to be licenced as free, you may be stuck with the current one. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't it be acceptable to just include an explanation as to why the feature is not visible in the photo? Alternatively, I think the image could be copied and modified to outline the feature. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've changed the caption to say "A photograph of M38; its characteristic shape, clearly visible to an observer in a telescope, is obscured by the greater number of stars revealed by a long-exposure photograph." How does that look? Keilana|Parlez ici 16:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a redlink for "orange supergiant". WP has a well-developed series of articles on stars, including luminosity classes, and this isn't mentioned. My first impulse was to create a stub, but my attempts to google the term (both mainstream and Scholar) suggest to me that it is not a valid encyclopedic term. Rather, there are stars that are red supergiants and look orange to our eye.

hamiltonstone (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yeah, I think that got sorted with the luminosity classes I added earlier. It's now described as an orange-hued supergiant, which is accurate to the spectral class as far as I can tell. It's a K-type star, which means it appears orange, and its luminosity class is I (supergiant). Does that look better to you? Keilana|Parlez ici 06:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lead has "eclipsing binary" but "eclipsing variable" is written elsewhere. Personally I find the former more accurate but the latter term is in widespread use. Given this the choice of the latter is not a deal-breaker for FAC as such, but article needs to be consistent whichever one is chosen...
However, this may have represented just Capella (alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole.. "alpha Aurigae" only part capitalised here....

Above are only minor quibbles - this looks good to go otherwise....Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PumpkinSky talk 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments.

  • To be ridiculously fussy, "nearby Epsilon Aurigae is an eclipsing binary with an unusually long period and has been studied intensively" is ambiguous ... well, if you don't have the context. You could try "Epsilon Aurigae, a nearby eclipsing binary with an unusually long period, has been studied intensively". Or "The nearby ...". I've borrowed this for my "Spot the ambiguity" exericises.
    • I'm honored! I chose your first option thinking that it fit in better. Thanks.
  • Theme and rheme: you might consider changing the "this is what I'm going to tell you about" opening, from "Auriga's stars" to "In Chinese mythology", which is a nice fresh contrast with the previous thematic flow: "In Chinese mythology, Auriga's stars were incorporated into several constellations, including the celestial emperors' chariots, made up of the modern constellation's brightest stars." You be the judge. Then, "Auriga is home to ...", to make the referent clear.
  • Watch the back-referring "it" ... always check to see that the referent is clear; even experts would like this: "It was alternatively called ...". What is "it"? Apply that same technique for clear cohesion as you've done further down in the Myrtilus/Pelops sentence.
    • Rewritten as "The first record of Auriga's stars was in Mesopotamia as a constellation called GAM, representing a scimitar or crook. However, this may have represented just Capella (Alpha Aurigae) or the modern constellation as a whole; this figure was alternatively called Gamlum or MUL.GAM in the MUL.APIN." Is that alright? Keilana|Parlez ici 03:11, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraphing clashes with the topical theme: "However, Auriga is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was Hermes's son and the charioteer of Oenomaus ...". The close back-reference of "however" has to jump across that gap you put there. So try medial position: "Auriga, however, is sometimes named as Myrtilus, who was ...". But I wouldn't balk if you decided to leave as is.
  • His stepmother Phaedra committed suicide because he spurned her advances? If so, make it clear.
  • "it is likely that it was" ... could you substitute the referent for the second "it", in this thematic equative (the first "it" is still the subject of the whole clause, of course).
  • "17th century France"—hyphen.
  • "The two components are separated by 110 million kilometers."—it's fine, but if you want to excite the non-scientists, you could add "a little more than two-thirds of the distance between the Earth and the Sun" ... if my hunch is right. No big deal, just an idle suggestion.

I haven't looked at the rest; the writing is pretty good so far. Well done. Tony (talk) 12:07, 1 September 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [53].

Grey Cup

[edit]
Nominator(s): Resolute 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present Canada's other sporting trophy, the championship of Canadian football. The Grey Cup has been broken, stolen, burned in a fire, held for ransom and, oh yeah, won 99 times. Players have nearly drowned trying to win it (really!) and fought through truly ridiculous weather to capture it. The 100th Grey Cup is being played this November, and with that anniversary in mind, I have spent the last couple months working it up to what I hope is featured calibre. And so, I present it to the community, in the hopes that I can lay claim to the first true Canadian football-related FA. Cheers! Resolute 01:14, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comment
  • Could you make it a bit clearer in the article exactly what type of football this cup is played for? At a first skim read, I figured the Grey Cup must be a trophy for American football, but only when I clicked through the link to the CFL did I discover that it's for Canadian football, something I didn't previously even know existed. Then I noticed that the lead refers to it being a trophy for rugby - was the cup originally a rugby trophy and only became a Canadian football trophy later? If so, when did this happen? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm . You know, specifying that this is for Canadian football is so bloody obvious, I never even thought of it. It's all just "football" in North America. Thanks for pointing that out! As to your second question, my being overly precise is probably causing your confusion. The game was still evolving in the Grey Cup's earliest years from the "McGill Rules" (beginning 1874) to what it is today, and was often called "rugby-football" in the early part of the century. I'll simplify to avoid confusion. Resolute 14:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support as one who has been to a few himself. A few comments:
  • Can nothing be said about the mechanism which determined who played for the title in the early years?
    Added a blurb at the start of the "Western competition" section.
    " to win the last Grey Cup held between two eastern teams." Since it is possible for two eastern teams, presently, to play for the Cup, perhaps don't shut the door quite so definitively.
    Fixed.
    Was the television audience able to see the game in the Fog Bowl?
    I'm not finding anything one way or the other. The Montreal Gazette had extensive coverage the day after the game (ref 39 is to one story), but while there are a couple stories about TV (both on page 20), neither says either way. I think, given the quality of cameras covering live sports back then, it is safe to assume the viewers would not have seen a whole lot if the fans couldn't, but I haven't found a statement either way.
    Found a source on this, and added. The play was largely invisible on TV as well. Resolute 03:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I find, somewhat to my shock, that this article nowhere contains the word "Sunday". Surely an oversight?
    Yup. Fixed
    " It was the first of five consecutive championships, a streak unprecedented in the history of the Grey Cup." As it remains so, I would make that clear.
    Fixed
  • There is an issue in the references. You have books written by a "Kelly, Graham", but they are referred to by "Graham 1999" in the references, and the scripts I use are showing it as an error.
  • I hate people with first names for last names! Fixed
  • Is it possible to say how the Grey Cup "caught on" with the public, either in the chronological section or in the section which discusses the festival?
  • A mention of the halftime musical performers for the last couple of years might be a good idea.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added 2011's act. Would add this year, but I don't think it has been announced yet.
Still working on the rest. Will update as I can, thanks for reviewing! Resolute 23:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, should have everything but the Grey Cup "catching on". I'll look to add from a "popularity of the game" perspective in the next day or two. Thanks, Resolute 00:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on some popularity angles, but it is proving surprisingly difficult so far. I have expanded on attendance records in the host cities section, and noted in the beginning of the Renaissance how the popularity of the game helped keep the CFL afloat. Still searching the news archives for earlier info. Resolute 00:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Found some on the 1921 game launching the Cup's popularity and added to the appropriate section. Resolute 01:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • CFL USA: "in order to avoid direct competition with an NFL team." First two words of this can safely be chopped.
  • Don't think another Alouttes link is needed here, since the one from the previous section appears to cover the old incarnation of the team.
  • Renaissance: Again, the Eskimos link is a repeat from earlier and is unneeded. There look to be some other repeat links here as well. Might be worth scanning the article for them.
  • The David Duval link goes to the Open Championship-winning golfer. There's probably another link to an article on this Duval, and I suggest finding it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All should be fixed, including excess extra links you did not mention. Thanks, Resolute 15:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Fixed?
  • File:Albert_Grey.jpg should include original not upload date
  • Fixed
  • File:1956_Grey_Cup_victory.jpg: how do we know that the Flickr uploader holds copyright to this image?
  • The Flickr uploader is the City of Toronto Archives, and per this link (scroll to the last entry, click on link below "Fonds 1653; Gilbert A. Milne & Co. Ltd. fonds"), copyright was transferred to the archives when they acquired this collection. They have the right to release as CC-BY.
  • Sigh. I have some choice words for the URAA that aren't appropriate here, however the short answer is: I don't know. Since the photo predates the 1999 changes to Canada's copyright act, this image became PD in Canada on December 1, 1998. I would like to keep the image, as it is a good example of the original style of the trophy, but I will defer to your judgement on it's copyright status in the US, and therefore suitability for retention here. Thanks, Resolute 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I'll move it local and add a FU tag (likely this weekend). I've been trying to find a pre-1946 image that would definitely be PD in both countries, but have found it surprisingly difficult thus far. Resolute 03:05, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Got a digital copy of the 1909 GC champions to use instead. It isn't as good an image of the trophy, but has obvious historic value and is definitely PD in both Canada and the United States. Thanks, Resolute 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (assuming images all check out). Not a sports fan; loved the article and the prose. Thought I had found one nitpick, but looked it up in my Shorter Oxford and found I was wrong, so I've got nothing. hamiltonstone (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN12: title?
  • FN22: doubled quotes
  • FN63 and similar: subscription notice (and location where present) shouldn't be italicized
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for bibliography entries
  • Publisher for Maher? Should also use endash in date range. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
endash done. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • All should be corrected. I haven't been able to find a location for the Maher book. I also didn't add it, but it seems like it is a print-on-demand book and self-published, so I'm not sure that is applicable anyway. Thanks again, Resolute 03:03, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Very enjoyable article. I well remember sitting out in the cold for five hours in Regina and in Hamilton (the 1996 Snow Bowl). Glad to read this one in comfort.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support great and vast improvements since i have last read the article....Small Note ..drop see also section and simply add a ortal bar at bottom of page.Moxy (talk) 20:57, 29 August 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [54].

SMS Kaiser (1911)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another German battleship from World War I — I wrote this article back in 2010, and it passed a GAN and a Milhist ACR in August and September of that year, respectively. It's been waiting in the queue for a while now, but not too much dust should have gathered on it in that time. The article is part of this 62-article Good Topic, which is creeping toward the 50% FA threshold. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FA criteria and our expectations for Wikipedia's best work. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review File:Bundesarchiv DVM 10 Bild-23-61-83, Linienschiff "SMS Kaiser".jpg should have an image description in English, as well as in German (unless the cooperation project requires something about the caption). File:Kaiser class diagram.jpg is fine. File:SMS Kaiser.png lacks an information infobox and a "Do not move to commons" template. File:SMS Kaiser turrets aft2.jpg is fine; it may be better without the watermark, but I'm not sure if that's technically possible (in any case, the copyright tag is fine and he watermark is hardly visible in the article, so it isn't really a problem). File:Jutland1916.jpg should have a better description, move the year to the "date" field, and edit the source so that is does not appear as a raw link. File:Bundesarchiv Bild 146-1970-074-34, Besetzung der Insel Ösel, Truppenanlandung.jpg is fine. I don't think the 1923 template is really needed in File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg, as it is a completely different map: just being a map of the same place and having small notes on locations is not enough to say that one is a derivative work of the other. The second licence, the one by the creator of the new map, should be enough. I will check the article itself later. Cambalachero (talk) 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

English caption added to the first Bundesarchiv photo
Added a {{Do not move to Commons}} to SMS Kaiser.png.
For Jutland1916.jpg, I have improved the caption, but the date field in the template refers to the date of creation for the image, not the date of the events depicted. As far as I can tell, the date for the map is not given.
For File:Internment at Scapa Flow.svg, the map was created by Jappalang, who know his stuff about licensing, so I trust his judgement about what tags should be used.
Thanks for reviewing the images, especially so quickly after I posted the nomination. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I'm not a native speaker of English, I can't review the grammar or the prose. Having noted that, I noticed only one potential concern: there's a "Unfortunately" in the first paragraph of the Battle of Jutland section, this is a common word to avoid, as it is subjetive (what is "unfortunate" for a belligerent, is usually "fortunate" for the other). The article does not follow the "one footnote per sentence" rule, but I don't think there's a problem with that, I did not see any controversial, dubious or disputed information around, so the "one footnote per paragraph" should be enough. If the image details and the word "Unfortunately" are fixed, I think it should be enough to support the article. Cambalachero (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the delayed repairs to Seydlitz as being particularly beneficial to one side or the other, but I have nevertheless changed it. Thanks again for reviewing the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support (with the exception of grammar and prose, which I can't review as explained). After the changes, I have no further requests. By the way, the "date" field of files should be always filled, if the date is unknown or not mentioned, then say so; I have fixed that myself. As for the "Do not move to Commons", I forgot to mention the template {{PD-US-1923-abroad}}, which is a single template for this type of works (published outside the US before 1923, but not PD in the source country yet); I have fixed that as well. Cambalachero (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I covered everything but two subsections, on Jutland and Albion, when this was at A-class two years ago, and I've looked at the changes that have been made to everything but those two subsections, and those are fine. I've just copyedited the Jutland and Albion subsections this morning. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) – Dank (push to talk) 14:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(That is a rather busy diff, but it's much clearer if stepped through one edit at a time. No worries; all is goodness. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]
I haven't heard a lot of feedback on that method of showing my edits, so any feedback is welcome. Are you saying you like it or don't like it? - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The tool? It's very useful. I use it all the time. Anyone looking to check will be able to easily. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I went over this article in June in detail and have no worries that it has any issues. Suggest an expedited review so that the nom can get on with bringing forward the backlog for the Featured Topic. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "expedited reviews", I think I'm going to bite the bullet and suggest at WT:MHC that we try to think of ways to get articles through all the review processes faster; reviews are sporadic, and we're losing editors, or at least losing their attention. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support that. It shouldn't be a rubber stamp, but for cases like this, Parsecboy should be able to bring a whole class up for review at once; the ship class article and the members. Since they are so closely related, it will save everyone a lot of bother. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:02, 27 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

Comments based on HRS volume 5

Support MisterBee1966 (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - a well-written article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:33, 1 September 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [55].

Stephen Hawking

[edit]
Nominator(s): Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria as I understand them. Until very recently it was one of those wonderful articles that had arisen through many thousands of editors making one or two changes. Since then I nominated it for GA, which it passed following review from Binksternet, and has also had a peer review from Finetooth (with continuing useful comments from Binksternet)- both these processes have improved the article immensely.

In it's first FAC it coped well but was ultimately rejected… It had another PR afters from User:TimothyRias, who knows his Physics, and it's been quite deeply rewritten (the local library are getting sick of me). One of the interesting things about that process was to see how much it's worth going straight from the biographies in many cases, rather than building up from lots of newspaper stories… Fayedizard (talk) 06:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In it's second FAC it had some excellent comments, but unfortunately not enough support, I'm hoping the third time is the charm. Fayedizard (talk) 09:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, the article should contain a separate section on the scientific work of Hawking. It is a good form of writing an articles about famous physicists (see, for example, Ludwig Boltzmann, James Clerk Maxwell). I mean, information about the scientific work of Hawking should be more specifically described in article, like it is done in the article about Albert Einstein. --Heller2007 (talk) 15:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Heller, it's always nice to get comments (and actually I haven't read though Maxwell's article before, so that was quite interesting) - I confess that I though the career section *was* a section specifically describing Hawking's scientific work - it's split by time period rather than by field largely because of (continuing) progression of Hawking's ideas over the years. I suspect that there is a tension here between providing a narrative structure for the continuing work of a living physicist, and the ability to take a much longer view of the ideas inspired by a figure like Einstein, whose work can be viewed from a much greater distance - I think this is probably an interesting conversation to have, although maybe not here - can we continue it either at WP:Physics or the Hawking talk page? Fayedizard (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you that it is very difficult to describe the work of a living scientist. One can correctly estimate the scientist's work only after a long enough period of time. That's why I think your approach is acceptable. Nevertheless the most established positions of the Hawking's theory should be marked separately in the article, in my opinion. I also agree with you that this is an interesting subject for conversation, and I ready to continue it at the Hawking talk page. --Heller2007 (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the "career" section quite effectively summarizes the scientific contributions of Hawking. Also this is certainly not a requirement for FA. See for example the recently promoted J. Robbert Oppenheimer for an article that is almost completely linear in its narrative.TR 10:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment <repasting an unreplied comment I made at the fag-end of the previous FAC> For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am surprised by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 14:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Conciseness is a virtue not a flaw. The Oppenheimer example you mention, is an example of an article that is overly winded by focussing on a lot of anecdotal detail. As far as I can tell this article is fairly comprehensive. So, unless you missing anything specific, I don't really see what you are objecting too.TR 15:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For starters, there's very little of Stephen Hawking the author (there more here about a bet he made than all the bestselling books he wrote put together). Forr eg: why did he write Brief History, what did the critics say about it, why was so popular, does it have a place in the modern non-fiction canon (Time 100 for Non-Fiction, for eg) and similarly for his other books. Also, there's nothing about Hawking the iconic public figure? Surely there must be a lot of commentary about that ("As a person of great interest to the public"—why, exactly?)? As it is, with its focus on scientific achievement, lists of books written and awards won, the article has a bare-bones résumé feel to it. I think it needs more drama.—indopug (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Indopug - apologies for not getting back to your earlier - it slipped my mind when trying to work out the mechanics of renominating - I'm doing to reply to both you and TSU below...Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that there is a separate article about A Brief History of Time, so there shouldn't be much more than a mention in the biography. Similarly there are separate articles covering major aspects of his work such as Hawking radiation too. Roger (talk) 11:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Should our Shakespeare article have not "much more than a mention" of Romeo and Juliet because there is an article for that? I think Hawking the pop-science writer is as well known and notable as Hawking the physicist. His writing career should have its own section and deserves to be discussed at (reasonable) length.—indopug (talk) 09:20, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree to some degree. The article should at least answer the question "Why did this guy in a wheelchair who needs to use his cheek to get words out of his head into the outside world, decide to write a book on popular science?"TR 10:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sensible (the answer, according to the Ferguson Bio. appears to be simply that he did it for income) but, as discussed below, a lot of content relevant to this was rubbed away following successive comments at the GA, PR and first FAC - I'm quite happy to add more (Higgs and the Paralympics will likely go in at the same time) but I'll like to make that it stuff that's definitely desired - is there any content in pervious versions or the BHOT page that you would particularly like to see restored? Fayedizard (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as length is concerned, I have no problem but I believe that In popular culture could be expanded as much as Illness section is. TheSpecialUser TSU 16:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Evening both, with regard to pop culture and icon status and so on, I'm very happy and flexible - my concern is that since beginning this process in February, a constant feedback in the GA, the PR and the first FAC was to remove the 'triva' and what some editors saw as gossip (and also that it wasn't focusing sufficiently on the science). So there is clearly a bit of a push-pull going on here and such things have gradually eroded. I think it would be great if we could talk about specifics, for example here is the version before the trimming [56], and there is also the sub-article Stephen_Hawking_in_popular_culture, are there particular parts of either that jump out at you as to be included? Fayedizard (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that the subsection In popular culture should be expanded, but it's a little bit strange for me to see this subsection in the Personal life section. --Heller2007 (talk) 19:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the placement in the "personal life" section stuck me as very odd too. Usually, "popular culture" sections tend to go at the very bottom of articles such as this. And I actually don't think I would classify his integration into the popular culture as "personal life". How about moving that section down in the article to being right above the "see also" section. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- sounds good to be, will fix shortly (at work at the moment) unless anyone else wants to move it in the meantime...Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it will be more appropriate variant. --Heller2007 (talk) 04:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for working on this. Is there a reason The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time is omitted in the list of his books? I can only find it linked in the SH template and it's an important work. Regards Hekerui (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I went back and forth on this a little (it's sitting on my shelf) mainly it's not in there because that's a list of his more 'popular' books, and I ummed and ahhed about putting some mention of it in the career section instead, but felt that might look a bit strange placement-wise... but I'm pretty flexible generally - at the moment it's not in in the same way that his publications list is not in...but really - could be either way... Fayedizard (talk) 08:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a publication list we can link to? I can't find one. Hekerui (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[57] (right there on his official home page, which is already linked.)TR 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a tid bit about the "The Large scale ..." book in the career section connecting it to the Adams prize he won with Penrose on the same subject.TR 11:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • *With the help of his doctoral tutor, Dennis William Sciama, he returned to working on his PhD after the disease had stabilised - his disease isn't mentioned as of yet except in the lead. Could do with being clarified.
  • I agree with the comments above regarding length. I was surprised how short it was. However, I cannot see anything that is obviously missing, and its conciseness is a positive as well - a fair plenty of articles can be overwritten. The main section I thought could be significantly improved or expanded was his written work. It seems more of a list than any extensive prose. 2.26.51.191 (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um - I'm a little confused... the sentence before the Sciama line discusses the disease directly -"Hawking started developing symptoms of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as soon as he arrived at Cambridge and did not distinguish himself in his first two years at that institution" have I missunderstood? Fayedizard (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was me. I completely misunderstood that sentence. 2.28.96.20 (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I just read this while on a treadmill and bike at the gym on a smartphone. Reads very well. I do wonder whether a little more on some of his work in physics and cosmology could be included, but don't consider this a deal-breaker as the article is not short as such....Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Seems overlinked. Why is "British (people)" linked at the opening? Who's going to divert there? World War II seems hardly relevant enough to dilute the valuable links. "Blue Room" is in the White House, and tells you that at the target article; so there's no need to link directly to White House.
  • Typo: his arrival
  • "speech-generating device" ... I'm moving that linked article so it includes the hyphen. Tony (talk) 11:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It might be regarded as recentism but I think there is room for a line or two about his role in the Paralympic Games opening. His statement: "We live in a universe governed by rational laws that we can discover and understand. Look up at the stars and not down at your feet. Try to make sense of what you see and wonder about what makes the universe exist. Be curious." is quoted in 2012 Summer Paralympics opening ceremony#Enlightenment and reported in a wide variety of WP:RS media. Roger (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I'm currently just blanking on the right way of saying it... are you thinking the popular culture section or as part of the disability section?Fayedizard (talk) 09:09, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, as an example of how his struggle with his illness has given him an iconic status?TR 10:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Put it under "Popular culture" - it's comparable to tv appearances. His "iconic status" is a different topic. Roger (talk) 12:26, 3 September 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [58].

The Concert in Central Park

[edit]
Nominator(s): Kürbis (✔) 09:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because of low interest in the second nom and because it meets the criteria. Regards. Kürbis (✔) 09:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I both reviewed the article and also did a fair amount of work on it. I believe it meets the criteria.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you support! Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 10:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentSupport
  • No alt text on image for album cover.
  • I thought this is not required?
  • My understanding is that alt text is required, per WP:ALT.
  • Fn57 is a dead link.
  • Yes, that site is always changing. Weeks ago it was not broken, now it is again dead...
  • And in the naked light I saw ten thousand people maybe more - needs quotation marks and a cite.
  • Not sure what you mean. This is inside a quote box
  • "I need to talk to you!" - needs a citation.
  • It does not, as it is can be heared in the album or video
  • It appears, from the text later in the paragraph that this part was omitted from the album due to the outburst. Could you clarify it it was or was not on the album?
  • The paragraph tells that "it did not appear on the live album because of the interruption."
  • In Critical Reception, 1981 is bracketed - why?
  • Square brackets are used in quotes to emphasize that the editor changed the wording for logic's sake. For example, the quoting person may have said "this year", but the reader can not understand what year if there is no context available. So, square brackets are required and the content inside can be changed
  • "vividly recaptured another time, an era when well-crafted, melodic pop bore meanings that stretched beyond the musical sphere and into the realms of culture and politics" - needs a citation.
  • I don't understand you. This is from <ref name="Rolling Stone 1981-10-29" />
  • It was a little confusing, as that cite was after the next sentence.
  • "Let's have our own fireworks!" - needs a citation.
  • It does not as this appears in the CD and video
I don't see anything else at this time. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support - the article was already very comprehensive and an enjoyable read, and has been improved with the latest fixes and copy edits. Some more comments:

  • The quote-template uses "sign" instead of "author" (see template:QUOTE for more detail). I would fix them myself, but maybe you want to use a different quote format altogether.
  • The citations for those quote templates are not displayed at the moment (the nesting within the template is a problem). Putting them immediately after the quote text works.
  • regarding the "vividly ..."-quote: most articles, i've seen, use an additional immediate citation after the quote. GermanJoe (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments.

  • Minor stylistic point: you might consider removing the commas that occur before "and" if the sentence is not long, there are other commas in the vicinity (makes it smoother on the balance sheet), and no other "ands" are hanging around in the sentence. This one seems reasonable: "Davis authorized the project, and Delsener entered discussions with cable TV channel HBO to decide who would perform.", since the rhythm plays out nicely and they're two rather distinct meanings; this one's good two, describing two actions over time: "The man was carried away by security, and Simon finished the song." But the last comma in this next example might be better removed ... it also avoids the feeling of parallelism between the two sentences (I've bolded both, but just the last one is at issue, I think): "At the start of the 1980s, the city lacked the financial resources to spend an estimated US$3,000,000 to restore[1] or even to maintain the park, and serious consideration was given to closing it.[3] The nonprofit Central Park Conservancy was founded in 1980, and began a successful campaign to raise renovation funds.[4]". successful"
  • "rundown"—should it be two words? "run-down green space"? Not sure. "indicated" ... consider "showed" as just slightly more appropriate.
  • Done
  • "From the promoter's viewpoint, Simon and Garfunkel were ideal choices. Not only likely to draw a large crowd to the concert, they also had roots in the city:[5] both had grown up and gone to school in Forest Hills, Queens." I read the first clause and wondered whether it was a glitch. Strictly speaking, it's grammatical when taken as a whole, but is there a reason to use a marked theme in such an elaborate clause complex? You might consider something like: "From the promoter's viewpoint, Simon and Garfunkel were ideal choices. Not only were they likely to draw a large crowd to the concert—they also had roots in the city:[5] both had grown up and gone to school in Forest Hills, Queens." (I hope I guessed the right dash you're using ... come to think of it, you haven't used a single dash.)
  • Done
  • "Lyrics which referred to the New York area produced audience applause, such as Garfunkel's ode to his home city, "A Heart in New York", which describes from a New Yorker's point of view the first glimpse of the city when returning there by air:[27]" ... another parallel that could be avoided by starting "Lyrics referring to ...". Tony (talk) 01:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article, especially the prose, has improved remarkably since I opposed its June FAC.

  • According to compact disc, the CD was invented a few months after the original release of the live album. Hence, the album cover is not the original and probably needs to be changed.
  • ' "The Sound of Silence", "Mrs. Robinson", and "The Boxer" ': why are these particular songs mentioned by name in the lead? Is it because they are popular? Then mention that.
  • Done
  • "was certified 2x-platinum": expand this to mention and/or link to RIAA and the definition of platinum.
  • Was the original album a double LP? This needs to be mentioned in the lead.
  • The album is generally a double album
  • The set list and tracklist are a duplication of information. I suggest you remove the former, and incorporate the original performers into a column in the latter. Also, per WP:ALBUM, move the tracklist to its own section after Aftermath. To save space, you could do away with tracklisting template and just manually list side-by-side (like the set-list).
  • It was changed by a user. Perhaps it is better to split the album tracklisting and the set list, as there were cases of confusion.
  • "it did not appear on the live album because of the interruption.": source?
  • Removed
  • Couldn't the video's certifications just be a sub-section of the other one (renamed Chart performance and certification)?
  • Done
  • Citations need to be closely scrutinised for consistent formatting. I see missing retrieval dates, italicised websites, unitalicised newspapers etc.
  • Only big concern: is the Mario Gras book a reliable source? It is published by Books on Demand (BoD), which appears to be a self-publishing service. According to WP:SPS, "self-published media, such as books ... are largely not acceptable as sources."—indopug (talk) 08:20, 20 August 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [59].

Cley Marshes

[edit]
Nominators: Jimfbleak - talk to me?, MeegsC.talk

Thomas Telford, three Bishops, and dancing Italian prisoners of war; there's more to Cley than just the birds. Thanks to Dank for improvements. This was delayed in production by watching continuous multi-channel live Olympics, but here it is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • "The reserve can be reached by public transport using the CoastHopper bus service ... It is open daily from 10 am to 4:30 or 5:00 pm": Since the visitor centre gets 100K visitors annually, I'm sure there are a lot of readers who will want this information; still, the article lost its gravitas for me at this point. I'm wondering if this information could perhaps go in a caption (if you can find an image with that bus in it), or in the infobox.
  • I've dropped opening hours and Coasthopper, although I think it's reasonable to state that there is public transport to the reserve in the text.
  • "with free access to NWT members": FWIW, I'm against including pricing information. You can link to Wikitravel, and of course you do link to the official site.
  • I think it's reasonable to indicate whether access to any publicly accessible building or land is free or not. I can't see that stating free or paid is actually pricing information, although I accept that it would be wrong to say "entry is £4 to non-members" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the NWT was attempting to raise £1 million ... This purchase would create a unified 8 km (5 mi) stretch of NWT-owned coastal land": If they don't know where the money might come from, and if they're not under legal or contractual obligation on how they could spend the money if they raised it, then IMO there's a WP:CRYSTALBALL problem here. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to indicate that it is a specific public appeal to buy that land. Since it's made clear in the appeal leaflet (source) what the point of this purchase is, it would seem perverse to say they are trying to buy the adjacent land without saying why, although I've dropped the improved facilities bit. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "has a specialist binocular and telescope shop nearby", "The equivalent of 52 full-time jobs in the Cley area": gravitas again.
  • "To compensate, the Environment Agency and the Norfolk Wildlife Trust are working to make a new wetland near Hilgay. The 60-hectare (150-acre) Hilgay Wetland Creation Project will convert former farmland": CRYSTALBALL here, too ... are they legally or contractually obligated to do this? Where's the money coming from? Or is this someone's projection or opinion, and if so, whose? - Dank (push to talk) 04:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've separated out the fact of the EA/NWT Hilgay project, which has already started (added date), from the Wissey Living Landscape plan, which I think I have now made clear is the long-term overall context for inland developments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:05, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ref for Clactonian flints?
  • FN12: page formatting
  • Be consistent in whether you include only one or all authors in shortened citations
  • FN8: what kind of source is this?
  • FN11: don't italicize date
  • Comments: I started reading this last week but got distracted by wiki-drama. I'm most of the way through it now, but here are my comments on the first half.
  • Check for consistency with the serial comma, I see "protected through Natura 2000, Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar listings" and then "footpaths next to the A149 and down the East Bank, the beach, and the road running from the beach".
  • I see "In the mid-nineteenth century," but then "by the end of the 20th century" later in the article.
  • "locals were looking for food, but some "Gentleman Gunners" hunted to collect rare birds. One of the best known was E. C. Arnold, who collected for more than fifty years, and gave his name to the marsh at the north-east corner of the present reserve." Was Arnold a local or a gunner? The use of "collected" makes me think a gunner, but you might want to clarify.
  • "It has won a number of awards including the Emirates Glass LEAF International award for sustainability." Are the awards all environmental or were some given for other reasons?
  • "The reserve is considered to be one of the UK's best wetlands, and has been referred to as "a Mecca for birdwatchers"." One of the best wetlands for birdwatchers? Or one of the best in general?
  • "As of 2012, Billy's son, Bernard, who was appointed in 1978, was still in post." "was still in post" sounds odd, not sure if it's just me though.
  • I'm not sure you need the conversion for "The shoreline itself was hundreds of metres (yards) north" & "The spit is moving towards the mainland at about 1 m (1 yd) per year", but I would suggest one for "including two 6-inch guns".
  • "In the autumn, birds arrive from the north; some, such as Whimbrels, Curlew Sandpipers and Little Stints, just pausing for a few days to refuel before continuing south, others staying for the winter." Is the semicolon being used correctly here?
  • You also want to check the serial comma when you're listing all the species.
  • "The site is generally rich in plants, especially those that can cope with saline environments, but three species appear to have been lost; divided sedge was last recorded in 1999, grey hair-grass in 1982 and lax-flowered sea lavender in 1977." I'd consider a colon instead of a semicolon here.

Image check. All images have appropriate licences, including check of original licences at Geograph. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Lovely article. I note that the conservation plan is for managed retreat, much like the British economy ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 12:15, 28 August 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [60].

Giant anteater

[edit]
Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is now within range. It had recieved a GA review, a Peer review and has been copyedited by aleast two users: Lfstevens and Towns of Cats. Have at it. LittleJerry (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Nice looking article. I'll jot one or two points as I come across them.

  • There are a few cases of consecutive sentences using the same cite within the same paragraph (for example the first para in the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section where citenote 4 is used twice, one immediately after the other). In cases like this the cite is only really necessary in the second instance. There are further instances of this - e.g. the last para of "Feeding anatomy" using citenote 9 twice. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed so a paragraph doesn't use the same citenote twice (or more) in a row. For the last example you point to, there is a 12 citenotes between the 9 citenotes. LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The giant anteater is native to Central and South America. Its range stretches from Honduras to northern Argentina. Fossil remains have been found as far north as northwestern Sonora, Mexico. It is generally absent from the Andes and is extinct in Uruguay. It may also be extinct in Belize, Costa Rica and Guatemala." - this needs rephrasing, since as written it is saying that it may be extinct in an area outside its described range. Perhaps "Its range may have extended to Belize and Guatemala but it could be extinct in these countries" or somesuch. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "Its known range stretches..." LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "consorts". LittleJerry (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the changes, they were minor quibbles but looks better now. Simon Burchell (talk) 08:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think we now link countries and continents
I think its looks better. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • giant anteater is the largest anteater species, — rephrase to avoid repetition, eg largest of its family
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It forages in open areas and rests in more forested ones — I don't like that, perhaps change "ones" to "habitats"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • outside of mating — bit odd, perhaps other than when...
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Threats to its survival include habitat destruction and hunting, though some inhabit protected areas — change of subject halfway through sentence, "some anteaters" perhaps?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The giant anteater was classified by Carl Linnaeus in 1758 — worth say that it retains its original binomial, since most species didn't, and I think Systema Naturae is worthy of a mention. I'd also be inclined to give a ref to the original source, but that's not obligatory.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • although they likely began adapted to arboreal life — clunky, perhaps although they may originally have been adapted...
Fixed LittleJerry (talk)
  • 160 cycles per minute — "I'm not convinced that a reciprocating motion has cycles, but this implies a mechanical regularity which may be inappropriate
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • become diurnal in winter — The distribution is transequatorial, clarify "winter". Northern, or Southern?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giant anteaters are good swimmers and are capable of fording wide rivers — The two halves of the sentence don't link, fording is walking, not swimming
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grooming peaks during the first three months and declines as it reaches nine months of age — change of subject halfway through sentence, "as the juvenile reaches" perhaps?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One more comment The Dark, a documentary last night on BBC Two by a remarkable coincidence featured several giant anteaters visiting the same tree at night, some of them climbing the trunk for a few feet. This was described as part of the territorial scent-marking behaviour. It may be worth adding this if you can reference the behaviour. Not a deal-breaker though, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine from a copyright perspective. I added a few tags to clarify the status of the old sketch, but it's definitely PD in both the UK and the US. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead section, paragraph 2: "Though giant anteaters live in overlapping home ranges, they are mostly solitary other than when mating, during mother-offspring relationships and aggressive interactions between males." The syntax of the last part of the sentence isn't quite right. I suggest the following instead: "Though giant anteaters live in overlapping home ranges, they are mostly solitary except during mother-offspring relationships, aggressive interactions between males, and when mating." Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:31, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 1: "Anteaters have survived up to 16 years in captivity." I don't think that this fits in the "Description" section. Perhaps move it to the end of the "Distribution and status" section? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:55, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to "can live". It is meant to talk about their lifespan but it seems it has only been recorded in captivity. LittleJerry (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The current text: "Anteaters have been recorded living around 16 years in captivity." doesn't read smoothly. How about "Giant anteaters can live around 16 years in captivity"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 2: "A stiff mane travels along its back." The mane doesn't actually move along the back. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is with the word "travels". The mane doesn't actually travel anywhere. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:06, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have changed it back to "back". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 2: "The thickness of the coat makes up for the animal's relatively low body temperature of 33 °C (91 °F), a few degrees lower than typical mammalian temperature of 36–38 °C (97–100 °F)." Is that really true? The thick coat would allow the anteater to expend less energy to maintain its body temperature. However that isn't a reason for it to have a lower temperature. Indeed the coat would tend to increase its body temperature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misread it. The coat doesn't give it a low body temperature, it makes up for it. LittleJerry (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How can the coat "make up for" the lower body temperature? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 2 in the "Description" section describes the external appearance of the animal. However the photo nearby is of a skeleton. I had to scroll up and down to compare the text with the photo of the living animal in "Distribution and status". How about swapping the photo in "Distribution and status" with the skeleton photo? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that makes sense. A skeleton does not illustrate its distribution. There are plenty of external images like the lead and the one just below. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added external image. LittleJerry (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "The middle digits, which support most of its weight, are elongated at the metacarpophalangeal joints and bent at the interphalangeal joints." How can the metacarpophalangeal joints be elongated? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "Unlike the front feet, the hind feet have short claws on all five toes, allowing it to walk plantigrade." How does having short claws on all five toes allow it to walk plantigrade? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Distribution and status", paragraph 1, the wikilink for "Andes" seems to extend into the inline citation. I'm not sure how to fix this. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem. LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it may have been from when I was viewing on an older browser earlier today. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Distribution and status", paragraph 1: "Anteaters are dependent on colonial insects and cannot survive without them." This sentence requires a reference. Also, I presume that these "colonial insects" are restricted to non-flying insects (e.g. ants & termites)? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Description", paragraph 3: "The elongated claws force the anteater to walk on its knuckles." Does the reference say that the claws "force" the anteater to do this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It says that the anteater walks on its knuckles because of the length of the claws. LittleJerry (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reference states "All xenarthrans exhibit large claws, and it is probably that "knuckle-walking" in Myrmecophaga evolved out of the need to tuck these claws out of the way during terrestrial quadrupedalism." How about "The giant anteater walks on its front knuckles, similar to the African apes, specifically gorillas and chimpanzees. Doing this allows the anteater to keep its claws out of the way while walking." Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Foraging and predation", paragraph 3: "Bees have nutritional value and anteaters may target termite mounds with bee hives." The preceding sentence already states that the anteater eats bees that live in termite mounds. Isn't it self-evident that bees have nutritional value? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed LittleJerry (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Foraging and predation", paragraph 3: "They typically flee from danger by galloping but if forced[26] will rear up on their hind legs and slash at the attacker.[32]" I don't understand why reference 26 is after "if forced". Should it reference the first part of the sentence ("galloping") while 32 references the slashing if forced? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes because 32 doesn't reference the conditions that it would attack and 26 simply reference it using its claws not the rearing up part. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From "Behavior and ecology", subsection "Reproduction and parenting", paragraph 2: "The mother carries its pup on its back for up to a year.... young anteaters usually become independent by nine or ten months." These two statements seem to be contradictory. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but two things:
  • This sentence bothers me: "The species is listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN, due to the number of regional extirpations, and under Appendix II by CITES." I think the intention is that the reader is meant to interpret it "...and [listed as] under Appendix II by CITES", but it doesn't read well. Also, the reader isn't given a clue as to what this means, whereas for the IUCN listing we have a clue because of the word "Vulnerable". Maybe try "...and listed under Appendix II by CITES, tightly restricting trade in specimens of the animal."?
  • What are "slowing circles"?? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've been following this article since I reviewed it for GA. Since then it has improved through peer review and copy editing. I've read it through several times, copy editing at times, and think it's a most engaging article, very clearly and concisely written. It complies with all the FA criteria, I believe. Great illustrations and descriptions. I really get a feel for what this animal about, which admittedly I didn't have before. MathewTownsend (talk) 18:42, 27 August 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 12:47, 3 September 2012 [61].

Bronwyn Oliver

[edit]
Nominator(s): hamiltonstone (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because upon her suicide in 2006, Australia lost one of its most talented, hardest-working and engaging artists of her time. Any encounter with Oliver's work makes it hard to believe the degree of concentration and skill it took to realise these objects, constructed as they were from hard and unforgiving materials. Her works will endure for far longer than she, sadly, felt able to. hamiltonstone (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What is VFLAA?
  • FN10, 27, 54: page formatting
  • FN48: don't italicize location, unless it's part of the name (is it?)
  • FN50: need endash on date range
  • Payes: more specific location? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A well-written and fascinating biography of an artist of whom I had never heard. I am not well-versed in art, but I followed this very well and any questions I had were answered in the article. I have just a few small queries which do not affect my support and may be dismissed out of hand if you prefer! Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • "who would go on to become dean of the College in Sydney": Perhaps "who went on…"?
  • "Her upbringing was in country New South Wales": I actually know what this means (cricket obsession has many rewards!), but wonder if it could be expressed more clearly for those unfamiliar with Australia?
  • "The often-recounted story is…": The only problem is that most readers will not know it is often recounted, and it ends up looking like a bit of extraneous hearsay. It may be better to say where the story came from.
  • "The artist lived in Haberfield, in Sydney's inner west…" Inner west what? And should that be hyphenated?
  • "Roslyn Oxley9 Gallery": Is there a link for this? If not, an explanation of what this was may be useful as I initially thought this was a typo!
  • As a minor note, which it may not be possible to do anything about, I think the article would be slightly improved by an image of the artist herself (probably not possible) and a few more of her work to give the reader an idea what they are reading about. But there may be problems there too, and there is a link at the bottom, so this is not an issue at all.
  • I agree that these things would be useful. Unfortunately i don't live in either of the cities in which there are works on permanent public display (Sydney, Brisbane) - the only works that would attract freedom of panorama under Aust copyright law. I'm also not sure of the location of at least one of those works (Globe). As to a photo of her - I might approach Roslyn Oxley and see if she would consider releasing an image, but I have made similar approaches to artist estates or contacts in the past, with no success. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • And as an aside, there seems little indication of why she committed suicide; but I suspect that little is known about her personal life, and less about the reasons why, and I imagine nothing can be done about that in this article. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite numerous obituaries, including three from people who knew her well (Howard, Fenner and Fink), no-one wrote about the reasons directly, although there were various allusions to her personality and to her relationship status. It was a hard section to write, staying within sources and avoiding joining dots if the sources did not. I think I've done all that is possible. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is a really interesting article. I've seen several of Oliver's works, but previously knew nothing about her - great work. My comments on the article are as follows:

  • What's the purpose of note 1? Is there a suggestion that the SMH got her middle name wrong in its obituary? (if not, this seems a good source for this information)
  • I was nervous that, despite multiple obituaries, only one person mentioned a middle name. I worried they could be wrong. However, I have since found an image of a cemetery memorial here, and am no longer concerned. Have removed. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her creative interests were sparked early" - this is a bit awkward
  • "A rift subsequently developed between her and her family that resulted in her having no contact with them for 25 years" can anything be said about whatever caused this?
  • "She graduated from the College of Fine Arts (COFA), then known as the Alexander Mackie College of Advanced Education" - this is confusing. Wouldn't she have graduated from the Alexander Mackie College of Advanced Education if this was the name of the institution at the time? I think that this should be flipped around to note that the institution later changed its name.
  • Was Bronwyn Oliver: mnemonic chords a book or an exhibition of her work?
  • It is the title of the essay in the 1995 survey of her work. I have treated it as the title of the publication (there isn't another title). I don't know if there was an exhibition by the same title, but the works illustrated in the publication were not all made around the same time, suggesting it may not have been an exhibition. Sorry not to be more definitive. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest specifying that it's the essay the article is referring to then (as a 'survey' of an artist's work can also be a fairly comprehensive exhibition). For what it's worth, the National Library of Australia's record for the work says only that it's an essay. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Always occupied with, as the artist put it, "what materials will do", Hannah Fink considered that" - are you talking about Oliver's interest in metals, or Fink's? (Oliver's, I presume, but this wording is a bit unclear)
  • "These would be built around moulds, twisting the metal into place with pliers, before severing it with wirecutters. Joins would be soldered or brazed (though in some pieces, the wire was woven)." - this is written in the passive voice (eg, the 'would be's)
  • Inner West is linked the second time it appears in the article
  • "Oliver was not one to intellectualise her creativity, and preferred to talk about the process than the meaning of her creations" - please translate this into plain English ;)
  • I changed it to "Oliver was not one to intellectualise her creativity: she preferred to talk about the process of creating her artworks rather than their meanings." I hope that's plain enough. ;-) hamiltonstone (talk) 04:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My original intention had been to say that both saw the same kind of pattern in the works, but just quote Fink to represent what that view was. However, I have reconsidered it and re-worked the para, adding a few words on McDonald's approach. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:32, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have now been addressed (though please note the extra suggestion above). Once again, great work with this article. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you mean to leave her birth name bolded in the first section...?
Oliver was always occupied with "what materials will do". - did you mean "preoccupied" here? Odd choice of verb otherwise....or use something like "intrigued...?

Otherwise looking good - some of the obituaries have some touching notes - like leaving notes for the upcoming exhibition in one I found. But not necessary to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are referring to Oxley interviewed by Creagh I think. Yes, they are touching. Significantly, Oxley's interview is the only snippet I have found that goes as far as indicating pre-meditation and also that the notes she left might have averred to suicide. I have reworked the passage and included that interview extract. But I'm finding this hard to craft, and welcome other views about whether I have improved the text or not. hamiltonstone (talk) 13:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2012&oldid=525814507"