Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2013

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Southern Rhodesia in World War I

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Cliftonian (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The role played in the First World War by little Southern Rhodesia (today's Zimbabwe) has been largely forgotten—indeed, in Zimbabwe itself the modern government has made a conscious effort to bury references to it, pulling down most of the old monuments and memorial plaques. The country's contribution to the war was actually, considering its small population and obscure location, surprisingly large; its men fought in many of the major battles on the Western Front in Europe, as well as the South-West and East African campaigns. Proportional to white population, the colony put more men in the field than any other part of the British Empire, including Britain itself; counting all races together, about 9,000 Southern Rhodesians went to war, of whom around 900 were killed and many more were maimed.

I feel this article meets the FA criteria. It passed a GA review, including an image review, a few months ago and has been expanded quite a bit since then. I hope you enjoy reading it and look forward to your comments. Thanks, —Cliftonian (talk) 09:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE
Article renamed to "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" on 30 August, 1810 UTC, per consensus below. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support:' Comment: It's great to see more large-scope African articles get to such a standard! It's certainly been well done. I've just got a couple of minor reservations:
  1. The title. It seems to me that there is a trend of titles along the formula "Country X in/during War Y" or of "Military history of country X in/during war Y". I don't think it makes a particular difference which one (though it seems primarily military focused here), but it would be nice to bring this article in line with other ones with similar scope.
  2. Minor content issue. An acknowledgement that the white population (which this article almost exclusively deals with) was a minority of Rhodesia as a whole and perhaps more on the role of Africans (if applicable) in the conflict? The article is heavily weighted towards a minority.

Nonetheless, excellent work & if you ever feel like making a WWII companion version..! All the best,Brigade Piron (talk) 13:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the kind words Piron! Yes I intend to work on a WWII version in due course. I deliberately decided to put the article at "Southern Rhodesian involvement in World War I" because Southern Rhodesia was not at this time a self-governing territory (being under British South Africa Company administration), and because most of the "involvement" actually related not to the administration but to the actions of individual Southern Rhodesian people. I thought the wording "Southern Rhodesian involvement" would be superior in this case as the scope of this article is the contributions of both the administration and the people.
  • I put a great deal of effort into attempting to give due weight to the contributions of both black and white in this article. While the whites were a minority, in the context of the First World War they were a majority of the troops fielded by Southern Rhodesia, and it was the white civilian population there that contributed the most non-militarily. I think it is worth pointing out that we give just as much prose to the white Rhodesia Regiment as to the Rhodesia Native Regiment in this article—in fact, I think more to the latter—and more to the Rhodesia Native Regiment than to the larger contingent of white Rhodesians in the trenches of the Western Front. The role played by the black civilian is described in each of the subsections of the "Home front" section—briefly in some cases, I admit, but in some cases that is just because there is not much to say. For example, the vast, vast majority of black women simply carried on their lives as usual during the war, so there is not much discussion of them in the sources or here. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cliftonian, absolutely no problem. I certainly see where you're coming from. My objection about the title still stands (perhaps others would care to comment on this aspect too?) as I don't feel any of the content would have to be cut for a "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" rename. I look forward to your WWII edition.Brigade Piron (talk) 10:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel strongly about the name, and am happy to go with whatever consensus supports. Thanks again for the comments and the kind words. I'm glad you like the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I agree about the title: Military History of Geo Unit in Conflict or Geo Unit in/during Conflict seems to be the preferred naming scheme for these types of articles. I'd prefer "Southern Rhodesia during World War I". Open to suggestions.
  • Add the history of Zimbabwe template to the article at the top.
  • Readers read the top of the page to navigate to other pages so I've never liked those bottom of the page navboxes, that's all I'm saying - not a FA req of course! Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image quibbles: the recruitment poster doesn't mention Souther Rhodesia and there's no images on the left; consider mixing them up a bit.
  • I don't like how the block quotes format on the page and I'm unsure how useful those are to the reader. Review the MOS on those.
  • Note-wise, #1 is ok but it would be better to mention in the prose instead, #2 I think you could mention that explicitly in the text, the link is sufficient for #3, put #4-#7, in the prose. #8 is a weird note since it doesn't seem to have anything to do with its paragraph. Put #9 in the prose, keep #10 (but consider a short version? ). Not sure #11 should be a note; might be better with the latter half of sentence 1 and a summary of sentence #2 in the body (w/Von Lettow-Vorbeck Memorial. cut #12 (see below), #13 & #14 probably cut (see below).
  • Not sure I understand the whole legacy section - there's the immediate aftermath in paragraph 2, but the the remainder probably could be cut and put into a different article.
  • I think a brief summary of SR's contribution to WWII is relevant, and the fact that UDI was symbolically made on Armistice Day is surely worth mentioning in an article about Rhodesia's contribution to WWI. And surely the paragraph at the end briefly summarising modern Zimbabwean perspectives is worth having? —Cliftonian (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll look at some 'X during Y' articles and give a more succinct suggestion on how to tighten up this section.
  • Note, we're steering away from using measuring worth and it was common for a while. I usually leave it out the financial comparisons completely, some editors might have a better suggestion.
  • Also delete note 8, thanks.
  • I like this kind of comparison (from the Australia Article, note bold phrase) - Total Australian war expenditure was £2,949,380,000 and at its peak in 1942–43, military costs accounted for 40.1 percent of national income. Its factual, gives the reader something to compare without resorting to bread pricing. Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose, 3 Support - I want to keep this open so the media formatting is addressed per my suggestion above so they are balanced on either side of the page and the worth stuff is worked out. Once that's done I will switch to support but I may not be able to get to this for a few days. Thanks! Kirk (talk) 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi John: Move the first Rhodesia in Africa image, the Lt. Judson Image and the East Africa Image to the left, that's my suggestion. Ian, we can do this outside of the FAC review process. Kirk (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comment: On the face of it, this looks an impressive and thorough account. It is pretty long, and it will take me a while to read it all, but I will persevere. In the meantime, here are a few comments on the lead:

  • "made by Southern Rhodesians themselves" would read better as "made by Southern Rhodesians individually"
  • I think "myriad" is over the top; it means too many to number, as in the stars of the sky. A rather more modest term is required, I think.
  • You should if possible avoid using the term "black" as a noun to describe people. "Black soldiers" is fine, but "blacks" will incur displeasure. You could in this instance say "about 30 of these..."
  • Maybe in your caption you should identify the marquess specifically. Incidentally, why was he there? As far as I know he wasn't in the KRRC (which, incidentally, was my late father's regiment in the Second World War and after)

More comments as I read through. Brianboulton (talk) 20:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these so far Brian. The reason for the Marquess' presence is explained further down in the "Western Front" section; I've explained briefly in the caption also. He informally sponsored the first party of Rhodesians that went to England, and helped organise their enlistment in the KRRC; he apparently chose this regiment for them as it was based in Winchester, even though he himself was not in it (if memory serves he was in the Royal Hampshire Regiment). I have cut down the use of the word "blacks" I believe entirely, tell me if I have not. Thanks again and I look forward to more of your thoughts. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that Tim is commenting on the article, below. Tim is first-class prose editor, and I'm sure he will pick up most or all of the outstanding glitches. There's not much point in he and I doing the same work simultaneously, so I'm going to wait until he's finished before I make my final readthrough – which should by then be fairly straightforward. Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments

  • (NB: I reviewed at GA)
  • A really solid article, and the following comments are at the "nitpicking" level!
  • One missing name in a reference (I've fixed, pls revert if I'm fixed it in the wrong direction!)
  • For MOS compliance, a couple of article and book titles should be capitalised like the others (e.g. "The years between 1923–1973: half a century of responsible government in Rhodesia")
  • MOS guidance is to "avoid placing images on the left at the start of any section or subsection, because it makes it harder for readers to find the beginning of the text." Worth moving the left justified images down a para for this reason. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
SupportComment from Tim riley

I shall be supporting FA status for this impressive article in due course, but before that I'd like to offer (perpetrate? inflict?) a few comments. It will take me at least two goes to do justice to an article of this length. Here is go number one:

  • Title
    • I agree with earlier reviewers that a shorter title would be preferable. "Southern Rhodesia in World War I" seems to me more attractive to the reader's eye.
  • Lead
    • "made by Southern Rhodesians themselves" – perhaps "made by individual Southern Rhodesians" might be clearer?
    • about 40% of white men in the colony – I think the Manual of Style recommends "per cent" (British) or "percent" (American) rather than "%" in text. You may like to check that I'm not imagining this. En passant I seem to see the term "blacks" used here and there but not "whites" tout court: not sure what the Grauniad would think of that.
  • Background
    • "focussed" – I believe some dictionaries admit this spelling, but it is generally spelled "focused". (One of those quirks of English spelling like "biased", "budgeted", and "benefited" that are counter-intuitive in their orthography.) There's another "focussed" later in the text, too.
  • Western Front
  • 2nd Rhodesia Regiment
    • "The 2nd Rhodesia Regiment left Salisbury on 8 March 1915 to an exuberant reception" – reception when leaving seems an odd word.

More to come. – Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So it does. I stand corrected and am obliged to Hchc2009 for that steer. Pray ignore my comment above, unless you happen to share my preference for "per cent" to "%". Purely a matter of personal preference. Tim riley (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I share your preference, though, Tim! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer "%" simply because it's shorter, but I do not feel particularly strongly on this small point —Cliftonian (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concluding comments
  • Home service and conscription debate
    • "the institution of the draft in Britain" – this is a very tentative suggestion from me, as I am far from sure of my ground, but I have the feeling that "the draft" in this context is a purely American usage and would not have been used in Britain and the Empire in 1916. But I may be quite wrong, and you may think it doesn't matter anyway. I just mention it.
  • Propaganda and public opinion
    • "Gertrude Page, one of the colony's most famous novelists" – were there other famous novelists in the colony?
  • Women
  • Donations and funds
  • End of the war, aftermath and statistics
    • "announced to the town of Salisbury" – question arising from my complete ignorance: was it not a city by then?
      • It wasn't; despite being the capital, it only became a city in 1935. This does seem rather counter-intuitive but you must keep in mind how small and new the Rhodesian settlements were at this time. In 1914, Salisbury was 24 years old and home to less than 10,000 people. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Legacy
    • Third para – You switch between "World War II" and "the Second World War". Perhaps this is for the sake of variety, but I think it would probably be better to stick to one form or the other throughout the article.
    • "Like in World War I" – as with "Like in Britain", above. (Of course please ignore this if you disagree with me.)
    • Last para – does the Stapleton citation cover every statement in this paragraph?
  • Notes
    • Note 3: I don't think the names of Acts of Parliament are usually italicised

That's all I've got to offer. I have the pleasure of supporting this first-rate article. I knew nothing about this bit of imperial history and am grateful to Cliftonian for a full and clear exposition of the facts. I particularly commend the really excellent neutrality with which the last paragraph, on a sensitive topic, is phrased. The whole article meets all the FAC criteria, in my opinion. – Tim riley (talk) 14:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for the very kind words and for the thorough and helpful review, Tim. Indeed as you say this part of history has been largely forgotten; this is part of what made me interested to look into it. I'm glad you enjoyed the article and look forward to working together again soon in the future. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comments: I am grateful that Tim has preceded me, since his efforts have undoubtedly added polish to the article. I have a few points of my own, and maybe a few more to follow (I'm about two-thirds through):
  • (Rhodesian Reserve section): Am I right in thinking that the Rhodesian Reserve was an all-white body (likewise the Rhodesian platoons in the KRRC)
  • (Western Front section): "The Southern Rhodesian contingent duly attested into the KRRC". The various meanings of "attested" in my dictionaries don't cover the usage here. Are you sure it's the word you want?
  • (Same section): "As a rule, Southern Rhodesians overseas combined stridently pro-British attitudes with an even stronger pride in Rhodesia". I imagine that this refers to white Southern Rhodesians; this should be clarified.
  • (Same section): I am struggling to understand the second half this sentence: "Southern Rhodesian volunteers continued to arrive piecemeal in England throughout the conflict, so Rhodesian formations on the Western Front received regular reinforcements in small batches, but because casualties were usually concentrated in far larger groups it often took a few months for a depleted Southern Rhodesian unit to return to full numerical strength.
  • When they periodically went over the top for the "big push", they would lose at least half of their guys each time, and because reinforcements from Rhodesia arrived slowly, it would take a few months to replace everybody. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trivial point, but in "Aviators" you say that Lieut. Judson "remained on active service until April 1919". As that's five months after the armistice that ended the fighting in WWI, maybe you should rephrase slightly.
  • (Matitz rebellion): "But for these grand farewells, the Maritz Rebellion was all but over by the time the Southern Rhodesian contingent reached its destination at Bloemfontein." Needs tweaking – does not make sense as it stands. Perhaps: "Notwithstanding these grand farewells, the Maritz rebellion..." etc
  • (South-West Africa): I don't think "killed in action" requires a wikilink. The meaning is plain and obvious.
  • (Same section): You don't give a reason why the troops were dissatisfied. I imagine it's because they wanted more action than the SW Africa campaign provided, but that needs to be clearer
I'm down to the end of the East Africa section, and hope to deal with the rest tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Leaning to support These are my final comments. You will see from the article's edit history that I have made a few minor edits, which it seemed simpler just to do rather than list.

  • Rhodesian Native Regiment section:
  • "laying in the open" → "lying in the open"
  • "for this and similar subsequent actions" – recommend you delete "similar" (were they really "similar" actions, or actions of equivalent bravery?)
  • "somewhat successful" is slightly loose phrasing. I'm not sure what you mean by it - temporarily successful, successful in some aspects but not others, etc.? Perhaps clarify.
  • "On 5 April 1917, 1RNR crossed the Songwe River; it then moved up the winding Lupa River, crossing it at each turn, for 53 days, before marching the 420 kilometres (260 mi) back to Rungwe in 16 days". I am a little confused here. Did they travel in one direction for 53 days, then make the return journey over the same distance in 16 days? Also, there is no reason provided as to why they took this journey.
  • Not the same distance, no; "back to Rungwe" was supposed to infer that they were going back in the vague opposite direction, but I can see how would be confusing. They were advancing towards Kitanda, one of the main German towns in East Africa, and suddenly ordered back when they were nearly there. —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flying column" could do with a link
  • The first sentence of the paragraph that begins "The 1st Battalion harassed..." is way too long and needs subdivision (it has seven commas at present)
"At this point..." needs to be more specific - date, or at least month and year.
  • The overlong sentence syndrome is apparent again in the sentence beginning "In Mozambique, the RNR encountered..." Far too long and complicated, even without the parenthetical aside.
  • Home front
  • "The British South Africa Company's reluctance to commit Southern Rhodesia seriously to the war effort..." I was surprised by this sentence. I hadn't noticed in my earlier reading reluctance, or lack of seriousness of purpose. Rather, the opposite. So I wonder if this sentence is worded as you intend. It might be that the Company had reservations about the extent of its commitmment, but that is not the meaning of what you are saying here.
  • I've reworded to "The British South Africa Company had reservations about devoting all of Southern Rhodesia's resources to the war effort, in part because of its desire to keep the colonial economy operating." Is this better? —Cliftonian (talk) 21:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Southern Rhodesia's other main economic arm, farming, did less well out of the war.." Unfortunate phrasing; "doing well out of the war" is not an admirable thing. Stanley Baldwin described the intake into the British Parliament after the 1918 election as containing "a lot of hard-faced men who look as if they had done very well out of the war"; he was not being complimentary.
  • "pangs of escalated fury" - vivid writing, but does it actually make sense?
  • "Herbert Taylor, the chief native commissioner, believed that foreign missionaries were secretly encouraging rural black people to emulate the Chilembwe revolt in Nyasaland, and telling them (falsely) that the British were exterminating the natives there." I don't think you need to include "falsely"; that can be taken from the context.
  • "myriad" crops up again in "Donations and funds"
  • "End of the war etc
  • I'm not a fan of the side-by-side quote box arrangement. I wonder if it is possible to present this information more elegantly?
  • Legacy
  • I have a personal aversion to the word "atop"; that's my problem... but I do think the phrase "atop a kopje" reads particularly awkwardly.

I'll be happy to support when these issues are resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have generally happy with your responses, and accordingly have upgraded to support. The one point I still have reservations about is "pangs of escalated fury"; the phrase still seems to me to be obscure as to meaning, and dubiously encyclopedic. Not a dealbreaker, but perhaps reconsider? Nothwithstanding that, this is a well-written and comprehensive article, which provides a fascinating glimpse into one of the war's less well-known contributions. It is fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, CC). Sources and authors provided, where possible. Just one question:

  • On the two army pictures no author is recorded in the source, which simply cites the National Archives of Zimbabwe. I have done partly as you suggested; I have put the PD-UK-anon tag on the Sheerness picture (as it was undoubtedly taken in England) and a PD-ZW tag on the other picture. It seems to me that if it were not an official picture, it might have been taken as a memento by one of the soldiers. In any case the place of first publication in this second case appears to be Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. I hope all this is satisfactory. —Cliftonian (talk) 14:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Pls just review your dup links to see if they're really necessary; let me know if you need a link to the checker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have done so, have taken out all but one (I think it is good to have the link to Rhodesia Regiment when the unit is first introduced in its own section, even though it is mentioned in passing and linked higher up). Thanks for this —Cliftonian (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, John. Before we wrap this up, did you ask Kirk to check over your mods based on his comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the delay Ian, I was in a place without internet for a while and I wasn't given enough notice to leave a note. Kirk's issues above appear to be resolved now, though. Sorry again and I hope you are well. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment / Clarification required. Nice work! I agree the article is better with it. One question though - you say in the source section of the Image infobox that this is "own work." Did you really create the map from scratch entirely yourself? It looks strongly like you used "Colonial Africa 1913 map.svg" as a base. If so, you need to mention both the source image and the source image's author in the "source" section of the image tag. You also need to honor at least one of the licenses used by the original map - although if it was the image I think it is, that's already done, since the old image was cc-by-sa 3.0 as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back again, really sorry everybody about the sudden delay and silence—last week got called out to a place with no internet at very short notice and I just got back a few minutes ago. I'll just take a moment to have a look over again at everything. Sorry again for the delay and I hope everybody's well. —Cliftonian (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Hurricane Nadine (2012)

[edit]
Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow Wikipedians, allow me to introduce to you Hurricane Nadine of 2012. Although not as epic as hurricanes Isaac and Sandy, Nadine lasted a total of 24 days, placing it among the longest-lived tropical cyclones on record in the Atlantic basin. This article is also much better quality than that of Isaac or Sandy, as it features relevant info, very reliable sources, and correctly formatted references. AFAIK, accessibility standards are also met, since the images have alt text and the article contains the newer version of the hurricane season buttons template. The article also doesn't have too much tropical cyclone related jargon, IMO. For those reasons and many more, I believe that Hurricane Nadine (2012) should be considered a featured article. Finally, I would like to add that this is a WikiCup nomination.--12george1 (talk) 03:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by TheAustinMan
  • As a general rule of thumb meteorological jargon, although it may not be numerous as you pointed out, should be linked. I make a few cases in the bullets below but in all, all meteorological jargon should be linked, and cases that I do not point out should be fixed regardless under the umbrella of this qualm.
  • "Nadine turned northward while located well east of major landmasses." → Since it was generally and roughly equidistant from both the Old World and the New World I'd replace the direction of 'east' with something like 'while well removed of major landmasses' or something to that effect.
  • "...produced tropical storm winds..." → "...produced tropical storm-force winds..."
  • "...before merged with an approaching cold front northeast of the Azores." → 'Merged' should be changed to 'merging'. Also, cold front should be linked.
  • "...though because Dvorak intensity T-numbers were between 2.0 and 2.5..." → Link Dvorak intensity.
  • "Later on that day..." → Erroneous 'on'.
  • "Central dense overcast developed and due to favorable conditions, the National Hurricane Center noted the possibility of rapid deepening." → Since this is the start of a new level 2 section it would be most helpful if you included the date, preferably at the start of the sentence.
  • "Intensification continued at a quicker on September 12, but not rapid rate;" → Seems like you've mixed up the wording to make it some contorted sentence structure. I'd suggest the following – "Intensification continued at a quicker albeit less than rapid rate on September 12."
  • "...the storm struggled to developed..." → "...the storm struggled to develop..."
  • "Although it was disorganized, a scatterometer pass indicated tropical storm force winds extended outward up to 230 miles (370 km)." → Define 'it', at the moment it's unclear whether Nadine or the scatterometer pass was disorganized. Going along with this as a general rule of thumb never use 'it'.
  • "Nadine turned northward on September 14 as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge." → The 'subtropical ridge' part is redundant since you already state that one or two sentences prior. Try mixing the wording around a bit so you don't have to repeat yourself.
  • "Shortly thereafter, a Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) pass indicated that core convection had began re-organizing." → When using 'had', use 'begun'. Conversely, you can remove 'had' so that 'began' is grammatically correct.
  • "Late on September 16, the tilted eye disappeared..." → You state that a ragged eye feature was trying to form previously but this is the first time you've stated 'tilted'. I'd suggest adding that the eye was 'tilted' beforehand.
  • "...and the overall showers and thunderstorms activity waned since early that day." → 'Showers' should be made singular, so, 'shower'.
  • "Despite a large flare of deep convection over the northern semicircle, Nadine weakened slightly on September 17." → You've already stated the date in the sentence prior, so you can exchange the date for a word-form alternative, like 'later that day'. There's a few other times where this happens in the article, so you can exchange wording for those too.
  • "The National Hurricane Center also predicted in an advisory on September 18..." → There's a double space between 'advisory' and 'on'.
  • "...with the strongest of the remaining showers and thunderstorms activity being located within a band west and northwest of the center." → Now this is opposite of the plural problem I pointed out earlier. Since you use 'activity', 'showers' AND 'thunderstorms' should be turned to their singular form.
  • "By late on September 21, the cloud pattern significant deteriorated..." → Wrong form of 'significant', use 'significantly'. Also, if you're going to stick with using 'significantly', I'd suggest that you'd put it after the 'deteriorated': 'deteriorated significantly' flows better.
  • "Nadine become devoid of any deep convection." → Use past tense of 'become'.

These are all my prose-based problems for now. Either I or someone else will probably do spotchecking soon, so make sure the prose matches your sources. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 04:26, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since I will be very busy for the next few months, SUPPORT on the basis that an eventual spotcheck confirms that all the sources are good to go. TheAustinMan(Talk·Works) 03:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (also, since you're no longer in the Wikicup, isn't this not a WikiCup nomination now?)
  • "located well west of Cape Verde " - I think the first two words aren't needed."
  • "while well removed " - in this instance, it should be "well-removed", although I still think the "well" is ambiguous, and you could just say "while away from any landmasses"
  • There is a discrepancy between the infobox and the lead/MH, with regards to km/h.
  • "The remnants of Nadine passed through the islands on October 4, once again bringing relatively strong winds to the islands." - could be more concise
  • "about 885 miles (1,424 km)" - that's a pretty exact measurement in km for "about"
  • Why did the storm initially move to the west-northwest? I'm assuming a ridge?
  • "re-gain" --> "regain"
  • "the depression was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0000 UTC on September 12" - I'd say that it was the NHC that did this. Also, it's not quite true. It was upgraded to Tropical Storm Nadine at 0300. A storm can't be named earlier in post-analysis, it was only named at one time, ever. You can either say it was upgraded to a TS at 0000, and named three hours later, or just say it was named at 0300 UTC, which is true (and the fact that in post-analysis it was 0000 UTC isn't terribly important, if you want to exclude that).
  • "central dense overcast developed" - I think "a" would be helpful before this.
  • Why don't you abbreviate the NHC? You use it enough.
  • What is a "shear axis"?
  • "began moving west-northwest and eventually north-northeast around the southwestern periphery of the subtropical ridge" - is that first direction supposed to be "north-northwest"? Also, I'd add "to the" before the first direction.
  • "Nadine turned northward on September 14 as it tracked along the periphery of a subtropical ridge." - see above. Yea, having read this, the above sentence can go.
  • "The National Hurricane Center corrected an earlier prediction and noted that wind shear over Nadine would not decrease within the next five days, but change directions, allowing a slightly more conductive environment for intensification." - I have no idea what this means. Is it necessary?
  • "Weakening and extratropical transition" - this section title should indicate that it was the first ET
  • "to look a little more ragged" - if this is a quote, who said it?
  • "Around that time, the National Hurricane Center noted that the storm had less convection near the center and had a more asymmetrical appearance." - this is nearly identical to two sentences prior.
  • " The National Hurricane Center also predicted in an advisory on September 18 that Nadine would transition into an extratropical cyclone by September 21" - any reason you mentioned this? It's true, but it seems trivial.
  • If "most of the deep convection dissipated" happened on September 18, then how could "the cloud pattern significantly deteriorated" happen three days later?
  • "Category 1 hurricane" - this is the first time you mention anything about a "Category". What is this madness?
  • Any impact in the Azores?

Generally decent article, and I'd be happy to support with my above comments addressed. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Recent edits by an IP should be taken into consideration about the post-tropical phase of Nadine. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-NASA, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 question:

Reference Comments from Ceranthor
  • Okay, the first reference seems a little ridiculous to me. Since it is cited to pages 1-4, 6-8, and 12, it seems like utter laziness prompted this over-reliance on one citation. Is it asking too much for you to go through and separate them into the three groups (1-4, 6-8, 12)?
  • Ref 37 only lists the publisher. It should also list the work, in this case BBC Online which can be added with the parameter |work=.
  • References are wholly reliable!
Spotchecks
  • Ref 1 citation a: checks out
  • Ref 4 citation b: Article: "Although thunderstorm activity was initially minimal around the center of circulation, the depression had a well-defined convective band.[4]"
  • Source: "ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOT MUCH DEEP CONVECTION NEAR THE CENTER OF CIRCULATION OF THE LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM OVER THE CENTRAL TROPICAL ATLANTIC...AN OUTER CONVECTIVE BAND TO THE WEST OF THE CENTER HAS CONTINUED TO BECOME BETTER ORGANIZED." Seems like different interpretation of facts to me. The article should mention that the convective band too was not always well-defined.
  • Ref 9: Article: "Nadine was held just below the threshold of hurricane intensity.[9]"
  • Source: "INITIAL INTENSITY IS BEING HELD JUST BELOW HURRICANE STRENGTH AT 60 KT" - Seems too closely worded. I suggest a slight CE, and perhaps you should mention the KT measurement, whatever that indicates.
  • Ref 16: Article "Late on September 16, the eye became titled"
  • Source uses tilted. I think this is a typo on your part. Titled sounds meaningless.
  • Also Ref 16: "LITTLE MORE FRAGMENTED" vs. article's "convective bands became more fragmented". A little close wording here.
  • Ref 26: checks out
  • Ref 30: checks out
  • Ref 35: checks out
  • Ref 39: checks out

Prose comments after these are resolved. Please let me know so I don't have to keep checking back. ceranthor 20:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on references. No time for a prose review I'm afraid, but it seems the others have done a fine job. ceranthor 21:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- prose in lead could use some work before we look at promoting this:

  • By the following day, it strengthened into Tropical Storm Nadine. -- I'd expect to read "it had strengthened".
  • After initially tracking northwestward, Nadine turned northward while away from any landmasses. -- does "while away from any landmasses" mean "over the sea", because that would be a less clumsy way of expressing it...
  • I get what you are saying. However, "over the sea" could potentially indicate anywhere in the ocean, such as a place near land, which is the opposite of what this sentence is conveying.--12george1 (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if the point is that it was well away from land, I think it'd read better as Nadine turned northward, well away from any landmass. OTOH, if Nadine turned northward without making landfall also conveys the intended meaning, I think that sounds even better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, vertical wind shear weakened Nadine back to a tropical storm by September 16. -- while I'm not a fanatic about avoiding "however", I think we should minimise its use and it doesn't seem necessary her. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Benjamin Disraeli

[edit]
Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we think it meets the criteria. Benjamin Disraeli was an unusual man in his time, and in retrospect. Had he continued to profess the Jewish faith he was born to, he almost certainly would not have climbed to the top of the greasy pole as he famously did. Yet his fame is not political alone (leaving aside his famed battles with Gladstone) for he was also a noted writer of novels. Everyone had a view on Disraeli, they either loved him or loathed him. In his time the loathers outnumbered the lovers, as he spent most of his career in opposition. I'd like to extend, and I'm sure my conom will as well, my appreciation to Mackensen (talk · contribs), who has kept up this article for ten years and gave us a very solid foundation to work on.Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

All sources look reliable and of appropriate quality. A few very minor tweaks necessary:

  • 137 needs a space after p.
  • 253 needs pp. before the pages range
  • Dickens entry: I don't think location "Shrewsbury" needs a "UK"

Otherwise, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I had a substantial input in the peer review, where my concerns were either met or countered by reasoning. This is an important article – very long, but what can you do when the subject's career is long, varied, and of great historical significance? I request one final tweak: in the lead sentence "He returned to opposition, leading the party to a majority in the 1874 election", insert "before" after "opposition". Otherwise, subject to an image review I believe all is well. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, BB, for this, and for your important input at PR too. Suggested tweaks above duly twuck. – Tim riley (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Beat me to it, on both counts. Deeply grateful for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check

I reviewed every image. I moved some images to the Commons and updated the licensing information on others. I only found one problem: File:14th Earl of Derby.jpg. I can't find any information on the author, so I can't be sure that the author died more than 70 years ago, or that the image was first published before 1923. It seems overwhelmingly likely that the image is in the public domain, but I'm having trouble proving it.

Besides this, all images are clearly in the public domain (except for 1, 2, and 3, which are freely licensed and fully attributed). All required information is present.

I do have misgivings, however, about whether a gallery of "Cartoons, 1846–86" is appropriate in a featured article. – Quadell (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that review, and glad to know that we are OK on that front. As to the gallery, if the consensus is against including it, I think I can safely speak for my co-nom and say that we are not wedded to it. For my own part I rather like it (well, I would, of course, as the perpetrator) and I note a more extended, and I think splendid, example at another current FAC here. Tim riley (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you keep the cartoons. Were they of the trivial, "funny" variety I'd say ditch them, but as sharp contemporary satirical comment they are worth having. Brianboulton (talk) 09:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the article would be better without a gallery of political cartoons at the end. (Any relevant to a particular section can be included where relevant, though there are enough images that there may not be room for many.) But I'm just one data-point; I'm not insistent. – Quadell (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: the Derby image (see here) was published as a carte-de-visite in the 1860s according to the National Portrait Gallery. Tim riley (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! Then it's at least guaranteed to be PD in the US. That info should probably go in the image description page somewhere. – Quadell (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, and added the link. I also support the retention of the image gallery but won't insist.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Quadell for this scrupulous and helpful input. Tim riley (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Now this is massive, twice as long as my longest. I don't doubt that every byte is deserved, however! My review will likely take a couple of days, particularly as my internet has been freaking out recently.
Some addressed comments moved to talk to avoid cluttering the page
  • The Infernal Marriage - year?
  • Built by French interests, much of the ownership and bonds in the canal remained in their hands, though some of the stock belonged to Isma'il Pasha, the Khedive of Egypt, who was noted for his profligate spending. - another sentence with a lot of subordinate clauses and commas
  • The canal was losing money, and an attempt by Ferdinand de Lesseps, builder of the canal, to raise the tolls, had fallen through when the Khedive had threatened to use military force to prevent it, and had also attracted Disraeli's attention. - this too; confused what exactly drew Disraeli's attention
  • pre-canal - you've just used Canal (caps) for Suez Canal. Shouldn't that be repeated here?
  • Support on prose and images, though there are still some outstanding questions/suggestions/etc. The both of you have done a fantastic job and presented a thoroughly enjoyable read, and I thank you for that. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC),[reply]
Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I join my co-nom in thanking Crisco 1492 for his notably thorough review and his support. Tim riley (talk) 22:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support. Enjoyed reading it, and a huge amount of work has clearly gone into this. Some minor comments below:

  • ""I determined when descending those magical waters that I would not be a lawyer." On their return to England he left the solicitors, at the suggestion of Maples, with the aim of qualifying as a barrister. " It's minor, but this reads oddly, since most modern readers would consider a barrister to be a lawyer. I'm not certain if this was different in the 19th century, or if Disraeli means something else here?
    • No, I think you read it right. But Disraeli made that comment some years after the event, though he may well have remembered correctly. He was at the solicitors's firm at his father's behest rather than from personal inclination. His move from there to a barrister's chambers (putatively the more exciting side of the legal profession) was very probably in the hope that he would stick with the law as a career, but if so it was a vain hope on Isaac's part. I think this is a reasonable inference from the sources, but is not actually said by any of them, as far as I can remember. – Tim riley (talk)
  • " financier J D Powles, who was among those leading the mining boom" - can you lead a boom?
  • "the old Duke inadvertently branded the new government by incredulously repeating "Who? Who?" - is it worth noting that the Duke was deaf, which is typically given as part of the reason he kept questioning what he was being told? Also, it's unclear from this what he branded the government as.
I think the heading of the section, combined with the Duke's response, adequately fills the field. I will add his deafness. No doubt from cannon on the playing fields of Waterloo.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I have climbed to the top of the greasy pole" - worth a footnote explaining what a greasy pole was? (I'm not certain if non-UK/US readers would be familiar with the folk contest!)
I think Disraeli's phrase speaks for itself and I am inclined to let it stand in the existing form..--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " convinced that if he waited longer, he would take a worse beating" - "a worse beating" felt a little informal
  • "In August 1876, Disraeli was elevated to the House of Lords..." It's implicit, but its probably worth explaining why the Lords would be easier for an ill man - they met for much shorter periods of time than the Commons and less frequently, as well as having a slightly less febrile atmosphere.
  • "His will was proved at £84,000" - "proved" is quite a specialist term; "his estate was valued at"?
Since this seems to be the proper term, I am reluctant to use another. Do other reviewers have comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As that is what The Times would say I think it's sensible to stick with it. If we say "He left..." we get into the gross/net murk. Tim riley (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pleading public business to public mockery" - I had to read this twice before getting the meaning, might be worth tweaking slightly
  • I wasn't keen on the gallery of cartoons either, although there's space for one or two in the text above. They'd go well in in an article on the Cartoons of Disraeli though (there's some literature out there on this, I think). Hchc2009 (talk) 08:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If I haven't commented, except for the barrister, Powles, and gallery, which I've left for my colleague, I've done them. Thank you for your review and support.(Wehwalt)
And thanks from me, too. I've attended to the barrister point, above, and will wait with interest to see how the consensus develops for or against the gallery. – Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I had my say at PR, and a further read-through shows this to be stronger than it was then. Lovely prose, good level of detail and a fascinating read. Long, but entirely justified, given the subject. - SchroCat (talk) 20:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your insightful comments in your review and for your support.
Hear hear! Tim riley (talk) 08:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I took part in the PR and I feel somewhat privileged to have played a small part in the development of this mighty article. Simply outstanding in all departments—I almost feel I should be supporting twice. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest thanks to Cliftonian. (Supporting twice, forsooth! But thank you so much!) Tim riley (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Bobby Gibbes

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has grown slowly in detail and (I think) quality since I launched it in 2007, a couple of months after the death of its subject, one of the RAAF's best-known personalities of World War II. It passed GAN in 2010 and MilHist ACR a couple of weeks ago, and I think it's ready for FAC. I've made use of a good many sources to try and tell Gibbes' story in context, and to get behind the usual facade of the fearless fighter pilot and crack shot, neither of which he claimed to be. Still, "irrepressible" is the word I'd use to describe him: a dual ace who flew combat in a cast when he broke his ankle; went beyond the call of duty to rescue one of his mates who crashed in the desert; participated in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945; pioneered air transport in New Guinea; and built and flew his own light plane in his 60s and 70s. There should be something in his story for everyone... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods, but images themselves are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I supported this article's promotion to A-class status, and think that it also meets the FA criteria. It's among the best of Ian's very fine collection of articles on RAAF personalities. I do have a couple of minor comments though:

  • "favourably impressed" - "favourably" seems unnecessary
    • That is a bit of a hoary old cliche, isn't it? Tks for pointing it out!
  • "one of which was said to have been the personal transport of Albert Kesselring" - I'd suggest tweaking this to "one of which was said to have been the personal transport of senior Luftwaffe officer Albert Kesselring" or similar so readers understand the connection. Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I've archived all the links to protect them from link rot. If you do not in anyway agree with my non-essential edits, please feel free to revert -- the decision rests with you. This was originally my only criticism of an otherwise well-written and well-sourced article deserving of the FA status. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 08:14, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh, I generally leave it till I find a link has gone dead to archive, so no issue with you pre-empting that. Tks for taking the time to do that and for your review/support, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [5].[reply]

Roger Norreis

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... after excellent copyedits from John and Eric Corbett, I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. I've searched high and low for a relevant photograph or two - but the remains at Evesham date from after Norreis' time, and so do all of the other bits from where he lived. Norreis is a VERY bad boy - an abbot who did not fulfill the medieval ideal of the holy clergy at all. I find him a fascinating example of the fact that people remain people throughout history. It's been a while since I brought an obscure topic to FAC (the last four have been William the Conqueror, Middle Ages, Norman conquest of England, and Battle of Hastings) so I'm due for a bit of human interest and expanding people's horizons. Norreis is part of the infamous to Anglo-Norman historians Case of Evesham (which is a redirect right now, but eventually I'll get set up as an article), a great tangled mess of ecclesiastical litigation that dragged on for over 50 years and is fascinating to historians and very revealing to non-historians. I present to you, Roger Norreis - one very bad abbot. I hope you enjoy reading about him as much as I enjoyed researching him! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Got these all. THank you for the review. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
General
Background
Prior
Dispute

Good work. Let me know when these are fixed. ceranthor 01:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got most of these, Ceranthor. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I've seen these comments and hope to get to them by the end of the week. RL has blown up in my face and I'm going to be busy with a rush photography job for the next two days. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Coemgenus Support

Support – meets all FA criteria, in my view, and is a highly diverting read into the bargain. A few very minor comments, none of which affect my support, but you may like to consider:

  • Prior and abbot
    • "There was no attempt at an election by the monks, which went against canon law" – Ambiguous. Presumably it was the absence of an election that contravened canon law, but the sentence can be read as saying the opposite.
    • "Norreis did manage some good for the abbey, as it was while he was abbot that the crossing tower of the monastic church was completed" – It is not clear that the second part of the sentence necessarily supports the first. Does the source confirm that the completion of the tower was due to Norreis's actions, or was he just there at the time?
      • If Norreis had not assented to using money for the construction, it wouldn't have been completed ... so although it's not explicit, it's implied that he at least had some agreement to the completion of the tower. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Early in his tenure of office" – We have had "tenure of office" in the previous para. I think just "tenure" the second time, perhaps?
  • Dispute with Mauger and his monks
    • "When Norreis made it back to England, Mauger excommunicated the abbot in April 1205" – wouldn't a plain "him" be as clear as "the abbot" here?
    • "The interdict of 1207–1213 caused further delays" – as this is the first we've heard of the interdict, a few words in the text or as a footnote would be helpful to the reader: who was interdicted, by whom and why? (According to 1066 And All That, the pope gave orders that no one was to be born or die or marry (except in Church porches) – that sort of thing.)

That's my lot. Thank you for a most entertaining as well as informative article. – Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry for my delay. My concerns have been resolved. ceranthor 18:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by GrahamColm 10:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

Nintendo DSi

[edit]
Nominator(s): « Ryūkotsusei » 14:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have sufficiently addressed all the issues raised in the previous FACs and all of the reviews in-between. « Ryūkotsusei » 14:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as per my review in Archive 4. --JDC808 ♫ 08:52, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have one issue with a sentence in the lead, the one that states that the "Nintendo DSi XL is a larger model that launched the following year". From looking at the small infobox near the bottom of the article, I know what this means, as it launched in 2009 in Japan and in 2010 elsewhere, but the sentence is placed not too far after the year 2009 is mentioned in a previous sentence, so I thought "the following year" meant 2010 for all countries at first glance. This should be made clearer. TCN7JM 14:36, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. I tried conveying that without repeating the same "released in x" sentence. Hows this? « Ryūkotsusei » 16:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. TCN7JM 11:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This article has gone through a fair amount of reviewing and, aside from the one issue that has been addressed above, I found no concerns while reading through the article. TCN7JM 11:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Perhaps like this? For those interested, I've started a deletion discussion for File:GameStop, Universal CityWalk Hollywood.JPG. « Ryūkotsusei » 02:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made some changes to the layout. Please feel free to tweak it if you disagree with them. Regarding the image, you should probably try posting it to a forum or something on Commons because regular commons deletion requests don't usually end up getting that much attention. Sometimes it's just the nominator and the closing admin. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been deleted, unfortunately without any further explanation on the rationale - but the store image wasn't that vital for the article. GermanJoe (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- This review has been open almost two months and though I've been loath to archive it when consensus is leaning towards promotion, it may come to that as there's been no action here for a couple of weeks. I note that we're also still awaiting a source review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support -- this article is very informative and appears well-sourced. The images are all checked out. The sales graph is very useful, although the emdash in "2008 — 2012 Nintendo DS worldwide sales" should be replaced with an endash. In addition, FN 102 is a dead link. Other than that, I will be happy to offer my support pending Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs's citation review. Cheers --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I am happy with the article after the source review has been conducted. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 23:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments

  • Reliability of sources look fine.
  • Refs 3 and 4 are to text-heavy, multiple-page sources--for the ease of verification it would be much better to split these into separate refs. For instance, while I was able to verify some details regarding the design, I could not easily find the speaker grilles section to check it. This was an issue on other larger multi-page refs as well. Making it easy for people to source content in the article is good--make it easier!
  • I spot checked statements attributed to the following sources: 3, 4, 5, 21, 29, 30, 37, 53, 95, 111, 130, and 142. I found a few issues:
    • Prose says DSi was released in black and light blue, but source 21 gives simply "blue".[7]
    • showed potential in further expanding the Nintendo DS gaming population—particularly in Europe and the United States. To further promote the product line while expanding its gaming population, Nintendo modified its market expansion approach. seems to be reading between the lines of ref 53, unless I'm missing something.[8]
    • Ref 37 doesn't seem to support the assertion that the the DSi is both the "individual" and the camera meaning.[9]
  • I tagged the lead as needed some work due to its rather nebulous section on reception; it feels like it's crossed the line into lumping critics' opinions together into synthesis, unless we have sources that specifically mention "critics thought this".

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:23, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I tried tackling almost everything but,
ref 53: Not sure what page 3 was for but I slimmed it down to 5 and 6.[10] It starts during the second half of the lengthy paragraph before introducing the DSi and continues on page 6 discussing how it will expand the DS' marketshare. If that's not convincing would changing "...Nintendo modified its market expansion approach" to "...Nintendo created the DSi" would fix this?
ref 37: Found Cnet, but would techradar suffice? Cnet cites TR. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo created the DSi" would be better, yes, and you should always try to cite the source as close to the original degree as possible--so if Cnet cited TR, verify it's in TR and cite that instead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(←)Done and hows the lead? Would you recommend further tweaking? Also, I've split refs 3 and 4. « Ryūkotsusei » 15:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • How do things stand now for you, David? Incidentally, Ryūkotsusei, I notice there's an unresolved [who?] tag in the lead. Also in the lead, I really don't understand what's meant by "in its respective territory" -- simplest thing would be to simply drop that phrase. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure if my tweaks to the lead were sufficient so I left the tag. Really? What are your thoughts about TCN7JM's comments at top of the nomination? Maybe I'm over complicating things and stating again "launched in Japan on [date], and worldwide beginning in [month/year]" wouldn't be so bad. « Ryūkotsusei » 17:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another quick look over on the article, and I've removed the {{who}} tag as clarification has already been provided. As there weren't significant misattributions/referencing mistakes and didn't appear to be that many on my spotcheck I think it can pass 1c. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

D-Day naval deceptions

[edit]
Nominator(s): Errant (chat!) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My third featured article candidate on the topic of military deception. This time a little piece about three closely related deceptions conducted in the early hours of D-Day, 1942. These three naval deceptions were intended to create confusion for the German defenders, whether they had the desired effect or not... who knows! Enjoy :) Errant (chat!) 13:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "For example, radar jamming using wireless sets and chaff (known by the codename Window).": Sentence fragment.
    • A kindly copyeditor fixed this :)
  • "If successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy.": Did the raids target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy?
    • I've reworded this sentence, see what you thing
  • "precise accurate": precise
    • done
  • "tell tale": tell-tale
    • done
  • "at shortly after": shortly after
    • done
  • "however was not supported ... Instead Task Force C consisted": but was not supported ... Task Force C consisted
    • done
  • "However, as the Germans failed to respond the ships": As the Germans failed to respond, the ships
    • done
  • "forces in poor conditions. Poor weather conditions meant that": forces. Launched in poor weather conditions,
    • done
  • "All of these factors contributed to making the operations less effective than the planners might have envisioned.": Delete.
    • I addressed this per recommendations from Steve below. See what you think.
  • "not because bad weather": Is there an "of" in the quote? - Dank (push to talk) 16:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 11:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done


Comments

A nice little article. I've got just a few comments:

  • I agree with all of Dank's recommended corrections above, except his second to last. If Barbier specifically says that the planners were less than satisfied with the result, I'd keep the sentence in, but reword it a little, perhaps to "The planners felt that the operations had been less effective than had originally been envisioned." or something like that.
    • Done :)
  • The opening sentence is a little long and includes five operation names. Just to reduce the number of subjects, I'd be inclined to delete Operation Neptune and wikilink "the Allied landings in Normandy" instead. However, that would mean the name Operation Neptune doesn't appear in the lede, so I appreciate you might not want to do that.
  • "The naval operations took the form of small boats and aircraft from RAF Bomber Command simulating invasion fleets". Were the small boats from RAF Bomber Command? I presume not, but this sentence makes it appear that they were. I'd put a few words in about where the boats came from (which flotilla or something like that).
    • I've reworded this, see what you think
    • WRT where they came from.. no mention in the sources of where they came from. Could be one of several ML Flotilla's at the time (e.g. 151st) but, nothing specific in the sources. I'll keep hunting.
  • "The London Controlling Section (LCS) had spent some time convincing Germans that the First United States Army Group (FUSAG) represented the bulk of the Allied invasion force." Perhaps specify which Germans; at the moment it rather implies that any old German was the target of the deception, when I imagine it was probably High Command or OB West.
    • done
  • "The Allied story for FUSAG was that the army group," What army group? Not previously mentioned so best to specify a name or just say "an army group"
  • "Attached to "U" convoy" Do you mean Force U? I've only ever heard the beach task forces referred to as Force J, Force S etc...
    • Done

Otherwise, I think it reads well. Good job. Ranger Steve Talk 09:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments from Crisco 1492
  • Have you had an image review?
    • No. The three body images I believe are OK (one own work of the Lancaster, one Crown Copyright from the IWM and one a derivative work by myself based on File:BlankEurope.png). The lead image I am less confident about now I check.... but looking for a source.
      • Agree about images. Perhaps ask at MCQ whether a heir would be copyright holder? This is of such high resolution that I doubt it is anything but a scan of a photograph (i.e. not a random image from the web, though who owns the copyright I have no idea). I have not found any images of HDMLs on .mil or .gov sites. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I agree. 1301 is owned by this guy, but that pic is not on his site. I will try to make contact and see if he has any knowledge of this image. As you say; given the resolution and the uploader's name I'm very inclined to AGF on the upload. Will check on the copyright issue. --Errant (chat!) 09:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • built up by the Operation Bodyguard plan over preceding months, - Perhaps "promulgated/promoted by the Allied forces"
  • Your sentences tend to be quite long. Any way you can trim a couple?
    • I've gone through and had a go at this. Are there any that continue to leap out at you?
  • It was also decided - Passive voice. Who decided?
  • If successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy. - Perhaps "If [these measures were] successful in drawing German forces toward the coast, RAF bombing raids would target bridges and roads to keep the armies away from Normandy.", as otherwise your subject may be read as "RAF bombing raids"
  • Wing Commander is a dab link
  • I understand that part of this is going to be classified, but is there any more information available? Do any German books on the war discuss these deceptions? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, there is only limited information - these were quite last minute operations and most of the sources only touch on them. I've not found any reference in German books, but I don't read German so my ability to find that material is limited. --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose and images (see image review above). Looks like a solid, if brief, look at a footnote on a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:32, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to everyone for the delay in working on your review points! I've been camping in a field for a week :) so will try and get through everything this week. --Errant (chat!) 11:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

[edit]

Playing around on Google Books, I found some potential sources. I have not analyzed them for their reliability, and I'm not sure if they present a non-negligible amount of new info not already in the article or not... but with that caveat, here are some sources for your perusal, Errant:

Are any of these useful, reliable sources for additional material, to expand the content in this article? – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for listing these! I have most of these books and they only really mention this operation in passing. They don't add anything to the current sources. However, I'd have no objection to listing some or all of them as further reading! What do you think? --Errant (chat!) 11:22, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if any of them would be useful in a "further reading" section or not; I'll leave that up to you. I just wanted to make sure there weren't any obvious other sources that could help flesh out the article. Unless someone provides a new source with more information, I'm willing to agree that there are no actionable "completeness" issue with this article. – Quadell (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose: The prose is lively and clear, but the article overuses commas in a few places. Commas are not needed in the first sentence (except after "Taxable"). Commas aren't needed around "and aircraft from RAF Bomber Command". I believe the comma is spurious in the "Dam Busters" caption after "Squadron", unless I don't understand the grammar of plane nomenclature. No comma is needed after "the size and disposition of an invasion force". There may be other instances of overcommaing (What a terrible attempt at a word!), so check carefully for it.
    • I've gone through the article with this in mind, see what you think - but the "and aircraft from" commas were inserted to correct a problem where it appeared the boats were from bomber command also. I believe this is a correct usage :)
  • Context: I think FAs need to provide as much context as is practical so that someone with very little knowledge of the background will be able to understand how the topic of the article fits into the wider context. This article does not explicitly mention World War II, or link "German" to any context as to what German force we're talking about. I know it may sound pedantic and even absurd to imagine a reader would not know we're talking about WWII, but I still think it's good practice. (And it's not as if the article is too long...)
  • Images: The images are all legitimately free and used appropriately. (I cleaned up the sourcing on one.) But in the captions, complete sentences need periods.
    • Captions done
      • Well, that introduced new errors. "Map of Europe with the subordinate plans of Operation Bodyguard labelled", "Grainy Second World War photograph of chaff being dropped from an aircraft", and "Colour photograph of a Lancaster Bomber in flight" are not complete sentences, and should not have periods. (Then again, they are alt text, not captions.) "A Harbour Defence Motor Launch, similar to those used during the operations" is a caption, but is not a complete sentence, and should not have a period. Other captions which are complete sentences (e.g. "The D-Day naval deceptions made up one part of Operation Bodyguard") are complete sentences and do need periods. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Too sleepy today. I think I've got it now.
  • Clarity: Was chaff known as "Window"? Or were all the deception techniques together known as "Window"? Also, did you mean "radios and balloons" rather than "radios and balloon"?
  • Style: It seems to me that the "Impact" section would work better if the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs were reversed. What do you think?
    • Makes sense. Done.
  • Sourcing: Does Barbier (pp.110-111) support the claim that "The extent to which Taxable and Glimmer were successful has been debated"? If so, then great! But if not, that will need more support.
    • I can't directly support this, so removed
  • References: I'm used to "page" being abbreviated "p." and "pages" as "pp." Is your abbreviation of "pg." an acceptable standard I'm not aware of? Other than that, the references are excellent.
    • No, good catch. I will figure out a source for this tonight.
    • Done! :)
  • Categories: Why is this article in Category:Operation Neptune? It isn't mentioned in the article. And why Category:Operation Fortitude, which the "background section" indicates is merely a related operation? And for that matter, should there be a Category:Operation Bodyguard?
    • Good spot, and you are right. Done

I'm happy with all other aspects of the article. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I've started work on these points and hopefully will have them worked through by the weekend. --Errant (chat!) 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All issues have been resolved, and I believe this fulfills all our FA criteria. – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1b,c;2a

  • The operational plan is an old template, switch to an infobox.
    • Seems entirely semantic seeing as one is a redirect to the other :) but done.
  • The lead is too short.
    • How long would you expect it to be, just as guidance. I usually follow the guidance at WP:LEAD, which recommends approx. 1-2 paragraphs for an article of this sort.
  • A one paragraph section shouldn't be a section.
    • It should be obvious why it is a section :) Do you have an alternative suggestion for delineating the seperate operation? I'm note sure there is a guideline preventing that sort of layout. Can you convince me of why it shouldn't be like that?
  • Not sure I understand the further reading section - why not cite it?
    • I guess it doesn't add much I can't cite elsewhere; it was in the article when I started it and I don't like removing other editors work. Do you think remove it entirely? or add a couple more interesting further reading options.
  • If Normandy landings is the broader term and D-Day is the operational codename/nickname you'd think the article would be called Normandy landings naval deceptions. Or Taxable, Glimmer and Big Drum.
    • I've tried out several names, and with emphasis on clarity for the reader this one seemed the most sensible. D-Day is the widely (aka globally!) known term. Normandy landings is another term, but less instantly recognisable. In addition D-Day refers to a rough date, which makes sense in the context of the title (whereas action wrt Normandy landings could occur on a wider timescale). The code name was Neptune, but using that doesn't seem appropriate. Listing the three operation names I am opposed to because it could be confusing.
  • Honestly, with the limited number of citations and size with it doesn't seem like its necessary - I would just merge the operations into the Normandy Landings deceptions sectione and get that one up to FA. Kirk (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The size doesn't strike me as a problem. Seeing as this is not a small article it would swamp the current Normandy landings article, and with expansion of the other sections (plus the addition of other deception operation to the same level of detail) reviewers would immediately recommend a split. :) The same problem applies to Operation Bodyguard (which will be a FA when I get round to it). I've carefully considered all of the Bodyguard operations and made a decision which ones have enough content to warrant separate articles, as part of my drive to build it into a Good/Featured Topic. Or in short; I disagree the article is short enough to merge anywhere useful. Thanks for the review. --Errant (chat!) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've proposed the merger to Operation Bodyguard here, which I think is the best place for this content since about 25% of the article discusses the wider operation. I'm not sure if the FAC coordinator would keep this discussion open in the meantime or not. I look forward to everyone's comments. Kirk (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you have any further comments on the other issues? It would be really good to hear your thoughts. I think the merger request is somewhat of a sideshow from the perspective of the FAR. Apart from your objection to its length I think it has strong support (of course, that's up to the delegate). If it gets merged (high unlikely IMO) then it doesn't matter either way :) but it would be a kick in the teeth to have worked this hard on it and for you to get the FAR shut down over a minor point. Basically I'd give up and you can take on writing up this topic. :) which is fine, I'm happy to lend you the books :D --Errant (chat!) 23:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk has not contributed any further to this discussion or to the merge request he opened, despite editing a little in the interim. What's the process for moving forward? I'm minded to close the merge request as unsupported (its had no other comments bar mine, and Giant2008 below appears to oppose such a merge as well) so perhaps that means this can come off hold? --Errant (chat!) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

          • I commented on the name stuff below, I did skim some other books online which discussed these operations in more detail than you did so I think you could expand the article some more. The section comment I meant delete the section title or expand it; cite the further reading in the article or remove it.
            • Thanks Kirk. Can you point to some of these sources? Just so I know which ones you've found with more info (my Google-fu is probably lacking :)). It's worth taking care here btw; there is one book about wartime air operations with some additional "detail" but it's mostly nonsense (well, actually its a jumble up of all sorts of truth from different operations), dated from before scholars interested in deception unpicked the truth :) Also if you've read Bodyguard of Lies - that's not a reliable source, in general, being written well before declassification of most of the usable source material. However, if you've found more detail I'd love to add itl. r.e. the section, I think it is fine and I am loathe to delete the heading. Single paragraph sections are Ok if justifiable and I think this one is :) --Errant (chat!) 19:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hesketh, R. Fortitude: The D-Day Deception Campaign. Overlook, 2002. http://books.google.com/books?id=qtX0FVrwnHcC.
              • Platt, O. Bodyguard: The Secret Plan That Saved D-Day. iUniverse, 2004. http://books.google.com/books?id=czXmbb0XxTkC.
              • West, Nigel. Historical Dictionary of Naval Intelligence. Historical Dictionaries of Intelligence and Counterintelligence no. 13. Lanham, Md: Scarecrow Press, 2010.
                • Thanks. I can use some of the data from West to name the balloons etc. So let me work that in. IIRC, Hesketh doesn't mention anything much about these ops. I could be wrong so I will double check. Platt is a self-published source and so I am not happy using it, there's not really anything much extra in there, and the detail that is I am suspect of. --Errant (chat!) 09:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Kirk:; I've added detail from West. Hesketh has no information on these operations (his is a good source but has broad omissions, and is limited by his own experiences). Platt, on deeper inspection, doesn't look a good source (self-published, no independent reviews or citations, author does not list any sources and on my own quick skim through there are a number of errors in his information). --Errant (chat!) 13:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • First off, let me say that I think this is a valid topic for a stand-alone article, and that having summaries of stand-alone articles in the main Operation Bodyguard article strikes me as a logical form of organization. I see the nominator's point that having all of this information in the main article would threaten to overwhelm the rest of the text, and don't see much advantage to a merge here. Hopefully this doesn't get closed over the discussion.
    • I couldn't find the phrase 'D-Day naval deceptions' in google books both with a search and reading a few additional sources, and I always balk at making up things for WP articles without a secondary source to back them up. If the merger is rejected and this review goes forward the name should be changed to Operation Glimmer, Taxable, and Big Drum since that's the actual name and matches the other articles in the series. I suggest pinging some of the MilHist admins to move this discussion along. I think Dank is busy otherwise he'd probably have already given his opinion. Kirk (talk) 18:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were tactical military deceptions conducted on the 6 June 1944...". Remove "the" before the date. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:23, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Looking at outstanding comments above, there's the suggestion that the article be expanded and also that it be renamed Operation Glimmer, Taxable, and Big Drum. Expansion is fine but I'd much prefer that any name change occur after the FAC has completed. Can we also resolve/close once and for all the merge discussion? I don't think we can say the article passes the stability criteria while there's a merge tag attached to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Goodbyeee

[edit]
Nominator(s): ajmint (talk•edits) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Up there with "You ain't my mother!" and Del falling through the bar, "Goodbyeee"'s moving final scene is truly one of the greatest moments in British television. Since Remembrance Day is coming up, I thought I would polish up the Blackadder episode's article, which I got to GA status in September, and I now believe it's ready for the FAC process. Having said that, I've never done this before, so it may just be the nonsensical ravings of a madman. A-wibble. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone

[edit]

Yes indeed a fine and memorable moment in a fine series. Article is shaping up well i think.

  • "It was originally the last episode of Blackadder to be produced and transmitted..." I know what you mean, but the idea that something was "originally" the "last" of something, and then wasn't, reads very oddly. What about something like "Apart from the one-off short film Blackadder: Back & Forth made a decade later, it was the last episode of Blackadder to be produced and transmitted"?
  • "He misinterprets Darling's pleas to reconsider, and insists that he go." Too many "he's", not enough clarity as to who each one is.
    • Reworded with passive to one "he": "Darling's pleas to reconsider are misinterpreted, and Melchett insists that he go." Hope that's clear enough, didn't want to have two "Darling"s. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the running gag of Baldrick using mud and bodily fluids to make coffee was heavily expanded during rehearsals". I'd like to see what other editors think about this, but I found it odd being told about the expansion of a running gag, when the gag itself has not been previously mentioned. Was it a joke that recurred within the episode? The series? Across series? Without some sort of context, it seems to be information that is at once insignificant and slightly perplexing.
    • Added "throughout the episode" for scope; it does seem a bit trivial, but I seem to recall that in the documentary Blackadder Rides Again that this is taken from, it was a major part of the creative process and really showed how the writing/rehearsing process on the show worked, with everybody chipping in to take the joke a little further. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is nothing known about the ratings for the episode, particularly when given a special re-broadcast? The article says "it was repeated as part of a serious commemoration of Armistice Day". What year(s)? Blackadder has been broadcast in other countries: do we know anything at all about the episode's reception elsewhere? The article's current coverage i think is exclusively British.
    • Unfortunately, BARB's online records only go back to 1998 on a weekly/monthly basis; the only thing they have for 1989 is this. They do have some data about Blackadder Goes Forth, but this is mostly repeats on UKTV. The rebroadcast is mentioned here, but I can't find another reference to it; I suspect it may have been before 1998 anyway. I fear that the majority of coverage is British, and you'd be hard pressed to find a foreign review, especially from the 80s. I think I'm right in saying it would have been on PBS/BBC America in the US, but I can't find anything about this episode on their websites. That being said, I did find these two American articles, the latter from an AV Club contributor; perhaps they could be incorporated in some way? ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do BARB's records go further back in hardcopy available through a library? Does Hanna's book at least tell us what year the Rememberance Day re-broadcast occurred?. I've added the only new info I have been able to locate so far. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:09, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think either of the sources you found are either reliable enough, or add anything . The thing I was most hoping for was more facts on the broadcasts rather than more reviews. However, i found a really valuable reference to the episode in a major theatrical reference work, and have added it. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my thoughts at present. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed inline. ajmint (talk•edits) 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the assumption that the nom is correct about BARB records not being available that fr back. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, I have found some publications which may contain this information, but it's not feasible for me to get hold of them. ajmint (talk•edits) 17:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Production" section, on my display the photos of Richard Curtis & Ben Elton appear one above the other, not side by side. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed "(left)" and "(right)". ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "Themes", paragraph 1: "Blackadder, Baldrick and George discuss the futility of war—George mentions the Christmas truce of 1914, in which the belligerents stopped fighting to play football—and their impending fate." The discussion of the Christmas truce is not directly relevant to the futility of war or their impending fate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved truce bit out into a separate sentence. ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From "Themes", paragraph 2: "The series, and the storyline of "Goodbyeee" especially, often depicts the "lions led by donkeys" perception of the War, an element which has been criticised by historians." It it is the perception that is criticised, or the leadership? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. ("an element of Blackadder Goes Forth") ajmint (talk•edits) 18:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This is a well-written article. I am a little uncomfortable with the use of UK Gold TV as a reference that praises the episode, but I suppose that it does so in the context of the series as a whole. It is a shame that there is no free image available with which to illustrate the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- recusing myself from delegate duties on this one, as it is a very special piece of TV and I can't resist reviewing...

  • Structure generally seems logical and straightforward, likewise supporting materials; note that I haven't performed image or source reviews. Suggestion:
  • Referencing-wise, looks like pretty well everything that should be cited is cited, however:
    • Under Themes, I'd expect any assertions to be cited, lest they appear to be original research. The first short para isn't cited; OTOH it's pretty self-evident, but that suggests to me that it probably belongs more in Events than in Themes. OTOOH, I'd have thought/hoped that we might've been able to source some more critical commentary re. themes in the episode, either from the book refs or reviews -- no?
      • I have moved a bit of the first paragraph into Events and replaced it with some commentary by Atkinson/Lloyd on the DVD. I have also added a BBC News article which comments on Melchett/Haig. ajmint (talk•edits) 11:08, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose reads quite well to me; I performed a very light copyedit only. One thing:
    • Re. the lead, the pedant in me questions "in which the main characters die in machine gun fire", as I don't think that's actually shown, it's just heavily implied...
  • Coverage-wise, I am left wanting a bit more, although whether that's actionable or not depends on whether there's anything more available in reliable sources. Just as examples:
    • Did Stephen Fry or Tony Robinson have anything to say about the episode, since we have some commentary from Atkinson and McInnerny?
    • Anything about Geoffrey Palmer's casting, or his thoughts on it?
  • Lastly, as this is your first FAC I expect the closing delegate will want to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and I may do that myself in due course.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (fair-use, CC). Sources and authors provided.

Source review - spotchecks not done


Support Leaning to support: An admirable account of an iconic TV experience. I well remember its impact when it was first shown, and I think this is properly reflected in this article. A few relatively minor points:

  • There is some duplication of citations. For example, the comparison of Melchett with an "amalgam of Haig and French" is made in the infobox and again in the text, cited in both. The latter citation should be enough. The episode's status as one of television's greatest moments does not need to be cited in the lead, as it is thoroughly cited in the main text.
  • Tim McInnerny's status as a cast member is clear from the background section, so he does not need to be described later as "cast member Tim McInnerny"
  • On this question of descriptions, my esteemed colleague and sometime conominator Tim riley has convinced me that in British English, unless the description is a rank or title (e.g. "General Melchett"), it needs the definite article. Thus, "the historian A.J.P. Taylor", etc. The missing "the" is a prerogative of tabloid journalism, not the best of prose models.
  • The Episode chronology information in the infobobox says that Blackadder Back & Forth is the next episode in the series, which is incorrect. Its nature as a retrospective is fully explained in the text; it is most definitely not the next episode. As a general point, infoboxes should be restricted to key information, and I don't think that knowing what episode preceded Goodbyeee" qualifies as key. I recommend that you drop these details from the infobox.

I look forward to moving to full support shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 10:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ajmint (talk•edits) 15:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am supporting now. Well done. I am glad that "Plan F" didn't remain in the episode title, and am wondering whther it really ought to be in the very first line of the article, as it is hardly a significant point. But I will leave that with you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to keep it there as quite a few major sources (most notably the BBC itself) list it with that title, and I can't really think of another place for it in the article, but thanks for your support! ajmint (talk•edits) 20:49, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

An interesting and well-balanced article. I look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ajmint (talk•edits) 21:20, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck -- checked the following; no issues re. accuracy or close paraphrasing:

  • FN15a/b: Okay.
  • FN17: Okay.
  • FN21: Okay.
  • FN28: Okay.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:10, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I think it meets the featured article criteria. I believe the article is detailed enough, precise and shows the main impact the song had on the music. Thanks to everyone who helped me during its building. For all the users who decide to oppose, please provide the issues you found so I can fix them. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 09:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Et3rnal
  • "and has a similar style as Rihanna's 2010 single "Rude Boy"." → replacing the "as" with "to", sounds a bit better.
  • "Although no music video was made for the single, it appeared on several charts worldwide." → this implies that it would have been more successful if it did have a music video, which is probably true, but I don't think should be assumed. I suggest removing the no music video bit, or just moving it, changing it, up to you.
  • "Rihanna asked on Twitter for her fans to recommend what song" → replace "what" with "which".
  • "...collaboration between the two is a success" → replace "is" with "was".
  • "Priya Elan of NME was less enthusiastic and who wrote" → remove "who".
  • In the track listing, the (feat. Jay Z) bit is redundant.
  • Credits are adapted from the liner notes for Talk That Talk. → wouldn't "of" liner notes make more sense.
  • The ARIA certification link appears dead on my end, don't know if it's just me.

Support Just some minor issues, which you can easily address, good job. Et3rnal 22:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • [[55th Grammy Awards|2013 ceremony]] → [[2013 Grammy Awards|2013 ceremony]]
  • I don't think Yahoo! Voices can be used as a source, as this particular section of the website is written by random Yahoo! users, not experts.
  • Reference 49 has an error, while reference 50 links to the Billboard R&B chart, not the UK one.
  • [[Norwegian Singles Chart]] → [[VG-lista|Norwegian Singles Chart]]
  • [[Swiss Music Charts|Swiss Singles Chart]] → [[Swiss Hitparade|Swiss Singles Chart]]
  • [[Australian Singles Chart]] → [[ARIA Charts|Australian Singles Chart]]
  • Contemporary hit and Rhythmic radio → Contemporary hit and rhythmic radio

SnapSnap 16:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I came across this un-transcluded FAC today and added it at WP:FAC. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC, Flickr with no signs of problems). Sources and authors provided. Just 1 cleanup needed:

  • File:TalkThatTalkCover.png - brief statements for NFCC-criterions "replaceable" and "commercial" are missing in the image summary FUR (see other cover FURs for examples of common phrases), aside from that fair-use is OK.
Comments from Cassianto

Background Looks good

Production and release

  • Do we need to link "New York City"?
  • We don't need to link London per WP:OVERLINK
  • Now, I am the last person to know this as this really isnt my type of music so I may be completely wrong but is the "DJ" in Jordan "DJ" Swivel Young correct, or should it be Jordan "DJ Swivel" Young? I cannot imagine that a double barrelled surname would actually be Swivel-Young. If it is just "DJ" then a hyphen should be added between each surname.
  • I believe the Savoy, London has a Wiki page, link?
  • Could we have the year again at the start of the second paragraph as I don't believe the last time we had it was the previous section at the start. I see we give 2012 when we speak of her Twitter message, but I think giving the year at the start of the paragraph is better, but keep 2012 where it is.
Savoy Hotel filceolaire (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's already linked. — Tomíca(T2ME) 23:01, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and lyrical interpretation

  • Check the title at the start, we seem to be missing some closing inverts.

Critical reception

  • Looks good.

Chart performance

  • "After the release of Talk That Talk, the song charted..." – "After the release of Talk That Talk" is redundant IMO. As opposed to before the release?
  • Well, it's kind of important because prior the song was officially released, it had success with only the release of the LP. When the song received release dates, it failed to match the success of the beginning. — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the release of Talk That Talk – Although it is italicised, I think we should differentiate a little bit more from the album and the single. They share the same name so it may become confusing. I would say "The album" perhaps before the title.

Live performances

  • Do we need both "a seven-date and seven-day long"? Could we safely assume that the seven-day long tour had a performance on each of the seven days? This is Rihanna after all, I doubt there was a day where she was sitting in her dressing room saying "No audience tonight again, damn-it!, lets go home" Or, is the fact it's called 777 instrumental in giving this line?

That's it. Comprehensively put together as usual. -- CassiantoTalk 11:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennKR

*You have some refs with both the newspaper/website cited alone and then some with the corporate publisher (e.g. Billboard is cited with Prometheus Global Media in one instance, and then Billboard alone in another.

*Unlink "Pisa" in the Jay-Z lyrics quote per WP:LINKSTYLE.

  • The same for the Time magazine quote from Claire Suddath (you could paraphrase it alternatively).

Support Very few issues. The prose is secure and concise. Great job! —JennKR | ☎ 23:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I can see that most of the sources are lack of publisher. Please add. — HĐ (talk) 04:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Wikipedian Penguin: This is close to being ready, but needs some tweaks and fixes here and there to be an FA.

  • No pressure, but you might want to link CD single in the lead.
  • "'Talk That Talk' is a hip hop song performed with R&B beats, rough drums, unrefined synths and has a similar style to Rihanna's 2010 single 'Rude Boy'."—remove "performed", add "and" after "drums" (removing the comma) and add a comma after "synths".
  • "who praised its composition and Rihanna and Jay Z's collaboration."—perhaps "who praised its composition and Rihanna's collaboration with Jay-Z" so we can remove one of the "and"s. Also, to praise the "composition" seems a bit awkward because that's the whole song in general. Do you mean the sound, music, etc.?
  • You mention the title of the song five times in the lead. Care to reduce that?
  • Quoting Rihanna's tweet seems redundant (and it looks silly hehe).
  • "They had previously produced Rihanna's 2010 hit singles 'Only Girl (In the World)' and 'What's My Name?' for her fifth album Loud."—remove "previously".
  • "In an interview with the Norwegian website 730.no..."—for
  • "Additional recording of the song was done at Room 538 in Sofitel Paris Le Faubourg and Room 526 in the Savoy London."—I don't think the room numbers are important. They seem trivial to me.
  • "Eriksen and Hermansen performed the song's instrumentation..."—to perform instrumentation seems a bit strange to me. Maybe "record"?
  • "Rihanna asked on Twitter for her fans to recommend which song from Talk That Talk should be released as the third single." → "Rihanna asked her fans on Twitter to recommend a song from Talk That Talk for release as the third single."
  • In the next sentence, I'd say "the title track" instead of the song's title itself to avoid repetition. And again, the tweet isn't that useful.
  • "...a black and white image in which Rihanna is dressed in punk clothes and crouches against a wall."—hyphens in "black-and-white".
  • What makes PopCrush a high quality reliable source?
  • "...including a strange sexual reference that Claire Suddath..."—remove "strange".
  • Avoid linking inside quotations as per MOS:QUOTE.
  • "Sputnikmusic's Steve M. felt that it can be a major hit on radio partly because of Jay Z's guest rap."—past tense "could"
  • "MTV News' Jocelyn Vena called it "big and hard with just enough brightness" and felt that the song discusses sexual intercourse more appropriately than 'Cockiness (Love It)'."—just a suggestion, but consider briefly discussing some of the "sexual" lyrics in "Cockiness"?
  • I think the Critical reception could benefit from some transitions to make the text more cohesive. Right now it's just (X of Y magazine said, A of B magazine said, etc.). Use transitions like "On the critical side" and "However" talk more about the general consensus: what aspects were praised/criticized in general? More coming. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:24, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I have done all of the above issues. For the last one, I read the critical reception section and I think it flaws perfectly, the thing is there is only one negative review, the rest is all positive, I added there On the critical side, so I hope it's fine. Feel free the check everything and thanks for commenting. — Tomíca(T2ME) 06:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "—a black-and-white image in which Rihanna is dressed in punk clothes and crouches against a wall."—nothing about punk clothes in the source provided.
  • "She also had a toothpick between her teeth, and her hair was styled in big curls and a bandana."—unsupported by source
  • "...the latter sees Rihanna expressing her desire for having sex..." → "...in the latter, Rihanna expresses her desire to have sex..."
  • "The single was nominated in the category of [for] Best Rap/Sung Collaboration for [at] the 55th [2013] Grammy Awards, which was held on February 10, 2013, at the Staples Center in Los Angeles."—don't think the exact date and location of the awards show is relevant.
  • "However, it lost to "No Church in the Wild" (2012) by Jay Z and Kanye West featuring Frank Ocean and The-Dream."—I don't think "however" is necessary here, to be honest.
  • "After the release of Talk That Talk, the song charted in many countries owing to strong digital sales."—this can get confusing, even with italics. Suggest "the album".
  • "It debuted and peaked at number 31 on the US Billboard Hot 100 and sold 73,000 digital copies in its first week, which was the highest debut on the chart."—I don't think so. Number 31 and only (relatively speaking) 73 grand copies, the highest debut?
  • "In the week of February 4, 2012, "Talk That Talk" re-entered the chart at number 100 and rose to number 94."—the "rose to number 94" part is so trivial.
  • "The song also appeared on the R&B/Hip-Hop Songs chart at number 63 for the issue dated January 28."—in the issue dated...
  • "It reached a peak of number 12 and stayed on the chart for 21 total weeks."—remove "total".
  • "Following the release of the album, the song debuted in South Korea on the Gaon International Chart at number 22 on sales of 14,207 digital copies."—"on sales of"?
  • Be consistent on whether chart positions are written as figures or words.
  • "Rihanna and Jay Z performed "Talk That Talk" for the first time together at the 2012 BBC Radio 1's Hackney Weekend in London."—source doesn't say for the first time. In fact, they talk about the SNL performance being a collab.
  • Year-end chart table needs formatting for plain row headers.
  • One last comment: what are "rough drums" supposed to be?

Support—I did some prose work on this shortly prior to its nomination and am ready to say it is of FA quality, with tight and clear prose, citation formatting meticulously done and comprehensive information. I've checked a few sources at random for paraphrasing and verifiability and apart from the ones that I've mentioned above (which have been taken care of), they seem to pass muster. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC) [14].[reply]

Julianne Moore

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lobo (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on Julianne Moore's article (on and off) since last summer, wanting this talented and well-known actress to have a top-quality article. Most of the heavy work was done between February and April of this year, at which time it received a detailed peer review. I've been away from WP for a while, but I am now ready to give this a shot at FAC. I feel that it is at the same standard as other contemporary-actor FAs, but all suggestions for improvement are welcomed.

A pre-emptive comment re sources - I have done my best to make sure all the sources are high quality, and I believe I can defend the usage of all of them (a couple that may not appear "high quality" are either legitimate interviews with Moore herself, or written by respected individuals). IMDb is only used to source multiple award nominations, and this is because it is so much more convenient to link to the one page than all the different awarding bodies. IMDb is the best, most comprehensive source available for this information and I sincerely believe its usage should be justified in such instances. Lobo (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

I was one of the happy reviewers at PR back in March. Only a couple of minor points picked up this time round:

Early roles

  • "appearing in the notorious Madonna flop": do we need "notorious"?
It's backed by the source, but no, I guess it's a bit unnecessary. --Lobo (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2003–09

  • "failed to find an audience": a bit unencyclopaedic (and the overly literal part of me wants to ask "what, not one single person?")
This is tricky! I'm not crazy about the sentence either, but I've found it extremely hard to find sources that mention Marie and Bruce's failure (which goes to show how much of a failure it was! There's no mention of the film anywhere.) The reference currently given is the one reliable source I've found, and the comment is: "Nor did I catch the 2004 film, starring Julianne Moore and Matthew Broderick. (Apparently, nobody else did either.)" I wanted to use the source accurately, so I thought that was the best term to use. Any suggestions of a better phrase (that would still be accurately represented in the source)? --Lobo (talk) 10:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I struggled too - couldn't find it in any of the usual places. I think it failed to get a ditribution deal (from several unreliable sources) but was shown at sundance in 2004. One thing we go know is that: The film went "straight to DVD a few years after making the festival rounds".<ref>{{cite news|last=Russo|first=Tom|title=Chill with scenes of young vampires in love|newspaper=[[The Boston Globe]]|date=March 15, 2009|page=14}}</ref> That's a straight quote from the news, so feel free to use or paraphrase as you like. - SchroCat (talk) 13:55, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's much more direct and useful, good work in finding it. If a film plays at festivals but then goes straight to DVD, that means it was never picked up by a distributor and didn't have a cinematic release. So I've now been able to put that in the article - thanks! --Lobo (talk) 14:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from those very minor points, an excellent article that covers everything you could hope to know in sufficient detail but without being overwhelming. – SchroCat (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—all good for me. Great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, thanks so much for your time and support. --Lobo (talk) 14:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]

I have completed a read through and see very little wrong with this fine piece of work. I wanted to offer at least some comments so please excuse the "nit-pickety" nature which I adopt. Here are some which I am not sure of:

  • "Moore frequently moved around the country as a child..." -- Which country? We mention both America and Scotland in the preceding text. I know she never actually lived in Scotland, but the text would flow better with a specific country
Early roles

Looks good

Rise to prominence

Looks good

Widespread recognition

Looks good

Widespread recognition
  • "Moore plays Maude Lebowski, a feminist artist and daughter of the eponymous character who becomes involved with "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges, the film's star)." -- Could we get away with a pronoun at the start? I see no other mention of another female in the text before it. Failing that, could we illuminate some of the mentions of her surname in favour of pronouns, as it is bordering a little on repetition. For example: "Moore followed her success in Boogie Nights with a role in the Coen brothers' dark comedy The Big Lebowski (1998). The film was not a hit at the time of release but subsequently became a cult classic. Moore plays Maude Lebowski, a feminist artist and daughter of the eponymous character who becomes involved with "The Dude" (Jeff Bridges, the film's star). At the end of 1998, Moore had a flop with Gus Van Sant's Psycho, a remake of the classic Alfred Hitchcock film of the same name. Moore played Lila Crane..."
  • "Moore's fifth and final film of 1999..." -- do we need both "fifth" and "final", or could we get away with just the latter?
2003–09
2010s
  • The Telegraph links to The Daily Telegraph, but I see no alternative name given in the linked article that omits "Daily". Is this correct, or does it disambiguate to this, this, or this?
    • This is because the website given in the reference only says "The Telegraph" - ie, it combines both the Daily and Sunday papers; WP, however, has separate articles, so I just decided to go with the Daily article. I think the options here are either to link it to Telegraph Media Group, or to tweak the article to say Daily Telegraph (and assume he probably writes for them). What do you think? --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Critic Betsy Sharkey praised Moore's..." -- The definate article would sound a little less magaziney I think.
  • "Moore was not seen on screens again..." -- Do you mean to pluralize this?
Reception and roles
  • "Moore has been described as one of the most talented and accomplished actresses of her generation." -- By who?
    • Hmm...I completely understand why you've picked up on this, but I'm also finding it difficult to think how it could be attributed. The specific journalists could be named, but I'm not sure it would read very well. I considered "described by commentators", or "described in the media", but then that seems redundant...what do you think would be best? --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could mention the most notable critic, or the one who holds the biggest influence. Sure, listing them all would be incorrect; or, like you say, we could give a general reference to the type of people who call Moore this? I quite like "described in the media", but ill leave this to you. -- CassiantoTalk 04:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...director Ridley Scott" -- Definate article?
  • "Journalist Kira Cochrane →definate article. It maybe worth going through and checking them all for the definite article use. It reads sooo much better IMO
Writing
  • "children's book author" -- redundancy of "book".
Personal life
  • "Moore met her first husband, actor and stage director John Gould Rubin" -- guess what :)
  • "journalist Suzie Mackenzie" -- and here.

I see no other issues, but I feel we need to nail the whole definite article thing. I really do think that using it makes for a better read. A really good article Lobo, great work! -- CassiantoTalk 21:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite right about using definite articles, and have added them throughout the article where needed. Points to which I haven't asked your opinion have all been fixed. Thank you so much for the review and the compliment! --Lobo (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check and quotes (GermanJoe)

[edit]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (Flickr, OTRS, CC). Sources and authors provided. Some minor points and suggestions for improvements of quoteboxes and image selection:

  • Quote "captions" => probably shouldn't end in periods for incomplete phrases (similar to images). Some have, some haven't periods at the moment - needs to be consistent either way.
  • "Early Roles" quote => i couldn't find her name change mentioned in the article. If it's important enough for a quote, it should be added as information to the main text.
  • "Widespread recognition" quote => pure PR-speak (sorry) with no factual information, should be removed.
  • Image selection => images are OK, however the usage of 4 single shoots of her just smiling into the camera isn't very captivating. More images like File:Moore_and_Bridges_Lebowskifest.jpg, where she is actually doing something with context, would be better (ignore, if no such images are available).
    • Yeah I'd love for there to be some more "encyclopedic" images, but unfortunately there's hardly any PD photos of her available. I've trawled through Flickr, and what you see on the page is the best there is. --Lobo (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Julianne_Moore_at_Jerrold_Nadler_gala.jpg => doesn't really add a lot, an image of 2009 is in the same section to show her look. Maybe the Savage Grace photo would fit better here, as the film is mentioned in the section.
  • File:JulianneMoore08TIFF.jpg => the festival is not mentioned in the main article, did anything note-worthy happen? Some stronger context between image and text would be good. GermanJoe (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re the above two comments: I take it you are someone who doesn't like images being used for purely decorative reasons? But I differ on this (quite strongly): I really think images make a page look more appealing and reader-friendly. The ones on this page are literally just Moore standing around smiling, I know that, and I absolutely prefer encyclopedic (and varied) images where possible, but if smiling photos is all that's available then I still think it's worth keeping them (if nothing else then to add some colour to the page)...Is that okay? Also, I'm really big on using captions to give readers info and show how the image is relevant to the section (take a look at my other big articles, listed on my user page, for examples) but I just don't think it's possible here...
    • Thanks very much for taking the time to look and comment. --Lobo (talk) 12:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • If no other images are available, no problem (images should be encyclopedic per Wiki style-guides, but a slightly decorative image is sometimes better than no image at all). GermanJoe (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ruby2010

[edit]
  • "The thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle was a US box office number one" seems sloppy - perhaps, debuted in first place in the US box office, or something similar?
  • Is there a reason why she avoided films in 2003?
  • I read some criticism of her Boston accent in 30 Rock (can't remember where), but it's your choice if you'd like to add it.
    • Yeah there was a lot of criticism from viewers, but I can't really find any good quality sources that mention it (and if I was going to mention it I'd like to be able to give a broad summary, like "she was widely criticized for her Boston accent", but that would need to be explicitly said in a source)...I'll keep looking though. --Lobo (talk) 19:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recommend you convert % to percent, per MOS:PERCENT

Overall this reads well and it obviously benefits from some thorough research! There don't seem to be too many issues, but if I think of some more I'll be sure to add them here. Nice work! Ruby 2010/2013 04:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took another look today and am happy to support this nomination. Thanks for taking this one on! (Somewhat related, but my favorite performance of hers will always be from The Hours. Great actress.) Ruby 2010/2013 17:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the Dr.

[edit]

Article looks comprehensive and well-written, great job Lobo! Some minor things:

  • The family lived in multiple locations, including Alabama, Georgia, Texas, Panama, Nebraska, Alaska, New York, and Virginia, and Moore attended nine different schools" -Any idea which cities?
  • "Her next film role did not come until 1992, but introduced her to a wide audience. The thriller The Hand That Rocks the Cradle was number one at the US box office,[21] and Moore caught the attention of several critics with her performance." Can you elaborate on her role and mention some of the co stars perhaps?
  • "surrounded by famous faces, but it proved to be Moore's breakout role.[20][25] Variety magazine described her as "arresting", and noted that her monologue, delivered naked from the waist down, would "no doubt be the most discussed scene" of the film.[26] The moment has since become famous" -repetition of famous.
  • The Lost World: Jurassic Park is a very important landmark film in her career. It would be good if you could add a little bit background info on production, where it was shot, what she did on set etc if the info exists and any relevant production info involving her on any of the films, if not don't worry. I just find actor biographies more interesting if for some films you're able to find some info of interesting filming locations or her studying certain things to prepare for a part, you know what I mean? You do explore her characters in Reception and roles though which really helps add depth to the article.
    • I found a good comment from her about making the film - hopefully the source will be acceptable (it's clearly a real interview with her). I've also added a fact about Boogie Nights, and will see if there's anything else worth adding. I have tried to make the article more than IMDb in prose form, heh, but it's already a pretty long article and since she's been in so many films (and is showing no sign of slowing down!) I don't feel like there's much space "available"... --Lobo (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you widen the blue quote boxes a little? They're a little too skinny for my liking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:23, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now looking in safari on my smaller screen.

Support Great job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great to have your review and support, thanks Doc. --Lobo (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query -- Did I miss a source review above? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, haven't had one yet. I've taken the liberty of adding a request to the FAC talk page. --Lobo (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Thank you very much for taking on that task, I know there were a lot of sources to wade through! --Lobo (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [15].[reply]

Format of Sesame Street

[edit]
Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is an interesting and well-researched article with a topic that's not well-represented on the project. It was very fun to write and to research, so please enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like this will pass in time to apply to the current round, which ends on 8/29. It also looks like it's unlikely that I'll be moving to the next round, either. :( Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there more information which could be added, or is this as comprehensive as the article can be? It seems to be a bit on the short side, but if it's as comprehensive as it can be then of course that isn't an issue. LuciferMorgan (talk) 23:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a little more content from "Elmo's World", which I just expanded. I didn't even think that this article's short length would be an issue here. Is it too short for FAC? If so, let me know so I can remove it from the queue. To answer your question, yes it's as comprehensive as it can be. I think that it's an important topic, one deserving of its own article, and it fills in some holes of the main article, Sesame Street. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it isn't too short. There's no criteria as regards how short an article is. The criteria merely asks for an article to be comprehensive, so if the article is comprehensive there isn't anything to worry about. It's just when an article is on the short side, conciseness isn't an issue because you can go into more detail. With longer articles of course, you summarise. With short articles though, you try to put in an as much relevant detail as you can. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this little article does both: it summarizes the relevant details of the topic. It's kind of limited, since it's specifically about the structure of one TV show. It's a subtopic of a much larger one, but important enough to stand on its own, even with the limited sources about it specifically. Let the reviews begin! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, with regret, on comprehensiveness. Sesame Street has quite a presence in scholarly literature, none of which has been examined here. Likewise, this article doesn't address formatting differences in foreign-language versions of Sesame Street (possibly including the Open Sesame clip show). There's also no wider impact; for example, did other series adopt aspects of the Sesame Street format? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's true that The Show has had lots written about it in scholarly literature, and I, the main editor about most of the articles here, have extensively used it in articles about it all over WP. There hasn't been much written, however, in journals and in studies about the structure and format of Sesame Street. The scholarship about it has been included in other articles, especially Sesame Street research and Influence of Sesame Street. There's little about how the co-productions are formatted, and the few studies conducted about it have been included in Sesame Street international co-productions. And surprisingly, there's lots about how Sesame Street affected other shows, like my son's favorite thing in the entire universe Blue's Clues, but not about how it affected their structure. There is information in this article about how cable shows like BC and Barney and other societal events impacted Sesame Street, which I've included here, but nothing that I've found regarding the opposite. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There do seem to be some other sources that address these issues, though. I don't have convenient access to journal resources right now (stupid remote assignment), but it may be worth looking into some of the following: Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lesser, G. S. (1972). "Learning, teaching, and television production for children: The experience of Sesame Street." Harvard Educational Review 42 (2): 232-272.
Minton, J. H. (1975). "The impact of Sesame Street on readiness." Sociology of Education 48 (2): 141-151.
Palmer, E. L., Chen, M., & Lesser, G. S. (1976). "Sesame Street: Patterns of international adaptation." Journal of Communication 26 (2): 108-123.
Salomon, Gavriel (1974). Sesame Street in Israel: Its Instructional and Psychological Effects on Children. Hebrew University of Jerusalem. OCLC 609499834
I unfortunately have the same issue tonight, and have limitations while I'm on campus tomorrow, but I've looked at the abstracts of the above articles, which are familiar to me, meaning that I've seen them before. The above articles are about topics other than the one in question. Lesser's article is more about the show's educational goals and about research. Minton better fits in the research article, and the last two also belong there, as well as in the co-productions article. Also, much of the early research like the above have been summarized in G is for Growing (2001). The Lesser article could have content about the show's format; I'll look at it more closely tomorrow, during one of my breaks, but I suspect that I won't find anything new or substantial for our purposes, or for other SS articles here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to access the above articles this afternoon and found that I was accurate about their subjects. As I stated yesterday, none of them applied to the topic of this article, not even the Lesser one. Actually, all of the content in that article, including Maurice Sendak's cartoons, is in his book, Children and Television: Lessons from Sesame Street. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you pinged Squeamish Ossifrage lately to check on the current status of this oppose? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've been unavoidably away from editing for a little while, so I hope I wasn't holding up the process here. Withdrawing my objection; although I would still prefer that some of the topics I commented on receive further examination in the article, the reality is that the sources do not afford that opportunity. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support
  • How about a reference for the first paragraph of "Format Changes after the 1990s"?
Done.
  • You talk about increases in various age demographics, but this sort of underlined that we don't know what the demographic composition of the viewership is.
I'm sorry, I guess that's kind of obvious to me (the three-to-five year old child), which means very little to the initiated, I know. So I changed the word "demographic" to "audience", which had become younger.
  • The 33rd season was in 2001, right?
Thanks, you caught something I've actually tried to avoid in these articles. Actually season 33 was 2002-2003; citing the season instead of the year means little to those who haven't been watching The Show for years, so I've tried to avoid doing it. I've clarified. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Um yes, it's on PBS. I don't know why this would be important. I think a discussion about ads better fits in other articles; for example, the addition of corporate sponsorship is already discussed in the main article, in History of Sesame Street, and in Sesame Workshop funding sources.
  • Is the actual show one hour long?
Yes, that's mentioned in the 3rd paragraph of the "Original format" section.
  • I thought I knew what a Sesame Street episode was like, but my memories may be decades old. Perhaps a more detailed description of the format of an episode is in order.
Um, I'm not sure what you're asking. If you're asking for a "this happens, and then this and after that, this" kind of thing, I'm not sure that's warranted. The article already talks about the street scenes and the use of short films, sketches, animations, and "Elmo's World". Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been addressed. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

Fixed the above. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Comment - a good and interesting article, but feels like it could use some more work. After a first quick read the lead needs some improvements, sourcing and attribution should be tighter at a few spots and another copy-edit could improve the prose (some awkward phrases, problems with flow). Not a topic expert, but Squeamish Ossifrage's concerns about coverage need to be addressed as well (if usable sources exist on those aspects - if not, it's OK). Some examples:

I hope that I've addressed SO's concerns to everyone's satisfaction; like you state, I believe that I've exhausted all applicable sources.
  • "It utilizes the conventions of television, ..." => vague, what conventions specifically?
That's explained more fully in the article's body, but I went ahead and explained it more in the lead.
  • "Since its premiere in 1969, it was the first ..." => a bit odd to use "since" here for a first-time achievement (it won't change ever), maybe just "Premiered in 1969, ...".
I solved the issue, but it a different way.
  • "It was also the first to include a curriculum 'detailed or stated in terms of measurable outcomes'" => all quotes need immediate in-text attribution, MOS:QUOTE is quite strict about it.
I went back and re-checked for this, and am pretty sure that I addressed it.
Although not a full sentence, i tried to clarify the attribution a bit. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... was to create a children's television show that would 'master the addictive qualities of television and do something good with them'" => which of the two previously mentioned persons said this? Or is the book quoted? Attribution unclear.
The problem was that the quote didn't appear anywhere else in the article, so I removed it and expanded the lead a little.
  • Same quote => The usage of this quote in such a prominent spot causes a slight WP:NPOV problem (too much and too prominent content presented from an involved view), it would be better to use a neutral third-party statement here (of course the quote could be used later in the main text to offer some personal background).
Dealt with above.
  • "At first, each episode was structured like a magazine, ..." => vague, what elements of magazine style specifically?
I've actually struggled with this concept in other articles. I've come to the conclusion that it's kind of an industry term, that needs to be explained, which I think that I've done in the body, along with linking it. The easy solution is to remove any reference to the term, but I've hesitated doing that because I think that most readers understand it as contrasted with a more narrative format.
Struck this point. While specifics are always better, "magazine" should be clear enough for most readers.
  • "... as a result of changes in their audience and its viewing habits ..." => vague, 1-2 brief specific details about those changes needed.
I believe I've been able to be more specific here now.
Improved - if you find any more details about this development, would be great to offer more context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The show expanded the new format to the entire show in 2002." => needs rephrase, show ... show
Done.
  • "Street scenes" => i would introduce the term once in the lead with quotation marks as a special term, but drop the quotation marks for later uses incl. header. It's (almost) a common term.
Done.
  • Original format "Despite its urban setting, the producers decided to avoid depicting more negativity than what was already present in the child's environment, but instead depicted the world both realistically and as it could be." => depict ... depict, also the whole sentence doesn't flow well.
Changed, I think it flows better now.
  • "... that would allow the producers to use a mixture of styles, paces, and characters. [It] allowed" => allow ... allow, "It" needs a more specific subject.
Improved.
  • "Lesser reported ..." - "Morrow reported ..." => variety
I went through the entire article and made corrections.
  • Street scenes "..., so significant changes were made." => source? Also vague, what kind of changes?
Obviously, it's unclear that I was about to explain, so I restructured the last two paragraphs in this section.
  • Format changes first para => source(s) for the last 4 sentences?
See ref 24.
I think that I've now done this, and that things are improved as a result. Thanks for the valuable input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Struck oppose for now with the current improvements, thanks for addressing all points. I'll need another read to support and/or look for other minor points. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all OK. Could you elaborate on the copyright status of the Muppet figures? Are the Bird and maybe Elmo copyrighted designs? (i thought, they were copyrighted, but have been wrong before) GermanJoe (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated regarding other SS articles, the Sesame Workshop is very protective of its images, which is why there are more in this article. I believe that both the images here are free. The Big Bird image is from the Library of Congress and is in the public domain. The image of Kevin Clash and Elmo is in Commons. If they don't mass muster, I can remove them, if you tell me I should. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated both images for another check for copyright, as both license statements seem flawed. Let's see, what other image reviewers think - maybe we get lucky and they are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:CONEXCEPT, the status of images on Commons is not subject to discussion here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:42, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Per FAC-criterion 3 and WP:COPYRIGHT all media has to be of acceptable copyright status, its usage here on en-Wiki is our responsibility. Maybe it would be best to move this general point to WT:FAC? GermanJoe (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should. Media has an acceptable copyright status if it is marked as such on Commons. The copyright status of media on Commons may not be challenged here. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I inserted a new image where the unacceptable one of Clash and Elmo was removed. It's from Commons; is it okay to stay? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this picture is even worse copyright-wise, it shows the puppet with no evidence of permission and Mr. Clash, and the original uploader admits, such photos were not permitted. But maybe i have some good news (fingers crossed):

Actually, this is very good news! The NASA images can be used elsewhere, I'm sure, and you're right about the Big Bird image, so I swapped them out again. BTW, I just love the latter; not only does Mrs. Obama look very similar to Bird, she looks almost afraid of him! ;) Thanks, this is totally why we bring articles to FAC--to get assistance in areas in which we're weak, from others much more capable of finding solutions to problems such as this. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - both images under review have been replaced. New images are OK. GermanJoe (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - above points have been clarified. 2 minor points:

  • Consider adding History of Sesame Street (and maybe 1-2 other relevant Wiki-articles) to a new "See also" section for better navigation. I noticed, that the history article is not linked anywhere in the article.
  • Pending results of the image checks, but those checks will continue outside of this nomination anyway. I hope, someone else with more expertise will be able to judge the copyright background of these images. (Images have been replaced) GermanJoe (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Joe. I've added a "See also" section as per your suggestion. I agree; I'll allow others to evaluate the images. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

[edit]
Lead
  • "It was the first time a more realistic setting, an inner city street and neighborhood, was used for a children's program, a choice writer. Michael Davis called "unprecedented"." The quote and unprecedented seems a little superfluous here, I think you can drop , a choice writer. Michael Davis called "unprecedented".
I'm not sure I agree, but I feel stronger that we should follow our reviewers' suggestions, so the phrase has been cut.
That is correct. "Muppet" is also a copy-righted term, and it's a term about a specific item. Capitalizing "puppet" would be incorrect, but Muppet is capitalized because it refers the puppets created and performed by Henson and his co-horts, thus the controversy about Yoda being a Muppet because Frank Oz performed him.
Original show
  • "they contracted out the animations and short films[note 1] to independent producers." any examples?
I added a line about Henson and a link to List of Sesame Street recurring segments. Hope that's ok.
  • "The studio segments were written to concentrate on the African-American child, a key component of the show's audience" Why was this? To anybody not really familiar with Sesame Street it seems curious that an African-American kid is the key component.
They were focusing on the African-American child, and wrote much of their content to appeal to that part of their audience. Maybe I need to re-word? How about: "The studio segments were written to appeal to African-American children, who were an important part of their audience."
  • "Lesser called the producers' decision to defy the recommendations of their advisers "a turning point in the history of Sesame Street"" -by this stage I'd forgotten who Lesser is, can you add the first name again?
Done.
Format
  • "By the 1990s, its dominance was challenged by other programs, and its ratings declined. " Such as?
Done.
  • "In 1998, a new 15-minute long segment," -inconsistency in numbers vs words, I'd rather digits for anything over nine but throughout you seem to mostly use words, so decide either way..
Went with numbers, and hope that I got 'em all.

Short but sweet, very clear and concise and of FA quality prose in my opinion, but admittedly overall my initial feeling is that I feel like something is missing. Looking about I see Educational goals of Sesame Street, and I really have a strong feeling that they should probably be merged to make this a more authoritative article. In fact if I had the choice I'd probably merge this into Educational goals of Sesame Street as format is one of the components of it. I'm not sure it is a strong enough topic on its own for FA, but if this could be refactored somehow with the educational article I think it would be a much stronger candidate. I'm not going to support or oppose for now, but I'll leave you to think about it and if anybody else here agrees with me I'd be interested to know.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc. Hmm, I am not unopposed to doing something like this. However, it can be argued that this content would also fit in History of Sesame Street, but I'm opposed to putting it there because that article is already long, and adding this content may make it inaccessible. If you give me a good reason to put it there, though, I can be convinced. There's already a section about The Show's structure in the main article, Sesame Street, so there's historical reasons for this being a separate article, although there's nothing against either changing the format of the main article, or just leaving it as is. I'm willing to discuss this further. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it would be sufficient to clarify the connection between format and goals in the "Educational goals" article, and keep the "Format" as a stand-alone article with only some basic context to other aspects like goals and history. Christine collected so much background information, that keeping the various aspects separate seems to be the better way. Size of the "Format" article seems fine to me, it isn't a huge topic per se. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on making the changes to the Goals article later today, since I anticipate it eventually coming to FAC as well. I think that the list of articles in the "See also" provides this article with context, but it anyone thinks that I should add context somewhere in the prose, I can. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - named ref "gikow-246" isn't defined anymore - probably got lost during some editing. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, oversight from the addition mentioned above. Thanks for the catch. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Kellie Loder

[edit]
Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets the criteria. This article has received a copyedit from a member of the Guild of Copyeditors and has also passed a good article nomination. Neelix (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Since most readers do not have the advantage of being Canadian, you might want to either include province or wikilink locations like Springdale
  • Suggest also wikilinking Tom Cochrane
  • FN27/28: possible to give the time of the broadcast? Also, italicization is wrong here: the segment shouldn't be italicized, the news show (NTV Evening News) probably should be. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I have wikilinked Tom Cochrane and the locations in the citations. I can call NTV on Monday to see if they can give me a time for that broadcast. Neelix (talk) 00:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have received the broadcast time from NTV and added it to the relevant citations. Do you have any additional concerns regarding the article? Neelix (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

[edit]

Support for FA status, meets the criteria in my book. See review below. Well done Neelix! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Cliftonian
From first glance this article looks in pretty good shape. Well done so far Neelix! I had not previous heard of Kellie but I look forward to reading about her.
Infobox and lead
  • It seems quite counter-intuitive and clunky to me to say she's from "Badger, Newfoundland and Labrador". I understand that N&L is the provincial unit of Canada we are referring to, but to me it seems like saying somebody is from "Downpatrick, United Kingdom"—technically correct, but not actually that helpful. I had to click the link just to see whether Badger was in Newfoundland or Labrador, and I'm sure many others would too. I would favour rewording in the infobox to "Badger, Newfoundland, Canada", and in the lead to "is a Canadian independent singer-songwriter from Newfoundland". This will be more clear to international readers and Canadians will still be aware that the province has been called Newfoundland and Labrador since 2001.
  • We say in the infobox that she plays guitar and piano, but in the lead that she also plays drums. Drums should be added to the infobox. Maybe also add vocals, as she sings too.
  • Perhaps we should mention in the lead that she wrote the song about her cousin killed in a traffic accident when she was 15.
  • "National Hockey League player"—I would simply wikilink "National Hockey League" myself
  • "which are more likely to bring commercial success"—I would say that they are "generally considered more likely to bring commercial success"
  • I'm not sure we need to wikilink medicine; most people know what the general subject of medicine is, and anyway we've already mentioned that she is a trained nurse
Early life
  • See point above about where she's from.
  • This reference doesn't seem to confirm that she was born in 1988. Nor does it indubitably say she was born in Badger, saying only that she is "originally from" there. I personally would accept this as meaning this is where she was born but some might not. If you can find a better source for the birthplace that would help, and we definitely need a source for her birth year (and date, if possible), as right now we don't seem to have one. This link incidentally mentions that she was 23 at the time that article was written (it was published in February 2012)
  • "her mother frequently placed headphones on her stomach while Loder was still in the womb, and Loder kicked to the beat of Michael W. Smith's music"—this doesn't seem like something we would actually know, more like something Kellie would have been told when she was a child. Perhaps we should qualify that "according to Loder, her mother frequently placed ..." or something like that. I'm not sure "kicked to the beat of Michael W. Smith's music" is really an encyclopaedic way of putting it. Perhaps say that "according to Loder, her mother frequently placed headphones on her belly while Loder was still in the womb, playing Michael W. Smith's music" Maybe also mention that Michael W. Smith is also a Christian artist.
  • "She claims to have "natural rhythm", and began emulating the drummer at her church by beating on a pew with pencils by age two" maybe add "and that she" at the end of the second clause here ("and that she began emulating"). also maybe change "by age two" to the less casual "by the time she was two years old".
  • "Her younger brother learned how to play guitar before she did, and he taught her the basics when she was 14. She received her first guitar that year after her brother taught her three guitar chords." maybe reword to "Her younger brother taught her the basics of the guitar when she was 14,[ref] teaching her three guitar chords. She received her first guitar later that year."
  • "her first song was about a cousin who had died in a traffic accident. This song used lyrics from a poem by a friend who was also close to Loder's late cousin" maybe you can merge these to "her first song, about a cousin who had died in a traffic accident, used lyrics by a friend who was also close to Loder's late cousin"
  • Maybe mention her parents' names in the first sentence? This would be a more usual way of doing things.
  • If you make the above change, this means you can reword the first sentence. Maybe "Loder was raised as a Christian, and considers herself ..."
  • "she favours the piano because it is the most beautiful"—This wording could imply that the piano is, by definition, the most beautiful musical instrument. Perhaps make clear that it is her opinion: "she favours the piano, considering it the most beautiful"
  • "appeared on The Way" what is The Way? we haven't mentioned it in the main body of the article yet. Ditto Imperfections & Directions.
Music career
  • The first three paragraphs here are quite long. I would consider splitting these up
  • "Loder studied nursing at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland through the Western Regional School of Nursing.[8] While still a nursing student, she met a record producer" Why not "While studying nursing at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland through the Western Regional School of Nursing, Loder met a record producer"?
  • "she met a record producer and released her first album, an independent release called The Way, in August 2009". That seems quite abrupt. Do we know how it happened, what the processes were? Did all these events happen in August 2009?
  • "Devin Robinson produced the album, recorded at Sweet Music Studios" Was Devin Robinson that producer she met, or somebody else? I see from here he also played drums for Anyday.
  • "all eleven songs" per MOS should be "all 11 songs"
  • "That year, Sarah Burton of The Nor'wester wrote" maybe "in November that year" or "three months later".
  • "that Loder has 'her own unique style.'" This is very vague and I'm not sure it really adds anything. While I'm sure it is the case, just saying it without any direct support seems peacocky and almost promotional. Why is her style her own and unique? Does the source say? If not, I would leave it out.
  • "a Christian youth conference which has been held in Corner Brook, St. John's, and Gander". Perhaps make clear that it is not held in all of these places concurrently, but rather takes place in one of them each year. I would put "which has been hosted by Corner Brook, St. John's and Gander over the years" or something like that
  • "As part of the award, which was valued at $20,000" by who?
  • "a MusicNL membership" what is this?
  • "time with music industry and production professionals and" I would put a comma before "and"
  • "Loder referred to the music professionals she met" I would make clear that this was later. "Loder later referred to"
  • "the top players"—what is the context of this quote? did she just say "the top players"? or the top players in Christian music, top players in Newfoundland, etc? as is the quotation is kind of odd
  • "she opened for Anyday" make clear that this is a band. "she opened for the band Anyday". Also maybe mention they are Newfies and a Christian band
  • "Loder said that she was surprised by the large turnout for the event.[1] Loder and Anyday performed together again on November 28 at Dorset Collegiate on Pilley's Island." The source for this is dated 19 November, nine days before the event, and therefore we seem to be giving credence to a prediction of the future. Do we have a source that says the 28 November concert actually happened (as opposed to just being scheduled)?
  • "performed at the Exploits Valley Salmon Festival gospel concert, attended by hundreds, in Grand Falls-Windsor alongside Starfield and Roy Martin that year"—I would move "that year" to the start of this quoted segment and put "alongside Starfield and Roy Martin" after "performed".
  • "The singer" Who? The last singer we mentioned was Roy Martin. Perhaps "She"
  • "A critic" maybe change to "a reporter" or something like that as the linked article doesn't seem to be a review per se
  • "In early 2012 Loder made a music video for "Your Love Alone"" maybe start a new paragraph here
  • "While she lost the award to downhere" Is downhere another band?
  • "Loder competed in the Juno Cup hockey game, in which she was considerably shorter than most of the other players at 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m)" Maybe rearrange to "in which at 5 feet 4 inches (1.63 m), she was ..."
  • "National Hockey League players" As above, I would just wikilink National Hockey League
  • "Nonetheless, she scored"—I don't think "nonetheless" is merited
  • "genress" typo
  • "which are more likely to bring commercial success" see above
  • "Loder sees her music career as a Christian ministry of which the goal is to inspire people to live happier, better lives" Maybe reword to "Loder sees her music as a Christian ministry, the goal of which is ..."
  • The Telegram—Maybe make clear this is the St. John's Telegram
  • medicine wikilink—see above
Discography; Awards and nominations
  • Generally looks good but perhaps put from earliest to latest (as they are they are upside down)
References
  • Formatting generally looks good, but note the issues I raised above.
Categories
  • For an FA it is best to have these in alphabetical order.

Overall this article looks in good shape and I think it will eventually get to FA with a bit of work and a few fresh sets of eyes. I enjoyed reading it and look forward to seeing it develop and lending a hand where I can. I hope all this helps. Well done again and let me know if there's anything else I can help with. —Cliftonian (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for performing such a thorough review. I believe that I have addressed all of your concerns save Loder's birthdate; I have been unable to find this information in any published sources. I have had to resort to calculating from sources that state her age at a particular time. Should her birthdate simply be removed? Please let me know if you have any further concerns or if I have not adequately addressed any of your previously stated concerns. Neelix (talk) 03:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's really no problem. I'm glad it has helped. The article is in better shape now. I would rearrange the lead slightly so that the first paragraph explains more succinctly who Kellie is and exactly what makes her notable; the bit about the first song could be moved down. I would have the lead something like this:
Kellie Loder (born 1988) is an independent singer-songwriter from Newfoundland who plays drums, guitar and piano. A Contemporary Christian artist, she has released two albums, The Way (in 2009) and Imperfections & Directions (2010). With a voice that has been described as "powerful yet serene and soulful",[1] she has won critical recognition at the annual MusicNL awards in Newfoundland, as well as the Juno Awards, Canada's top music prizes.
Having written her first song at age 16 about a cousin who died in a traffic accident, Loder released The Way in August 2009, and later that year won a talent-search contest hosted by YC Newfoundland, a Christian youth conference. As part of the award, Loder was given time with music industry and production professionals, who helped her with Imperfections & Directions, which was released at the 2010 YC Newfoundland. Loder was nominated as Female Artist of the Year at the 2010 MusicNL awards, and then as Gospel Artist of the Year in 2011. Imperfections & Directions was nominated as Contemporary Christian/Gospel Album of the Year at the 2012 Juno Awards. Taking part in that year's Juno Cup ice hockey game, Loder took a penalty shot after fighting with former National Hockey League player Troy Crowder.
Loder's music career is unusual in that she chose to begin it in Contemporary Christian music (CCM); most young musicians choose music genres such as country and pop, which are generally considered more likely to bring commercial success. Loder has said that she chose CCM because it gives purpose to her music. Having studied at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland, Loder is also a trained nurse. As of April 2012, she had not decided whether she would focus on medicine or music.
Just a suggestion of course. On the new image (this one), you shouldn't force image sizes ("300px"); put "|upright=1.6" instead (this allows users' preferences regarding image sizes to still work, instead of forcing everybody to look at it at 300px).
Regarding the date of birth, there seem to be quite a few sources that mention her age at a certain point or other in time (see the link I put above for one). I'm sure you could use these to support 1988 as a year of birth? I've been having a look as well and I also can't find a source for her date of birth... a pity. Well done on the work so far, I feel the article is progressing. —Cliftonian (talk) 03:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have restructured the lead, largely as you have recommended, and have also fixed the image size issue and readded the date of birth with one of the sources that simply states her age at a particular point. Do you have any remaining concerns regarding the article? Neelix (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that looks good. That's me satisfied, well done on this, great work! I have posted support above. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning to support

The nominator asked me to look at this article, which, despite a near-total ignorance of popular music, I have done. The prose is excellent (very natural and seemingly effortless – most readable) there is no sign of bias, the references are evidently from reputable publications. My only question is about the length of the article. It is very short for a Featured Article, but of course if this is all there is to say then so be it: we don't want padding to bulk it out. There is some WP:OVERLINK that could do with pruning - traffic accident, drummer, Christian, faith, piano, recording studio and music industry for starters. I think I'd like to see what other editors better versed than I in popular music think about the length of the article before I sign up as a supporter, but I have lively hopes of being able to do so. Tim riley (talk) 15:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing this article. I have reduced the overlinking. All the secondary sources I have been able to find are already used in the article; I have searched using Google Books, Google News, Google Web Search, and several newspaper and journal databases accessible through my local library. If you discover any additional sources, I would be glad to add them to the article. Neelix (talk) 01:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the comments below reassures me that the brevity of the article does not imply any omissions. I am happy to add my support. I gladly echo SchroCat's comment – "small but perfectly formed". Tim riley (talk) 15:12, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "Loder's music career is unusual in that she chose to begin it in Contemporary Christian music (CCM); most young musicians choose music genres such as country and pop, which are generally considered more likely to bring commercial success." – The link to the television broadcast goes to a page that does not have the video. Likewise, a link to a CBC radio broadcast also links to a page but not the broadcast.
  • "… her first song, which was about a cousin who had died in a traffic accident, used lyrics from a poem by a friend who was also close to Loder's late cousin. Loder began performing this song, and her family encouraged her in singing and songwriting; she then wrote another song for a friend's graduation." – Can we name these songs?
  • ""Giants" eventually appeared her albums The Way and Imperfections & Directions." -- "Giants" eventually appeared on both her albums The Way and Imperfections & Directions.
  • "She was nominated as Female Artist of the Year at the 2010 MusicNL awards with Mary Barry, Teresa Ennis, Irene Bridger and Amelia Curran" – Fix the link to Teresa Ennis.
  • "the song's lyrics revolve around the idea that the grace and mercy of God can be found in the most difficult situations." – Fix link to "mercy of God".
  • "Although Loder lost the Juno Award to downhere, an alternative rock band" – Link downhere.
  • "at the Stavanger Drive Second Cup on the 15th and at Cornerstone Ministry Centre on the 21st" – Fix link to Stavanger Drive.Jimknut (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I have switched the three links you mentioned and corrected the grammatical error you pointed out. The television broadcast and radio broadcast citations include the links as additional information, not to present the video and audio sources themselves; both the video file and the audio file no longer exist online, but these are still valid sources as they have been broadcast on specified dates on television and radio respectively. I can remove the url field from these citations if that is deemed an improvement. The names of the first two songs Loder wrote do not appear in any sources I have been able to find; I am under the impression that neither of these songs appear on her albums or were ever released in another formal capacity. Because downhere is linked in its first instance, I believe linking it a second time in the body of the article would be considered overlinking, but feel free to correct me on this point if I am mistaken. Neelix (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

I made a couple of minor changes: feel free to revert if you don't agree or like them.

Early life

  • "used lyrics from a poem by a friend who was also close to Loder's late cousin": feels a bit clunky to me. Perhaps "used lyrics from a poem by a mutual friend of her cousin" may suffice, unless others can come up with better wording?
  • CBC Radio source: I presume there's a clip on the source to listen to? It might be worth noting somehow, somewhere that it's not available to listen to in all territories.
  • "favours": Do Canadians also spell this with the U? (Do they also spell "generalizing" and " organization" with a Z? I am asking from a position of ignorance, but also to make sure it's consistent with CanEng spelling.

Music career

  • "Loder met Devin Robinson, a record producer; Loder released her first album...": seems a bit of a jump from met to produce with only a semi-comma to cover what happened in the middle! Perhaps a little meat on the bones may help? Suggestion below for you to compare with your original: pick whichever you feel more comfortable with:
In 2008, while studying nursing at the Grenfell Campus of Memorial University of Newfoundland through the Western Regional School of Nursing, Loder met Devin Robinson, a record producer. The meeting led to a Robinson producing Loder's first album, The Way, which was recorded at Sweet Music Studios. Loder wrote all 11 songs for the album, which was released in August 2009.
  • "hosted by Corner Brook, St. John's, and Gander in different years". Firstly an event is hosted by people, but in a town. Secondly, do we need to know that the location of the competition alternates locations? Just put where it was when Loder won.

Good stuff overall - small but perfectly formed! - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement and input, Gavin! I have reworded the sentences you have indicated and removed the information about YC Newfoundland's alternating between locations. The CBC Radio citation links to a webpage where the audio clip used to be accessible, but is no longer. A brief summary of the broadcast is still located on that webpage. I can remove the url if that is deemed an improvement; the citation is valid without it. Thank you for taking an interest in Canadian spelling. The words you indicate in that question are all spelled correctly in the article. Here is a helpful table on the subject: [18]. Please let me know if you have any further concerns regarding the article. Neelix (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

[edit]
Early life
  • Why do we link music?
  • ..." according to Loder, her mother frequently placed headphones on her belly while Loder..." -- Suggest pronoun for the second mention of surname.
  • "playing Michael W. Smith's music" -- suggest past tense here.
  • link to pew?
  • Do we need to link "writing songs"?
  • Do we know what the first song was called?
  • "Loder began performing this song, and her family encouraged her in singing and songwriting; she then wrote another song" -- Repetietive use of "song" and its deriritives, suggest: "With encouragement from her family, Loder concentrated on her singing and songwriting and performed this and a follow up song..."
  • "Loder says that, while she enjoys all the instruments she plays, she favours the piano, considering it the most beautiful." -- Pronoun will do at the start. You will need to go through the article and check for this as this is the second time now that I have picked this up.
Music career
  • "Also that year, she won a talent-search contest hosted by YC Newfoundland, a Christian youth conference. The conference took place in Gander that year..."

-- I think the last sentence is a bit redundant as we have already said that she won the contest. I don't really think we need to be reminded where it took place and when. May I suggest: "Also that year, she won a talent-search contest hosted by YC Newfoundland, a Christian youth conference, where she performed "Giants".

  • "As part of the award, which was valued at $20,000, Loder was given an East Coast Music Association membership, a MusicNL trade association membership, time at a recording studio, time with music industry and production professionals, and a featured performance slot at the following year's YC Newfoundland." -- Repetition here of "membership" and "time". Suggest this or something similar: "As part of the award, which was valued at $20,000, Loder was given a membership for both the East Coast Music and MusicNL trade associations, and was given time at a recording studio and advice from music industry and production professionals. She was also engaged in a featured performance slot at the following year's YC Newfoundland."
  • "She later referred to the music professionals she met as part of the award package..." "as part of the award package" is redundant here.
  • "She said that she was surprised by the large turnout for the event." -- If she said it then it should be quoted. If not, suggest "thought" or "noted" or something else.
  • "Loder moved to St. John's in January 2010, and performed alongside Starfield and Roy Martin later that year at the Exploits Valley Salmon Festival gospel concert, attended by hundreds, in Grand Falls-Windsor." -- "attended by hundreds" is an irritant which would otherwise get in the way of a nicely laid out sentence. Could this be either swapped for "the popular" before Exploits Valley Salmon Festival, or removed altogether?
  • "She also performed at the 2010 One Worship Festival in Springdale, and released Imperfections & Directions, another independent release, at YC Newfoundland that October." -- Was this the official release of Imperfections & Direction? If it was, could you say so as we speak of this album in the previous paragraph and one might assume that this has already been released.
  • "A reporter noted that "the album demonstrates how Loder wears her faith and love of God on her sleeve." -- Do we know for which medium the reporter worked? Not essential, but it would be nice to know what kind of media was commenting.
  • We appear to have suddenly been told that she studied nursing. This is the first mention of this unless I have missed it. When was this? Could this be built in chronologically to the text?
  • Prose is a bit iffy here "She stated that she wrote the song at a hard time in her life..." -- This is also not quoted so I shall use poetic licence for an alternative. Suggest: "She confessed that she had written the song during a difficult phase in her life"? This also removes the repetetive "stated" you use in the next sentence.
  • "her grandmother's house" -- redundency.
  • "Loder was inspired to write the song by the interview." -- redundency.
  • Do we need a link to "text message"?
  • "Loder has said that she chose CCM because it gives purpose to her music" -- Quotes? If not, I would change "said" to some other descriptive term.
Lead
  • "With a voice that has been described as "powerful yet serene and soulful"" -- By who?
  • "As of April 2012, she had not decided whether she would focus on medicine or music." -- Again here, we have been surprised with the fact she had a prior interest in medicine. This should be mentioned a lot earlier as well as here.

I have finished my review. I note Jim's comments below and feel I have to agree with the majority of them, especially the lack of sales or chart positions of her records and no critical reception section. Jim has provided a good set of comments that will need to be addressed. I will base my support on your responses to them as I think at least four of them are vital for a music related biography. -- CassiantoTalk 11:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, Cassianto, and for the promise of additional ones. I have removed the links to music and songwriter, linked pew, reworded the two sentences you indicate, and switched many instances of "Loder" to "she" throughout the article. Unfortunately, the name of the first song Loder wrote does not appear in any of the sources I have been able to find; I do not believe the song was ever released in any professional manner. Neelix (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have implemented all of the changes you recommended above, except one which I was unsure about how to address. You suggest that Loder's nursing studies be mentioned earlier in the article. They are mentioned in the first sentence of the "Music career" section. Do you feel that this statement should appear in the "Early life" section? I would be grateful for any advice you can provide in how to address Jim's concerns stated below. I have already implemented all of the information from all of the sources I have been able to find on Loder, so I don't know how to proceed. What are the four things you mention that are vital? Neelix (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the nursing should be mentioned in the lead, specifically in the second paragraph chronologically. I also agree with the following issues given by Jim:
  • The article needs a sales/charts/critical reception section.
  • I think the hockey game is given a bit too much emphasis. This will need to be trimmed and more time spent on explaining her national as opposed to local fame. -- CassiantoTalk 10:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the mention of Loder's nursing studies to the beginning of the second paragraph, added a "Critical response" section, deephasized the hockey game, added some sales information (selling out of original album and door-to-door sales thereafter), and added some information about Loder's national fame (Loder's regular featuring on Rogers TV). If you can think of any other ways in which I can address Jim's concerns, please let me know. Neelix (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Oppose for now from Jim I started with just a few nitpicks, but became increasingly concerned as I went along Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:54, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • when she "started to accept [her] gifts for what they were... and just assumed it was God.—as written, it says her gifts were God
  • eventually appeared on both of her albums —is the "of" redundant or Canadian?
  • lost the Juno Award to downhere, an alternative rock band—If downhere is a band, I assume it should be capped
  • No sales or chart positions of her records, no critical reception section. I would have thought these were basic requirements of a musician's article.
  • Instead, she is effectively allowed to commentate on her own music and god-given gifts.
  • I suppose that she is just about notable because of the Juno award, but there is precious little in your article to suggest anything else other than local/niche fame, and I'm surprised that that a hockey game is deemed more relevant than sales/charts/critical reception. If there is no detectable reception of her music, letting her promote her godly gifts comes close to spam. Doesn't anyone dislike/have mixed views of her stuff?
  • I came across this. I don't have much time for Ottava, a known trouble-maker, but, having read the Loder section, I thought it only fair to invite you to respond.
Thank you for your considered review of this article. I have reworded the sentence you mention about gifts. I am under the impression that "both of" is grammatically correct; there are more than three thousand Google Books hits for the string "both of Canada's official languages". The band downhere styles its name with all lowercase letters; I thought it best to honour that on this article, but I can switch the capitalization if there is consensus to do so. Where would one find the sales or chart positions of Loder's records? I am under the impression that neither of her albums has charted or sold a large number of copies. I have done as thorough a job at finding sources for this article as I know how. As such, I do not believe that anyone has written reviews of Loder's music beyond what is already included in the article. Loder's notability rests primarily on her Juno nomination (criterion 8 of our notability guidelines for musicians); neither of her albums are sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. I would be grateful for any recommendations of additional sources you know of or are able to find. Would you recommend removing some of Loder's comments in light of the lack of critical response? I generally find it unwise to respond to comments on websites like Wikipedia Review, but I would be glad to respond here to any of Ottava's concerns that you believe to have merit. Neelix (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replies. I'm fine with the minor points. Further clarification below Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'm not bothered by Ottava's comments. They concern single phrases where the source says "X did Y" and there is little scope to do more than "Y was done by X". I don't see genuine plagiarism. I just thought I should make you aware of the accusations if you weren't already
  • Relying just on the Juno is a bit one event.
  • As a consequence of the lack of independent commentary, we are reliant on her description of her talents, god-given or otherwise.
  • This is a well-written article. I've supported your previous FACs, and I would like to do so with this, since I'm a reluctant opposer at the best of times. However, unless some solution can be found to the outstanding issues, it's likely that my oppose will stand, and it will be for the delegates to decide what weight to give (I've had several FAs go through with an oppose). I'd be interested to read other reviews so see if I'm completely out of kilter on this
Thank you for your encouragement despite opposing the FAC. I have made an attempt to address your concerns, as I explain above in my response to Cassianto. If I have not already addressed your concerns, I feel as though there may be no way to address them except to delete the article; all the known existing sources have been fully exploited. Are you calling for the article to be deleted? Neelix (talk) 18:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know what the original run was? I've seen the changes, but I'll have another look in the morning. I can see you have probably done all you can, I need to ponder Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How do you mean "delete"? Do you mean delist at FAC? I want it known that I am leaning to support this now as your responses have been satisfactorily met IMO. I do think the "Critical response" section is a little on the short side, but at least we have something in the way of critical response. Could you dig up any more? -- CassiantoTalk 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my oppose, but it still looks a bit thin. Is it worth seeing if her agent can point you to some factual stuff, like numbers of records sold (has to be referenceable, so may not be easy. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't managed to find the number of albums produced in the original run, but I did manage to find another CBC Radio interview and have implemented it in the article. The "Critical response" section is a bit longer now. I have contacted Kellie Loder Music to ask for chart/sales information and for any additional reviews I may have missed. Neelix (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I may be scraping the bottom of the barrell at this point, but I found a brief mention Loder in Grenfell Connects that indicates radio play of her songs on a national level. Kellie Loder Music still hasn't gotten back to me. Neelix (talk) 17:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think anything is better than nothing, as long as it comes with some kind of reliability. No rush with the Loder people, I'm sure a small wait would be fine. -- CassiantoTalk 22:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nominator has done all that is feasible on content, and I have no problems with the prose. I've therefore changed to support above, but perhaps the next FAC might be for someone a bit more, well, notable (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:24, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- I note the discussion re. the Critical response section and I have to say to say it does jar somewhat to me. First of all, has she received nothing but praise in her time? OTOH, given there's not much to the section, it might work better dropping it and simply rolling one or two of the comments into the main section at appropriate points. BTW, just on the formatting side, I suspect that ndashes, not mdashes, are correct for the Awards list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched extensively and have not found any published reviews of her albums; I have found no published negative criticism of her music, and the only positive criticism has been from people interviewing her, who are likely to provide praise in the context of an interview. I have therefore merged the "Critical response" section into the "Music career" section as you recommend. I have also switched the em-dashes to en-dashes in the "Awards and nominations" section. Do you have any other concerns regarding the article? Neelix (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well my suggestion was to roll one or two bits from Critical response into the main body, not necessarily all of it. For instance, professional commentators are one thing but I'm not sure that the opinions of politicians and radio listeners really belong. Of course I'd be happy to hear how any of the reviewers above stand on that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-split-off the "Critical response" section, retaining only the comments from professional critics. Please let me know if you have further recommendations. Neelix (talk) 23:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I confused you. What I was getting to was that such a small section (which it was even in its original form) should be dropped, and some of the comments rolled into the main body at relevant points, the rest of the section to just go. So if what's there now was merged into the main section at appropriate points, I think it'd be an improvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I have correctly understood your recommendations this time around. I have removed the comments from the politician and the anonymous listener, and have remerged the "Critical response" section into the "Music career" section. How does that look? Neelix (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [19].[reply]

Mascarene Parrot

[edit]
Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every aspect of this species is complicated, but I have tried to show every viewpoint, including obscure historical ones. It was excellently copy edited today, so I feel it is quite good now, and I like the complexity of the bird's history, and hope others will find it interesting. I have another FAC co-nomination up, but as far as I understand this allows me to nominate one more article (this one). FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting and well-researched article; I hope this one doesn't get lost on the FAC page!

  • "The Mascarene Parrot was 35 cm (14 in) in length" Up to or around, surely?
The sources give nothing but this dry measurement, so I'm not sure what to do. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "descriptions based on stuffed specimens instead describe" Repetitious
Changed to state, ok? FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third stuffed specimen existed around the turn of the 18th century.[3]" Source mention anything else? Is it possible it's still around somewhere?
Nothing else is stated in the source about it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Mascarene Parrot received the scientific name Psittacus mascarinus (abbreviated as "mascarin") by Swedish zoologist Carolus Linnaeus in 1771." it was named by, or it received a name from (I prefer the former)
Not sure how to implement it if I also want to mention the name. "Was scientifically named *** by ***?" FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "was [[Species description|described]] as *** by ***"? J Milburn (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This disagreement led some authors to use invalid combinations of the scientific names, such as Mascarinus obscurus and Coracopsis obscura. It may have been an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) instead." All apparently unsourced?
Ah, I can see the paragraph was split by the copy editor. FunkMonk (talk) 22:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Moluccan Eclectus Parrots" I read this (and I suspect most will!) as a species name, rather than a species name with an adjective.
Change to "from the Mollucas"? FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did that. FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the coracopsinae (of African origin)" Surely, that should be a capital C?
  • Same for psittaculinae.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "found the Mascarene Parrot to be nested among the subspecies" Nothing wrong with it, but the pun did make me chuckle...
Heheh, yeah, I think there was a long discussion about how to phrase it in one of the other FACs that mention it too. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hume has expressed surprise by these findings" He expressed surprise at the findings
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He also points out that the time of divergence proposed for the Mascarene Parrot in the study is long before Réunion came into existence. This would indicate the parrot evolved elsewhere before colonising Réunion, but there is no fossil evidence found on other islands to support this." You've just mentioned this; you could summarise by saying something like "He also points out that there is no fossil evidence found on other islands to support the hypothesis that the species evolved elsewhere."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Such a transformation has also turned the sole specimen of Townsend's Dickcissel (Spiza townsendi) from grey to brown.[2]" A glance at the article suggests that this is a controversial species
Yeah, but the colour transformation should be legit enough. The debate is just on whether it is a distinct species or just a colour morph. Clarify? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you call it "the sole specimen of Townsend's Dickcissel (Spiza townsendi)", you seem to be presuming that it is a distinct species, not a colour morph; I'm worried about this for NPOV reasons. J Milburn (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll try to rephrase it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased, better? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better? FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and these errors have been repeated by subsequent artists" Are you not question-begging by calling them errors?
Features? Interpretations? FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Features" works. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Forbes made his description from the Paris specimen" How about "based his description on the Paris specimen"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "That the Vienna specimen was partially albinistic may have been the result of a long period in captivity." How so?
The source doesn't state it, but refers to another source which I guess explains this for birds in general. I imagine it would be original synthesis if I added such information here, as it does not address this bird specifically? FunkMonk (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the source refers to this as an example of something discussed in another source (and cites that source) then there would be no OR violation in explaining what the latter source says. Alternatively, if you think you're going off-topic, ignore me! J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was wondering about it too, I think it may have something to do with nutrition. I'll see if I can find the source. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found the citation, but doesn't help much. It appears to address the specimen after all, but it seems to have been during a talk at a convention: Schifter, H. (1994) Historical specimens of parrots in the bird collection of the Museum of Natural History, Vienna, Austria.In: III International Loro Parque Parrot Convention, Loro Parque 14th to 17th September 1994. Puerto de la Cruz-Tenerife-Spain, 34–48. FunkMonk (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Dubois mentioned that the Mascarene Parrot was not edible" This seems to contradict Feuilley's 1705 account?
Very good observation, only one source mentions it, and doesn't elaborate on it, and I have not come across Dubois' original text. Not sure what to do about that one. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally very strong- you have made the rather complicated history very readable. J Milburn (talk) 18:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps say something like "Contrary to Feuilley's earlier claims, Dubois mentioned..."? J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great- I'm happy with the improvements. I'll have another look through the article when I'm feeling a little sharper. J Milburn (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sorry for taking so long to get back to this, but I'm definitely happy with the article. I don't think there's anything wrong with leaning on one source- it's recent, and published in a respected journal by a respected academic. J Milburn (talk) 18:44, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Interesting article, just a few niggles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:56, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • travelog—this is AE spelling
Fixed.FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muséum national d'Histoire naturelle—capitalisation is wrong, all caps
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This name was first used by French zoologist and natural philosopher Mathurin Jacques Brisson in 1760, but was not intended as a binomial.—Binomial points to the maths term. The statement is incorrect anyway, it was a binomial, but did not refer to a system of classification as with the Linnean forms
"As a scientific name"? FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • some Eclectus Parrots—"an Eclectus Parrot" or "the Eclectus parrots"
The problem is that it was just some subspecies of that parrot that were included, not all subspecies of it are from the Moluccas. And to further complicate it, they were considered full species then. What am I allowed to explain, before it becames OR? FunkMonk (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • remaining bones inside with the subfossils,—inside is redundant, X-rays pointless if outside
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Psittaculinae parrot—parrots?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its plumage pattern was mostly atypical for psittaculines—for a psittaculine
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • tail feathers and rest of the head—tail feathers aren't part of the head, you've become separated from the earlier sentence
Removed "rest of". FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hand coloured—hyphen
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • were likely based... others likely all became—AE use of "likely"
Changed to probably throughout. What does likely mean in BE then? FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In British English, it tends to be used intransitively, either with no following verb—it is likely that—or to be followed by an infinitive—were likely to be based— Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably went extinct prior to 1800... Réunion to go extinct.—"became/become" sound more natural to me, "go" sounds too directed (to me at least)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cwmhiraeth.

    • Reading through the article I am struck by how clear and straightforward the prose is. A few points however:-
  • "The taxonomic relationship of this species has been subject to debate." - I would use the plural here.
  • "It may have been an African Grey Parrot (Psittacus erithacus) instead." - It is not clear what "It" refers to here.
  • "Subfossil parrot remains have since been excavated from grottos on Réunion." - Since what?
I think "Subfossil parrot remains were later excavated from grottos on Réunion." would be better. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... they were more similar to those of the Mascarene Parrot, and subsequently referred to it. - Is "referred" a technical term meaning "considered to be" or something?
  • "... Hoopooe Starling in the mid-19th century." - Too many "o"s here.
  • That's all for the moment. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for comments, made alterations, as for since, no date is mentioned, would later be better? FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied that the article reaches FA standard on prose and comprehensiveness and have changed my "Comments" to "Support" above. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
General
  • Dabs and reflinks check out.
  • Apparently ref 10 changes domain, but I do not think that matters.
  • Lots of unnecessary commas, but I am doing my best to fix them.
  • References all seem reliable.
Lead
  • The exact placement is, as yet, unresolved. - Why as yet? It is redundant.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy
  • A third stuffed specimen existed around the turn of the 18th century.[3] - What became of it?
The sources don't say, and I guess it just disappeared, like many other such specimens have. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • to "island hop" - Is this a quote? It sounds informal to me.
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Description
  • The wing was 211 mm (8.3 in), the tail 144–152 mm (5.6–6 in), the culmen 32–36 mm (1.2–1.4 in), and the tarsus was 22–24 mm (0.8–1 in). - Why do use ellipsis and then use the verb "was" again? Keep it consistent.
removed. FunkMonk (talk) 05:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose looks very strong. Unsure about a ref used 19 times, but I suppose it is acceptable. I will come back once my comments are resolved. ceranthor 15:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comma fixes, not my strong side. I'll fix the other issues. As for the ref that is used a lot, it is because it is the most extensive review of what is known about the species, also with a lot of novel interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Message me when you're done. ceranthor 16:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments have been addressed. ceranthor 20:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Looks to me that we're still awaiting image/source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were three supports in very quick succession. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - where was File:Hahn_Mascarinus.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • You mean country or publication? This is the original citation (will add it to the file): Hahn. C.W. (1834) 1834–41. Ornitologische Atlas oder naturgetreue Abbildung und Beschreibung der aussereuropäischen Vögel. Erste Abteilung: Papagaien. Nurnberg, C.H.Zeh'sche Buchhandlung, 54. FunkMonk (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - I'll do this ... give me a day. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • the IUCN citation should have the name of the author/contributor
Alright, first time this has ever been suggested to me, though. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref#3 should indicate (ed.) after the name Diamond; publisher location for this source?; ISBN hyphenation?
I'm not sure how to implement ed. Write it manually in the name field? Rest done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that'll work. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • journal article titles are not consistently in either title or sentence case
Made all small, it seems this is only a problem with 19th century publications. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • many of the older Ibis issues are available at Archive.org; perhaps some of the citations here could link to the free full text directly
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and S.N. is the publisher, don't know what it stands for. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mourer-Chauvire et al. 1999 should be formatted as cite book, or perhaps cite conference
Made book. Is there a template for the latter? FunkMonk (talk) 08:28, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Cite conference; I think it looks fine after this. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ensure subtitles (in journal article titles, following a colon) after consistently capitalized (or not)
As far as I can see they are all capitalised? FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the Chere & Hume source uses a rather wide page range (65 pp); consider spliting this into short citations with more specific page #'s to ease reader verification
Started out, will probably finish tonight or tomorrow. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 23:34, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "R. P. Prys-Jones, R. P." duplicated initials
Also needed the name fields, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 08:17, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider changing the old ISBN 10s to the recommended ISBN 13s (here's a handy converter)
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All minor issues addressed, sources look fine. Sasata (talk) 00:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 22 September 2013 (UTC) [20].[reply]

Elgin Cathedral

[edit]
Nominator(s): -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently A-class, and I can see no issues with it, appears to meet all the criteria. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Several Reformation captions need editing for grammar/MOS
  •  DoneCaptions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  •  DoneFile:Cathedral_churches_of_Moray.png: source for this map? Same with File:Diocese_%26_Deaneries_of_Moray2.png, File:Cathedral_floor_plan_1224_to1270_edited-1.jpg
  •  DoneFile:Elgin_Cathedral_reconstruct.jpg: double-check licensing - this doesn't appear to be a US work, when/where was it first published? Same with File:Elgin_Cathedral_main_entrance.jpg
  •  Done File:Chanonry_of_Elgin.jpg needs US PD tag, as does File:St_Giles_Kirk_Elgin.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
actually, instead of pd-us, they needed the 100yr pd. author died in 1907[21]. I'll see about the sources. there don't appear to really be any regular contributors... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:54, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the three files appear to be what they say they are... creator-uploaded. cannot find them outside of wiki using google search by image. the entrance image is a british work... commons copyright is a real... cluster eff... but it's PD-80 at least, best I can do. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 03:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – A fine article, meeting all FA criteria, in my view. Unusual and effective use of illustrations towards the end. This article has been thought through very carefully. Two minor comments in passing:

  •  DonePrecenter or Precentor? – You have both; the second is the only one I know, and more to the point, the one the OED knows.
  •  DoneClearstory – the OED admits only the usual "clerestory"

I've corrected a few minor typos, but please check that you're happy with my changes. – Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

pretty sure that's just British English vs American English. still, I will make it uniform -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Nice article, and love the pictures!
  •  Done In the bibliography, OCLC searches are producing options for some of the missing location and publishers; e.g. "Early Travellers in Scotland" is coming up with New York as the location, "Elgin past and present" with Yeadon as the publisher, etc. - probably worth checking through any others with missing details.
  •  Done The capitalisation of the title doesn't quite match up with the MOS guidance (I think that " Medieval Church in Scotland: its constitution, organisation and law" should be " Medieval Church in Scotland: its Constitution, Organisation and Law" for example).
  • At least one of the web resources is missing its author details - "Investigating Elgin Cathedral" was written by Elspeth Mackay, for example.
  • ✗ Not done I'd usually expect the publishing location to give the country (e.g. "Edinburgh, UK") and for periodical articles to give the page ranges.
  • ✗ Not doneWorth considering giving OCLC numbers for books without ISBN details. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't ever seen book sources give country initials. for example, at Angkor_Wat#References, you don't even get the publishing city. At Peveril_Castle, just the city. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 23:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Review by Lemurbaby:

  • General
 Done It would be good to add conversions for distances and lengths
 Done Double check consistency in capitalization for titles like king, bishop, pope etc. Sometimes you capitalize them when they stand alone, and other times you don't.
  • Lead
 Done Add wikilinks to more of the specialized terms (chapter, canon, manse, tracery, chanonry, precenter, parish church, burgh, bishop, diocesan, translation, episcopate, bishop, pope, see, prebendary, prelate etc). I see that some of these are linked, but not on the first use where it's needed. I'd recommend reading it through from the perspective of a non-Scottish, non-Christian person with limited knowledge of European history and make adjustments/add wikilinks as necessary.
To Do  Done The sentence "After the removal of the lead from the roof in 1567..." needs clarification (why was the lead removed, and how is that connected to collapse of the roof?).
well, the roof was made of lead, common for churches of that age. why it was removed, however, is unclear, but Billreid might know of an order or such. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Early cathedral churches"
To Do  Done It's unclear whether a cathedral was ever built at Spynie. Would you clarify this here and adjust the lead if needed?
rephrased. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To Do  Done The first paragraph of this section ("The northern dioceses of...") does not immediately link to the cathedral. Could you rework this section to make immediately clear to the reader how this information is relevant to the cathedral? I'd also recommend making it clearer what the relationship is between Moray and Elgin.
This is still not clear.
I'll see what I can do further. Elgin Cathedral was part of the Diocese of Moray, so the trick is explaining that without distracting the reader... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-written this paragraph which hopefully explains the antiquity of the diocese and leads to the next section with the relationship between the diocese of Moray and Elgin. I won't mark it as "done" yet. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is looking better. I appreciate not wanting to distract the reader, but in this case more information helps the reader understand by putting the info into clearer context. Nice work
 Done "Henry, dean of Ross" - capitalize dean? wikilink Ross?
  • "Cathedral church at Elgin"
 Done The paragraph "Bishop David de Moravia (1299–1326) was the uncle ..." does not tie directly to the cathedral. Could you make the relevance of this section more immediately clear?
 Done "In 1325 he gave the lands of Grisy-Suisnes..." - Did David give the land away after he'd been excommunicated? (Did he have the authority to do that?) Please clarify.
text removed earlier
 Done "In 1408, the money saved during a vacancy was diverted to the rebuilding process" - It's unclear how a vacancy (of what?) saves money here. Please clarify.
Perhaps Billreid knows something about those. the first has been removed. If bill can't explain it, I would probably have to try to get the source via ILL, which would take awhile, if I even can get it that way. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say whether it was a dignitory or an ordinary canon within the chapter so I've described it as an ecclesiastical vacancy. --Bill Reid | (talk) 13:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.
Could you more explicitly tie the info in the section on rural deans to the case of this particular cathedral?
  • "Cathedral offices"
 Done "still lacking many of its manses. The chapter ordered..." - it's not clear where or when the order happened - was it written into the aforementioned document, or somewhere else?
It's still unclear where or when the order happened. At least give us the century or make it clearer that the order was immediate following x event.
Seems to have been taken care of earlier
  • "Post-Reformation"
 Done "Ross was assisted in this by the Lairds of Innes and Brodie..." - wikilink, or explain what a laird is.
I don't see a link or explanation of a laird.
Thanks for linking
  • "Building phases"
 Done "The Gothic pointed arch style first appeared in France in the mid-12th century was apparent in England around 1170 but hardly appeared in Scotland until the early 13th century and the round early Norman window design continued to be used in Scotland during the entire Gothic period..." - tie this more explicitly to this particular church.
Yes, done --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done "Consolidation of the ruin and some reconstruction work began in the early 20th century" - what is meant here by consolidation of the ruin?
again, Billreid probably knows more than I do about this. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand - I changed it to "structural reinforcement", which seems even clearer to me, but feel free to change back if you find it isn't suitable.
- That concludes my review. Nice work on this! Lemurbaby (talk) 05:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thanks. I'll take a look at much of this, see what I can find... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice work on these edits. This is a beautiful, fascinating and detailed article. You've really done this cathedral justice. There are one or two outstanding points above, but they aren't enough to keep me from supporting that this be awarded FA. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not here too often these days, but will look at outstanding issues from tomorrow and clarify. --Bill Reid | (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. you've written at least 90% of this article, so you're probably the only one here that really know much of anything about the cathedral. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 17:08, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Outstanding read. If the references still need to be checked formatting-wise, I'd be glad to do that. ceranthor 19:03, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

all help is very welcome. shouldn't there be a script for such as this? or am I just an automatist (simialr to a deletionist)... -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reference nitpicks from Ceranthor
  • Why do some sources use a comma between page numbers ("Cowan, Parishes, Medieval Scotland, pp. 217, 218") instead of an endash?
Done, thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added now. Thanks. --Bill Reid | (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Unless I've missed it among the reviewer comments, like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

99% of the sources are physical books. not something that can really be spot-checked. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I notice one of the reviewers above is Mr Tim Riley, who has often been a life saver in this regard, and may prove so yet again... Timbo? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to oblige on Monday when the British Library is open. More thereafter. Tim riley (talk) 15:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References – I have ordered three of the main book sources at the BL and will report back tomorrow afternoon. Meanwhile, now I come to look with a source-checker's scrutiny at the references I notice some internal inconsistency in the referencing:

  • Cant, Historic Elgin and Cathedral
  • Cant, Historic Elgin and its Cathedral
  • Cant, Historic Elgin
 Done now consistent --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cowan & Easson, Medieval Houses
  • Cowan, Medieval Religious houses
 Done now consistent --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cowan, Medieval Church in Scotland
  • Cowan, Parishes, Medieval Scotland
These are ok as separate publications but well picked up as I had omitted the reference entirely but now rectified, thanks --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fawcett, Elgin Cathedral Guide
  • Fawcett, Elgin Cathedral
This one is ok as separate publications --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So they are. Mea culpa. Tim riley (talk) 18:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shaw, Gordon, History of Moray
  • Shaw, History of Moray
 Done now consistent --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is still inconsistent use of Precenter/Precentor. The Oxford English Dictionary allows only the latter. Chambers – an appropriately Scottish dictionary – also gives only Precentor, and not Precenter. Collins too allows only Precentor. Tim riley (talk) 10:00, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. i changed all precenter to precentor. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check of sources

No sign of any close paraphrasing. Sources correctly represented. A few minor quibbles.

  • Cowan and Easson
    • 65 – fine
    • 66 – fine
  • Fawcett (2001)
    • 26a – fine
    • 26b – fine (but in passing, why "17" and "twenty five" in the same sentence?)
 Done - corrected 17 to seventeen --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 26c – fine
    • 46 – fine
    • 47 – fine
    • 78 – fine
    • 79 – should say p. 11, not p. 12. Final sentence of para is also covered by p. 11, but ought to say "probably during Reid's tenure", as the source does.
 Done - re-jigged sentences and re-positioned ref--Bill Reid | (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 83 – fine
    • 84 – fine
    • 87 – fine
    • 88 – fine
    • 90 – fine
    • 91 – fine
    • 94 – fine
    • 95 – fine
    • 98 – fine
    • 99 – fine
    • 100 – fine
    • 101 – fine
  • Dowden
    • 28 – fine
    • 33 – fine
    • 41 – should be p. 73 not p. 72
 Done - corrected. --Bill Reid | (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 42 – fine
    • 44 – fine
    • 45 – fine
    • 50 – fine
    • 51 – fine
    • 58 – fine

The article is, in my view, very carefully and scrupulously sourced. I enjoyed revisiting it: it's a pleasure to read. – Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This is an amazing informative article. I love the referenced images section, great pictures, great explanation. I don't see any problems that stand out, and I am satisfied that this article meets the FA criteria.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments given I am in Scotland, will take a wee look at it now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If it were possible, it'd be good to somehow reduce mention of the fire dates in the lead's second para...but I don't think it is after looking at it, so this isn't an actionable item (I think...) - lead reads well overall.
  • I'd link precentor as I have not encountered the word before and it is hence not a common one.
 Done - didn't think there was an article for precentor, but there was --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd link mark (currency) for the same reasons above
 Done --Bill Reid | (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure that if we linked precentor, it'd just be a redlink, which defeats the purpose of linking. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 06:42, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- Given the length of time this has been open, the support for promotion and the fact that all checks have been made, I'm going to close this now. Cas, if there's anything still outstanding I expect it's of a minor nature that could be taken care of on the talk page? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [22].[reply]

Love the Way You Lie

[edit]
Nominator(s): —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After making my 2000th edit on this article, I feel it is time to put it to the test. I've used various articles as models and have gotten help from several users, so thank you to them. Yeah, it's another Rihanna song, but here goes. I appreciate all input! Cheers. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 23:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JennKR

Comments from SnapSnap

[edit]
  • [[Compact disc single|CD single]] → [[CD single]]
  • "the American rapper Eminem" → "American rapper Eminem"
    Adding the "the" seems more like proper English to me. I had the latter, but changed it because it sounded journalistic. The definite article is employed in various FAs and reviewers have raised this in previous FACs. But it may just be a matter of preference. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure that adding "the" before a person's name in this case is gramatically incorrect. I can't seem to find a Manual of Style that addresses this particular issue, though. SnapSnap 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Odd. I see it in so many FAs and I'm not sure myself what would be incorrect about it. I'm not saying "the Eminem" after all. I remember a MOS discussion saying that this is acceptable too, but can't seem to find it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the definite article before a title or description is certainly correct in British English - and we're not using it before his name here, we're using it before his nationality, which is different. The absence of the the article would suggest a loose journalistic use in the UK. I certanly feel the use anywhere in high-quality articles raises the language levels to be more encyclopaedic. Hope that helps. - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks SchroCat, well said. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Skylar Grey, a singer and songwriter, wrote..." → "Singer-songwriter Skylar Grey wrote..."
    Likewise as above. I have "Skylar Grey, a singer-songwriter..." now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Barbadian singer Rihanna" → "Barbadian singer Rihanna"
  • "Eminem promoted the single with performances at [...] the MTV Video Music Awards" — In what year did he promote it at the VMAs?
  • "The song won awards" — Sounds a bit vague. Perhaps "The song won several awards"?
  • "...and was number one on 26 weekly record charts" → "...and reached number one on twenty-six record charts" (personally, I don't think the word "weekly" is necessary)
    I kept "was" because "reached" doesn't work with "...including the Billboard Hot 100 for seven weeks" since you can't reach a position for seven weeks (awkward sounding). Fixed "twenty-six". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The single sold more than 5 million copies" → "The single sold more than five million copies" (WP:NUMERAL)
  • "the British hip hop producer Alex da Kid" → "British hip hop producer Alex da Kid"
  • "the American singer Holly Brook Hafermann" → "American singer Holly Brook Hafermann"
  • "She wrote the chorus to "Love the Way You Lie" in 15 minutes" → "She wrote the chorus to "Love the Way You Lie" in fifteen minutes"
  • "Rihanna's recording sessions were at Sun Studios" → "Rihanna's recording sessions took place at Sun Studios"
  • "The American songwriter Makeba Riddick" → "American songwriter Makeba Riddick"
  • Reference 37 refers to an import release.
    Not sure what to do here since I'm not familiar with this. What would be your advice? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Remove the statement (and its accompanying reference) saying that the single was released as a CD in the United States. SnapSnap 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jocelyn Noveck of The Associated Press" → "Jocelyn Noveck of the Herald Sun" (according to the reference)
    She's writing for the agency Associated Press, which feeds various newspapers, such as the Herald Sun. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...placed it at number five on her top-10 list" → "...placed it at number five on her top-ten list"
  • The "Chart performance and sales" section should be renamed to "Commercial performance", as the word "commercial" encompasses both charts and sales.
  • "...at number two in the July 10, 2010, issue" → "...at number two on the issue dated July 10, 2010"
  • "...reached number one on singles charts worldwide" — Again, sounds vague. I'd suggest "several singles charts", an approximate number ("more than x singles charts"), or even the exact number.
  • "...fifteenth top-10 song" → "...fifteenth top-ten song"
  • "In the Digital Songs chart" → "On the Digital Songs chart"
  • "...the 109th song to reach 1 million sales" → "...the 109th song to reach one million sales"
  • "By November 2012, it sold..." → "By November 2012, it had sold..."
  • "By July 2013, it sold..." → "By July 2013, it had sold..."
  • "the American filmmaker Joseph Kahn" → "American filmmaker Joseph Kahn"
  • "the American actress Megan Fox" → "American actress Megan Fox"
  • "...finished in 45 minutes." → "...finished in forty-five minutes."
  • "Cher Lloyd, a British singer" → "British singer Cher Lloyd"
  • "Mernie Gilmore of Daily Express" → "Mernie Gilmore of the Daily Express"
  • "...a Russian guitarist, Alex Feather Akimov" → "...Russian guitarist Alex Feather Akimov"
  • "While Chicago Sun-Times..." → "While the Chicago Sun-Times..."
  • 53rd Grammy Awards → 2011 Grammy Awards

SnapSnap 19:17, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing SnapSnap. I've fixed all issues except where noted and have explained my use of "the" when introducing people. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:57, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Adabow

[edit]
  • "the track is a midtempo hip hop ballad" appears a bit like a WP:SEAOFBLUE; not a huge issue, but see if you can come up with an alternative
  • "Magazines listed "Love the Way You Lie" among the best singles of 2010 and of Eminem's career." - not strictly true. How about changing 'magazines' to 'music critics'?
  • "It is his best-selling single" - The preceding sentence talks about "the song". It's not clear that "his" means "Eminem's" on first glance; use his name.
  • Why does 'alternative pop' link to alternative rock?
  • The article mentions that both Rihanna and Eminem have experienced domestic violence, but only describes Rihanna's experience.
  • "Detroit musician Luis Resto contributes to the arrangement on most of Eminem's songs" - not in citation given; it only discusses Recovery
    I quote this excerpt from the link, "Eminem’s core team at Effigy is completed by Mike’s brother and assistant engineer Joe Strange, studio manager John Fisher, and keyboardist/composer Luis Resto, who has also been working with Em since 2001, and who has co-produced and co-written many Eminem songs." I changed "most of" to "many of" nd "contributes" to "has contributed". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe common time is a widely used within music circles, and comes across as less technical to the musically inept reader than "4/4 time signature". Just a suggestion
  • The last two paragraphs of 'Composition' read a bit like a quote farm. I recommend paraphrasing some of the lyrics, (especially "If she ever tries to fuckin' leave me again, I'ma tie her to the bed and set this house on fire", which can be summarised concisely and is not actually the correct lyric [me]).
    Here's where I'm a bit reluctant to do much. Since paraphrasing lyrics is discouraged (the Wikipedia editor shouldn't be interpreting the song), and the quoted lines offer a glimpse of Eminem's lyricism and the song's tone, theme, etc. But are there any lyrics that you'd think wouldn't hurt to be outright removed? TBH, the lyrics are there for a reason, because writers have commented on them. They're not there in place of original prose (unlike overquotation of critical reviews). —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, makes sense. I don't suppose there's anything to be done about the incorrect lyric unless there's another reliable source discussing it, is there?
    I cited the album liner notes for the lyric itself. See now. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:40, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Eminem revealed "Love the Way You Lie"" - what does this mean?
  • Is there information on which radio formats the song was sent to in the US, and on what dates?
    Absolutely nothing. I've searched this one thoroughly and didn't find anything. But I'm sure the song was on radio and if this is all we can say, then so be it. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm often hesitant to use "said" when referring to a critical review; "wrote" is truer.
  • The Atlantic Wire is italicised in its Wikipedia article. Is there a reason for not italicsing it here?
    It shouldn't be italicized, since The Atlantic Wire is exclusively a website. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "calling it is a love song" - extra word?
  • "In its fourth consecutive week, "Love the Way You Lie" rose from number thirteen to number eight on the Billboard Pop Songs chart, on which it was Eminem's ninth and Rihanna's fifteenth top-ten song." - what us the fourth consecutive week? Is this sentence even necessary? It seems trivial.
  • Commercial performance section is ridiculously US-centric
  • Consistency in refs: 'Archived from the original' vs 'Archived from the original'. I suggest the latter, as it is what the citation templates put out.
    It's a matter of whether the original is dead or not (deadurl=yes/no). For consistency's sake, I can remove this parameter, which should give us the latter. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I didn't even know that parameter existed. Adabow (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come later Adabow (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Adabow. I've fixed most issues. As for the Chart performance section, I'll work on that and comment back. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 08:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done a combination of cutting back on US chart info and developed on three other charts (Australia, France and Austria). I didn't want to overdo it, since going into too much detail on chart trajectories is rarely helpful and makes for repetitive prose. See what you think. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 10:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she closes her hands to extinguish the fire inside." - I don't understand this.
  • "they play their roles perfectly and helped make the video powerful" - change of tense
  • I find it odd that no awards are mentioned in prose, especially Grammy nominations for Record and Song of the year - two of the most prestigious in the industry.
  • Succession boxes seem redundant given the see also section. If they are going to remain, they need referencing.

Adabow (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-written the first to say "The flames on her palms vanish as she clasps her hands." The second, I've made the tense fix and have discussed the Grammys and People's Choice Awards briefly in the section "Recognition". Finally, I've removed the succession boxes. Referencing those would be too tedious considering their redundancy. BTW, regarding the lyric, I've contacted a user to see if we could cite the lyric to the album liner notes. Is that OK? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 22:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Adabow (talk) 09:27, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comments from SchroCat

[edit]

Lead

  • All OK

Writing and production

  • Any reason why the image of Rihanna is over on the left (against MOS)? It creates a monstrous amount of ugly white space on my monitor. Why not have it over on the right and let it break across the sections?
  • Any sources give an approximate date that Alex da Kid did his stuff (first para)? As it's the first main para in the article, some frame of reference for a date would be good, if there is one available.
    Did a fair bit of searching, but all that's known is that the song was written and recorded in the 2009–10 range. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In subsequent mentions, can we just refer to "da Kid", rather than the full name?
    I initially had this. I don't remember when, but at some point I undid it as per WP:LASTNAME, "People who are best known by a pseudonym should be subsequently referred to by their pseudonymous surnames, unless they do not include a recognizable surname in the pseudonym (i.e. Sting, Snoop Dogg, The Edge), in which case the whole pseudonym is used." "Da Kid" does not seem like a "recognizable surname". —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in seek of help" – needs a tweak ("to seek help", perhaps?)
  • "Acknowledging Alex da Kid": I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
    Upon hearing Alex da Kid's demo tracks, Eminem was impressed and wanted to use some of them for his songs. I re-wrote this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

  • "His brother": whose? Strange's or da Kid's?

Composition

  • "Fraser McAlphine of BBC" -> "Fraser McAlphine of the BBC"
  • "pounding drums": Do we need "pounding"? Feels a little unencyclopaedic

Release and response

  • "Eminem revealed "Love the Way You Lie"..." not sure "revealed" is the right word here: "announced", perhaps?
    I have "Eminem revealed the title of "Love the Way You Lie" as part of the tracklist of Recovery. How is that? —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The New York Times writer" – Italicise "The" for consistency

Themes

  • "Winston Robbins from the music website Consequence of Sound attributed the song's poignancy to Rihanna's past abusive relationship and a theme of infidelity and abuse." Needs a comma in there, possibly two.

Production

  • "Fox, a fan" of…? Eminem, Rihanna or Kahn?

Synopsis

  • Image caption – The Daily Mail
  • "stop her abusive lover from coming": coming in, or entering, otherwise we enter the world of double entendre

Reception

  • "romanticization": Is that really a word in AmEng?
    This was unclear to me too; removed "romanticization". A Wikipedia article is titled "Romanticism", but that's not what we're looking for! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Daily Mail": -> "The Daily Mail
  • Did Sweeney comment on the song, or was it just the show that he commented on? (The corresponding link (FN110) is also dead
    Eminem's performance. That's what I have now in place of "the show". I'm trying to get a hold of WebCite, but that seems down right now. I'll try my best to fix it, else remove this. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Live performances

  • "highlighted the evening show": -> "was the highlight of the show"?

Sequel

  • Again, do we need the white space? The image can drop down into the following section without interfering with the table below.

Other bits

  • Alt needed for Chris Brown image
  • FN14, 16 & 19: consistent date format needed
  • FN110: dead

All rather minor points in a very good piece. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review SchroCat. I've fixed issues and made replies where necessary. I wonder what's up with WebCite.org all of a sudden... should be back up soon. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 18:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Nice work and very happy to support this one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers to you too! —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 19:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Clear consensus to promote but I have a slight concern with the lead, namely that the first paragraph employs the word "abusive" three times -- are there no variations on the term? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I have made alterations based on your concern and the supporting sources. Is there anything else? Cheers, Penguin. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 21:55, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [23].[reply]

Boletus calopus

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sasata (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sasata and I are going though a few boletes and nominating for featured article status - timely as we've had a bolete expert join the wiki-fray which has been fantastic. This is a shorter one and we've scoured the sources. Let us know anything we can fix or do better. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Cwmhiraeth

A solid-looking article. A few comments on the prose etc.
  • "found in Asia, Northern Europe and North America." - Is this correct capitalisation?
Northern Europe is capitalised apparently. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... will most likely be placed in a new genus pending further study" - Does not "pending" mean "during"?
my meaning is that it will change genus once further study has taken place. I thought "pending further study" was a simple way and accessible way of writing this...? Have substituted "after" but I feel this word doesn't illustrate causation/link quite like "pending" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "following"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oooh, I must say I prefer "following" to "after" but neither capture the "it-hasn't-happened-yet-and-once-it-does-X-will-happen" that "pending" conveys..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...rendered unpalatable by its intensely bitter taste, which does not disappear with cooking." - No comma needed here in my opinion. Same in Toxicity section.
disagree - it is an emphatic subordinate clause which relates to the taste Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "red-pored boletes" - Red-pored?
not an official term but merely a descriptor (i.e. boletes with red pores) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I thought "red" was an error because the pores of this species are in fact yellow, but perhaps it is intended and B. calopus is grouped with a number of red-pored species in a clade. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aaah I see - yes there are a bunch of other boletes of similar colours and blue-staining properties and they generally have red pores (Boletus satanas, Boletus luridus etc.) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(named for Boletus dupainii), well-removed from the core group of the type species Boletus edulis " - Why give these binomials in full?
abbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The attractively coloured stipe" - I thought use of such terms as "attractively" was abjured. (In lead too.)
Hmmm, I kinda liked the construction as a succinct way of indicating that it was pretty because it was colourful (which is what the source says). If I just say "colourful" is that sufficient...will ask on this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The pale yellow flesh stains blue when broken, spreading out from the damaged area." - What is spreading out here?
the discoloration - clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its smell can be strong, and has been likened to ink." - Is this the smell of the flesh or of the whole bolete?
Well, can be either I guess - the source doesn't specify, just says "the scent.." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the varieties be mentioned in the Taxonomy section?
they are - but their physical attributes are mentioned in the description section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but the stipes of latter species are not reticulated." - Perhaps "this species"
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Edible species such as Boletus edulis lack a red stipe." - Why give this binomial in full?
I missed it - abbreviated now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now supporting on prose and comprehensiveness Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

split sentence with a semicolon and changed "'it" to "the mushroom" to make it flow better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • cracks in age. —is "in" right?
changed to "with" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • colour/coloration... —this is what happens when a Canadian and Australian collaborate (:
britishised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • has been likened to ink—not sure how helpful that is these days, but does no harm, no action needed
yes this puzzled me too - no idea what ink smells like.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fruit bodies occur singly or in large groups.[20] It grows on chalky ground from—subject of "it" is plural fruit bodies as written
Changed "it" to "the species" to break subject - I suppose I could have pluralised it to they as well... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3-octanol—I'd delink like the other compounds, link goes to 1-octanol, so misleading as it stands
delinked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are all CC, no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: did you happen to do a source review as well? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support—the prose is extremely clear, smooth and tight. The article is fascinating and informative, and the images are very useful. This is the kind of work Wikipedia should be featuring. —WP:PENGUIN · [ TALK ] 20:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Fixed; thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [24].[reply]

Stanley Bruce

[edit]
Nominator(s): Unus Multorum (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article status because after a successful GA process I believe this article is now well-researched, well-written and broadly meets the FA criteria. I've invested a lot of time in the article, rewriting it almost from scratch some months ago, and now feel confident that with the scrutiny of peers here this article can be brought to FA status. This is my first nomination and I'm hoping the process of initiation will give me inspiration/confidence to continue writing FA articles and to help out reviewing. Thanks! Unus Multorum (talk) 00:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary review
  • First/Second World War or World War I/II? Be consistent. I think per British English it should be the former.
  • 1914–1918 → 1914–18 throughout, per WP:YEAR.
  • I'd rather Later life become Later life and death, and Legacy get its own section (could it be expanded?).
  • I thought about this as well, but I think that would leave quite a short legacy section. I could not find consensus among other biographies of GA or FA quality - some put death with legacy and others don't. And unfortunately there isn't a great deal written about the Bruce legacy itself. Unus Multorum (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Yet Bruce never forgot his Australian roots and for much of his career was a tireless advocate for her interests."—source?

A few comments, not a complete review: - Dank (push to talk)

  • "importing/exporting business": I don't have a problem with this, but others might. See WP:SLASH
  • Single quote marks: See "Reasons to prefer straight quotation marks and apostrophes (and double quotation marks)" at WP:MOS.
  • " close association (and in for many of them, long periods of residency) with Great Britain.": close association with (and for many of them, long periods of residency in) Great Britain.

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Missing bibliographic info for Sawer, Henderson, Plowman, Fitzhardinge
  • Be consistent in how Edwards short cites are notated
  • No citations to Brett, Murray, Moore, Barber, Connor, or "Election Speeches of Stanley Bruce"
  • Mathews or Matthews?
  • Don't repeat cited sources in External links
  • Newspapers should include title, author if known, and page number
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if so how these are formatted
  • FN49, 183, 184, 204: page formatting
  • FN110, 116, 117, 135: publisher?
  • FN167: page?
  • Be consistent in how editions are formatted
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography
  • Titles of periodicals should be italicized.

Comments This is a very high quality and content-rich article. I have the following comments and suggestions, most of which are of a fairly minor nature:

  • "hit hard upon the Bruce family fortunes." - how about "hit the Bruce Family's fortunes hard" or similar?
  • Please reduce the uses of "Bruce" in the para which begins with "In the aftermath of his father's death in 1901" - the terms appears at least once in all but the last sentence. The word is over-used through much of the article.
  • "Bruce himself was wounded on 3 June by a shot to the arm, though it was this injury that spared Bruce" - ditto
  • "Minister of Defense" - should this be Minister for Defence?
  • "With his aristocratic manners and dress (he drove a Rolls-Royce and wore white spats) he was also considered to be the first genuinely "Tory" Australian prime minister. Under Bruce, the government took on a decidedly more conservative hue than had been the case under Hughes." - this material isn't covered by citations
  • "Unemployment and inflation were relatively low internationally and in national history and if taken as a single entity, Commonwealth revenues had grown significantly since its becoming a Federation" - this is a bit unclear, and could be simplified
  • "These changes were amongst the most impacting" - "most impacting" is awkward
  • "or if they disagreed gave means by which cabinet members could be absent from meetings to preserve cabinet solidarity" - what's meant by this? Did Bruce adopt a procedure where ministers who disagreed with a proposal were encouraged to skip the meeting? That's a rather dysfunctional approach, and not in line with how the modern cabinet operates (where ministers are expected to turn up and participate in the discussion, and to strongly uphold and defend the outcomes even if they disagree with them(.
    Yes that is exactly what he did, and it is true that is no longer the procedure, though cabinet procedure was pretty much whatever the PM determined it to be prior to WWII. I've reworded there so it is exactly clear what is meant.
  • "The business of transferring government and cabinet operations to the new capital proceeded over 1927 and 1928" - you should note that many functions remained in Melbourne (some of the main departments only completed their moves to Canberra in the 1980s!)
  • "though the eventual treaty was not binding on the dominions." - needs to be covered by a reference
  • The level of detail in the "Prime Minister, 1923–29" section is excellent
  • "Lyons leaned heavily on Bruce and Latham in his first six months of government, though Bruce had by now set his sights on international affairs rather than the domestic crisis." - reference needed
  • When did Bruce resign from parliament?
  • Added. 09:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "Over two years, Bruce negotiated with the Westminster Bank and the British Government for loan conversions worth £84 million, which saved Australia millions of pounds in interest over several years and along with the Ottawa Agreements were significant in helping alleviate Australia's financial difficulties" - how did a few million pounds less interest have a significant impact on the economy? The trade agreements would have been helpful, but the loan conversions don't sound all that significant in the context of the size of the Australian economy.
  • "but he could not find funding elsewhere" - where the funding was obtained from isn't clear
  • "He became the first Chancellor of the newly established Australian National University in 1952, and took an active interest in its development, especially as a research center for the study of Asia and the Pacific." - not covered by a citation
  • Added. 09:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • "In 1947 Bruce became the first Australian to sit in the House of Lords (Sir John Forrest had been granted a peerage but died before it could be invested)." - also needs a reference
  • Added. 09:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Added. Thanks so much for your helpful comments. 09:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Support My comments have now been addressed, and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments - According to the London Gazette, Bruce was commissioned as a lieutenant on 7 February 1915 in the 12th Battalion, Worcestershire Regiment. See here. Also, there are the Gazette entries for his Military Cross and Croix de Guerre. Template:London Gazette exists, if that helps. On the note of his MC and CdeG, is it known why he was awarded the decorations? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the references, I've incorporated them. Bruce was typically modest about his military service - when asked in an interview about his Croix de Guerre, he didn't give and reason and simply stated that the French 'gave medals to everyone'. So no, I have not found in my research what these citations were specifically for. Unus Multorum (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, thanks for your efforts with this article. I only took a quick look at the military service and World War II sections: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • not sure about this: "World War I broke out in September of that year". Britain, and therefore Australia, declared war on 4 August 1914, I believe;
  • "2nd Battalion Royal Fusiliers" --> "2nd Battalion, Royal Fusiliers";
  • "and rose to the rank of Captain on 5 August" --> "and rose to the rank of captain on 5 August" per WP:MILTERMS;
  • this seems a bit repetitive: "which was then assigned to the British 29th Division which was..." (two instances of "which" in the same sentence);
  • "Bruce's regiment landed at Helles..." The link here for Helles appears to go to a Pale lager, which doesn't seem correct. Perhaps try Cape Helles;
  • "and the subsequent failure of the Royal Navy to force passage"... I don't think that the Royal Navy were alone here, I believe that the French navy was also involved. The sentence also seems quite long. Perhaps it could be broken down?
  • "File:Sbruce.jpg" probably also needs a US licence, such as "PD-US-1996". It also probably needs to outline what date it was taken
  • "File:Stanley Bruce and the Troops.png": probably needs a US licence such as "PD-US-1996";
  • is there a reference for this: "n spite of his tempestuous relationship with Churchill, Bruce was held in high regard by many cabinet members, particularly future prime ministers Clement Attlee and Anthony Eden, and his dogged determination to advance dominion interests during the war years earned him high praise from John Curtin and the other dominion prime ministers."?AustralianRupert (talk) 04:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image review from Crisco 1492
  • Note: I will only include links to the files if I find an issue
File:Australian Migration Poster, 1928.jpg - Why is this a UK tag? It looks like it was made by the Australians.
File:Paterson, Laing and Bruce.jpg - Think a crop is in order?
File:Garran and Bruce ANU.jpg - This is not PD in the US owing to the URAA (has to be prior to 1946). As such, this can't be used as a free image.
File:Pius XIII and the World Food Council 1950.JPG - This is not PD in the US owing to the URAA (has to be prior to 1946). As such, this can't be used as a free image.
  • Well I did some investigating of this photo (which I also scanned out of the Bruce collection), and asked the collection desk about the copyright status of the photo, and the file note at the archives seems to indicate that it was created/first published in Italy in November of 1950, and so actually it should fall under Italian copyright jurisdiction, which if I am understanding the meaning of 'simple photo' correctly, means that it is PD-US as per the PD-Italy rules set out in the tag. Hope I have that right.... 06:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
File:Stanley Bruce and the Troops.png - Have a source link?
File:Bruce presiding over the League of Nations Council.png - Have a source link?
File:Bruce chairing the Montreaux Conference.jpg - Needs US PD tag
File:Waterside Workers of Australia Banner.jpg - When did Markovic die?
  • OK, after schooling myself on the public domain and art tags, this image now has the correct tag and licensing information. I hope... Markovic was not the creator of the banner, just the NMA photographer. Unus Multorum (talk) 06:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Bruce resigned newPMScullin brief meeting.jpg - What's with the PD simple tag? Also, you need a US PD tag
File:Dog Collar Waterfront Licence, 1929.jpg - What's the copyright on the booklet itself?
File:Imperial Conference 1923 Cartoon.png - When did Partridge die?
File:Nla Bruce thelodge.jpg - A more direct link would be preferable.
 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images look okay based on my check. Congrats on what looks like a good article, and I'm quite sorry I don't have time to do a prose review (although it looks like you're pretty much there anyways) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...led to his dramatic defeat at the polls in 1929. - I'd link to Australian federal election, 1929 here - either as an easter egg or rephrase to "...led to his dramatic defeat in the 1929 federal election"
becoming treasurer in 1921 - link treasurer here
He worked to professionalise government administration - hmmm, I doubt they were amateurs beforehand, maybe "He worked to overhaul/modernise government administration"?
''Although he returned to parliament in 1931, Bruce's service in the Lyons government was brief and he instead pursued an international career, and was appointed High Commissioner to the United Kingdom in 1933. - two "ands" in this sentence - a little ungainly....
Bruce found Hughes' management of his government completely lacking in professionalism or structure - again "professionalism" can be reather nebulous in meaning in this context - more specific adjectives are better
capricious? Billy Hughes?...yeah I can see that ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:16, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In summary, reads well - prose engaging and well written. I don't know enough of Bruce to determine whether some criticism is missing or underrepresented. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

[edit]

This article is well-written and seems both complete and well-sourced. I'm quite impressed. There are still a few opportunities for improvement and clarification.

  • In the lead you say a type of defeat "would only next occur some 78 years later in 2007": I don't think "some" is doing anything useful in that sentence. It's exactly 78 years.
  • The last sentence in the lead has room for improvement. First, "important" is a value judgment, and I think the sentence would work better without the word. (If there are no criteria by which some diplomatic careers are deemed "important" and others not, then the word is meaningless here.)
  • Second, the "Tory" clause -- "and he held a reputation as an English Tory" -- is hard for a non-Australian to understand. The Tory article you link to only has one sentence about what "Tory" might mean in this context: "members of the conservative coalition Liberal and National parties." If so, wouldn't he be a Tory by definition due to his political party? Or is something else meant by "English Tory"? (He wasn't English, any more than any white Australian.) The article only has a sentence to back up this clause in the lead, and that sentence indicates that it was his outfit and mannerisms that made people think him a Tory... but that's not clear. In my opinion, you could either leave out the entire clause from the lead, or else explain it better (perhaps in the body).
    • Late addition: you later say "despite his image as a member of the British aristocratic elite", which I think describes it perfectly. It's just that many readers won't understand the connection between that statement and the term "Tory". – Quadell (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And third, regarding his remains, it isn't clear whether "there" refers to London or Australia. The article does not support this statement in the lead, so it's essentially an unsourced statement. This could be fixed by rewording this sentence in the lead, and by adding the fact (sourced) to the body.
  • All good points, I've reworked it now and hopefully it reads a lot better. I've removed the Tory descriptor from the article entirely and replaced it with clearer descriptions. However his remained being scattered in Canberra is mentioned and sourced in the last section of the article. Unus Multorum (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related: the "Death and legacy" section starts its second paragraph "Returning to Australia after his years in London in 1945...". That seems to indicate that he was done living in England way back in 1945, and the text never again mentions him going back to England. But the infobox shows that he died in London in 1967. It's needlessly confusing. (Besides, 1945 is more than 20 years before his death, so I'm not sure why this information is in this section.)
    • Late addition: It seems to me that you could change "Returning to Australia after his years in London in 1945," to "As Bruce himself discovered upon his return to Australia in 1945," and it would flow much better. Or you could just discuss his legacy and image here without specifying the 1945-era, and I think it would be fine. Which do you think would be better? – Quadell (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hate to mention this because it's so nit-picky, but... you usually omit serial commas, which is fine. But the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead has one. Now perhaps that former case needs a serial comma just for clarity's sake... but be careful to always omit serial commas throughout the article (or always use, if you prefer), excepting in cases where there is a need to make an exception for clarity reasons.
  • Reword the first sentence of "Early life" so it's clear that St Kilda is not the youngest of five children. :)
  • Consider using {{spaced ndash}} to ensure correct linewrap handling, as suggested at WP:MOSDASH. (This is not a requirement for my support, at all, but it's a good idea.)
  • I will confess my ignorance about the use of hyphens and the two dash variants on Wikipedia, but I've had to learn now! I've gone through and put in the spaced endash in the article as you've suggested. Unus Multorum (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Death and Legacy", the phrase "and he was to be disappointed" seems out of place. (At this point in the narrative he's already dead.) Woul "and he was frequently disappointed" work?
  • In the FAO section, you say "he had envisaged a post-war order based on a continuing alliance of the four powers (the United States, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and China) that could evolve into a new international body". It seems to me this would be improved by the use of ndashes instead of parentheses. Do you agree?:* Done. Unus Multorum (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find any problems with the images, captions, infoboxes, reference formatting, other end sections, or anything MOS-related. A (very) few spot checks revealed no problems. All that's left is prose issues, which are mostly quite minor. – Quadell (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. This article is comprehensive, well-sourced, and well-formatted. I believe it to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. – Quadell (talk) 18:06, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- A belated welcome to FAC, Unus. I will be happy to promote this shortly but before that:

  • P&O is a dab link, and I have to admit it's not clear to me just which of the company entities it refers to, so you may need to check the sources for more info to finetune.
  • You have a fair few duplicate links. Some may be justified by the space between them, owing to the length of the article, but pls review in any case and lose what you can. Note that the second occurrence of Richard Casey is a dab but if you drop that wikilink the problem will go away. You can use this script to highlight the dups for yourself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rookie error with the strikeouts, thanks for pointing out that duplicate links tool, I've removed all the duplicates from the body of the article and pointed the P&O link to the correct page. Hopefully that resolves everything. Thanks for your comments! Unus Multorum (talk) 05:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [25].[reply]

No. 38 Squadron RAAF

[edit]
Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 38 Squadron is a Royal Australian Air Force transport unit which has achieved the longest period of period of continual operation of any of the service's flying squadrons. Since being formed in 1943 it has served overseas in World War II, the Malayan Confrontation and the rather odd Operation Pig Bristle, trained aircrew for service in Vietnam and contributed aircraft to several peacekeeping deployments. It flew the highly capable DHC-4 Caribou aircraft for 45 years, and is currently equipped with light transports on an interim basis.

This article was assessed as a GA in June, and passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review later that month. I've since expanded and copy edited it and am hopeful that it also meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support: I made a couple of minor tweaks today; please check you are happy with those. I reviewed this article at A-class and am happy with the changes made since then. The images seem appropriately licenced; the article is well referenced, comprehensively covers the topic, and is well written, IMO. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for those changes, and the review. Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Support
    • I reviewed this at ACR and am comfortable it is fairly close to meeting the FA criteria. Some minor points:
    • 1(a) well-written:
      • This phrase seems to only make half the point: "A Caribou was deployed to Pakistan from 1975 to 1978 to support United Nations peacekeepers...", perhaps consider: "A Caribou was deployed to Pakistan from 1975 to 1978 to support United Nations peacekeepers in the country..." (suggestion only)
      • This doesn't quite sound right to my ear: "From 17 July 1945 the squadron maintained a Morotai Island detachment..." consider perhaps: "From 17 July 1945 the squadron maintained a detachment at Morotai Island..."
    • 1(b) comprehensive:
      • "While the squadron continued to fly to locations within Australia after receiving Dakotas, it also began transporting supplies to Allied forces in western New Guinea..." Perhaps add they were engaged in operations against the Japanese (for context)?
      • "No. 38 Squadron's only loss during World War II was a Dakota that crashed on a mountain in western New Guinea..." Do we know why? (mechanical failure or enemy action)? If its not in the sources then that's fine.
      • "Overall, twenty members of No. 86 Wing were sent to Europe; the resulting shortage of personnel forced Nos. 36 and 38 Squadrons to operate for a period as a single unit, with all flying hours being attributed to No. 38 Squadron in official records." One Australian was killed during the Berlin Airlift (a co-pilot flying a York if I recall), not sure if he was one of those seconded though or if he was on exchange (probably the latter). If he was from 86 Wing it might make sense to mention here, if not then the level of coverage is sufficient. (probably a red herring I admit)
      • Some context might be helpful here: "From August to October 1975, a No. 38 Squadron Caribou was assigned to transport Red Cross supplies and personnel from Darwin to East Timor." Why? Perhaps half a sentence to mention the civil war that occurred following Portugal effectively abandoning the colony after the 1974 revolution?
      • Context here to: "From 1999 until early 2001, elements of No. 38 Squadron, designated No. 86 Wing Detachment C, were stationed in East Timor and supported the international peacekeeping force deployed there..." perhaps add something like "following the violence in the wake of its independence from Indonesia" or something similar?
        • Done 10:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • 1(c) well-researched: no issues here - I've spot checked the fol refs:
      • 2: "RAAF Historical Section (1995), p. 67" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 3: "Eather (1995), p. 76" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 13: ""38 Squadron RAAF". Units. Australian War Memorial. Archived from the original on 20 May 2007. Retrieved 1 June 2013." - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 14: "Dennis and Grey (1996), p. 25" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 43: "Wilson (2003), p. 25" - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
      • 57: "RAAF C-27J buy confirmed". Australian Aviation. 10 May 2012. Archived from the original on 19 May 2012. Retrieved 1 June 2013." - citations checks out, no issues with close paraphrase
    • 1(d) neutral: no issues here - article seems to present subject in a balanced manner.
    • 1(e) stable: no issues here - all recent changes appear to be constructive
    • 2(a) a lead: no issues here - lead is a little short but summarizes all key points lead is fine given the length of the article (3 paras is within guidelines)
    • 2(b) appropriate structure: yes, one minor point:
      • Placement of the commons template is incorrect, per the template documentation at Template:Commons_category the template should not be placed "in a section containing columns without floating left..." and that it should be in the External links section or "at the top of the last section on the page, if no external links section exists". As such I recommend moving it to the "works consulted" sub section.
    • 2(c) consistent citations: yes
    • 3.Media - images look fine to me (I am however no expert)
    • 4.Length - article is succinct and covers all key points. Anotherclown (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Copyedited/reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR but have gone through it again from top to bottom for FAC. Apart from a couple of minor points that I actioned, I think the info is all good and sufficiently detailed; refs show a good overview of available literature. Let me know if any issues with my prose tweaks. I don't believe images have changed since ACR and they all looked properly licensed to me then; I'd suggest lining them all up on the right so the subject aircraft all face 'inwards' but that's a minor aesthetic quibble. Good work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for those comments Ian. I see your point about the aircraft photos, but I think that staggering them is the lesser of the two evils here given that it makes the article a bit more attractive (IMO!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – There is no reason to oppose as the article meets all the FA criteria relating to how well it is written and its compliance with the MOS, and there are no outstanding issues with the length and the media files. In addition, all the references have been archived to protect it from link rot. All in all, a great article. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 03:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [26].[reply]

Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI

[edit]
Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is an in-depth look at a significant piece of propagandic material used by the New Order, one which helped shape the views of millions of schoolchildren over 13 years. Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI (admittedly much more recent than my last seven FACs) is a four-hour marathon depicting the rise and fall of the 30 September Movement, with a half hour dedicated exclusively to seven murders. It was compulsory viewing for much of the 80s and 90s, and broadcast yearly on Indonesian TV channels to, shall we say, remind the populace why the New Order and President Suharto were truly for the nation. I think this will be interesting reading, and I'm fairly certain that the prose is up to snuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

Background
Production
Themes
Release
  • "During the remainder of the 1980s and early 1990s the film's historical accuracy..." -- New paragraph should carry the article title upon first mention. It would also banish the repetition of "the film" a few words along.
Legacy

Everything else looks very good. I enjoyed that! -- CassiantoTalk 22:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "propagandic": not found in oxforddictionaries.com or the Cambridge Dictionaries.
  • Removed all instances
  • Words with the "propaganda" root are repeated too often in the lead.
  • Only one left.
  • "Colonel Lieutenant-Colonel": just Lieutenant-Colonel
  • "by the President,": I'm fine with this. Some will insist on lowercasing, and that's fine too, but I find that it's a losing battle in cases where the uppercasing is meant as a sign of respect. Modern style guides don't generally support the uppercasing, but Chicago sees your point, and my sense of the discussions on Wikipedia is that the fight isn't worth it.
  • "President Sukarno (Umar Kayam) is ill and may die, while his political concept of Nasakom (nationalism, religion, and communism) has promoted an explosive growth in the PKI.": "while" usually means either "whereas" or "at the same time as"; neither meaning works here. (Happy to discuss this one.)
    • Changed to "meanwhile
  • "accept the leadership's explanation and works to compile": nonparallel - Dank (push to talk) 01:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reworked.
  • "After the fall of Suharto in 1998, the film has seen reduced use.": Since the ...
  • "and, with ... work to compile the Party's forces": comma before "work" (since there's now a comma after "and"), and "compile" is the wrong word here.
  • "They plan to launch a three pronged assault by kidnapping seven generals ..., overtake the city, and secure Sukarno.": They plan to kidnap seven generals ..., take over the city, and safeguard Sukarno.

Comments from SchroCat

The following are merely suggestions, so take on board or ignore as you see fit. I've made a few small edits: feel free to revert if you don't like them.

Lead

  • "preempt": depends what variety of English this is in. If it's BrEng, then it's pre-empt. US is "preempt", and I have no idea about the other versions used in SingEng, AusEng, IndEng etc!
  • "the film has seen reduced use": seems odd to "use" a film, but I know where you're coming from. Would "reduced viewings" work, or are you thinking "use" as method of propaganda?
  • Think you may need to re-tweak this as it now reads: "such of the film has become less common"

Production

  • "was written based on a 1968 book": written is superfluous, I think

Only those few bits from me: very nice article indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: all happy with this and glad to put my name to a support. - SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Because this article is Indonesia theme, I say support, I like this!Hanamanteo (talk) 14:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (fair-use for identification, tweaked PD-USGov-DOD, CC German Federal Archive). Sources and authors provided. Two nitpicks:

  • None, the focus is on "this is Nasution". Our other pictures of him were pretty bad when I wrote this, but apparently we have this now (which is a very nice find) so I've changed the image (and the caption).. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the underlying source is obviously the VCD cover itself, rather than any photographer, the person who created the scan does not affect its copyright. As such, I don't think we need a different source. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suharto's—very minor this, and you can ignore it. I prefer to link as Suharto's to avoid the colour change
  • The Thirtieth of September Movement abbreviated as G30S —why is the abbreviation half Indonesian Gerakan and half English September?
  • In the linked article, it gives the alternative Gestok, for Gerakan 1 October, First of October Movement —why the confusion about the date?
  • The night of 30 September–1 October, bordering midnight; I'm fairly certain that's why both terms have popped. Here I've used G30S the whole time as that's the term the film uses, although I could add a bit about Gestok/Gerakan Satu Oktober to a footnote.
  • Kayam and Katamsi retook their roles for the latter film, —"reprised" seems more natural
  • its version of the 1965 events was the only allowed in open discourse. —word missing?
  • chatboard—I'd expect either chatroom or message board, is this a real word?
  • Double checked source; it's supposed to be mailing list, so changed.
  • No worries! They are all very similar, but only April, September, and (in the formal orthography) November are the exact same (a variant spelling is Nopember, as many Indonesians have trouble pronouncing "f" or "v"). Thanks again for the review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for running time?
  • Foreign-language sources should be identified as such - eg Barker
Done, only one instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Film come before Fathiyah?
  • Location for Ricklefs?
  • Check location formatting for Sen 1994
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [27].[reply]

Kwinana Freeway

[edit]
Nominator(s): Evad37 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the FA criteria. This is my first nomination at FAC, and the first Australian road to be nominated at FAC. The article has recently passed an A-Class Review at WikiProject Highways. - Evad37 (talk) 04:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC own work, extensive check done during ACR). GermanJoe (talk) 07:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I am the third to have reviewed this article at ACR, and I felt that the article met the criteria. Comment placed above those by Dr. Blofeld so as not to interrupt them. TCN7JM 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

[edit]
Its part of the actual name. If anything the capitalisation of Wetlands should possibly be dropped. (ie. The Spectacles wetlands). See: The Spectacles, Western Australia -- Nbound (talk)
Ah I see, well something doesn't look right, maybe it is the capitalization of Wetlands!♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Spectacles Wetlands" is the actual name, see for example [28] - Evad37 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I did have a feeling that might be the case.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • megalitres -can you link (I wanted to check the size).
    Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delink Murdoch railway station in the future section per OVERLINK.
    Done - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would be nice to see more book sources used for the article, but I understand that for roads there may be a distinct lack of sources which cover the road in detail. However sources such as [29] and [30] I think indicate that extensive studies of the environmental impacts of the building of the freeway have been conducted, given that much of it is swampland and water habitat. I'd expect such an article to have a comprehensive section on Environmental impact. If you live in Perth, perhaps you might be able to find such sources in the library?
    There seems to be various sources available in the State Library of Western Australia. Might have to wait until next weekend, but I'll see if I have time to go before then. - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks in great shape to me, await your response on my suggestions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a few quick changes now, and will take another look tomorrow my time (UTC+8) - Evad37 (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some more done, more to attend to later - Evad37 (talk) 09:23, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's great thanks, thanks for addressing the points. If you could find those sources in the Perth library and try to add something on environmental impact of the road this would be the icing on the cake.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've started drafting a section on the environmental impact at User:Evad37/Sandbox 7, but it looks like I'll need another trip to the library / additional sources - Evad37 (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done: Environmental impact section added to article – though it will no doubt need a bit of copyediting - Evad37 (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great job, really appreciate the lengths you've gone to here to research it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The speed limit is 100 kilometres per hour (60 mph) north of Safety Bay Road and 110 km/h (70 mph) to the south. - km/h unabbreviated then abbreviated...any reason they are not formatted the same?

Support - nothing else to complian about really....Hmm, looks in good shape otherwise. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed so that both are 'kilometres per hour' - Evad37 (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness

  • Source for the interchanges table?
  • FN2: suggest using at/loc parameter rather than pages
  • FN9 and similar: title should use endash not hyphen
  • FN12: formatting
  • FN47: don't need both retrieved and accessed date. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick question, but is the library location where the sources were accessed necessary? I could see indicating the library if we were citing an ancient manuscript whose content varies depending on which copy is consulted. Otherwise, I don't see the point. We make no requirements that the sources used in our articles are freely accessible on the Internet, free of charge to use, or even widely published, just that they be reliable sources that someone could access to verify the claims and information repeated in the article.
As a second note, some of the footnotes starting with FN47 seem to be of the CS2 style (uses commas for separators instead of only fullstops/periods) and not the CS1 style used in the rest of the article. There's inconsistency in how PDFs are indicated: some use "PDF", some use "pdf" and some are missing the format indicator completely. Since "PDF" is an abbreviation for "Portable Document Format", I should think it would follow the abbreviation rules of that dialect of English used by the article. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the footnotes per the above comments. The source for the table is the reference in the km column heading. I looked at a number of road FAs (chosen randomly from Category:FA-Class U.S. road transport articles) and they all used a single ref in the distance column heading. - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I'm concerned that the environmental impact section is a bit lengthy, giving undue weight to the matters... maybe consider trimming it a bit? --Rschen7754 05:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and the overall organization of the article could use a review as well. I'm tempted to say on first impression that the environmental impact section should be a third of its present size, and that it should be included in the history as historical events of the freeway's timeline. Additionally, the traffic volume table implies that there would be newer years' data listed by how it's formatted, yet only one period is listed, and it's 5–6 years old. I'm not overly fond of such detail on traffic counts, but I would think this should be part of the RD section, and not a separate heading slipped in after the two sections that treat the roadway chronologically and before a third that also discusses major historical events of the subject road. Consider my comments as "neutral", but leaning toward opposition. Imzadi 1979 → 06:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more with Dr.Blofield on this. I think the environmental section is great, though it might benefit from splitting into a couple of subsections -- Nbound (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone's saying that it is bad, it's just that it seems to have too much emphasis as-is. --Rschen7754 08:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I get that. But generally the EIS is the most substantial part of the road planning process, it generally involves the most in depth study, and its outcomes determine the final route the road may take. If the section was half the article or something that'd be a bit concerning in regards to likely being poorly summarised. But its a fair bit smaller than both the Route Description and general History sections, its also at the bottom of the article after all the other sections have had their say. Im a little confused as to how material that isnt challenged in its validity can receive undue weight in the context of the article. If the information is there, if its of consequence (which this clearly is) - then we should be covering it. At the very worst, if there is a perceived overemphasis on this, it could be summarised and the remainder moved to its own article - though that move seems a bit pointless at this stage as I wouldnt consider the article to be WP:TOOBIG - the secondary article would also need to retain a significant amount of information from the main one to provide context. -- Nbound (talk) 10:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re environmental impact section: The relevant policy is WP:BALASPS (part of WP:NPOV). The examples given there are "discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports". I don't think 'Environmental impact' is as insignificant as those examples, and Dr. Blofeld actually commented above that he'd "expect such an article to have a comprehensive section on Environmental impact". I'll take a look tomorrow, but I don't know if I can trim too much without either giving undue weight to one or more sections of the road, or losing significant detail.
Re traffic volume: I will be able to add some more years to the table - I have found another document online, and historical data seems to be available in the state library archives. The source currently used in the article seems to be the latest published data.
Re organisation: I agree that traffic volume makes more sense as part of route description, and environmental impact as part of history. At the moment I think they should retain their headings (as ===Level 3=== subheadings) and be subsections, but may reconsider tomorrow (it's starting to get a bit late over here). - Evad37 (talk) 16:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that traffic volume belongs under route description, and propose further discussion at Talk:Kwinana Freeway#Traffic volume as a subsection of Route description. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go at cutting down the length of the environmental impact section. I managed to reduce it by about 20%, but I'm not sure I'm entirely happy with it, so for the moment its in a sandbox. I intend to do more work on the article over the weekend. - Evad37 (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much to recommend (my initial comments were based on an impression from an initial skim of the article, so they could be subject to change), but I still have an issue with the article's organization. All of the EI stuff is historical details, it is not? Then why is it not integrated into the history section? As it stands at the moment, we have a TOC with the following sections in order:
  • Route description (and subsections)
  • History (past events treated chronologically)
  • Future (upcoming events treated chronologically)
  • Environmental impact (past planning studies and events, treated chronologically)
  • Interchanges (big table traditionally the last item before...)
  • See also, Notes, References, External links (aka the "end sections" of any article).
So we're bouncing a reader around from the past to the future and back into the past. It's verging on a FA criterion 2b failure on the current structure. Imzadi 1979 → 04:28, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are being very liberal with your interpretation of 2b ("appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents") there Imzadi1979. There is no requirement for absolute chronological order through all sections (and a quick browse of existing FAs can confirm that). It makes more sense to keep the article on the same topic per section or subsection rather than mixing everything into a wall of text. The same reason why the transitway section is currently separated. The same reason the shielding history is separated on other roads. Hell its the same reason all major articles contain more sections other than "Description", "History", and associated tables and charts . Are we really doubting the intelligence of the average reader so much that given a whole new section or subsection on a separate topic they cant comprehend a new timeline tailored to the topic at hand? *highly confused* -- Nbound (talk) 06:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After a further quick check, even some of your own FAs restart timelines in new sections for coverage of some subtopics. (Even: U.S. Route 23 in Michigan, currently an FAC - I think this is perfectly fine, but it shouldnt be by your own argument) -- Nbound (talk) 06:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC) (Modified- 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC))[reply]
But the overall organization is still to keep the by-chronology stuff together in my past works. There are times when one must backtrack when dealing with some complex histories to keep topics together. I never said there was an absolute requirement for chronology, however, it does require an "appropriate structure". Bouncing around the chronology when it can be kept together logically is not appropriate. The proper use of subheadings with creative use of photographs or other media eliminates the "wall of text", so that argument is a non-starter. See below for other related comments. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that some of the examples in your FAs could be integrated in much the same manner. As I said earlier checking any of the various other FAs will find plenty of chronology "bouncing". overriding topics are usually whats given precedence. If you prefer them combined together, then thats personal preference and it should be considered by the nom much like all our opinions. But its not an FA criterion, explicit or implied beyond its most basic level - which was the main reason I replied. -- Nbound (talk) 08:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

( For the convenience of any further reviewers, here are links to a version with EI as a separate section and a version with EI integrated into the history section. - Evad37 (talk) 06:36, 5 September 2013 (UTC) )[reply]

I personally think it looks better. The history section could use a few subheaders, but otherwise I have no further objections. --Rschen7754 06:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can do it that way, or you can move the EI as a subheading of the history, leaving the history section to be subdivided by topics. However, my point is that the EI is part of the road's history as a series of controversies and events in the past. Placing historical, or past, events after future events just comes out very disorganized, and betrays the fact that the section was written and added afterwards. Imzadi 1979 → 06:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—regarding the Interchanges section, I have a problem with some things.

  • Looking at the fourth line of the table (kilometer 2.98), is that interchange located over the boundary between South Perth and Como? If so, shouldn't that say it's on the "Como–South Perth boundary" (Substitute a different word for boundary; in the US I'd use "city line" or whatever works best.) The boundary shouldn't be implied with a comma, and it really should be explicitly implied with the dash and a descriptor. (The US highway FAs haven't always done this, but we're starting to change them to be more explicit about boundary locations.) I would suggest that all of the comma-ed locations need to be changed.
    Changed. Used boundary as that is how a government map [31] describes them. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the second line of the table, you have the same issue regarding the comma. However, I suggest a simpler solution. If the river is the border between Perth and South Perth, a better option would be to move the river to the location columns and set it so that it spans the two columns. This would be analogous to the Mackinac Bridge's entry on Interstate 75 in Michigan stating that it crosses the Straits of Mackinac. This should also be considered for the Mount Henry Bridge over the Canning River.
    Changed for both bridges. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Karnup Road interchange is missing a dash to separate the road from Serpentine (km 46.69–47.53)
    Fixed as obvious typo - Nbound (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (no prejudice against nominator reversion if required)[reply]
  • Why is the zero point only expressed to one decimal point (0.0) in the first line while the other distances are two DPs?
    Fixed as almost definitely uncontroversial change - Nbound (talk) 07:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) (no prejudice against nominator reversion if required)[reply]
    • Another quick thought, but I'd use the full shield + name formatting for the Mitchell Freeway as the destination in that line and split the "freeway terminus" part as a note in the notes column. Otherwise this one line looks a bit inconsistent with the rest of the table. At the opposite end of the table, I'd also use the Forrest Highway as a "destination" (since it is an option for Kwinana Freeway traffic at that location) and alter the note to just say "continues south as Forrest Highway" without the link or "State Route 2" because both would be in the destinations column.
Imzadi 1979 → 06:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Changed. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [32].[reply]

Eisenhower dollar

[edit]
Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because… I think it meets the criteria. The Eisenhower dollar was struck for only eight years, but it is a surprisingly complex story. My thanks to BrandonBigheart, and to the Eisenhower dollar collector society, the Ike Group, for images.Wehwalt (talk) 16:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now...Comments and image check from PSky
1) I checked the images during my GA review of this and all is still fine. For prose "force their use by US military personnel" has no periods in "US" but the rest of the article does for that abbreviation.
2) Under sources, your italicizing and formatting of newspaper sources isn't consistent. In some the city is in italics, in others it's the newspaper (which is correct), in some you use the location parameter, in some not--in those location is in the newspaper line. This should be consistent. I'd suggest not manually italicizing things, let the template do it, put the cities in a location line. I agree the New York does not need a location line. See especially Bend, Oregon, Oxnard, CA, and Toledo, OH. PumpkinSky talk 01:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are now done, thanks again for reviewing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn't catch this before, but states are not consistent, you have: Ga, Calif, N.H., etc and your "other sources" don't seem to be in a discernible pattern, such as alphabetical order by name then title if no author or whatever.PumpkinSky talk 01:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are standard in that they us abbreviations with a period, rather than the two letter postal abbreviations. The other sources are alphabetical by first significant letter of the publication's name.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wehwalt has standardized them as postal codes. Support now. Excellent work!PumpkinSky talk 02:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Someone once objected to the use of the postal abbreviations, don't recall why. They are fairly universal and I'll just use them in future until someone else objects.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Refs 38 and 48: Is "Toledo" part of the newspaper's title? From the ext link it appears to be called The Blade. (Note different format ref 15 The Bulletin)
  • Ref 64 is a p. not a pp.

Nothing else I can see; all sources look sound. Some general comments to follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did it that way is that there are, I am told, two prominent newspapers of gay interest known for short as the Blade. I will place Toledo outside the quote marks. Thank you for doing the sources review. I will change the other one as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General comments: I am just about old enough to remember Ike, not as president but as an elder statesman by then beyond criticism, a golf-playing symbol of American decency. Maybe I was misled, but I'm glad he got a coin. This is my first look at the article, which looks on the face of it as well-prepared as the others in this ongoing series. A few comments, more to follow (I'm half way through):

  • There's an unfortunate homonymic effect in the lead, from: "...since the Peace dollar series ended in 1935. The piece depicts..."
  • I don't know about AmEng, but we lost the hyphen in "reintroduce" many moons ago
  • I can't understand: "coins of that metal were replaced with copper-nickel clad pieces beginning in 1965, but no dollar coins were initially struck in the new composition". If none of the new kind were struck, then surely the old kind were not replaced?
  • Do we need to have the information about the different compositions for circulation and collectors in both the first and the second paragraphs of the lead?
  • "The new pieces were intended to be used at Nevada casinos and elsewhere in the West where "hard money" was popular." That reads as though the casino usage was almost the only reason for minting the coins, surely not the intention?
I think some people saw the silver dollar as symbolic, it's why there was such a fuss about the metallic composition. But as a practical matter, yes, casinos were the only use for the silver dollar (both in the slot machines and, judging by the James Bond books, as a one-dollar chip. A one-dollar coin has never successfully circulated in the United States. Ever. Even before there was a one-dollar bill to compete.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uneasy with the encyclopedic character of the formulation: "Stated Idaho Senator James McClure" – it smacks of journalism. "Idaho Senator James McClure stated:" would be more orthodox
  • "it was blocked in the House by Representative Patman" - can a single Representative thwart the will of Congress, just like that?
He would not allow his committee to vote on and report the bill, and if no one who was more powerful cared to push him ...
  • "On June 19, 1945, Gasparro was one of more than 4,000,000 people..." - "was" → "had been"
  • I think the parenthetical "as he was then" is pretty well redundant. You have already described Eisenhower as "a former World War II general"
  • "he was instructed to have the layout of the obverse be similar to that of the Washington quarter". Reads clumsily (the intrusive "be", I think). Perhaps "he was instructed to make the layout of the obverse similar to that of the Washington quarter."?
  • "At Congress's insistence, he created..." "He" needs identifying.
  • Close repetition of "created" in "...created a design in commemoration of the Apollo XI lunar landing, based on the mission patch created by astronaut Michael Collins and others."
  • "Collins' mission patch had initially been opposed by some government officials..." Presumably its the use of Collins's patch that was opposed?
  • I've not read a lot about Eisenhower but I rather have the impression that he was noted for his genial image, rather than his actual geniality, that he had in fact little patience and a short fuse – but it might depend on whom you read.
I've taken out the word "his", so "noted for geniality". It's the opinion of the critics, who are biased or they wouldn't complain, I daresay.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rest tomorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is (not much):

  • "there was enough public demand that many banks imposed a limit of one coin per customer" - I find the choice of "enough" a little odd, when the sense is "so much"
  • "about 70% of them" - "them" needs clarifying
  • "11,000,000" and "seven million" in the same sentence. I believe in such circumstances MOS suggests consistency in format.
  • "Bicentennial issue" section: the word "Bicentennial occurs 5 times in the first two lines of the second paragraph. Some of the repetition, e.g. "the issuance of a special half dollar for the Bicentennial, and subsequently the committee sought the redesign of circulating American coins for the Bicentennial" looks easily avoidable.
  • A question of wording: "introducing his own legislation, the Susan B. Anthony Dollar Act of 1978". Surely legislation cannot be introduced in the form of an Act? An "Act" is what the legislation becomes after it has been signed into law.
  • The use of the slightly pejorative term "women's lib", in quotes, reads rather dismissively. Why not just "women's rights", without the quotes? To avoid further repetition, Susan B Anthony could be described as a "feminist leader".
I think it's OK to use the contemporary term. I'm not aware that it was derogatory.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the UK, certainly, whatever its history the term is now used by those uninterested in women's rights as a definite put-down, the subtext being "what a load of nonsense". The nuances may be different in the US. I'd favour a change, but it's not a deal-breaking issue. Brianboulton (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two different Las Vegas blackjack dealers." The word "different" is redundant
  • The term "Business strikes" has not been used prior to the mintage figures at the end. What does it mean?

Brianboulton (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. I shall attempt to get through these today.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've caught every thing.
Thank you most kindly for the review and support, I know I've kept you busy lately. On the Woman's Lib issue, I'd be grateful for comments by other reviewers. To me, it just evokes Bella Abzug and Maude and folded more or less gracefully into the modern-day feminist movement during the lean years of the Eighties.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
No, it's just a page about the coin run by Coin World. No page numbers. Thanks for the review and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Blackwater fire of 1937

[edit]
Nominator(s): MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly new article that has had a DYK entry and a just recently completed a comprehensive Peer Review here. This forest fire was small but deadly, resulting in one of the worst losses of firefighters in U.S. history. I have searched for all the information I could find to make it as comprehensive as possible and I'm looking for community feedback to bring the article to featured level. Thanks! MONGO 03:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu

[edit]
  • August 18 (lead) vs. August 21 (infobox)?
    Was debating this since the fire started on the 18th but the fatalities were on the 21st...but changed to 18th...MONGO
Clearly, the date should be that of the fire start. A possible end date could be August 24–31 since it's believed that the fire was suppressed completely somewhere in that week, no? Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add United States after Cody, Wyoming. Do the same in the infobox (replacing "U.S.")
    Done...MONGO
  • I don't like the coordinates being show at the top of the page and simultaneously in the infobox. I'd leave it only in the infobox, since there it is clearly contextualized as the site where the fire occurred.
    Done...MONGO
  • 6 percent → six percent
    MOSNUM...Percentages are usually written with figures..see [34]...MONGO
You're right, I didn't check that. Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with one result being the development..." → "... one of them being the development..."
    Good idea...adopted...MONGO
  • "... were developed in 1957 for firefighters to use when combating fires." It's an expected use for a standard firefighting guide.
    I was trying to make it clear that the handbook was for use in the field...I'll try and reword this. The guidelines are actually on a placard that was wallet sized so they are quickly referenced on the job. Give me a day or so to figure out the best way to phrase this.
    Have rephrased this and added a comment to make this clearer...MONGO
  • (Note: take this merely as a suggestion) In terms of section structure, I think you could group them in three major sections: the first containing "Geography" and "Early 20th-century firefighting" (under a name which I can't come up with yet; don't know if "Background" would be appropriate...), the second comprising all the events from the beginning to the end of the fire ("Firefighter deployment", "Firefighters trapped by shift in firelines" and "Recovery") and the third would remain as the "Aftermath" section.
  • "The firestorm deaths were occurred on the west slopes of Clayton Mountain."
    Done...MONGO
  • "... which also had dead limbs which extendeding to the ground and providing a fuel ladder..."
    Done...MONGO
  • There is an instance of "wildfire suppression" before the one that is actually linked.
    Done...nice catch...MONGO
  • "embers" should link to Ember, not Embers.
    Done...MONGO
  • Actually, "Recovery" as section title sounds a bit vague and unclear. It needs a title that encompasses not only the body recovery but also the fire supression.
    As part of your suggestion to restructure the sections, I'll look this over the next couple days...MONGO
  • "... a limited number of firefighters at the fire site until August 31." – The fire had been suppressed at this point, right?
    The fire was controlled and contained but was still smoldering for a week after the fatalities...but added site as that makes it less ambiguous...MONGO
  • "All those that died..." – The deceased firefighters?
    I reworded the sentences to make this clearer...MONGO
  • Remove the {{clear}} template as it creates too much blank space. If it's because the Clayton Gulch image doesn't cross into the next section, you can move the memorial image to the left, before the second paragraph.
    Done...the section was expand since that template was placed there. Thanks...MONGO
  • "... the fire wasn't contained enough..." – was not
    Automated Peer Review mentioned this and until you found it I couldn't see it. I read through the article several times and missed it each time. Now corrected...MONGO
A simple browser search sufficed. :) Parutakupiu (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second image needs a period at the end of the caption (full sentence).
    Done...good catch...MONGO

— Parutakupiu (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see you have renamed the "Aftermath" section. While you could keep the new title, I think that you could recover "Aftermath" as the name of a top-level section that would nest the new "Fire investigation and results" but also another sub-section that includes the last paragraph on the memorials (maybe named "Memorials"?), which don't fit so well with the preceding content. Parutakupiu (talk) 22:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added new headings to better break up the article into sections...it looks more organized now but the headings may need words tweaked for clarity.....MONGO
  • "Geographical setting and fauna" reads better than just a vague "Geography", but I would take out 'fauna' from it, since geography (at least, physical geography) tends to include that part.
  • I don't think you need a separate sub-section to describe how the dry front changed the wind strength and direction, particularly when the heading is so long and reads as a full sentence, as "Dry front causes wind to change direction" does. Moreover, the pivotal firestorm that is fueled by those phenomena is only mentioned in the following sub-section. Hence, I think it would look better if you put this part back under "Firefighters trapped by firestorm".
  • You nested "Rescue and body recovery" under "Aftermath" but I think it should belong in the previous section.
— Parutakupiu (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did all the wise suggestions on headings you suggested here except the last one...still vacillating on it....MONGO
My rationale is that the rescue attempt was done while the fire was still active (although the firestorm had already passed). That's why I wouldn't put that section under "Aftermath". Parutakupiu (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me...consider it done....MONGO

Support. After you addressed Quadell's very pertinent comments, I made another read and made some edits myself, but the article was already in shape for promotion. One last and tiny suggestion is to move the Clayton Gulch image a bit up (maybe at the start of the "Firefighters trapped by firestorm" section) so it's not packed into the memorial image. Good work. Parutakupiu (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the time you've spent helping with some copyediting and for reviewing this FAC. I moved the Clayton Gulch image up one section and shifted the last image to left margin....seems to balance the article well that way.--MONGO 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Quadell

[edit]
Resolved issues
  • Image check: All images are legitimately free with accurate image description pages. I added a Commons category for them. The images are used appropriately, and the captions are informative.
    Thanks...MONGO
  • The article commonly refers to "U.S. Routes 14/16/20" or "Highway 14/16/20". Is this the correct way to refer to the combined route? (Is there a standard way?)
    Not positive what the standard is...the routes follow the same road through that valley but possibly combine at either end of the gorge....one ends at Yellowstone at least. I standardized them to U.S. Routes as that's what they are....MONGO
    Great. Unless someone knows of a more standard way of referring to this, I'm content that the notation is internally consistent. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also: Is there a reason why some deadly fires are listed here and others are not? What are the criteria? Also, why does one have a text description (with an em-dash) and the others do not?
    The section was longer but several other fires were mentioned in the article, linked and then removed. The descriptive additions were removed except for the one in Russia....I'm going to make adjustments here...MONGO
    Just reduced to one see also link....MONGO
  • Since the lede should summarize material in the body of the article, there is usually no need to cite statements in the lede. Except for direct quotes or contentious statements, it's usually better to cite the statement where it appears in the body, but not in the lede. So the development of the smokejumper program should be described and sourced in the body, but not sourced in the lede. Other than that detail, the lede seems appropriate to me.
    I rarely do place refs in the lede and only did so thus time because someone at one point said that this matter seemed like a stretch. It's now removed...MONGO
  • In my opinion, the entire date range should be in the infobox, not just the day it started. Also, the fire consumed 1,700 acres of forest, but the coordinates in the infobox indicate a specific region approximately 100 feet by 100 feet.
    Date ranges are ambiguous....while it's firm that the fire started on the 18th sources deviate on the full containment of the fire, with one saying the 24th yet another stating that firefighters remained at the fire site due to possible flareups until the 31st....so not sure what the span should be. I have to look at the map issue you mention...the coordinates should point to the origination point of the fire but that isn't clear so I thought I tried to put it about center where the fire burned....MONGO
    As for the date range, I'm not an expert on dash-issues, but shouldn't that be "18–24", rather than "18 - 24"? Speaking of which, your dashes in the references are inconsistent. (Seems like a ridiculously trivial issue, but FAC folks are always picky about it...) – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above are minor issues. But more importantly, there seem to be some problems with the sourcing.
    • Several statements are not sourced at all (like the final sentences of several paragraphs).
      Sourcing is much improved. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In other cases, only a small amount of the factual content in the article is adequately covered in the sources. 8a sources three sentences, and the first sentence is supported, but the source does not mention portable water pumps, backpack pumps, firelines, shovels, pulaskis, etc.
      This specific situation has been thoroughly fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • For 10b, the dates are supported but the size estimates are not.
      Added a reference to support the rest of the sentence...MONGO
      Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 15a seems to support three sentences. The source covers wind-driven embers and backpack water pumps, but does not mention the estimates of 200 firefighters and 500 acres, for instance.
      Fixed. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 17a either covers one sentence (and the final sentence of the previous paragraph needs a source), or it covers both sentences. But either way, the source does not mention an 8th firefighter dying at the hospital, USFS or BPR employees... and it seems to indicate that 45 were led up (since 5 ran and 40 stayed).
      This has not been fixed, and is still an issue. – Quadell (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      To amended this since it doesn't seem clear exactly how many firefighters Post led up the ridge, I simply added more than. It appears from the reference that 37 men stayed on the ridge, but I don't know if that includes Post and the other two managers in that total and that 5 ran off the ridge, so its still somewhere over 40 thereabouts....MONGO
    • To be clear, many citations (1, 5, 8b and c and d, 10 a and c, 15 b and c) fully support the statements. I never encountered any plagiarism, and I don't think the article just makes anything up. But I do think someone needs to go through the entire article and carefully compare the statements made to the statements in the sources, to make sure that the claims can be checked. Anything not correctly sourced needs to be sourced or removed.
      I am not able to open the pdf files..well a few open but not all..so I either have to see whats up with my system or find new sources...if I can't use these sources, I'll have to pull the nomination. I added a notes section to help clarify things some...MONGO
      Showing connection timeout...will try to work on in next few days....--MONGO 23:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't have any problems with any that I tried. A lot of them are .gov so maybe archive in commons? If you have a specific one let me know. --DHeyward (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks like it's fine now....will address Quadell'concerns over the next few days.--MONGO 15:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      Working on more referencing and double checking for accuracy...trying to find more references rather than simply use the existing cites I have....MONGO
      Great. Let me know when you think it's ready for another look-over. – Quadell (talk) 11:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I've made some adjustments to the facts, rechecked and added sources and added a Notes section to clarify things that needed to be clarified but are not specific to the article....MONGO
  • I have some more minor concerns. Repeated footnotes (such as citing reference [5] three times in a row at the end of the "Initial attack" section) are usually unnecessary and distracting. In most cases, the reader can assume that a reference footnote covers all statements that come before it, up until the most recent other footnote. There are exceptions: if a direct quote is given, or a particularly unexpected or controversial claim is made, it may be necessary to use the same footnote twice in a row. But in most cases, it crowds the text without providing any new information to the reader. You should cut all instances of this where it isn't needed.
    Due to the span of information that is gleamed from some sources, I still have some of the references in series, but tried to not have one after every single sentence....MONGO
  • I like the new footnoting, but I think footnotes [a] and [b] should be combined.
    Done....MONGO
  • I think you mean "The Blackwater fire killed more wildland firefighters than any other in the U.S. in the 103 years...
    Done....MONGO
  • This could just reflect my ignorance of wildfire terminology, but... is "Initial attack" correct? Is that a technical term, or are you saying that the firefighters were metaphorically "attacking" the fire? If it's the latter, it seems like there should be a more formal way of putting it.
    Initial Attack is the correct terminology....it could be renamed....MONGO
    I renamed the section...MONGO
  • Similar to previous issues, footnote 25 ("Deadliest incidents...") supports the "tied for fourth" claim, but does not support the info about injuries or place of death. So the sentence ending "...and other complications" is still unsourced. Once a source is added for that sentence, it would be better to move reference [25] to the end of the paragraph, since footnote [d] uses the same source.
    A source could be added....MONGO
    Added reference and adjusted placement of reference mentioned..I left the same reference for the footnote so it can be checked if anyone looks at the footnote....MONGO
  • Footnote 11 references a nine-page PDF, but does not provide page numbers. From what I can tell, the source supports the claim that standardization was developed in 1951, but not that it was in response to the Mann Gulch fire, and it also does not support the previous sentence describing why the 10 am rule existed. This appears to be another case where a source was added to a section due to the fact that some of the claims are supported, without taking care that all of the statements are supported.
    I broke the pdf into several different refs to allow for page notation. removed the issue about the Mann Gulch Fire being part of the decison making which led to the policy changes as I couldn't easily cite that. Added two references regarding the 10 am rule...my wording is a summary of a long debate on this matter...MONGO
    Page numbers added...MONGO
    Better sourcing could be done here....I've tried to find live versions of information so that a click of the mouse takes one directly to the info as much as feasible....adding the page of a pdf is not hard to do if necessary. I think my effort to provide direct links via urls to journals far exceeds useless book pages that have no links and makes it almost impossible for some reviewers to know for sure if the information is accurate or plagerized or whatever....I've written 10 featured articles and this one is the toughest to source since it was a minor historical event and happened 75 years ago....MONGO

Oppose. Although the prose is very good and I am confident the article is accurate, I still find that the sourcing is not up to FAC-standards. The nominator has made dramatic improvements to the sourcing and has also adding information and improved the article organization, and this should be commended, but it has not fixed all the problems identified. Checking for sourcing issues -- such as looking through long, unsearchable PDFs to see if all statements are supported -- is very labor intensive and frankly not much fun, and I'm personally not interested in going through a repeated cycle of thorough check, nominator improvements, thorough check, etc. If someone spends the time to thoroughly fix all sourcing concerns, and can be 100% confident that all issues are resolved, then I'll re-examine if it's renominated in the future. But out of respect for the efforts of reviewers, the sourcing of statements needs to be meticulous before nominating, or else thoroughly fixed on the first go-around, in my opinion. – Quadell (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not make it clear that I FELT that I was done with the sourcing issues you had mentioned...I have had a busy week at work ans planned on doing the full cleanup over the weekend. All I have done since you started your review are mainly minor adjustments so that the main effort for the weekend would have been to fully address your suggestions.....MONGO
As a footnote to my last comment....you initiated your review 4 days ago...I've done what I could in my limited time during the week.--MONGO 16:47, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, great. Did I misunderstand your comment? In that case, I suppose I jumped the gun. That's frustrating...
I want to be fair. You have not been dragging your feet, but have been responding quickly to issues. Once you're sure the sourcing is thorough, let me know, and I'll give it one more go-over. – Quadell (talk) 17:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just been only able to access my desktop one evening in the last 4....I should have been clear about what stage I felt I was at as far as sourcing. This isn't an easy task due to the only modest level of referencing available and I confess that due to my first hand knowledge and background in firefighting, I may assume that others have my level of experience and therefore fail to provide adequate sourcing for some issues....you can assume that by Monday morning I will have done all I can to get the article statement backed up by as good and as detailed referencing as is available.--MONGO 18:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have addressed your concerns...many references were split up to incorporate page numbers, some url's were added to the book references to help double check facts, some wording was tweaked to more accurately reflect what the sources claim and several more sources were added to better backup the information...a snapshot of the diffs covering the period since you last looked at the article is here...I've double even triple checked the statements in the article against what the sources provide and it appears consistant. Ran citation bot to clean up dashes and url issues...--MONGO 00:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll go over it all in the next day or two. – Quadell (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is now complete and reliable. Well done. In addition, the prose is very good and the lede is excellent. I've reread the entire article and looked through the sourcing, and can find no omissions or unclear bits.
  • In "Aftermath", you mention changes to firefighting procedures in 1957 and 1987. Do you think it's worth mentioning that the 10 AM rule was effectively done away with in 1977? (That's according to your "EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT POLICY" link.) It's not strictly speaking a part of this fire's aftermath, but the 10 AM rule was pretty disastrous here. This is not a requirement, but just a possibility to consider.
    That is an excellent point that I will notate in the article...I didn't want to stray too far off the subject of the fire itself aside from setting up the issues of what it was like to combat fires back then but this issue does need to be addressed.....MONGO

Support. This article is worthy of being featured. – Quadell (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now....Comments from PSky
Images this is my only concern here. All the images have the same issue: File:Blackwater fire 1.jpg, File:Blackwater firefighters 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire 2.jpg, File:Clayton Gluch 1937.jpg, File:Blackwater fire memorial.jpg. They each have two issues: the licenses should be "PD-USGov-USDA-FS", not USDA because it's more specific and they all say they are Forest Service and they are all dated 2013, Upload dates I guess, but Template:Information says it should be the original creation date not some other date. PumpkinSky talk 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added dates as best I could...two are only the year. The dedication ceremony was on the second anniversary of the deaths. Added the license you pointed out...thank you!--MONGO 23:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added my support PumpkinSky talk 14:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for contributing to the discussion.--MONGO 15:07, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:06, 16 September 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Carolina Panthers

[edit]
Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I have worked a great deal on this article and think it is ready to go up against the featured article criteria. The Carolina Panthers are one of the more recent teams in the NFL, but have established themselves as the main sports team in Charlotte and the Carolinas. The height of the team's success was perhaps the 2003 season, when the team made it to the Super Bowl, but the team has made the playoffs three other times. They are currently in rebuilding mode, and have not made the playoffs since 2008. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • All win–loss records should have en dashes in them per the Manual of Style. I see a few without them in the lead, and there are probably others elsewhere.
  • Team history: "The Panthers began play in 1995, their first season." Don't need anything after the comma; if they began play that year, then it must have been their first season.
  • Redundancy here: "The Panthers defense was the second-best defense...".
  • Don't need two Super Bowl links here.
  • Logo and uniforms: The period before ref 7 should be removed. When combined with the exclamation point, there's currently double punctuation there.
  • Stadium and practice facilities: The spaced em dash here goes against the MoS, it should either be unspaced or turned into a spaced en dash.
  • In a couple of cases here, the last word of "Bank of America stadium" should be capitalized.
  • The all caps in ref 17 should be removed.
  • The red link in ref 68 can be fixed by taking out the first word of The Tampa Bay Times. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of these issues should be corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 02:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ownership and administration: More en dashes needed for records here.
    • "led the team from 2002 to 2010 and coaches the team to three playoff appearances." "coaches" → "coached".
    • Reference 33 needs a publisher (Carolina Panthers).
    • The publisher of ref 29 should be italicized as a print publication. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:42, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All issues are fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 00:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional support – I've been keeping an eye on how this FAC has progressed, since I found relatively few issues during my review and wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a bunch of things. At this point, I'm confident that the article meets the FA criteria, and the only thing missing is a source spot-check. Once that is done, please consider this a full support. Nice job on a topic that is inherently difficult to get to FA status. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The team hired New York Giants defensive coordinator John Fox to replace Capers - "Seifert" here?
The team's ownership is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family, who own 48% of the team; the remainder of the team is owned by a group of 14 limited partners. - ungainly sentence. What about "Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team; the remainder is held by a group of 14 limited partners."
The Panthers began play in 1995. - sounds really odd to my ears - unless this is an American term, I'd say "first competed" or something.
Look for examples where a word is repeated in the one sentence and try to rephrase - there are a couple of others.

I need to read through this again. Looking promising but prose could do with some smoothing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - have a look at what I am doing like this and double check if I have accidentally changed the meaning. I will look a bit more but juggling words so you can get away with less repetition and make the prose tighter and more interesting to read is what is needed now. Not being hugely familiar with NFL I am not too confident on comprehensiveness but cannot see any glaring content deficits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)
Looks fine to me, except that I changed the term 'home ground' back to 'stadium'. It's a bit confusing, but in American football what might be called a 'home ground' in other sports is called a 'stadium'; since this article is in American English, American terminology should probably be used (similar to how if I were editing an article on, say, Australian rules football, I would have to use Australian terminology like 'home ground' and the like). Other than that it looks great. :) Toa Nidhiki05 01:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are alot of Panthers in para 3 of Team history - try to come up with ways of reducing them without losing meaning. better
sans Delhomme - hmmm, possibly a little too casual for FA - might want to reword....
''the new logo was designed to modernize their old logo -ummm, can't modernise the old logo as it's been superceded..? Reword - modernise the brand?
I'd link anthropomorphic
(Not surprisingly) there are alotta "Rivalries" in the Rivalries section - see if you can rephrase to reduce...this might be tricky....


Comments from Resolute
Resolved issues
*In the second paragraph of the lead, the transition from on-field performance to ownership is rather jarring. The ownership and coaching stuff might be better in the first paragraph, and would transition nicely from the Forbes estimated value of the franchise.
  • Related to Cas Liber's point on redundancy above, the third paragraph could open with "The team is headquartered and plays out of Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte."
  • "The team managed only a 7–9 finish in 1997 and slipped to 4–12 in 1998, leading to the firing of Capers as the team's head coach." - you could eliminate the redundant use of "the team" by ending the sentence with "...leading to Capers' dismissal as head coach."
  • "The Panthers hired former San Francisco 49ers coach George Seifert to replace Capers, and he led the team to an 8–8 record in 1999, his first season." - "his first season" is unnecessary, since the rest of the sentence makes it clear that this was his first year as head coach.
  • I'm not sure how relevant this is, so will leave it to you to decide, but the Panthers' 1-15 season would have tied an NFL record for losses at the time. Do you believe that is worth noting? (The Lions, of course subsequently broke that record).
  • The paragraph that begins with the hiring of John Fox has an inordinate number of sentences that begin with "The Panthers..." or "(Although) The team..." Could some variation be added here? One suggestion: "Following a 1–7 start, the Panthers rebounded to win six of their last seven games."
  • "In 2010, after releasing Delhomme pre-season, the Panthers recorded the worst record in the league that season (2–14) and had the worst offense in the NFL during the season." - strike "during the season", it's unnecessary.
  • "The team is allowed to use the blue jersey two times in any given season, as NFL regulations prevent teams from using alternate jerseys in more than two games." - Seems redundant and unnecessarily long. Perhaps: "The team is allowed to use the blue jersey two times in any given season, as per NFL regulations."
  • "In their first year of play, the Panthers played at Memorial Stadium in Clemson, South Carolina, as the Panthers stadium in uptown Charlotte was still under construction." - Strike the second use of "the Panthers". Replace with something like "...as their stadium in uptown Charlotte..."
  • "Ericsson Stadium, now called Bank of America Stadium, opened in summer 1996" - I would suggest moving the wikilink: "Ericsson Stadium, now called Bank of America Stadium, opened in summer 1996." Also, my MOS on this point is hazy, but would "in the summer of 1996" be preferable?
  • "The stadium was privately financed by the Panthers,[5] with the Panthers paying $248 million for the stadium construction and Charlotte paying $60 million for..." - Consider rewording: "The stadium was primarily financed by the Panthers;[5] they paid $248 million for the stadium construction and the city of Charlotte paid $60 million for..."
  • "The money will go to build escalators to help fans reach the stadium's upper deck, to buy new video boards for the stadium, and to improve the stadium's sound system." - so much stadium! How about "The money will go to build escalators to help fans reach the stadium's upper deck, to buy new video boards and to improve the sound system."?
  • It continues with the next two sentences. Perhaps "...one of the few teams in the NFL to own their stadium" could change to "...one of the few teams in the NFL to own their own facility", just to add some variety.
  • You don't need to state twice that Scott Jagow's comments about the Panthers' culture came in 2004.
  • Four mentions of "South Carolina" in one sentence is a lot much. You could remove one by noting that Haley declared "Carolina Panthers Day" in her state.
  • You note twice that Panthers Talk is broadcast on the team's radio network.
  • You note that the team's flagship TV station is WCCB, then mention Fox's WJZY, then refer to "the network". I am lost as to whether "the network" refers to Fox, or the Panthers' TV network. I think the former, but am not sure. Also, channel numbers for each station will be meaningless to most readers. But if you decide to keep them, you've left an open bracket for the WCNC-TV link.
  • "The Panthers rivalry with Tampa Bay is perhaps the most heated rivalry in the NFC South." - reads as opinion. I'd like to see a citation or two immediately after this sentence.
  • The single transition of McCormack to Mark Richardson as team president invokes the year 1997 three times. Too much redundancy. You also mention that Richardson resigned three times in three consecutive sentences.

There's a fair bit of prose concern given how many words or phrases are used redundantly. I have mentioned most that I have seen above, but there may be more. Still needs a little smoothing. I will let you go over these comments, then if I have time (and inclination), might take a second pass of my own. Thanks, Resolute 00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, those are resolved. I still want to take a second pass and take a quick look at sources, etc. before I give a final view. Prolly in a day or two. Resolute 22:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me. :) Toa Nidhiki05 23:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reading through again and doing a copyedit myself. Please make sure I didn't alter any intended meanings, particularly in the Television section. Further comments:

  • I don't really like the "wine and cheese" bit in the lead. It's a colloquialism and the lead does not properly explain why the number of transplants is important. It also joins two statements that are kept separate in the Culture section.
  • What made the 2003 SB the "Greatest Super Bowl of all time"?
  • I am unclear on the point of note A. How does the existence of a 53-man active roster relate to 14 players suffering season-ending injuries?
  • Spot check of about 15 references revealed no concerns.
  • On Refs 19 and 20 - "Page 2" is the name of the column, not of the article you are citing. Please add their article titles
  • Ref 38 uses "Charlotte Observer.com" as its work, but other references for this paper use "The Charlotte Observer".
  • Ref 52, USA Today should be italicized
  • Are Refs 71 and 76 affiliated with the Charlotte Observer? It looks like a columnist's personal blog.
  • Images require alt text.

That's it for my second pass. Resolute 23:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have fixed all of your issues; I've fixed one minor error that was made in the 'Television' section. Toa Nidhiki05 00:49, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK, see comments below (fair-use, own work, PD-textlogo, PD-US Air force). Sources and authors provided.

  • File:NFCS-Uniform-CAR.PNG - note: this file is under review for WP:NFCC at [[36]] and may or may not be deleted as result. As it shows no copyrighted logo and has a legitimate FUR for identification, it should be OK here. Either way, i don't think this nomination needs to wait for the result, it is handled in a separate review.
  • Various Panthers textlogos - OK within the more lenient US threshold of originality.
  • File:Carolina_Panthers_logo.svg - fair-use for old logo is OK. Can't be described as text and is an important detail of the team's history.
  • Please fix the FUR in the image summary, it states, that this logo is "currently in use" by the team.
Thanks for the image check; I have made the fix you request on the old logo. Toa Nidhiki05 15:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- While consensus is leaning towards promotion, reviews and support have still been a bit light on given the nom has been open six weeks. I'm prepared to leave open a bit longer but it really does need some more eyes on it to get the nod... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do you have any advice on getting more comments? I've already posted to the relevant WikiProjects as soon as this was opened.

Comments Support – I conducted this article's GA review, and Toa has asked me to contribute to this review. I'll add any points as I read though the article.

  • I wonder whether the lead could be improved by a simple rearrangement. I'd be surprised many people would care that the name in Panthers Football, LLC. I would recomment moving this second and third sentence until after the history section. This is a minor point, but I believe it'd improve the article.
  • I would recommend using {{Win-loss record}} for the win-loss records. For someone unfamiliar with North American sport (or even sport in general), saying a team finished "7–9 in 1995" is a bit meaningless. Not sure if the convention is to use the template in the first instance, or throughout the article. I'd prefer throughout, but if there is a convention for it's use -- go with that.
  • "The Panthers are supported throughout the Carolinas. Although the crowd at home games has been described as having a "wine and cheese" atmosphere and fans of other teams often outnumber Panthers supporters at games, this has been attributed to the city's relatively recent entry into the NFL, the popularity of basketball in the region, and the large number of Charlotte residents that were originally from other cities with NFL teams." -- this doesn't really read very well
  • Regarding the pre-season games they played between 1989 and 1991, who played? I'm a little confused about this.
  • I see you used {{Win-loss record}} in the history section, why not in the lead?
  • " the best from a first-year expansion team in league history" - why not " the best ever from a first-year expansion team"
  • " in their second season, finishing with a 12–4 regular season record in 1996 and won the NFC West division." second season, and then 1996 seems redundant
  • I wonder if there is the same perspective on the 2003 SuperBowl ten years on? Is Peter King's view of the match still widely held?
  • Maybe wikilink shutout - it's American English that non-Americans may not be familiar with
  • " held in Seattle, by the Seattle Seahawks" close reepition of Seattle, maybe "hosted by the Seattle Seahawks" ?

Will add more comments shortly. – Shudde talk 09:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More:

  • "which they determined would be "process blue" (a shade lighter than Duke's and darker than North Carolina's), was the most difficult to determine" - close repetition of "determined"
    • Changed.
  • "and the changes that have been made are mostly minor ones," maybe "and any changes have minor," ?
  • "Team owner Jerry Richardson" - should this not just be "Richardson " ?
  • "The Panthers can use whatever color pants they wish in any game, as the NFL does not require teams to use particular pant colors.[35]" I'm not really sure what the point of this sentence is
    • First off, I have now moved this to be right after the bit about alternate uniforms; the main reason is to note that the team can choose which pants they want to wear, but typically only wear one of three combinations. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nike had presented this idea to the Panthers organization, who approved it; the team appreciated this idea, as they wanted newer fans to gain a greater understanding of the legacy Mills, who died of cancer of 2005, left behind." - English
    • Modified a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still have problems with this. You say the idea was approved, but this is obvious from the previous statement. It's also very verbose. Maybe "Nike had conceived the idea, and the team supported the concept as a way to expose newer fans to the legacy of Mills, who died of cancer of 2005." ??
  • "Mills had introduced the phrase, which has since become a team slogan, in a speech to the team prior to their 2003 playoff game against Dallas;" - close repetition of "team" maybe use "side" instead
  • "It offers public tours for ten people or less on Wednesdays and Fridays as well as group tours for 11–100 people from Monday to Friday, charging a fee for either type.[43]" -- I'm not sure how encyclopaedic this is; it's also the kind of information that could go out of date very quickly.
  • Would be really good if there was an independent source regarding the size of the bronze statues
  • "The team does not own this facility.[52] The team has hosted training camp at Wofford College in Spartanburg, South Carolina" -- close repetition of team
  • "In 2004, NPR reporter Scott Jagow observed that the Panthers' Super Bowl appearance represented the arrival of Charlotte onto the national scene, despite the crowd's "wine and cheese" reputation" -- I wonder if this would work better in the history section? Just a suggestion, feel free to ignore.
  • "The rivalry has resulted in a number of severe injuries for players on both teams, some of which have been the result of foul play by players on either team." - close repetition of "resulted", maybe "some of which have been caused by foul play." ?
  • You may want to double check multiple wiki-links.
  • There looks to be some sort of error with ref 63.

I haven't checked sources or images. Article looks in pretty good shape. – Shudde talk 11:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, thanks for commenting. I've fixed all concerns except with the wiki-links, and will do that in a bit. Toa Nidhiki05 14:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, happy now! Sources still need a spot-check, but am much happier with prose now. There is a duplicate link script somewhere that will help you find duplicate links within the article (there are still a few there); I can't remember where you can get the script though. You may want to ask at WT:FAC. Have changed to support. - Shudde talk 01:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The dup link checker is here. BTW, you also have a dab link: WCMC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Maralia - I don't have the time to give this a full review, but I made a few minor fixes. The image captions still need some attention: captions should not end with a full stop unless the caption is a complete sentence. Maralia (talk) 04:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed those somehow, now fixed. Thanks for spotting them. GermanJoe (talk) 11:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AmericanLemming

Resolved comments from AmericanLemming

I just took a glance at the lead, and this one sentence stuck out at me: "The team is worth approximately USD $1 billion according to Forbes and is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team". As it stands right now, I think it's a run-on sentence and is rather confusing. The article later clarifies this point by saying "Jerry Richardson is the owner and founder of the Carolina Panthers. Richardson and his family own about 48% of the team." I would suggest doing one of the following:

  • Changing it to "is controlled by Jerry Richardson, and the Richardson family owns 48% of the team" or
  • Changing it to "is controlled by Jerry Richardson and his family; they own 48% of the team. The remainder of the team is held..." AmericanLemming (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I saw this too, having a glance at the lead. Shouldn't be in an FA candidate under review this long; looks like another run-through for prose is needed (incidentally, I'm not sure the first alternate wording of AmericanLemming works much better, the second looks okay). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, Toa Nidhiki05, I'll be around all night if you have any questions on my comments. It's currently 6:16 PM where I'm at, so that 7:16 PM your time. I'll strike out my comments as you address them. AmericanLemming (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from AmericanLemming

I saw that you needed more reviewers/comments, so I decided to pitch in. Having proofread the entire article, I will now offer my feedback. I have a few disclaimers, though:

  • 1. I'm a newbie editor, and this is the first time I've reviewed a FAN, so take my comments with a grain of salt.
  • 2. I may be an American, but I really don't know that much about football.
  • 3. Some of the issues I bring up may have already been brought up by other reviewers and addressed. If so, just let me know.
  • 4. Some of my prose comments may have less to do with grammar and more to do with my stylistic preferences.
  • 5. I have tried to be picky (and I know that FA reviewers are supposed to be picky), but I think it is entirely possible that in a few cases I am a little too picky. I don't know which those are, though.

AmericanLemming (talk) 05:19, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria: I have mainly focused on 1a (prose) and 1b (comprehensiveness), since I don't feel well acquainted enough with the other criteria to offer feedback. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments
  • "Charlotte, North Carolina, who play in the" Putting a period after after North Carolina and changing "who" to "they" would make the first sentence flow better, I think.AmericanLemming (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "USD $1 billion according to Forbes" Maybe set off "according to Forbes" with commas?
  • "The team is worth approximately USD $1 billion according to Forbes and is controlled by Jerry Richardson and the Richardson family own 48% of the team". How about ""is controlled by Jerry Richardson and his family; they own 48% of the team. The remainder of the team is held..."
  • "limited partners" hyperlink. The average reader isn't going to know what a limited partner is. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since then the team has failed to record a winning season" failed to have a winning season? AmericanLemming (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "headquartered and plays out of Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte" headquartered in?
  • "plays out of" This wording seems a little awkward to me; "in" or "at" might be better.
  • A possible rewording for the above two comments: "The team plays in Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, which also serves as their headquarters."
  • "The Panthers are one of the few teams in the NFL to own their stadium" Eh. This seems somewhat redundant to me. If it's their stadium, why mention the fact that they own it? I think "to own the stadium they play in" would be clearer. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during their first season and" during their first season, and AmericanLemming (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wine and cheese" I think another reviewer has already brought this up, but I think the average reader is going to find this phase, if not confusing, then certainly distracting. Maybe cut it out altogether?
  • "residents that were" Are we assuming that most or all of these residents are currently dead? As a side note, I think "who" sounds better here, though you may disagree with me.
  • "with some games having fans of other teams" with some games having fans of the opposing/visiting team.
  • "The team maintains rivalries with all of their fellow NFC South teams" There's only three other NFC South teams, so "with all three of their fellow..." would be clearer. Otherwise, the reader gets the impression that there's a lot of teams in the NFC South, which there's not. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "successfully earned" successfully earned the right to have/the right to operate?
  • "to highlight demand" to highlight the demand? I think adding "the" makes it sound better.
  • "1995 NFL season," Maybe get rid of the comma? It seems to add an awkward break to the sentence.
  • "8-9 record" 7-9 record. There's only 16 games in the regular season. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the best ever from" the best ever for? If you're going to use "from," maybe go with "the best performance every from a first-year expansion team"?
  • "eventual champion Green Bay Packers" eventual champions, the Green Bay Packers? If other NFL teams are referred to as plural throughout the rest of the article, shouldn't you be consistent?
  • "However, the team finished 7–9 in 2000" Underline the win-loss record.
  • "time." This should be "time," since you have "and" after a lengthy sequence of inline citations.
  • I must apologize again for not giving you enough context. I suggest changing what you changed back. The sentence I had in mind was "The game is still viewed as one of the best Super Bowls of all time. and NPR reporter Scott Jagow" AmericanLemming (talk) 02:00, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2008, the Panthers recorded a 12–4 regular season record" had a 12-4 season record? ended with a 12-4 season record?
    • That would not be quite accurate; a season record might imply the addition of playoff wins and losses into the total. Using the term 'regular season' makes it explicitly clear that the record did not include the playoff loss. Toa Nidhiki05 01:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for being unclear. My suggested rewordings should read "had a 12-4 regular season record" or "ended with a 12-4 regular season record". My focus is on the verb "recorded", which doesn't seem to be the best word to use here. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after releasing Delhomme pre-season" Do you mean "after releasing Delhomme during the pre-season" or "after releasing Delhomme before the season" or "after releasing Delhomme during the offseason"? I don't know much about football, but I do know "pre-season" and "before the season" are not necessarily the same thing.
  • "recorded the worst record" had the worst record? ended with the worst record?
  • "but lost key players" but lost key players Julius Peppers, a defensive end, and DeShaun Foster, a running back, who were both injured during the game.
  • "The Panthers were defeated" How about "The Panthers were then defeated..."? It makes the connection that the injuries likely had something to do with the loss.
  • "but finished the season" deleted "the season" to avoid redundancy
  • "season-ending injury and his backup" add a comma after injury
  • "setting the NFL record for rushing touchdowns from a quarterback (14)" add "most" before "rushing touchdowns" And I assume you mean in a single season?
  • "any changes that were made" any changes that have been made
  • "NFL regulations allow the team to use the blue jersey up to two times in any given season" Any reason why?
    • I do not believe there is any specific reason given - it is just policy. To me, it is meant to prevent teams with a large number of throwback jerseys from using them in every game (which would obviously mess with efforts to market jerseys in the main colors), but I don't have anything to confirm that. Toa Nidhiki05 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only been two exceptions to this standard" only two exceptions to these combinations/only two exceptions to this tradition?
  • "in comparison to" compared with/to?
  • "reconciled his fight against cancer with" I think "compared" is a better word here; "reconciled" implies to me that these two were in conflict with each other at some point in the past.
  • "headquarters and administrative office for the Panthers" of the Panthers
  • "making them one of the few teams in the NFL to own their facility" making them one of the few teams in the NFL to own the facility they play in.
  • "Panthers home games" the Panthers' home games?
  • "It annually hosts two college football games" It hosts two college football games annually?
  • " instead, due to" Again, a comma that seems to create an awkward break.
  • "concerns of stormy weather" concerns over stormy weather?
  • "aired live on the Panthers radio network" Panthers' radio network
  • "because a comment" because of a comment
  • "commentator, Mike Morgan" remove the comma
  • "fellow NFC South members" who are they? There's three of them if I'm not mistaken...
  • "The Panthers rivalry" Panthers' rivalry
  • "The rivalry originated in 2003, starting" originated in 2003 and started
  • " and escalating further following" Add a period, then put "It escalated further following"
  • "both of whom the Panthers have played frequently" play frequently?
  • "Gentleman Linebacker" What on earth is a "gentleman linebacker"? Most linebackers are not very gentle, as far as I know.
  • "14 partners" 14 limited partners. If anything, have the "limited" in both the lead and the body, or in the body but not in the lead.
  • "Richardson paid $206 million for the team in 1993" To start the team? To get the right to start the team? Clarify, please.
  • "from 1994 to his retirement in 1997" from 1994 until his retirement in 1997
  • "1995 to 1998, and" another awkward break caused by a comma
  • "served in that role until he stepped down from that role in 2009" delete "from that role." It's redundant.
  • "the athletic director at" the athletic director of?
  • "including the playoffs" including playoff games
  • "Since beginning play" Awkward. Please reword.
  • "NFC South championships" NFC South championship. They can only win it once per year.

That's all my prose comments. I apologize both for their number (57, I think) and their pickiness. As you address them and/or explain why change is unnecessary, I will strike them out. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, on the whole, the article meets the comprehensiveness requirement. However, there are a few exceptions. The last paragraph of the "Stadium and facilities section" focuses almost entirely on a running joke regarding the Panthers' current practice facility. I think it adds some character and context to the article, but the first sentence is "During the 1995 season, the team practiced at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, South Carolina." Then there is a sharp transition to talking about the current practice facility. Some explanation of how the Panthers got from their first practice facility to their current one is in order, and that is currently lacking from the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, at the very beginning of the "team history" section, I think it would be worth mentioning that Jerry Richardson is originally from North Carolina. It appears that he was born in Spring Hope but grew up in Fayetteville, so I'm not sure which one you should mention. AmericanLemming (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the fact that the Panthers were originally in the NFC West and then moved to the NFC South is mentioned, but there is no explanation of when/how/why that happened. Also, why were the Panthers originally placed in NFC West? Geographically, that doesn't make a lot of sense.
    • I've added an explanation on the move and the placing in the NFC West; basically, the NFL division alignments were not really that accurate (due to, among other things, relocation of teams and the need to maintain divisions of roughly equal size) until re-alignment in 2002. The NFC West was actually the best spot for the Panthers because there were two other southeastern teams (New Orleans and Atlanta) in it. Toa Nidhiki05 04:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you possibly add some information on how the Panthers obtained/bought/constructed the three practice facilities that they currently use? AmericanLemming (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nothing really special - it is on the same land as the stadium, and the Panthers consider it to be a part of the stadium, basically.[37]

Alright. 62 comments later, I think the article needs two more things before it's ready for FA status. One, it needs someone to give it another close proofread. I'll do that myself, and you needn't worry about that, because if I find anything to change, I'll change it myself. Two, it needs a table in the "Team history" section that summarizes the Panthers' win-loss record, as the prose can be somewhat confusing to read at present. I made such a table myself (the lack of one was really bugging me), so I will add that to the article. However, you may want to modify it/look it over to make sure all the information is correct. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you disagree with any of my copy-edit changes, feel free to change them back. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished proofreading the lead and the infobox; i'll get the rest tomorrow. Or later today, I guess, seeing as it's already tomorrow. AmericanLemming (talk) 05:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1991, the group formally filed an application for the open expansion bid" What is an "open expansion bid", and is there such a thing as a closed expansion bid? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on October 23, 1993, the 28 NFL owners unanimously awarded the Carolinas the 29th NFL franchise" Technically, wasn't the franchise awarded to Richardson Sports? Was Richardson Sports ever renamed "Panthers Football", or is it like a holding company that owns 48% of the company? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm using the terminology for the source, but I changed it. As to the name of the organization, I don't really know - I believe the ownership group and organization are different (ie. the team would remain Panthers Football even if another owner bought it). Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the team's defense was the second-best in the NFL in terms of yards conceded, they were hindered by an offense that ranked as the second-worst in the league in terms of yards gained" Do you think it would be helpful to explain that "second-best in the NFL in terms of yards conceded" means that they gave up very few yards and that "second-worst in the league in terms of yards gained" means that they gained very few yards? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be appropriate to add some speculation/predictions on how well the Panthers are going to do this season? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In choosing the team name, the Richardsons did not run focus groups with potential fans. Their intention had always been the 'Panthers'" Why did they choose the name the 'Panthers'? Also, when did they decide on the name? AmericanLemming (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't know if there was a reason aside from them liking the name, no. I'm also not sure exactly when they decided on it - they didn't announce it in the early phases of bidding, for example. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do you think you could change the color of the three tables I added to match the other ones? I think it would add to the visual appeal of the article. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pat Yasinskas of ESPN.com observed that while there is "a bit of a wine-and-cheese atmosphere at Panthers games" Out of curiosity, what exactly is a "wine-and-cheese atmosphere"? I think you should add a little note right after the quote that will allow readers to figure out what a "wine-and-cheese atmosphere" from context. AmericanLemming (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Wine and cheese' refers to the large number of upscale clients that attend games; Charlotte is a major banking hub nowadays, so there are a whole lot of bankers and businesses that attend games for business meetings and the like, and they don't tend to be very loud or aggressive fans. Thus, the term 'wine and cheese atmosphere' refers to the behavior these fans (who are quite numerous) exhibit in the game - a passive, non-aggressive attitude that often isn't too focused on the game itself. I would note or paraphrase this in the article, but it is hard to sum it up in a couple words. Toa Nidhiki05 01:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update Alright. I've finished my second proofread of the article. I made the easy changes as I went along and made note of some things I thought needed changing but didn't know how to change. You can see those below under the "Remaining comments" section. AmericanLemming (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining comments (1a and 1b combined)

Here's a few things I found during my second proofread that I didn't know how to fix. Sorry for giving you more work to do, but I think changing these things will improve the article further.

Support. I strongly support promotion of this article on the basis of its prose and comprehensiveness. Having read the article from head to tail twice, made 88 edits to it myself, and made 78 comments for Toa Nidhiki05 to address (which he has addressed or otherwise explained why the change does not need to be made), I believe that this article's prose and comprehensiveness meet the FA standards. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments forthcoming - Just wanted to leave a quick note, since this is the oldest open FA, to say that I am writing up some comments for this FAC. The article is in good shape and most if not all of my comments will be about minor fixes/improvements. However, since this would (I think?) be our first NFL team FA, I want to give the structure/format a bit more thought, and compare it to that of other team FAs, as this article's format would inevitably be emulated by future NFL FAs. Maralia (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting ready to do this - to respond to the structure bits, this would indeed be the first NFL team FA. In writing this, I mostly based the format off of the Kansas City Chiefs article - one of two other NFL team articles to be 'good articles'. I didn't look too much to other team FAs, but I am sure there are good things that can be added here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Maralia

[edit]
Detailed comments; active items summarized below
Thanks for being patient!
  • "Following a 1–7 start, the Panthers rebounded to win six of their last seven games; they missed the playoffs, however, after losing their last game of the regular season to New Orleans. Had they won, the Panthers would have made the playoffs." - a bit redundant; drop one mention of the playoffs or the other, yes?
  • Suggest you link the word bye (sports).
  • "The team's uniform has not changed very often since their creation, and any changes that have been made have been minor, such as changing the sock color of the team's black uniforms from blue to black and changing the team's shoes from white to black." - Stilted. Perhaps something like "The team's uniform has remained largely the same since its inception, with only minor changes such as..."
  • "In February 2013, the city of Charlotte tentatively agreed on a $250 million improvement package for the stadium, half of which would have been paid by Charlotte and the other half of which would have been paid by the State of North Carolina and the Panthers." - Wordy. How about "In February 2013, the city of Charlotte tentatively agreed to a $250 million improvement package for the stadium, with half to be paid by the city and the other half to be split by the State of North Carolina and the Panthers."
  • "The two people in the Panthers Hall of Honor, team executive Mike McCormack and linebacker Sam Mills, are both honored with life-sized bronze statues outside the stadium." - 'both' is extraneous here.
  • The Rosinski mention is really convoluted and needs some work; I don't have a solution yet, but listing it here so I don't forget.
  • Is the format for the 'List of radio/television affiliates' tables a standardized one? The location of the hide/show link is not intuitive; one expects it to be on the top right.
  • I read the entire article without learning that Sam Mills' #51 has been retired. I see now that it's in a footnote inside a table; surely this is worthy of a prose mention, along with a citation?
    • Good note - I have added that after the note of Hall of Honor members. Toa Nidhiki05 15:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the addition. It brought up another question for me: his Hall of Honor table mention says Sam Mills, position: linebacker, coach, tenure: 1995–1997, inducted: September 27, 1998. Obviously he wasn't linebacker and coach in those 3 years, which makes me wonder if 'coach' is relevant there, since he was inducted before he started coaching. So I went to the cited source, and found that the Panthers' Hall of Honor listing for Mills refers exclusively to his tenure as a player; no mention whatsoever of his coaching. Since they don't mention it, and it's obviously anachronistic, I don't think we should mention coaching in the context of Hall of Honor either. Maralia (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good catch - it appears they inducted him before he began coaching, but retroactively include his coaching career. Since he was inducted as a player, I have changed it to just have 'linebacker'. Toa Nidhiki05 15:50, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that quite a bit of the information in tables and templates is not explicitly cited (Record by season, all-time record, hall of honor, head coaches staff). Obviously these values will change over time, but it's important that we can verify that they are correct now.
  • A few things I expected to see but didn't: attendance, fight song, charity/benefit work. There is a lot of information on their official site about scholarships, the Keep Pounding charity, etc.
  • The Pro Bowlers table is enormous. Good for the Panthers, bad for me: it's 3 pages worth of scrolling. Have you thought about making it default collapsed?
  • There are quite a few relevant images on Commons; you should probably add {{Commons category|Carolina Panthers}} (maybe next to Notes?) to link to them.
  • This is not a big deal, but could improve page load time: you only have to wikilink publishers once (i.e. you don't have to link ESPN, NFL.com, etc every time).
I still have a little more thinking to do about structure, but I wanted to get these bits of commentary to you now. I'll try to finish up soon. Maralia (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A recap to sum up what remains from my comments above:
  • I still need to take a stab at rewriting the Rosinski bit.
  • In attacking the awkward-to-phrase Rosinski mention, I had some ideas for better flow within the Radio and television section. I've rewritten it, and in so doing, I failed to find any reasonable way in which to introduce the Rosinski situation. I was left feeling that it didn't belong in the article, and indeed it isn't even mentioned in Bill Rosinski. I retained the text but commented it out. I also commented out the Fox NFL sentence because it wasn't in the cited source and we have not mentioned any network or local channels explicitly, aside from the flagship (and WCNC because it carries an exclusive, Panthers Gameday). Let me know what you think of my rewrite and the two omissions. Maralia (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like it; moving the text there is a good idea. I would have no qualms with the Rosinski text being removed, but it was included because another reviewer felt it would be somewhat important to know why Rosinski was fired. Toa Nidhiki05 01:54, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to hearing why Rosinski himself should be mentioned (I'm not a Panthers fan, maybe I am missing some legacy), but he was only mentioned in the context of his firing, which struck me as particularly odd considering the article doesn't mention other arguably-as-relevant controversy (the player who was murdered by his wife, the player who went to jail for having his girlfriend shot, etc). Seems gratuitous if the person himself doesn't have significant coverage in the article. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason the Rosinski mention is in the article is I figured it might be nice to mention who the play-by-play guy was before Mixon took over; once again, I'm fine with removing the controversy bit. Toa Nidhiki05 23:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue of the tv/radio tables: I hate to say this (knowing how much work you must have put into creating these tables) but after some thought, I feel that the affiliate info really is extraneous. The prose portion of your section, about the flagship stations etc, is certainly relevant, but I think including affiliates is awfully close to electronic program guide territory. I couldn't find any explicit policy guidance on this, although WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE is tangentially relevant. I don't recall this issue coming up at FAC before, but for what it's worth, I haven't been able to find any sports FA that contains a listing of radio/tv affiliates. Let me know what you think about this.
  • The staff table (template) needs a citation.
  • The roster template takes a date parameter and outputs it as 'updated on xx'. Since the staff template is really just a simple table, I added similar 'updated xx' text, formatted that part to look like it does in the roster template, and added a commented-out note that will hopefully tell any updaters how to handle it. A kludgy fix, but looks more or less right. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will take a look at the code used for the other tables, to see if I can address the hide/show placement issue.
and two new items, from a review of structure as promised previously:
  • The tables for Hall of Honor and for Pro Football Hall of Fame enshrinees are very short and unlikely to change drastically over time; is there a real benefit to offering this information in tables rather than in prose?
  • Ditto for the Head Coaches of the Carolina Panthers table; this one is already fully described in prose, and I don't think the table provides any added benefit.
Once we get these issues resolved, I will be ready to support. Thanks again for being so receptive. A lot of folks would've been resistant to yet another detailed review when their FAC was approaching promotion, but you've been unfailingly patient and responsive to my suggestions. It's been a pleasure. Maralia (talk) 02:48, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Glad you came over to help out. :) Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I deliberately left this open longer than planned for the comments from Maralia, whose reviews are always valuable (as are those of everyone who commented earlier) but I think it's appropriate to close this now and ask that any minor points still outstanding be actioned outside FAC. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding a note for posterity's sake, because I see that I didn't explicitly say so: I have performed spot checks on this article. Maralia (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sibelius's Eighth Symphony is one of the great artistic mysteries of the 20th century – the "great work" that never was. For years Sibelius tantalised the musical world with hints of the imminent appearance of this final masterpiece. Conductors were promised it, arrangements were made for its premiere – but it never appeared. In all probability he destroyed it, but maybe not all of it? Early fragments and sketches that seem to relate to this near-mythical work have turned up, been analysed, played and recorded. Some experts are convinced, and believe that somewhere in the piles of music manuscripts being pored over there even yet lurks the bones of another Sibelius symphony. Others are more sceptical; yet others dread the possibility. It's an interesting and at times painful story; I am grateful to all those who assisted with advice and suggestions at the recent peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I took part in the peer review and struggled to find anything to quibble at then. I have no quibbles now. This is a top-notch article, in first rate prose, with wide-ranging references, and covering this enigmatic subject fully. Brianboulton sets out Sibelius's shilly-shallying with unblinking clarity, and gives well-researched and convincing reasons for the composer's equivocation. I don't see how an encyclopedia article on this topic could be better done. – Tim riley (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Tim, for your consistent interest in and help with musical articles, for your most generous words above, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Eusebeus Some minor copy editing issues.

The Lede -
  1. "according to later reports of his family" - shouldn't it be "by" or "from" his family?
  2. "In 1924 his Seventh Symphony had been widely recognised as a landmark in the development of symphonic form" Reads as if the recognition is limited to the specific date. Suggest something like "His seventh symphony, premiered in 1924, had been widely ...."
  3. Nitpicky bit here, but the follow-up fn for the above claim (Grove) does not really, as written, offer the needed substantiation. I think just a quick rewrite or quotation to show the Grove basis for the claim about contemporary recognition of the 7th.
  4. "but as each scheduled date approached Sibelius retracted, ..." Is "retracted" the right word here...? He didn't retract the offer, it's more like he delayed or demurred.
  5. "Similar promises, to the ..." perhaps consider: "Similar promises Sibelius made to .... " and eliminate the need to put what is important information into a parenthetical.
  6. I find the last bit of the lede rather awkwardly written, starting with the "Only in the 1990s, during the cataloguing of numerous of Sibelius's manuscripts and sketches that had recently come to light," Here's a suggested rewrite: "It was only in the 1990s, while the composer's many notebooks were being catalogued, that scholars raised the possibility that some of the music for the 8th may have survived. Recent research has led to the tentative identification of several short manuscript sketches which are related to the Eighth, three of which (comprising less than three minutes of music) were recorded [you can play without recording, but you can't record without playing!] by the Helsinki Philharmonic Orchestra in 2011. While a few (or some?) musicologists have suggested it may be possible to reconstruct the 8th, others have suggested that this is unlikely given the ambiguity of the extant material. The propriety of publicly performing music that Sibelius himself had rejected has also been questioned.
  7. Related to the end of the lede (reconstruction): according to the David Stearns piece he claims that "recent news from Finland’s Helsingin Sanomat (and its savvy music journalist Vesa Siren) tells of extensive sketches being discovered." This raises some ambiguity, since the article tells us that only 3 minutes of music were recorded. So perhaps clarify that while extensive sketches have been found (per Siren), only a tiny fraction of these were recorded. It is otherwise confusing, I think, for a reader to figure out how an entire symphony could be reconstructed from 3 minutes.... The issue can then be dealt with more extensively in the main article, perhaps under a dedicated heading.

Please feel free to reject any of these suggestions. If it is helpful, I can go through the rest later as I have time. Eusebeus (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these comments. I have generally carried out your suggestions for minor prose fixes. On the suggested rewrite of the final lead paragraph, I agree that on the whole your version is tighter, and I have largely adopted your wording. One divergence is that I have reinstated the important phrase "subject to futher findings". These words are necessary to answer your point 7: readers might indeed wonder how a whole symphony could be reconstructed from three fragments. I think that the main text, in the Discoveries and Speculation nsections, makes it clear that there is other material under consideration, although the experts are divided about its relevance. Lastly, I agree that the Grove citation does not cover the contemporary status of the Seventh Symphony, and have altered the wording accordingly. I may return to this point when I get back to my Sibelius books (I am away from home at the moment). Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Support. Eusebeus (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to support Support

A typically solid looking effort here from Brian on an interesting subject I know little about. I'll put comments here as I read through.

  • Lead looks very good. I have no issues here apart from with the image caption, which says "By then he had probably ceased all work on his Eighth Symphony, although he continued the fiction for many years that it was still a viable project." We say he had "probably" ceased all work on it, then say he "continued the fiction"; to me the latter piece of wording, while very good prose, appears to imply that he had definitely finished working on it, which we don't know. Perhaps we can reword slightly to "though he continued claiming for many years that it remained a viable project" or similar
  • Background
  • Did he name Ainola after his wife? We say he "settled in" Ainola; is Ainola the house or general area? If the house (or an estate), we should probably say he "settled at" Ainola (as we do in the next line)
  • "Sibelius was often heavily in debt, and prone to bouts of heavy drinking" Perhaps we can remove the repetition of "heavily/heavy"
  • Perhaps we can split the second paragraph at "By the mid-1920s"
  • Composition
  • "Beginnings" section generally looks good. I would rearrange slightly "to compose and imbibe the city's musical life" to "to imbibe the city's musical life and compose", but that's just personal preference
  • "Sibelius had promised the world premiere" Do we know when he promised it?
  • "Serge Koussevitzky and the Boston Symphony Orchestra" Perhaps we should clarify that this was one promise and not two, Koussevitzky being musical director of the Boston Symphony Orchestra for many years
  • "Georg Schnéevoigt who had" I would put a comma in here after "Schnéevoigt"
  • "Olin Downes, writing to Sibelius in 1937." You don't need a full stop here as this is not a sentence
  • "through the 1930s" throughout the 1930s?
  • "the Eighth Symphony would shortly be released" Perhaps "that the Eighth Symphony's release was imminent"
  • Destruction looks good to me
  • Also Discoveries
  • Speculation I have only one quibble here: you don't need the parantheses on "(Vesa Sirén)" in the quote box
  • Referencing looks good
  • The images lacked alt text. I have taken the liberty of adding it myself, I hope you don't mind

All in all I believe this is a really first-class piece of work, very well constructed and presented, marvellously written and an all-round great read, even for somebody with very limited knowledge of the material. I have only a few points above I think could be looked at, but all in all I expect to be supporting in due course. Well done so far Brian, and if there's anything I can lend a hand with please let me know. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments. The small fixes are all done. Ainola was indeed named after Aino, but I'm not sure that this is relevant information for this article. I don't know when Koussevitsky was first promised the symphony; as Sibelius was telling his sister in September 1928 that the work would be "sent to America", it may have been that early. No definite information, though I'll look again at my books when I get home. On alt text, I have always been sceptical of its value, and stopped adding it to my articles years ago, but I know that others feel differently, and I never object if others wish to include it. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supported for FA; well done Brian. —Cliftonian (talk) 08:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and help. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Smerus I commented on this excellent article, which I am delighted to support for FA, in the Peer Review. Now I am back in London I have found a typically pungent passage by Richard Taruskin, which might be useful and relevant for context purposes, and which I set out here anyway for interest:

"[A]fter the last symphonic poem, in 1926 [there were] no more major works...The sphinx-like silence seemed like the outcome of an inexorable trajectory. Sibelius now loomed not merely as a Finnish national monument but as the very embodiment of the North - harsh, frosty, inscrutable, chastening. His authority, especially in the 1920s and '30s, was enormous. ....There was hardly a composer of symphonies during this time, especially in Britain and America, who was not profoundly - and often openly, even reverently - beholden to his example. The First Symphony (1931-5) by ... William Walton ... could easily have passed for Sibelius's Eighth." (Music in the Nineteenth Century, (2010), Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978019534833, pp. 822-3).

Best, --Smerus (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. The quotation is splendid, and I am using it in place of the previous somewhat anodyne quote box in the final section. A worthy tailpiece to the article, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it - I have tarted up the box a bit with links and ref, hope that is OK.--Smerus (talk) 08:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, yes, thanks Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From Stfg

Support Nice article , and I'll be supporting. Just a few issues:

  • "... and a later conflagration ..."; "conflagration" seems rather over the top; "... and a later one ..."?
  • Just before that: "got rid of" is too colloquial; destroyed? disposed of?
  • Discoveries, 1st sentence: "boring" is too colloquial; uninteresting?

Sentences of the form "John went to the shops and bought some milk" should never have a comma before the and. I think I've caught all instances. --Stfg (talk) 10:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these comments, all fixed I think. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
– and thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 19:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Reference formatting for now, I think. I'll try to look at the rest later, time permitting:

  • Although it offers a list of references, I am not clear why Sirén et al. is a reliable source. Also, the way the website is identified in the citations (as "Sibelius" website) seems odd to me. My concerns over this site are critical because you lean on it very heavily.
  • If you look at the details of the contributors, here, you will see that they are among the leading present-day Sibelius scholars. They also provide a very comprehensive list of their sources. There can be no doubts about the reliability of the material; had they chosen to publish it in print, there would clearly be no question about it. As to how the website is identified, I'm not sure I can do much about that, other than to call it "sibelius.fi", its formal name in the web address. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 16 is a source originally published in the Finish Music Quarterly, and it would be ideal if we had the full journal citation for that appearance (volume/issue/pages, as appropriate).
  • I can't provide volume or pages information. The date information that I initially gave (April 1995) was wrong; the article comes from the fourth quarterly issue for 1995. I have amended accordingly. Personally I think there is enough information to identify the print source, but it would also be possible to alter the citation to the FIMIC website, as the online host for the article. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 18 has an issue number, so looks like a citation to print that is archived online; are page numbers available?
  • Citation 21: I believe a period is required after eds.
  • Hmm, this might be a question of BritEng versus AmEng, but I was taught not to put a period at the end of an abbreviation when the last letter of the abbreviation is the same as that for the full word. Thus "ed." is the correct abbreviation for "editor", but "editors" becomes "eds" not "eds." For the same reason I would shorten Saint to "St" not "St." However, I think that provided that one is consistent, either form should be acceptable. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 25 is a traditional journal and decidedly needs page numbers.
  • The pdf in citation 38 isn't loading for me, but that may be my problem, so I'm not able to determine what it is or evaluate its reliability. The citation formatting is odd. Editions elsewhere are set off in parentheses, for example.
  • The parenthetical "editions" refer to the international editions of newspapers. In this case the "Sibelius edition" is a series of recordings issued by BIS. This essay is likely to be part of the material issued with that edition. The writer is a leading Sibelius scholar. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that Stearns has sufficient influence in the field to make citation 40 a reliable source.
  • Stearns is music critic for the Philadelphia Inquirer, an Arts reporter for the radio station WRTI-FM, a contributor to Gramophone, Opera News, The Guardian etc. I don't think his reliability status is in doubt. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are missing close parentheses in both Tawaststjerna source entries.

I'll see about looking at prose when I have the chance. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support just a few comments (sorry I missed the peer review)

Lede
  • "While a few musicologists have speculated that subject to further findings it may be possible to reconstruct the entire work" I'm pretty sure I know what is meant, but the "subject to further findings" is placed and reads oddly.
Background
  • "large output of orchestral works, chamber music, piano pieces and songs, as well as lighter music." Songs can be fairly light. Perhaps shift to end of sentence, "large output of orchestral works, chamber music and piano pieces as well as lighter music and songs."
  • Well, if you consider Richard Strauss's Four Last Songs, or Mahler's Kindertotenlieder, or the entire output of Hugo Wolf, you realise that songs are often anything but light. I'd prefer to let the phrasing stand. Brianboulton (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mention "his country" in the 1920s, I would toss in a "by then independent" at a suitable position, since you made a point of the duchy before
Limbo
  • I like the quote box statement on the 9th Symphony. I like less reading it, and then having it described to me in the main text. I'm not sure both are necessary and I think the quote box works better.
Destruction
  • "numerous stages during his life" Perhaps "of his life"?
  • Consider moving the McKenna quote box down a paragraph, to be by the content it relates to
  • "This was essentially a tidying operation" I would make it clearer that "this" refers to the preparation of the material, rather than the performance thereof.
Speculation
  • " is accepted beyond reasonable doubt " Interesting application of the legal standard, but perhaps "is fully accepted" is tidier.
  • Are the location, publisher, and ISBN really needed in the Taruskin quote box?
That's all I have. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from PumpkinSky
Image check...all fine.
Accessdate format for web refs are not consistently used. Some web refs have them, some don't. All should have them. Otherwise, excellent work. PumpkinSky talk 02:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image check. As for access dates, the principle I have applied is the same as that in all my featured articles (except maybe a few very early ones when I was less cognisant), namely, that if the material originally appeared in identifiable print form, then the access date is unnecessary. This is not just my practice, it is widely observed. If you think this principle has been applied inconsistently in this article, can you please indicate where? Brianboulton (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now I know myself and many others follow the rule that books retrieved online don't need accessdates. I'd not see it explicitly stated that anything originally in print form didn't need one, but I had often wondered about it and it makes sense. So I support now. PumpkinSky talk 01:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think on this issue, consistency is the thing, one way or the other. Thanks for the support. Brianboulton (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was one of the travellers at PR and had my say there: this excellent article has improved further since then and I'm very happy to support it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [39].[reply]

Phoenix (constellation)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this has come together nicely - I find constellations hard to make engaging because of their innate listiness, but it got a good review from Hamiltonstone at GAN and I figure a big shove in the right direction. Anything outstanding should be imminently fixable. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
Refs 1,2,3 don't use the publisher parameter.
The retrieve date for the NED ref is not in the same format as other retrieve dates.
Image File:Constellation Phoenix.jpg has a no-categories tag on Commons. Could that be taken care of?
There are several books from Cambridge University Press. All but the one in ref 51 list the location. See ref 52. PumpkinSky talk 23:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
all done - thanks for doing the cats for the image Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

A nice little article and easy to read, despite the blindingly scientific subject matter. I offer my comments for you to embrace, consider or disregard:

  • I think the opening sentence in the History section maybe a bit too long and feels slightly awkward without a pause of some kind. "Phoenix was the largest of the twelve constellations established by Petrus Plancius from the observations of Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Frederick de Houtman. It first appeared on a 35-cm diameter celestial globe published in 1597 (or 1598) in Amsterdam by Plancius with Jodocus Hondius." – Maybe?
sentence split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...Uranometria of 1603. De Houtman included it in his southern star catalog of 1603..." – Is there anyway of avoiding the repetition of the year?
changed to "the same year" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to link Australia? Much too well known to require one I think. I would be inclined to say the same for South Africa too.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have an OVERLINK to "Gamma Phoenicis", three paragraphs down in the Stars section.
de-linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know either small case or capitalisation are okay with "earth", but is there a reason why we capitalise "Saturn" and "Jupiter" and not the earlier mention of "earth"?
nope - earth capitalised now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not pushing for this (and by no-means obligatory), but could the refs be split into two columns, purely for asthetical reasons?

CassiantoTalk 22:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

references in two columns now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone. I undertook the GA review, and then made some comments post-review in response to which Casliber incorporated changes.

  • "...brown dwarfs are objects of mass intermediate between large planets and the smallest stars that are not massive enough to perform hydrogen fusion". Just checking - there is such a thing as a star that lacks the mass for hydrogen fusion? I thought that was the defining feature of a star...? hamiltonstone (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I think brown dwarfs are technically substellar objects...here is a straightforward definition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, it needed a copyedit - as written it sounded as though it was the smallest stars that lacked the mass for fusion. Feel free to tweak further - i feel some improvement could be made to the idea of "performing" fusion, but have not as yet come up with it. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from - actually some brown dwarfs are maybe smaller than planets, so it has to be massive. I tried this or alternatively it could be "brown dwarfs are objects whose mass is greater than that of planets, but insufficient for hydrogen fusion characteristic of stars to occur." - bastard sentence really.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes it was a troublesome sentence. I'm happy with your last solution. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • charted and gave the brighter stars their Bayer designations — clunky, I think, something like charted the brighter stars and gave their Bayer designations
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • declination, right ascension. — link at first occurrence
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • boasts nine star systems with planets, and the recently discovered Phoenix Cluster—one of the largest objects in the universe— I'm not convinced by that comma
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • One name of the brightest star Alpha Phoenicis... after 1800 for the name of the constellation.[4]— should be possible to avoid repeat of "name"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77 light years distant from Earth, orbited by a secondary object—"and" instead of comma?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has around 85% of the mass of the Sun, —"It" is separated from its intended referent by an intervening sentence
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • hot jupiter-like planet—cap Jupiter
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref38 has a Lua query
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:56, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten this, supporting belatedly Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: thank you for addressing my concerns. Praemonitus (talk) 03:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Praemonitus: it's a decent article, but I have some concerns that I would like to see addressed before providing support.
  • "Phoenix, Grus, Pavo and Tucana, are known as the Southern Birds": I think this sentence should clarify that these are all constellations. Thus: "The constellations Phoenix, ..."
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...generally invisible to anyone living north...": I would prefer that you not use the word 'invisible' here as it implies something other than the intent. Perhaps say something like 'lies below the horizon'.
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...it has two other dimmer components visible only with a telescope, of apparent magnitude of 7.2 and 8.2 at a distance of 0.8 and 6.4 arcseconds from the main star respectively": I'm very skeptical about the truth of this statement, and suspect that an editor has conflated a pair of visual companions into a four-star system. Hence, please either provide a citation or remove it as pure fiction.
looked around - bugger knows where that has come from actually. Everywhere else calls it a triple only - changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I think I found the source for the statement about it being a four-star system: Clausen, Gyldenkerne & Grønbech (1976), p. 209: "...since all four stars with high probability constitutes a physically bound system...". Sorry for doubting it. Praemonitus (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Navigating SIMBAD is peculiar - if I look at the children of Zeta Phe on SIMBAD, I get RMK 2AB (the main two stars) and RMK 2C (the third), but then I look at PMSC 01042-5546 it lists children like this am confused....and why would no-one mention it since? SIMBAD seems to see it as a triple as does Kaler...or am I missing something Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
update - added a minor note about study and fourth star - it is alot of detail for a constellation article so I think more detail should be on the daughter page (Zeta Phoenicis) maybe Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A pretty recent reference, Zasche & Wolf (2007), lists the fourth star as an astrometric component. They also list a period of 261 years for the third component. That sounds like its definitely a triple and potentially a four star system, so I think the article is okay. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Psi Phoenicis... and four times the mass, of our sun": the reference does not list the mass. Neilson and Lester (2008) give it an estimated 0.85 solar masses.[40]
The source does on a graphic illustration two pages on....but I'll take a Peer-reviewed journal over it, so changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...of the metal that the Sun...": should clarify the meaning of 'metal' here in the astronomical sense.
linked to Metallicity now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [41].[reply]

How a Mosquito Operates

[edit]
Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a shortish article on one of Winsor McCay's small yet enormously influential œuvre of animated films from the earliest days of the form. It is McCay's second film, and his first that has something resembling a story. I'm hoping to bring the remaining McCay animation articles up to FA status by the 100th anniversary of Gertie the Dinosaur next February (three more including this one). Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments

Addressed comments moved to talk page

Support on prose and images. Good job. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Review by Quadell

This article has lively prose and excellent sourcing. I did spotchecks for 6 of the 31 references, and in every case I found the statements fully supported by the sources. In particular, I was impressed with how well the source material was synthesized and rewritten to avoid any hint of plagiarism, which is always gratifying to see. The images are all free, and the captions, infobox, and categories are used appropriately. The lede is ideal. I couldn't find much to criticize, but I do have one nitpicky concern about reference formats and two questions about sources.

  • References should only link to a URL if the source contains a digital version of the text in question. Thus the link to Theisen's "History" is clearly correct. In addition, many people choose to link to Google Books previews, even though the whole text is not available, and I suppose that can be valuable. But the link to the Google Books page for Beckerman's "Animation" is not correct, since no portion of the e-book is available online.
    • I'm in no position to check this. I live in Japan, and many of the books that have previews in the US are blocked in Japan—blocked without any notice that they have been blocked, so the pages just look like any other page that has no preview. I'd rather just link to Google Books for each of them rather than check with a US-based editor for every single book I link to. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vouch that no access in Indonesia either. I personally don't mind Curly's approach to it; at the very least it serves like the ISBN: to show the book exists. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I can assure you that all Google Book links are to at least previews of the online text, except for Beckerman, which has no preview available. In the "Bibliographies" section of the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists_of_works, it says "When a book is available online through a site such as Internet Archive, Project Gutenberg, or Google Books, it may be useful to provide a link to the book so readers can view it. ... A link to a Google Book should only be added if the book is available for preview." (The ISBN link already provides a way for the reader to get to the Google Book page, should one want to do so.) – Quadell (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I watched the film, I was struck by the amount of repetitive back-and-forth movement in all character motions. To a modern, this is one of the most unusual aspects of the style of animation. Do any of the sources mention this? If so, it could be a valuable addition to the "Contents" section.
  • At some points the article gives interpretations that are valid only if they are in the sources. I'd love to check the sources myself, but Google Books only partly allows for that, and I don't have access to the printed works. In particular, the article twice refers to the mosquito's "personality" as being "egotistical, persistent, and calculating", citing Canemaker p. 167, and the same source is used to call the insect's actions "horrifying to watch". Can you confirm for me that these interpretations are in the source? How are they worded?
    • "McCay's mosquito contains hints of a real personality whose thinking processes produce actins that in turn strongly affect audiences. The mosquito seems to be egotistical, with a fondness for showing off; he is calculating (when he prepares his proboscis on the stone wheel), gluttonous, and doggedly persitent." This is preceded by a couple paragraphs about character animation in general and how McCay's experiments in character animation "reached its apex in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs". It's followed by a paragraph that includes: "McCay's tour de force animation is all the more impressive when one cosiders the rather firghtening face of the mosquito, the repulsive, almost sexual action of repeatedly penetrating his host's face with his long beak, and the bloody finale in which parts of the mosquito wash over the screen. Tha McCay's bug holds us fascinated through all of the above is impressivel; it is attributable to the creature's recognizable personality traits but also to McCay's dexterity in alternating ugly or disturbing images with those that make us laugh or impress with their beauty." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was a pleasure to read, and I look forward to your answers. – Quadell (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, this is certainly among the best Wikipedia has to offer and should be featured. – Quadell (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from Lobo

[edit]

I have a keen interest in film history, so I'm happy to see an article like this at FAC and happy to do a review. I found it a really interesting read, thanks for putting it together. I'm afraid I did have some issues with it when reading through. The order of the material is occasionally strange, and I don't think the lead is a very effective summary of the article: these are expanded on below. I've also listed a few minor prose concerns and some suggestions.

Organisation:

  • In the "Contents" section, I think it would make more sense to place the synopsis first, and then the other information in contents could perhaps come under a second subheading, "Style"?
  • "It was released at a time when audience demand for animation outstripped the studios' ability to supply it. When most studios were struggling merely to make animation work, McCay showed a mastery of the medium and a sense of how to create believable motion" - All of this seems a little out of place in "Contents". I think it would be better off integrated into "Background".
  • Wouldn't the final paragraph in "Background" (and the image) be much better positioned higher up in the section? Currently it is organised: McCay's background, what he wanted to achieve, production, release, then we are suddenly told his inspiration behind the story. It should go: background, aims, inspiration, production, release.

Prose and contents:

  • I'm afraid I think the lead talks far too much about McCay's biographical history, and doesn't talk enough about the production of this film. I suggest a rewrite of the second paragraph, where it briefly mentions his success with Little Nemo, then talks about McCay's aims for this particular film (one that told a story, believability and naturalism), its release and reception, and then its legacy.
  • "The second of his films, it is about a giant mosquito who torments a sleeping man; the mosquito's abdomen swells as it draws blood until it explodes." - Personally I think the first half of this sentence is all that's needed for a plot description in the lead.
  • IMDb lists "The Hungry Mosquito" as another alternative title. Is that accurate, have you come across that in your research?
  • "Inspired by the works of Charlie Chaplin" - Hmm, even though Chaplin didn't make his film debut until 1914? I suppose it's possible that McCay saw CC while they were both on the vaudeville circuit (CC was touring America in 1911), but that should be clarified (ie, "inspired by the vaudeville act of Charlie Chaplin...")
  • We possibly have a bit too much biographical information in the "Background" section as well...Remember that McCay has his own biographical article, this one is about the film. Context is good, don't get me wrong, but it could be briefer here.
    • I'm not sure it would be good to shorten it further—it emphasizes his drawing skills, especially his speed, which is important to understand how a single self-taught artist could produce such a film; it gives his newspaper cartooning background, since he derived the story from one of his comic strips; it gives his vaudeville background, important as he introduced the film into his vaudeville show. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have any information on how long McCay was working on the film? How many frames did he draw?
  • "the film relies on physical, visual action—a strength of the film medium." - This stalled me a bit, I don't think it flows very well and it isn't particularly clear. If I'm understanding the point correctly, may I suggest: "The film capitalised on the strength of the new film medium by relying on physical, visual action" (or something like that).
  • "It was distributed abroad by Vitagraph Studios; in the United States, McCay showed the film as he toured his act in spring and summer" - Is the last part needed, when you've already told us that he first showed it on stage? I rather think it would be fine to just have, "McCay put the film together in December 1911, and released it in January 1912—first as part of his vaudeville act, and later in movie theaters. Abroad, it was distributed by Vitagraph Studios." Also, did the film have a distribution studio in the US that we can name? Do we know when it was first released abroad?
    • I haven't come across any info on international distribution. It appears that McCay's films were released at least in the UK and France (there's a poster of the French release of Little Nemo, not sure of the year). Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way it is phrased at the moment makes it sound like McCay showed the film in movie theatres himself, without a distributor, which can't be right? The new stuff you added mentions him sending the frames to Vitagraph, so it sounds like they distributed it in the US too. And I'm still a bit confused - was he still showing the film in his act (in spring and summer) at the same time as it being shown in theatres? Is that why that is mentioned? --Lobo (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referring to the final explosive sequence (which McCay had hand-painted red)" - Think this would be better without the parenthesis.
  • "The technical quality of McCay's animation was far ahead of its time, unmatched until the Disney studios gained prominence in the 1930s with films such as Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)." - Sounds like editorialising, better to add in a "considered" ("considered unmatched until Disney...") And do animation experts really think his level wasn't matched until Snow White? How about the earlier Disney shorts, Betty Boop, etc?
  • "McCay's biographer, animator John Canemaker, commended him for his ability to imbue a mosquito with character and personality." - Not sure it is very important that he was his biographer; suggest, "Additionally, the animator John Canemaker has commended McCay's ability to imbue a mosquito with character and personality." Also, Canemaker has his own article, it should have a wikilink.

Feel free to argue back with me about any of these suggestions =) --Lobo (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up

Thank you for making some of my suggested changes. I've taken a look, and sorry to be difficult, but...I still think the lead gives way too much background information, and I still don't think the page is organised as well as it could be. I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of playing around with the article in my sandbox. I've changed the lead quite a bit, to show what I think would be more suitable, shuffled some of the material around, and introduced/removed some headers. The prose has been tweaked in a few places as well - all of which I think makes the article more coherent. This may be overstepping the task of a reviewer, but I saw a window for improvement and I really want the article to be as good as possible! I really hope you like this version and will implement it into the article. --Lobo (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting so much effort into your review! I've incorporated into the article a lot of what you did in your sandbox. A couple of things, though:
  • "Originally it included a live-action prologue"—My sources don't explicitly say this, but I'm pretty sure the live-action prologue was limited to the theatrical release (this was the case with Gertie, but not with Little Nemo).
  • My understanding is that the film did not have a theatrical release in the US until McCay had finished "milking" it in his stage act—hence the tour, as his act usually stayed close to home. That was the case with Gertie.
  • I've tightened up the lead a bit, but not really along the lines of your rewrite. Could you take a look at it?
  • I'm not sure about mixing "in-universe" and not-"in-universe" prose as you have in the first paragraph of the "Contents" section. I've broken the "Contents" section into "Summary" and "Style" sections. What do you think?
  • I've changed "The technical quality of McCay's animation was unmatched until Walt Disney's feature films appeared in the 1930s." to "The technical quality of McCay's animation was unmatched until Walt Disney began producing feature films in the 1930s."
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, things are looking better. I'm being a bit more bold with the article and making some changes there, all of which I've explained with an edit summary. I'm also going to continue arguing for the inclusion of more of my changes...
  • Particularly the lead. Sorry to be blunt, but I'm really not understanding why you prefer it to have more information about McCay's history in animation than production information about this film...at the moment, I don't see it as a full, proportionately accurate summary of the article, which means it is failing WP:WIAFA criterion 2a. There is no mention of the release or reception, for instance. And I honestly think the line I wrote about his background is all a reader needs to know at this stage of the article: we want to get that stuff out the way as quickly and smoothly as possible. Why go into specifics about the "the technical dexterity of his cartooning" here, all that needs to be said (as I had) is "his talent". That alone tells us that he was an excellent cartoonist. Why do we need to know about his chalk talks? Mentioning that the film was released as part of his vaudeville acts speaks for itself (although the current version doesn't even include that). I also don't think mentioning "McCay displays his attention to detail as the titular mosquito's body fill consistent with its bodily structure, rather than balloon-like" is the most interesting thing to mention (I think most artists would have done this?); the fact that he managed to give the animation "realistic timing, motion, and weight" (as I wrote) is by far more impressive. And doesn't the article say that this was one of McCay's main concerns, along with wanting to have a story? So it should be mentioned in the lead.
    • I'm sorry, but I don't really see what the issue is with McCay's history—it makes it clear that he was a "name" long before the film came out. The second paragraph gets to Mosquito by the end of the second sentence. That's a pretty conpact history, considering McCay had been a professional artist for twenty years before Mosquito came out
      • Two long sentences though, in a pretty short lead. My point is that his back ground isn't essential information for people wanting to find out about this film. I completely agree it's worth mentioning that he'd been a successful cartoonist and already produced one film, but I think it should be said as quickly and concisely as possible. I really don't think the vaudeville act and chalk talks need to be mentioned, especially as it says later that he released the film on vaudeville (which indicates that area of his career to readers). You've now added info on the release/reception to the lead, so the balance is looking better, but...I've just never come across a film article that gives so much of the creator's history in the lead, even ones with a large lead.
        • McCay had a long, busy career. Out of that career, certain things, I think, have bearing on this article. He achieved his greatest fame with Little Nemo, which was at its peak when this film came out—there's certainly no dropping that (you've kept it in your version). Vaudeville is obviusly important, as the film was included as part of the show. When I think of vaudeville, though, I think of singing, dancing, acrobatics, and joke-telling. What would a cartoonist be doing on the vaudeville stage? Without mention his chalk talks, we're only going to leave question marks floating over the heads of the readers. It may be possible to snip a word or here to tighten it up, but I think it would be a big mistake to remove any of the actual content from that sentence. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:01, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "consistent with its bodily structure" is definitely unusual in animation, especially pre-Disney. I've dropped it, though, and replaced it with "naturalistic timing, motion, and weight." I've otherwise tweaked the lead. Could you take another look? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for taking on this suggestion.
  • As for the first para of the lead, I tweaked that because having two sentences beginning "The second...", "The film..." sounds a bit stilted. I really think the one in my sandbox reads better. I wonder if the other people who've commented here, or anyone else reading this, could chip in over all this?
    • I agree that "The second of his films, it..." is a little clunky. It's a minor point, but it could be improved. I'm not sure whether the sandbox version of the lede is the best way to go or not, but I do encourage the nominator to reword that bit, one way or another. – Quadell (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought the "Contents" stuff worked pretty well the way I had it, no? The main thing is that you've switched the info around so that the synopsis comes first (before, it was weird to read about the style of the film before we'd been told what happens in it), so I'm glad about that. But the "Style" section on its own is very short, which is why I decided it probably wasn't worth having. It is all relevant under "Contents", anyway. Apart from, actually, the sentence, "It has also appeared under the title The Story of a Mosquito." This has nothing to do with its style or contents, which is why I had deleted it - and honestly, I think just referencing the alternative title in the lead is all that's necessary. Otherwise, the sentence should be moved to the "release" part of the article.
    • I actually thought it read a lot better the way it was—giving a short introductory section before the synopsis. I don't think having the synopsis and style mixed together is good at all, expecially mixing "in-universe" and not-"in-universe" writing in the same paragraph.
      The lead is supposed to do no more than summarize the contents of the body. If Story of a Mosquito doesn't appear in the body, it shouldn't be in the lead—and, really, refs should be avoided in the lead except as a last resort (as in for controversial statements). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The film capitalizes on strengths of the new film medium such as physical, visual action." > This sentence reads awkwardly, because it talks in present tense but then describes the film medium as "new". The way I reworded this solved that problem, and I'd strongly suggest doing something similar.
    • I agree it's awkward, but I don't think "Capitalizing on strengths of the film medium, which was in its infancy, the animation makes use of physical, visual action" solves the problem—somehow it doesn't seem clear to me that it's saying the "physical, visual action" is the strength that's being capitalized (it feels somehow ambiguos to me).
      How about: "The film capitalizes on strengths of the film medium, then in its infancy, by making use of physical, visual action."? Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't think there's enough information for a separate "Production and release" section? I definitely do, and it's helpful to break that up for the reader. I definitely recommend doing this.
  • It doesn't sound like it would be inaccurate or misleading to say "Originally it included a live-action prologue"? The fact is we know there used to be a prologue but now it is lost. I think it makes all that stuff flow better, so if it can be added that would be good.
  • "The film was released at a time when audience demand for animation outstripped the studios' ability to supply it. When most studios were struggling merely to make animation work, McCay showed a mastery of the medium and a sense of how to create believable motion." - I had moved this to the legacy section, since I thought it was a pretty interesting point about the importance of the film. And of course, its talking about McCay's achievements (possibly in an overly-peacocky, POV way...even if accurate)
    • You're right, I've moved it. I've missed some of the edits you made in your sandbox, partly because I can't see the differences in a diff. If you do this kind of thing a lot, maybe it would be a good idea just to paste and save the whole article into your sandbox and then make changes, so they show up in a diff.
    • "peacocky": well, yeah, that's how the sources tend to talk about McCay. I'm open to a rewording. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't doubt that the sources talk about him in this way, but WP can't adopt such a definitive voice on these matters. Like WP:PEA says, "Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance." Or at the very least, indicate that people think he showed a mastery of the medium, rather than stating flat out that he did show a mastery. --Lobo (talk) 20:29, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've added an "According to animator Chris Webster, ", though I don't thik a technical mastery of a medium is an "unprovable claim"—we're talking about something technical: either your perspective is consistently correct or it's not, etc. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:15, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line about his talent not being matched until the Disney features would carry far more weight, and be 100% convincing, if you mentioned the names of those scholars who believe this (like you did here at the FAC). Again, strongly recommend doing this.--Lobo (talk) 17:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of tweaking here and there; I feel it makes the text clearer. If it isn't, feel free to undo and lemme know. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Okay, I'm happy with the article now. It looks much cleaner and better organised; it's brief, but surely as comprehensive as an article on this little film could be. One thing I still find awkward is talking about the prologue in the present tense when we're discussing what was seen 100 years ago (the whole section is talking about the release 100 years ago - everything there is past tense), and since the prologue doesn't exist anymore, it doesn't feel right for it to be in the present. I would strongly recommend changing this, but I'll put you out of your misery and support anyway. ;) I hope you haven't seen this review as a nuisance but agree that the article has improved as a result. --Lobo (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I always find these things a "nuisance" while they're happening, but appreciate them when they're done ;) Thank you! Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Grace Sherwood

[edit]
Nominator(s): PumpkinSky (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a woman tried for witchcraft and tested by ducking in water in 1706. We, the co-nominators, have put in a lot of effort, with help from many other editors, to get this former FA back to FA status. It has just completed a Peer Review. We look forward to your comments to make this article even better. PumpkinSky talk 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment as co-nominator. We've done quite a bit, and asked others to weigh in, to eliminate the problems with this article which are fairly well known. That being said, if there is residue, we'll deal with it. I believe the article is of sufficient quality to gain the community's consent to have the star restored.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checklinks: I put the article through Checklinks and a couple minor issues popped up:
  • The "Something From The Cellar" reference needs an access date.
It is my understanding books, even if web-accessible, do not require an accessdate. I see many FA's with google books links with no accessdate. If I am mistaken, this can be easily added. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My very humble opinion is that it may be unneeded for hardcopy, but everything eventually winds up in Google books, and so having it would make a future update a little easier. But I'm too involved with editing this to be a reviewer, so JMO and FWIW. --Montanabw
Definitely no access dates for Google books links; the source is the book. Eric Corbett 19:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that true for other online books, such as this one? PumpkinSky talk 19:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Eric Corbett 19:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've cut that book accessdate (only one I found). If I missed one let me know. The two items mentioned on my talk page have also been taken care of. PumpkinSky talk 19:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure, but I'm glad we got that cleared up. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Witch of Pungo: 300 Years After Her Conviction" reference from the Virginia Historical Society redirects back to the Society's main website.
Added the archive url for this. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Grace Sherwood Day at Ferry House Plantation" reference is coming up 404 and showing it has been dead since August 8.
Cut since it's just an ext link. PumpkinSky talk 12:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Neutralhomer • Talk • 12:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the practice on Google books is that it's OK to skip the accessdate but you have to be consistent, either have all of them or none of them. I'm indifferent.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still around and the FAC will be continuing as normal. Best wishes to PumpkinSky, obviously.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all for the concern and to Wehwalt for babysitting the FAC on Grace. For those interested, here's a Cliff's Notes version of what happened: User_talk:PumpkinSky#IMPORTANT. PumpkinSky talk 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Crisco 1492
    • Wehwalt had asked me to weigh in at the PR, but I was just flying back from HK and was exhausted. I'll try and help here though.

Image review

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Prose comments moved to talk page
Crisco spotcheck moved to talk page
First batch moved to talk page
If you don't mind, could you do a few that are not used so many times?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the next batch, no problem. I'd like to see these concerns taken care of first, however. As a note, however, usually when I spotcheck sources I go for the most-used ones first, simply because that will a) allow me to conserve bandwidth and b) often be a general indication of issues. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've gotten through most of yours. I want PumpkinSky to look at 13k, the rest are either explained or dealt with.
Crisco and Wehwalt. Thanks for the thorough reviews. I can get to this later today and we will get through it. All the "not supported" ones are the results of copyediting moving refs around. Everything is in a good ref. I'll work that later too.PumpkinSky talk 11:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like 13k was taken care of and moved as closed to the talk page. PumpkinSky talk 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it looks like all I have time for on this article. Leaning support, but as with Laser brain I'd like to have some further spotchecks from other editors. No matter how this turns out, I congratulate you both on bringing Sherwood back here and working to put the past behind us. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source spot-check by Laser brain

  • Ref 24 - I can't figure out what this is supposed to be supporting. Was there text about the lucky horseshoe that was removed at some point?
  • Ref 25, not OK
  • Article text: "Virginia's witchcraft fears were more often rooted in folklore than in theology"
  • Source text: "witchcraft beliefs in Virginia 'had more to do with folklore than theology'"
I think these are too close. Also, the thesis is actually quoting a different paper in this section, so your citation needs to reflect that (an entry needs to go in your Bibliography for the Davis paper, and then you have to make your citation something like "Davis 1973, as cited in Newman 2009, p. 37."
I'll do a tweak of ref 25, as I have deliberately not read any of the underlying material, just in case a close paraphrase concern arises. Montanabw(talk) 19:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26, OK
  • Ref 27a, OK
  • Ref 27b, OK
  • Ref 27c, OK
I would encourage further spot-checks to make sure all items are ironed out, especially since PumpkinSky indicated some refs have been moved. I accept that others may not share my definition of close paraphrasing, so I'll leave it to the nominators and other reviewers to determine if my note is actionable. --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Drmies

[edit]

Well, it's a pretty article. I made a few tweaks here and there, but there's a few issues left for me. Mind you, I did not look at the references to see what they do and do not support.

  • I don't like, in the infobox, how the birthdate and possible location are run over three lines. Adding "in" might help, but it's still not pretty; maybe putting "most likely" after the place, in parentheses, is best.
It's going to be a minimum of two no matter what based on the coding. I've cut the word "most", does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Witchcraft and Virginia" section is a bit long (given that there is a main article), but the link with the subject is nicely done.
Thanks on behalf of both of us. I'm inclined to let it stand. I think it's necessary exposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Wehwalt. 99.9% of the people have no idea how pervasive the fear of witchcraft was back in those days. The topic needs to be covered extremely well for people to understand what occurred better. I think it should stay too. PumpkinSky talk 18:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Wehwalt and Psky, and I did a fair bit of copyediting on that section. (Full disclosure: I also teach American History as an adjunct prof at a local college, and this cultural/regional history stuff is sort of "my" area) Given the much better-known Salem witchcraft hysteria in Massachusetts (where a significant number of people were executed for witchcraft), as well as the general cultural differences between Virginia and the New England colonies, I think the section is critical to understanding the rest of the story. The "main" article doesn't discuss Virginia at all, and is mostly focused on witchcraft in Europe in earlier times, so the material is not repeated elsewhere, and perhaps a bit too geographically limited to add to the main article. So I'd urge it to stay pretty much as is. Montanabw(talk) 20:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main problem, really, is the next three sections, "Initial accusations", "Ducking", "Aftermath". That is, as far as I'm concerned this whole thing should be one section with level-3 headings, and "Ducking" as a title is out of parallel with the other two titles (I really think it ought to be changed).
Done. I've done my best with the titles, if you have further suggestions there, feel free.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. Drmies (talk)
  • "The tale of Grace Sherwood may also be heard in "Cry Witch", a courtroom drama". "Cry Witch" should be italicized, I suppose--but I don't like the "may also be heard" phrase.
Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Drmies (talk)
  • Who is Nash? The person is talked about as if she was mentioned before.
She is, in "Family background".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that now--but that's a lot of ground to cover for the eyes and the memory. Drmies (talk)
Fair enough. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a lot of External links. "Coyote Run" gets top billing; do they deserve that? They're not mentioned in the article. The Carolshouse link, that does not strike me as in agreement with WP:EL (it's just a website with some pictures but no additional information, and it's not an RS). Same really with the White Moon link (unreliable personal meditation, maybe), and the World History Blog is nothing--well, it's a reposting, it seems, of the article by Batts that's already linked and used in reference 52. In fact, the other links strike me as redundant as well. I don't see the need for (more) pictures of the marker, rootsweb is not a reliable source and adds nothing that's not already in the article, and that the Girl Scouts cleaned the statue is not of encyclopedic relevance. In other words, scrap the entire section... Sorry, gotta run--baby is crying. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not screwing around, Wehwalt. Drmies (talk)
I rarely do anything with external links in my article improvements. It's not much to me if they stay or go.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did them alphabetically, not by a perceived importance. I also don't particularly care if the go away. PumpkinSky talk 18:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see now why we're here. Well, as I said before, I didn't look at the sources (I know that I'm doing a half-ass job here), but I will try to do that in days to come. But let me note that one of the FA criteria, 1c, requires high-quality, representative sourcing. I read over Uncle G's comments at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1, and while he's usually verbose he's also usually right. Anyway, my uncle makes some suggestions for scholarly sources, six of 'em, but only one is currently in the article. That suggests that it might not pass as not broad or properly researched enough. (Update: I'm browsing through JSTOR, which lists a number of articles not yet in here, but more importantly, the reviews lead me to recent scholarship such as this book, Witchcraft in Early North America (2010), with a sizable chunk on Sherwood.) In fact, I hope my uncle will come by to maybe do some article work. Drmies (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good point. I've downloaded a couple of the JSTORs (forgive us, we had taken material from there but missed those). We'll revise and add hopefully some stuff today.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the Games book you cite, there really isn't much on Sherwood. There are three references to her, and an appendix with an introductory paragraph, and then the primary source material people have been working from on Grace basically over the past 120 or so years. Plus the pardon by Kaine. Might be useful for further reading.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No harm in adding it as an additional resource, but I do think the name of the defendant unnecessary though I won't argue about it if someone things otherwise. I've got to go out now, but I'll add it as an additional reference at that point in the article if no one else has later.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • [Notes on scholarship and ducking--a bit rambling, I'm afraid.] I have some doubt about the manner in which she was bound during her ducking. The reference given is to Beach: A History of Virginia Beach, not the most academic of publications, and it cites (for the entire ducking passage) an article in the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot (a 1949 article not cited in our article and seems to be inaccessible). Anyway, a review of Johnson, Witches and demons in history and folklore, criticizes that book for a picture of the (?) ducking of Sherwood in the fashion described in our article, "which shows a woman tied thumbs-to-toes (as recommended) dangling under water from a rope fastened under her arms. This drawing not only fails to convey the horror of the event, but shows a deplorable lack of research, since the victims of most public duckings were tied to a ducking stool." Or, what other sources are there that corroborate the rather weak History of Virginia Beach? (Speaking of unreliable sources, this is a review of a book which claims, apparently, that she was an African-American conjurer...)

    Richard Beale Davis, "The Devil in Virginia in the Seventeenth Century", has a page or two on Sherwood; it's well-written stuff and really ought to be cited, in the Witchcraft section and in the Allegations. For instance, it comments that she must have been considered a nuisance, which is why in 1705/6 the circus started all over again. But more importantly, it contradicts our article in one or two points: our article says that the first jury searched the house and the second her body (or was ordered to); Davis says that a first jury was ordered to search her house, and a second to search both house and body, but that both refused. That strikes me as an important difference, and Davis's article is based on Burr--note that the section in our article is based on two much less reliable sources, Hume and Newman, the first a local book and the second an MA thesis. Whoever has Burr at hand needs to check this carefully.

    Back to ducking, while Davis does not describe it, he has a telling footnote, "For a description of a ducking platform and stool, see Susie M. Ames, Studies of the Virginia Eastern Shore in the Seventeenth Century (Richmond, 1940), p. i9o; or E. M. Earle, Curious Punishments of Bygone Days (New York, 1896), pp. 18-20." [copied without formatting from the PDF] This clear suggestion that the expectation is that a ducking stool was involved led me to browse around a bit more, and I found plenty of instances: "sentenced to a seat in the famous ducking-stool" (cited here as well) and here, though this hit "infers" the opposite. To cut a long story short, while the evidence for either stool or rope (so to speak) is missing and all these sources seem to draw inferences (and again, I don't know what Burr says), we cannot state categorically that she was bound finger to toe, and thus the image needs qualification as well. Unless Burr or some other source gives positive evidence, both options (or none!) should be given equal treatment, and we should cite Davis and give his article the proper weight--that is, more weight than Hume and Newman. Phew, this is much longer than I foresaw. Drmies (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations, Drmies. Thanks to Wehwalt for starting on these comments. Real life precluded me from working on them til now and I'm working on what's left now. PumpkinSky talk 18:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A quick note on the ducking...in this ref you mention "sentenced to a seat in the famous ducking-stool", a few lines down, it says "a sentence never inflicted", referring to the ducking seat. Also see the photo of the site, very flat land, wide body of water. I agree that ducking by being tied to a stool was more common, but being thrown in for the "float test" did occur. In the 1893 W&M Quarterly ref, it says..."subjected to the water test--being cast into the river"...""she swimming therein and being bound contrary to custom""--this second part I have in double quotes becaused it's quoted in the ref itself. Davis quotes this same passage and says "the poor woman floated even though bound". IMHO this is clear evidence she was thrown into the river, it says "cast into" and she couldn't go swimming from a chair. PumpkinSky talk 19:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Davis and Burr notes...Burr gives much credit to the Edward James W&M Quarterly articles, which we already have in as refs. On the ducking, Burr says "assistance of boats (wouldn't need boats if she were dunked from a chair hanging over the river's edge)....put her in above a man's depth and try her how she swims therein (seems to refer to "float test")". I see Burr mentioning one jury refused, not clear on other one but Davis clearly says they refused.--I've changed the article. PumpkinSky talk 19:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note on being African-American....We saw that somewhere and dismissed it. Good refs state her parents English and Scottish, yet very few Africans were in the UK at the time. The book review says the book is full of errors. The paragraph about Sherwood starts off "the book contains other questionable assertions...", listing Sherwood being African as one of the shaky claims. The Johnson book review you link to also criticizes it for "carelessness in editing and proofreading". I cannot support this African claim nor the chair claim. PumpkinSky talk 20:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Butler ref also says she swam. PumpkinSky talk
I've added Cushing as a ref. PumpkinSky talk 21:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pumpkin. So, let's get this straight: Burr doesn't say "ducking stool", so it is not likely that it was a ducking stool. Right? Let me make a suggestion (more work): devote a brief section to documentation. That is, if Burr's is the authoritative account on which all subsequent articles and books are based, then say so, and say something about what's in there--it looks like transcripts and commentary, no? (Are there reviews of his book that support some statements? I'll look around.) Then, in the account of the proceedings, lean on Burr for footnotes--don't lean on those really not so great sources (signaled above); after all, they're middle men. What I like to see in articles like this (where we have primary documentation) is what I saw in another witchy article, Pendle_witches#The_Wonderfull_Discoverie_of_Witches_in_the_Countie_of_Lancaster. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To make a note on documentation--this says Burr reprints "several important accounts". This one I'd use: it talks of "masterly introduction", "classic", "edited by a master hand", etc., and mentions the reprint of the 1950s (our bibliography should mention that, besides his full names, George Lincoln). And here is a contemporary review: "Professor Burr's editing is all that could be desired. The notes are copious, accurate, and illuminating wherever light is needed". Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying we should have a section singing Burr's praises, but these reviews can be helpful in fleshing out a paragraph on the documentation that underlies the entire article. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, Burr isn't the first and he says he relied heavily on Edward James. Cushing is now used, which has transcripts of the legal records. Thanks for all the great pointers. We'll be working on this. PumpkinSky talk 23:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not find anything that talks in any great detail about the sources, so I've settled for a footnote. If there's more, we can move it into the body of the article. I am hesitant to express too much praise for Burr (even though he's dead 3/4 century), but did a bit of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Drmies, those three refs certainly establish Burr as a preeminent scholar of witchcraft in America. Burr's book was from 1914; he mentions James by name, which we have from 1893-1894. He does not seem to mention Cushing (1833), from whom we have legal transcripts, by name, but he does mention transcripts of the proceedings, so he may well have known of Cushing's work. The three refs you found are almost totally about the Salem trials, which were in Massachusetts, not Virginia. Burr devotes 10 pages to Sherwood. Levermore just two lines, and Norton none. Therefore, I think it would be hard to have a whole section like the one you link to in Pendle witches, maybe a small paragraph. I am willing to give it a shot if you like, no problem at all. For now I've added Norton and Levermore to further reading. For the record Burr must have seen the original legal records (then 207 years old) as in a footnote to the intro section on Sherwood, he says "1 Though the old record book through which these entries are scattered is still in good condition, the passages relating to this interesting case are begin- ning to suffer from wear, and from the first four lines of the entry for July 5, which come at the bottom of a page, a few words have crumbled away, and are preserved only by the transcripts. In the margin of the entry for May 2 are the words "Ag* Grace Sherwood for witchcraft," and in that of the entry for June 6 the words " Bousch Att r for Queen vs. Sherwood". They would have been in better shape in Cushing's time, when they were only 127 years old. PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He had to have known of Cushing's work. According to the reviews Drmies was kind enough to supply, Burr was a librarian at Cornell, having in his charge a significant reference library on this subject matter. He had to have had Cushing.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was heavily involved in the recent peer review, during which time the article changed quite significantly. Some of those changes were instigated by me; I don't feel, though, that my involvement is sufficient to prevent me from supporting the article's promotion. However, I think it is appropriate to wait until the issues arising from Drmies's sourcing enquiries are settled before doing so. In the meantime, I have one minor question of wording in the first lead paragraph, which reads: "She was tried several times for witchcraft; at her final trial, in 1706, she was accused of bewitching Elizabeth Hill..." etc. It appears from the text, however, that although she was charged with witchcraft several times before her 1706 trial, these charges were not actually brought to trial. Her "final" trial was in fact her only trial. That being so, the wording should be changed. Brianboulton (talk) 21:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Change made. Good catch! PumpkinSky talk 21:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Now that the sources issues have been resolved, and my own minor issues (above) dealt with, I am happy to support this article's promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your great help on this and the support. PumpkinSky talk 23:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are very appreciative, thank you. Given the history. ...--Wehwalt (talk) 23:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

I am pleased with the way my suggestions were taken in the PR. A few minor points:

  • the pic caption "This spot intersects with Muddy Creek Road." doesn't help me.
  • "According to Leslie M. Newman, this may have been due to local poverty." - makes me want to know more without opening a pdf.
  • Suggest to explain what ducking means where it is mentioned first.
Done all of the above.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trial ...:
  • Pic caption beach: say first that it was the place, then details? (The name says it, but I noticed only the second time.)

That's it, fine legendary article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. We will do the image comments, I need PumpkinSky to look at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Did the photo bit. PumpkinSky talk 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • More spotchecks Ok, I did a second (third?) round of spotchecks since it was requested. It looks to me like the citations are accurately paraphrased and represent the sources well. I checked references# 7, 11, 20, 31, 32 (in two locations), 42, 53, 54, and 58. I've included the text of the article's sources along with the article's text for reference on this review's talk page in case anyone wants to check my work. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Crisco and thank everyone, we really appreciate your being willing to stick your necks out for us.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Had the time to do a review of the old FAC, the old FARC and the current PR and FAC. I found a few issues with close paraphrasing, mainly off the USA Today source which I hope I have adjusted with some wording tweaks. Just ran Citation Bot and cleaned up a few issues with the cites, nothing of real issue. The main concern in the past was the issue with copyvio and close paraphrasing which now seem to be rectified. Automated peer review suggests watching out for weasel words, but I didn't spot anything that wasn't backed up. The article is neutral, comprehensive and follows summary style.--MONGO 22:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much for your work with the article and review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed! Thank you for this thorough and dedicated work, not to mention the support. That's 5 supports now. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Whaam!

[edit]
Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating the opening paragraph from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 (henceforth FAC1): I am nominating this for featured article because this is a highly important work of art that has a September 28, 2013 50th anniversary of its first exhibition. Over the last few years Roy Lichtenstein's modestly notable works have been selling in the $42–56 million dollar range. This is his single most important/famous work. At an absolute minimum it would sell for $70 million but could sell for two or three times that. If it were to ever be sold it would surely land on the List of most expensive paintings. It is one of if not the very most valuable military art painting in the world.

FAC1 was a very controversial nomination with 221,314 bytes plus 132,512 bytes archived to the talk page for a total of 353,826 bytes of content (call it 354KB) after 4 weeks. It had 2 supports (Curly Turkey and Binksternet) and 2 opposes (Modernist and John). John's oppose was on a 2-week-old version of the article. Modernist had wavered between oppose and support in the discussion and his oppose was an hour and a half old when the discussion closed. However, the reason for his most recent opposition stance had been reverted. At closure, several active discussants were undecided (Bus stop, Masem and Ewulp). Other undecided discussants with notable contributions to the discussion were Hiding and to a lesser extent Theramin who was an active editor of the article. Mr Stephen also made several edits to the article during its prior candidacy, but did not engage in the discussion. At one point, GrahamColm moved 97,268 bytes of Bus stop's comments (and responses by others) to the FAC1 talk page with the edit summary "I see this as peripheral to FAC criteria". Other discussants noted Bus stop's tireless and tiresome discussion style. Curly Turkey described it at various times as a filibuster and treadmilling. Masem, the most neutral of discussants on several issues, stated "Bus Stop's complaints are trivial and nuanced at best"

The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article. For WPVA I have 6 (3 paintings and 3 sculptures) of the 56 FA-Class visual arts articles and 25 of the 112 GA-Class visual arts articles including my first GA and first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans. However, many of these crossed over into COMICS since June 2012 and I now have 2 of the 31 FA-Class Comics articles and 8 of the 159 GA-Class Comics articles. I have attempted to both be impartial and use my longstanding relationships with WPVA members to move the discussion forward. Due to the possibility of a 50th anniversary TFA and the unusual nature of the 354KB controversial nomination, a delegate has granted permission for a relisting after only 48 hours. Hopefully, four weeks from now we have reached a resolution of this discussion rather than accumulated 100s of KB of more contentious debate.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My concerns were addressed at the first FAC, that the comics aspect should be given proper weight, naming the writers/editors/artists of the comic book which inspired Lichtenstein. My support is contingent on this material remaining in the article. If someone were to argue successfully that very little about comics was to be in the article then I would oppose the FAC. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weak opposeSupport with changes in BG section. Most of what I had issue with was dealt with in the first FAC (in removing much about the appropriation aspects to other articles, keeping this focused on Whaam!) This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice. It's a simple barrier to get over. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure how to respond to this concern. The section now has 4 paragraphs. The first explains that he had a military background that included pilot training. The second says that he transitioned into comics-based works. Paragraph three says that this was unusual subject matter, but Lichtenstein enjoyed it. Paragraph four discusses the themes of Lichtenstein's work at the time and their relation to this image. Where would you like to see pop art added?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I am not sure what is requested. Are you requesting content similar to the first half of Roy_Lichtenstein#Rise_to_prominence?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be less a bio about Litchenstein, and more about the pop art movement at the time when Whaam was conceived and created, which likely includes Litchenstein's contribution. Yes, the fact he was in the military and that he transitioned to comic book works is important, but we don't need as much details about him here, and are lacking details about the art world at the time. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW at the time Lichtenstein painted and exhibited Whaam! Pop art was still in its infancy; the movement was in the process of becoming a movement; the artworld in the early 60s was in a state of transition as abstract expressionism and realism was on the wane and color field painting, geometric abstraction, minimal art, and pop art were beginning to attract more and more artists. In my opinion we don't really need to include any of this as context and I prefer the focus being on Lichtenstein's history...Modernist (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See, there you go, stating pop art was at its infancy. That's good to add, that gives the reader the idea this was early in the period. The problem with it now is that the focus on Litchenstein's past is that we have a whole article dedicated to him, so if someone really needs to know the detailed bio, they can go there, as it is out of context for the painting. There are elements of his bio that are needed here, that he's ex-military, that he never had a love of comic books but saw them as a challenge, and a few other things, but not as much as there is now. --MASEM (t) 12:27, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not saying those details aren't appropriate either, but right now the section weighs far too heavy on Litchenstein's detailed background (which is already at his personal article) and very little on the state of the art world at the time. We don't need his military record, but just to know he was in the military as to understand his fascination with that topic area. Similarly, pointing out that he wasn't a fan of comics but saw the use of comic-based work for his art as a challenge is an appropriate statement. But the lack of discussion to place where the state of the art world, and specifically pop art, is what this should start off at as to guide the reader to understand Litchenstein's desires better. --MASEM (t) 14:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Binksternet—you are asking "how comics were viewed"[44]. I think the answer to that is simple: comic books were viewed as being part of "popular culture". That is why their imagery was drawn upon by artists seeking to represent the imagery of "popular culture" in their paintings. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem is raising a good point but responding to it in our article would hinge upon the availability of sources addressing the question of how Lichtenstein's employment of imagery closely related to comic books fits into the pop artists' more general employment of a wider variety of images culled from what is commonly referred to as "popular culture". Masem says "This still leaves me with the "Background" section that needs improvement, as I find it too disjointed towards guiding the reader to understand why Litchenstein went to create this. It currently is focused too much on Litchenstein's past (Which should be in Litchenstein's article) and little on the pop art movement at the time. It should flow from the pop art state to Litchenstein's work to Whaam. This is easily fixed though I don't feel I have the knowledge to be able to do it justice." I don't think anyone has "the knowledge". Unless you find a source assigning significance to Lichtenstein's embrace of the comic book form seen in for instance the Whaam! painting, the Drowning Girl painting, and others, I think there is no way to fit Lichtenstein's choice of imagery in such paintings, into the more general category of images relating to "popular culture". Lichtenstein, in other paintings, certainly does avail himself of other types of images aside from those relating to comic books. I did find one comment in a source which I think slightly sheds light on the distinction that his comic-book-related images have which sets them apart from pop art imagery generally. In this article in The Telegraph, Alastair Smart says the following: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." I think that in that comment Alastair Smart is distinguishing between the comic-book-related paintings that Lichtenstein has made, and just about all other works of pop art produced either by Lichtenstein or any other pop artist. Rather than try to paraphrase what Alastair Smart says I think we should just place his quote into our article: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion." Bus stop (talk) 13:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context

[edit]
I added this here just for us...Modernist (talk) 11:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

[edit]

At FAC1, there was last-minute controversy around the images. GermanJoe, had approved all the images except for File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg. After I removed the image, Modernist opposed because he felt that the image review suggested that more content was needed related to the image rather than the image be removed. I have since added content related to the image. GermanJoe, suggested that I now request Masem's opinion on the images based on his intimacy with the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we start on the assumption that File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped.JPG is a free image - which shows good detail of how Litchenstein would have proceeded to paint the painting from his sketch, then File:Drawing for Whaam!.jpg is extranous non-free as we basically currently have 4 drawings of the same "thing" in the photo, but the details provided by the cropped version do just as an effective job to help explain Litchenstein's creation process.
I will however state my concern that the cropped drawing being called free. I know I doubted the text balloon crop as being a free image before but was demonstrated wrong at Commons, a rationale I understand, but I think the cropped is far more than just text (more than the text balloon) and hard to argue as ineligible for copyright. I would recommend getting commons experts to review the image there. If they say its free , then my above statement stands. If it is not free, the full sketch is reasonable to remain behind, since the user can manually zoom in to see the coloring guide detail. --MASEM (t) 21:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When you say "more than just text" do you mean something like a notable quotation. I wouldn't oppose removing the cropped text balloon, if we can keep the cropped drawing as free. I just need one free image for the main page in case of being eliigible for a WP:TFAR.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One image of the sketch is sufficient to show, in line with the text, how he did a "paint-by-numbers" type approach to the sketch prior to projecting and painting it. The non-free, full sketch image is sufficient resolution to be able to see that in the WHAAM letters, so we don't need the higher resolution. However, if the cropped version manages to be free, then that image should be used. Basically, we don't need the sketch to show the layout of the art for the 3rd/4th time, but to show the paint-by-numbers scheme, so a finer detail that would happen to be free would be just as appropriate and better than a non-free full version. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You feel that even with the additional content the full drawing is redundant with the crop? Keep in mind we don't have the image at a high resolution for zooming. IIRC, when i ran my first FA, Campbell's Soup Cans, at WP:TFA, they allowed me to crop one can for the main page. That is sort of what I am doing here. In the long run the article may be better with the full image than the crop.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Calling Modernist: Since you opposed the removal of the full image of the drawing, you may want to comment here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Campbell's Soup Cans was a TFA back in 2007, prior to the adoption of our current non-free content policy, I suspect that what could go on TFA was not as rigorous as it is now (though looking at the talk page of that, it does appear that no image was allowed on Main Page, and the blurb page has no image period, so I don't know what exactly happened). Today, zero non-free can be on the front page (there was even a recent discussion about this a few months ago) Now, as explained at commons, the speech balloon crop is free so that's at least something because it is just text - for all purposes. Here, you actually have elements of the flames and the like behind WHAAM, meaning it is more than just text, and ergo is more a possible problem that there are still copyrightable elements in the crop, hence why I would get commons to review if that crop is tight enough to leave something uncopyrightable. --MASEM (t) 00:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And just to note, I do see that there was an image called "Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA_reduced_80%25.jpg" used in a May 5, 2007 version of the Soup Cans blurb, but given that with my admin powers I don't see it here, I suspect was since deleted at Commons, meaning that it was not considered free later. Your speech balloon crop is clearly okay for a TFA front page, since commons says that crop is sufficient for ineligible copyright, so you have something. I just feel that you can't call the crop that you have around the WHAAM in the draft image includes too much that is beyond lettering to be ineligible for copyright, which is why I suggest a call over to commons to help review. --MASEM (t) 00:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To help out, I posed the question at commons: [46]. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should keep the full image - it shows that he actually drew the entire picture not just the blown up crop depiction of Whaam with numbers - it's somewhat deceptive. Frankly we can dump the text balloon - which is really gratuitous and keep the full drawing and if possible the cropped drawing too...Modernist (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The complete drawing in the article with the painting makes the article - gives it quality; clarity and power. The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made it must be kept...Modernist (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, there's nothing in the text to support the full drawing if the cropped version around WHAAM is free. You have the final piece of art which doesn't vary significantly, so there's little comparison to be made there; the more interesting comparisons are between the original comic panels and the final art, and the final art and the parody work. You do want one of the two images of the sketch to show the mechanics Litchenstein used, but you don't need both, and if the cropped version is free, the full version has to go under NFCC#1. But if the cropped version is not, then the full version is fine (and then to meet TFA, you need the text balloon crop as the free image). --MASEM (t) 01:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The full drawing belongs and aids in understanding how the painting was made and the cropped version really should go - hopefully it isn't free (and one of these days you guys should change those rules so common sense dictates)...Modernist (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but we have a mandate from the Foundation to reduce non-frees and encourage free content creation. The (possible) free image shows the process in as much depth as necessary that the sourcing in the text provides as the large one does, and there's nothing that demands the reader to see the large image to understand the processes any better than the cropped version does. --MASEM (t) 01:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more than willing to go to the mat to buff up the content related to the drawing to show its relevance, but I do not have sources supporting such. Is there a chance that with additional sources providing greater relevance to the drawing that it might be kept. There is already significant amount of text in the article discussing the differences between the original conception and the drawing and then the drawing and the original. It is not clear that this alone is not sufficient justification to present the entire Drawing.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue here is that we are looking at NFCC#8, second part, that the reader's understanding of the topic of Whaam! would be harms if we removed the non-free, full sketch. As we have the final colored art and the original work it was based on, composition elements are visually shown, so this aspect is not lost to the reader, nor am I seeing anything in text that describes major changes in placement between the draft sketch and the final art to a degree that needs visual imagery (There is the factor of how the plane and explosion were moved closer together in the final image, but that's something easily described in text). I do agree that seeing the paint-by-numbers approach is helpful and removal would be harmful, and thus if we do have to resort to a non-free image (the full drawing) to show this, that's fine. But there's a potential for free content to show the same thing and if that can be used (per the commons discussion) then we are required to do so and forego the full size draft image. If more can be found that describes the critical importance of the draft image (as a whole, or more on the copyrighted elements) on the final art, then that would lead to justifying the full non-free draft image, but I'm not reading that at this time. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of whether the crop is free, I think it might be more free if I cropped only the upper left letters so that no shapes other than letters are visible. The non-alphabetic shapes are somewhat artistic and make arguments against free possible.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, we could do some not linear cropping out of elements to preserve only the WHAAM text in the drawing.---TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are probably other ways to crop the image to show the same essence (the paint-by-numbers approach) while increasing the likelihood of copyright ineligibility, but let's wait on commons input on the current crop. I certainly think this is the right way to go, I just want to make sure its clear. --MASEM (t) 02:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Follow along at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I commented there...Modernist (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New images
[edit]
  • I agree the yellow Whaam is extraneous here but keep that around for your TFA, since that's much more obvious than the text balloon snippet as representing the painting. I would almost argue that as long as these are free (they are at commons and not leaving there) that you also don't need the zoom of the text balloon (it will remain at commons), since the reason you had that to start was for the TFA image, but I think the yellow Whaam is much better. --MASEM (t) 14:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm only evaluating the yellow Whaam and the text balloon images as free and whether they are really necessary, and not in an NFC light (where the inclusion would be a lot more rigorous). I'm working on the assumption based on my previous questions on the text balloon zoom that the text balloom image, the close-up of the sketch, and the simulated render (yellow Whaam) are all free, established by the reasoning from the text balloon discussion. --MASEM (t) 14:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I have an oppose on the images at this point, as long as we have affirmation from Commons that the cropped version of the sketch page is copyright-ineligible, though I leave the question about the need for the colored Whaam and the text balloon images as being necessary. On the caption "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Color notations (w for white) can be seen in the titular letters.", I would reword it as such "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963). Litchenstein marked sections of Drawing with color notations when creating the final work, such as the "w" for white in the above titular letters". If the rendered Whaam is NOT kept, then its caption can be merged above. Also, please feel free to link - either as a reference or EL - this Tate page for Drawing [47] as while we shouldn't include the non-free image, we have no limitations against linking to it by the museum. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I don't the the images serve much purpose in the article. Why not just save them for the TFA? At the very least drop the redundant "Cropped and edited portion of Drawing for 'Whaam!' (1963)." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe TFA can only use images hosted in the article. (In fact it may be a main page rule). I think I am just going to let an image reviewer give us rulings on all current content. I will probably request a review in the next 24 hours. Don't know when it will come.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image check
[edit]

Image check - all OK. 1 image should be removed (Done). I'll focus on the "problematic" images, all other images have been discussed already in previous reviews. Thanks to Masem for the valuable input and analysis.

  • File:Drawing_for_'Whaam!'_cropped_2.JPG and File:Just_whaam_no_bg.svg => OK. Editors at GraphicLab did their best to make those crops as "trivial" as possible. IANAL, but both seem simple enough to be kept. Technically they are derivatives, but compared with the size and details of the original work, they don't infringe on that copyright beyond de minimis.
  • File:Drawing_for_Whaam!.jpg => OK (close call). It shows a) the initial separation of two panels, b) the sketch style of the artist for the final work c) the truncation of the left panel (all mentioned in the article) and probably more tiny details, that may be interesting for an expert. Note: a simple 1:1 sketch of the final work without notable details would not meet fair-use.
  • File:Whaam!_text_balloon.jpg => not OK, suggest removal (Removed) for several reasons:
  • The depicted text can be easily formatted and replaced as quote box. The graphical elements are not needed.
  • The complete text bubble is more significant than a single word, thus more likely to infringe on the artist's rights.
  • Cropping trivial elements out of copyrighted works is already a slippery slope and would benefit from a thorough discussion at Commons. It should be restricted to the most trivial cases - if the crop is not needed or not trivial enough, such usages should be avoided to stay within the spirit of our copyright policies.

A final note to clarify, image checks are no unilateral decision - everyone can oppose/support based on their own analysis of the image situation or request a second and third opinion from other editors. GermanJoe (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Squeamish Ossifrage

[edit]

Prose:

Images:

  • I'm stridently unconvinced that File:Drawing for 'Whaam!' cropped.JPG and File:Whaam! text balloon.jpg are PD-ineligible, no matter what the FFDs for those two images did or didn't conclude previously.
    • Can you provide separate concerns for each so that I can understand what the matter is.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:30, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think the former is more likely to survive a PD assessment than the latter. I really only need one of these to survive so that I can have an image for the desired WP:TFA. I created the latter before learning about the source from which the former is cropped. I would sacrifice one easily, especially if it is the latter.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I remain uncertain of the claim that an identifiable cropped excerpt from an unquestionably copyrighted work can itself be considered in the public domain. I am aware that Commons has accepted this (and several other images) under the theory that a crop from a copyrighted work performed such that the only visible elements would fail to meet the standard for creative expression in and of themselves, does not possess any of the copyright protections of the parent work, even when the use of that crop is directly in the context of the original work. A cursory search hasn't provided me with any case law that's directly informative, and given the state of current copyright law, there may not be a firm "correct" answer here. Let me dig a little further on the topic. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • This nomination will not close without a separate image review for WP:NFCC concerns. It is my belief that alphabetic characters, basic fonts, basic colors, and basic shapes are not copyrightable. This the onomatopoeia is very likely PD without any of the artistic shapes. I don't know if you noticed that the sketch crop previously had some background flames and such. This review has a separate "unofficial" image review section. The prose may have some greater copyright level and the text balloon is less likely to remain. I may remove it before the official image review begins.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting:

Other:

Leaning oppose at the moment, primarily due to my concerns over the Reception section's overall structure and the use of direct quotes without naming their speakers, but I'm confident the shortcomings can be remedied within the FAC period. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Curly Turkey

[edit]

Addressed comments moved to talk page'. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I still strongly believe the bit about Hergé is an anachronism in relation to this painting. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Bus stop

[edit]

Scope at one particular paragraph:

The paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…" which is found in the Reception section of the article is problematic. There is actually only one notable individual raising concerns over the similarity between the imagery that is in the painting Whaam! and the imagery that is found in that painting's comic book sources. That person is Dave Gibbons and his comments can be found here and here. I completely endorse that Dave Gibbons' comments and point of view should be in this article. Yet the name Dave Gibbons does not even appear in the paragraph that I am referencing. That paragraph, problematically, speaks in general terms about unspecified paintings and unspecified comic book imagery. Dave Gibbons, by contrast, speaks specifically about the relationship between the painting Whaam!, which is the subject of this article, and a specific comic book image created by a comic book artist named Irv Novick. This is precisely the sort of commentary that should be in the paragraph to which I am referring and yet it is absent. Instead there is general commentary about unspecified paintings by Lichtenstein and their unspecified comic book counterparts. I feel that all material in this paragraph should relate specifically to the painting Whaam!. This article is not the same as a more general article such as the Roy Lichtenstein article or the Appropriation (art) article. Those kinds of articles have scopes that make them appropriate for discussions of Lichtenstein's imagery generally and its relationship to its source material such as comics. A more full treatment is possible in an article such as the "Roy Lichtenstein" article or the "Appropriation" article and therefore I think there would be a greater likelihood of achieving a neutral point of view in such an article. I think this article should be kept free of general commentary on Lichtenstein's paintings and their relation to source imagery as found for instance in comic books. There are several commentators from the art world who feel that the paintings by Lichtenstein bear little visual similarity to the comics to which they relate. These commentators point this out and explain in concrete terms why they believe this to be the case. Bus stop (talk) 04:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That very paragraph names at least one other person Ernesto Priego. Gravett shares this concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—can you tell me why this article should not be required to remain within the realm of its own scope? You say at the top of this page:

"COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments."

This article is not a playground for editors you refer to as "COMICS folks". We actually have reliably sourced criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam! and yet it is not in this article. I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. At the top of this page you say:

"The prior discussion was contentious because WP:COMICS discussants (Curly Turkey and Hiding) wanted more detailed explanation of topics that WP:WPVA discussants (Bus stop and Modernist) felt were out of scope for this article. More specifically, COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein and this work is considered the prime example of their general arguments. The issue is how much of that criticism actually belongs in this article."

In point of fact there is included in the article virtually no substantiation in sources that there is "impropriety" in Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in the painting Whaam!. The sources are available. But they are not used. Instead the article has opted for general criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in an unspecified number of paintings. This is outside of the scope of this article. Please note that this is an article on one painting.

The Ernesto Priego "criticism" that is in this article is actually criticism of "National Periodicals". It is not criticism of Lichtenstein or his use of comic book imagery in Whaam!.

By far the most substantial source of criticism of Lichtenstein's use of comic book imagery in Whaam! is Dave Gibbons.

We have a BBC source written by Alastair Sooke in which Sooke relates Dave Gibbons' comments. Gibbons is quoted as saying "I’m not convinced that it is art"…"A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." Can you please tell me why none of this is included in the article? Is it excluded from the article because it happens to be within the scope of the article?

We have another another source (gravett.com) in which the same individual—Alastair Sooke—asks Dave Gibbons if he feels Lichtenstein is a plagiarist . Gibbons replies "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is genuine criticism that is 100% within the scope of this article. But instead of on-topic material we find generalized criticism of an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings that happen to use comic book imagery. Why should't this article remain within its scope and why shouldn't this article be required to remain on topic? Oh, I forgot—the "COMICS folks have lots of negative commentary against Lichtenstein". It doesn't matter if a contingency of editors have a point-of-view to push. We should remain within scope. There are other articles at Wikipedia (Roy Lichtenstein, Appropriation (art)). Well-sourced information should be able to find a home on Wikipedia.

Instead of including in-scope material, this article has inexplicably opted for including generalizations about wrongdoing applicable to an indefinite number of Lichtenstein paintings. That is a misuse of this article. Again, I am referring to only one paragraph in all of my comments here. That is the paragraph in our article beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties…". It is at the present time found in the Legacy section of the article. Bus stop (talk) 19:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. I am not going to start out by humoring you. You need to make your comments much more brief. Look at everyone else's comments. I will not respond to anything that you post that is longer than 1500 characters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Tony here, Bus Stop. You're repeating yourself, probably for the third or fourth time from the first FAC. You have points that are valid, but no one is going to be able to read through your comments to figure out what is implementable. If you shorten up to get your point out, there's a better chance a solution can be had. --MASEM (t) 19:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger, Masem—I think a final sentence that should be included, as I've pointed out before, is:
"The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."
This is well-sourced to MoMALearning, which is a Museum of Modern Art web site. We are an encyclopedia. The quality of sources should be considered a significant factor on what information gets included in the article as well as the emphasis it receives. As long as material extraneous to what is strictly the scope of the article is being included willy-nilly, why not include a sentence that includes information that has been vetted by an especially relevant source such as a museum of contemporary art? Bus stop (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have discussed this very topic in the past. Note that the article already includes the following sentence "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—[77] in Whaam! and other works of the period." Footnote 77 is the very one that you mention above. It is used to cite the dashed parenthetical explanation of appropriation (borrowing of imagery from other sources). I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why does that sentence say "such as"? Are there any other "perceived improprieties"?
Furthermore, what is there to "compromise" about? You say "I do appreciate your patience, persistence and attention, but this is fairly strong compromise the way I have incorporated your suggestion."[48] If you see an issue, can you please explain that issue to me?
We are talking about perfectly straightforward, factual information. The source is telling us that "Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture".
The first sentence of the very brief article says, "Appropriation is the intentional borrowing, copying, and alteration of preexisting images and objects."[49] Is something unclear about that?
This is an article on a painting. The painting is an example of pop art. There were many pop artists. The ones named utilized what the article is calling "appropriation". Is there some reason that we should not share with the reader that other pop artists utilized "appropriation" too? Bus stop (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, Tony's point is you keep repeating yourself at length, even though he believes he has addressed the issue already. You're far too wordy and circle around the issue without saying it. Get to your point, a statement "This article must include a statement on 'blah'", and don't quote endlessly about the issue. Otherwise, your points will be ignored or overlooked. And if you've already made a statement about something, just link back to it. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the usage of appropriation in the Pop Art movement should be be talked about—not in "Reception", but in the "Background" section, which is ghostly thin on details of the contemporary art world. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already say he was parodying other artists in the history section. I am open to a paragraph about appropriation in the background. What content would you like to see there? (Bus stop be brief if you choose to respond).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:06, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about maybe a short paragraph or so summing up "what the art world had been up to" (as @Binksternet: puts it above). In the last FAC @Modernist: talked about "the artworld of the 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was waning, and Minimalism, Hard-Edge Painting, Color Field painting and Pop Art was on the rise". It's not clear if he was recommending adding these things, but I do believe it's exactly the kind of thing Binksternet is calling for (in which case, I agree; I think this may be what @Masem:'s looking for as well). In such a paragraph, a brief explanation of appropriation would fit nicely, especially adjacent to (maybe leading into?) the stuff about comics in the "Background". Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "the artworld of the 1960s when Abstract Expressionism was waning, and Minimalism, Hard-Edge Painting, Color Field painting and Pop Art was on the rise"- if there are content deficiencies which both the art guys (represented by Modernist) and the comics guys (represented by Curly Turkey) view congruently (and in concurrence with our neutral parties Masem and Binksternet), I am very interested in rectifying them. First, let me repeat that you guys are all more expert than me. I have only learned about art by going to museums for entertainment and to the library for wikipedia. I have never taken a course and have no experience. For a sentiment like this a source would be great. Better yet, since both of you are more expert than me, you can feel free to jump in. Yes let's add some content related to this issue.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed some content (some of which you've added, some of which I'm awaiting your feedback on), but the artworld stuff is probably best handled by those who've already brought this stuff up. Right now, I see the lack of artworld background as the article's greatest deficiency. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the paragraph beginning with the wording "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties", presently found in the Whaam!#Legacy section, I think the following is called for:
  • We are not so much concerned that "Some have denigrated" the painting "Wham!" as "mere copying". We should be told who has denigrated the painting "Wham!".
  • We are not so much concerned that "Critics have raised concerns" about the painting "Wham!". We should be told which critics raised the concerns about the painting Whaam! and what specifically were those concerns?
  • We are not so much concerned that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the comic book artists" relating to the painting "Wham!" but rather who raised that criticism of the painting Whaam! and what specifically was that criticism?

The general problem that I perceive in that paragraph is a failure to relate specifically and concretely to the painting that is the subject of the article. Bus stop (talk) 11:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe these statements are inactionable, as long as there is a reliable source behind each that effectively states "there are some that believe X", without stating who that some are. If the article did not source those statements and there was no quote, then I would definitely expect that the statement would have to be followed by explicit examples and quotes/summations from a few of those as to justify it. But the sourcing give for each of the above are equally vague about who explicitly made those statements, but those sources are also reliable (eg BBC), so we are not making the claim of that broad generality but letting the RS make it. Further, in relationship to Whaam, the details of "who" are not so important here and would move away from the topic. --MASEM (t) 13:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—this is an article about the painting Whaam! and the only person supporting the sentiments expressed above in relation to the painting Whaam! is the person Dave Gibbons. These are your sources: [50] and [51]. The expressed sentiments should be attributed to Dave Gibbons. The present wording suggests that others share Dave Gibbons' sentiments. If any others do in fact share Dave Gibbons' sentiments, that information can be included and that information too should be supported by sources. We should be articulating specific sentiments attributable to specific individuals concerning specifically Whaam!. Again—this is an article on the painting Whaam!. I don't think that this article should switch into a more general mode in that paragraph. Let us stay on the topic of the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Except the only person that sources seem to articulate is Gibbons, (BBC's calls him "One of them", referring to the negative critics), and there's a section about Gibbons' parody work in the Legacy section, where his specific commentary on Whaam! is best suited as to understand the rationale behind the parady. The only paragraph in Legacy that seems out of place because it doesn't mention Whaam directly is the one that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art.", though the statements it has are relevent to the subsequent discussion of Whaam. Again, I think you're issues are inactionable to the level of detail we expect for WP and given available sourcing. --MASEM (t) 14:34, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—the article has a scope. There is no justification (that I know of) for straying outside of the scope. The material is sourced to a specific individual. Are you arguing that we should not say who that individual is? I would argue that not only should we name the individual but we should allow him to speak for himself. Quotes are provided in both of the sources that I mention above of the actual language Dave Gibbons uses in relation to the subject of this article. The subject is a painting. The scope of this article is tied to the painting Whaam!. Bus stop (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating two issues.
  • Issue 1 is of scope. I agree that we should stay focused on Whaam and anything that is broader (about Litchenstein, about pop art, etc.) probably should be discussed in depth in those articles. But it is not a crime to have a brief statement that will lead readers to those other articles in the context of Whaam. Thus, the paragraph that begins "Comic books were in turn affected by the cultural impact of pop art." may be a bit out of scope since Whaam is not directly mentioned but it is a reasonable thing to attach to Whaam if it can be tied in better with the other text around it. Basically, the key is a reading flow to help the reader as much as possible, and if one has to step away from specifics about Whaam! to note this, then that fine. (This is necessary here for the appropriation aspect as without that discussion, Gibbons' parody makes no sense)
  • Issue 2 is of opinion attribution. We as WP editors cannot make claims that "some critics felt X" (a statement of OR) without either immediately showing the sources of critics that felt X, or going to a RS that has that statement. As we have the latter case, we don't have to outline who those people were. Gibbons is unique, since he was specifically called out and shown to have done a parody work of Whaam! on the issue of appropriation, so calling him out and his opinion is fine. However, all the other "some critics felt X" statements are those made about the broader issues and not about Whaam! itself, so it makes little sense to go into detail about it here (Issue 1 again), and thus asking to call out the specific critics really doesn't make sense. --MASEM (t) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—how many "improprieties" are there? We read "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's perceived improprieties, such as use of appropriation—borrowing of imagery from other sources—in Whaam! and other works of the period." Isn't there only one potential "impropriety"? Isn't that one possible "impropriety" called "appropriation"? I believe it is. Shouldn't we add a sentence to the end of that paragraph reading: "The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries."[52] If not, why not? Bus stop (talk) 17:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you've got such a bug up your bum about the word "improprieties", then maybe you should stop ignoring the wording I kept proposing to you. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:18, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appropriation is already linked in the article, and unnecessary to link again. --MASEM (t) 18:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Indopug

[edit]
Inclined to oppose

The organisation of information is a little all-over-the-place, a problem arising from large and unwieldy sections. Either create more sections or sub-section the existing ones. Then you need rearrange stuff logically for better flow and less redundancy. Take the last para of History: it begins with the 1966 Tate purchase (info that is repeated in Reception), moves to Drawing, jumps to its 2006 acquisition, a 2012-13 retrospective (which is mentioned again, twice, in Reception), before returning to a justification for what happened in 1966.

Reception is also highly disorganised: I suggest going about it chronologically. Start with 1960s reception, and then come to the present (maybe in another, Legacy?, section). The section is also a confusing mix of critical reception of the painting itself, and the influence the painting had in the art world. There's stuff that should be in other sections: 'Lichtenstein's procedure entailed "the enlargement and unification of his source material...' (Description) and 'The Tate Gallery controversially bought...' (History).

The Background section also talks of too many distinct things: (a) what RL was doing before Whaam!, (b) the status of comic books at the time and (c) a summary of RL's comic-inspired work.

Prose: watch out for wordiness and repetitiveness. "Lichtenstein", for eg, features in pretty much every sentence of the article.—indopug (talk) 08:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be quite honest. At the FA level, my organizational skills are kind of week. Probably about a third of my FA credits benefited from reorganization by another editor. I am fairly certain that I will not ba able to sufficiently rearrange the content in a satisfactory way. I had tried to divide the reception into positive and negative subsections, but these were removed in favor of chronological reception. I don't know how else to subdivide things. I have put in a request with a veteran WP:WPVA editor to help me organize this. He has helped me organize a recent successful FA Look Mickey that was also by Lichtenstein. I am not sure how interested he might be in helping on this one because the WPVA people seem to have some issues with the content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indopug, did the reorganization by Ewulp suffice?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This may get a makeover. It seems that Ceoil (talk · contribs) has graced us with his magic hands. He is one of the best WP:WPVA copyeditors out there.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ewulp

[edit]

I agree with much of what Indopug says; "Reception" was for me the least satisfactory section; I hope I've made it a bit more digestible. Some more adjustment may be needed: possibly some of the details of comic-book history could move to the "History" section. After Ben Day dots are described in paragraph 2 of "Description", there needn't be a second detailed description in the section's last paragraph—something should be trimmed there. Ewulp (talk) 06:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reception is copy-edited a bit more. Ceoil (talk) 20:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Modernist

[edit]
Modernist, My guess is that this content was largely copied from another article possibly written about 3 or 4 years ago. two of the URLs are now dead ([53] and [54]). Do you have refs to replace those?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

[edit]

Is the WP URL for ref 72 supposed to be present? --Another Believer (Talk) 06:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stray text removed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 03:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support: I'm getting happier with the prose. My impression is that the bones of a fine article lay here, but its a few copy past edits from it yet re a re-org. - Only. I am very impressed with Tony's work on this so far. He has responed well, and I think should be allowed now time to move sections about and then come back to people. It should be appreciated that he took on an FAC on a very difficult and tangled work of modern art, one that a lot of us have strong feeling about. But it can be done. Ceoil (talk) 06:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In ways, it seems that the article has tried to skirt around the fact that ther images are...couching...borrowed. Rewording to make this more explicit. The work is what it is, take it or leave it, that's beside the point here. It can only be said so many times...thats the whole point, he was out to aggrivate. Its pop art for FS. This should not impact on its suitability for FAC. I'm dissapointed that the artice has not been taken on its own mertits, but instead has been drawn in to a broader argument. Ceoil (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil—the article is reading "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" Are there any bona fide critics raising such concerns? I think "critic" is being misapplied. Or perhaps one is stretching the meaning of the term "critic" to include a wider group of people than is usually intended by the term? Shouldn't this require sourcing—either in the form of several examples of "critics" raising these concerns, or in the form of a reliable source telling us this? One problem here is that the term "critic" in the context of a work of art may imply art critic. I think very few "art critics" raise the "concerns" referred to. If some do, than that should be offset by inclusion of the opinions of those who argue the opposite. Many responsible and genuine art critics writing for publications with for instance the imprimatur of the Museum of Modern Art state quite clearly that the painting is visually quite distinct from sources in comic book imagery. I will try to locate some opinions in this regard expressed by art critics, as they offer opinions that differ sharply from mere concerns with superficial similarity between painting and comic book imagery. Now that I think of it—one immediately comes to mind: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."[55] That is by Alastair Sooke. But there are several others that I have encountered. The gist of what they say is that elements of the painting decisively set it apart from comic book imagery, but some provide specific, concrete details on the visual factors that set the painting apart from the comic book imagery. (Alastair Sooke's quote lacks these concrete details.) Bus stop (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We've already addressed this point, Bus Stop. As long as the RS's use do a hand-wave around "critics" or other details, it is not required for our article to resolve that or go beyond that, as there's no OR going on. --MASEM (t) 13:31, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Busstop: adressing, but my feeling is that you are raising a more general point, unfairly, in the context of this specific FAC. Ceoil (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO MASEM is right about this. You are trying to raise a meta issue that is perhalps out of scope here. Ceoil (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil—the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation…" is problematic. It is condemnatory of Lichtenstein. It doesn't even point out that most if not all of Lichtenstein's fellow pop artists were also engaging in the appropriation of imagery that they found in "popular culture". We learn from MoMALearning that Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein engaged in the taking of imagery from preexisting sources in "popular culture". Our article is failing to point out that the borrowing of preexisting imagery was standard operating procedure for pop artists. When we read that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's..." we assume this is a problem particular to Lichtenstein. But it is obviously not a problem particular to Lichtenstein, but rather a practice that was used by pop artists in general. The paragraph is basically in violation of WP:NPOV. The paragraph is mostly condemnatory of Lichtenstein. Furthermore the notion that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is also largely untrue because many if not most art critics do not raise such concerns and many argue quite the opposite. Consider the following. This is from a book published by the Museum of Modern Art:
"Many in Lichtenstein's audience of the early 1960s considered the subjects of his paintings to have been no more tampered with than Duchamp's store-bought objects—images lifted almost intact from their commercial sources. It was a reaction the artist was looking for: "The closer my work is to the original, the more threatening and critical the content." But, he added, "I think my paintings are critically transformed." Girl with Ball's deviations from its ready-made inspiration amply bear out Lichtenstein's assessment. On the most obvious level, a shift in scale from a one-column newspaper advertisement to a life-size image, combined with a transition from black-and-white printed reproduction on newspaper stock to Mondrian-like harmonies of red, yellow, and blue on canvas, necessarily produces an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source. Aside from these elemental changes, the artist manipulated the girl's figure to endow the painting with something of the visual impact of hard-edge abstract painting. To paraphrase Lichtenstein, he was at the time aiming at "anti-Cubist" composition, defined by him as the isolation of an "object on a blank ground," thus defying "the major direction of art since the early Renaissance, which has more and more symbolized the integration of 'figure' with 'ground."[56]
The main point in the above is that Lichtenstein images are not"lifted almost intact" from "their commercial sources." For instance there is "an intensity of mood beyond the reach or ambition of its source." Our paragraph which begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation" is perpetuating a debunked myth. Certainly there are some people who say that Lichtenstein merely copied comic book artists. But that opinion should be balanced out in our article by strong sources stating otherwise. MoMA is an especially reliable source on points such as these. Bus stop (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The very paragraph you are talking about goes to lengths to debunk myths you are concerned about. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we don't say that "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period" because that is what appropriation is, in essence. Appropriation is the direct referencing of imagery from other sources. Bus stop (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—we've long established that we all know what appropriation is. We've also long established that people still have issues with it. Christ, man, life ain't black and white. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:49, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to analyze what is wrong with it, this is not good writing: "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period." There is also a problem in that paragraph in that it fails to mention the relevant point that it was not only Lichtenstein who practiced appropriation at that time. It was probably all Pop artists. This little source confirms for us that many well-known names in Pop art working at the same time as Lichtenstein were also involved in indulging in "appropriation". Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Out of interest, how widely realised actually was it at the start by the art world, just how closely Lichtenstein was working from underlying sources? Was this something that was commonly known from the outset (but might or might not have been considered of much interest), or was Lichtenstein merely considered to be working in the style of comic-books, until the detailed analysis of his sources was presented by afficionados of the original works? Jheald (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. User:Modernist would probably know more about that. My guess would be that it was known though perhaps imperfectly. Modernist posted this above. It might be relevant to the question you raise, although it is from 1966, which may be a few years after his first comic book style paintings. Bus stop (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)By the 1963, Lichtenstein was in heated debates with the artistic community on what constituted original work. In 1962, he did Portrait of Madame Cézanne which was quite controversial (although not comics-based). By the time of this work, he was being debated as a copycat or artist in leading publications.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Masem (background section)

[edit]

The background section is still disjointed, and I really don't understand why there's a split here. I'm reading it carefully and its still focusing far too much on Litchenstein's detailed past that can be summarized to lead to the work better. Below is a rough attempt to reword it for this:

By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism.[1][2] A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism,[3] hard-edge painting,[4] color field painting,[5] the neo-Dada movement,[6] Fluxus,[7][8] and pop art (which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery)[9] re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time.
Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency. Litchenstein's works would take small source panel images from comics and enlarge them, use techniques he learned during his non-combative career as a draftman for the U.S. Army. Litchenstein himself was not a comic book enthusiast but enticed as an artist by the challenge of creating art based on a subject remote from the typical "artistic image"; Litchenstein had stated that "I was very excited about, and very interested in, the highly emotional content yet detached impersonal handling of love, hate, war, etc., in these cartoon images."[16]
His earlier comic-based works were based on popular animated characters such as Look Mickey. By 1963, the year of Whaam's creation, he had become more reflective and started to work with comic imagery from romantic or war-related situations, drawing from his past military career and interest in aeronautical themes. These works took heroic subjects from small source panels and monumentalized them. Litchenstein considered "the heroes depicted in comic books are fascist types, but I don't take them seriously in these paintings—maybe there is a point in not taking them seriously, a political point. I use them for purely formal reasons."

(Please note, I would expect a good copyedit of this for wording; also I didn't leave in some references but what ones should be used should be the same). My point is how this keeps it from pop art to Litchenstein's comic book art and then to his specific military-themed comic art. Just enough of his bg is necessarily give to understand that he was in the Army and where he learned to enlarge works. --MASEM (t) 14:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can other people chime in on this proposed restructuring.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 18:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence Lichtenstein was considered one of the initiators of the pop art movement in the 1960s. should remain where it is.
  • This seems too simplistic and basically inaccurate: Many of his works in the late 1950s and early 1960s were derived from comic books, which at the time were considered "the lowest commercial and intellectual kind", according to Mark Thistlethwaite of the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth due to the perceived connection between comic books and juvenile delinquency.
  • I prefer leaving things be...Modernist (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside just saying, - Initially Lichtenstein claimed to take a bubble gum wrapper as his first commercial art source for a painting; in a spirit of absurdity - anything goes - and then he sourced commercial art; and then he got onto comic book art...Modernist (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion a good comment specific to Lichtenstein's "comic book art" is the one made by "Alastair Smart" in The Telegraph: "It’s his narrative scenes, though, for which Lichtenstein is best known: inspired not by the Bible or classical myth, but by comic books. In 1963’s diptych Whaam! – reworked from an American war comic and enlarged to mimic a huge Ab Ex canvas – a fighter pilot blasts an enemy into flaming oblivion."[57] This is a comment directly about Whaam!, directly about "comic book art", and the observation I think has applicability to both Lichtenstein's "war-themed" and "romance-themed" "comic book art" paintings. It is not a bad comment/observation. I think it should be placed in the article intact. I think it would be pointless to try to paraphrase it or to only use part of it. Bus stop (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not mind this addition, but Masem seems to be trying to shorten this section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much shorten, but focus. Much of Litchenstein's past is not directly related to Whaam, hence the refocus. --MASEM (t) 18:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think Masem's only talking about compressing the first paragraph of the "Biographical context" section. I agree it could be cut down without anything important being lost. Things like "After entering training programs for languages, engineering, and piloting, all of which were canceled" for instance are pretty tangential. Also: why was the Background section divided into Art world and Biographical sections? The section wasn't nearly long enough to warrant this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply (mostly to Curly and Masem): Pilot training shaped his career. Be careful what you say to cut. Also, keep in mind that everything in the WP:LEAD is a summary of the main text. I.E., the main text has more detail than the LEAD. Don't cut things out in the main body without cutting them from the LEAD. No one seems to be complaining about the LEAD that makes it seem that his military training greatly influenced his career.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, his pilot training should remain, but overall, a lot of this material can easily be compressed without losing anything of substance to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting folks know that Ceoil has stated his support of Masem's thoughts and has made some edits in that regard. Not sure if Ceoil is done.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is note that what Curly says above is true - There are some parts of Litchenstein's bg that are directly relevant, but much of the rest of that one specific para about his bio is not really well fitting here but should at least be in Litchenstein's article. --MASEM (t) 14:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment that I believe I am satisfied with the background section as it stands now. Its not exactly how I'd write it but the flow/concept approach is much better now, and I have no opposes to it at this stage. --MASEM (t) 13:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary removal of relevant material

[edit]

TonyTheTiger—you say in this edit summary: "Legacy: rv User:Bus stop's change here. Not so concerned about other artists in this article". Nor am I "concerned about other artists in this article". The concern is purely with Lichtenstein. He is not the only Pop artist using appropriation at the time. Lichtenstein is a member of the "Pop art" movement and virtually all of the members of the movement employed appropriation. Reliable sources tell us this, such as the one I provided from the Museum of Modern Art. We don't just make arbitrary decisions that exclude information for no reason at all. The paragraph that we are discussing says explicitly or implies certain negative qualities associated with Lichtenstein, all of which are associated with the practice of "appropriation" in his artwork. We read for instance in that paragraph, and entirely related to "appropriation" that "Critics have raised concerns of impropriety". We also read within that paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying". This is obviously a reference to "appropriation". The term "plagiarism" is invoked, and we also read in that paragraph that "Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources". This is all related to Lichtenstein's use of "appropriation". Yet nowhere in the paragraph is it mentioned that virtually all of the biggest names in Pop art used the same technique. The paragraph is heaping wrongdoing on Lichtenstein without allowing the reader to know how widespread the practice was within the "art movement" in which Lichtenstein operated. If you disagree with the MoMA source that I provided then please provide a source displaying a differing opinion. Please replace the material in that paragraph that allows the reader to see the art historical context in which Lichtenstein "appropriated" the comic book imagery. I find it a contrived limitation on well-sourced, and educational, and relevant material to arbitrarily decide that the reader cannot know that "appropriating" images from popular culture was standard operating procedure within the art movement in which Lichtenstein operated. Thank you. Bus stop (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure this is longer than the 1500 KB upper bound of what I said I would respond to. However, I'll give you a minute. Basically, if you can get WPVA guys like Modernist or Ceoil to agree that this is an important change without causing Curly Turkey to protest, then you can make the change.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already stated that I think it does belong—in the Background section. Not as a POV rebuttal in a paragraph already chock full of rebuttals.
  • The word "impropriety" has already disappeared from the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly, if you two opponents agree it should be incorporated in a section that is currently quite contentious (it has its own section of this FAC). Why don't you work it in to the article as you see fit. Given the amount of attention that the background is getting right now and Masem's interest in making it more focussed (keep in mind Masem is one of the dissents in the current 5–2 vote), either directly add your preference to the article or post a propose exact wording in the discussion section above where that section is being debated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—I am not an "opponent" of anyone. Nor can you derive that something is contentious from its having "its own section of this FAC." The first two sentences in the paragraph that we are discussing are sourced to two different sources—bbc.com and paulgravett.com. But the assertions in both sentences are really being attributed to Dave Gibbons. We are supposed to write about contemporary art from a relatively enlightened point of view. We can allow for the representation of countervailing views in our article. But multiple problems are initiated when you overrepresent minority points of view and also fundamentally go outside of the scope of the article by for instance discussing many other Lichtenstein paintings besides the one that is the title of the article. This paragraph is not only discussing Lichtenstein's paintings in general but it is giving undue weight to a minority view about those paintings. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that since you two frequently disagree, it is good that you agree on necessary content. However, you seem to want to add it to a section where people seem to agree that we should be shortening. Additionally, with a current 5–2 vote, you should note the primary proponent of shortening is one of the dissenters.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:47, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that people are looking to shorten that section, it's that some of the biographical information has no bearing on this article (the fact that he studied languages?) We want to see the fat trimmed, but I don't think anyone is averse to adding material that will enrich the article.
I think the line "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" should be replaced with a clearer statement about appropriation—the meaning of the line will be totally opaque to most readers.
How about:
"By the late 1950s and early 1960s the American art world had grown accustomed to and tired of the subjective angst and "hot" look of abstract expressionism. A new generation of artists emerged with a more objective "cool" approach characterized by the art movements known today as minimalism, hard-edge painting, color field painting, the neo-Dada movement, Fluxus, and pop art, re-defining the avant-garde contemporary art of the time. Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. Lichtenstein achieved international recognition during the 1960s as one of the initiators of the pop art movement in America."
I'd wait to hear from the someone like @Modernist: or @Ceoil: before making this change, though. Obviously subtleties in the wording can be contentious. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion it's inappropriate to stick that in the middle of the paragraph. If this Pop art and neo-Dada frequently used Appropriation, a technique in which images from other sources were borrowed and altered. is used at all it begins a new paragraph and basically a new subject. Appropriation art is more a late 70s-80s issue, certainly not crystallized at the time Whaam! was painted...Modernist (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" is not about appropriation then? What is it about? Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By the late 50s - early 60s abstraction had dominated the art world in the US and in Europe; imagery and realism were out of fashion; simply the notion that anything can be made subject or be used as an image in a work of art became interesting again - especially if used in new ways. Chamberlain crushed cars, Rauschenberg made a painting using his bed, Johns replicated beer cans and the flag; Thiebaud painted pies and cakes, Oldenburg made plaster replicas of hamburgers and other things, Dine made color charts, Indiana made LOVE symbols, Wesselmann added TV sets to his work, Warhol replicated Brillo boxes and soup cans and Lichtenstein began painting commercial objects and imagery was back. Appropriation grew out of this period; but wasn't really discussed until much later. ...Modernist (talk)
Do you think many readers will understand thay's what "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" was supposed to mean? Do you have some objection to briefly explaining appropriation in the Background section? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above discuss appropriation in a separate sentence or paragraph following the background context of the art scene in the late 50s early 60s and keep it direct and simple...Modernist (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you could do that? Also, do you think you could clarify "which along with neo-Dada re-introduced and changed the use of imagery" for the readers? As written, it'll be opaque to the majority of readers. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reader should be afforded the opportunity to see the context in which Lichtenstein engages in the "wrongdoing" that Dave Gibbons alleges. This is made possible by apprising the reader that the quoting of "commercial" imagery was fairly standard practice among pop artists. We have a source supporting this. Mention can be made in more than one section of our article that material is visually "quoted" in pop art paintings. In differing sections of our article differing emphasis can be found, with variations on the kind of information presented. In my opinion this is not a zero sum situation. There is room for flexibility. There is enough commentary in sources that the information itself can differ depending where in the article this topic is found. We don't have to decide on one place in the article to mention this topic because variations on this topic can be found in more than one part of our article. If an editorial objection is raised after that material is in place we can address it at that time. Bus stop (talk) 11:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Back on the treadmill again:
  1. The BBC article takes it as a given that the "wrongdoings" have been both brought up and addressed throughout the time since the painting first appeared. The fact that the BBC article doesn't name names is indicative of nothing more than that it's taken as a given. Tony below brings up the point that the "accusations" have haunted Lichtenstein since before Whaam!, and also outside of the context of his appropriations of commercial art.
  2. The paragraph as is counters every accusation made already. What you want to add is unbalanced POV bloat.
  3. Gibbons has gotten extra exposure because (a) he happens to be a celebrity as he drew one of the best-selling graphic novels in the English language (b) that best-seller has recently been made into a movie, and (c) he drew his criticism just in time for a big Lichtenstein exhibition. If this article were written last year, all the criticism would remain the same minus Gibbons. Highlighting Gibbons is bloat and dilution (trying to make it look like only cartoonists have these issues). Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—no one is trying to make it look like "only cartoonists have these issues"[59]. Dave Gibbons is virtually the only person on record expressing a certain view on Lichtenstein or the painting Whaam!. He is expressing a distinctly minor view. This one individual. Is there a second individual expressing thoughts anything like these? Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bus Stop, we have Alistair Sooke on record telling us these claims are widespread and go back decades. We also have Tony telling us below that the criticism preceded this painting and context. We've also had you trying to eliminate or distort this information since day one. The paragraph as it stands is well-balanced and represents its sources. You've wasted an inordinate amount of time on your POV filibustering. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You still have not cited any sources and we are still left with only the two sources—gravett.com and bbc.com—that only cite Dave Gibbons. Again—the problem with Gibbons is that his views are very minor. They deserve only a slight mention in our article. Mainstream views are virtually the opposite of those of Gibbons. A person involved in arts education has this to say: "Appropriation artists deliberately copy images to take possession of them in their art. They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all."[60] I would contend that is just about the opposite view on the use of preexisting images in artwork as that put forth by Gibbons. I think Gibbons only warrants minor representation in our article. A brief mention is all that is called for. I think I have correctly cut down that viewpoint from two sentences to one sentence. And I think I am correctly adding that according to as reliable source as the Museum of Modern Art, the deliberate copying of images was practiced not only by Lichtenstein but some of the most recognizable names in 1960s pop art. We are writing an article intended to be educational. This source would support an assertion in our article that Lichtenstein was hardly alone in copying preexisting images. In this regard he was in the company of Rauschenberg, Oldenburg, Warhol, and Wesselman. We are permitted to cautiously use sources. I have presented a suggested version for one paragraph in this post. Please comment or offer your own counterproposal. Bus stop (talk) 22:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop - As soon as the BBC (a very reliable source) says "Some critics...", that means there's more than just Gibbons that share that view, and we don't have to prove that any further, unless you want to put the reliability of the BBC into doubt. Just because they only cite Gibbons doesn't mean Gibbons has a minority view here, but because they don't cite others, we can't name others, but its not required for this claim. So this is pretty much inactionable. --MASEM (t) 23:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I think what you are saying is almost entirely consistent with the wording I am suggesting for our article. Please note my suggested wording here: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'."[61] Aren't you saying pretty much the same thing I am saying when you use the wording "Some critics"[62]? Is our difference of opinion simply whether we should say "Some" or "Some critics"? I will reluctantly agree to "Some critics". Bus stop (talk) 12:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you just said you think Gibbons point is minor because you claim he is the only one with that point, I'm saying that the BBC, an RS, says "some critics" and later explicitly Gibbons with that viewpoint, so the viewpoint is not minor as you claim. Just because we don't have other names doesn't make it minor given the claim that the BBC has set forth for us. You're arguing on extreme trivalities that would easily fall into the realm of WP:LAME if this were an edit war, and hence much is inactionable. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have not argued for inserting anything in our article implying that Dave Gibbons' view is "minor". Here again is the wording I suggested for inclusion in our article. There is absolutely no implication in my suggested wording that Gibbons' view is minor.
In my personal opinion is Dave Gibbons' view "minor"? Yes. Why do I feel that way? Alastair Sooke is described at the The Daily Telegraph website as an "art critic" who "also reports for The Culture Show on BBC Two". Sooke is actually refuting Gibbons. Sooke says "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others. Lichtenstein transformed Novick’s artwork in a number of subtle but crucial ways."[63] Bus stop (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—you're just going back to arguing ad nauseam the same points you've made over two long, long FACs. These points have been refuted time and again, and still you're no closer to consensus. I don't believe for a nonosecond that there's a counterproposal you'll actually agree to. Tony has enough real, actionable concerns to deal with. Could you please drop this horse manure now? (Yes, yes, I know, your response is a 22kb "no"). Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist—can I ask you your opinion of a new version I have posted below at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)? Thanks. Bus stop (talk) 13:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—there are two problems with the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns." One problem is that Lichtenstein paintings besides Whaam! are being considered. This is outside of the scope of this article. The other problem is that the view being discussed is minor. Dave Gibbons doesn't represent a major view. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Which is obviously why you want to dilute the paragraph by highlighting Gibbons. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—no more weight should be given to Gibbons than what sources support. We have the words of Gibbons in two sources. The first sentence of our article reads "Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources[86] in Whaam! and other works of the period.[28]" That is sourced to paulgravett.com. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that first sentence. The second sentence of our article reads "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways.[64]" That is sourced to bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. Only Gibbons articulates the views that support that second sentence. Only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "A lot of Lichtenstein’s stuff is so close to the original that it actually owes a huge debt to the work of the original artist. But in music, for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune no matter how badly without crediting or getting payment to the original artist." That is from bbc.com/Alastair Sooke. And only Gibbons expresses any view remotely approximating this: "I would say ‘copycat’. In music for instance, you can’t just whistle somebody else’s tune or perform somebody else’s tune, no matter how badly, without somehow crediting and giving payment to the original artist. That’s to say, this is ‘WHAAM! by Roy Lichtenstein, after Irv Novick’." That is from paulgravett.com. Gibbons represents a minor view. Those two sentences can probably be consolidated into one sentence, and the "view" should basically just be attributed to Gibbons, because nowhere else do we hear Gibbons' view expressed. Bus stop (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, I need to remind you again to stop repeating everything verbatim. You are running around in circles on the same point and muddling it by requoting and restating every cite. Which source is which is pretty obvious (if you say "BBC" we know its the Sooke article, for example). Keep your responses short and to the point, and explain exactly what you want, don't be passive about it or otherwise it will be considered inactionable. --MASEM (t) 02:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—did you see my post immediately below, at 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)? I have suggested wording for the paragraph under discussion. Obviously you can weigh in with an opinion on my suggested wording. Bus stop (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is this:
Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat".[2][3] In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s.[4] Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources;[3][5][6] Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.[7] The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries.[8] Bus stop (talk) 22:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the Sooke article that accusations of being a mere copyist are long-standing, and that Gibbons' is only the latest: "And there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein – the so-called architect of pop art celebrated for his distinctive cartoon style – was a copycat, not an artist." Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—This is not a bad web page of commentary on the subject we are talking about. Note that the author teaches art history. Would that not imply that her views are fairly mainstream? Do we see accusations of "copycat"? Of course not. The mainstream view is expressed in a few sentences such as these: "They are not stealing or plagiarizing. They are not passing off these images as their very own. Not at all. Appropriation artists want the viewer to recognize the images they copy…" Contrast this with the views put forth by Dave Gibbons. This is why I say that Gibbons' view represents a minority view. Consequently only brief mention should be made of it in this article. Bus stop (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw out there for consideration yet another version of the paragraph we are discussing:
"Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat". In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in popular culture. In the visual arts this has sometimes been referred to as "appropriation"."
I removed what was the last sentence and replaced it with two new final sentences. My aim with this change is to place less emphasis on any strict definition of "appropriation" that might exist. Bus stop (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems ok to me - keep it simple...Modernist (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was already simple. What is the motivation behind bloating it? Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are Curly Turkey and Masem on this proposed change?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing why appropriation is being pushed to the end since this is the key idea of this paragraph. "Whaam! and other works from Litchenstein and other pop artists at the time are considered a form of "appropriation", deriving new works from sources that preexisted in popular culture." as the first sentence, continue from "Some such..." as Bus Stop has abvoe, and nix his last two sentences. --MASEM (t) 15:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—"the key idea of this paragraph" are the accusations or insinuations that Lichtenstein engaged in wrongdoing by quoting images found in whole or in part in comic books. The person leveling those charges is Dave Gibbons. But Lichtenstein wasn't the only pop artist in the 1960s quoting images from other sources. A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork. In the context of the accusations of wrongdoing we should apprise the reader of the widespread use of similar practices by other pop artists. Bus stop (talk) 01:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—out of seven (!) citations in that paragraph, only two include Gibbons' comments, and neither focus exclusively on Gibbons.
"A source lists Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein as engaging in related practices regarding sourcing of images for artwork."—Again, this belongs in Background, not as extra padding to protect poor Lichtenstein from his detractors in a paragraph that already refutes every claim made against him. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Same opinion as before: if what Lichtenstein did was appropriation, then that needs to go in the background section. What is the argument against that?
  2. I see no sense in foregrounding only the latest critic (Gibbons, in 2013) when the article makes it clear that such critoicism goes all the way back to the 1960s ("Roy Lichtenstein’s critics said he was a plagiarist, not an artist."; Fifty years later "there are still people who believe that Lichtenstein ... was a copycat, not an artist."; "“I continue to be astonished that people in the ‘60s thought – as some still do – that there is no difference between Lichtenstein’s source image and the finished painting,” art historian Richard Morphet tells me."; "Surely, in 2013, it is time we stopped accusing Lichtenstein of plagiarism once and for all."), and Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people. The only exception is Dave Gibbons. My suggested wording, a few posts up, at 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC) is: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a "copycat"." The word "some" refers to anonymous or unnamed people.
Also, in the BBC article Alastair Sooke says: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." Should that be in our article?
Also, you are saying "Gibbons' criticism has already been made elsewhere in the article". This is on an unrelated topic. Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying. Gibbons says elsewhere in the article: ""This to me looks flat and abstracted, to the point of view that to my eyes it's confusing. Whereas the original has got a three-dimensional quality to it, it's got a spontaneity to it, it's got an excitement to it, and a way of involving the viewer that this one lacks."" He is simply saying the painting doesn't appeal to his sense of taste. That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing. Bus stop (talk) 00:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gibbons' criticism "elsewhere in the article" is not on the topic of plagiarism, wrongdoing, impropriety, copying...That is unrelated to accusations of wrongdoing"—so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?
  • "all of your references in the BBC article are to anonymous people"—they are not my references, they are the BBC's. I'm certainly going to take the word of the BBC over that of Bus Stop.
  • "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." "Should that be in our article?"—Sure, or a paraphrase, if it's not already redundant. Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "so why foreground Gibbons in a paragraph that is about those issues?" Dave Gibbons is a major proponent of a minor view. Is there someone else that you feel should be forefronted instead of Dave Gibbons?
When I used the term "references" I either misused the term or was using the term loosely. There aren't BBC "references" to anyone named—except for Dave Gibbons. Anonymous "references" cannot be pinpointed in any way, hence I've suggested the wording: "Some such as Dave Gibbons have characterized Lichtenstein as a 'copycat'." But if you have alternative wording please suggest it. Bus stop (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that appropriation is a Background element. In relation to Whaam, these claims could only happen after Whaam was publically displayed, so the specifics of appropriation w.r.t. Whaam chronologically follow. (A question to others: when did characters of appropriation against Litchenstein actually start? Was he already accused of it before he started drawing Whaam? - if this was the case, then maybe there's an element to this but as I read it, not sure...) --MASEM (t) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your argument—you seem to interpret "appropriation" as negative criticism, rather than a legitimate art technique. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to say it is negative or positive, just what it was called, setting the framework then others like Gibbons specifically called out Litchenstein on Whaam (and other works) for "stealing" despite being part of this practice. --MASEM (t) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an art technique (which it is, with a long history) then chronology doesn't play into it. Criticism of its usage is a different matter, but introduce the technique in the context of criticism is jumbling up the issues. The technique and the critique are orthogonal to each other, and should be treated separately. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, above someone asked whether at the time of this work the controversy surrounding whether he was a copycat was a fringe theory or a popular debate. My response was that the year before he had produced Portrait of Madame Cézanne and at that time he was widely debated on the originality of his work and his use of sources. Should the background present something to that effect.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say yes, briefly, as part of the Background section talking about appropriation in Pop art, whenever someone gets around to writing it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If is the case that appropriation (and criticism of it) was not new by the time of Whaam, then yes, explaining that in the BG section is appropriate, and splitting off the specific criticism of Whaam (eg Gibbons complains) should be in the Reception. --MASEM (t) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why it would go in "Reception", when Gibbons' commentary happened fifty years after the painting was first exhibited. The "Reception" section is short enough that I don't think it would hurt to merge with "Legacy" into a "Reception and legacy" section, so we wouldn't have to argue the grey areas. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it's probably a legacy issue. That said, to simply the factors: "appropriation" (whether that's a term used for better or worse) should be brought up in the Background section in context of what pop art was doing at this time. But there is also something (whether legacy or reception) involving specifically Whaam's appropriation, which leads to Gibbon's statements. All the info is there, it's just organization. --MASEM (t) 23:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are addressing in that paragraph the use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "copying" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "plagiarism" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. The reference in that paragraph to "failure to credit the original artists" is a reference to the possible use of imagery to which others might have ownership rights. We should not deliberately withhold relevant information. Therefore after mentioning possible wrongdoings such as "copying", "plagiarism", and "failure to credit the original artists", we should add that these potential blemishes are not unique to Lichtenstein. The way we accomplish that is by adding that Lichtenstein's contemporaries in the Pop art movement also used imagery to which others might have ownership rights.
One version:
Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.
Another version:
Critics have raised concerns of impropriety with Whaam! and other Lichtenstein works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. The process of borrowing images from other sources is called appropriation and was also practiced by Lichtenstein's pop art contemporaries. Bus stop (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be honest. I don't really want to tinker with the article now that it has 5 support, 1 neutral and 1 oppose, unless the 4 active discussants really agree on something. I believe I am hearing that there is agreement to add something to the BG about the point raised above that by the time of Whaam! Lichtenstein was already being widely discussed regarding his use of original sources. Then there is much less agreement about other refinements related to appropriation. Can I get you guys to draft and agree on a sentence or two that should be added to the BG while you continue to entertain each other debating the other refinements.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Modernist made this edit, which I think covers it decently, though there's no mention of the word appropriation (put it back in "See also, where it was before?). I think the Madame Cézanne bit would be a beneficial addition, but I wouldn't fight for it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A very long and confusing run-on sentence needed fixing; in context the Mme Cézanne bit seemed unneeded. The background section already says pop artists appropriated images from commercial art, consumer objects, and popular culture. What does the mere mention of this work add to the reader's understanding of the background of Whaam!? If the intention is that the reader will click the link and learn more about the accusations of plagiarism leveled at Lichtenstein, maybe work it into the legacy section where this controversy is discussed? Alternatively, if you prefer this matter to be in the background section, add a line there that says, more or less, "Lichtenstein's Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962) had already provoked accusations of plagiarism", and add a source. The internal llink to Portrait of Madame Cézanne absent any explanation of the related plagiarism issue was not adequate, and was useless to any reader who doesn't click the link. Ewulp (talk) 07:21, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more proposed change to the same paragraph I've been discussing immediately above:

There is more to the question of "copying" than just that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", as our article presently says. I think I find the following in a reliable source:

"Copying from another’s artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

Our article, in addition to explaining that "Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways", should explain that he challenged the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.

The paragraph presently beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns", found presently in the Whaam!#Legacy section of the article, is addressing issues relating to originality. We should include reference to what at least this one source is telling us is the intentionality behind this aspect of his work. If anyone has a copy of "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", by Bernice Rose, 1987, the Museum of Modern Art, New York[65], we can confirm the quoted wording, as I am only getting that wording from this web site. Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop, this is an example of why each of your points should be limited to 1500 characters. You are wearing down other weary discussants.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—we are not trying to convince the reader of the obvious. It is more a part of our purpose to provide the reader with insights into what might not be obvious. We should especially be interested in the light that can be shed on less than obvious aspects of the painting by especially noteworthy sources. In this case a book published by the Museum of Modern Art specifically referencing Lichtenstein might be of importance to us. It is very obvious that many of Lichtenstein's paintings bear a very strong resemblance to source material such as comics. A brief mention of that in our article is all that is called for. After briefly mentioning that the Lichtenstein painting is very much like its source material, we should want to provide for the reader the most relevant commentary from the best quality sources relating to the very curious similarity of image in both painting and source material. The Bernice Rose commentary above would seem to me to be important because by her explanation the "copying" under question in the paragraph was purposeful. Her explanation is that Lichtenstein wished to challenge the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time. If you disagree with the inclusion of Rose's point in the article, please tell me the basis for your disagreement. Bus stop (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a possible rewrite:

"Whaam! as well as other works by Lichtenstein has engendered its share of negative responses. Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists have seen the copying of imagery as somewhat dishonest. Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement. Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books. Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general. Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time.""

Can we consider the above wording? Note that Dave Gibbons is not mentioned as had been requested. "Dishonest" happens to be a term used by Gibbons. He's sourced at gravett.com as saying "I find there’s something slightly dishonest about it". "Appropriation" is not mentioned, as had been requested, but it is alluded to indirectly. An additional idea added to the paragraph would be the last sentence quoting Bernice Rose. It would be sourced to "Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art, 1987." Bernice Rose is writing under the imprimatur of the MoMA. Therefore I think her view is worth mentioning. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this edit. I've rewritten the paragraph because there was too much emphasis on wrongdoing and too little emphasis on explanations for what appears to be copying from preexisting works of art—in this case comic books. The relationship between comic book imagery and the painting is very obvious to every viewer. But what was missing were explanations found at good quality sources for why an artist like Lichtenstein seems to be merely copying from comic books. The Bernice Rose commentary provides the sort of explanation that I think an average reader would be looking for. Bus stop (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of problems with this:
  • There's no consensus for it, and it's clear it's a controversial edit.
  • "Those speaking from the perspective of comic book artists"—the BBC makes it clear that it is not only from the perspective of comics folk.
  • "Lichtenstein has never been sued for copyright infringement."—Far too blunt, and far inferior to the way it was handled in the pre-edit.
  • "Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books"—implicates National Periodicals in what? The pre-edit version makes it clear that not giving attribution was what Priego was implicating NAtional Periodicals for. This sentence is gibberish.
  • "Other Pop artists aside from Lichtenstein derived imagery for paintings from sources that preexisted in commercial sources or popular culture in general."—Again (and again and again) this belongs in Background, not here.
  • "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."—Interesting, but a non sequitur. Why does this belong here?
Bus Stop, you've made gibberish of this paragraph. Please revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 02:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I also think the previous version was better. Among other things, the new edit suggests that the only complaints about Lichtenstein's appropriations came from the comics world. But didn't art historian Erle Loran file a lawsuit against Lichtenstein over Portrait of Madame Cézanne (1962)? Ewulp (talk) 02:52, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted this controversial edit.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to check out his follow up edit. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Got that one too. PLEASE STOP MAKING EDITS THAT ARE UNSUPPORTED BY CONSENSUS. We don't want this FA to fail due to lack of stability.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—you are removing relevant material from the article. In this edit you remove a statement saying that "Bernice Rose writes that Lichtenstein was interested in challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." It is sourced to a MoMA publication. I believe I have the support of User:Modernist in this edit. I have discussed this with him on his Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you point out that "The word "impropriety" has already disappeared form the article."[66] This may be so. But the paragraph under discussion is a paragraph on "impropriety". That is a fair topic for inclusion in our article. Some feel that there is an element of wrongdoing in the activities of Lichtenstein. This is the subject of our paragraph. Is everything pointing to wrongdoing? Of course not. We have explanations from the Museum of Modern Art saying that many of the most important artists within the Pop art movement working alongside Lichtenstein were stealing images from the world around them. Does this excuse Lichtenstein? It is not for us to say. But we are writing about art and peripherally we are writing about an art movement. This article has been expanded way beyond its proper scope. I've resisted that. But as long as this article is addressing material beyond its scope, it has to do so in a balanced way. Exculpatory material has to be added. We can't be content to say that Lichtenstein was dishonest or that he was a copycat (as Dave Gibbons says) and leave it at that. There is an art historical context which may help to put the subject of the article into perspective. What were the aims of the Pop art movement? What were Lichtenstein's aims? What do reliable sources have to say about Lichtenstein's aims? We have the Museum of Modern Art in the person of Bernice Rose explaining a moment in art history:
"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."
Does she suggest any wrongdoing or impropriety? No, she does not. She is referring to copying. Dave Gibbons calls Lichtenstein a "copycat". She is explaining why Lichtenstein would steal artwork from a comic book artist. The reader can be left to reach their own conclusions as concerns any possible impropriety. Our job is to present relevant information in a balanced way. The scope of this article has been expanded way beyond its proper bounds. Nevertheless we have to maintain balance. Bus stop (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph needs a rewrite in my opinion. As a start, the comment of Bernice Rose should be re-added. I believe I have the support of Modernist concerning the comment of Bernice Rose. I have therefore made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seriously think I'm going to re-re-reply to your neverending broken record, do you? Bernice Rose may have an interesting point, maybe even worth including, but you insist on placing it in an inappropriate place—in a single paragraph you are obsessed with distorting in some way. You don't understand balance, you don't understand NPOV, you don't understand context, you don't understand consensus, and you don't understand communication. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose is writing for the Museum of Modern Art. She is providing us with her evaluation of the underlying reason that Lichtenstein virtually stole imagery from comic book artists. Information in an article goes where it is needed. We should not be writing a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph. If we have the evaluation of appropriation in the case of Lichtenstein presented in a non-condemnatory fashion, by a good quality source, we should include that evaluation. Furthermore, information can be presented in different ways at different parts of an article. You are single-mindedly arguing that certain information may not be included in this paragraph. This is information that tends to excuse Lichtenstein for what some might regard as apparent wrongdoing. This information is part of a balanced presentation to the reader and is therefore in keeping with WP:NPOV. Bus stop (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"a one-sided, condemnatory paragraph"—good luck getting anyone to take you seriously when you spout baldfaced horeshit like that one, that's been refuted down to the smallest details ad nauseam. Here's that "one-sided, condemnatory paragraph", folx:
Critics have raised concerns over Lichtenstein's appropriation, in that he directly references imagery from other sources in Whaam! and other works of the period. Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways. In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.
Keep your distance, gentle artlovers! Such bile could eat a hole right through your heart!
(Har! Har! Har! Ain't I hilarious?! I'm using the plural when there's only one other editor with the foolish persistence still to wade through this ocean of repetitive kBs!)Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you are not even addressing the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph. She is explaining, from a very informed point of view, that Lichtenstein was, or may have been, trying to challenge notions of originality. I realize this sounds like arcane jargony stuff that could only be found in the world of contemporary art, but what would be your reason for leaving this material out of this paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—you are not even trying to comprehend the words that are before your face. Try to absorb what people have been saying before you flood the page with more repetitious "arguments". Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P. S.—I have addressed "the issue of whether or not Bernice Rose's commentary should be included in this paragraph". You neither bothered to read it nor comprehend it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—When the Museum of Modern Art, in the person of Bernice Rose, provides commentary on a subject, it should be included at the point(s) in an article at which it is relevant. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment demonstrating your total lack of interest in giving any time whatsoever to digesting any point that may be presented to you. That "communication" thing, Bus Stop. You're talking in non sequiturs. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—Bernice Rose puts into context the appropriation of images found elsewhere—images that arguably "belong" to other artists. The theme of this paragraph is propriety. In this paragraph we are addressing the propriety and/or impropriety of Lichtenstein's use of images potentially belonging to other artists. Rose's commentary sheds light on why Lichtenstein chose to copy material which arguably belonged to other artists, albeit comic book artists. Incidentally, we also have it from another MoMA source that the "appropriation" of images in this way, was a common or even standard practice of many Pop artists working contemporaneously with Lichtenstein. We should be putting this into context. The alternative is a one-sided paragraph that misleads the reader. Art movements have aims. That is why they are coherent as "movements". An "art movement" is not a ragtag group of artists who happen to live in the same vicinity and/or make art at the same time. Lichtenstein was an exponent, by means of his artwork, of a point of view that was expressed by the Pop artists. This should be expressed in our paragraph. That is why we should include Rose's comment. Bus stop (talk) 15:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—what is your point of view? Should this edit, which I made, be included in the article? You removed the added material with this edit. The wording that I placed in the article in this edit is relevant to the paragraph in which it is place and it is well-sourced—being sourced to the Museum of Modern Art. At this point the only User:Curly Turkey is weighing in specifically in opposition to the inclusion of the comment by Bernice Rose. User:Ewulp did not express opposition to specifically this, and User:Modernist seems to support this, based on conversation on his Talk page. You have not weighed in with a position on this. In my opinion you might consider articulating a reasoned response on the (Bernice Rose) material under consideration. You are not just an impartial editor. Bus stop (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about we refrain from making edits to the article without obtaining consensus here until this review is over.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why did you remove the observation made by Bernice Rose that Lichtenstein threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time? Do you feel that this is not relevant in a paragraph addressing the propriety/impropriety of using material that is not original? The original images were made by comic book artists. Rose supplies a reason for Lichtenstein's use of such images. Do you somehow feel this is not relevant? The book in which she writes this is published by the Museum of Modern Art. You are not explaining your removal of material which adds balance to the paragraph. Rose is providing an explanation for Lichtenstein's actions. Her explanation represents new information in the paragraph. Whereas others may see Lichtenstein's actions as dishonest or as mere copying, Rose is saying something different. Rose is saying that the appropriation is for the purpose of "challenging the notion of originality". I am wondering on what basis you feel this doesn't belong in the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because there is no consensus to include it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bernice Rose is an important curator at MoMA and her comment is probably one of the most interesting things that I've ever read about Lichtenstein - I re-added it and it stays because it's both intelligent and valid...Modernist (talk) 21:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Editwarring is inexcusable at the best of times, much less during an unreasonably long-drawn-out FAC.
  • The Bernice Rose comment is in a totally inappropriate place. If its "one of the most interesting things" you have read, then why bury it in the article? We don't just throw quotes willy-nllly into articles. We use our heads and find the most appropriate places for them. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In what way did he challenge the notion of originality? In the context of a paragraph questioning Lichtenstein's lack of originality—"dishonest", a "copycat"—it is obvious what the challenging of the notion of originality is in reference to. But when you move this brief quote to another part of the article, its significance becomes less clear. At its new location a larger portion of the quote is necessary for this to make sense:

"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

The above should be set aside in a quotebox. I used a brief section of the quote because it responded directly to the material that was above it in its paragraph. In its original location it had relevancy. Certainly it can have relevancy at other parts of the article too. But without the context of the paragraph that it was in, it must provide its own context, hence the need for the quote above.

Lichtenstein elicited the responses from people like Dave Gibbons by challenging the notions of originality. But without the "Dave Gibbons"-type comments in immediate proximity, the significance of challenging the notions of originality becomes less clear. More context in the form of the total quote above restores significance that is lost by moving the quoted material away from the comments by people such as Dave Gibbons. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think you need the whole quote - in context now where it is the idea of using imagery from 'commercial art' is mentioned and which leads into the Rose quote; less is fine. Add the whole quote to the bio page...Modernist (talk) 00:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Bus stop (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could condense and paraphrase the whole thing:
"The once-common practice of copying had fallen out of favour by the mid-20th century; Lichtenstein challenged the contemporary avant-garde emphasis on originality and invention by making his copying impossible to ignore."
—Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the whole quote should be included in this article. This article has gone way far outside of its scope. As such, the Bernice Rose quote should be included in its entirety:
"Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such “unartistic” models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."
The above is outside of the scope of this article. It is not commentary that is particular to the painting that is the title of this article. But since much of the material in this article is outside of the scope of this article I see little reason that the above quote should not be included in its entirety. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero reason for paraphrasing. The whole quote can be put in the article if putting the whole quote in the article seems warranted. Or the whole quote can be left out of the article. What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article. Those implications can find applicability at more than one point in our article. I'm striking through my above post and I am considering my revised thinking on this point to be reflected in this post. Bus stop (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An all-or-nothing kinda guy, ain'tcha, Bus Stop? "What is of inarguable importance is putting the implications of the quote in the article": in what way is this an argument against a paraphrase? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nobody has agreed with you that the article is out of scope, and several of us have disagreed with you at length. You seem to have no appreciation for context.
  2. If the quote is out of scope, then exact quoting the whole thing would be the opposite of what you would want to do. So why not drop it entirely?
  3. You have not even provided an argument as to why quoting should be preferred to paraphrasing.
  4. Please stop quoting in full what you have already quoted verbatim multiple times. The previous full verbatim quote is still visible on the screen.
—Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we have a good quality source telling us: "Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated mundane, everyday images from popular culture".

We have another good quality source (Bernice Rose, "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", Museum of Modern Art) telling us: "Copying from another artist’s work had been out of style for a good part of the twentieth century; the avant-garde had increasingly set store by invention. In resorting to old-fashioned copying (and of such 'unartistic' models), Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time."

We have a paragraph beginning with the words: "Critics have raised concerns" in the Legacy section of our article. That paragraph explores Lichtenstein's use of preexisting images to which he is not necessarily entitled. We are asking ourselves in this paragraph if this practice is proper, and what motivations prompt Lichtenstein to do this. Both of the above sources, which happen to be Museum of Modern Art sources, are supplying us with possible answers to these questions. To use these sources to address these questions I would add the following wording to our paragraph:

"Lichtenstein was not the only artist directly referencing images from other sources. Many other prominent artists in the Pop art movement made use of imagery found in popular culture. Bernice Rose, a curator at the Museum of Modern Art, expresses the opinion that Lichtenstein quoted preexisting sources in an obvious way in order to challenge the notion of "originality." Bus stop (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Stop, please stop repeating those quotes in every single one of your replies. You are being pointlessly wordy and you are not making any direct arguments. We well know those quotes exist, it doesn't help in any bit to keep repeating them. --MASEM (t) 16:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—I am aware of our policies such as WP:BECONCISE. I think I am being very considerate of everybody having to read my posts. Consider the fact that there is no virtue in being cryptic, in that too short a post may not succeed in clearly communicating. We also should be aware of those who may be just joining the thread—if a few more words helps that newcomer quickly get up to speed on what the rest of us are discussing, the tradeoff may be worthwhile. Bus stop (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any hope when an editor has been told to "Please stop quoting in full what [he] have already quoted verbatim multiple times" replies by quoting in full what he has already quoted verbatim multiple times? We've tried ceasing to respond to this guy. He reacts to the silence by making contentious edits directly to the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—I have suggested wording for inclusion in the paragraph in our article that begins with the wording "Critics have raised concerns". My suggested wording is found a few posts up, at 15:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC). Respond if you wish to. Bus stop (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it's been rejected by several editors. Put the stick down and walk away from the dead horse. Similarly, there is no reason to include the full quote because it doesn't say anything profound that can be paraphrased (as CT did a bit earlier with The once-common practice of copying...) with citing that source for it. It's not a profound statement of opinion by the author which is generally the only situations where quoting is really important. (If we had a direct Litchenstein quote that said along the same lines, that would be different). --MASEM (t) 23:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey, Masem—let me revise my thinking on this yet again. I think we can distill down one very simple sentence from our two MoMA sources. That sentence would be:
"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists were challenging traditional notions of originality."
This should be added to the end of the paragraph we have been discussing. Any comments? Bus stop (talk) 01:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)
  • Surely you see the problem with "traditional"—the stigma against borrowing & copying in the arts is largely a 20th-century thang.
  • Further, the sentence lacks sufficient context: what "traditional notions of originality"? The idea that originality is important? The idea that recontextualizing didn't constitute originality? The idea that changing and mixing sources didn't constitute sufficient originality? Something else, technical, political, or cultural?
  • Lastly, I hope "the paragraph we have been discussing" isn't the one you keep trying to distort. Placed there, it is a non sequitir. If it's important enough to place in the article, then it belongs in the Background, as it is background information.
———Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a paragraph that begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns". I think we want to add context to that paragraph. We find in this source the following three quotes:

"Pop artists absorbed and borrowed from popular culture, challenging notions of originality and what it means to be an artist."

"Today, appropriating, remixing, and sampling images and media is common practice for visual, media, and performance artists, yet such strategies continue to challenge traditional notions of originality and test the boundaries of what it means to be an artist."

"Pop artists like Robert Rauschenberg, Claes Oldenburg, Andy Warhol, Tom Wesselman, and Roy Lichtenstein reproduced, juxtaposed, or repeated…"

And finally from a separate source we have Bernice Rose: "challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time".

I have added the bolding in all of the above quotes. Based on the above quotes we have support for the following sentence:

"Lichtenstein like many other Pop artists was challenging conventional notions of originality."

This should be added to the end of the paragraph under discussion. The sentence I am suggesting is adequately supported by sources. Both sources should be provided. Bernice Rose is of course speaking specifically about Lichtenstein. The other MoMA source is speaking about Pop artists in general but it specifically mentions Lichtenstein among them. Bus stop (talk) 04:12, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An even shorter version would be: "Lichtenstein, like many Pop artists, was challenging notions of originality." I think this provides informative context. The paragraph contains within it for instance: "Some have denigrated it as mere copying…" There is nothing wrong with that as it represents a valid area for exploration. But there are relevant factors that are at this time left out of that paragraph. One such factor is that Lichtenstein, as most Pop artists, was appropriating imagery as a means of challenging notions of originality in fine art. Bus stop (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, the issue is not sourcing, it's communication. Please reread what I wrote above, because you obviously didn't the first time. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify: you don't need to explain these things to me, Bus Stop, but to make them clear to the reader. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—we are abiding by the findings of sources. We know sufficiently well what "originality" refers to. We have two sources using that term. Both of those are sources connected to the Museum of Modern Art. I personally find no difficulty relating to the term "originality". You say we have to "make them clear to the reader"[67]. I don't think the reader will encounter any difficulty understanding the sentence that I suggested. The paragraph in our article that we are discussing makes reference to the concepts of "copying" ("Some have denigrated it as mere copying…") and "plagiarism" ("In response to claims of plagiarism…"). "Copying" and "plagiarism" are concepts inextricably linked to the concept of "originality". Bus stop (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bus Stop, the meaning of that sentence is opaque. I am astounded that you cannot see why. Even more so since there is no consensus to put it where you want—the info's in the Background section where it belongs, and you have the support of no other editor to have it moved. This particular thread of the discussion started off by discussing whether or not the info should be quoted in part, in full, or paraphrased, but you and you alone are trying to bulldoze it back into that one paragraph that you are single-mindedly obsessed with. Meanwhile, the 50th anniversary will come and go, and you still won't be pleased with anything but the total distortion or outright elimination of that one paragraph. I'd love to just ignore your horseshit, but you've made it abundantly clear that ignoring you just means you'll resort to editwarring the actual article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 08:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—please look at the paragraph beginning with the words "Critics have raised concerns" found in the Legacy section. It has a theme. It has an underlying subject. That theme is the curious relationship between the imagery found in commercial art sources and the imagery found in what is called fine art. The question is largely one of propriety, as well as one of meaning, or significance. Does an artist have a right to usurp ownership of an image arguably belonging to another artist, albeit often a "commercial artist"? Reliable sources come down on both sides of this question with various points and observations. For instance we read in our paragraph that "Some have denigrated it as mere copying, to which others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." That sentence, already in our article, presents one view in the first half of that sentence and a different view in the second half. We are permitted to include in this paragraph material that is both reliably sourced and relevant to the subject of the paragraph. The MoMA weighs in on exactly the subject of this paragraph. I have presented above, two sources, both of which are related to the MoMA. Those sources support that the use of imagery in this way was common practice among Pop artists and that there was a reason that Pop artists used imagery in this way. That reason was that they wanted to challenge notions of originality. Both of the sources in fact mention Lichtenstein. One of the sources only speaks about Lichtenstein. The MoMA sources are providing us with information relevant to the subject of this paragraph. Therefore that information should be included in this paragraph. I have suggested that a brief sentence be added, referenced to both MoMA sources, indicating that the intention of Pop artists in general and Lichtenstein in particular was to challenge the concept of "originality". There is nothing unclear about the word "originality". We are not using it in a technical way. Two MoMA sources are using the term. It is not "opaque". Furthermore, our paragraph already references concepts such as "copying" and "plagiarism". The idea of "originality" is crucial to those concepts. We don't have to define something to the umpteenth degree. We are merely talking about interpretations of a painting. The MoMA is an eminently valid source for this sort of an observation. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop, you are trying to push a POV here. The combination of sources to get there is in SYNTH territory now. There is no requirement that WP articles need to include every source and concept from those sources in a topic, we just need to be comprehensive. The entire idea of appropriation - whether around pop art or Litchenstein's works - is already explored in depth in other articles and it only has to be touched on here to 1) set up the stage of what was happened in pop art/Litchenstine's work at the time of the creation of Whaam, and 2) the obvious nature of this and subsequent criticism by some specifically tied to Whaam (eg Gibbons stuff). The details provided in the current article do that job without veering into excess. You're trying to get them to add more to fit this specific view that you have, and I really don't see how that's going to improve the article, since both sides of the appropriation issue are already discussed. --MASEM (t) 13:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—on the contrary I am not "trying to push a POV". Nor is there any semblance of a violation of WP:SYNTH. Whaam! resembles a panel from a comic book. Obviously, comic book artists made that panel. Why is Lichtenstein brazenly stealing another artist's work and presenting it as fine art? This is the subject of the paragraph. MoMA weighs in with an opinion on this. MoMA says that the Pop artists and Lichtenstein in particular were concerned with "challenging notions of originality". Why should that be excluded from the paragraph? Bus stop (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detracters. Curly Turkey (gobble) 14:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey—the paragraph already contains what you would probably call after-the-fact defenses against its detractors. Aready included in the paragraph is the assertion that "…others have countered that Lichtenstein altered his sources in significant, creative ways." Yet you are not objecting to that assertion. Our obligation to the reader is to present that information that is relevant to the subject and reliably sourced. The MoMA sources are completely aware of the scandalous implications of fine artists brazenly usurping images belonging to other artists. The MoMA sources are providing us with an explanation for the practices that are under examination in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 15:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
?!?!? You desparately need to reread what I wrote. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reread your post. It says: "Because "challenging notions of originality" is a fascinating insight into the thought processes that motivated the painting, not an after-the-fact defence against its detractors." The MoMA observations contain no defenses against detractors. The MoMA is not disagreeing with anything Dave Gibbons for instance says. The MoMA does not for instance say that Lichtenstein is not a "copycat". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat". The MoMA does not for instance deny that Lichtenstein is "dishonest". Gibbons characterizes Lichtenstein as "dishonest". The MoMA is weighing in with an observation about originality. I think the primary theme of the paragraph is originality. The MoMA sources are telling us that one of the concerns of the Pop art movement was the challenging of prevailing concepts of originality. The MoMA sources tell us this about the Pop artists in general and about Lichtenstein in particular. This is the context in which any charges relating to any degree of plagiarism should be seen. Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And again, you misread CT's point - it's about where the information is best placed, not what the articles say. The MOMA source has zero to do in any specificality to Whaam. As such, the aspects of appropriation it talks about are best suited to the Background (pre-Whaam's creation) section, and not for the reception on Whaam, whereas Gibbons' complaints are specifically on Whaam, and thus talked in detail in the reception. And because the Background already discusses appropriation, there's no need to detail it more. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because it is not a defense against the painting's detractors it does not belong in that paragraph—it belongs in the "Background", as it gives insight into Lichtenstein's creative process. See: WP:SYNTHESIS. And, no, the paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem: I do think the appropriation stuff could be explained in a more elegant, elightening, and clear manner, though. I made an attempt above, but it looks like everyone's too pooped at this point to give it any thought. Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did say I think what you paraphrased it to was ok, but at the same time, it's also reiterating what's effectively said. --MASEM (t) 06:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter—I "supported" long ago—but normally these would be the kinds of fine details that would get discussed in an FAC. It would be nice to see a this as TFA that represented the best a Wikipedia article could be, rather than something that just manages to cross the threshold. But, no, I have no intention of holding up this FAC any further with something like this. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem; Curly Turkey—related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another. Why would we not tell the reader in the same paragraph in which we are enumerating complaints about wrongdoing concerning the use of imagery belonging to others, that according to some sources, the artist may have done this intentionally and that any resulting impropriety was deliberate and precisely the point of taking the imagery that belonged to other artists? There is no justification for omitting from this paragraph, on-topic material derived from the MoMA sources I've presented. We have one source—the book "The Drawings of Roy Lichtenstein", published by MoMA and written by Bernice Rose, a curator at MoMA—telling us that: "...Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." It is ludicrous to think that in the same paragraph that complaints are being lodged against the artist for improperly accessing imagery that didn't belong to him, that we would not apprise the reader that, at least in the opinion of two MoMA sources, he did this intentionally to challenge the notion of originality. Bus stop (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop{{subst:emdah}}"related pieces of information should be in proximity to one another": they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS, and are unfortunately trying to downgrade an interesting insight to the status of mere rebuttal. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—WP:SYN involves the use of more than one source. You say "they are only "related" because you've made them related through WP:SYNTHESIS". Even if we look at only one source we can see that the material in that source is related to the subject of the paragraph. Let us consider the source which is a book published by MoMA and authored by a curator at MoMA named Bernice Rose. She writes: "...Lichtenstein did something characteristic: he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it. In effect he threw down the gauntlet, challenging the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." Now compare that to the paragraph that begins with the words "Critics have raised concerns", which is the fourth paragraph in the Legacy section. We find in that paragraph "some have denigrated it as mere copying". The topic is exceptionally closely related to the topic that Bernice Rose is addressing, and there is obviously no WP:SYN violation because only one source is being considered. WP:SYN exists when two or more sources are used to "reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." The important point in our discussion has nothing to do with WP:SYN or any other kind of WP:OR. Bernice Rose is saying that in her opinion the "copying" that is already at this time addressed in our paragraph was done brazenly by Lichtenstein. Bernice Rose is saying that Lichtenstein wanted it to be known that he ripped off the comic book artists. Bernice Rose is saying that he did this to "challenge[ing] the notion of originality as it prevailed at that time." The paragraph is lopsided without the inclusion of this commentary. This is commentary from a prominent curator of contemporary art addressing a topic under discussion in a paragraph in our article. The commentary is saying that what may appear to be an unexplainable "theft" may instead be a principled stand worth taking note of. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Synthesis (against NOR) can occur even using the same source, if the two facts are not explicitly connected. And for the love of Pete, please stop requoting the sources ad nauseum in your replies. We know what they say by now. --MASEM (t) 02:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus Stop—I could just rehash my arguments as you rehash yours, but I think its time for some comics (from a master who has had things to say about Lichtenstein—so it's all on topic, right?). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—thanks for that comic relief. We are discussing the relevance, if any, of the above Bernice Rose comment, to that material which is already in the paragraph under discussion. Let us not mince words. By speaking in stark terms perhaps we can better see what is under discussion. Let us therefore substitute a word like "stealing" for a term like "copying". Wouldn't we have to ask ourselves why Lichtenstein would "steal"? My question is one of "why". I think this is a serious question that as editors, we cannot sweep under the rug—not if we have reliable sources responding to that question. Our paragraph is saying that he "directly references imagery from other sources". But is our paragraph offering any possible reason "why"? No, it is not. Our paragraph is suggesting that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying". But is our paragraph suggesting any possible "reason" that Lichtenstein would be "copying"? Do you see the point that I am making? Bernice Rose, in her commentary, is offering a reason why he would "steal". According to her, he is not "stealing" for pointless reasons. On the contrary, according to Rose, he is stealing to make a point. The point, according to Rose, is a direct assault on prevailing notions of originality. This is material that is on-topic. In fact this is material that is very important to the topic of that paragraph. No, don't tell me that this is WP:SYNTHESIS, because I am not suggesting putting my above reasoning into the article. What we should probably simply do is provide a quote from Bernice Rose at the end of that paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for all the reasons I've already stated above. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you disagree with. Do you doubt that Bernice Rose is offering a possible reason, or explanation, for Lichtenstein's stealing? I think it is obvious that she is saying that Lichtenstein's "stealing" is anything but pointless. Bus stop (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read what I wrote you'd see plain as day that I never made anything like a claim along the lines of "Lichtenstein's 'stealing' is pointless"—in fact, I said the exact opposite: that Ms Rose's statement is so revealing and insightful that the article would greatly benefit from the ideas it contains being explicated in the "Background" section. Curly Turkey (gobble) 07:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A source can be used to support material at more than one point in an article. The material supported by that source, appearing at each point in the article, need not be identical, therefore repetition need not be a problem. And even if there is repetition, that may be tolerable (in my opinion). There is reason to mention this in the paragraph in the "Background" section. I don't argue for its removal from the paragraph it is presently in. But there is ample reason to mention this in a paragraph such as the one we are discussing. Perceived impropriety may not be due to the simple "stealing" of imagery from other artists, such as comic book artists, but may instead be a deliberate and perhaps provocative act calculated to achieve a certain response in the viewer, which may include the response of indignation. It is possible that some of us may see in these works a so-called fine artist ripping-off the work of mere comic book artists, and that may provoke a response of indignation. Bernice Rose is providing us with an explanation for an impropriety that at least exists in our perception. The paragraph we are discussing, in the "Legacy" section, is the location in the article at which we are expounding on the negative responses that some have expressed. It is therefore the location in the article at which we should supply the reader with the ideas articulated by Bernice Rose. Importantly, she is saying that this is deliberate; she is saying that "he made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." Bus stop (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're basically asking for the information to be repeated in the latter section which is not necessary at all. That's why discussion of the general trend in the BG section sets the stage to jump into immediately the issues around Whaam in the Legacy section. You're asking for pointless duplication. --MASEM (t) 18:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think repetition is the issue. The information itself simply is not a rebuttal to criticism, but an explanation of Lichtenstein's motivation. Not by the any stretch of the imagination does that qualify as "Legacy". Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Masem—if any explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph. Related pieces of information should be found in proximity to one another. You are presenting an untenable argument when you say that relevant material has to be omitted from this paragraph. Bernice Rose is the author of a book on Lichtenstein. That book is published by the MoMA, where she is a curator. She is commenting on the topic of the paragraph. Our paragraph is saying that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying". Bernice Rose has informative commentary: "[Lichtenstein] made it so obvious that he was copying that everyone knew it." That comment is within the topic of the paragraph. What she is saying is that he did not do this surreptitiously. She is saying that he did this in a way in which it would be obvious that he was copying. This paragraph should not simply be implying that Lichtenstein failed to be original. That would be a misleading point, in light of Bernice Rose's commentary on the subject. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"explanations or important commentary on Lichtenstein's "copying" or "plagiarism" are available, they should be found in this paragraph"—no, they shouldn't. The paragraph is not about copying or plagiarism per se, but about the criticisms of those who disagree with it (and the direct rebuttals of those criticisms). If the paragraph were indeed about "copying" or "plagiarism" per se, it would belong in the "Background" section, not the "Legacy" section.
Curly Turkey—the comic book artists created panels for publications that sold for relatively low prices in formats that were relatively small and which used production methods that were relatively low quality. Lichtenstein usurped these images and made them his own by enlarging them considerably, rendering them in good quality materials using good quality techniques, and sold them in fine art galleries for considerably higher prices than the comic books sold for. Dave Gibbons is expressing a valid view when he says that there is something dishonest about Whaam! or that Lichtenstein is a copycat. Representatives of the MoMA are not unaware of this criticism. Their understanding is that they consider such actions to be a challenging of notions of originality. Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view? I think so. Why shouldn't the reader be afforded a glimpse of the thinking of those steeped in the relatively arcane world of contemporary visual art on the question of Lichtenstein's "stealing" of imagery? Bus stop (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Should the reader be apprised that a curator at the MoMA maintains this view?": Of course they should—in the "Background" section, as this is a background concern, having to do with Lichtenstein's purported motivation. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the comments of Bernice Rose absent from the paragraph, we are misleading the reader. A topic is raised in a paragraph. It is condemnatory. The paragraph that we are discussing already contains within it the information that "[s]ome have denigrated it as mere copying" and that Lichtenstein "directly references imagery from other sources" and that there are "claims of plagiarism". That information is on the same general topic as Bernice Rose's comments. The perspective may be different. And the conclusions may be different. But the topic is the same. Related pieces of information should be found in proximity to one another. Bernice Rose refers to Lichtenstein "[c]opying from another’s artist’s work" and to "resorting to old-fashioned copying" and to Lichtenstein making "it so obvious that he was copying" and to "challenging the notion of originality". Bernice Rose is speaking about the same phenomena as is already addressed in our paragraph. The phenomena is the striking similarity between Lichtenstein paintings and comic book imagery. Our article points out that some "denigrate" it or consider it tantamount to plagiarism. But Bernice Rose makes a point of articulating that in her opinion there is nothing surreptitious about Lichtenstein's close adherence to comic book source material. Bernice Rose also makes a point of articulating that in her opinion Lichtenstein is "challenging notions of originality". The same topic is being addressed by Bernice Rose as the topic we already find in our article. Bernice Rose does not have the final say any more than Dave Gibbons has the final say. The paragraph already has a form. Additional material should be on the same topic as is already found in the paragraph that we are discussing, unless we decide to change the focus of the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As has been pointed out repeatedly, every issue raised in the paragraph is balanced with a rebuttal—ones aimed directly at the individual issues raised. Why do you keep ignoring that? Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of the paragraph is not criticism and rebuttal. The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings. Lichtenstein paintings are unusual in that the source material is very conspicuous. Some are indignant about this. Yes, we created a paragraph to document the criticism articulated by those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. But the subject of the paragraph is not the criticism of those who are indignant that Lichtenstein paintings appear to be ripping off comic book artists. The subject of the paragraph is the originality or the absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings. If there is reliably sourced commentary on the originality or absence of originality in Lichtenstein paintings, such commentary can be considered for inclusion in this paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 04:27, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The subject of the paragraph is originality as it applies to Lichtenstein paintings.": The subject of the paragraph is no such thing. The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms. The paragraph is not about "originality" as a concept, which would be grotesquely out of place in the "Legacy" section of a painting whose "point" was to challenge contemporary conceptions of "originality". Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—you say "The subject of the paragraph is those who have issues with Lichtenstein's borrowing, e.g. the ethics of borrowing without attribution. We don't have to agree or disagree with any of it, only to report on those who have so criticized the painting, and those who have refuted those criticisms."
If that is the case, why isn't Dave Gibbons mentioned in the paragraph? And where do you see refutation in the paragraph? Allegations of wrongdoing are a serious matter. I don't think we refute allegations of wrongdoing by merely stating that "others have countered". If we wish to refute we could include Alastair Sooke: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others."[68] The topic of the paragraph we are discussing is the derivative nature of Lichtenstein paintings. Most sophisticated commentators do not take issue with these paintings on the basis of originality. Alastair Sooke is an art critic. Bernice Rose is a curator at MoMA and the author of a book published by MoMA on Roy Lichtenstein. Bus stop (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point of note: Curly Turkey has been blocked from editing for edit warring unrelated to this FAC for 24hr [69] --MASEM (t) 18:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. I won't be responding anymore unless Bus Stop attacks the article itself again. Curly Turkey (gobble) 19:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Curly Turkey—our purpose in formulating wording for a paragraph on the originality or lack of originality in the painting Whaam! and similar paintings should be to present the reader with a rough approximation of the views on this topic found in reliable sources. You have been calling for "rebuttal". Alastair Sooke provides rebuttal: "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others."[70] Bus stop (talk) 19:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have some feedback on a possible version such as that which I'm posting below? Note that Dave Gibbons is mentioned by name and quoted. Also Alastair Sooke is mentioned by name and quoted. I would be amenable to lengthier quotes from Dave Gibbons if that is a concern of some. I happen to think that what I have included is sufficient. But alternative wording may be just as acceptable. Please consider the following and please provide feedback:
"Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Others counter that Whaam! differs from the images found in the original comic book panels. Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. Other criticism centers on Lichtenstein's failure to credit the original artists of his sources; Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books." Bus stop (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another voice—that of Rian Hughes:
Some have expressed displeasure with Lichtenstein's drawing upon the imagery of others to create Whaam!. Dave Gibbons, a comic book artist, characterizes Lichtenstein as a "copycat" and the painting Whaam! as "dishonest". Graphic designer Rian Hughes says "Almost every painting [Lichtenstein] ever did was appropriated without asking permission or paying royalties. If he was a musician, he would be facing a copyright lawsuit". But others such as Alastair Sooke, an art critic, writes that "Comparing the source for Whaam! with the finished painting banishes the hoary idea that Lichtenstein profited on the back of the creativity of others." In response to claims of plagiarism, the Roy Lichtenstein Foundation has noted that publishers have never sued for copyright infringement, and that they never raised the issue when Lichtenstein's comics-derived work first gained attention in the 1960s. As concerns criticism that Lichtenstein failed to credit the original artists of his sources, Ernesto Priego implicates National Periodicals in the case of Whaam!, as the artists were never credited in the original comic books.
I think the advantage to the above version is that it is a sampling of actual commentary on the subject of the paragraph. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, I almost reverted your change today out of principal. We are almost ready to be promoted. Please don't disrupt the delicate balance of the article. Unless you can get both one COMICS guy and one WPVA guy to agree with your change or two of the neutral guys, just leave things alone. The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer. Don't change without support.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—why do you say "The last time I looked at text involving Hughes, the important elements were actually said by his interviewer"? I'm finding sources attributing the quote to Rian Hughes here, here, here, and here. Bus stop (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Bus stop, you are extremely particular and I am grateful that Curly Turkey expended so much energy considering the validity of each of your points on this FAC and to Hiding for doing so on the early discussions. At this point have driven away both of the COMICS guys by your voluminous considerations. I am trying not to take either of their places. So I again encourage you to either limit yourself to compact enough considerations that one of them will evaluate or get the neutral guys like Masem to consider your arguments. You have wasted enough of everyone's time with your incessant nitpickings. In regards to Hughes, maybe this time you have good sources. If so build consensus among the other discussants and I will make the change after you do so. Right now, I have nearly unanimous support and I don't think it is a good idea to risk rocking that boat, given that most of your past suggestions have been hotly contested by others.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TonyTheTiger—Comment on content, not on the contributor. Bus stop (talk) 09:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

An enjoyable and comprehensive article. I have noticed the picture at the Tate but assumed it was one of several, and am interested to read its history, very nicely set out here. Tim riley (talk) 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Comment - fixed the Bader ref (had to create an artificial harv anchor). The basic problem is using "cite book" as short ref and as full biblio entry at the same time, a regular harv ID can't handle that. GermanJoe (talk) 07:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whammy on the Whaam! 50th anniversary drive

[edit]

My apologies to all the editors (especially those from WP:WPVA and WP:COMICS) who have been intimately involved in the vast improvement in Whaam! since the June 15 inception of its 50th anniversary drive for a September 28 WP:TFA appearance that was announced at Wikipedia:Peer review/Whaam!/archive1 and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!. I thank you for the interest, concern and expertise expressed through over 650KB of discussion at those two initial discussions and Talk:Whaam!, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 and here at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive2 in the last 12 weeks. There is some mystery (or possibly some gamesmanship) going on at WP:FAC where since attaining consensus support for the nominee I requested a source review at WT:FAC on 16:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) (over 19 days ago) and again at 14:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC) (over a week ago). Although Whaam! seems like it would be a five-point article by the TFA scoring system, there is apparently a two-point article seeking the same date (125th birthday of H. C. McNeile). Through the very mysterious FAC review process, this article has plodded at a curiously slow pace in its pursuit of timely promotion in order to compete with the two-pointer. I have been assured by Crisco 1492 that the slow process has nothing to do with the personal discord between he and I and his extensive involvement at FAC. Also, TFAR scheduler Bencherlite has stated that the seeming impending promotion of the potential 5-point article would not sway him to delay him from scheduling the 2-point article or any other article he sees fit for the September 28 date a week or two in advance even if it means your 650KB of interest and effort in perfecting the 5-point candidate in this 12-week drive is all for naught. Actually, exact quote "I will schedule as and when I am ready to do so - I'm not going to hold off scheduling for late September as and when I get there...just because you say you want to compete for the Sept 28 slot" At User talk:Bencherlite#September 28 and elsewhere, he has reminded me that although Whaam! may appear to be a 5-point article waiting in the wings, it is a zero-point article unless it can make it through the mysterious process that is FAC in time to be a nominee. I am very grateful that Nikkimaria has initiated this complicated source review at 03:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC) and for the assistance from no less than six other editors in addressing her concerns to improve the article so promptly and thoroughly in the subsequent 7.5 hours. As I have watched Nikkimaria's repeated visits to WP in the days since the responses to her source review concerns, I continue to hope that at some point soon, she will be able to make time to reconsider our efforts. I apologize to those six prompt respndents and many others who have contributed to the 650KB meeting of the minds on this subject who are still interested in the prompt promotion of this article. The FAC process is such a mystery that I am at a loss for how to get Whaam! promoted any more quickly and the point at which the die will be cast is fast approaching.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [71].[reply]

Atlantic Puffin

[edit]
Nominator(s): Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it is of a sufficiently high standard. The Atlantic Puffin is an interesting bird with an unusual lifestyle. I was inspired to choose it by finding a fascinating book about the bird at my local public library. Jimfbleak has done a thorough good article review and I have got the book out again from the library and look forward to answering your comments! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is the word puffin sometimes capitalised and sometimes not? --John (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where the article is talking about a particular species of puffin, it should be capitalised. When talking about puffins in general, as in the sentence "... the family Alcidae which includes the guillemots, auks, razorbills, murrelets, auklets and puffins" it should not. Having said that, I looked through the article and have made several corrections where I had got it wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that? I think that aesthetically it looks awful and practically it may be confusing to use this convention which most readers will not be aware of. --John (talk) 14:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC);;[reply]
The convention on capitalisation of bird species names is for clarity and the explanation given above is correct. However, there is only one species of Razorbill, so the pleural should be capitalised also. Snowman (talk) 20:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now...Comments from PumpkinSky
The range in the lead doesn't seem to match the map nor the range as described in the article body, towit: in the the lead it says the southern range is Maine/UK but the body and map say/show North Carolina/Morocco-Spain. Perhaps this can be clarified.
I have redrawn the line on the range map showing the southern limit of the summer range, Maine/UK. In winter the range extends southwards to North Carolina/Morocco-Spain. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Image check
Can we get an English translation of the description of File:Macareux en pêche (2).jpg and File:Fratercula arctica001.jpg
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The way you did that made the French descriptions not display. I've fixed that. PumpkinSky talk 10:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Lundeunge.jpg and File:Stora dimun puffins for kitchen.jpg need a source.
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source page for File:Fratercula arctica -Firth of Forth, Scotland -flying-8.jpg says it is copyrighted all rights reserved, but the bot says it was free on date uploaded. I'd like another opinion on this issue.
PumpkinSky talk 02:49, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The uploading bot, i.e. File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske), can be trusted that File:Fratercula arctica -Firth of Forth, Scotland -flying-8.jpg was available under a CC-BY-2.0 license at September 9, 2011. It is not uncommon that Flickr users change their mind but as Creative Commons licenses cannot be revoked, this image stays at Commons and can be freely used at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User AFBorchert is correct. I uploaded this image, when the Flickr photographer published it with a CC licence suitable for Commons. He subsequently stopped publishing it under that licence. On Commons the template, {{Flickr-change-of-license}}, on the file explains that the original copyright licence can still be used. Snowman (talk) 20:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick initial comment: I'm not super-keen on copying a cladogram as PD (IANAL), and I also wonder if there are access issues. You could perhaps get around both of these issues through use of Template:Cladogram? J Milburn (talk) 13:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is just names and some lines, not eligible for copyright. It is neither copyrighted text or a discernible design. But personally, I also think "code" cladograms are more practical. FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Puffin cladogram.jpg is below the threshold of originality according to US law as it consists of text, lines, and braces only. Thereby, it is in the public domain. However, access may indeed a point. If you are looking for an alternative cladogram, take a look at this de-wp article and scroll somewhat down. {{Clade}} is a similar template at en-wp. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have never made a cladogram and the wikitext looks quite repellent, so I was delighted to find this JPG. If necessary I will attempt to make one but will not do so if the copyright status of the present image is deemed to be OK. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As elaborated above, the present image is not eligible for copyright according to US law. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have solved this and added a cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 20:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, thank you for making the cladogram, a considerable improvement on the image I think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

[edit]
  • I will give this a read before long, but until then, the lead does not mention that the winter plumage is different (or that it even has it), and the beak dramatically so, I think that should be noted. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. I don't believe the plumage is different in winter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions some differences in the non-breeding season, such as duller and browner feathers. Furthermore, here is a site which mentions even more differences than are stated in the article, which I think should be added: "After the breeding season, the adult puffin sheds the colourful plates on its bill and around the eyes as well as the feathers on its head and neck. Its face becomes dark, especially around and in front of the eye. The Atlantic Puffin looks so different in the winter that people once thought it was a different species."[72] FunkMonk (talk) 12:38, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an extra sentence using your source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following sentence needs a source: "It mostly moves by paddling along efficiently with its webbed feet and seldom takes to the air."
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following needs a source: "Most oil spills happen in winter when the Puffins are far out at sea.[citation needed]"
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think adding an image of the egg[73] would be helpful, but space might be an issue.
My source says the egg is white, possibly with a few faint markings. I doubt whether this image is actually an Atlantic Puffin egg. The shape is wrong too, being the sort of shape designed not to roll off a rock ledge. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like the egg of another kind of auk, but maybe the uploader made a mistake when labelling them, I'll try to check the source.[74] FunkMonk (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weirdly, the source says 48 and 49 are "Macareux", which should mean puffin in French. Looks more like the egg of a Razorbill, but since the source is so old, who knows how the name could have changed meaning?. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trying not to use the word "release" twice in the same sentence. I have changed it round. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "although it has been found experimentally" Found through experiments? Sounds a little odd.
Removed the word. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The white shell is usually devoid of markings but soon becomes soiled." The source I linked above says it is soiled by mud. Could be nice to add. One could think they were soiled by excrements or some such... FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. That's what my source stated too. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sand eels (Ammodytes marinus)" Not a big deal, but everywhere else you wikilink the common name, not the binomial. Any reason?
Corrected. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Support - I think it is a very nice article, I saw a large puffin colony on Iceland a month ago, and they're really cute birds. I think it is really good how many images you have added of behaviour, could be great with a photo of an egg, but seems we have none. FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim I did the GA review, so the following are just minor points arising from a second viewing with FAC-grade beady eyes. I look forward to supporting soon. COI declaration: I appear to be second only to the nominator in terms of edits to this article, although I played no significant part in its upgrading. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newfoundland, Maine, moults, gulls, skuas.— link at first occurrence
Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three subspecies have traditionally been recognized but size seems to be the only difference... Puffins from northern populations are typically larger than their counterparts in southern parts of the range. It is possible that these populations are separate subspecies, but this is disputed. —you seem to be saying essentially the same thing in two widely separated places
Removed one Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • countries (as opposed to states and provinces) are normally not linked at FAC, if you choose to link, it should be at the first occurrence
That's the rule I have tried to adopt Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thieving— bit anthropomorphic imho
Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wingspan... and on land it stands...— subject as written is "wingspan"
Rephrased Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • it will struggle to the water— always?
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15,000,000 to 30,000,000 square kilometres (5,800,000 to 12,000,000 — personally, I'd write in millions, but up to you
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • an adult bird needs to eat about forty of these per day— is that correct as stated, or does it need to catch that number when it's feeding young?
That's correct. The source says 40 fish to survive but does also mention an average length of 70mm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • It copes with the excess salt that it inevitably swallows — a bit misleading, afaik the auks actually drink sea-water, so it's not necessarily accidental ingestion
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • have a fidelity—I'd be inclined to say "show fidelity" or "are faithful to"
Changed Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • steppes — is this right? I'd expect tundra
You are right Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you don't need to repeat the scientific names each time you mention eg herring
Done, I think Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above. It hadn't occurred to me until I saw a young guillemot on the Farnes in July just how uncommon it is to see a juvenile auk in the water Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments and support. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Snowmanradio
  • Should the Alcidae cladogram be placed on the Alcidae article rather than the article about this species. If it belongs on this species page, then it would also belong on all the other species in the family as well. Why is there 23 species in the family on the Commons cladogram File:Puffin_cladogram.jpg and only 20 in the new Wiki mark-up cladogram? Snowman (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your question is that two of the taxa in the image are not Alcids so I took them out to make it an Alcid-only cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel that. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the cladogram has been amended. Should it be deleted from this article and placed in the family article? Snowman (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why it couldn't just be placed in several articles. Certainly no need for deletion here. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could not find anything. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also nothing. Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is really interesting that chicks have their eyes open at hatching. Snowman (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where's that? Reid,iain james (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My source says "head" and I think its wings are big enough for this. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found an image of a sleeping puffin and it shows part of the beak (not the whole head) under a wing. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My source states "the parent spends most of the incubating period asleep with its head under its wing or staring down the tunnel in a trance-like state". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen some more photographs of puffins asleep or resting and all with part of their beak under a wing. Why would they sleep in a different posture when sleeping in the burrow? Snowman (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think sleeping with its "head under a wing" is an expression meaning "tucked back among the plumage at the base of the wing" rather than a literal description of the head's position. I will change the word to "beak" if you wish. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not change it to something that is not potentially misleading? Snowman (talk) 13:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is Wikipedia, we write what the published sources say, not what we decide from interpreting Google photos. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the Wikipedia, information can be reliably extracted from a number of reliable sources including photographs. Snowman (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if the said photo is described in a written work. Sorry, original interpretation is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The interpretation of a photograph need not be original research. In many cases it is clear what a photograph shows and it is simple to write down what it shows. Information can also be simply extracted from a map. Snowman (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then you are wrong. I may have to ask uninvolved FAC editors to join in, because this is not appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not wrong. I have discussed extracting information from images a long time ago at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34#Extrapolation_from_RS. I have raised the topic of the birds sleeping posture for discussion and showed an image to stimulate discussion, which is entirely appropriate in a FAC. Snowman (talk) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, the expression "head tucked under wing" is widely used about birds roosting. Take a look at this Google search for ""head tucked under wing" image". The birds depicted have their beaks tucked under their wing and not their heads tucked under. I quoted above the exact words used by my book source. I think the wording should stay as it is in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be saying that the phrase "head under wing" is commonly used and then add that the pictures indicate that it is wrong. I would accept that is what your 1995 source says, but what if more recent sources said something different about the sleeping posture of birds? What if articles that focus on the sleeping posture of birds contradict your source? Sleeping posture is considered in this article about a duck. The paper is used in the Wiki article about birds to source this; "Sleeping birds often use a type of sleep known as vigilant sleep, where periods of rest are interspersed with quick eye-opening peeks ...". I would guess that if only the beak was under the wing then the bird could simply open its eye to look around without moving its head. I would guess that moving the whole head from under the wing to look around would probably make the bird noticeable and more vulnerable. I can not access the full article (that I linked about the duck), but I wonder if there is anything there that can be added to the article about the sleeping posture of birds in general. I would think that one or more RS could probably be found to explain the sleeping posture of birds and this would prevent using "head under wing" which I would regard as an inadvertent over-simplification in a 1995 general book about puffins that should not be replicated in the Wiki article. I see no reason for perpetuating "head under wing" here, but if you must leave "head under wing" in the article, then it may be reasonable to add a footnote to explain the sleeping posture of birds using a RS at the end of the footnote. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you say is interesting but not relevant in this instance as we are not talking about the sleeping posture of the Puffin in general. An adult incubating an egg in the darkness and safety of a burrow is in a very different position to one roosting in the open air. My source states that "the parent spends most of the incubating period asleep with its head under its wing or staring down the tunnel in a trance-like state". One of the authors is the warden of the Skomer Island National Nature Reserve in Wales. He lives on the island and sees the birds every day during the summer period. He went to the trouble of creating an underground hide from which the "goings-on" in a Puffin nesting chamber could be observed and photographed. If he states that the bird had its head under its wing, that is good enough for me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snowman, you need to show sources that contradict the other sources, or simply let it go. This is Wikipedia, you cannot go beyond the sourcs. You cannot demand adding info that is not found in the sources, especially when you base it on original research, as you did with the photo, see comments from admin below. Furthermore, "head under its wing" would cover "beak under its wing" as well. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of improving the Wikipedia an am trying to advance discussion about the sleeping posture of the puffin, so that the article can be improved. Describing obvious features of a photograph is not original research. I am not demanding anything and the conclusion here will be a consensus. Snowman (talk) 08:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Information added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fledglings emerge from the nest and try to make their way to the sea but sometimes get confused, ending up in the village streets." Should this be in the culture section or the reproduction section? The source mentions the moonlight and street-lights, so I wonder if more details should be added to make it more logical. Snowman (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The children collect them and liberate them on the beach next morning." The source does not mention "beach". Are the young birds rather venerable to predators if left on the beach in the daylight. Should this be in the conservation section or the reproduction section? Snowman (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to better correspond with the source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It has been found that adults bringing fish to their chicks tend to arrive in clumps." Does this mean that they land near clumps of grass? Does it mean arrive in a group with other puffins? Snowman (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Arriving in groups. Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a curious error. Could the original have said something like; "... arrive in groups near clumps of vegetation"? Snowman (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source states "... puffins arrived clumped, with more puffins than expected arriving within intervals of less than or equal to five sec of each other". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 13:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article organisation: A section has the heading "Ecology", which is a big topic. I think that many of the other sections include ecology, so I think that the heading structure is illogical. WP Birds suggests guidelines for a heading structure on their main page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds and it includes a section headed "Behaviour and ecology"; however, their suggested structure is often adapted to suite a particular bird species. I would encourage using a more conventional and logical heading and sub-heading structure. Snowman (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that this bird has an unusual style of life that does not easily fit into the WikiProject Birds suggested article layout structure. What do other people think of the present layout? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to adapt the heading structure. However, I find the heading structure created here is illogical, because ecology is a vast topic that incorporates several topics that are the main content of sections of the article that are not under the "Ecology" section. Snowman (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would look better to me if you made "life at sea", "the colony", "reproduction", and "ecology" subsections under a "behaviour" or "life history" section. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juveniles are similar in appearance to adults"; to me the young look completely different to the adults owing to the different colours of the beak and feet, different shape of the beak, and more grey on the head of the juvenile. Snowman (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the wording. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have expanded the cladogram to include these new species. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the expanded cladogram, but the reference for the new part is not provided. The citation at the end of the caption remains the same. Snowman (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a ref to the updated cladogram. Reid,iain james (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the great auk and a reference for its inclusion. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, we cannot add anything to the cladogram that is not in the one in the source. The placement of the added taxa is original research. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the ref for the Great auk says it is closest to the Razorbill. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not the ref for the cladogram. Combining the two is original synthesis. We need a cladogram which includes them all, we cannot make our own original cladogram based on different sources. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to find a ref that has all of them included. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images in the "Life at sea" section are of puffins in the sea quite close to land and they are in breeding plumage. Hence, these are puffins that are most probably going back to land daily. These are not puffins in the phase of spending a substantial continuous time at sea. I think that the position of these images and their captions are together potentially misleading. Also, I think that the heading "Life at sea" could be more specific. Snowman (talk) 08:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder why you think the pictures are of birds close to shore? They probably are as Puffins are spread out over the sea in winter and therefore seldom seen. However as they do not moult till about January, I do not think the images are misleading. What heading would you think better than "Life at sea"? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The coordinates on Commons of the images show that both images are of puffins near to the shore. Yes, I expect that the puffins behave in water in a similar way near to the colony and far out at sea; however, I think that the captions should give the locations of both birds and that they birds are near to land in both images. Snowman (talk) 19:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the new captioning. Snowman (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Then it empties for the night as the birds fly out to sea to roost...". I presume that this is not literally true, because chicks and perhaps adults incubating eggs will be in the burrows. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible inconsistency owing to a change of emphasis. In the introduction; " It is possible that these populations are separate subspecies, but this is disputed". In the taxonomy section; "There are generally considered to be three subspecies:[12]". Snowman (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The meaning of ecology, as I understand it, is the way organisms react with each other and their environment. Feel free to suggest an alternative section title. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reorganised and renamed it. Snowman (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Renamed: Life in the colony. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some information on tourism. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good start, but it is focused on North America. Probably needs a more holistic account. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what I can find. The sort of irresponsible tourism shown in the image recently added is bad. Don't those people realise that traipsing among the shallow burrows can cause them to collapse with fatal consequences? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the image should be removed? Do you think that the caption should indicate the dangers to puffins? Is there anything in the literature about irresponsible tourism? Snowman (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the caption to indicate the irresponsible behavior. I think it is fine to leave it in like that. Reid,iain james (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the new caption is a little presumptive. Perhaps, there is something about tourists affecting breeding colonies in the literature that might help. Snowman (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although I can find mention of a few boat trips to view puffins and other sea birds in the UK and Iceland, I'm not sure that this and this are reliable sources. What do you think? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if each would be classified as a "self publication" or not and I do not know about their editorial processes. However, the BBC is generally considered a RS for the Wiki, and the BBC has something here and here. Snowman (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence about Iceland. I think in general, puffin tourism is a rather low key affair with local entrepreneurs offering boat trips. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At least the article mentions some tourism outside North America now. I think that it is often difficult to find RS about tourism, but there may be plenty of "adverts". More RS on tourism may turn up. Snowman (talk) 14:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... , the chick sheds its down and the adult plumage is revealed." Adult plumage is most probably the wrong expression for the first plumage after the fluffy-down phase. Snowman (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware that the introduction describes the puffins bill when it is colourful in the breeding season. However, the introduction has no remark about how striking and noticeable these colours of the beak are. I think that this is significant enough for emphasis in the introduction. I have been looking at the introduction for a while, so it might not choose the right words at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The St Louis Zoo is the source of that image and its puffins are not Atlantic Puffins. I think that it is unnecessary to mention puffins being kept in captivity in this article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another instance mentioned. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... it emerges from the burrow, usually for the first time, and walks, runs and flaps its way to the sea.". This may be contraindicated is this BBC wildlife video, which (I think) indicates that young puffins explore around the nest for a while prior to going out to the sea. Snowman (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added further information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article has two images of juvenile puffins and both are outside the nest. One has down and is too young to go to sea. I think that the text of the article is not consistent with young puffins being outside the nest. Snowman (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text says "usually" and that indicates that it may, on occasion, emerge from the nest. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The weight at fledging is already mentioned. The adults do not abandon the chick according to my reliable source, but the volume of fish may reduce somewhat. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is also a reliable source. I have not got a lot of time for looking for other sources. Snowman (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have used this source and added this information. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your book source is a "coffee table" book with fine photography and text by a professional bird book author and I note that it has an index but no references. I think my source is fine because the bird's behaviour and habits is not going to change over the years. However I admit that new information might become available as in the above example of beak-to-beak feeding. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... likes to land in a location where other birds are not already present." I presume that this means that puffins likes to land where there are puffins. To me, "other birds" looks too vague. Snowman (talk) 15:24, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilinked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Conservation" section has some paragraphs that are clearly about conservation, but other paragraphs are about pollution or climate change without any conservation. I wonder if a little re-organisation is needed. Would another heading be better? Does the section need to be split? Snowman (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To show what I am describing, I have split off the climate change paragraphs. I think that the chemical pollution paragraph can stay with the conservation section. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've renamed the section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made another attempt an re-naming one section, but I think that it is not quite suitable, because "environment" is a very broad topic. "Pollution" might work for most of it, but not the paragraph about invasive plants. Can invasive plants go in another section? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a bit more section organisation, because two of the paragraphs fit under a pollution heading. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 11:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has both "northern Atlantic" and "North Atlantic". Both are the same thing, because the Atlantic is divided into North Atlantic and South Atlantic by the equator. It there a reason for using both these two terms or could consistency be improved? I think that using "North Atlantic" consistently might be better. Snowman (talk) 21:47, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are different. The North Atlantic might be the part of the Atlantic north of a line joining West Africa with Brazil - some of it is tropical. The northern Atlantic means the colder more northerly parts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some uncertainty. The Wiki article Atlantic Ocean might have some answers. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are places, as in the Taxonomy section where "puffin" is more suitable. I thought I had sorted out the other places where it should be "Puffin" but have now done so again. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Snowman (talk) 19:56, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Latin "fratercula" means "little brother" according to the google translator. This meaning is also given in the Wiki puffin genus page. I do not know much about Latin. Why does this article say that it means "friar"? Snowman (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is what it says in the source. The word "brother" comes from the same source. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand Latin. Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60% of the total puffin population nest on Iceland, so I think it is reasonable to add a bit more about the puffins there. Apparently there was a 30 year ban on puffin hunting after marked declines noted in 1900, also there have been recent calls for another total hunting ban on Iceland following recent population declines. I have linked web pages to advance discussion of the topic, but they might not be reliable sources. Perhaps, books on the history of Iceland might have more on the near extirpation of Puffins from some of the Icelandic islands and the 30 year hunting ban, if the linked website is correct. Snowman (talk) 11:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a bit more is needed about the Icelandic populations. The marked reduction in the Puffin population on Iceland around 1900 and the 30 year hunting ban sound very significant in the history of the species to me and I think that these are significant omissions in the article, if the linked website is correct (the same webpage is used as a RS for something else in the article). Snowman (talk) 19:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added more information on the Icelandic population. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression. The article is good, but I am still finding issues with the article and I think that more copy editing is needed prior to promotion to FA status. Please note that I do not have a lot of time for editing at this juncture, but I might have a little time each day or every other day to look at this article. Snowman (talk) 14:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also busy at the moment, people keep inviting themselves to stay unexpectedly, but I will deal with your comments shortly. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional impression 2. I edit bird pages and I have edited this article mostly during the FAC, so I might have a conflict of interest; however, I have tried my best to be objective. At this juncture, I think that the article has nearly reached FA status. I have not focused on MoS issues. I have not systematically spot-checked sources. I think that there is a significant major omission about fluctuation of puffin populations on Iceland (where about 60% of the world's Atlantic Puffins nest) and a 30-year hunting ban there in the early 20th century (if the web-page that I linked above is correct). Also, I think that there are a few minor issues that need further discussion and perhaps actioning before FA status is achieved. Snowman (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support FA status. I think that the article has achieved FA status. I have read the article from beginning to end. Snowman (talk) 14:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Snowman, for your detailed comments on the article and your support. You put a lot of time and effort into your review and I think the article is the better for it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Snowman's comments - Snowman seems to be misunderstanding sourcing principles. He suggests changing the article based on a photo he has found on Google, which supports his own interpretation of sleeping posture, and ignoring what the actual written sources say. That is original research. Furthermore, he demands adding taxa to the cladogram that are not even mentioned in the source the cladogram is based on. That is original research as well. Those comments are disruptive, and are degrading the reliability of the article, not improving it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Interpreting photos found on Google is definitely in the realms of original research and not usable (e.g. none of us here can use our own expertise to assert the implication of that photograph). Perhaps Snowman can locate a source that would support his viewpoint? However, with reference to the Cladogram, all of the changes mentioned appear to be sourced - it is definitely fine to ammend/modify the Cladogram with the latest information as it emerges. It does not have to explicitly rely on only one source. --Errant (chat!) 15:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your thoughts. My problem with the cladogram is not that it should rely on a single source. it is that you can not add information to the cladogram that is not in the source the structure is based on. For example, the Great Auk is not included in the 1996 cladogram. Yet it is well known that its closest relative is the Razorbill. But since it was not included in the genetic study the cladogram was based on, it is very misleading to add it to the cladogram here. Who knows where in relation to the Razorbill it should be placed? We cannot interpret that ourselves. And we cannot build on a published cladogram and combine with information not based on genetic studies, or even other genetic studies. The resulting cladogram would be an original construction, not allowed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the cladogram, a possible approach would be to stay with the 1996-based one, stating specifically that that's how it was in 1996, and to follow with statements sourced to the more recent science. Keeping the statemnts separate like that would avoid synthesis. Regarding the photo, half the beak is pretty obviously visible, but it's surely OR to say that the puffin is asleep. --Stfg (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said above that the Great Auk is not mentioned in the cladogram. I have not suggested adding it to the cladogram. May I suggest that the caption or a footnote could say that the Great Auk is an extinct member of this family, and its position is not known (or whatever reliable sources say about the taxonomy). Alternatively, I wonder if the complete family cladogram is within the scope of this species article. Snowman (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a new cladogram including all the species from a phylogenetic analysis of Pan-Alcidae. How is it? Reid,iain james (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My first impression is that the new improved cladogram is much better than I expected. I note that it includes the recently extinct Great Auk and that you have used what looks like an up-to-date 2013 source. Please place a copy of the cladogram on the family page. Snowman (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Reid,iain james (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone would like me to expand the cladogram then I can. The source has a cladogram going all the way to Charadiformes, not just Alcidae. Reid,iain james (talk) 18:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is up to you, if you want to expand the cladogram or not. I think that a cladogram of the order of Charadriiformes would be interesting for the page on the order of birds, but not for this page. I think that making such a big cladogram looks like an interesting challenge. Would it fit on the page? If you need to discuss it, then you could start a new topic at Talk:Charadriiformes? Snowman (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add it to Talk:Charadriiformes when I'm done with here. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have discussed using images as reliable sources a long time ago at Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources/Archive_34#Extrapolation_from_RS and the general conclusion is that images can be used to extract non-controversial information. The image I linked above of a puffin with part of its beak under its wing was only one example of several I found. Some are captioned "resting puffin" and I could probably find more images with descriptive captions. My aim is to advance the discussion here to assist the development of the article and I was pointing out a possible inaccuracy in the article for discussion. The article says that the Puffin sleeps with its head under its wing on the basis of one reliable source. I think that it is appropriate to discus this claim here in view of apparent photographic evidence that it might sleep with only part of its beak under its wing. May I suggest that the discussion could be advanced with a literature search and perhaps an image search to attempt to find more about the sleeping and resting postures of the puffin. Snowman (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I have found another range map and would like to know which we should use. Also I think we should go through the images here and find the best images. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original image shows both the breeding range and the overwintering range. The alternative map has a red area but does not state what it represents, nor from what information source it is derived. I prefer the original. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current map is probably adequate, but the lines look like they have been written with a shaky pen. The good thing about the current map is that is shows where the breeding colonies are. Perhaps, two maps are needed; one map can show where the colonies are and another map can show where the range is. Snowman (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could add the one not in use currently to Distribution. Actually we should. Reid,iain james (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I like the original range map file. PumpkinSky talk 01:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are both included in the article now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 04:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about the map with the red range not having a source in the image description on Commons. Can this image be used on the Wiki? Snowman (talk) 08:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I am sure that range maps should have sources, so I have removed the map with the red range from the article. It may be possible to contact the author or to make another map. One published map of the puffins range is on BirdLife International. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The original range map provides essentially the same information as the BirdLife International one though it does not have a northern limit for the winter range. I think the present map is adequate. The birds are so seldom recorded when over-wintering at sea that the precise delineation of their winter range becomes problematic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [75].[reply]

Hurricane Diane

[edit]
Nominator(s): ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I spent a lot of time writing and researching this destructive hurricane earlier this year. I always intended to nominate it, but I never got around to it until now. I hope you all find the storm as fascinating as I did. It's my first FAC in a while, but as I've said since my first FAC here goes nothing! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 1a. The writing needs work. I started fixing stuff in the lead, but after finding more (still in the lead), I stopped reading. Random examples:

  • "just five days after Hurricane Connie struck the same general area" I don't think the word "general" is doing anything.
  • "The storm produced the state's largest flood on record, which effectively split the state into two after destroying bridges and cutting communications." I think you mean by, not after, unless the flood destroyed bridges, cut communications, and then did something else to split the state.
    • I think they both work work. I'm not quite sure what your comment means ("and then did something else to split the state"), but yes, the floods were responsible for destroying the bridges and cutting communications. I'll change it to "by", but I don't think it matters much. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "30 stream gauges reported their highest level" (levels)
  • "Floods destroyed a large section of downtown Winsted, much of it never being rebuilt." (much of which was never rebuilt)

I think this would benefit from a fresh set of eyes. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I requested a copyeditor, thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I tackled the lead a bit, although there were some parts I had a hard time rewording. For example: "The storm turned to the northeast, and fueled by warm waters in the Atlantic Ocean, it dropped record rainfall across the northeastern United States." I don't feel like this sentence flows properly (the "... , and fueled ..., it ..." is a little awkward), though I'm not sure how to rephrase without changing the meaning too much. Please see if my edits were an improvement. Auree ★★ 17:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, much improved. I merged those clauses, about the rainfall, so hopefully it works better now. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of fine-tuning the prose from top-to-bottom, and I should be done by tonight or tomorrow morning. – Juliancolton | Talk 20:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked it over briefly and it looks improved—I'm striking my opposition. If I can find time to look more thoroughly, I will come back and see if I can support. --Laser brain (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - This article is very well written, and it deserves to be an FA class. One comment from the New England impact section: "In Rhode Island, damage was estimated at $21 million, mostly in Woonsocket, and there were three death." - change "death" to "deaths". Otherwise, I see no obvious mistakes. Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I addressed this. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 20:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - The article looks good, but I think the sections might be a bit big. Otherwise, it's good.—CycloneIsaac–E-Mail 21:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I've done some spot-copyediting (is that even a thing?) where I thought the writing could be made clearer, and I could probably spend hours more rejiggering the wording of the article. At the end of the day, though, the writing is professional and clinical, and more importantly the content is rich and well-sourced. I feel comfortable agreeing that this is the best single account of Hurricane Diane available on the internet. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks!! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD NOAA, PD USGS - tweaked tag, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 07:18, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Comment - I have two minor qualms that should be fixed/addressed before I switch to support.--12george1 (talk) 04:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Throughout Pennsylvania, the disaster killed 101 people and caused an estimated $70 million in damage.[nb 2]" - I notice here that you have a link to the note stating that damage figures are in 1955 USD. However, for some reason you mention 1955 USD in this sentence: "Monetary losses totaled $754.7 million (1955 USD), although the inclusion of loss of business". Move "(1955 USD)" to the sentence with the note attached or remove it altogether.
    • "$754,706,000 in damage (1955 USD), of which $600 million was in New England,[2] making it the costliest hurricane in American history. ... This contributed to 1955 being the costliest Atlantic hurricane season on record.[2]" - These two sentences make it seem like Diane is still the costliest hurricane in American history and 1955 AHS still the most expensive.
Overall

This is an excellent article that I enjoyed reading. My only quibble on the overall is the often use of passive voice. Perhaps a few of those sentences can be reworded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I cut down on the use of passive voice. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead

The first sentence reads awkward. I suggest: "Hurricane Diane was a costly 1955 Atlantic Hurricane that struck the eastern coast of the United States. One of three hurricanes to hit North Carolina, during the season, it formed..."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to emphasize that at one time, it was the costliest hurricane, which is a pretty notable stat on the hurricane, one worthy of starting off the article. Just saying "a costly" doesn't emphasize that enough, IMO. Is there a way to fix the awkwardness without removing that piece of information from the first sentence? IMO, the first sentence should be the most important fact, and I think this qualifies. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "costliest at its time" bit can be moved before the last sentence in the last paragraph of the lead.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorological history

Misplaced comma at the end of the first sentence.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preparations and background

Second paragraph - the "rivers" after "Farmington" is not necessary since the listed names have already been identified as rivers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Impact

Something is missing from the sentence: "The floods severely infrastructure and affected several summer camps."

Should 'severely' be 'severed'?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should've been "damaged", but I like the ring of "severed infrastructure"! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mid-Atlantic

Overuse of the word 'occurred' throughout, but especially in the first paragraph. Other words can be used here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph three, last sentence - 'overall' is used twice. Only the first is needed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut a few. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph four, second sentence - emdash needed rather than hyphen.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Something is missing from the sentence: "In that city, about 200 people to evacuate their houses along the water."--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added missing word. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I have at the moment. I may make additional comments later.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I replied to the above. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:43, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Delegate comment -- First sentence, "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane at the time." -- can you explain exactly what "at the time" means (the 1955 season, up until 1955, or what?) because it doesn't read well to me and if I know just what you mean I daresay we could come up with something better. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hurricane Katrina is currently the costliest hurricane, before that was Hurricane Andrew. For a period from 1955 to 1965, Diane was the costliest hurricane, until it was surpassed by Hurricane Betsy. It's a very small group of storms that have ever been the costliest at one point, and that Diane held it for 13 years is pretty impressive (its successor, the billion dollar Betsy, only held it for 4 years). I can cite that Diane held the record until Betsy, per here. Would that make matters clearer? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, assuming the above is cited somewhere in the article, I think you could simply alter the first sentence to "Hurricane Diane was the costliest Atlantic hurricane of its time". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no prob. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [76].[reply]

Ambohimanga

[edit]
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambohimanga is the only cultural World Heritage Site in Madagascar and the best preserved example of a pre-colonial royal city on the island (and possibly one of the best preserved pre-colonial anythings in Sub-Saharan Africa, for that matter). Sister city to an earlier FA article, the Rova of Antananarivo (destroyed in a fire in 1995), the importance of this place both historically and culturally can't be overstated. The topic is widely covered on WP in 25 languages. It's passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Fire away, folks. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just some minor cleanup and nitpicks:

  • Ooh, I'm not sure how to rename the file. If consistency is key, I'd want to rename it to something like "Madagascar Rova of Ambohimanga - Nanjakana Compound established by Andrianjafy". Can you walk me through the process? In the meantime, I've changed the image summary to be clearer: "Nanjakana compound, established by King Andrianjafy in the late 18th century at the Rova of Ambohimanga in Madagascar" Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ambohimanga.jpg - could you add a bit detail to an English summary description for other re-users, the Italian original doesn't have details? Also Commons categories are missing.
  • Some of the images in the second half of the article have only the name of the building or location as caption. Probably a matter of taste, but consider adding some brief details to each short caption (for example the main function of the depicted building or a notable, captivating fact for context to the article).

A great collection of "own work" images, really helpful for the reader - nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lucked out that the government had just recently finished repainting it, so the place is looking at its best in these photos, apart from the cyclone damage. Thank you for taking the time to review it! Much appreciated. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ranges should consistently use endashes

3 or 4 of the sources do not have ISBN nums. not sure if it's a big deal, but they are good to have in any case. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this one. The Ellis and Sibree sources lack ISBNs because they were published in 1838, 1867, and 1870, respectively, vastly predating ISBN assignment. They probably have OCLC numbers, which could be included, but I wouldn't consider that a strict requirement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support- all my concerns are answered. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all points Done. Another fine article, but I have some concerns, mostly about structure, focus and prose. A few examples (I am not sure I will be able to thoroughly check the whole article):

  • first lead para, start of second para => A lot of emphasis on the site's importance. 3 complete sentences and 1 in the second para. Of course the site is very important, but detailing all aspects of this fact in the first lead para feels WP:UNDUE. Trim slightly? Or summarize cultural, national, spiritual and political importance in a more succinct general statement? Also, the last 2 sentences of the second lead para again focus on the site's importance from yet another angle.
  • I'm not quite seeing it that way... I'm stating facts that explain why the site is considered important by the Malagasy and by UNESCO, because it isn't simply an old city - it's noteworthy for a number of reasons, including its history, its architectural distinctiveness, its sacred character and role in pilgrimage, etc. Since all of this is discussed at length in the body, it seems right to summarize it here. But I'm open to suggestions - maybe I'm not quite grasping what you're perceiving here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He and later rulers in his line continued to regularly inhabit, remodel and conduct royal rituals at Ambohimanga ..." => grammar, "inhabit" and "remodel" sound odd with "at Ambohimanga" (maybe the whole sentence needs to be broken up).
  • Changed to "He and later rulers in his line continued to conduct royal rituals at the site and regularly inhabited and remodeled Ambohimanga until French colonization of the kingdom..."
  • Etymology - just checking, are any additional details about the meaning of "Tsimadilo" available?
  • From the Malagasy I know, it would mean "no tamarind trees" - but there could be other, older meanings, and I haven't found a source that provides an objective translation, unfortunately.
  • "In return he launched a military campaign to capture a significant town under his rival's control, but without success." => Out of scope. How does that event influence the hill site? The article already mentioned, that a lot of fighting was going on. Specific battles would better fit in a history-related article (about the dynasty or Madagascar's history).
  • Fair enough - removed.
  • Layout "Ambohimanga is located in the central highlands of Madagascar, approximately 24 kilometres (15 mi) [east] of the capital city of Antananarivo." => East or northeast? Lead has northeast.
  • Changed to northeast
  • Structure of layout section => The article starts with the specific layout of the hill area, then jumps back and forth from general information for all rovas to specific features of this rova. The whole layout section should be rephrased as facts about this hill in particular, not as general description about all rovas (the first sentence "The rova structure at Ambohimanga follows a traditional design established by the earliest Merina highland settlers by the 15th century." is sufficient to establish that connection) . Also, the information about establishing such sites by nobles looks odd as "layout", maybe move to "history" or a general article about rovas.
  • I agree, your remarks are making me think I can't wait any longer to create a page on Rovas. It was only a matter of time... I will make tweaks and try to create the new page over the next several days.
  • Okay - I've created a page about rovas and removed the sentences I found that talked about how the Ambohimanga features reflect the standards of rovas throughout the highlands. This should be easier to read now.
  • more "Layout" => the Vazimba information is a mix of historical, layout and cultural influence aspects. It's not ideal, but i would move the last 2 sentences to history, where the Vazimba are introduced (Most of the first sentence can be removed as redundant with the history section). The information seems too short to stand on its own elsewhere.
  • I've pruned that piece and moved relevant info to the history section.

Some general suggestions:

  • Prose: i tweaked a few redundant and repetitive phrases, but another look from a native English speaker for flow and grammar would help. Especially complex information is sometimes split across several sub-clauses, and could possibly be phrased clearer and more straightforward.
  • Heh, this is what grad school, academic publishing and multilingualism (native English, though!) has apparently done to my writing style. I'm trying to cram too much into each sentence. Let me go through and see if I can break it up and simplify things over the next few days.
  • Reviewed and made a few changes, which I think have helped a bit with understanding this unfamiliar material.
  • Structure: See section "Layout". If possible, historical, layout, cultural and modern information should not be mixed (sometimes it's unavoidable of course). Splitting the first general layout overview (6 paragraphs) in 2 sections may also help (for example in "Area overview and background information about layout" and "specific details about the site itself", shorter headers needed).
  • I made some changes along these lines, too. For example I moved some content about the features of rovas to the symbolism section to use it more as an illustration of the symbolism rather than a description of typical rova components. I broke up the layout part to include subsections on the villages and natural features, and I think it works much better now.
  • Scope: Judging only from "History" and "Layout" there is a lot of detailed background information in the article. Please double-check if that kind of information is always needed and directly relevant for the reader's understanding of the hill site. Maybe some minor, secondary details can be trimmed or moved to better suited articles.
I do want this to be comprehensive for the site of Ambohimanga, and I want readers to be able to have a basic understanding without needing to click through to too many other articles. Maybe now that I've trimmed the layout section to remove anything not directly related to this site specifically, the article will be clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If related articles exist (like history of Madagascar or about rovas in general), they could be added as "See also" at the start of appropriate sections like "history" and "layout" to help readers navigate to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I've linked most relevant articles in the body, which I think means they shouldn't also be added in a "see also" section. But as I continue to develop other relevant articles, I can create a section for See also if it becomes appropriate.
  • All points Done (consider them struck ...), thank you. I would have trimmed the "importance" a bit and maybe a few background details more, but that's a matter of taste, i guess. Not withholding my overall supp. for this nice article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after another read. Comprehensive and well-written. Concerns, mostly about organization, have been adressed. 1 minor point:

  • Conservation => the second para first half and the fourth para second half seem to be covered by a single source (ref #1 and #37). Not every single sentence needs a reference, but consider adding (repeating) the citation once or twice - especially after factual statements like dates and statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No link to the Commons category, which contains some better images that should be used, especially at the top of the article. Then the doubling-up of images might be justified. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [77].[reply]

Tintin in the Congo

[edit]
Nominator(s): Prhartcom (talk) and Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [reply]

We are nominating this for featured article status because it has achieved GA status and we believe that it now also meets FA criteria. After the recent promotion of Tintin in the Land of the Soviets to FA status, we feel that it is time that its successor volume, Tintin in the Congo, did too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This is certainly a good candidate for FA status. I do, however, have some severe reservations about one phrase, which I admit has been used word-for-word elsewhere. "According to Tintinologist Harry Thompson, such political ideas were common in Belgium at the time, where "patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety were so inextricably bound together in everyone's lives that right-wing politics were an almost inevitable by-product."" I do not doubt that Mr. Thompson does say this, but it's also undeniably untrue - or at least not quite as authoritative as it is made to seem. Granted that the Catholic Party (and later, but to a lesser extent, Rex) was dominant through almost all this period, it neglects the equally large number of people who voted Liberal, Socialist or Communist. Some acknowledgement that Mr. Thompson's comment refers to a certain class, locality etc. in Belgium in which Hergé mixed at the time would remedy this I'm sure.Brigade Piron (talk) 21:18, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very interesting point Brigade Piron; it is true that Thompson was no historian. Maybe we could think about rephrasing this. Perhaps something like "Conservative ideas revolving around ""patriotism, Catholicism, strict morality, discipline, and naivety" pervaded Herge's milieu" ? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, I think that would cover it nicely, though I think the politics of the newspaper itself could be helpfully emphasized in the same sentence? Otherwise I think the article would be a good adition to the FA and, to me at least, seems extremely well done.Brigade Piron (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and made the alteration. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - fair-use OK some issues (fair-use). A topic like that can have more than 1 fair-use image, but the current usage needs some work:

2 GA-reviews for an article with 5 fair-use images did not even comment on this aspect. But that's a problem outside of FAC and certainly not the nominators' fault. GermanJoe (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking very strong. A few comments:

  • "Muganga pleads mercy" - I've never heard the phrase "plead mercy"- is it definitely standard English? If so, I'm happy for it to stay.
  • Is Coeurs Vaillants notable? Don't be scared of redlinks!
  • I assume it was originally published in French? I ask because you don't mention translation with the syndication.
  • Again, is Henry de Doncker notable?
  • "English publishers stubbornly refused to publish" I think calling it "stubborn" is a little judgemental.
  • "its controversial content" - What content specifically?
  • "while Tintin was portrayed throughout as a Scout, reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" I don't really understand what is meant here.
  • The Simon Kuper quote seems a little tacked-on; I think it would fit a little better in the first paragraph in the section
  • "In November 2011, UK bookseller Waterstones" Funny little point, but at that stage, the shop was still called Waterstone's (with an apostrophe)

The prose is generally excellent, but I am a little concerned about some of the images. (I now see that GermanJoe has raised basically the same concerns above- I endorse Joe's comments. J Milburn (talk) 16:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Generally a great-looking article, and I'm sure I'll be happy to support once these issues are dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the article had no image reviews, now it has two :). No worries, and i agree with deleting the old fair-use versions (i guess, it can be done by adding "subst:furd", even if it's not a reduction). GermanJoe (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments J Milburn! I have linked to Coeurs Vaillants and specified that the story was first serialised in French. I think it worth including the name of Henry De Donkcer, but not worth linking it, as (as far as I am aware), he did nothing else to achieve notability in his life. I agree that "stubbornly" shouldn't be in there (I don't think that it was my addition in the first place), so I've removed it. I've replaced "controversial" with "alleged racist". I've tried to clarify the "reflecting Hergé's "moral debt" to Wallez" sentence. I've moved the Simon Kuper quote as you have suggested, and altered the spelling to "Waterstone's". Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, on the condition that the source check comes back OK. I'm satisfied with the resolution of the issues I raised, confident that the small fixes recommended below can be looked into. J Milburn (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed the two images that the two reviewers above deem to not be Fair Use. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - tagged the 2 images and one old version of a valid fair-use for deletion. They are usually only deleted after a week (at 19 August), if you still need them for other purposes and want to change the tag and FUR. GermanJoe (talk) 12:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updated status on my review (all OK), could you clarify the minor mismatch 1931 <-> 1932 in the caption and summary of the "Opening" image? GermanJoe (talk) 12:06, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its 1931; "1932" was probably a silly error on my behalf. Thanks for your review GermanJoe; much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review from Cliftonian

[edit]
Resolved comments from Cliftonian
This looks pretty promising. Well done so far! Here are some pointers I hope will help on the way to FA status.
Infobox
Lead
Synopsis
History—background
  • When did Hergé start work at Le Petit Vingtième?
  • "of fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" again, I think "of the fictional Belgian reporter Tintin" is better. I would even favour a reword to "revolving around the exploits of a fictional Belgian reporter named Tintin"
  • "Wallez insisted he write a story set in the Belgian Congo" Did he insist he write the Congolese story instead of the American one, or simply that a Congolese story be produced? If the former, I would reword to "Wallez insisted that he instead write ..."
  • "the Belgian Congo (modern-day Democratic Republic of the Congo), then a part of the Belgian Empire" Kind of clunky; maybe reword to "the Belgian Congo, then a Belgian colony and today the Democratic Republic of the Congo"
  • "Belgian colonial regime" — "regime" is, to me, a loaded word that implies illegitimacy, oppressiveness and general negativity. I think "He believed that Belgian colonialism needed promotion" or "He believed that the Belgian colonial government needed promotion" would do just as well
  • "when memories 'were still fairly fresh' of the publicised 1928 visit to the colony by the Belgian King Albert and Queen Elisabeth" I presume this visit was considered a positive thing? A few words of explanation would help here
  • "He already had some experience in illustrating Congolese scenes; three years previously, Hergé had provided two illustrations for the newspaper that appeared in an article celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" I would recommend rewording to something like "He already had some experience in depicting Congolese scenes; three years previously, when Le Petit Vingtième [or was it Le XXe Siècle itself?] published an article commemorating 50 years since Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo, Hergé had provided two illustrations". Or something like that
  • "Hergé depicted a native Congolese individual bowing before a European colonialist" — "individual" is not necessary ("a native Congolese" would do just as well) and why not just "before a white man" or "before a European"?
  • "almost solely on a single source" I think "almost entirely" would be better
  • "he used limited source material to learn about the country and its people" I think the tail end of this ("to learn about the country and its people") could be clipped without affecting the meaning
  • "from the 'Jungle Jim-type serials'" where is this quoted from? what were "Jungle Jim-type serials"? half a sentence of background here and an attribution for the quote would help
    • This is a quote from Lofficier and Lofficier 2002, which is used as a source straight after. If I'm perfectly honest, I don't fully understand what they are, hence why I chose to simply quote the source here, Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "seeing the Blacks as big children" Why does "Blacks" have a capital "B"? I guess it is in the source like that but I still find it quite jarring
History—Original publication
History—Second version
  • "visually fitted in" maybe "fitted in visually"
  • "the new Tintin stories that he was creating" maybe "his newer Tintin stories"
  • "Tintin in the Congo was one of these books" maybe clarify, "Tintin in the Congo was one of the books that was redrawn"
  • "Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman. He also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule" maybe merge these two sentences ("Hergé cut the page length down from 110 plates to the standard 62 pages, as suggested to him by the publisher Casterman, and also made several changes to the actual story, cutting many of the references to Belgium and colonial rule")
  • "a more plausible"—is this in the source?
  • "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train and commenting that it "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..."" slightly clunky. maybe "watching a crowd surrounding Tintin as he boards a train. "Seems to be a young reporter going to Africa..." one of them comments"
  • "In the same frame, Hergé also inserted illustrated depictions of both himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (who was the colourist who worked with him on the book), as members of the crowd seeing Tintin off." maybe "In the same frame, Hergé inserted illustrated depictions of himself and his friend Edgar P. Jacobs (the book's colourist) into the crowd seeing Tintin off".
History—Later alterations and releases
  • "When The Adventures of Tintin's Scandinavian publishers first released Tintin in the Congo in 1975" Maybe "When Tintin in the Congo was first released by the series' Scandinavian publishers in 1975"
  • "to page 56, where Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up" I don't think they objected to the whole page, did they? Just the scene where this scene occurs. Perhaps clarify to "to a scene on page 56, wherein Tintin drills a hole into a live rhinoceros, fills it with dynamite, and blows it up"
  • "more suitable for their young readership" why not just "more suitable for children"?
  • "the scenes of animal abuse and big game hunting" Describing Tintin's activities in the book as cruelty to animals in Wikipedia's voice could be a NPOV problem. Perhaps just "the scenes of big game hunting" or "come to regret the scenes of big game hunting in the work, which he saw as animal abuse"
  • "stated his belief that, by publishing the original 1931 black and white edition, it would cause less controversy than its later 1946 counterpart would" Maybe "stated his belief that publishing the original 1931 black and white edition would cause less controversy than releasing the 1946 colour version". Or something
  • "the last of The Adventures of Tintin was published in English" I get what you are trying to say but this is not quite clear. Perhaps reword to "an English edition of Tintin in the Congo was finally published in the United Kingdom; despite being the second book in the series, it was the last to be released in English". If the source supports this, of course
  • Does this mean it wasn't translated into English until the 1980s?
  • "appeared in English in 2005" In the UK or the US (or elsewhere?) I guess the UK, right?
Critical analysis
  • does "Scout" need a capital S? If you're referring to Boy Scouts (or similar), why not wikilink?
  • ""nothing spectacular" with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but he thought that the illustrations were "a bit more polished" than in Tintin in the Land of the Soviets" slightly reword—"nothing spectacular, with some "incredibly cumbersome" monologues, but that he thought the illustrations "a bit more polished" than those in Land of the Soviets"
  • "but parodied past European militaries" perhaps "but a parody of past European militaries"
  • "In contrast" perhaps "By contrast"
  • "having no plot or characterisation" clarify that this is his opinion only; "having, he said, no plot or characterisation"
  • "being "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free"" I would change to "being, in his opinion, "poorly drawn" and "largely plot-free""
  • Farr believed that the 1946 colour version was a poorer product than the black and white original, having lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere" with the new depiction of the Congolese landscape being unconvincing, appearing more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality." I would split this up. "Farr saw the 1946 colour version as poorer than the black and white original; he said it had lost its "vibrancy" and "atmosphere", and that the new depiction of the Congolese landscape was unconvincing and more like a European zoo than the "parched, dusty expanses of reality"."
  • "Commenting on Tintin's exposure of Muganga as a fraud, McCarthy compared the scene to that in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest" Why not simplify to "McCarthy compared the scene where Tintin exposes Muganga as a fraud to that in in which the character of Prospero exposes the magician in William Shakespeare's The Tempest"
Criticism—racism
  • "it was only following the collapse of European colonial rule in Africa from the 1950s to the 1970s that typical western attitudes towards Africans became more positive" Perhaps "it was only following the Wind of Change and decolonisation, which occurred during the 1950s and 1960s, that Western attitudes towards indigenous Africans shifted"
  • "Instead, Assouline claimed that Hergé" reword to "Assouline claimed that Hergé instead"
  • "Thompson claimed that the book remained hugely popular in both the Belgian Congo and, after it achieved independence in 1960, in its successor nation-state, Zaire" maybe reword to "According to Thompson, the book remained hugely popular in the Congo even after its independence in 1960". Zaire wasn't the name for another few years, so the old wording is a bit misleading
  • "In July 2007, human rights lawyer David Enright" I would make clear that he's British. "In July 2007, the British human rights lawyer David Enright"
  • "with his black wife and two sons" Mentioning the colour of his wife could be seen as racist. Why not just "with his family" or "with his wife and two sons"?
    • I personally was uneasy with including their racial identity, but the source did so, and I though that it might be of some relevance. However, I'd personally rather remove it, and seeing as you agree, I'll take that as confirmation! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" by depicting Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles."" why not "it contained "hideous racial prejudice" and depicted Congolese who "look like monkeys and talk like imbeciles".
  • "attempts at banning the book" → "attempts to ban the book"
  • 4000% should be 4,000%
  • "only permitting access by appointment" perhaps "permitting access only by appointment"
  • "the book's publishers Casterman and the Moulinsart company which control Hergé's estate" should be a comma before "which". also, do both the companies control Hergé's estate, or only Moulinsart (I presume the latter?) If so, it should be "controls"
  • "historical authors like Charles Dickens or Jules Verne" I would reword to "historical authors, such as Charles Dickens and Jules Verne"
  • "In February 2012, the court ruled that the book would not be banned. It was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment" and therefore did not break Belgian law" Maybe reword to "The court ruled in February 2012 that the book would not be banned, deciding that it was "clear that neither the story, nor the fact that it has been put on sale, has a goal to ... create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, or humiliating environment", and that it therefore did not break Belgian law"
  • "South African comic writer Anton Kannemeyer has parodied the perceived racist nature of the book in order to highlight the continuing racist undertones of South African society. In his Pappa in Afrika (2010), a satire of Tintin in the Congo, he portrays Tintin as a white Afrikaner with racist views of the indigenous people." A few issues here
Criticism—hunting
  • "Tintin in the Congo shows Tintin taking part in "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals by shooting several antelope, killing an ape to wear its skin, ramming a rifle vertically into a crocodile's open mouth, injuring an elephant for ivory, stoning a buffalo, and (in earlier editions) slaying a rhinoceros with dynamite" Who describes it as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals? Better to describe all of these things first, then say "X describes all this as "the wholesale and gratuitous slaughter" of animals"". Also make clear that he doesn't just kill the rhinoceros with dynamite, he actually drills a hole in it, drops the dynamite in and blows it up from the inside. Even for somebody like me this seems a tad excessive!
References
  • Looks okay to me
Categories

I hope this helps on the way. Let me know if there's anything I can do to lend a hand, and well done again for your work so far on this excellent article! —Cliftonian (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cliftonian! Looks like I've got quite a lot to look through here! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:27, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say a big thank you to you, Cliftonian, as I think that your comments have made a major positive contribution to this article! Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's really no problem Midnight, I'm glad you found them helpful and very much like the way the article is shaping up now. I'm happy to back this now for FA, and have supported above. —Cliftonian (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FunkMonk

[edit]

I'll add some comments as I read along. FunkMonk (talk) 03:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • In the summary, why is there a single direct quote form the dialogue? Seems a bit arbitrary: "and a local woman bows down to him, saying, "White man very great! Has good spirits ... White mister is big juju man!"
  • What is the meaning of this: "tarantara, tarantaraboom"
  • "Henry Morton Stanley's discovery of the Congo" ... River?
  • "Hergé biographer Pierre Assouline believed that Hergé's drawing became more assured throughout the story without losing any of its spontaneity." In which version?
  • " Philippe Goddin thought the work to be "more exciting than ever" Ever? In relation to what?
  • the infobox only lists Egmont as the publisher, what about Casterman?
  • "which contain similar stereotypes of non-Caucasian ethnicities." Link to "Caucasian race", or simply write white instead? The term is not widely used outside the US, it seems.
  • I'm not sure. I tried to find something and couldn't. I think it would be enough just to do as you said originally and say it was one of the few not made for TV. Incidentally, I found this feature interesting. —Cliftonian (talk) 06:18, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heheh, nice. Around here, they sell tiny Tintin figures for huge sums of money. "Hand painted" for sure, but I bet these are a lot cheaper, and a lot more work gone into making them. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there FunkMonk, and thank you for commenting. In regard to the singular quote from the book in the synopsis, I included it so as to give an example of the sort of patronising attitude towards the Congolese that is exhibited throughout the comic. I can understand the argument that it is arbitrary, but I do feel that it has value for the reader. 2) As for "tarantara, tarantaboom", I think it refers to the Abbé making a big scene out of his views on the issue of colonialism in the Congo, but I am not entirely sure. 3) I'm just going by what the source said here, and it stipulates "Congo"; which I assume refers to his discovery of the area that we now call "the Congo" (and not the area of the historical Kingdom of Kongo, which is of course in modern Angola). 4) the first version, presumably. I will make that clearer in the text. 5) In relation to the earlier Adventures of Tintin (i.e. Tintin in the Land of the Soviets). Again, I shall try and make that clearer. 6) Very good point, I shall make the correction there. 7) Very well, "white" it is. 8) The problem is in finding a reference that actually states that; if we have one, then of course I shall use it, but unfortunately I am unaware of one. Kind regards, Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes look nice. If "tarantara, tarantaraboom" means nothing to any of us, perhaps it won't mean anything to the average English speaking reader? In that case, seems it could be cut without losing anything. But perhaps someone else can chime in? FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed it was supposed to be an onomatopoeic fanfare of trumpets, with a bass drum at the end. —Cliftonian (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Nice article, hope there will be more like it. The issues I raised that could be fixed have been fixed. The remaining are mainly due to the sources themselves being unclear, which is not Midnightblueowl's problem. FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [78].[reply]

SMS Posen

[edit]
Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The final German dreadnought to appear at FAC, this is the end of an era of sorts. Granted, a few more articles will have to come here to bump the topic up to 50%, a project over 6 years in the making. I wrote this article in 2010, when it passed GA and A-class reviews; it has since waited in the queue for FAC. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the FA criteria. Thanks in advance to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • Congratulations; feels like the end of an era :) I see I did a lot of editing on this a long time ago, so I'm probably commenting on some of my own work here from back when I was a naive lad, I haven't checked.
  • "night-fighting against British light forces. In the confused night actions ... later in the night": It might be a little better to lose one "night". Maybe "In the confusion" or "In the darkness".
    • "In the confusion" seems best to me.
  • In the third paragraph, "Posen" is the subject of 4 out of 6 sentences.
    • Alternated a few of them.
  • "standard load": I'm not sure what that means pre-1920. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a minor comment:

  • "In 1919, following the scuttling of the German fleet in Scapa Flow, she was ceded to the British as a replacement for the ships that had been sunk." (in the lead) and "On 11 November 1918, the Armistice took effect; according to its terms, eleven battleships and five battlecruisers were to be interned in Scapa Flow for the duration of negotiations for the peace treaty.[37] Posen was not among the ships interned, and she was instead decommissioned on 16 December. The ships in Scapa Flow were eventually scuttled on 21 June 1919, and as a result, Posen and the other battleships not interned were seized as replacements for the ships that had been lost." (in the main text) - this didn't make sense to me until I clicked on the link and found that the Germans had scuttled their own ships - the "eventually" probably threw me off a bit. It would be good to perhaps clarify this in the main text, e.g. "The ships in Scapa flow were scuttled by the German commander to prevent them being divided among the allies," or some phrasing like that? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 11:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Generally, this has the same issues I raised with Nassau
    • Namesake citation
      • Added.
    • armor section cite / no deck armor?
      • Added.
    • main/secondary battery links
      • Done.
    • fix rationale for triple reciprocating vs. turbines
      • Added.
  • Complement uncited; also, define 2nd command flagship somewhere.
      • Done.
  • The note and boats in the infobox are uncited.
      • Cut both - neither are particularly important details for the infobox
  • Add the royalty present at the launching and christening. Kirk (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm dependent on MisterBee for that information, since HRS is difficult to get here in the US. I pinged him, but he doesn't appear to be all that active at the moment. Thanks as always, Kirk. Parsecboy (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it was easier to get that than - isn't there another book we found with that info?
        • Nope - I can't find a copy outside of Germany (well, this one has a copy in the Netherlands). Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I wasn't aware no libraries in the US have those books, too bad they are out of print or I'd put in a request that we would acquire them. The Great Naval Game: Britain and Germany in the Age of Empire By Jan Rüger was the other book which is in english and has some of the details, but none for Posen. Kirk (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - You're welcome! In closing, as I mentioned with Nassau the class article needs some attention & hopefully MisterBee can help with those gossipy details. Kirk (talk) 21:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the class articles all need some work - they were among the first articles I wrote in this project, and as such were all sort of experimental. And of course they were written before Staff's books were published, so they're missing those at very least. Parsecboy (talk) 19:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments based on HRS volume 6, MisterBee1966 (talk) 05:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Delegate comment -- Dab link:lnn? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was re-targeted this morning. Thanks for catching that, Ian. Parsecboy (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [79].[reply]

Throffer

[edit]
Nominator(s): J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support this article and I'll support yours. Oppose this, and I'll get you blocked. That's a throffer: it's a mix of a threat and an offer. This is my first philosophy-related FAC: The term was invented by a philosopher, and while there has been plenty of back-and-forthing in philosophy journals, it has also seen some more practical usage. In this article, I address both the conceptual issues of interest to philosophers, and the practical issues which interest academics from other disciplines. I hope you enjoy the read and I look forward to your thoughts. (Also, I would like to thank The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) for his review at GAC!) J Milburn (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Stfg

Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate that my writing is a long way from perfect, and that I'm sometimes a little wordy. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I couldn't do a more thorough review and help with copy editing. Unfortunately, personal circumstances will prevent me doing so for several weeks yet. I do recomend getting an independent copy edit, though. It would definitely help. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The norm" is referred to 10 times, but not defined. If it means the situation that would exist if the intervention was not made, then say so. If it doesn't, you see my misunderstanding, so a definition is needed :)
    • I'll look into this. That's not what's meant, but I'll check the source again before clarifying. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Glad I waited, as I misread your question. I've clarified this now- hopefully it's clearer. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is it the quote "the description of the normal and preducable course of events, that is, the course of events which would confront the recipient of the intervention were the intervention not to occur"? I think that's saying what I said. Could something less jargon-like be included in the lede? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, done. I'm going to have a very close look tomorrow to make sure I'm capturing the subtle differences between Steiner and Stevens- it's pretty clear to me, but I don't know how well I articulate it in the article... J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is poor, and I recommend getting a good copy edit. Just in the first paragraph there are:
    • Right at the start: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat. A person presents a throffer when they make an offer that is wedded to a threat which will be actualised if the offer is not accepted." This is very verbose. Better: "In political philosophy, a throffer is a proposal (also called an intervention) that mixes an offer and a threat that will be actualised if the offer is not accepted."
    • Next sentence: "The term was first used by political philosopher Hillel Steiner, in the 1970s ..." Why the comma?
    • Next sentence: why "however"? There are several further dubious instances of "however" throughout the article.
    • Next sentence: why "Though"? The fact that "the threatening aspect of a throffer does not need to be obvious, and may not be articulated at all" is unrelated to the fact that the given example is overt.
      • I do not follow. How would you phrase it? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Something like: An overt example of a throffer is "Kill this man and receive £100—fail to kill him and I'll kill you." The threat element of a throffer is often less obvious than this and is sometimes not articulated at all. --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indopug has rephrased this a little. J Milburn (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This rephrase doesn't solve the problem I was alluding to. If I say, "Though there are apples in the supermarket today, I bought fish fingers", my "though" is making a false contrast. The fact that there are apples makes it no more or less likely that one might buy fish fingers. Similarly, the fact that sometimes the threat is non-obvious or not expressed has no bearing on the fact that in your example it's overt. It makes sense to say that some are overt and some are not, but not to say that some are overt though some are not. Apologies for failing to make my comment clear. --Stfg (talk) 08:36, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I really don't see the contrast as false- the fact that some are not overt contrasts with the fact that the example is overt. "Though my house is rented, not all properties on the street are." Or would you object to that sentence as well? If what you're saying is right, I honestly don't think I've ever been taught how to use the word "though" correctly. J Milburn (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origin and usage: "and he has been cited in place of Steiner". By whom? Why?
    • I've rephrased slightly. Though Taylor himself cites Steiner, I'm assuming that some academics didn't think reading the work of a philosopher they hadn't heard of was worth their while, preferring to use a prominent political scientist. J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Next sentence: why is controversy scarequoted?
  • Steiner's account: "This means that it is not the case that an offer necessarily exerts less influence ..." Less verbose: "Thus an offer does not necessarily exert less influence ..."
  • Rhodes's account: In the numbered list, inconsistency as to whether the period goes inside or outside the closing quote (and one closing quote missing altogether). (The article generally needs checking for compliance with MOS:LQ.)
    • I've tweaked the way I quote Rhodes- there wasn't actually an inconsistency, as I didn't quote the whole of one of Rhodes's definitions. Hopefully it'll be clearer now. I'm pretty sure the article is MOS:LQ-compliant, though it wasn't at one time. Is there a particular quote you're worried about? J Milburn (talk) 22:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • MOS:LQ is a hornets' nest, but it does say "When a quoted sentence fragment ends in a period, some judgment is required: if the fragment communicates a complete sentence, the period can be placed inside." I don't see how represents a situation which is preferred to the norm, for example, can be said to "communicate a complete sentence". Whether there's a full stop after "inside" in the source seems to me to be irrelevant. In the article, the sentence containing that text begins with "For an offer", so that whole sentence, not the quoted fragment, is what needs to be terminated with a full stop. I can't see how it can be consistent to put the full stop inside in that case, but outside in (for example) By contrast, if the proposal was a final proposal, it would take the form of "if and only if you fetch the paper for me, you'll get candy". --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was under the impression the period always goes within when the source has a period there, and always goes outside when the source does not. I've now adjusted it so that the period only goes within when "the fragment communicates a complete sentence". That actually makes a lot more sense than how I had previously interpreted the policy, and is closer to how I write outside of Wikipedia. J Milburn (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • New point: talking about the threat being "actuated" feels like jargon. Carried out? Executed? --Stfg (talk) 22:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the lead—it's clear that all those people in the lead are philosophers of some sort, so no need to describe them as such each time. On second thought, do you even need so many people, I count 13, in the lead? It bulks up the lead and adds little to the lay readers' understanding. Just have the main people and the key ideas.—indopug (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the lead a little as you suggested. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments from Jim Fascinating and readable

  • Purely as a style thing, I don't like the links to publishers and publications in the cited texts. They are unnecessary since isbn/doi/jstor do the same job, pointless when there is only a redlink, and seem vaguely spammy. I'll support if you change and oppose if you don't (: Really, I won't lose sleep if you don't do anything Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand why you dislike this. I've lost the publisher links and redlinks, as I agree they're not so useful. I've kept the others, but can trim further if you feel it's needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Business section, should there be an indication that the rewards and penalties are disproportionately greater than would be expected from a purely piecework system, since the level of production in such a system affects income anyway?
    • Rather than just "we give you 2 coins for every item you produce", it becomes "beat the expectation, you get many coins; fail to meet the expectation, you get few coins". I could expand, but I worry I would be drifting into OR territory- Clancey makes the point as an interesting aside, rather than the subject of heavy analysis- he's a management scientist, not a philosopher.
  • Is the reduction in sentence in return for a guilty plea a throffer? the certainty of conviction set against a lighter penalty — I'm not suggesting you include this, just a thought.
    • Interesting question. I suspect not; if it takes the form of "plead guilty for a lower sentence, or don't plead guilty and face a fair trial", given as you would be facing a fair trial anyway, that's probably an offer. If it took the form of "rather than present you with a fair trial which may result in 5 years in prison, you can plead guilty for a 3 year sentence or we can lock you up for 8 years" then that is pretty clearly a throffer. (I think that's why sex offenders are such an interesting example- once presented with the throffer, they may lose any chance of a "normal" sentence, and get either a shorter or a longer sentence.) Of course, this kind of analysis is going to depend on whose conception of throffers we buy. J Milburn (talk) 10:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support above. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.... compared to the normal course of events which would have come about were no intervention made. - I think it is a "that" not a "which" here....
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
whether performing and not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made. - "whether performing or' not performing the requested action was more or less preferable than it would have been were no intervention made."?
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He concludes that the two are differentiated based on how the consequences of --> " He concludes that the distinction is based on how the consequences of"
Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
when compared with "the norm". -de-quote - also clarify "normal behaviour", is it?
I've left it as it is for now- I clarify what I mean by "the norm" immediately following, and I thought the quotes showed that's what I was doing. Perhaps I could shift the second part of the paragraph (from "Steiner observes" to "to occur") to immediately following "the form of an offer", as this would mean I had defined "the norm" before I first mention it? (See a similar concern above.) J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, my head is swimming with all the conditional clauses - which is I suppose to be expected given the subject matter. I have no idea about the completeness as am unfamiliar with the topic area and will read it through a couple of times more to get my head around it......Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, I really appreciate it. I certainly understand that this is a difficult and weird topic; that's exactly what attracted me to it in the first place! I'm afraid I'm moving house (involving flights and ferries...) tomorrow, and I'm attending a several-day conference in a week or so, so I'm going to potentially have very limited access to Wikipedia for a couple of weeks. Any further thoughts you have would be appreciated, and they will be seen to as soon as I am available, but that may be a while. Thanks again! J Milburn (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, real life has a habit of intruding on these things - more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Philosopher John Kleinig sees a throffer as an example of an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive. - would the subjects be better switched? The emphasis is funny - is it "Philosopher John Kleinig sees an occasion when an offer alone may be considered coercive as an example of a throffer."?
No, it's definitely right as it's written now. There's a lot of literature out there about whether there is any such thing as a coercive offer (it sounds counter-intuitive, but consider the case of the lecherous millionaire). Kleinig, who's very prominent despite his lack of Wikipedia article, says that the case of throffers proves that there are; a throffer is an example of an offer which is coercive. (I think he's wrong; as far as I'm concerned, a throffer isn't an offer, and so it can't be an example of a coercive offer. But there you go.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would give some descriptors before the first mentions of some of these people such as Robert Stevens, Michael R. Rhodes and Kristján Kristjánsson, to clarify who they are in context to what they are saying (eg American philosopher - professor etc.)
Stevens and Rhodes are pretty obscure, but Kristjánsson's fairly prominent and definitely notable. Gave a rough introduction to each one. (I didn't mention nationalities- I know that Stevens studied in Australia and Rhodes studied in the US, but then Steiner studied in the UK but is Canadian.) J Milburn (talk) 08:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by the Dr.

[edit]
Lead
  • What is "received wisdom"?
    • It's a term to refer to those things generally assumed to be the case, especially when there's been prior thought on the matter. The OED defines "received" in the following way: "Generally adopted, accepted, or approved as true, authoritative, or standard. Freq. in received opinion, received wisdom." Do you think it's too colloquial? J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I did think it was, but it's OK I think.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Several writers have also considered throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, and, in particular, sex offenders, who can face more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment. ", I'd reword it as "Several writers have also observed that throffers presented to people convicted of crimes, particularly sex offenders, can result in more lenient sentences if they accept medical treatment."
Origin
Throffers and coercion
  • " Joel Feinberg consider the offer coercive" - considers?
  • "For a throffer to be coercive, they claim, the threat must meet three further conditions; firstly, the person making the throffer "must be intentionally bringing the threat to bear on X in order that X do something, Z1", secondly, the person making the throffer must know that "X would not otherwise do or wish to be constrained to do" Z1, and, thirdly, the threat part of the throffer must render "X's option of doing Z1 more eligible in X's eyes than it would otherwise be". " -could use a citation.
If you could.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Practical examples
  • "Such compulsion serves to reintegrate people into the labour market, and serves as a kind of "new paternalism". " -citation needed I think, seems a little OR without.
Could you just add one citation for that?♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they have multiple implications in regard to coercive mechanisms from implicit curtailments of freedom to ascription of vulnerability. The former would include threats to personal autonomy, instilling fear in regard to a potential loss of freedom, an increase of dependency with mistrust of one's own capabilities to manage the business of living and, hence, an increase of feelings and attitudes of helplessness. The ascription of vulnerability overrides the principle of equality between the partners, constitutes and invasion of privacy and impacts on the positive rights of individuals." -is this a quote?
  • Business section is rather short. Given that it's a broad topic is there not anything else in sources which documents other examples or examples of it in the business world? What about things like advertising or promotion? Can you elaborate a bit if possible?
    • I'd love to, and I have no doubt that there is potentially a lot of interesting analysis to be done here, but I'm afraid the citations just don't exist. Only a few thinkers outside of political philosophy have really started using the term- I've no doubt that in ten years, I could expand this article significantly, but, right now, I don't think that's possible. In my search, I did come across another article by David Wilson (I missed it originally as it was in the popular press, rather than in an academic publication) which I have added to the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, you can only go on what exists of course.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly impressed with this piece, clearly meets FA criteria in my opinion, and represents the sort of authoritative professional writing piece we generally lack on wikipedia on such topics. Very interesting to me, not to mention that it illustrates that the Godfather is even more influential than people had thought!! I await your response. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your thoughts and kind words. I have just moved house, and so I lack regular Internet access; I'll hopefully be in a position to reply to these comments at the weekend. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- I think this nom has been open long enough, and if there are still some minor points to be resolved we should be able to AGF that they'll be actioned. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC) [80].[reply]

George S. Patton

[edit]
Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. —Ed!(talk) 19:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments by PumpkinSky My initial impression is quite good.
Images...File:Patton Monument West Point in new location 2009 upright.JPG, is on Commons as CC, but as it is of a statue in the USA, where there is no FOP, I think it should be on en wiki as Fair Use. File:Pattonphoto.jpg needs a source. Other images look ok to me.
More later. PumpkinSky talk 00:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right now the photo fails fair use criterion #8, which calls for "Contextual significance: Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." This article: Patton Monument (West Point) tells us that the statue was initially erected in 1950. Very likely it was erected without a copyright notice, which would make it {{PD-US-no notice}}. Or if it was erected with a copyright notice that was never renewed, it would be {{PD-US-not renewed}}. So there's a chance that the statue is PD, but we don't have enough information at present to determine that for sure. That article has two pics of the statue and one of Luxembourg statue. I'm not sure of Luxembourg law. PumpkinSky talk 02:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sculptor was Fraser, his work has come up before on Commons, see this CFD there. Let me poke around some more so we can get all his work properly marked. PumpkinSky talk 02:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This statue does in fact seem to be free of copyright, see CFD on Commons, as Work for hire for the US Gov it'd be PD, it was unveiled in 1950, per the New York Times, 13 May 1951, Most Famous Unknown Sculptor by Aline B. Louchheim, there is no copyright registration record refering to any work of James Earle Fraser in the 1950 volume of the catalogue of copyright entries, Works of Art etc. (available at archive.org here, and no renewal of copyright found (see CFD). I'll fix tags later. Still need a source for the other image. PumpkinSky talk 11:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
pinged the original image uploader, hoping he will help. —Ed!(talk) 02:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's been editing and hasn't done squat. You can find it with an image search. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, someone has come back to me with a source and I've added it in. —Ed!(talk) 01:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "after the end of the war": after the war
  • "but performed exceptionally in appearance": I don't know what that means.
  • "In his plebe year at West Point": The word has entered the English language (and was never Latin to begin with), so no italics. It's a judgment call whether it's too informal.
  • "Fearing this assignment a dead-end career": I'm not sure what you're saying.
  • "a weapon which would": a weapon that would
  • "Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year, however, the expedition became hampered by politics. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, and so the expedition remained encamped for much of that time.": Patton remained in Mexico until the end of the year. President Woodrow Wilson forbade the expedition from conducting aggressive patrols deeper into Mexico, so they remained encamped for much of that time.
  • This is looking pretty good. I'm sorry, I won't have time for a complete prose review, but I did get down to George_S._Patton#World War I. - Dank (push to talk) 00:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made all of the above fixes. Thanks for your review. —Ed!(talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Support. Controversial public figures are notoriously difficult to elevate to FA, but this article is well written, intriguing and a thoroughly researched summary of a fascinating character. The article is a fine achievement on what many WWII followers would see as one of the most important articles of all. Good work by all those involved! Ctatkinson (talk) 03:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments -- Not as much commentary as I would have expected by now, and a subject like this really needs a fair few eyes to do it full justice. Bit odd considering the MilHist ACR was reasonably well patronised. Just scanning the Legacy section, I spotted a few places where the prose could be tightened, so if Dan doesn't feel able to continue his walk-through then I'd like to see another copyeditor pick up where he left off. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:27, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war before being relieved of this post, then he commanded the Fifteenth United States Army for a time. - last segment of this sentence reads weirdly and needs rephrasing.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Better though now the sentences are a little short - will fine tune this.
He also joined the football team but was repeatedly removed after injuring his arm - how was he repeatedly removed? was it one injury or several..?
He injured his arm multiple times and was removed from the team because of it each time. I couldn't figure out a way to write it without seeming redundant. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The injury almost forced Patton out of active service - reword to avoid using "injury" like in the previous sentence. Really it was the wound plus infection, so maybe "episode"?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Two high-profile incidents of Patton slapping subordinates during the Sicily campaign attracted national controversy following the end of the campaign. - I'd change this "slapping" to "striking" - (1) to reduce repetition of the word, and (2) the word "striking" captures the controversy of laying hands on another person in an aggressive manner.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patton railed against cowardice and issued orders to his commanders to discipline any soldier complaining of battle fatigue - I'd change last bolded bit to "making similar complaints" - to vary up the prose a little.
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The general public remained mixed on the matter hmm - change to "The general public remained undecided on the matter" or "Views of the general public remained mixed on the matter" or something similar
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Later that month, Patton, Bradley and Eisenhower toured the Merkers salt mine as well as the Ohrdruf concentration camp, an incident which caused Patton great disgust. - confusing - was it the tour that caused disgust or the camp?
Fixed. —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The writing gets better as one goes down the page - I like the legacy section. I think the prose is engaging overall and has the right amount of colour to make an interestingread. Nice article. Can't see any content gaps but am not hugely familiar with the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to everything. Thanks for your review! —Ed!(talk) 18:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with minor comments. Enjoyed reading it!

  • "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post." - this left me wanting to know a little bit more to make sense of the second half of the sentence. How about "Patton was the military governor of Bavaria after the war; he was relieved of this post because of his public statements on denazification." or something like that?
  • "But his philosophy of leading from the front and his ability to inspire his troops with vulgarity-ridden speeches, such as a famous address to the Third Army, led to new leadership philosophies in the U.S. officer corps." - repetition of philosophy - perhaps second one could be "new leadership approaches"?
  • "uniform and appearance inspections" - I wasn't quite sure if these were different things, or happened together (i.e. did he have uniform inspections, and appearance inspections, or does one have a "uniform and appearance inspection"?)
  • "He personally led a troop of tanks through thick fog " - I wasn't sure you needed "personally" here (a troop of tanks not being particularly large, I couldn't see how else you could lead it!) It is also used earlier in the para I think.
  • "He carried a flashy ivory-handled, Smith & Wesson Model 27 .357 Magnum." - repetition of "flashy" from the previous sentence (where I think it worked better than here)
  • "conspicuous desire... conspicuous actions" - ditto
  • Formatting of citation/reference 155 looks really different to the rest. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:03, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Badger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Gravett, Paul (2013-03-17). "The Principality of Lichtenstein: From 'WHAAM!' to 'WHAAT?'". PaulGravett.com. Retrieved 2013-06-30.
  3. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference www.bbc.com 20130717-pop-artist-or-copy-cat was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Borrelli, Christopher (2012-05-11). "Connecting the dots on Roy Lichtenstein retrospective at Art Institute: Is appropriation the sincerest form of flattery?". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2013-08-01.
  5. ^ Steven, Rachael (2013-05-13). "Image Duplicator: pop art's comic debt". Creative Review. Retrieved 2013-06-18.
  6. ^ Childs, Brian (2011-02-02). "Deconstructing Lichtenstein: Source Comics Revealed and Credited". Comics Alliance. Retrieved 2013-06-23.
  7. ^ Priego, Ernesto (2011-04-04). "Whaam! Becoming a Flaming Star". The Comics Grid, Journal of Comics Scholarship. Retrieved 2013-07-28.
  8. ^ "Pop Art". Museum of Modern Art. Retrieved 2013-08-09.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2013&oldid=574875728"