Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 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 10:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [1].Reply[reply]

Lanny McDonald[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lanny is a local hero, a hometown star who came home to the Calgary Flames to lead them to their only Stanley Cup Championship in 1989. Hockey Hall of Famer, patron of the Special Olympics, and in my completely objective and totally non-biased opinion, the greatest moustache in sports. The article was brought to GA standard and run through peer review a little over a year ago, but I placed it on the back burner to focus on FA runs for two other topics approaching major milestones. Since hockey never really stops in Canada however, I felt the dog days of summer was a prime time to bring this article before the community. All comments and suggestions welcomed! Thanks, Resolute 02:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

  • Toronto Maple Leafs: "The patience the Maple Leafs had shown McDonald in his first two seasons was rewarded in 1975–76 when rediscovered his offensive touch". Needs "he" after "when".
  • Calgary Flames: Contraction should be fixed in "after which McDonald remarked that he hadn't had so much fun playing the game in a long time."
  • "He watched from the bench as his teammates' unsuccessfully attempted...". Apostrophe should be removed.
  • Personal life: "for which the publisher made a donation of $10,000 to Special Olympics." Should "the" be added before Special Olympics? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Done, thanks! I slightly reworded the second point since "had not had" felt sloppy. regards, Resolute 22:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support – The article was in good shape when I read it, and I'm confident that it meets the FA criteria. Nice job on this one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support with comments - This looks really good and was a nice read. I made a few changes, and have a few comments:
  • This is a bit unclear. Was he the all-star team's MVP, or the league MVP? "He was named to the AJHL's Second All-Star team, and voted its most valuable player."
  • Jargon: "acquired McDonald's rights"
  • I don't quite understand this: "Angered at first, he viewed the deal as an insult, that the worst team in the NHL had rejected him." You haven't established anywhere that the Rockies were the worst team in the NHL. Is that what you're suggesting?
  • "At 36 years old and approaching the end of his career, the 1989 Stanley Cup playoffs was potentially his last chance at a championship." At an NHL championship... :)
  • "and Calgary won the game 4–2 to win" I couldn't think of a way to reword this, but it's redundant.
  • "He had also previously served as a vice president of the NHLPA." This seems to be hanging out in the wrong section, chronologically. When in his career as a player did this occur? --Laser brain (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the review and support! I have attempted to clarify or address your comments. Cheers! Resolute 23:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Resolved comments from Rejectwater (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question/comment The tables under "Career statistics" and "Awards and honours" do not comply with MOS:DTT. However, the statistics tables do comply with the standard set at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format. So the question is, can adherence to a project standard supersede the Manual of Style? Rejectwater (talk) 19:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like that statistics table was put together in the hockey project long before the MOS:DTT was very mature. They probably just never swung back to update it. Would you consider compliance with accessibility standards to be a dealbreaker here? I'm not sure how much work is involved in fixing it. --Laser brain (talk) 19:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty much. This has never come up as an issue, and it's been a couple years since I ran a player article through FAC. Rejectwater - Looking at MOS:DTT, these tables are already captioned by the section headers, so is this an issue of the column headers not being sufficient, and a desire for the scopes to be added? Resolute 20:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns:
  • In order to comply the caption text has to be part of the table code, as shown in the examples.
  • "wikitable" class is not set in stats tables
  • Lack of defined scope of columns and rows.
  • Column headers used to visually separate the awards table.
  • Blank column header in the awards table (references).
Dealbreaker? I would have to say yes. If this was a featured list nom I guarantee someone (not necessarily me, mind you, I learned it the hard way too :) ) would bring up MOS:DTT. Rejectwater (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of that is easy to do, and I will... probably tomorrow though. I don't see a purpose to adding superfluous caption text when the section headers achieve exactly the same thing with no other information between it and the table to create confusion. Thanks, Resolute 00:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has to do with accessibility, specifically in cases where the user cannot read the page and it is being read to them by the computer (I am way out on a limb here, but it feels right). The caption text explains what the contents of the table are, the scopes clearly state which cells are rows and which are columns. Tables in their most basic forms are almost entirely visual; MOS:DTT makes it possible to understand the contents of a table without having to see it. The prose of any given article is universally understood by anyone who understands the language, whether or not they can see it; these standards extend that to data tables. My understanding of it is that a table that doesn't use these standards comes across as a jumbled mess via a screen reader. Rejectwater (talk) 00:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the scopes would organize it, I believe. But if I add the header, it will read the section title, read the redundant table header, then read the table. That doesn't seem useful to either sighted users or those on screenreaders. That's my thought anyway. Hopefully someone else with knowledge will chime in! Resolute 00:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I've tried to add the scopes and what not, and separated the awards tables to allow better headers there. Is this sufficient? Resolute 21:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Great article, well written, comprehensive. Concur on the stache. Thank you for your hard work. Rejectwater (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I'm a bit later than I'd like on this one, sorry about that! I peer reviewed this article last year, and it was in excellent shape then. With further improvements and other eyes on it, I'm confident it meets the criteria, with the qualification that I am far from a hockey expert. Just a few nit-picks which do not affect my support. Incidentally, I must take issue with "the greatest moustache in sports". Search for some images of Merv Hughes... Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "McDonald finished the season with a modest improvement over his rookie campaign: 17 goals and 44 points": I don't think he finished with an improvement, rather "McDonald's [record?] at the end of the season was a modest improvement…" or similar.
  • "The Maple Leafs were viewed as being underdogs": Redundancy?
  • "…five back of Gretzky's 71": Sounds a little unencyclopedic to me.
  • 7th paragraph of the Calgary section: close repetition of "elimated/eliminating".
  • Playing style section: A little heavy on using "he was", perhaps. Maybe some of them could be reworded? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hughes had a fine 'stache, certainly. But add a playoff beard, and Lanny wins easily.  ;) Anyway, thanks for the support, and I've tried to address the points you brought up! Resolute 23:01, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Delegate comments

  • Did I miss where the material in the "Regular season and playoffs" table is cited?
  • Fair few duplicate links -- you can use this tool to locate the repeats.
  • Still after a source review form someone, as listed at WT:FAC a while back -- I can see a Harv error for a start at the very top of the General references (source not cited by the look of it).
    Hi Ian, thanks for the comments. Your first and third point are related. The first reference in the general references is the cite for McDonald's career statistics. I've personally never liked adding things like "Source: [3]" to the end of a table like that. I find it ugly, so usually do it as a general ref (e.g. at Brad McCrimmon). Thanks for the pointer the duplicate links tool! I removed the links duplicated within the body of the article. Cheers! Resolute 14:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN24: don't italicize place
  • Don't mix {{citation}} and {{cite}} templates
  • Why spell out CBC? Why spell out SI on second occurrence but not first?
  • Internet Hockey Database or The Internet Hockey Database? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All fixed. And personally, I think "Canadian Broadcasting Corporation" looks better than "CBC". Especially since I often include TSN (The Sports Network) links in many of the same articles, and got into the habit of spelling it out for the sake of consistency. Cheers! Resolute 03:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [2].Reply[reply]

Tosa-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel_66, Parsecboy, and The ed17

These class of battleships was one of the first Japanese responses to an enormous buildup in the US Navy announced by President Woodrow Wilson after the end of World War I that started a naval arms race between Japan, Great Britain and the United States. The enormously expensive ships involved caused the US to call a conference among the major powers to forestall the arms race that caused most of the ships already begun to be scrapped. The Tosa-class ships were among the casualties and one was used as a target ship to evaluate the effectiveness of her armor scheme and the other was converted into an aircraft carrier. This ship was one of those that attacked US forces at Pearl Harbor and Allied forces at Darwin, Australia before she was sunk at the Battle of Midway in 1942. This article had a MilHist A-class review four years ago, but has been substantially overhauled recently.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:36, 30 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Sturmvogel_66. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments. I'm doing some copyediting; feel free to revert.

  • "One revised version of the Nagato design, known as Design A-114, was accepted on 28 October by the Navy Minister, but was not proceeded with.": If nothing ever came of it, what's important enough about this particular design to single it out? - Dank (push to talk) 17:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Not especially; I just thought it was interesting that they were already considering revising the design.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned from the Battle of Jutland ...", "Hiraga's design for the ship reflected the lessons from the Battle of Jutland ...": If possible, it would be better not to say it twice.
  • "they were raised in height": If you know how many feet or meters they were raised, that might be a better way to put it. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox (for example, the successor) are unsourced
    • Predecessor and successor classes have never been specifically sourced.
  • Evans and Peattie or just Peattie?
    • Good catch, two different books, one of which was missing.
  • Be consistent in how you notate short citations with multiple authors
  • FN18: should use endash
  • No citations to Jentschura et al
  • Be consistent in when you include states
  • Lengerer 2010: publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • The three of you got together on a warship project, and the world didn't implode? I'm disappointed, I had expected this much awesomeness to have reached critical mass.
Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk

Image review

File:41cm-45 3rd Year Type naval gun outside the Yamato Museum during October 2008.jpg - Fine.
File:Model of battleship Kaga port view.jpg - Fine.
File:Japanese battleship Tosa.jpg - Fine.
File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga 1928.jpg - Very blown out, but copyright-wise fine.
File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg - Fine (a little grainy, but no problem there)
Support on prose and images, very good work everyone! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - The body looks pretty good, but the lead is not written very well.

  • "The ships were larger versions of the preceding Nagato class, and mounted an additional 41-centimeter (16.1 in) twin-gun turret." The ships mounted turrets? Is that normal vernacular (as opposed to the turrets being mounted on the ships)?
  • "The design for the class also served as a basis for the Amagi-class battlecruisers." The "also" implies you have already written something about the design was doing.
  • "took part in the attack on Pearl Harbor and the invasion of Rabaul in the Southwest Pacific in January 1942" As written, suggests both of those actions occurred in January 1942.
  • Also, I keep seeing this problem in ship articles (persisting still in HMS Warrior). "This was the genesis of the Eight-Eight Fleet Program" Avoid the ambiguous "this" in reference to previous subjects.
  • This one might need Sturm - I don't have Evans & Peattie handy. It looks as though the "this" in question refers to the 1907 Imperial Defense Policy. If that's correct, it would be best to state that explicitly. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I gotta say that I don't regard "this" as ambiguous as the entire previous sentence was about the rationale for the 8-8 fleet program. Nonetheless, I've added "policy" to the second sentence to clarify things. Thanks for looking it over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know you don't. ;) It's not a dealbreaker really, but it's not ideal writing. ESL readers in particular have trouble with that construction. --Laser brain (talk) 11:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pretty close to ready. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the article, Laser brain. Parsecboy (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support

  • Prose-wise, copyedited so pls let me know if you disagree with anything. It's a bit difficult to write about 'might have been' things, so there's an understandable preponderance of "would have had" when describing design, etc -- the only thing I'd suggest here is perhaps varying this occasionally with "was/were to have" or some such.
  • Structure, coverage and referencing seem fine.
  • Image-wise, agree with Crisco that licensing looks okay except that I'd expect File:Japanese Navy Aircraft Carrier Kaga.jpg to have a US PD tag like the others. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments This is a very solid article on this design. I have the following comments:

  • The first sentence's statement that these ships were "built as part of the "Eight-Eight" fleet" seems inaccurate given that neither was completed (and, from memory, the eight-eight fleet was not achieved) - 'built' is the problematic word here
  • "The Diet authorized three more dreadnoughts in response the following year: Mutsu, Tosa and Kaga" - was it planned to build the 2nd and 3rd of these ships as an updated design at this time? It might also be worth noting here that Mutsu was a follow-on from Nagato.
    • I'll let Sturm address the specifics of the authorization, but I've added the bit about Mutsu. Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • The two Tosas were already a separate design. I think that Parsec's change clarifies things well enough.
  • Can the specific influence of the various factors in the paragraph starting "The IJN began reevaluating the Nagato design in light of lessons learned" be identified?
  • What position did Captain Yuzuru Hiraga hold?
  • I'd suggest removing the para which starts with "By World War II, the guns used Type 91 armor-piercing, capped shells" as its not really all that relevant to this cancelled design
    • I always like to give gun performance data in a class article. If I remove it here I'll have to remove it for all the other guns that the design would have used. I did remove the "by WW2" bit as that's unnecessarily precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did the Washington Naval Treaty really mandate "the cancellation of all naval ships being built"? I thought that smaller ships were OK (I could be totally wrong).
    • No, you're right, it was just a holiday on capital ship construction. Everything from cruisers on down was essentially unrestricted (incidentally, limitations on cruiser building were put into effect in 1930 with the London Naval Treaty). Parsecboy (talk) 13:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sentence which begins with "Kaga was originally planned to be scrapped" is a bit over-complex - I'd suggest splitting this into a couple of sentences
  • The last para should note the date Kaga was sunk
  • Can the publishing details to Lengerer, Hans (June 2010) be fleshed out? It's unclear what Contributions to the History of Imperial Japanese Warships (Special Paper I) is - is it a book? Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It's an internet-only journal that requires a subscription. I've added that template, but it doesn't list a publisher.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Can you provide a URL? At present it's not clear how readers could actually access this publication. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Aside from the minor issue immediately above, my comments are addressed and I'm pleased to support this article's promotion. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

        • I'd love to, but you have to email the editor and he'll send you the issue(s), once you've paid.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by the Dr.[edit]

  • Can you give some description of its physical attributes in the lead? I know the infobox has the facts, but to effectively summarize the article I feel it needs some of the basic information in prose in the lead.
    • I never put physical characteristics in the lede as I believe that that's not summarizing, but merely duplicating info presented in fuller detail in the description section.
Fair enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can you write Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) instead of IJN in the first instance in the background section and then use IJN ?
    • I gave the abbreviation in the lede and used it first in the background section, only two paragraphs later. The reader shouldn't have any problem following the usage.
  • As I see you are using digits for numbers like 16 and 20, number above nine should be in digits too, ten and eleven.
    • I generally do so, but the exceptions involve the 2nd and 3rd bullets from WP:Numeral:
      • Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all figures: we may write either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs.
      • Adjacent quantities that are not comparable should usually be in different formats: twelve 90-minute volumes or 12 ninety-minute volumes is more readable than 12 90-minute volumes or twelve ninety-minute volumes.
  • "The ships' secondary armament of twenty 50-caliber 14-centimeter guns would have been mounted in casemates, 12 on the upper sides of the hull and eight in the superstructure. The 3rd Year Type guns". -Can you link 3rd Year Type in the first instance here or say 14-centimeter 3rd Year Type guns as it had be wondering what 3rd Year Type was.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Excellent job.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support This looks great; no grammar nitpicks or anything. One question though: since neither was technically scrapped, why does the infobox say "1 scrapped"? Maralia (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because it's the closest to what actually happened among the available options of scrapped, preserved, or lost.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support once fixed Attack on Pearl Harbor is linked to twice. The second time it's via redirect. The second link should be unlinked. Redirs shouldn't be in there at all and we only need to link to something once. Consider as support once this is fixed. PumpkinSky talk 02:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. Fixed, and thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:36, 28 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [3].Reply[reply]

Peasants' Revolt[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it covers a turning point in English history, complete with a cast of thousands, dramatic events, bureaucratic incompetence and revenge... It has been through an A-class review over at MilHist, and I believe it now meets the standards for a Featured Article. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. No changes in prose since I reviewed this for A-class. Lively, clear writing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check: I moved one image to the Commons and cleaned up the licensing a bit on several of the images. Most of the images are legitimately in the public domain, and those that aren't are freely licensed. The images are all used appropriately, with informative captions. Be careful: captions that are sentence fragments should not have a period at the end, but captions that are complete sentences (e.g. "Richard II meets the rebels...") or that contain complete a complete sentence (e.g. "...the King is represented twice...") should end in a period. I think "An illustration from Vox Clamantis by John Gower, a poem describing the revolt" has the wrong punctuation or should be reworded. Would "14th century rural scene of reeve directing serfs, Queen Mary's psalter" be improved with a "from the"? – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All fixed, I think. Thanks! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you ordering works by the same author in Bibliography?

Review by Quadell[edit]

This article is excellent. The prose is truly among the best Wikipedia has no offer; it brings the subject to life and makes it intereresting, without doing injustice to the sources. The organization is just right, the amount of background material is balanced, the footnote usage is carefully thought out, the lede is a great summary, etc. The concise "aftermath" is particularly good. I just have a few questions and suggestions for improvement.

  • As stated in the image check, there are a few captions that could be improved or standardized.
  • I've made some changes as per the above - let me know if there are others. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...has interested Marxist historians and writers alike..." All Marxist historians I'm familiar with are also writers. A rewrite would make this clearer.
  • "The central elite had not intervened in this way before, or allied itself with the local landowners in quite such an obvious or unpopular way." This is a very strong statement, and I'd love to check the source, but page 285 is not available for preview. Does the source (and the weight of other, related sources) support such a sweeping assessment?
  • The original runs: "...the government was intervening in the economy in a new way. Before the Black Death, the state had an interest in maintaining law and order.... After the Black Death the ruling groups temporarily closed ranks, and used the power of the state to defend the interests of the rich in a blatant manner... The ranks of society below the gentry felt that the state was losing any claim to impartiality as it became so closely identified with the landed interest.". Dyer's one of the best economic historians for this period, but similar views include Alan Harding, who notes "the major fact of 14th century society was the growth of an aristocratic county community embracing both magnates and gentry", using the legal processes to deal with what they perceived as "a rebellious servant class". Miri Rubin discusses how employers "mobilised their influence in Parliament" to produce a "royal reaction to their plight" through the legal processes, integrating this into the local gentry systems, and producing "a byword for unjust oppression". Hchc2009 (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Edward III should probably be introduces as "Edward III of England" at first mention (first sentence of "War and finance"), since he's introduced in the context of France.
  • The taxes in this section say things like "levied at the rate of four pence on every person". Is that a one-time tax, or annually, or what? The previous statement "Taxes in the 14th century were raised on an ad hoc basis" make me think these were one-time requirements for money, but one-time taxes are such a foreign concept to modern audiences that perhaps this could be more explicit.
  • It was still a one-off tax. I've tweaked the text slightly to reinforce this, see if it works... Hchc2009 (talk) 08:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The rebels rejected the proposals of the Bishop of Rochester"... what proposals? Did he just propose that they go home and stop complaining, or did he offer something more substantive? (Do me know?)
  • We don't have 100% visibility, but they included the peasants returning home - I've added this in. I suspect it was a "go home and we won't take the matter any further" kind of offer. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Frequently the rebels required the signing of charters -- St Albans' abbey surrendered its rights, and the University of Cambridge gave up its royal privileges. You mention that later, discussing the charter that ended Feudalism, that "the royal charters signed under duress during the rising were formally revoked", but does that include these other charters as well?
  • I don't think I've seen anything on the fate of the local charters, but will check. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This feels a littly clumsy: "...and although there are dangers in relying on these records excessively, the earlier perception that that the rebels were only constituted of unfree serfs is now rejected." Also, would [nb 13] fit better after "excessively"?
  • The first paragraph of Historiography states that contemporary chroniclers were biased against the rebels, and no sympathic accounts survive. This is not hard to believe, but it also needs to be well-supported by secondary sources. Unfortunately I can't see Strohm or Jones, and I can't find support for Walsingham's bias in Dunn. Can you confirm that the claims of bias are adequately supported?
  • Strohm notes that there are no surviving accounts "favourable to the motives of its participants" and that "even those chronicle accounts that sound sympathetic to modern ears... were presented by their original authors as self-evident exposure of the folly of the insurgents". Jones notes that Walsingham was "hysterically biased against the rebels"; I wouldn't use Jones for contentious statements, but this was reflected in the other main sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are four separate sources backing up the statements about Hilton's 1973 Marxist account, but I'm surprised to see that Hilton (1973) is not one of them. Is there a reason for that?
  • It was deliberate. If memory serves, I was keen not to stray into OR, and Hilton's book doesn't explicitly state his sympathies or interest in the rebel cause in a way I could find a cite for; similarly, drawing out that it particularly sets itself in the context of wider peasant revolts felt close to original commentary (albeit fairly low-risk OR!). In the end I went for other authors' statements about Hilton etc., thus the four sources. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Spotchecks: I examined the sources for references 6, 8, 20, 43, 59, 70, 99, 178, 226, and 285. In all cases, the statement in the article was fully supported by the sources listed. Further, the information in the sources was extremely well-synthesized, summarizing the points made without any hint of plagiarism.

All in all the article is very strong, and I look forward to supporting when these issues are addressed. – Quadell (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, this fulfills all the requirements of a Featured Article. – Quadell (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support -- I was the reviewer at GAN, when I did a reasonable amount of copyediting, and subsequently supported at MilHist ACR on prose, structure, coverage/neutrality, referencing and image licensing. Having checked alterations since I last reviewed, I see no reason why it shouldn't be Featured as well. Double-checked for dab links and found none. John Gower is duplicated, but at each end of the article so doesn't fuss me particularly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiklinking fixed. Thanks Ian. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SupportComments
    • "Richard met with the rebels" – I see the article is mostly written in UK English, in which one meets with abstract things such as approval or doom, but just meets people.
    • "of radical cleric John Ball" – without a definite article this is a tabloidese construction of the "Today Premier David Cameron said…" type. Acceptable in American usage, I believe, but inappropriate here.
    • "executing the Lord Chancellor" – "executing" suggests a judicial process rather than a mob lynching. The Oxford English Dictionary defines "execution" in this sense as "the putting (a person) to death in pursuance of a judicial or authoritative sentence". Perhaps the neutral "killed" would be safer.
    • "On 15 June, Richard left the city" – a small point, but as the article is in British English it seems a pity to adopt the American practice of putting in an unnecessary comma in such phrases.
    • "comprising the Lords, the titled aristocracy and clergy, and the Commons, the representatives of the knights" – the wording makes it unclear how many bodies are meant. It would remove the ambiguity it you used brackets or parenthetical dashes for the explanatory words.
  • Outbreak of revolt
    • "He based himself out of the town of Brentwood" – based in, surely?
    • "The rebels deposed the absent Archbishop" – they may have declared him deposed, but were they in a position to depose him in practice?
    • "executing them" – more lynchings dignified overmuch; some further examples later in the article
  • All now match up with the original sources. In some cases, execution is used by the source because the rebels claimed to be acting in the King's name. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "convinced a few thousand of the rebels to leave" – Americanism. In British English "convince that" or "of" but "persuade to".
    • "convince them to return home" – ditto
Fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "issued a famous sermon" – issued seems an odd word. Preached would be more usual.
    • "meet with the rebels" – as above
  • Events in London
    • "You sometimes refer to "prisons" and sometimes to "gaols". Is there a distinction?
  • Technically, yes, but the sources I've been using don't seem to use them consistently. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "June 15" – consistent date format wanted
    • "The chronicler accounts" – should this be "the chroniclers' accounts"?
    • "and convinced them to follow him away" – as above
  • Aftermath
    • "began to reestablish" – earlier you hyphenate re-establish. Rather to my surprise I see the OED hyphenates the word.
    • "as historian Michael Postan" – another place where a definite article would improve the prose
  • Rebels
    • "as historian Christopher Dyer" – ditto
    • "as historian Rodney Hilton" – ditto
    • "5 and 15 percent" – as above
    • "historians Steven Justice and Carter Revard" – as above
  • Historiography
    • "George Trevelyan" – almost exclusively known by his initials. So unexpected is "George" here that I wondered, till I checked, if you referred to his father.
    • "critiqued" – the OED has this as an Americanism; perhaps just "criticised"?
  • I'm not sure that criticised sounds quite correct here; critiqued (from the French, surely?) has a more subtle tone. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "historian Michael Postan" – we've had his full name and job description already.
  • But not close to the text; it's not a common name, and many readers can simply jump down, skipping the earlier definition.
    • "Morris'" – better to use the customary English form of possessive, Morris's
    • "writer John Robinson – final tabloidese omission of definite article

This is a fine article, and with a bit of polishing of the prose will, I am confident, meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comments I hope I have time for a full review, but in the meantime:
  • I can't see that the effects of the Revolt, as given, include the effect on the young Richard. It may be speculative, but historians normally give some of the explanation for his very exalted, and finally fatal, idea of kingship to his experiences then.
  • I don't disagree, but I'm drawing a blank for a citation. I've tried Saul, Rubin and a few others. I'll keep looking. It may be one of those really obvious historical points that no-one ever spells out! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Several picture captions are below FA standard and have been neglected. I have made some changes but more are needed. The Queen Mary Psalter has an article too, the last image is by Burne-Jones and so on. Whether that can be called the "main gate" of Bury St Edmunds Abbey I'm not sure; the other big gatehouse is older and taller. If you have a picture of a picture, is it necessary to say in the caption it is a picture? There seems room for this Death of Wat Tyler from Froissart. Johnbod (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Main gate caption fixed; this was the main entrance into the town, and had just been built a couple of years before the uprising, if memory serves. Various changes made - see what you think. On my screen I can't see an easy way to fit an additional image into the article without letter boxing etc., but all screens look different etc. and I may be in a minority. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • Lead:
    • Is it really correct to link "radical" in the lead to "far-left politics"? I note that our article on John Ball links to Christian radicalism... which is probably a better fit. Certainly, "far-left politics" is utterly about modern politics, not medieval radicalism.
    • "and Richard's party cut Tyler down" ... a bit unencylopedic? I'm of two minds on this - it's an accurate description of what happened, but it does read a bit like a tabloid account.
  • I struggled for an alternative that either wasn't bland, or captured the action without carrying additional implications. I've simplified - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Why "Unrest continued until the intervention of the Bishop of Norwich, Henry le Despenser, who defeated" giving name and title here but not "executing the Lord Chancellor and the Lord High Treasurer, whom they found inside" earlier?
  • Economics:
    • Link "manors"?
    • Dyer 2009 does say 50 percent mortality from the Black Death, but he's careful to qualify it as an estimate. I think we need to be clearer that it's all estimates, not quite as cut and dried as folks may think reading what's here in the article. Prestwich, in Plantagenet England (2005) p. 545 states "The overall death toll in England may well have been not far short of 50 per cent." It's worth noting that these two works don't cite their sources for these guesses, and that most larger scale works on the period usually give a death rate of a third for the whole of Europe. The subject of the Black Death is undergoing a lot of new research and it's in considerable flux - it's probably best to qualify this a bit more to avoid the impression that a 50 percent figure is solid.
    • "The central elite had not intervened" do not like the phrase "central elite" here - "royal government" would be much better. Dyer, the source for this, calls it the "government", I'll note.
    • Saul Richard II pp. 60-61 discusses the resentment of the serfs at the attempts of the landlords to enforce manorial customs and exactions as another contributing factor in the revolt. It's obliquely mentioned, but not explicitly stated as a cause.
  • I've pulled it out slightly more clearly - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • War:
    • "Edward died in 1377, leaving the throne to his grandson, Richard II, then only ten years old." uncited.
    • "The raising of these taxes had affected the members of the Commons much more than the Lords." awkward sentence - perhaps lose the "had"?
  • Entry:
    • Saul Richard II p. 64 and footnote 35 disagrees that Tonge is proven to have opened the city up to the rebels. Also he notes that two other aldermen were also indicted on similar charges of opening gates to the city ... this should probably be covered.
    • "On the north side of London, the rebels approached Smithfield and Clerkenwell Priory, the headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller, headed by Hales." The way this is written, it implies that Hales led the rebels...
    • "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, had a narrow escape when the crowds " .. passive. Suggest "and one of the men on the rebel's execution list, narrowly escaped when the crowds "
  • Taking:
    • Saul discusses the trip to the meeting on 14 June as being "eventful" and mentions that the group was accousted a couple of times. Might bear mentioning.
    • Picky but important "Lady Joan and Joan Holland, Richard's sister" Joan Holland was Richard's half-sister. So it's not quite true later that "the royal pair" - Joan Holland wasn't royal.
    • Saul mentions a death toll of about 150 or 160 foreigners on the day of 14 June, including 35 Flemings who were dragged from St Martin in Vintry and beheaded.
  • I've added the church killings, which appear in several secondary sources; the 150 stat isn't used widely elsewhere, though and the source (Walsingham) is questioned on this one elsewhere, I think. 19:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Smithfield:
    • Saul states that Tyler demanded the disendowment of the church, the ending of the practice of outlawing, and the equality of men except for the king. This should probably be mentioned?
    • Saul also points out that the various accounts of the chroniclers differ in some details and describes these differences - in regards to the death of Tyler. Probably needs explicating. Also Saul points out that the historians who've studied the issue also differ in why it happened, with some thinking Tyler provoked the episode, and others putting it down to an accident or to the instigation of the king.
  • I'll work through the rest, but I think some of this is captured in footnote 11 of the article - do you think it needs expanding further? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:34, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Would probably be better to have more of this in the body of the article - the differences are enough to make it a good idea to explicate them in the body of the article, especially as Saul makes a pretty hefty point of their differences. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Will take a look. I'd gone for the minimal "consensus" agreed account in the main text, as per Dunn, but will see what else can be done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suppression:
    • "the King dispatched Thomas Holland, the Earl of Kent, and" Holland was the king's half brother also.
    • "20 June, Thomas of Woodstock, the Earl of Buckingham, and" Thomas is also a younger brother of John of Gaunt and uncle to Richard.
    • Earlier you say that Jack Straw is not sure to have existed, but now it's "Jack Straw was captured in London and executed"? Inconsistent.
  • Normally I'd chastise anyone using John Robinson's Born in Blood or The Templar Revelation as sources, but these are used properly to point out the fringe viewpoint - not as sources for the actual article content.
  • Except for the few concerns above, the article is well sourced and comprehensive. I forsee little problem supporting after the above is taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ealdgyth and Johnbod, having spent ages searching through my slightly disorganised house (or "library", as my partner likes to term it...) I've drawn a blank on finding my original copy of Saul, and have put another one on order through Amazon this morning. I'm travelling with work this week armed only with an iPhone - which isn't great for editing on - due back next Saturday, so will make the other suggested changes then, and then crack on with the Saul bits then. My apologies for the delay. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Right, finally back home following a day's driving. Nigel Saul's book has arrived in my absence, will get to work! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments Oppose

  • Add an infobox
  • The section headings names vary between places and events - e.g. Essex and Kent vs. March on London or Events in London
  • Move a few more images to the left to balance the pages.
  • Do we really need that See Also section?
  • Notes usually arise from editorial differences but 12 seems like too many to me which probably could be better dealt just with wikilinks.
  • 130+ references out of 297 to one book (Dunn 2002) is a high percentage considering the size of the bibliography. Kirk (talk) 18:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to give outside opinions here on two of the points you raise. The notes were very valuable to me as a reader, and I don't think they could be effectively converted to wikilinks without sacrificing quality. And I don't believe the addition of an infobox would add anything to the quality of this article. These are just my opinions, so feel free to ignore, but I hope they are helpful. – Quadell (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's not have an infobox. The notes are fine, & I don't agree that "Notes usually arise from editorial differences" - they are mostly used for things that are worth adding or explaining, but not in the main text. If there is one top modern source, I don't think c. 45% of the refs being to it is in itself a problem. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree in every particular with Johnbod's comment, above. Tim riley (talk) 13:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On an infobox, I'm not convinced that one would add much to this particular article. Happy to be convinced otherwise though!
  • I think the one I added is helpful; the names could use a little attention, thanks!
Kirk, on Essex, Kent, London etc. I'm not certain I can see the problem - could you explain what the issue is that you'd like fixed?
  • Maybe for the sections that don't have a defined location you can add a map? The March on London might be Middlesex as a location - is that the terminology Dunn uses?
On See Also, they're not linked in the main article and seem fine to me (NB: I don't think I personally added them in, but they seem reasonable enough). Was there a particular concern with them?
  • Could you explain why the reader should see also Jack Cade? These articles don't seem interconnected and they don't share many links; also, the style these days is to put them in the sections where they are appropriate instead of at the end. Let me know if I can help figure this out! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure that I agree with you about 12 footnotes being excessive, given the size of the topic.
In terms of the referencing, I believe that the article meets the criterion of being "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature." Dunn gives a reasonably up-to-date, comprehensive and neutral review of the subject, which is why I've used him for the standard "narrative" referencing. If there's particular concern about individual cites, where perhaps you think that a different author/source would be more appropriate, I'm happy to examine them of course. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider my note suggestions below; the citations are ok since a lot are doubled up with others. Its a very well sourced article! Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What were the dates of the rebellion, location(s) including battles, end result, who was fighting who, and who were the major persons involved? Put that in an infobox and I'll strike my oppose.
  • Mmm, not sure this'd be classed as an actionable objection unless there's a rule stating that all historical incidents require infoboxes (I tend to work with military bios and units, where they're a given). I say this simply as another reviewer, since I've commented (and supported) earlier and therefore recused myself from FAC delegate duties here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ian, assuming infoboxes fall under 3. Media, and I'm arguing this article would benefit from a summary so the reader can get basic information about this conflict without having to slog through the whole article so its missing a key media item. Media itself is pretty vague but I think its actionable. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, specifically the leaders of the rebellion are not in the lead other than Wat Tyler, and you only find out later John Ball was a leader; I think this article would benefit from a concise summary of the facts. Kirk (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Added infobox; the leader's names need some work. Kirk (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sections would make more sense if you were consistent with how you named them, that's all I'm saying. Where is a "March to London" on a map? Was it in Essex and Kent?
  • The first See Also wasn't really very helpful and the second could either be mentioned in the article prose, or cut if its has no connection. I didn't see the connection between the two.
  • Aiming for NPOV you want other views, so its nice to have more sources incorporated in the article. This article has a lot of sources, but one that has a majority of citations so you should be able to adjust the ratio. Surprised this wasn't addressed at A review.
  • You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article - I don't think I should have to tell you which ones you should cut or incorporate in the prose; give it a shot and I'll review it. Kirk (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My suggestions...
note 1: its impossible, then you give a comparison so I'd either go with sentence 1 or 2 or cut.
note 2 merge with #1 or cut
note 3 Marshalsea Court is linked so cut.
note 4 keep
note 5 keep or merge, old swords and old bows kind of leans toward historian #2's opinion.
note 6 merge into body
note 7 put a range in the body with the citations for each.
note 8 merge into body
note 9 If Law of Winchester is a thing it probably should be linked; the way that sentence is written 'It is unclear...' but the note clarifies it so I would rewrite this.
note 10 cut
note 11 cut
note 12 merge into body
note 13 cut. I don't think readers care about earlier perception and the actual note doesn't make sense to me, might want to check the paraphrasing...
note 14 merger makes more sense to me in a 2 sentence paragraph. Maybe link Magne societatis?
This gets us to 3-5 notes. Kirk (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Outside opinion) I strongly disagree with these note suggestions. I think the notes are well-written and very valuable. Why do you feel that we "should always aim for zero notes in a FA article"? I don't find this idea in the MoS, and looking through the existing FAs shows that this has not been a problem for other FAs. – Quadell (talk) 12:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good points. Its basic Readability - if you have a article like this with a bunch of notes, every time you encounter one you have to stop reading, click, read, hopefully the note was worth the effort then find your way back. It would be nice if there was better MOS guidance from MilHist on when to choose a note for additional commentary vs. putting the fact in the article vs. leaving it out since we're aiming for summary style. It would also be nice if historians could agree on facts so we didn't need notes! Kirk (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Tim riley and myself have objected above to many of these points, and I also don't agree that "You should always aim for zero notes in a FA article", certainly at the expense of cramming everything into the main text. If anything the reverse - most FAs have notes in some form. While it may come under the scope of Milhist, this is essentially a subject from political history, and treating it as though it were a German battleship is not proving productive. Johnbod (talk) 14:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please respect my opinions - I'm just trying to improve this article. Consider WP:SS w/note #3 - there's a perfectly good article linked, so we don't need a paragraph explaining it in note. Quadell mentioned he liked reading the notes but personally I don't find the opinions of historians make an article better and in this case some I didn't find very useful to me. Kirk (talk) 15:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ucucha 10:02, 31 August 2013 (UTC) [4].Reply[reply]

No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The RAAF's fighter conversion unit, which originated in World War II, disbanded in 1947, and was revived in the middle of the Korean War, when the Air Force realised there was a significant gap in its training program. Since then it's converted pilots to all of Australia's front-line fighters -- Sabre, Mirage, and F/A-18 Hornet. This is by no means my first article on an RAAF unit, but the first I've felt was FA material in all departments. Thanks to Dank for reviewing at GAN, Nick-D for some additional info and images, everyone who commented at the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and of course -- in advance -- all reviewers here! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I reviewed the changes at A-class a few days ago, so I'll take it on faith that it hasn't gone all to hell since then :) - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You and me both... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support - a high quality article and covers the breadth of the topic well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many tks, Hc. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (fair-use, own-work, PD-US Air force, PD-Australia, PD-author Australian government). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I reviewed at ACR and have checked the changes since then. I only have one minor point:

Support I've added some material to this article over the last few months, but don't think that this is sufficient to prevent me reviewing the article. I've just read through it, and think that the FA criteria are met. My only comment is that the sentence "Jeffrey had recently established two of the first three fighter units that the RAAF had brought on line to help defend Australia's north as the Japanese advanced towards New Guinea, Nos. 75 and 76 Squadrons" is a bit convoluted - could this be trimmed? (eg, to something like "Jeffrey had recently established Nos. 75 and 76 Squadrons, which were two of the first three fighter units raised to help defend northern Australia as the Japanese advanced towards New Guinea"). Nick-D (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tweaked a bit but essentially used what you said above -- tks again for additions, Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [5].Reply[reply]

Pacific Swift[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since these swifts are constantly in flight, even when asleep, the 160-mile drive and three-mile walk to see one of these in Suffolk was a bit nerve-wracking. However, despite the fuss, I parked nicely, saw the bird and didn't get arrested. This is a short FAC because it's nothing like as well studied as its American or European relatives. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good. Some thoughts-

  • The opening line doesn't quite grab the reader as much as I'd hope- do we need to jump straight into taxonomic controversies?
  • "The two or three white eggs are incubated for about 17 days to hatching, the chicks then having a long and variable period in the nest before they are fully fledged." How about "The two or three white eggs are incubated for about 17 days to hatching. Subsequently, the chicks have a long but variable period in the nest before they are fully fledged."?
  • "Like all swifts, Pacific feeds" How about "Like all members of its family, the Pacific Swift..."
  • I don't really like the way you refer to it as "Pacific", rather than "the Pacific Swift". Is this something done regularly in the sources?
  • Check your punctuation in the paragraph on parasites.
  • "Its population is unknown, and but it is" Needs cleaning
  • "The Common Swift, a close relative of Pacific, has been recorded as reaching 21 years old.[29]" So we can assume these live to about the same age? Or would that be original research?
  • I can't find a maximum age for the Pacific Swift, but the claim of longevity for the family as a whole is sourced and the Common Swift data is to illustrate that. It would be a reasonable assumption that one of the Common Swift's closest relatives might live to a similar age, but obviously I can't say that. If you think that even the implication is OR, I'll take it out, but I think it's better to give the information rather than omit it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generally strong. I made a few tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 14:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, assuming the source check comes back OK. I'm happy. I will, however, keep an eye on this page in case I missed something! J Milburn (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments from Crisco 1492

  • huge breeding area - is "huge" encyclopedic?
  • I think several million square miles could reasonably be described as a huge area. I can't see an obvious alternative other than "very large" but I already have "large" in the sentence. Massive is worse than huge. Any thoughts? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • (15 mm against the nominate form's 20 mm) - Worth including conversions?
  • on the wintering grounds, - on or in?
  • Pacific Swift can be distinguished with care by its deeper tail fork, - Feels like you're missing a definite article
  • I don't understand why it should be the Orchid Island. I wouldn't say "the Japan" or "the Taiwan", so I'm not sure why this is different Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • D'oh, stet. I thought I saw Islands, my bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are 13 European records as of 2013, from Denmark (two), Spain, Sweden (four) and the UK (seven). It is possible that this overstates the true number of visiting birds due to wandering or returning individuals; all the listed countries had a sighting on different dates in summer 2013, and the four English records since 2005 all involved birds that were seen at least at Spurn, East Yorkshire. - How many of these sightings were in 2013, and how many of that list was from 2013? I'm confused here.
  • bees, wasps, termites and moths. - What's with the odd termite out?
  • Any other information available, perhaps something about their saliva which allows it to act as glue? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This is pretty well all I could find, including locating a secondary source for material in Chinese and behind a pay wall. The Common Swift and the NAm species are well-studied, but not their Asian relatives. I looked for more on saliva, but it just seems to be stated as a fact that it is used as a cement. There is a bit more for the Edible-nest Swiftlet, whose whole nest is made of saliva, but mainly as a means of detecting additives. These are in a different species, so nothing transferable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Images all look okay, although I wish we had some solid pictures. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Very good, easy read, easy to access. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Cwmhiraeth. Another solid-looking article, - just a few comments on the prose:

  • "The Pacific Swift (Apus pacificus) is a swift which breeds in eastern Asia." - I know it's difficult, but can you avoid saying a swift is a swift?
  • It has occurred as far afield as the US and New Zealand" - as you have said it winters in Australia, it doesn't seem particularly surprising that it has been seen in New Zealand.
  • Far fewer migrants reach NZ; it's not only about 1400 miles mainland to mainland, but, more importantly, there is no long chain of islands to link the two, whereas Indonesia connects SE Asia to Australia. Even powerful migrants like the large swifts rarely make the jump. I'd rather keep the phrase unless you strongly object. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fair enough. New Zealand is only a few centimetres from Australia on my map! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "... the Common Swift, from which it is distinguished by a white rump band and scaly underparts." - It doesn't really have scaly underparts, only the appearance of scales.
  • "The White-rumped Swift is the most similar to Pacific Swift, but its slender body and long, deeply forked tail make it appear quite different from its powerfully built relative" - I would add the word "more" to this sentence and I think the first part is awkwardly phrased.
  • "... larger white throat patch and scaly underparts" - Scaly underparts again!
  • "They are softer and less wheezy than for Common Swift" - This sentence seems awkward.
  • In the second paragraph of "Breeding", are you referring to swifts in general or this particular species?
  • You mention nine biological orders, but can you be more specific on the prey insects?
  • I can only read the abstract. The main article is in Chinese and behind a Chinese-language pay wall, so I don't know any more than that. Should I remove this sentence? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a wide variety of insect prey" would be an acceptable alternative, I would have thought. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "... although in Australia introduced cats may take some birds." - This seems a curious remark.
  • "... but the high survival rates mean that swifts are generally long-lived." - seems a non-sequiter (if I have spelt that right) to me!
  • I'm not sure that it is a non-sequitur, since if you survive you are likely to live longer, but rephrased to avoid causality anyway now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now Supporting this article's candidacy. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Aa77zz

  • I find the explanation of the range map a little confusing. What is meant by Winter visitor in Australia? Is this the northern hemisphere winter or the southern hemisphere winter?
  • The authority is given as Latham 1802. It should be 1801 - see original publication cited in article (or HBW).

Aa77zz (talk) 12:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More comments

  • Taxonomy: A. salimalii should be A. salimali.
  • Range map: I have difficulty with the dark green area labelled "Range of resident former subspecies"? Which former subspecies (singular or plural)? I cannot access Leader (2011). My guess is A. leuconyx and A. salimali but I'm a little surprised that they are resident - it gets cold in winter in Nepal and on the Tibetan Plateau. HBW has a very similar map with a green area but also includes a yellow summer visitor area in southern India. The HBW text indicates A. p. leuconyx winters in India (as does Clements) but A. salimali isn't mentioned. The Clements Checklist update states that the winter range for A. salimali isn't known. Perhaps the article should either provide more info in the key or not include the dark green area.
  • changed to breeding range for the three ssp. The yellow in HBW and Chantler I've omitted since it's not pacificus and the winter ranges of the former ssp are either unknown or close to the breeding areas, so would only add an extra layer of complexity. The dark green was in the original map (not created by me) and it seemed easier to leave it than guess where pacificus breeding range ended in the south. Leader sent by email Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Range map key: More precise but more clumsy would be: "Breeding visitor during northern hemisphere summer" and " Non-breeding visitor during northern hemisphere winter". Aa77zz (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • After a former reviewer objected to the original summer/winter being northern hemi-centric, I considered that version, but it's clunky, and I prefer the current version which is actually accurate if uninspiring Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - This is an excellent article that fully meets the FA criteria. Aa77zz (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comment -- Did I miss a source review above? If so, rub my nose in it; if not, pls place a request at WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would be kind enough... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sources all appear to be suitably reliable and there are no obvious formatting problems. Aa77zz (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for source review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [6].Reply[reply]

Thaddeus McCotter presidential campaign, 2012[edit]

Nominator(s): William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article chronicles a failed presidential campaign of a colorful Congressman, which ends with the Congressman writing a TV pilot to "get over" the failure, and then having to resign his Congressional seat amid a fraud investigation. I created the article two years ago, and have worked on it since. It was promoted to GA status last year. I believe it meets the FA requirements, but it recently failed an FAC due to a lack of reviews. To account for this, this time I am seeking reviews from editors involved in similar articles. William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Seems pretty close, just a few comments.
Lede
  • "was first speculated as a potential presidential candidate" I am uncertain you can use "speculated" that way. Possibly "suggested"? or "mentioned"?
Changed to mentioned.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and failure to participate in any presidential debates" Well, he was willing, so it wasn't a "failure". He wasn't invited. Suggest a rephrase.
Changed to "lack of any invitation"--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "To cope with the loss," The causation here seems a little dicey since it is only McCotter who says this, and given the circumstances, his word might not be taken at face value.
Changed to "thereafter", and changed "After" to "Following" in the previous sentence to avoid repetition.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Wayne County, Michigan Commission. That's not its formal name. Perhaps "Wayne County (Michigan) Commission"?
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "a reputation as a leading House opponent of pork barrel spending" Normally, "pork barrel" would get a POV objection but I suppose it is barely saved by the fact that it is his reputation.
"Pork barrel" is used in a technical sense as described in the article linked.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • frequently/frequenter. Too close together, suggest changing the first to "often".
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and soon he would make a decision" "and he would soon make a decision"
Changed to "affirmed that he would soon make a decision."--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "McCotter attacked Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney during a visit to Detroit. " A bit ambiguous who was visiting Detroit. Perhaps "Mc Cotter, visiting detroit, attacked …"
It was Romney visiting Detroit so I changed it to, "McCotter attacked Republican frontrunner Mitt Romney as Romney visited Detroit."
  • "he received two votes". A percentage, or out of how many, would be helpful here.
I added the number of votes cast.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Campaign events
  • I would consider shrinking the image of Cupp, perhaps by adding an upright field to the image template.
Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "requirements for banks to keep at least twenty percent of assets available as capital" Perhaps a pipe to reserve requirement?
Added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "foreign policy is not discussed enough" was not being discussed enough
Changed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "foreign policy discussion ceased" had ceased
Changed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aftermath
  • Do the campaign funding totals include what he may have transferred from his congressional account?
I'll have to look at the FEC form before I can answer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now looked at the form, and it does include this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "because of their position on manufacturing" ambiguous "their". Splitting the sentence after "Democrats" and restating "Republicans" in the second sentence would be one solution
I changed "their" to Republicans'.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A month later, he resigned from Congress in order to fully assist with the petition fraud investigation, and to find a new job." Glancing at the source, this is coming from McCotter and should be taken with a grain of salt and inline attribution.
I added "claiming" --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Notably, " why?
Unnecessary word removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "while he smoked" How is this relevant, unless it was not tobacco?
Removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did any of the other candidates ever discuss him, or was he beneath their notice.
I'll have to do more research to answer that question.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checking back in, let me know (my talk, preferably) when you are ready for me to take a second look.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've looked and I cannot find any other candidates who mentioned him.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image check All images appear to have acceptable free licenses.
That's all I've got.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Hamiltonstone

  • "McCotter participated in the first-ever Twitter debate..." This makes it sound as though it was the first time Twitter was used for a political debate. In any case, it isn't what the source says: it says "The first-ever Twitter presidential debate" (emphasis added). hamiltonstone (talk) 03:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He was the only presidential candidate to approve the bill in Congress since both Bachmann and Ron Paul voted against it". I don't get this. The previous paragraph listed a whole bunch of presidential candidates, whereas this sentence only refers to two who opposed this bill. That being the case, how can he have been the only one who supported it? Where were all the others?? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks good otherwise. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul and Bachmann were the only fellow members of the House of Representatives. I now see the ambiguity of the phrase. I will insert "in the House of Representatives" after "candidate" and then add "fellow members" after "both" to make this clearer.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

  • Links inside quotations are generally best avoided, per WP:LINKSTYLE. A link to Conservatism in the United States somewhere in the article is a good idea, but not underneath "the Detroit Free Press described him as a 'conservative's conservative'" because we have no idea if what the newspaper writer was thinking of matches what the WP article says. In the case of "The Detroit News asked McCotter whether he enjoyed his presidential campaign, he replied, 'No. It was the worst 15 minutes of my life.'", we really don't know if this is a reference to the Warhol phrase, since in actuality he didn't get any fame out of his run. Just leave the 15 minutes unlinked and the reader can decide for themselves. Other instances of links inside quotes include "running mates", "American Dream", "Beijing", and "Communist". Some of these are common terms or places and don't need to be linked, and the rest can be fixed with reshaping the text or paraphrasing the quote.
Removed some links and paraphrased some quotes to avoid linking in quotes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If he had five core principles, and if we list all five, why not say "These were:" instead of "These included:"?
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Reportedly, after the announcement, he moved campaign funds of about $480,000 from his congressional to his presidential campaign account." – aren't things like this part of the FEC public record? Why do we need the "reportedly" weasel word here, as if we're not really sure this happened or not?
Fixed. It turns out the $480,000 was available to use in the Congressional account, but only about $468,000 was actually transferred during the course of the campaign, as noted in the Aftermath section.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "he received media attention for his hometown newspaper's reaction to his run." – needs a cite that there was media attention.
Added three.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The overlink of "Reserve requirement" should say that, not just "requirements".
Changed as suggested, also cut down on the wordiness in that sentence.
  • Partial links like "Seacoast Young Republicans" are ugly - rewording is best.
Changed to Young Republicans of Seacoast.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Campaign spokesman Randall Thompson commented that ..." – "stated" would be better.
Changed as suggested.
  • "McCotter answered, "Obama's ... – you've got two opening quote marks and only one closing mark. Moreover, this is a pretty commonplace stance – is this really the most memorable thing McCotter said during this debate?
Not much memorable in the transcript. I added it the Israel bit to show his foreign policy views. For more on this, I added his response to the Libya intervention question.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He finished last among ten candidates, receiving 35 votes or 0.21 percent." – needs a cite (not clear that the next statement cite covers this).
Cited.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and discussed such issues as 'drinking, sex, race, flatulence, puking, and women's anatomy.'" – who is this quote from? The script, McCotter, the Detroit News writer? Why not just paraphrase?
Paraphrased as, "such risqué topics as sex, race, and bodily functions." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In one scene, S.E. Cupp guest stars" – I think it's worth changing this to "In one scene in the script, ..." to make clear that Cupp herself was not involved in any pilot.
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Overall, he raised $512,644.22, spent $511,135.38, and had a debt of $105,367.24." If he spent slightly less than he raised, how did he end up with a significant debt?
I do not know the answer to this question. I can only post what is on the FEC document. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I figured this out now. The debt is what was owed but had not yet been paid. So it's not listed as having been spent. See [7] starting at p. 125 is a list of debts and obligations.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In that case, was the debt ever paid off? It's approaching two years since when his campaign ended, so the article wouldn't quite be complete if there is outstanding info. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This still makes no sense to me. If he had sufficient funds to pay off his obligations, why would he intentionally delay payments so as to run a debt on almost 20 percent of the amount, and still be in debt two years later? Failed presidential candidates usually are ecstatic to be able to exit a campaign without debt looming over them. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know, unless I read the report wrong, but I don't believe I did.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I misunderstood what you were saying - maybe the problem is the word "spent". He really spent $651K, in terms of acquiring goods and services for the campaign, but could only pay for $541K, leaving the campaign $110K in debt. Is that it? If so, you should reword it to make this clear. Also, I'm not sure these ultra-precise amounts with eight significant digits are necessary. Maybe round off with statements like "He raised about $549,000 ..."? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I did this, I would have to repeat the word "about" five times in the first paragraph of "Aftermath". To me, that wouldn't sound good. I changed "spent ..." to "paid ... on expenses". Hopefully that clears up any confusion.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's better. But how about dropping the cents? Also note "$110,5367.24" has an extra digit in it. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rounded to the nearest dollar on the figures and removed the extra digit. It turns out the figure was actually $105,367.24.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He initially hoped to wage a write-in campaign, but decided against it, finding that he could not run the campaign while cooperating with the investigation and serving the remainder of his term in Congress." – What investigation? You need to briefly say who was investigating him and for what.
After the first sentence in the paragraph, I added, "An investigation of the campaign by the office of the Michigan Attorney General ensued." --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The infobox has a date "(2012-6-30)". All the other dates in the article are mdy format, why is this one different?
No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does FAC still require the use of non-breaking spaces, per MOS:NBSP? The article is lacking them. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did the Pew Research Center include him in any of the analyses of newspaper space/media time each candidate receives that they do?
No. See [8], "some longshot candidates, like Thaddeus McCotter, were not measured."
  • Are there any analyses of why McCotter didn't get a moment in the sun, like some of the other almost equally unknown 2012 Republican no-chancers did (Bachmann, Cain, Santorum)?
I have found some, which I will add.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this was added, I'm not seeing it. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the beginning I split "Campaign speculation" from "Background." In "Background," I added a paragraph explaining his public perception. He was a "celebrity" on Red Eye, but according to Businessweek, this was no more than a "tiny cult following of insomniac conservatives." This directly relates to the last sentence I added to "Withdrawal," which summarizes the entire campaign as "a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when your average backbench member of Congress becomes a minor cable news celebrity and mistakes it for having a genuine national following." The reader can understand, he had only a small following, which he believed to be much larger. He appealed only to this small following, which was not large enough to push him forward.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I saw that, but it wasn't what I was looking for (although it did help satisfy the need for humor that I mentioned). What you say could also be said of Santorum and Gingrich and especially Bachmann and really especially Cain - yet they all managed to have sudden surges of popularity. What I'm getting at is that this was a campaign cycle in which no-hope long-shots often prospered, as the Republican electorate was searching for an alternative to Mitt, but McCotter was not one of them. That deserves a mention. For context, it would also help to mention Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson as the two other 'name' candidates (governors or members of Congress) who had trouble gaining any traction. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My personal analysis: Because Cain is black and Bachmann female, they were novelties for the GOP. As for Santorum, Senators are always given a special prestige (unless it's Gravel '08 since he had been out of office for so long). And Gingrich has always had a national following. I don't think any of these are comparable to McCotter's situation.
As my personal analysis, none of the above matters. I highly doubt there is a source arguing what I wrote above, altogether, and in relation to McCotter. Throughout the McCotter campaign, I received weekly g-news updates, and I do not remember anything of the sort. In addition, I cannot think of how I can fit Roemer and Johnson into the article. Any suggestions?--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At the end of the "Three days after the straw poll ..." paragraph, you could mention Roemer and Johnson as two other candidates with significant officeholding backgrounds who struggled to get included in debates. The "Three White House candidates didn't make cut for GOP debate" story is one source for that. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. I introduced Gary Johnson during the Twitter debate (and added a title to each candidate). And I mentioned that Johnson was excluded from the debates mentioned and that like McCotter, Roemer was excluded from all.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Was the signature failure fiasco a side effect of the campaign at all? I once read somewhere that someone thought it was, but I don't recall the exact linkage.
Yes. I found an editorial, which I will add. But the fraud had been going on for several election cycles so I don't think it was a consequence--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article needs more humor, which is as you pointed out on your talk page is pretty much the only compelling thing about this campaign. I know that's hard to do in WP, but a few good quotes here and there beyond what you already have might help. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to what you've done, you could include that he only polled at 5 percent in his home state (per this Booth Newspapers piece). And regarding his withdrawal, this LAT story that you already use has this good quote: "What's that? You've never heard of Thaddeus McCotter? Well, that's the main reason he's now a former candidate." Wasted Time R (talk) 13:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rearranged some things in the paragraph about the straw poll debate and included the five percent bit in the second and third sentences of it. I've tried fiddling with the "Withdrawal" section to include the quote, but I can't seem to make it sound right.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added it in the way I envisioned it, see what you think. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the cites, some of the publishers that should be in regular font, are in italics. These include Congress.org, Project Vote Smart, Fox News, Republican Leadership Conference 2011, Federal Election Commission, CBS News, WMUR-TV, and so on. Basically, if the WP article on the publisher is in italics, the cite should be, and if not, the cite should not be. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Newsmax should not be italics. Also, what you call "CBS Detroit" should be WWJ-TV. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I changed CBS Detroit, but in the article Newsmax Media, Newsmax appears in italics.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In addition to non-breaking spaces still being absent, there is an extra space between footnotes 26 and 27.
I removed the extra space. I am unfamiliar with non-breaking spaces. When are they required? For dates? Italicized works?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See MOS:NBSP for guidelines. Usage varies, but at the least you can put them between numbers and units, for things like "1,542 votes" and "92 percent". If you look at some existing FA articles you'll see them in use. For example, John McCain has a bunch that use the   method. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added it for the usages you suggested and a few other places it might be necessary. I used nowrap because I am more familiar with that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The links in footnotes 17, 33, and 47 have all gone bad (Des Moines Register).
Linked to versions in the internet archive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One person is variously referred to as Eric Appleman, Eric C. Appleman, and Eric M. Appleman.
All changed to Eric M. Appleman since that is how he is referred to on the site.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The article has some curly punctuation that needs to be straightened (e.g. ‘). Wasted Time R (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. I stumbled here from my FAC, and had to comment, since I'm probably one of a few people who actually remember that campaign.

  • Is there any reason you capitalize Rock in Rock music?
No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The next month" - since you refer to dates several times in the 2nd paragraph of "Speculation" (which I think should be retitled to "Speculation of a campaign" or something), you should clarify the date here. Or at least when you say "Later that month". My rule of thumbs is to re-clarify the date at the beginning of new paragraphs.
Changed as suggested. Changed the section title to "Campaign speculation"--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. He was in last place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe add that? IDK, optional. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "aides said McCotter remained undecided about a run" - something seems slightly off. Personally, I'd love it written as "McCotter remained undecided about a run, according to his aides" to clarify whose aides they are.
Changed as suggested.
  • " though, he reportedly paid $18,000 for a prime spot at the August 13 Ames Straw Poll" - did he actually do this? If so, don't include "reportedly"
Changed as suggested.
  • You should say something before you just link Politico, like what it is.
Added "newspaper" before it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For people who know nothing about US politics, you should include why Iowa is important. This is a featured article candidate for all of Wikipedia. It was crucial for him to go to Iowa, but someone from Australia might have no idea why they should care. You do well with New Hampshire, although I'd like a link to the New Hampshire primary.
Added "Iowa, the first caucus state," and linked to New Hampshire Primary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " that included Senator Bill Frist's former chief of staff Eric Uelind - I think you have the order mixed up. It should say "former Senator Bill Frist..." - since Frist wasn't a senator at the time.
Changed as suggested.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Before the poll in Ames" - is this literally right before the poll? If so, maybe say "at the poll"? Or something. It took me a few sentences to figure out what was going on.
Changed to "In Ames, just before the vote," --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " By any measure, we did that..." - why the dot dot dot?
The quote ended with "this weekend" which I didn't think necessary to include. I have now added a period outside the quote.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Social Security Reform plan," - why is reform capitalized?
No reason. I have changed it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per above, I wish you could figure out how the math adds up for his campaign costs/debt, whatnot.
I am not an accountant, but I will try to see what is going on with the numbers.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I figured this out now as I posted above under Wasted Time R's comments.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ""somebody either panicked or it was sabotage...My gut" - add spacing
  • Was his congressional campaign ever found out to have been sabotaged?
I don't know if it was sabotaged or not, but four aides were charged and convicted of crimes related to it, which I have now added to the article.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Did any other presidential candidate have any thoughts on McCotter? Did he ever get any endorsements? I know the campaign was low-key, but the article seems especially so.
I can't seem to find any endorsements of McCotter or statements from other candidates, but I am still in the process of searching.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I found an endorsement from former Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, but there seems to be no news reports on it, just this YouTube video.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the research, no prob. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All in all, pretty good account of it. I loved the quote - "a cautionary tale about what can go wrong when your average backbench member of Congress becomes a minor cable news celebrity and mistakes it for having a genuine national following." Good way to end the campaign section. Just those comments from me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Almost ready to support, but the info about the debt prevents me from doing so. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the latest FEC report, ending June 30, there is still a debt of $105,636.24. I have added this to the article. I also added that his finish at the Leadership Conference was last among those considered.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cool, thanks for the update. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose, comprehensiveness, and images; sources not examined. Seems to meet the criteria per my above review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review:

  • Why does ref 1 not use the url and archiveurl parameters, while other refs using archive.org do? Need consistency.
Fixed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Most refs are missing publishers.
That is common practice for news sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to omit publishers, especially for less well-known news sources. Listing publishers helps provide more information to the reader about who is behind these sources. However, this is just my opinion. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for my short response above. As you can see at WP:REF#What information to include, publisher information is not needed for web or newspaper sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it is. Seems like I've been asked for them on web and news sources in the past, and I just assumed it was in the guideline. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 38 is fairly confusing. The site was 140townhall.com, but it reads "The Tea Party.net" at the top. Who actually put on this debate? Who was behind these organizations? We need a bit more information.
I can't answer this question. I can only post what is there.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If we don't know who was running a site or who was responsible for the content (especially a site that seems to have disappeared after the election season), how can we trust the content? --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It appears 140townhall was a Twitter consultant group that produced the debate. TheTeaParty.net was the sponsor. TheTeaParty.net is not archived in the wayback machine so I cannot find what was posted there. But 140townhall did post it to the linked archived website. If there are concerns about reliability, one can search for @140townhall on Twitter and see all the same tweets listed on the archived page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works for me. --Laser brain (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What makes Democracy in Action a reliable source? I don't see any evidence of editorial oversight or a fact-checking process.
The site republishes press releases and other primary material. It is run by an expert in presidential elections.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
--Laser brain (talk) 13:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 24 August 2013 (UTC) [9].Reply[reply]

Interstate 75 in Michigan[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this is ready. I-75 is Michigan's Main Street, the longest highway in the state of any kind, and the only highway to run on both of Michigan's peninsulas. If any highway in the state is worthy of consideration for FA status, it is this one. Imzadi 1979 → 06:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (most of the images have been checked during ACR), 2 issues:

  • File:I-75_(MI)_map.svg - probably trivial for a road expert, but the image summary should name the used base map and where the road data was taken from.
  • File:WalterChrysler.jpg - buying an image does usually not transfer copyright. This image should be replaced (or clarified by the uploader). I marked it for further checking on Commons. (replaced, likely will get deleted on Commons).
  • Other images are OK, as noted during ACR. GermanJoe (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The map creator (25or6to4) updated the source information on the map. I'm looking into options on the other photo. I should have something uploaded from the Library of Congress in a moment. Imzadi 1979 → 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • File:Walter P. Chrysler at White House (cropped).png comes from a collection of photos donated to the Library of Congress and there are no use restrictions. It has been substituted, which means there isn't any further issue with the images with this article. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. The second paragraph of the "Northern Michigan" subsection of the route description has no references. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 17:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The second paragraph of that section was referenced, but if you meant the third paragraph, I inserted the missed references. Imzadi 1979 → 20:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. I stumbled here from my FAC, and since it's a Michigan road article, I had to comment, since they're notoriously horrible (in that they provide too much competition in the battle for who has better articles - Michigan road articles or Atlantic hurricane articles).

  • "Interstate 75 (I-75) is a part of the Interstate Highway System and runs from Miami, Florida, to Sault Ste. Marie in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan." - I think "that" would work better than "and" for flow purposes, but that's just my opinion.
  • "named for politicians that helped get the bridge built" - since they're people, I think "who helped" would work better.
  • "between M-8 (Davison Highway) and McNichols Road" - I think you should add a location for each. McNichols doesn't have a link, so it's not that helpful. The lowest mentioning the county is useful though.
  • Any updated traffic count? (gotta ask)
    • MDOT does annual traffic counts, but their inclusion in the TMIS website lags about 18–24 months behind. As I recall, a different freeway had the crown temporarily in 2011 because road construction depressed traffic usage along that section of I-75, and the 2012 numbers aren't yet available. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " for about six miles (9.7 km) " - they should both either be spelled or as numbers. Ditto later on with "five miles (8.0 km)" and "three miles (4.8 km) "
    • I disagree; even numbers under 10 are supposed to be spelled out as words, and decimals should not. These are also approximations (since I've been told it's bad to be overly precise in these cases), so unless I had a reason to be more specific, I left them rounded off to the nearest mile. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and I-75 merges with US 23 to turn northerly to run around the west side of the city" - feel like this could be worded better
  • There are a few too many usages of the term "runs" in the route description, IMO.
  • "North of the river, I-675 reconnects to I-75, and the latter freeway runs northward" - given that the article is about I-75, I think the ending could work better written as "reconnects with I-75, which continues northward"
  • I think you should clarify that "Northern Michigan" is still in the lower peninsula, since when I first saw that, I thought it was the UP.
    • I'm not sure the best way to handle this anomaly of our state's quirky geography. The region that encompasses the northernmost areas of the Lower Peninsula is called just that, and traditionally that has always excluded the UP, even though some things in the UP use the "Northern Michigan" adjective (the university in Marquette, a bank in the area, and the Episcopal Diocese). Some people do use the "Northern Lower Michigan" name, but in my personal experiences, that's not nearly as common.
  • " and crosses the 45th Parallel, the halfway mark between the Equator and the North Pole by latitude." - is this properly sourced?
    • Unlike the other parallels of latitude, the 45th is drawn on MDOT's maps, and it is signed at the crossing near Gaylord. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "passing Indian River and crossing the river of the same name" - you should say "the town of Indian River" for it to make more sense.
  • I think there is too much info about Mackinac Bridge in the route description, considering there is a section later on for "Monumental bridges"s
    • The Mackinac Bridge is the closest thing Michigan has to a toll road. Articles on toll roads typically include specific sections on the services provided, and the tolls assessed, by the controlling agency, in this case the Mackinac Bridge Authority. No other section of I-75 has a dedicated radio station, a special police force or the driver services, all of which would be included in a "Services" section on toll road article. Also, a toll road article would have a "Tolls" section to expound on the toll collection and assessment methods. Since there's the "Monumental bridges" section further down, I tried to keep the historical aspects of the structure there and the practical aspects like services and tolling in the "Route description" subsection. (I'll also note that the tolling information for the International Bridge is included at the very end of the RD.) Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The Saginaw Trail ran north from Detroit to the Saginaw area where it connected with the original Mackinaw Trail that ran roughly parallel to, and west of, the modern I-75." - add a comma somewhere in the first part.
  • "The system was signposted in 1919" - is that a verb?
  • Do you have any more details about I-75's construction? There is a lot about the turnpike, and after the interstate act of 1956, suddenly I-75 comes into being the next year. Were they planning construction for a while, despite the issues of Ziegler? There is also nothing about the planning for the Mackinac Bridge. See below, kinda.
    • Ziegler had planned his own freeway, as the article mentions. He's quoted as saying that a parallel freeway would "reduce tolls on the turnpike 40 to 50 percent" in the section discussing the Michigan Turnpike. The corridor was studied for upgrades as far back as 1947, also as discussed in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The first sections of freeway for I-75 were opened in 1957. The southern section near the Ohio state line opened in October 1957." - if these both cover the same thing, I would merge them together. Something like "The first sections of freeway for I-75 were opened in October 1957, beginning with the southern section near the Ohio state line opened in October 1957."
  • " between Kinross and Dafter in the UP.[73] and the former segment" - I see a period there. Was that intended to be a comma, is something missing, or what?
  • "who founded Fisher Body later a part of General Motors" - add comma?
  • I think the photo of the Mackinac bridge should be more of a side angle and one during the day, since the current one is a bit tough to see. JMHO
    • I think I found a better one, an aerial photograph that still manages to convey the sheer length of the structure. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The International Bridge is nearly three miles (4.8 km) long encompassing spans" - comma

All in all, pretty good. Just the above for me. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All of your points are addressed except where noted above. Imzadi 1979 → 23:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And some copy editing for verb variety has been done. Imzadi 1979 → 03:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, everything looks good then! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comment -- an awful lot of dup links, do you have the script installed? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll play with linking somewhat, but a lot of the links that are duplicated are located long distances apart. This has a long "Route description" (fitting for the longest highway in the state of Michigan), a long "History", and the longest "Exit list" of any highway article for Michigan. There is a minimum level of duplication needed because first mention of some items are going to be whole sections, or even several subsections, apart from the duplicates. Imzadi 1979 → 19:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, based on that tool, nothing is relinked within the "History" section. (Although that duplicates links from the "Route description", which benefits the readers given the length of text between them) There are three links repeated within the RD: "Kawkawlin" is relinked on the 7th paragraph away from the section's "mini-lead", and both "Chippewa County" and "M-48" are on the 13th paragraph away from the mini-lead.

There are some items in the "Freeway names", "Monumental bridges" and "Related trunklines" sections that duplicate links from the RD or the "History" sections, but there a lot of text and a huge table in between reuses. Imzadi 1979 → 20:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ian Rose: ping? Imzadi 1979 → 03:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid it still looks like overlinking. I'd hope we can give our readers credit for a longer attention space than one screen's worth of data. The multiple links in RD don't seem necessary to me -- I don't think any section is long enough to justify dup links within the section, so pls re-review with that in mind. On a related note, linking such a huge and well-known subject as World War II even once is a bit dubious -- linking more than that seems to border on obsessive... ;-) Finally, I don't understand the linking logic re. Michigan under Monumental bridges -- why pipe the city to the state, especially when you mention the city just before? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ian Rose:, I'll remove them all then. Give me about 5 minutes. Imzadi 1979 → 06:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the linking, they are separate cities: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, separated by their namesake river and an international border. Which one would I link under the city name? Should I list each city name separately and have the redundant language? Imzadi 1979 → 06:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies, I misread that bit... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [10].Reply[reply]

Tasha Yar[edit]

Nominator(s): Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it stands up as meeting the FA criteria. Certainly it contains some of the best prose I've ever written and it fits together to become a tightly knit and complete article. I think the referencing is good, with the only question arising out of the referencing that I can see is the single instance of a TrekToday reference. It is a fan website, but one of four highlighted by the official Star Trek website. Miyagawa (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Miyagawa. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by Cirt
  1. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  2. Three (3) redlinks at Robert Lewin (filmmaker), Lianne Langland, and Mart McChesney. Not required, but would be nice if they could be made at the very least as small sourced appropriately referenced stubs.
  3. Please remove the two (2) pull-quote boxes in subsections Concept and development and Reception. I've been told in the past on multiple occasions that these are unencyclopedic.
  4. Bibliography - no need for this to be small font formatting, there isn't really that many that it needs to be made small, would look better at regular size.
  5. References - no need for sub-subsections within this subsection. Just have Notes and then References. That is the general standard for most articles and is used in examples at WP:LAYOUT.
  6. Reception - suggest paraphrasing and/or quote-trimming some more of the quotes used in this sect.
  7. Image review: File:Denise Crosby STICCon 2003.jpg = hosted at Wikimedia Commons and checks out okay. File:Marina Sertis (7271366256).jpg = hosted on Wikimedia Commons, image page there is fine. File:TashaYar.jpg = appropriate fair use rationale given on image page, hosted locally.
  8. File:TashaYar.jpg - suggest removing this image from the article. It's not needed to understand the text, and perhaps could be substituted in the infobox with a different alternative free-use image. That way, the article itself would be more portable to other Wikipedias.
  9. NOTE: Please respond below all these comments, and not interspersed throughout, thanks!
  10. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia with this most interesting quality improvement project, — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. The small font formatting for bibliography has been removed and the subsections in references has been dropped with it renamed to notes/references. Per the infobox image - the only real alternative would be the image of Denise Crosby used further down the article which wouldn't actually be in character and so probably wouldn't be a viable alternative for the infobox itself. There certainly isn't a free use image that I know of with Crosby in costume. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for those responses, that helps explain a bit. Unfortunately I see the pull-quote boxes are still in the article space. Those should be removed, per multiple comments in the past it seems the Wikipedia community is against pull-quote box usage. — Cirt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's actually another editor further down (Imzadi1979) who is supporting it. Miyagawa (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I understand that, and I've had some editors support my use of them in the past, but I've found through repeated quality review including both GAN and FAC that it's best not to have "pull quotes" because they give a negative connotation of potential promotion and POV even when not intended. — Cirt (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not that up to date on practices so take everything I say with that in mind, I'm an infrequent FAC commenter, if anything I've stated is incorrect, let me know and pay it no heed. Otherwise:

  • "The character first appeared in the pilot episode of the season, "Encounter at Farpoint"." → pilot episode of the series maybe, season seems odd to put here.
  • In the intro talking about the manner of her death receiving mixed reviews, you stated two negative ones I believe, I suggest swapping out the one about "naff" because it's not a well known term (at least where I'm from, and I had to look it up).
  • "After her departure, archive footage of Crosby as Yar was used the episodes "The Schizoid Man" and "Shades of Gray"." → used in the
  • The episode Code of Honour in paragraph two of Appearances needs to be in quotation marks.
  • Think about linking the episode Encounter at Farpoint in the final paragraph of Appearances, it's only linked in the Intro currently. To add onto this, maybe think about linking all the episodes in this section, even ones previously linked. The sections are adequetly large to allow this without slamming the user too much with overlinking.
  • Finally, unless I'm mistaken you're going to need alt text on your images.--Lightlowemon (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the review. I've changed season to series (that was the result of overfixing "series" to "season" previously). I've changed naff to "stupid" in the lead - I think that's probably easier to understand. I've changed it to "used in the", and added the quotation marks for Code of Honor. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Your most welcome, just noting (mostly for myself and any other reviewers), you decided to not relink Encounter at Farpoint, you haven't included alt text. The only other issue I kind of have is the two negative comments about her death when you've stated it was mixed? Or was the 'typical' security officers death meant to be a positive review? Good job on the fast responses too by the way. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Encounter at Farpoint" is now linked in the article body - I haven't added alt text yet, but I will. I'm going to change "mixed" to "mostly negative" regarding the death as there was one positive comment about it from Gary Westfahl. Miyagawa (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alt text now added with the exception of the infobox - there isn't actually a way of inserting it as far as I can see. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - No new issues have been raised and assuming it passes the source check, I'm all for it. --Lightlowemon (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments—overall, I'm inclined to support promotion, but I have a few comments to offer first. Starting with the references:

  • Links are repeated unnecessarily in the various footnotes. A publisher, like "CBS Productions" in footnotes 8 and 9 only should be linked the first time it appears, not every use.
  • The company that publishes a newspaper or magazine isn't necessary in citation, especially for well-known papers like The Washington Post, the Chicago Sun-Times or Entertainment Weekly.
      • I've reduced that down and removed the AOL from AOL TV as well. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In cases like the Post-Tribune, the publication location (Gary, IN) should be indicated since it is not part of the paper's title.
    • "Knight Ridder/Tribune News Service" is a newswire; it is not a publication title itself. Either use that or "Knight Ridder" as the publisher only.
    • Italicization of website titles is handled very inconsistently in the footnotes. For example, "AOL TV" is not in italics, but "Star Trek.com" is. "Trek Today" is in italics, but "Tor.com" and "Den of Geek" are not. Either website titles are italicized (as the larger work containing component works) or they are not, but it looks unpolished to have both styles in use.
      • I hadn't realised that the website part of the citation was in italics. I've rectified it and all the websites should be un-italicized now. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Honestly, they should be in italics as the composite work; really the name of a website is analogous to the title of a book or newspaper, or the name of a TV show. Books contain chapters. newspapers contain articles, TV shows contain episodes and a website contains individual webpages. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Normally on shortened footnotes, citations to works by two authors would be listed as "Smith & Jones" or "Smith and Jones", but citations to works by three or more authors would be displayed as "Smith, et al." It isn't a big deal, so long as you are consistent, but I thought I'd bring it up to prompt consideration of a change.
  • Changed as noted (but left them as is in the Bibliography section). I'll have to roll out that formatting change to the various episode articles I've done. Quick question - should I be listing the "Reeves-Stevens" cites as simply "Reeves-Stevens" as I do now, or as "Reeves-Stevens & Reeves-Stevens" as there are two of them? Miyagawa (talk) 17:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Bibliography should be organized in alphabetical order by last name of the first author. The current order looks unorganized.
      • Done. (I'd previously listed it by publication date). Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • That wasn't apparent and before it was quite confusing given that most style guides say to alphabetize by the first author (or first words of a title when no author is listed.)
          • No worries - it makes far more sense now. Not sure how I got that other order stuck in my head! (Or why no one had called me out on it before, really!). :) Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • If you're going to use access dates for online sources with publication dates, then the writer/director's guide needs one as well, for consistency with the footnotes above. If possible, I would attempt to track down publication information (location, publisher) for the guide as well, again, to format it consistently with the other citations in the article.
      • I went with a little logic here - although it was an internal document and not really published, it would have been the property of the production company which was Paramount Domestic Television. The show was developed on the Paramount lot, which is in Hollywood, CA. So I've added those to the citation. Miyagawa (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The Tulloch citation uses a different format to denote "subscription required", and it should be consistent with the others.
      • It looks the same code-wise. Miyagawa (talk) 21:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • The difference is ((Subscription required)) vs. {{Subscription required}}; note the difference between the parentheses vs. curly brackets. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Unless someone else has jumped in and fixed it in the middle, I can't see the difference in the current version of the article. I went through and pasted the first instance of the tag over all the other versions and it didn't register it as a change. Miyagawa (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding other items in the article:

  • Ideally, the portal link should not be in an "External links" section. Unlike links to other websites or to our sister projects like Wikimedia Commons and Wikiquote, portals are internal to the English Wikipedia. Normally I would advise that the link should be moved to a "See also" section, and if it were the only item in such a section (which is ok), I would use *{{portal-inline}} instead of {{portal}}.
  • The prose is good, in my opinion.
  • As for the categories, I believe policy is to use only the most specific category necessary. For example, Category:Starfleet lieutenants is a subcategory of both Category:Fictional lieutenants and Category:Starfleet officers. Using only the first of those three links this article to the other two through already existing links in the category tree. That other Star Trek character articles get this concept wrong is not a reason for this one to as well, if it is to be judged as part of "Wikipedia's finest work".

Concerning the comments of other reviewers above me, I have the following to offer:

  • File:TashaYar.jpg should be retained in the article, IMHO, unlike what Cirt has to say. The addition of some simple text describing her appearance, etc., would tie into the use of the photo as primary identification of the actress appearing in costume in her role.
  • I also strongly disagree with the proposed removal of the pull quotes; unlike standard print encyclopedias of the past, Wikipedia is visually different. We're much more likely to include various media like photographs, videos or audio clips in keeping with our existence as a multimedia project born of the Internet Age. Because of copyright concerns, this article has to be limited in the media it uses, so including pull quotes, in my mind, is appropriate to help break up the text, a function that would otherwise only be served by the section headings.
    • Perhaps, to tie into the photo concerns above, the pull quote from the writer's guide could be modified to include any appropriate comments on the appearance of the Yar character.
      • I've added a line about her described appearance (prior to casting) in the main body of the article. Unfortunately it doesn't go into any great lengths, but the writers/directors guide does describe her body type and athletic ability. Miyagawa (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alt text isn't actually required of FAs, but I do recommend the addition.

All in all, I think these are minor fixes, and I would like to support promotion after they are made. Imzadi 1979 → 21:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that Cirt recommended the removal of {{refbegin}} and {{refend}}; I also oppose that as making the references inconsistently styled between the footnotes and the bibliography. The result does make the article less polished, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 22:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that you've inserted those templates, and thanks for tidying up the citations. Whilst I've done a fair few GAs and some FLs, I've never done a FA and I'm never sure which styles are actually the "proper" ones because you see so many different ways of doing things in various articles. So its really good to know by seeing someone else's edits. Miyagawa (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's not really a "proper" way to do things, other than keeping consistent within the article. It does look better if we follow standard conventions from various style manuals where our MOS is silent.
  • Support—at this time, I'm willing to support promotion of the article. Any additional polishing that other reviewers may suggest would be minor, and the article meets the criteria at this time, IMHO. Imzadi 1979 → 23:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk page
  • Support on prose. Glad to see your recent burst of Star Trek articles is putting forth some really good ones. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I've read over the comments by Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) regarding some of my points, above, and I've reconsidered them. I respect the judgment of Imzadi1979 on this content decision, and therefore there's really nothing left holding me back from supporting the article for FA promotion. Excellent efforts all around. — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments -- First FAC, Miyagawa? If so, a belated welcome on behalf of the delegates... ;-) I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, which I'll request at WT:FAC unless one of the reviewers above would like to give it a go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well - fourth attempt. :) First two didn't really have a chance, it was a couple of years ago when I wasn't as experienced with referencing as now, and the third one was only recently which wasn't promoted due to a lack of support. However the prose on this is much better than those previous nominations and the referencing is stronger too. Miyagawa (talk) 12:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source spot-check:

  • Ref 3a, fails verification. p. 13 of Nemecek doesn't support that the Macha Hernandez character was supposed to be "tactical officer".
  • Ref 4a, OK.
  • Ref 4b, OK.
  • Ref 14: The article reads "forebear" which doesn't necessarily mean "grandmother". It could mean any ancestor. Are you sure this is accurate?
  • Ref 15, OK.

--Laser brain (talk) 12:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've changed grandmother to ancestor which is more in line with forebear. I've seen it mentioned on enough sites that she was portraying Tasha's grandmother but I wouldn't call any of those reliable for FA purposes and so have simply rectified it to make it more in line with the generality of the source. I'm going to check the Nemecek source this evening as I've probably just cited the wrong page. Miyagawa (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I ended up checking pretty much straight away as it was bugging me. I've managed to sort it - basically the text is correct, but I'd put a cite in the wrong place. So in "Concept and development" cite 2a has been moved to the end of the sentence as that is the cite (page 15 of the Nemecek source) which shows that Hernandez was first given the position of tactical officer. For that sentence, 3a is simply citing the full name (which is on page 13, as page 15 only refers to her by her first name). Page 13 specifically lists her as the security chief which is covered by 3b. Phew. I thought I'd properly messed something up then! Miyagawa (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [11].Reply[reply]

Ringo Starr[edit]

Nominator(s): GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be well-written, well-researched and comprehensive. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Cassianto[edit]

Glad to see this making the set. This will take a few visits and I will do the lede last.

  • Thanks much for making the effort, Cassianto. I appreciate your input and will attempt to resolve your concerns. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:05, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lead section

I think the lede is OK but not great. In terms of length, yes we have the four paragraphs, however I think there is too much detail in terms of his medical conditions. I think this will need to be cut to just saying "Starr was twice afflicted by life-threatening illnesses during his childhood, and as a result of prolonged hospitalisations, fell behind scholastically." I don't feel naming the conditions is particularly helpful unless it effected him and his career later in life. I also worry that we don't talk too much of his later solo career. There doesn't appear to be any later albums mentioned, or quotes from critics. I think this will need a reworking. I have made a few edits, but didn't want to do anything too heavy.

Thanks for the excellent review User:Cassianto! I've now trimmed out the excess detail regarding Starr's childhood health problems, but I'm not too certain about expanding on his solo career beyond this summary: "After their break-up in 1970, he released several successful singles and albums and recorded with each of the former Beatles." He had three significant hits (written or co-written with others) and after 1974 there isn't too much for any strong notability music wise; perhaps I'm missing something here, so please feel free to talk some sense into me if I'm wrong! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thats ok Gabe, I have enjoyed the review. I think the lede is now fine. I think mentioning the fact he did have a solo career is the more important thing here...I must admit Ringo's solo hits don't exactly spring to mind! What do you think about the idea of adding a quote from a Beatles critic about Starr's role within the group? -- CassiantoTalk 10:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What do you think of this? The quote isn't from a music critic per se, but it is from a respected drummer and I think it speaks to the point well. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that's better. I like that, nice addition. -- CassiantoTalk 23:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early life
1940–1956
  • Is it encyclopaedic to mention what room he was born in?
  • Why is the fact he was born a month after the Dunkirk evacuation relevent?
  • "Within weeks, while lying in bed recuperating, Elsie heard sirens indicating that the Luftwaffe's bombing of Liverpool and the Second World War's Battle of Britain had begun." -- recuperating from what, and why is the war relevent?
  • "...at the local ballroom circuit" or on the local ballroom circuit?
  • Why do we link the Beatles in the lede, but not on first mention within the body? Also, is it The Beatles as the article suggests or just Beatles?
  • I'm not sure of the term "days on end". It sounds a bit euphemistic.
  • "In 1944, in an effort to reduce their housing costs, his family moved to 10 Admiral Grove..." -- Where is that?
  • "...;soon after, his parents separated; they divorced within the year." Not sure of the second semi-colon. Could we do away with it in favour of a conjunction?
  • "He later stated that he has "no real memories" of his father, who made little effort to bond with him, visiting "Ritchie" as few as three times thereafter..." -- Starr will need to be mentioned by name as it is a new paragraph. Failing that, could this para be combined with the first, for aesthetic reasons?
  • Redundent use of "labour".
  • "Where is Myrtle Street Children's hospital?
  • I think referring to him as Starkey may become confusing. I would refer to him as his Starr from the start as it is the name he was known for.
  • "Skipping class" →playing truant (it sounds less slangy).
  • neighbor should have the English spelling
  • Is ""Bedtime for Drums" a book? If so, it should be in Itals. If it isn't, we should be clearer as to what it is.
  • Do we really need to link mechanics?
  • "...coal-fueled neighborhood" watch for American/English spelling of neighbourhood.
  • "After his return from the sanatorium in late 1955, Starkey entered the workforce..." -- What, at the sanatorium?
  • "In an effort to secure for himself some warm clothes
  • "...he briefly held a position with British Rail" →"...he briefly held a position at British Rail".
  • "Trafford introduced Starkey to skiffle, and he quickly became a fervent admirer of the genre". Suggest redundancy of "the genre".
  • I think this section could do with an image. How does this grab you?
  • "Elsie was known for her beautiful singing voice..." -- POV unless it was quoted by somebody.
First bands
1957–1961
  • "neighbor" →BritEng
  • "guitarist Eddie Miles" → definite article would be better as this sounds a bit tabloidy.
  • "took lessons at two schools" -- Dance schools?
  • Do we need to link drum kit?
  • "Although basic and crude, the kit facilitated his progression as a musician..." -- Who, Starr or Graves?
  • "In November 1959 he joined Al Caldwell's Texans..." -- Introduction would be helpful here; ie, which genre did the perform in?
  • Why do we link "Liverpool Landmark" and not "Clayton Squares", bearing in mind the link takes us to Clayton Square?
  • "...that Graves had secured for him four years earlier... ." Redundant I'm afraid.
  • I'm not sure about the use of the word "gig". It sounds too formal. Might I suggest "performance"?
  • "Starr performed with them during a few stand-in engagements while in Hamburg, and on 15 October 1960 he drummed with John Lennon, Paul McCartney and George Harrison, recording with them for the first time while backing Hurricanes' singer Lu Walters on the George Gershwin aria, "Summertime". -- That's one long sentence, suggest splitting somewhere.
  • "During his first stay in Hamburg..." -- Who? We mention about 5 or 6 people in the previous sentence?
  • "...he also met Tony Sheridan, who valued Starr's drumming abilities to the point of asking him to leave the Hurricanes and join his band." Which were who?
With the Beatles
1962–1970
After the Beatles
1970s
  • "On 10 April 1970, McCartney publicly announced that he had quit the Beatles. Starr released two albums before the end of that year: Sentimental Journey, comprising his renditions of many pre-rock standards which included musical arrangements by Quincy Jones, Maurice Gibb, George Martin and McCartney, and the country-inspired Beaucoups of Blues, which featured renowned Nashville session musician Pete Drake."
  • "Goodnight Vienna followed in 1974 and was also successful, earning Starr another top-ten hit with his cover of the Platters."
  • "Starr played drums on Lennon's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (1970) and Yoko Ono's Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band (1970), and on Harrison's albums All Things Must Pass (1970) and Living in the Material World (1973)." -- Do we need the first conjunction?
  • I think we need to elaborate a little when saying "a US number 4". Three things: Any further "a US number 4's et al can be named as such, but an introduction such as "Reached number four in the American charts" would be preferable upon first mention; 4 →needs to be four and What were the charts called at this time?
    • Fixed. While the sources are clear that the primary US chart is Billboard, due to the fact that multiple charts existed in the UK at the time, the RSs tend to be a bit vague about exactly which chart they are referring to. I use a Guinness source for UK hits, but they do not delineate whether an album or song peaked on the BBC, Disk, Melody Maker, NME, Record Mirror or Record Retailer charts. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:23, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Number 2, Number 1 and Number 4 need to be two, one and four.
  • "In 1973 he released Ringo" -- New para, new noun.
  • US number 3 →three
  • number 5 →five
  • "...consecutive hittop-ten, and "Oh My My", a US number 5. Goodnight Vienna followed in 1974 and was also successful, earning Starr another top-ten hit... ."
1980s
  • Overlink to Yoko Ono
  • "... a Britt Allcroft production based on the books by Reverend Awdry that was first shown on Central Television." -- Redundant.
  • " In 1985 he performed with his son Zak Starkey..." -- I would pipe the link here to just Zak.
  • "In 1987, Starr..." Why the comma? Just above it says "In 1985 he performed..." Needs to be consistent.
1990s
  • "...marking the 10th anniversary of John Lennon's death and the 50th anniversary of his birth." -- whose birth? Lennon or Starr?
  • program →programme
  • "McCartney had written a song about Starr's deceased ex-wife Maureen Starkey Tigrett..." -- Oh, Starr was already married? This was the first mention of this. I see later, it is mentioned in the personal life section, but the fact he met and married Maureen should be chronologically within the body somewhere if we are going to mention her death.
  • was the comma in "Really Love You," part of the title?
  • Was it credited to McCartney/Starkey or credited to McCartney/Starr?
  • Why is "partnership" in quotes?
2000s
  • The first para has no ending citation.
  • Overlink to Mark Hudson
  • (The album's production credits read, "Produced by Ringo Starr and Mark Hudson; Re-Produced by Ringo Starr and David Stewart." All of the songs but one were written with (or by?) members of the Roundheads, although Stewart also has several co-writing credits.) -- Could this be moved to a footnote?
  • "...told journalist Peter Palmiere" -- Definite article would sound better.
  • "According to Palmiere, Hudson now claims..." -- past tense preferable.
  • as per earlier, check correct formatting of chart positions.
  • Overlink for Thomas the Tank Engine.
2010
Influences
Drumming
Singing
  • "Starr sang lead vocals for a song on most of the Beatles' studio albums as part of an attempt to establish the vocal personality of all four members." →"Starr sang lead vocals for a song on most of the Beatles' studio albums as part of an attempt to establish the same vocal personality as the other members."?
    • Hmmm, don't think they each have the same vocal personality. Changed to "...establish a vocal personality for each band member." GoingBatty (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "He also is the lead vocalist..." →"He is also the lead vocalist..."
  • OVERLINK surely of all the songs in this section?
  • I would move "Good Night" to before "What Goes On".
Composition
  • "Starr's idiosyncratic turns of phrase, or Ringoisms as they became known, such as a hard day's night and tomorrow never knows, were used as song titles by the Beatles, particularly John Lennon." → "Starr's idiosyncratic turns of phrase, or Ringoisms as they became known, such as a hard day's night and tomorrow never knows, were used as song titles by the Beatles, particularly by John Lennon."
  • The first para is lacking an ending citation.
  • So is the second.
Personal life
  • What was the cause of the divorce?
  • Is mentioning the fact he was left handed and a vegetarian really encyclopaedic?
    • Fixed. (The fact that he's a left handed drummer is covered earlier.) GoingBatty (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awards and recognition
  • "In the Queen's Birthday Honours of 12 June 1965..." Is this the correct name for this? The "1965 Birthday Honours" would be accurate.
  • Do we need to link Buckingham Palace?
  • Surely an OVERLINK of A Hard Day's Night?
  • "The minor planet 4150 Starr, discovered on 31 August 1984 by Brian A. Skiff at the Anderson Mesa Station of the Lowell Observatory, was named in his honour." -- Whose honour? Skiff or Starr? Obvious I know, but the last name mentioned was Skiff.
  • OVERLINK to Shining Time Station.
  • What was star inducted into the hall of fame for in 1988?
  • Forced link for Giles Martin. Perhaps say: "During the 50th Grammy Awards, Starr, George Martin and his son Giles..."
Films
  • "By the mid-1960s, Starr had become a connoisseur of films" -- Using "films" suggests that he was a film buff. "Film" on the otherhand would suggest he was a connoisseur of the film industry (which I suspect is correct).
  • "In addition to his roles in the Beatles' A Hard Day's Night (1964), Help! (1965), Magical Mystery Tour (1967), Yellow Submarine (1968) and Let It Be (1970)" -- Redundency of "the Beatles".
  • Why do we credit (and OVERLINK) Sellers?
  • OVERLINK to the Who
  • "He starred as Larry the Dwarf in Frank Zappa's 200 Motels (1971)" -- A bit stubby; could this be combined somewhere?
  • "He co-starred..." -- Noun rather than pronoun as it is a new para.

I enjoyed that. I will give another read through to check again and add any further comments into the relevant sections on this review. --CassiantoTalk 22:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support — Sorry for the delay. This appears to be a well referenced, well written and comprehensive. All of my concerns have been satisfactorily answered, and I fully endorse this articles elevation to FA status. -- CassiantoTalk 09:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comments by Lemonade51[edit]

  • "...input being minimized during", given that this is an entry about a British subject, the spelling perhaps should conform to British English. So the bit-in-bold must be minimised?
  • BBC One could be linked under "...performed a duet with Cilla Black, "Do you Like Me Just a Little Bit?" on her BBC1 television programme, Cilla"
  • Ref 154's location is not UK, but London.
  • Where's the retrieval date for Ref 162?
  • Ref 203 showcases the 2013 Rich List, not 2011. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from SchroCat[edit]

I'll also pop by and review shortly. A few bits of duplicate linking jump out at me for a very quick look:

Fixed all. GoingBatty (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correction: GabeMc and I worked on this at the same time, and his edit beat mine. GoingBatty (talk) 23:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the help User:GoingBatty. I didn't know that AWB fixes overlinking! I always wondered why we had to do that manually and by eye, which I'm not great at. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After my edit conflict with you, I decided to run the article through AWB to see if it would catch anything else. The only thing it found were the duplicate links that SchroCat mentioned. AWB will identify duplicate links, but the user has to select which links should be removed. GoingBatty (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm also wondering why these particular albums are shown in the Discography section? Are these his own solo works? Just a word or two of explanation to highlight why this selection may help, (before a drive-by editor starts adding a few Beatles albums to the list!). More to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed. GoingBatty (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early life

  • "Elsie was known for her singing, and for her love of dancing". By who – and is their opinion worth anything? Why not say she enjoyed singing and dancing?
  • "Twice afflicted by life-threatening illnesses during his childhood": are one of these illnesses the appendicitis and peritonitis you go on to describe? If so, then the section I've quoted adds nothing and should be removed
  • "Upon his release in": sounds like a prison! Perhaps on his discharge?
  • "At age eight, he had remained illiterate": "he remained" should work just as well
  • "with a less than poor grasp of mathematics": why not just "with a poor grasp of mathematics"?
  • Odd to jump from his 11-plus back to primary school and then on to secondary school. Perhaps the primary should come first in the narrative?
  • "Spitz described Starr's upbringing": who is Spitz?

All for now: more to follow - SchroCat (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First bands

With the Beatles

  • "Martin clarified": did he clarify later, or to Starr?
  • "central character in the movie": it's only a minor thing, but "film" is more in keeping with BrEng
  • sort of connected to the previous one, but in BrEng there are no "movie projectors": they are film projectors

After the Beatles

  • I'm surprised you don't cover the UK charts for his releases, and only focus on the US chart. In '73 "Photograph" reached no 8 in the UK charts, but no mention, for example. Prior to that he had "It Don't Come Easy" at number 4 in the UK chart in '71 and "Back Off Boogaloo" reached number 2 in '72. For ease of reference for you, the Official Charts Company's archives for Starr can be found here.
  • "released Ringo's Rotogravure, album": "an album"?
  • "peaking at number 162 on the charts": I'm presuming that, as all the others have been, you refer to the US charts only again?

1990s

Will complete the final batch in a day or so. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks much SchroCat! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:31, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final batch 2000s

  • This is a tricky one, as it’s a trap I fall into as well and can never see a clean way round it, but the paras start as:
"In 2002, ..."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In 2003 and 2004, ..."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In 2005, ..."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In January 2008, ..."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"On 4 April 2009, ..."
Done. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It makes the whole section feel a bit listy and I'd suggest breaking it up a bit.

That's it. The rest reads fine for now, but I'll give the whole thing another spin through shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support My comments all dealt with. Nice work. - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check[edit]

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

  • Background check for Flickr images shows no signs of problems. GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Jimknut[edit]

Support — Looks good. My only other suggestion would be to consider adding one or more audio samples of Ringo's singing and drum playing. Although not really needed it might make the article a little more polished. Jimknut (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Evanh2008[edit]

Starting a review here. I should have more later today, and I hope to finish up by Friday.

Lead:

  • "Soon after" should probably be "soon afterward." "After" can be an adverb, but is more familiar as a preposition, so this probably reads better.
  • "In 1955" lacks a comma following it but "In 1957" has one. Either style is okay, just so long as you're consistent.
  • Probably could drop "Germany" following "Hamburg." This came up during the Harrison FAC, if I remember correctly (and that was in the article body).

Everything else looks good.

Early life:

  • "commonly known by his stage name Ringo Starr" could probably be dropped, since the origin of the stage name is covered in the next section.
  • I don't think "free time" should be hyphenated unless it occurs before a noun ("free-time activities," for example).
  • Wikilink Bob Spitz.
  • Maybe "false impression" could just be "impression"? I guess we're not really in a position to judge whether that impression would have been false or not, though he certainly wasn't in great health.

Very few problems here. Nice work, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:38, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Evan! Nice to see you around and thanks for taking the time and making the effort to provide a review! Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, Gabe! The article is in great condition; much better than the last time I read through it. I see a support looming on the horizon. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First bands:

  • "Soon after Trafford had piqued" - Don't think this needs to be past perfect. Simple past should do.
  • "In May they were offered" - Comma style. Add one, I guess, to match with the "In 19xx" sentences.
  • "Hurricanes' singer Lu Walters" - I would remove the apostrophe. "Hurricanes" is descriptive enough without making it possessive.
  • The comma after "aria" isn't needed.

With the Beatles:

  • "whose car tires had been flattened by them" - Maybe simplify to "whose car tires they had flattened"?
  • Also, "tire" should, I think, be "tyre" to comport with British spelling.
  • Not a big deal, but perhaps it's worth noting that, for whatever reason (not sure if Martin's rationale has been covered elsewhere), the versions of "Love Me Do" and "P.S. I Love You" with Andy White made it to the album, even though Ringo was on the single.
  • "receiving an equal amount of fanmail as the others" ---> "receiving an amount of fanmail equal to that of the others". Does that flow better? "Equal... as" just seems like an awkward construction to me.
  • "make him ill', soon after a provoked Best" - Is this a comma splice, or was Ringo's comment in fact delivered after the lawsuit was filed?
  • "worked on his guitar playing, he commented" - This one's definitely a comma splice.
  • "had been covered in flowers" - Another almost non-issue, but I remember originally being under the impression that this was entirely George [Harrison]'s doing. I can't remember if some sources might disagree? If no one contests the idea that George was responsible for the flowers, maybe add that bit of info, but otherwise don't worry.
    • According to Lewisohn, the flowers were arranged by Mal Evans. The only source that I know of that gives sole credit to Harrison is the Living in the Material World documentary. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After the Beatles:

  • Just a personal preference, but I would mention that Paul played on Ringo's version of "You're Sixteen". It was a rare collaboration between the two in the 1970s (I can't even think of another one off the top of my head, unless there was something else on the Ringo album I'm forgetting).
  • "Lennon had offered a pair of songs for use on the album" - I think you forgot to mention which album. :)
  • Check "Following Lennon's murder in 1980" and "In 1985 he performed" for comma style.
  • "the animated program, The Simpsons, episode 'Brush with Greatness'" - I would shorten this to "The Simpsons episode 'Brush with Greatness'", though I can see the argument for keeping the introductory phrase in place. Either way, the pair of commas surrounding "The Simpsons" needs to go.
  • Jeff Lynne's first name is given twice in the second paragraph of the 1990s section. Since he's named several times in the surrounding prose, I think just the surname should be fine.
  • "In 1994 Starr" - Comma again.
  • Wikilink "Beatles Anthology".
  • "What Goes On" is linked under "Composition" but not under "Singing," which predcedes that section.
  • Link Christmas Time (Is Here Again) and 12-Bar Original.

Personal life:

  • "Soon after" ---> "Soon afterward", as above.
  • Referring to Maureen as "Tigrett" seems a bit odd, since that wasn't her name after the marriage (at least prior to the divorce). I would suggest referring to her as "Maureen" after she's been introduced, much as was done at Paul McCartney with most references to Linda.

Awards and recognition:

Films:

  • You may want to reword the bit about The Last Waltz, as I think the current wording could be read to imply that the film was a drama rather than a music documentary.
  • "in the McCartney's Give My Regards to Broad Street in 1984" - Probably just "McCartney's", minus the "the"?

More to come shortly... Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And that's all! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All resolved! Thanks Evan! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Drive-by comments by Wasted Time R[edit]

I looked at this article when reviewing several first paragraphs of leads, and thought the lead had some issues, and when I went to the Talk page, I saw this was in FAC, so I'm not doing a review ... but thought I would discuss the lead here.

  • MOS:BEGIN says "The first paragraph should define the topic ... but without being overly specific." But the first paragraph here dives into excessive detail that does not belong in the lead at all. The only two Beatles songs that need inclusion in the lead as ones he sang on are "Yellow Submarine" (the only big hit single he sang on) and "With a Little Help From My Friends" (easily the most famous of the rest, and the one that he builds his concerts up to). What the lead should also say is that he generally got one song to sing per album.
    • I disagree; this is your personal opinion and not an actionable objection, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • None of Ringo's songwriting efforts need to be mentioned in the lead. The five songs being listed in the first paragraph range from somewhat known album tracks to near-obscurities ("Dig It"!?). In the scheme of things, Ringo's Beatles-era songwriting should be mentioned in the article body, but it never had enough significance to be in the lead.
    • I disagree; this is your personal opinion and not an actionable objection, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The biggest contributions that Ringo made to the Beatles after his drumming were in terms of his personality. The fact that all four Beatles had visibly different personalities was a big key to their success, and Ringo's element was vital. Ringo's extended "walking along the canal" sequence in A Hard Day's Night alone (which unfortunately isn't even mentioned directly in the article text, although it is alluded to) was a bigger contribution to the Beatles than any song he ever wrote.
    • I disagree; this is your personal opinion and not an actionable objection, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why is there a long quote about Ringo's drumming from a relatively unknown musician in the lead? While the first part of it is apt, I'm not sure about the last - while he may be able to identify Beatles songs solely from the drum part, I doubt most listeners could except in a few cases.
    • I disagree; this is your personal opinion and not an actionable objection, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Also, although it doesn't affect the lead, the "Drumming" section should really include Lewisohn's finding after listening to a zillion hours of Beatles sessions tapes that only a handful of times had takes been stopped because of Ringo mistakes. He may not have been technically proficient, but he was consistent ...
    • The bit from Lewisohn regarding Starr's consistency was not properly sourced. I own all of Lewisohn's books and I cannot locate a page number for that passage. If you know the page number I will restore the bit. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's in the original The Beatles Recording Sessions Harmony Books 1988 ISBN 0-517-57066-1, page 95, the 3 February 1967 entry, which finishes with Lewisohn writing: "It is true that on only a handful of occasions during all of the several hundred session tapes and thousand of recording hours can Ringo be heard to have made a mistake or wavered in his beat. His work was remarkably consistent – and excellent – from 1962 right through to 1970." Wasted Time R (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey thanks, Wasted! If you only knew how long a searched for that page number while copyediting this article. Its a great point that adds quite a bit. I appreciate the tip! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:19, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead (and the article text) gives too little attention to Ringo's acting. The lead could name a couple where he got his best notices, such as That'll Be The Day.
    • I disagree; this is your personal opinion and not an actionable objection, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:14, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The lead should have a little more on his early-mid 1970s solo successes. I would mention three hits - "It Don't Come Easy", "Photograph", and "You're Sixteen" - as they were his biggest (looking at combined US and UK chart success as well as how often they are played now). Certainly these songs are all more important and well known than "Flying"! I would also mention the Ringo album, a top ten in both countries and clearly his biggest seller.
  • The lead should also mention that his record sales dried up after that, but segue from there into the mention of his All-Starr tours, which have been reasonably successful. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments and support from Tim riley[edit]

Support Comments A few very minor quibbles and one rather big one:

  • Early life: 1940–1956
    • In this section you sometimes call him "Starkey" and sometimes "Starr". I think you'd best be consistent.
      • Done. I think I've changed them all now so that he is referred to as Starkey until the introduction of his stage name, Ringo Starr. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • With the Beatles: 1962–1970
    • "having honed his technique to a level previously thought unattainable in the UK" – are we talking about his dancing skills here? If so this seems a far-fetched claim.
    • "During an interview with Playboy magazine in 1964 …" – are you not repeating a libel here? I think lawyers might have a view on this. Mr Best is still alive, after all.
  • 1980s
    • "to their slain former bandmate"" – slain strikes a rather quaint note; as you've said earlier in the sentence that Lennon was murdered I'd be inclined to leave this as "to their former bandmate"
    • "books by Reverend Awdry – a solecism in British usage (I think it is acceptable in US usage). You ought to say "books by the Rev W Awdry"
    • "In October 1988 … receiving a six-week treatment for alcoholism" – October and November, presumably
  • 1990s
    • "and—in his final appearance on a Starr album before his death" – which invites the question how many appearances he made after his death

An excellent piece of work. I'd be supporting straight away if it were not for the libel point, above. Can someone who knows about such things reassure me? – Tim riley (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your encouragement, Tim riley! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Later: a wikicolleague who is a lawyer in real life has reassured me that my concerns on the libel point are needless. I am happy therefore to support this excellent article. It covers all relevant points, as far as I can tell, without going into excessive detail; the prose is clear and readable; there is no evidence of bias. I avoid commenting on images if I can, but as for the text I think this article meets the FA criteria. The nominator may like to ponder the few minor points I raise above, but my support is not conditional thereon. – Tim riley (talk) 15:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the kind words and support! I've addressed your above concerns. Thanks for the review! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John's comments[edit]

I started to examine this and stopped when I came to "A critically acclaimed actor, Starr played key roles in the Beatles' films and appeared in numerous others"; this seems a bit peacocky, especially the "critcally acclaimed". I'll give a fuller review but this wasn't a good start. --John (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree and I've removed the text-string: "A critically acclaimed actor". Thanks for making the time to take a look! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review from Laser brain[edit]

  • At least one web source has a publisher and others don't. Please fill them in as appropriate.
    • I believe I've fixed this now, but my eyes aren't the best at this type of stuff, so I may have missed one or two. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Clayson and the Whitburn books' edition information doesn't match the formatting of the others. The problem exists in several of the citations as well.
  • You write the publisher for the four Harry books in three different ways—it's all the same publisher (Virgin or Virgin Books).

--Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose review by Binksternet[edit]

  • Following the "gentleness" quote about Harry, the next sentence should return the reader to Starkey rather than using only "his" and "he".
  • I don't know the two sources for "irrational fear of conscription". How solid are these? It is an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary confirmation. If the sources are not so strong, then the word irrational should be removed.
    • Done. The sources are quite clear that his fear was irrational due to his history of poor health, but I've removed the word nonetheless for brevity/clarity. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following this bit –"In mid-1956, Graves secured" – the instances of "he" are not so clearly referring to Starkey; they could be misconstrued as Graves.
  • The Clayton Squares landmark sentence has two instances of the word later. One could be changed to a synonym to reduce the clunkiness.
  • Starkey and Trafford took dance lessons, but what about this activity "proved effective"? Some explication is needed, or a removal.
  • The lead section has this bit of information: "...before the fad succumbed to American rock and roll by early 1958." Thus, the "First bands" section wording of "before the UK skiffle craze succumbed to American rock and roll by early 1958" sounds terribly repetitious. The second instance should be sufficiently modified.
  • Really, the bit about skiffle changing to rock and roll belongs in the next paragraph, where Starkey is hired by Caldwell.
    • As it now reads, the text string is a segue from 1958 to 1959. Also, since the sentence is about the Eddie Clayton band I think it should remain in the paragraph about that band, not the Hurricanes. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The change from Starkey to Starr is clumsy. A sentence should not end "soon before recruiting Starr" until we are told about the new name. The actual Starkey/Starr sentence is too long, with two semicolons. I think it should be split.
    • Done. Yeah, I missed a premature Starr, but its now fixed, as is the long sentence. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following a mention of the French people, the next sentence says "They became so successful..." The subject should be made clear that it is about the Hurricanes and not the French.
  • Following a discussion of the Beatles and the Hurricanes, we have the sentence "Starr performed with them", which is not clear regarding which band. Binksternet (talk) 17:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The section "With the Beatles" starts with a sentence mentioning the Hurricanes and Rory Storm at two different points. This is confusing to the reader who might not remember that the two names refer to the same band.
  • The following sentence is kind of strange with he thought: I commented sounding like two different sentence fragments. They do not flow well... I think Starr's quote could be truncated and summarized. Here's what is currently in the article: "He commented: "I thought, 'That's the end, they're doing a Pete Best on me.'"
    How about this instead? He thought he was being eased out of the band, that "they're doing a Pete Best on me."
    • Fixed, I think. Your suggestion uses a subordinating conjunction to introduce a direct quote, which is something to avoid. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Calling the album track "With a Little Help from My Friends" Starr Time is confusing, as Starr is not given a drum solo with a spotlight(!) on the vinyl album. It certainly is a song featuring Starr's voice – no question – but not really Starr Time in the manner of the Hurricanes, or in the manner of a Beatles live show with a drum solo highlight.
  • In the context of making the Pepper album I see no reason to name those who covered the song "With a Little Help from My Friends". Also, it is not first "an Australian number one single". Rather, it is first a song written by Lennon and McCartney for Starr to sing, a fact that is lost. The named artists and the Australian chart position are distractions at this point in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In-prose dashes need streamlining. In one place, the spaced en dash is used for sentence interruption, while other such instances are covered by the em dash and the non-MOS spaced em dash. Select either the em dash or the spaced en dash and stick with it. Binksternet (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I will check the article and make consistent. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I could only find two examples and I fixed them, but if you can point me to any others I might have missed I would appreciate the help! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments -- It doesn't appear to me that there are any outstanding comments but, John, were you still planning to review? FWIW, you picked up the only statement in the lead that concerned me on a quick scan a few days ago, and Gabe's actioned, so that helped... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from The Wookieepedian[edit]

The solo section begins with "On 10 April 1970, McCartney publicly announced that he had quit the Beatles". Since Lennon was the one who actually split the band in late 1969 (which was also when Ringo started recording his first solo album), I think it should be changed to reflect that, and was wondering if anyone can find a source. The Wookieepedian (talk) 09:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • At the end of the section on the Beatles the article states: "Following a business meeting on 20 September 1969, Lennon told the others that he had quit the Beatles.[110]" Then the first sentence of the 1970s: "On 10 April 1970, McCartney publicly announced that he had quit the Beatles.[111]" GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another thing

Someone needs to fix the sentence claiming the "No No Song" single was from Ringo. It was from Goodnight Vienna. The source given must have been mistaken. The Wookieepedian (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A few things, from JG66[edit]

I've been meaning to add some comments here for a while but have been too busy to contribute to wikipedia. Don't want to hold things up – I can see the FAC's close to being wrapped up. Besides, the article really is in good shape – it is such a pleasure reading those Early life, First bands and With the Beatles sections. The text flows beautifully, whereas I know I've been vocal in the past regarding what I see as too much of a list-like quality in other Beatles FAs. Not this time!

My only concern with the early sections here is how much detail, or rather, amount of text, is given over to discussion of Starr's life up to 1970 at the expense of his solo career during the 1970s. I think it comes down to there being too many quotes from Starr; at times it seems as if a point is made in the text, followed by an obligatory quote from Ringo, especially during the Beatles years. Examples that come to mind are "In a letter published in Melody Maker, a fan asked the Beatles to let Starr sing more; he replied: "[I am] quite happy with my one little track on each album".", "... he did not include a drum kit, Starr explained: "When we don't record, I don't play"." and "During his down-time Starr worked on his guitar playing; he commented: "I jump into chords that no one seems to get into. Most of the stuff I write is twelve-bar"." To me those details are all a bit excessive anyway, but losing them would certainly remove that overuse of quotes issue, in my opinion.

This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aside from that, almost all of my comments concern the first two decades of the Solo career section. As I say, I think that suffers quite a bit after the attention lavished on the earlier sections.

This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1970s
  • The Wookieepedian beat me to it regarding "No No Song" ... Another thing to point out, relevant to the sentence that follows in the article, is "No No Song" was never released as a single in the UK; "Snookeroo" was the second single from Goodnight Vienna there (and it failed to chart).
    • According to Bill Harry, "No No Song" was released as the A-side to "Snookerroo" in the US where it reached number three; Billboard confirms this. The article does not claim that "NNS" was released as a single in the UK. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, but that's only because you've rephrased the relevant sentence while addressing the error re "No No Song" being a single from Ringo. Beforehand, when I wrote my comment, the text didn't explicitly claim that NNS was issued as a UK single, but it was certainly implied: 'The LP yielded two hits, "No No Song", which was a US number three and Starr's seventh consecutive top-ten hit, and "Oh My My", a US number five.[120] While both songs failed to chart in the UK, ...' It's fine now of course. JG66 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While it's quite correct that "Oh My My" also missed the charts in the UK, its release as a single there came two years after Ringo. Because the 1975 single had nothing to do with promotion for its parent studio album, I think you could delete the mention. Instead it might be worth pointing out that the song was written by Starr and Vince Poncia, because the latter was Ringo's songwriting partner for much of the 1970s, so that way, it at least gives Poncia a presence in the article.
    • This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. Also, the song was released as a single in the US in February 1974, three months after the Ringo album was released. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you've missing the point: the song was never issued as a UK single in 1973–74; I was talking about the December 1975 (UK) single, "Oh My My" backed with "No No Song". This single, mixing a track from Ringo with one from Goodnight Vienna, was obviously designed to promote Starr's best-of comp (nothing to do with promotion for its parent studio album, in other words). That's why the text "While the single failed to chart in the UK ..." seemed/seems redundant, imo. Anyway, I'm not bothered either way. JG66 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, I get the point and I am aware that the song saw multiple release configurations as did others. I just do not see this as an especially important detail to the biography of Starr. This seems to me a bit of detail that is better suited for the song article. When we pump these bios full of excess release detail it begins to read more as a discography than a biography, IMO. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still think we may have crossed wires on this. Are you thinking I'm suggesting you add something here? I'm suggesting the opposite, in fact. The relevant (excerpted) text in the article reads: 'In November 1973, Starr released Ringo ... The LP yielded the hit song, "Oh My My", a US number five that was Starr's fifth consecutive top-ten hit.[120] While the single failed to chart in the UK, the LP reached number seven there and number two in the US.' So my suggestion is to remove 'While the single failed to chart in the UK' altogether, because "Oh My My" was only issued as a single in the UK in the context of promotion for Blast from Your Past. It seems inaccurate to comment on its lack of UK chart success in a discussion on Ringo therefore. I'm not bothered whether you decide to keep it in, I just want to ensure the point I'm making is understood. JG66 (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, you're right. I missed your point; thanks for that catch. Hopefully this edit resolves your concern. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 03:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great. Thank you! JG66 (talk) 03:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 1973, he released two number one hits in the US: "Photograph", a UK number eight hit that was co-written with Harrison, and "You're Sixteen" ..." Firstly, is it correct to say that someone released a number one hit – better: "released two singles that became number one hits in the US"? Also, it seems that this and the next sentence belong in the following para, after "In late 1973, Starr released Ringo, a commercially successful album produced by Richard Perry ..." With the mention of "No No Song" now having to move, there should be an ideal place to move text regarding "Photograph" and "You're Sixteen", to sit with discussion on the album's third single, "Oh My My".
  • I know Evan suggested McCartney's kazoo part on "You're Sixteen" might be worth pointing out, but I can't help thinking that Starr bringing together Lennon and Harrison on "I'm the Greatest" is worthy of inclusion instead (that is, if a choice needs to be made). The session for "Greatest" was a significant moment, being the first time more than two Beatles had recorded together since January 1970. And it could only have happened on a Ringo album ...
  • "Goodnight Vienna followed in 1974 and was also successful, reaching number 30 in the UK ..." I'd qualify that it was successful in the US (number 8, I think?) – not just because that's more reflective of "successful" than a number 30 placing, but also, the album and its singles didn't do too well in the UK. The UK albums chart was just a top 40 then, and Goodnight Vienna lasted two weeks on the chart, I believe.
  • "The commercial impact of Starr's recording career subsequently diminished ..." I wonder if it might be an idea to introduce Starr's alcoholism here, rather than leaving it until the late 1980s, when he and Barbara finally sought treatment. Biographers (I'm sure Doggett's one, Rodriguez also) correlate his lack of success as a solo artist with his carousing with Nilsson, Keith Moon, etc.
    • This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. Also, the article contains several mentions of his issues with drinking, from blacking-out at age 8 through to detox in the 1980s. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Further up in the same section: "Starr played drums on Lennon's John Lennon/Plastic Ono Band (1970), Ono's Yoko Ono/Plastic Ono Band (1970), and on Harrison's albums All Things Must Pass (1970) and Living in the Material World (1973)." He also played on George's Dark Horse if we're looking to provide a complete list of guest appearances on 1970s albums by his fellow ex-Beatles? Alternatively, if the idea is simply to name a few notable albums Starr appears on, it might be an idea to mention Nilsson's "Son of Schmilsson" and (perhaps) "Pussy Cats", Nilsson being closely involved with Ringo throughout the 1970s, of course.
    • This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. Again, your near obsession with mentioning every single musician Starr has ever worked with in the last 50+ years. I don't like overstuffing these article the way that you do and I won't go back and forth with you ala the Harrison FAC. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Towards the end of the section: "This inspired Polydor to revamp Starr's formula ..." I think this mention calls for some comment on Starr's previous formula – it wasn't just a change musically that Starr made with producer Arif Mardin for Ringo the 4th, but a (temporary) ditching of the all-star-cast approach that had been a feature of his first three rock solo albums. The issue of Ringo's reliance on his fellow former Beatles (Harrison, for instance, also co-wrote and produced "Back Off Boogaloo"), and other songwriter friends such as Nilsson and Elton John, is not touched on in the article, yet it's one that critics and biographers unfailingly notice. (The All-Starr Band being a full realisation of the "with a little help from my friends" concept.) To my understanding, that's a vital aspect of Starr's solo career, especially in the first decade post-Beatles. And if the point doesn't get presented early in the section, perhaps after Beaucoups of Blues or during discussion of Ringo, then a good place would be here, when the formula gets revamped.
1980s
  • First para. It's a surprise to see so much text dedicated to songs not appearing on Stop and Smell the Roses when the album itself gets such a brief mention. Perhaps the sentence about Lennon's two songs could sit as an end note, and mention of the Harrison-written "Wrack My Brain" single (a minor hit in the US) be added instead.
  • Also, no mention of Old Wave, nor that album he recorded with Chips Moman in 1987 that led to lengthy litigation between Starr and Moman?
    • This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. Comprehensive and exhaustive are not synonyms. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Drumming
  • It would be good to see Jim Keltner mentioned. He and Starr had a long association, their twin-drummer partnership dubbed "Thunder and Lightning" – starting with the Concert for Bangladesh and including albums by Starr, Harrison, Nilsson and others, as well as the first All-Starr tours in 1989. I think it's a notable musical association, for a subsection about Starr's drumming.
Singing
  • "he also sang lead on ... "What Goes On", for which he received a co-writer credit with Lennon and McCartney." It seems that this detail regarding a co-writer credit should go, because of a sentence under Composition: "Starr is credited as a co-writer of "What Goes On", "Flying" ..."
Lead section

The lead is very long compared to other individual Beatle FAs. My suggestion would be to paraphrase Steve Smith's quote: the important point surely is the statement that through Starr "we started to see the drummer as an equal participant in the compositional aspect ..." Also, there's a feeling of the proverbial barrel being scraped, I think, with the inclusion of "Act Naturally" and Starr's co-writing credits for "What Goes On" and "Flying", as they're hardly notable songs within the Beatles' canon. I notice Wasted Time said pretty much the same thing in his comments, and it's worth bearing in mind that in the George Harrison article, such notable sole compositions as "Taxman" and "Within You, Without You" don't merit a mention in the lead.

This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. Every single Beatles article need not follow the exact format of the others. They are/were four different people and as such they have four different articles. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough, and I don't disagree with what you're saying. But check out the disparity, in quantity and quality of information, between the lead in Ringo Starr and that in Paul McCartney. JG66 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the Macca lead is a bit too brief and I've been planning to expand it for some time. I quite prefer Ringo's lead to Macca's, but that's probably because I wrote most of the content, whereas I seem to remember much more WP:PRESERVE regarding the Macca lead and at least one reviewer mentioned that it seemed too short. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thing about the lead: "the US number one hits "It Don't Come Easy", "Photograph" and "You're Sixteen"" is not supported in the main article body, which gives the peak chart position for "It Don't Come Easy" as number 4. Those three singles were all certified gold by the RIAA, perhaps that's the statement to be making here (although currently the text doesn't state that "Easy" went gold also).

Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope that helps. I wouldn't be presenting these concerns, so late in the FAC, unless I thought they were important to address. Again, great work – and to the editors/reviewers above. JG66 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

* Note for delegates. - I won't be addressing any of JG66's comments. The two of us have had some pretty terrible interactions at FAC and I will not allow this to turn into yet another drama fest. We obviously have vastly different ideas and styles and I absolutely refuse to make any attempt to satisfy this user. IMO, their choice to come here now and provide yet another never-ending review at this junction of the FAC is in poor taste in the least. So please pass, fail or archive the nom accordingly. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I ask the delegates to please consider my comments and suggestions as actionable and worthy of some discussion (at the very least) in this FAC. You can be sure I thought long and hard before pressing 'Save page' on the above list, given my troubled history with the person nominating this article, way outside of FAC territory. I acknowledged the eleventh-hour nature of my coming to this page, and I would've thought other comments of mine show that I've taken the trouble to look through what other reviewers have raised here – trying to ensure there's some synergy between my comments and the good work that's already been done on the article. I've not had the time to do anything substantial on wikipedia since the start of August, simple as that.
In some cases, I can't see how the things I've raised can be ignored. The point in the lead stating that Starr had three number one hits in the US just isn't supported in the main article body. Similarly, with his co-writing credit on "What Goes On", it's straight repetition to have it stated under both Singing and Composition.
Fixed. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Less clear-cut perhaps, to support the mention of Goodnight Vienna having been successful with a lowly number 30 UK chart position is just illogical when it peaked at number 8 in the US and was certified gold there. Likewise, what is the logic, the rationale, for the brief list of albums by Lennon, Ono and Harrison that Starr played on?
Mentioned that GV reached number eight in the US. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other changes could be considered "obvious omissions": no mention of his "Wrack My Brain" chart success (a rarity in itself for Starr post 1976) when two sentences of text are included on songs that failed to make the Stop and Smell the Roses album. Similarly: the lack of anything on Old Wave and the stillborn project with Chips Moman.
Added mention of "Wrack My Brain". GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to have ended up identifying categories, for some reason ... Many of the other points I've raised came about through the sheer excellence of the prose and the impressive scope in sections leading up to the one covering Starr's solo career. Then the article appears to drop the (impressive) level of insight, and the complete lack of quotes from Starr is equally obvious. That's what makes it logical to suggest adding points about Starr's alcoholism coinciding with and contributing to his career taking a dive, about the reliance on friends and outsiders for material for his solo albums; just as the removal of some of the inessential quotes from the article's early sections might make the contrast less obvious once we arrive at the quote-less Solo career/1970s section. And I know I've read at least one other person objecting to the Steve Smith quote in the lead and the mention there of "What Goes On" and "Flying". I'd welcome the opinion of other reviewers here on those two issues – and anything else I've raised.
This is your opinion and not an actionable objection. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do indeed have "vastly different ideas and styles". What I was and am hoping to see addressed is the way the style and approach within this article appears to change following the Beatles years, in the ways mentioned. (Not my style by any means – all the work of others.) It's a brilliant piece through those first three sections; I've not read anything this good on wikipedia. So I can't understand why someone would choose to ignore suggested changes that are aimed at ensuring those strengths are carried through to an equally important part of the article.
JG66 (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've done my best to resolve the actionable objections you've raised above. After 30+ days and 5 supports there is currently consensus for promotion. If you have any other concerns then please raise them at the article talk page. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's good to see some of those important issues addressed. I'm surprised by a number of your decisions, but it's nothing I want to pursue here. (Perhaps on the talk page sometime, perhaps not.) I do think when you revisit the article in the weeks/months ahead, though, you might see what I mean about the abundance of quotes in the early sections and feel the need to cut a few – who knows. I've got no interest in delaying a decision with this FAC, if that's what my arrival was doing (I'd got the impression that user:John's review was still to come, in fact). Thanks, and well done to all, JG66 (talk) 01:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did indeed invite John to review further if he wished to but given almost two weeks has elapsed since then, and you and Gabe seem to have resolved your differing opinions to an extent you're both prepared to live with, I think it's time to call it a day and promote this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [12].Reply[reply]

Jo Stafford[edit]

Nominator(s): Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article about a popular, but now much overlooked singer from the 1940s and 50s who played an important role in the musical history of the United States. I'm nominating it for featured article because I believe it's close to the standard expected of an FA. Much of the earlier work on this was completed by We hope, who hasn't been around for the past few months. I took the article through Peer Review at the end of last year, and submitted it for GA, which passed in February. Since then it's been through a comprehensive copyedit and a few other tweaks. The article has been generally stable throughout its ten year history, is broad in its coverage of the subject, and neutral. Enjoy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that because I edit with the use of assistive technology there may be some issues I will have difficulty addressing. Also to enable me to have quick access to any issues raised please be as specific as possible. See my disclaimer for further details. Thanks, Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments on lead
"she was considered one of the most versatile vocalists of the era." As her career was 50 years, what era is that? This isn't explained in the main text or note either.
  • Done. Changed it to say she originally trained as an opera singer before following a career in popular music.
Repetition in the final para: Weston as 2nd husband is in para 1 and their marriage is in para 3; her Grammy is in para 1.
"Corinthian Records, a label founded by her husband". Which husband?
  • Done.
  • Comments on Ref 7
"Stafford sang off-key in a high pitched voice and Weston played an untuned piano off-key". The source has "Weston played the wrong chords [...] Stafford sang a half-tone sharp". Doesn't that mean that only Stafford was off-key?
  • Altered slightly to say he played in an unconventional rhythm, and added another source. A third is available if necessary. In their autobiography Weston describes Jonathan Edwards as "the most horrible cocktail pianist at anytime, anywhere...wrong chords, wrong rhythm, wrong melody, a totally ridiculous musical effort." Let me know if I should add this.
"including Stafford, John Huddleston—to whom Stafford". The dash seems to be in the wrong place... use "including Stafford—John Huddleston, to whom Stafford"? The source does not list those 7.
  • Done. Sourced from her biography at University of Arizona.
"She had her best-known hits "Jambalaya", "Shrimp Boats", "Make Love to Me", and "You Belong to Me" around this time". I don't see all of these in the source either. I think you may have used the wrong link for some of these, as the one that you have looks like an edited version from the New York Times (July 19, 2008, "Jo Stafford, Wistful Voice of WWII Era, Dies at 90"). EddieHugh (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done. I found a source from UPI.com that mentions them. There's also an earlier source from the Chicago Tribune that looks promising, but this requires subscription so I can't get to it.

Thanks for the feedback. I think everything has been addressed now, but let me know if there are any other problems and I'll take another look. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • Ah, a songstress. How I've longed to get one to FA... anyways, let me help here.
Addressed comments to talk
  • Worth noting that she wrote some books? Easy lessons in singing with hints for vocalists
  • Done

Comments on clarity

""You Belong to Me" topped the charts in the United States and United Kingdom, and she became the first woman to reach number one on the UK Singles Chart." Can you make explicit the fact that YBTM was the song that made her first in the UK to reach number one?
  • Done
""You Belong to Me" was Stafford's biggest hit, topping the charts in the United States and the United Kingdom, where it was the first song by a female singer to top the chart." Clarify that it was in the UK only (if this is the case).
  • Done
"Stafford married twice; first in or around 1941 to musician John Huddleston (the couple divorced in 1943), then in 1952" Colon then semi-colons is normal: "Stafford married twice: first in or around 1941 to musician John Huddleston (the couple divorced in 1943); then in 1952".
  • Done
"In 1961, the album, Jonathan and Darlene Edwards in Paris, won" remove commas after "album" and "Paris".
  • Done
"Stafford's first public singing appearance was in Long Beach, [...] Her second was far more dramatic." Technically, she was preparing for her second; I suppose this doesn't really matter.
  • Lead up is perhaps more accurate.
  • I'll look into this
"joined her sisters Christine and Pauline in a popular vocal group". The lead has "older sisters".
  • Done
"who performed on Los Angeles radio station KHJ. The group began their singing career on KNX". Add "frequently" or "regularly" to "performed" to contrast with the KNX sentence?
  • Done
"The Stafford Sisters made their first recording with Louis Prima in 1936". That's in the original, but it should be "The Stafford Sisters made their first recording, with Louis Prima, in 1936" for clarity.
"sang and socialized while waiting to be called". "while waiting to be called" is a bit casual.
  • Done
"When Alyce and Yvonne King threw a party". My search for "Yvonne King" in the source returned nothing. She's in the Daily Telegraph source, so maybe add that?
  • Done
"the performance was off-color". "Off colour" can mean "unhealhy" in British English; is there a more precise term?
  • Done
"The two men felt embarrassment when unexpectedly encountering the group because they were both still employed by Dorsey". Is this relevant?
  • Done
"The Pied Pipers returned to Los Angeles". Add after how long? (6 months in Daily Telegraph.)
  • Done
"through the early 1940s giving concerts". Add a comma after "1940s".
  • Rewrote sentence
"toured extensively with Dorsey through the early 1940s". Is that compatible with leaving in 1942, as stated in the next sentence?
  • Done
"new label, Capitol Records when". Add a comma after "Records".
  • Done
"United Service Organizations (USO)". The section heading uses "s", not "z".
  • Done
"Stafford's tenure with". When was this?
  • Done
"Chesterfield Supper Club, Duets and Voice of America". "Duets" should have a lower case "d".
  • Done
"continuing to host Chesterfield Supper Club from Hollywood. She had her own radio show, which was broadcast later on Tuesday nights, when she joined the Supper Club. In 1948, she restricted her Supper Club". Wasn't the show in the previous paragraph her own? Is Supper Club the same as Chesterfield Supper Club or The Chesterfield Supper Club? This needs some clarification.
  • Done. Later show could be another Supper Club appearance, particularly taking into account the aircraft episode.
The sources aren't very clear, but it looks like "Supper Club" was used as an abbreviation of "The Chesterfield Supper Club" (dropping the sponsor's name). I suggest using the full form throughout, or only for the first mention, followed by "Supper Club", if you're satisfied that that is accurate. Cutting one or two mentions of it by name might help.
  • Done
There's still one "Supper Club". Use "the show" / "the program" somewhere?
  • Done
"Stafford duetted with Gordon MacRae on a number of songs". This is an abrupt paragraph opening after the last one, which is about radio broadcasts. Maybe set the context first?
  • Not quite sure how you want me to bridge the gap. Any thoughts?.
Something like "Stafford continued to record"; "Stafford continued to release records"; "Stafford continued to have commercial success with recordings"?
  • Done
"and in 1950, Stafford followed" is easier to read as "and, in 1950, Stafford followed".
  • Done
"Stafford had a clause inserted". Use "had had"?
  • Done
"she made history". In what sense, if it was only "very rare"?
  • Done
"Communism" should have a lower case "c".
  • Done
"titled: "Jo Stafford: Her Songs Upset Joe Stalin" earned" should be "titled, "Jo Stafford: Her Songs Upset Joe Stalin", earned".
  • Done
Sorry: I got it wrong – there's no need for the comma after "titled".
  • Done
Pause for now: will comment more later EddieHugh (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments on content

"the Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album—the only accolade she received from them". 3 songs are in the Grammy Hall of Fame, though. Here.
  • I can only find one. You Belong to Me was inducted into their Hall of Fame in 1998. What are the other two?
With the Pied Pipers (assuming she was with them then).
  • Done. She'd left them by the time they recorded Accentuate the Positive in 1945, but I've included the 1940 recording of I'll Never Smile Again as she is heard on that recording.
Is anything else on her family needed? She had at least one other sister – not relevant to her career, but it's often given as family background.
  • Perhaps it is enough to say she was the third of four sisters? I've added this, so let me know if that is ok.
ok for me, but I'm new to this, so perhaps others could comment.
Discography; film and television. There's the usual problem with these: what's the rationale for including the examples given?
  • It always seems kind of odd to me to have a section that just consists of a redirect, but if they have to go they have to go.
See my comment immediately above: I'm happy to follow the norm/consensus.
Is there any indication of when her radio and TV shows ended? It's hard to get an idea of how much she was doing at any given time if no end date is given. EddieHugh (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, The Chesterfield Supper Club for example finished in 1950, but sourcing that would be difficult. I'll take a look, but can't make any guarantees.

Thanks for the review. Most things addressed, but I have one or two queries so will keep checking back for a reply. Cheers. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for you patience and determination. Continuing...

"and business trip; Stafford had an engagement at the London Palladium. Stafford and Weston had two children; Tim". Both semi-colons should be colons.
  • Done
"Tim was born in 1952 and Amy was born 1956". Change to "Tim was born in 1952 and Amy in 1956"? Use a comma before "and" if it suits US style.
  • Done
"She had her best-known hits "Jambalaya", "Shrimp Boats", "Make Love to Me", and "You Belong to Me" around this time". Enclosing the titles with dashes would be better. i.e. after "hits" and before "around".
  • Done
Choose "UK" or "U.K.", "US" or "U.S." and apply throughout – there is definitely variation in the use of UK/U.K.
  • Done
"Ella Fitzgerald, Mel Tormé and Rosemary Clooney". Are we using Oxford commas in this article? Again – check for consistency.
  • I assume by Oxford comma you mean it follows the format "A, B, and C" rather than "A, B and C". I'll listen through it, but I may not get all of 'em.
Marriage to Paul Weston and later career. There's a relatively big gap here: 1955 to early 60s. Any idea of what happened then?
  • Now 1955-58, but I'll look for more. Obviously the Jonathan and Darlene stuff fills in that gap, but belongs to a different section.
Dependent on the above point, "Both Stafford and Weston returned" should start the final paragraph; "In the early 1960s, [...] and Rosemary Clooney" could join the preceding one.
  • Done
"These albums were released". Clarify which label.
  • Done
"Sinatra sold it to Warner Brothers". When?
  • Done
Now need to make explicit the fact that Stafford left Warner.
  • I'll keep looking, but not sure it can be sourced. The Billboard source also makes no mention of Capital.
"was not known initially". To whom?
  • Done
"at a Hollywood party."" Source for quote needed.
  • Done
"George Avakian and Irving Townsend who". Add comma before "who".
  • Done
"The head of Columbia's artists". Link the opening sentence in this paragraph to the previous paragraph by putting "Darlene Edwards" somewhere in the first phrase. This requires some rephrasing.
  • Done
"Stafford and Weston claimed that the Edwardses". In the previous paragraph they were billed as "Jonathan and Darlene", not "the Edwardses".
  • Done
"in September 1957 Time". Comma after "1957".
  • Done
"Time magazine said that". Some object to "said" for written publications. "reported"?
  • Done
"Strikes Back!." Remove period.
  • Done
"as a single, backed by". Ambiguous. Clarify that the other was on the "B" side (if that's the case).
  • Done
"Mitch Miller blamed the couple's". Any idea when this happened? If near the time of release, this could go in the earlier paragraph, to maintain the chronology.
  • Haven't found a date for this, but will keep looking.
The show ended in 1966, according to this, but that clashes with the current source, so I think things can be left as they are.
"She retired completely from the industry in 1975" is contradicted in the next sentence.
  • She retired fully? Even if she briefly came out of retirement later, surely she still officially retired.
ok.
"Share Inc.—a charity aiding people with developmental disabilities in which". Add a dash after "disabilities".
  • Done
"Concord Records tried to persuade". When?
  • Again, no date appears to be available for this. Jazzhistoryonline (unsure if that's considered to be a reliable source) says it was a few years later.
ok: the period is implied.
"Corinthian Records which Weston". Comma before "which".
  • Done
"She was interred". Find a Grave has been mentioned elsewhere as not a reliable source.
  • Hopefully nndb is better, but if not it'll have to go.
"versatile vocalists of her era". Which era?
  • Sources are not more specific than this. I would assume they meant the 1940s and 50s, since that is when she was most active. Any thoughts?
Fair enough: it can be taken as implicit.
"Terry Teachout has described". "has" is redundant.
  • Done
"In 1960, she said". Use "Stafford" instead of "she".
  • Done
"mark 25 million record sales". 25M has been mentioned before. Unless this counts as a special award, the "diamond-studded disc" bit could be added there instead.
  • Done
"The New York Fashion Academy named her one of the Best Dressed Women of 1955 while she was presenting". Lots of ambiguity.
  • Done
"Songbirds magazine has said that". "said" again. Maybe it's just me...
  • Done
"said that by". Comma after "that".
  • Done
"Her 1960 collaboration with Weston". This has already been stated. Use something like, "In addition to a Grammy Award for... The Pied Pipers'..."?
  • Done
"She is the author". Doesn't fit under this section's heading.
  • Not really sure where this fits. It was suggested I could add it, but (apart from the autobiography she co-authored) it seems to be her only print publlished work. Is there a better section for it?
Books? Publications?
Change "(unable to read cue cards" to "(as she was unable to read cue cards"?
  • Done
Looking very quickly at the references: 95 has red text, indicating a problem; 80 has a capitalization problem ("GrAMMY"); the publication date for 67 must be wrong; and the pattern of whether the date is in brackets or not is unclear (if there isn't one, they will need to be standardized). EddieHugh (talk) 18:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not quite sure why the date thing's happening. Any chance of some help with these?
I've checked and tried a few things. Looks like that is what is supposed to happen: no author means no brackets.
I don't know exactly how the references should look, what might not be a good source, etc., so hopefully someone else will be able to go through them. Last comment, though: 85 is just a link to an Amazon page, so that can be removed.

Thanks once more for this very detailed feedback. Apart from the one or two points I've mentioned above, I think I've done everything I can with this from the review. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed. Do you mind if I run through standardizing some of the text? I could list them here, but it's at the stage where there's not much left and it's quicker to do it myself. You could revert any you disagreed with. EddieHugh (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I did mostly punctuation. Sorry – I had to paste over your last edit (of the Independent source), but as far as I can tell I incorporated it into the new version. That reference was repeated, so I combined them with refname. I checked only the titles in the references, but also noticed that the authors in 57 are wrong. I looked the book up... seems that The Guinness Book of 500 Number One Hits is by Rice only; The Guinness Book of Number One Hits is by Gambaccini and Rice. Hope that helps. EddieHugh (talk) 23:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for fixing the Independent reference. I found another one for the New York Sun that I missed. Also updated the Guinness ref. Cheers Paul MacDermott (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lovely. Are you sure that the Guinness ref is correct? My library indicates that there was only one author. EddieHugh (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Done. Thanks, I missed that one. The book's Amazon entry lists the authorship as "Jonathan Rice, etc", so the ref should list only the one. Paul MacDermott (talk) 21:10, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD, PD-US-no renewal, PD-pre1978). Sources and authors provided.

  • Details for lack of copyright notice and/or renewal are included in all image summaries. Nice work adding such clear background information - makes checks that much easier. GermanJoe (talk) 08:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support I have read through the article and I find it to be as complete as it could possibly be. It is really good work by user Paul McDermott. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:45, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Bruce1ee

  • Publications: "Easy Lessons in Singing with Hints for Vocalists", am I correct that ISBNs didn't exist in 1951?
  • Ref 17: "Dialogues in Wwing: Intimate Conversations with the Stars of the Big Band Era", that should be "Dialogues in Swing ..."
  • External links: "Bio on the MP3.com site" is a mirror of "Jo Stafford at Allmusic.com" —Bruce1eetalk 06:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No worries, thanks for fixing everything. I reverted this edit someone made yesterday as I couldn't find any other instance of the site's use on Wikipedia, so thought it may not be regarded as a reliable source. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I did the GA review of this article in February and I'm happy with the improvements that have been made since then. I believe it meets the FA criteria. Thanks Crisco for attending to the issues I raised above. —Bruce1eetalk 07:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Audio samples[edit]

Comment

  • Do you think some audio samples would improve the article? Jimknut (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They would definitely add to it, but uploading audio files is sadly one of the things I'm unable to do. Feel free to help though. My suggestion would be to include samples of "Little Man with a Candy Cigar" (her first solo recording), "You Belong to Me" (her biggest hit) and a Jonathan and Darlene Edwards track, possibly something like "Paris in the Spring". Paul MacDermott (talk) 08:59, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Four sound samples have now been added. I will leave it to you to edit the descriptions of each of these samples. Overall I think the article looks very good. Jimknut (talk) 21:49, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - as noted by Jimknut (thanks for the samples) the fair-use rationales need some more work:

  • The parameters for "Replaceability" and "Commercial" should be filled with a brief argument for these criteria (see other fair-use media for some examples). "n.a." is no valid fair-use argument.
  • "Purpose of Use" - each sound sample should have a separate, specific and detailed purpose of use. How does the sample "significantly increase" the reader's understanding? What specific details of her style and music are shown in each sample? Samples which show similar aspects need to be trimmed to 1 sample per aspect ("minimal usage").
  • Please add the total length of the original song for each sample to "minimal usage" (the allowed sample length depends on the full song length). GermanJoe (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've had a look, but I think I'll have to leave them for Jimknut to fix. I checked out a few files (such as this one), but they seem to use a different template. From what you say we probably need to trim the samples used to two: the Darlene Edwards clip and one other. I'll remove them though until the issues are fixed as I wouldn't want it to impact negatively on the FAC outcome. Once they're fixed please feel free to revert my edits. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks fine, thank you. I slightly trimmed the rationale - importance of the song is not that relevant (for fair-use), a sample just has to be representative for her style and should be discussed in the article. Another quick note: as a general rule of thumb try to keep sound samples at 10 percent of the songs original length or at 30 secs, whichever is less (see WP:NFC). Length for this sample is OK, otherwise the lyrics and melody would be cut too much. GermanJoe (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I put the excerpt of "You Belong to Me" back into the article. Meanwhile, I reworked the fair rational for the excerpt of "Paris in the Spring". Take a look and, if okay, I'll stick that one back in, too. As for the sound samples of "Little Man With a Candy Cigar" and the "Hey, Good Lookin'" duet with Frankie Laine, shall I upgrade the fair rational on them or is the article good enough without them? (I think the Laine duet has a valid place in the article as the two were very popular at the time and it's significantly different from "You Belong to Me" — i.e. a duet vs. a solo.) Jimknut (talk) 23:11, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Frankly, i'd prefer to leave the selection of samples to topic experts like you and Paul as editorial decision. If you think, that a sample shows a notable and significant distinct feature of her music, you should try to work it in the article. Just make sure, that the song and its distinct features are discussed in the article. Tweaking the FUR then is easily done. GermanJoe (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • As a non-subject expert (although admittedly rather conservative when it comes to fair-use) I'd stick with what is in the article now: her greatest commercial success (i.e. the hit most people remember her for) and something representative of her duets with her husband, which is a very notable feature of her career. The others, although they would be nice to listen to, would not add much encyclopedic value to the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:30, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd agree with that. "You Belong to Me" is the song most associated with her, and the one everyone seems to remember. We could probably still use the others for other articles. I added "Hey Good Lookin'" to the corresponding article, and "Little Man with a Candy Cigar" to Tommy Dorsey, although I don't think that article actually discusses the song so it may not be usable there. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I re-instated the excerpt of the Jonathan and Darlene song. I think this and the excerpt of "You Belong to Me" should be sufficient for this article. On a completely different part of this article ("Early Years") there is a picture of the Stafford Sisters. Could we identify which one is Jo, which one is Christine and which one is Pauline? Jimknut (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sound samples - OK. Both have valid and detailed fair-use rationales. They are a bit longer than recommended, but hard to cut off somewhere else. With only two samples in the article they are within "minimal usage". GermanJoe (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support — Looks good. Jimknut (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I say let's promote this article soon. It is of FA standard now.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - OK. some polishing needed (done), a few questions to RS: (done)

  • Use p. for single pages and pp. for page ranges, some are mixed up.
  • Use en dash (MOS:DASH for page ranges, some use hyphens.
  • Be consistent in page ranges, some have ppp-pp, some use ppp-ppp (i prefer full numbers, but either way works).
  • refs #71, #72 - is TV.com considered a WP:RS? It's user-contributed content, with little editorial oversight.
  • Both replaced.
  • refs #82, # 92 - the usage of IMDB as source is strongly discouraged, as most IMDB content does not meet WP:RS standards (see WP:IMDB/RS). Needs work.
  • No other source to support Lolita, so that's gone. Shower of Stars is covered by other sources, making imdb superfluous.
  • What makes ref #102 NNDB a reliable source? (beta website). Possible to cite the cemetery info with a newspaper or similar?
  • Nothing else citing cemetery, so it'll have to go.
  • Most internet hits for a quick search are just mirroring the Wiki-info :/. Anyway, it can be re-added later, if a RS pops up. GermanJoe (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Other sources appear reliable (newspapers, magazines, ...), spotchecked a few.

Aside from the mentioned points formatting looks OK (but i suck at source reviews and may have missed a dot or two somewhere). I tweaked the first three points, but point 4, 5 and 6 need some work (sourcing). GermanJoe (talk) 07:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at these and fixing the other stuff
Thanks for the quick fixes, status updated (formatted your last reply a bit to avoid confusion). GermanJoe (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [13].Reply[reply]

Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it successfully underwent a MILHIST A-Class in April this year and I believe it meets the FA criteria. In 1941, Hungary participated in the invasion of Yugoslavia to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon. This article explores what happened when the Hungarians occupied then annexed those territories between 1941 and 1944. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support: I copy-edited some of this article about six months ago. I must say I think it's comprehensive and well-written and I think it meets all FA criteria. 23 editor (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the review, 23. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments:

  • "Despite the very limited resistance"—remove "the"? Not sure about "very".
  • checked the source and changed it to sporadic (which is the word used by the source to describe the fighting)
  • Is the Yugoslavia flag relevant historically (infobox)?
  • that was the flag of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the country whose territory was occupied and annexed, so, yes.
  • Consistent en dashes in the demographics table?
  • Done.
  • Do you have control of the source for the map (1939–41)? The text is tiny-weeny.
  • I don't, and maps are not my thing. I've increased it to 350px, which is probably the limit. I'll see what I can get done re: the font.
  • I've corrected the typography for "German–Italian mediation" (they're parallel items, yes?).
  • you've lost me, but I think Antidiskriminator has sorted it?

Tony (talk) 08:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

addressed so far, will see what I can do about the map though.
map fixed. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Comment I'm not going to do a full review, but the article presently does not explain the basic background well. The last sentence of the lead (pretty much repeated as the last sentence in the article), explaining where the territories are in modern terms, should be in summarized in the first para of the lead (ie saying which modern countries were affected). Equally the nom rightly says "to get back some territories taken away in the post-WWI Treaty of Trianon", which was certainly the point as far as the Hungarians were concerned, but I can't see this point clearly made in the lead or background sections. Presumably all the territory occupied had been Hungarian before 1920? The article doesn't state this I think. Some spelling out needed for this complicated area, unfamiliar to most readers. The map showing the expansion of Hungary in between the wars & in WWII should really be balanced with one showing its contraction at Trianon (there seems plenty of room). The fate of the Volksdeutsche at the end of the war is dealt with but not that of the Hungarians, though I see from the geographical articles that minority populations remain in some of them. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • thanks for your constructive comments, it certainly is a complex area. I will start addressing them shortly, and will note here when I believe I have done that. A map has already been added to show the territory lost as a result of Trianon. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have added further information to address your comments. Let me know if you consider anything needs more detail? Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much better, thanks, covering all my points except the fate of the general Hungarian population of the occupied areas after the war, which I accept may be tricky to source. In general I think the article looks FA quality, but I'm not going to do a full review. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I managed to dig a bit more out of Portmann regarding the estimated numbers of Hungarians killed, and numbers that left Vojvodina after the war. I haven't been able to anything on the fate of the Hungarians in the western territories along the Mura. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments

  • Put cites in numerical order: [34][17][24]
  • Not real fond of one sentence paragraphs. See if you can fold them into other ones.
  • Typo .[41].
  • Needs a comma after "them": between 25,000 and 60,000 of them mostly to Serbia
  • This is confusing: applied selectively due to the military then civilian administration changes
  • This doesn't match the 2nd to last para of the aftermath section: The case against them was re-opened after the German occupation and they were all found not guilty
  • Put the titles in title case: Coppa, Frank, Jordan, Kadar, Pearson, Pogany, Udovicki, Segel
  • In general add US states to publisher locations except for New York, Boston or Chicago.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image Review

Thanks for the review, Sturm. I believe I have addressed all your comments thus far. Here are my edits. To clarify, when the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 after the Hungarian government began to have a change of heart about sticking with the Axis, they re-tried the suspects who were acquitted. After the area reverted to Yugoslav control, the new communist Hungarian government tried them, found them guilty then handed them over to the Yugoslavs who tried them yet again, then executed them. It works out that they faced four trials for the same actions. A bit convoluted, I know. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 06:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've clarified in the text about the series of trials, hopefully it is a bit clearer now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:12, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minor point, not anything you actually need to change, but I never link places of publication because you will often get multiple links to the same city. But that's just a personal preference.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • "The Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories was the military occupation then annexation": No matter what definition you use for "occupation", occupation can't be the same thing as occupation plus annexation.
  • "Hungarian occupation of Yugoslav territories": There's a potential problem with the title. For instance, the title "German invasion of French territories" (or vice-versa) would be considered a non-neutral title for an article on a German or French invasion of Alsace-Lorraine. Of course, it's harder to make this work if the territory being invaded is made up of parts of 4 named regions ... if you can describe the region using only one or two names, that would be better.) - Dank (push to talk) 01:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "They now form": technically, a WP:DATED violation, though I don't know what's supposed to be an improvement. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I appreciate what you are saying, there certainly are fairly complex precision and brevity issues here, as well as neutrality issues. The Hungarians called these territories the "Southern Territories" or "Delvidek", but that is entirely a Hungarian POV. So far as I know that is the only all-encompassing term covering all the territories. Given the history of the regions involved, and the fact that the Germans occupied all of these territories plus the rest of Hungary in March 1944, it seems necessary to leave Hungarian in the title and explain either that this was during WWII or that they were Yugoslav territories. The more neutral approach is probably to drop Yugoslav. To include a reasonable description of the territories and accommodate the complexity, a title like "Hungarian occupation and annexation of Bačka, Baranja, Međimurje and Prekmurje during World War II" would cover it. It is rather long. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since Barbarossa could hardly be called a "Hungarian offensive", how about Hungarian offensives in World War II? - Dank (push to talk) 14:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a problem with the title. These territories were Yugoslav when occupied and the Hungarian government was forced post-war to recognise that fact, which they had recognised before invading them anyway. The Hungarian gov't thought they should be Hungarian, but it did not claim that they were. We will be using some POV or other to name these territories, and since "occupation" is not an evaluative term it is hardly a big deal if we choose the perspective of the victors (whose view Hungary was forced to accept anyway). Srnec (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issues I see with "Hungarian offensives in World War II" are that Hungary did engage in a number of offensives as part of the Axis army on the Eastern Front up until Stalingrad, in the aftermath of which it was destroyed. Particularly notable was the Hungarian involvement in the Battle of Uman. The Hungarians also invaded and annexed parts of their other neighbours under the Vienna Awards, although we would be drawing a long bow to call them "offensives" as there was little fighting. Nevertheless, for the former reason, I don't think your suggestion is sufficiently precise. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Former review by Quadell

When I first reviewed this article I found instances of close-paraphrasing, and I opposed for that reason. Since then, the nominator has comprehensively fixed all the sections I found with potential problems. I have looked through several additional sections and compare the article's text to the text in the source, and I have found no other close paraphrasing problems. I am convinced that this is no longer an issue. (The other issues I brought up have also been addressed, though they were less important.)

I would be willing to do a full review now, but I'm not sure it's necessary. The nomination has been open a long time now, and has received plenty of comments from others. Preliminarily, I would say:

  • I'm not sure the list of name changes is useful, and it could be unnecessary detail.
  • It was included to provide context regarding the fact that the areas were formerly Hungarian ruled and many had Hungarian names.
  • It's possible that the long "Aftermath" section could be subsectioned into separate subtopics.
  • Done, please let me know what you think?
  • The beginning of "Demographics" is confusing, since I feel like we jump from 1928 to 1941 without warning. Perhaps it would be clearer if it began "By the time Hungary occupied these sections of Yugoslavia", or some other introduction.
  • I have moved the first sentence further down the article, hopefully it is less clunky now.

But these are only suggestions I hope are helpful, and this is not a full review.

For now I will neither support nor oppose. If this nomination is still open this weekend, and if it would be useful, I'm willing to do a more full review. I've collapsed my former review below. – Quadell (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate your time and patience in making comments and engaging in discussion about them. I will have a look at your additional comments above and address them. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Former review

Oppose Pending (from Quadell). Aside from numerous minor opportunities for improvement, there are two significant problems that I don't believe can might or might not be fixed in the amount of time that this FAC is likely to be open.

First, there isn't a map that clearly shows the borders of the Backa, Baranja, Medimurje and Prekmurje regions. The maps show where the occupied territory was as a whole, but the difference between Backa and Baranja, or between Medimurje and Prekmurje, is never shown. In an article about these four territories, that's a rather serious omission. A map should be included to show the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, the four occupied territories clearly delineated, and the borders of Hungary.

  • I've asked a map maker I have worked with before to take this work on.
    • That's good to hear. I still can't decide if this issue is enough to oppose on. The recently added map is very close. – Quadell (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • We now have an overall occupied Yugoslavia map in the infobox, a Trianon map, a Hungarian expansions map, and a map of the four areas down to Hungarian district level. If there are tweaks you think are necessary to the recently added map, I'm sure the maker would be happy to do them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:15, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secondly, there is a consistent sourcing problem in the article. There are a few statements that are not supported by the sources, such as in "Resistance and repression", where I can't find any support for the statement that time in a concentration camp was "usually followed by expulsion to the NDH or the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia". But far more often, there are cases of close paraphrasing, where the material in a single source is altered in a superficial way and copied into a paragraph of the article, reproducing many of the characteristic phrases. This sometimes leads to the POV of the source being reproduced, unchallenged, in the article. Sometimes a subject or term was previously defined in the soure, and so is suddenly mentioned in a given paragraph there, and in those cases the same subject or term appears to come out of nowhere in the article, undefined. Here are some examples.

  • Lemkin says "The Hungarian authorities introduced a genocide policy by endeavoring to impose a Hungarian pattern upon these territories." The Wikipedia article says "The Hungarian authorities immediately introduced genocidal policies which endeavored to 'impose a Hungarian pattern' on them." That's very minimal change. Further, "Hungarian pattern" is not defined, and the reader is left with no idea what this means. And the word "genocide", copied from the source, is obviously contested. (The rest of the paragraph only describe Serbs being forced to leave the territories.) All of these problems are caused by copying from a single source without adequately evaluating it.
  • I have to take issue with aspects of this comment. The close paraphrasing bit is fine and will behas been addressed. However, you have indicated that Lemkin's use of the word "genocide" is "obviously contested" and that it is "copied". Where has it been "obviously contested"? Lemkin was the guy that coined and defined "genocide", and he calls it just that. It is not plagiarism to call it "genocide" just because that is the word he uses. In the absence of reliable sources challenging Lemkin's description of it as "genocide", on what policy basis are we permitted to "adequately evaluate" and modify what Lemkin said? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My concerns were that (a) there was close paraphrasing, and (b) the text referred to the event as "genocide" in an unqualified way. Your edits have solved both problems with this section. In particular, by specifying that it is Lemkin's analysis, and by giving the reader info on why Lemkins views are relevant, you have presented the view in a NPOV way. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tomasevich reports how Horthy later told Americans he "had not wanted to attack Yugoslavia" but was "forced" due to "disorders and the massacre of Hungarians in Backa." (Tomasevich is not quoting Horthy here, but merely giving his interpretation of Horthy's statement.) Tomasevich then flatly states that Horthy's claim "was not true", although that's the author's POV. (It's hard to say what Horthy really wanted, and Tomasevich only weakly supports the accusation.) Our article says "Horthy falsely claimed that he had not wanted to invade Yugoslavia, but that his hand was forced by disorder and the massacre of Hungarians in Backa". This close paraphrase copies the source's POV.
  • What a strange idea. I have no idea what you mean by "copying the author's POV". There are no reliable sources I am aware of that contradict Tomasevich's statement that Horthy was lying about the disorder and massacres, Tomasevich of course being one of the most influential scholars on Yugoslavia during WWII. Certainly the language here is pretty closely paraphrased, and that has now been fixed, but all that is necessary here is to provide in-text attribution to Tomasevich for the statement that Horthy was not telling the truth. We all have an opinion, including academic's, but I am concerned that you appear to think that it is in some way inappropriate for Tomasevich to identify postfacto statements by Horthy as false. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 02:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • It was inappropriate for our article to state that Horthy was lying. The article now states that Tomasevich concluded that Horthy was lying, which is a very different statement. The NPOV concerns here have thus been addressed, although I still think the wording could be improved for smoother prose. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tomasevich says educated Serbs and Croats were "excluded from appropriate employment", and our article say they "were basically excluded from appropriate employment", a characteristic phrase.
  • addressed.
  • The last paragraph in Administration is a close paraphrase of the first full paragraph on page 172 of Tomasevich. Note the phrases "economically strong" vs. "economically the... strongest", "completely under the influence of the Nazi Party" vs. "completely under Nazi influence", "came to the attention of Adolf Hitler" vs. "came to Hitler's attention", "virtually a state within a state" vs. "almost a state within a state", etc.
  • addressed.
    • I'm still not sure that the issue has been adequately addressed. On the one hand, the wording is now different, and we have to follow the sources afterall. But on the other hand, many of the same ideas are still present in a very similar way in the same order, from one paragraph in the source to one paragraph in our article. I have asked for an outside opinion by a Wikipedia who specializes in these concerns, to see if the rewriting here is sufficient. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lemkin states that relations between Hungary and Yugoslavia were "greatly strained" until the signing of the 1940 treaty, and the Background section says relations were "greatly strained" until the same event. Note that our article mentions the 1940 treaty a couple sections before the "Developments 1938–1941" section, presumably because that's where the source mentions it.
  • No idea why you would "presume" that. There has been a bit of to-ing and fro-ing about the chronology and I daresay that this was merely overlooked. Fixed.
    • Consider "throughout the 1930s", which would tie it up nicely without jumping ahead. Just a suggestion, not necessary. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The first time our article mentions "The Partisans" (with a capital P), it comes mid-paragraph in the "Resistance and repression" section, without defining who the group is or why the proper noun is used here. Our article simply states that they "were never strong in Backa and Baranja because the lowlands did not lend themselves to guerilla warfare, and because South Slavs only made up one-third of the regional population", as if we would how the Partisans relate to lowland guerilla fighting and/or the South Slavs. The reason becomes clear when you read the source, Tomasevich, who states mid-paragraph that "The Partisan movement was never as strong in Backa" because "the flat land was not suitable for... guerilla warfare" and "the South Slavic population constituted only a little more than one-third of the total population." Of course Tomasevich had previously introduced the Partisans and the South Slavs much earlier in the book, so it makes sense there.
  • has been addressed. The issue of the initial capitalisation of "Partisans" has been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere, and I don't propose to repeat this discussion here, suffice to say that is how the vast majority of reliable sources refer to them.
    • Capital-P Partisans is fine, so long as they are appropriately introduced in the article. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe there are other instances of close copying, but these were simply the ones I found before I knew I could not support the FAC. In my opinion, every section of the article needs to be reexamined, compared to the sources, and made to appropriately amalgamate and summarize the available information without inadvertent plagiarism. I don't believe anyone involved acted in bad faith, but I don't think this represents the best of Wikipedia at this point either. – Quadell (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, you've made some interesting observations. I consider some of your points are quite valid, however some of it is in my view a bit presumptuous or pedantic, and in a few cases I consider it inaccurate or misguided. I am very concerned that you are opposing on the basis of timeframe, given this article may well have been open for a month, but only started to attract detailed reviews a week ago. Nevertheless, I will attempt to address all your points as soon as possible, particularly around the map and the close paraphrasing. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I have addressed the specific comments you have made, and will now go through the article to ensure that any other instances of "close paraphrasing" are addressed. It may take a couple of days for the map maker to finalise his product, so I will use that time to do the paraphrasing checks. Please let me know your responses to my comments above, I am happy to address any further comments you may make, and will promptly address any of the minor improvements you might care to suggest. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm glad you're continuing to work on this, but I would feel better if someone who didn't consider close-paraphrasing concerns to be "presumptuous or pedantic" were comparing the sources to make sure all instances of close-paraphrasing are removed. – Quadell (talk) 11:44, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I correct you there? At no stage did I say that I thought your comments on paraphrasing were presumptuous or pedantic. I was quite clear in my responses where I considered you made an unfounded presumption about why something was where it was. My concerns with your comments are not around your pointing out of paraphrasing, although we may not entirely agree on what constitutes close paraphrasing in all cases. My main concerns are around what I consider quite strange ideas about "copying POV" from a single source, and the scope for editors to "adequately evaluate" sources, which sounds a lot like WP:OR to me. Let's cut to the chase here. In the complete absence of any reliable published source that challenges Lemkin's view that the Hungarians policies in these territories were "genocidal", you opined that the statement was "obviously contested". What did you base that on? If you make a comment in a review, you need to be able to back it up. There are similarly strange ideas behind your labelling the inclusion of Tomasevich's observation about Horthy as "the author's POV". Admittedly, I have only been editing on WP for less than two years, but I have never struck these strange ideas before. Nevertheless, if you needed an indication of my good faith, I have attempted to address those comments by expanding the material and/or adding greater context. So, you may not support this nomination or even withdraw your opposition to it, regardless of what improvements are made, and frankly that's just fine with me, but regardless of how long you have been on WP, you can't just make a comment on a FAC review and not be able to back it up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't have any concerns about you motives or good faith, as I said. I'm glad you consider the close-paraphrase concerns serious enough to merit appropriate action. I am certainly impressed to see the improvements you have made thus far, though I remain pessimistic: it may be difficult to refactor the statements in the article to better summarize the sources, while at the same time, keeping the article stable enough that previous reviews are still relevant. If the article does meet all criteria in the time the FAC is open, I'll be gratified. Please let me know when you think the close-paraphrasing concerns have been addressed throughout the article, and I'll give it another look. – Quadell (talk) 16:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Will do. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have now completed my check for close paraphrasing and I think I have addressed the issue. Let me know if you have any other concerns, and of course, if you believe there are any further issues with close paraphrasing. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 09:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. I will look it over today or tomorrow. – Quadell (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Made a read through earlier this week and I find this article to be as complete as it could be expected by a FA article. I found all information I oculd possibly be needing of this subject and the references checked out. Good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments Support
  • I may be nitpicking, but the infobox specifies "15 March 1944" as the day when Germany occupied the territories discussed by the article. Still, the article prose (and its lead) specify merely "March 1944" (no day info given).--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Fixed.
  • If the first issue was not nitpicking, this one surely is: The area size figures in the "Geography" section (size of occupied territories of Bačka, Baranja and Međimurje+Prekmurje in km2 don't add up to the total provided - due to rounding obviously (I assume the original figures you had were in sq miles). Perhaps the individual territories' figures need a decimal to fix this? Or is there a typo somewhere?--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Typo. Fixed.
  • Should the Davor Kovačić ref have an active url? (If so, it's here. - Don't want to mess up any refs, so I'm leaving this up to you)--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • On a further note, the Kovačić ref should probably carry journal publisher and ISSN info. It may be found here.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Ditto for Szabó. I see the info is to be found at the url provided.--Tomobe03 (talk) 18:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • The body identified by acronym "NOO" carries, as far as I can tell, incorrect translation. Well, at least into Croatian, but I believe the same goes for Serbian (although I might be wrong on that one). The NOOs were "narodnooslobodilački odbori" (plural), "narodnooslobodilački odbor" (singular). The name may be verified here, p. 49 - the article author was kind enough to provide list of abbreviations. On p.50 of the same article (Giron) there's an example of English translation of the term: "National Liberation Committee" - therefore I think the "people's" formulation should be amended accordingly. Granted, there may be a source using "People's" formulation - if there is one, I'm fine with either English term. I searched the SRCE database for the "narodni odbor oslobođenja" here and found zero results, while "narodnooslobodilački odbor" search here returned 27 articles.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't changed this one. I think there is a divide amongst scholars on this one. Portmann (the relevant source) uses "people's", as does Hoare (who lists it in his glossary).
  • On a further note on the NOOs, I believe the non-English term should be in italics - at least that's how lang templates render translations.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's supposed to, but I can't figure out what is happening here. The lang template is correct so far as I can tell, but it isn't rendering it in italics.
  • To end, I think, as I started - nitpicking: I believe the Hungarian-Yugoslav border should employ an En dash per MOS:ENDASH instead of the hyphen. I'm not 100% sure on this one, but the MoS even has an example of "an Italian–Swiss border crossing", so I think that may apply. Furthermore, the article as it is right now contains a mention of German–Yugoslav border therefore one of the two need be modified.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Fixed.
Thanks Tom, at FAC I am more than happy to put the "nitpicks" to rights. They are all incremental improvements, and I'll get onto them. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All addressed except the italics in the lang template (I'll keep investigating), cheers. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we can safely leave any minor outstanding points to be acted upon outside of FAC, so will be promoting this shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur.--Tomobe03 (talk) 07:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [14].Reply[reply]

Burger's Daughter[edit]

Nominator(s): —Bruce1eetalk 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is an historical novel about white anti-apartheid activists in South Africa with several interesting ties between the book and Nelson Mandela. Currently a GA, it has been peer reviewed (thanks to Victoria for all the comments and useful suggestions), and I have since split a couple of sections and expanded the article a little. —Bruce1eetalk 09:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm sorry for not catching this in the PR, but File:NadineGordimer Burger'sDaughter.jpg can't be used because it's in a 3D format and thus copyright belongs to the photographer - unless it's been released. That said, there are some 2D on Abebooks, (number 21 and number 30) but not great. A scan might work better. This is an issue I've been through and the two editors who know about it, and will clarify if I'm wrong, are J Milburn and Moonriddengirl. I intend to return for a full review too. Victoria (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was clarified by a previous general counsel that coins were 3D and thus photographs of them would be copyrightable- this sets the bar pretty low. I wouldn't want to commit to saying that an image like this is copyrightable (IANAL), but I'd be inclined to say playing it safe with a front-cover scan would probably be best. J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've found another 2D rendering of the UK first edition cover, which I've uploaded. As I said above, the dust cover of my personal copy is too damaged to use. —Bruce1eetalk 06:17, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Much better, thanks. I'lll post more comments below as soon as I've finished reading. Victoria (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Compare formatting of FN6 vs 58/69
    • Thanks for the source review. I tried to align footnote 6 with 58 & 69, but without success. Footnote 6 is a chapter by Carolyn Turgeon in World Literature and Its Times, edited by Joyce Moss. Footnote 58 is an entry by Carli Coetzee in The Cambridge Guide to Women's Writing in English, but the book has no editors (that I can see) and I can't format {{cite web}} to use chapters here. The same for footnote 69. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Our article credits Scaruffi as an authority on math/engineering/sciences and popular music, but not literature - what makes his opinion significant and reliable in this context?
    • I've found two sources ([15], [16]) that say that Scaruffi also writes about literature. I hope that is sufficient, otherwise the text sourced to him can be removed. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Google Books links don't need accessdates
  • Be consistent on whether you abbreviate university press names
  • Why do some books include both Questia and GBooks links, while others include only Questia? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Two Questia sources are also available on Google Books. I thought I'd provide links to Google Books for readers who don't have Questia access. I've left the Questia link in because the Google Book link is only a preview and doesn't show all pages. —Bruce1eetalk 06:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support with comments:

  • Apartheid or apartheid > capitalized or not? At least one instance is upper case, others not.
  • SACP > maybe add in parenthesis what this stands for on the first occurrence so the reader doesn't have to click out if they don't want.
  • "Conrad questions her role in the Burger family and that she always did what she was told". > slightly vague. Does he question her, or challenge her think about her role in the family?
  • "Scholar Carol P. Marsh-Lockett writes that everyone sees Rosa as Lionel Burger's daughter with duties and responsibilities, not Rosa the individual, and in fulfilling that role, she denies herself an identity of her own." > I don't know why, but had a bit of difficulty parsing this, although not as much on the second reading. Anyway, might be worth trying to recast a little. But this isn't a big deal.
    • Split and reworded the sentence – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Turgeon and literary critic Carli Coetzee explain that upon her realisation that whites are not always welcome in the anti-apartheid liberation movements,[6] Rosa repudiates her father's struggle and leaves the country." > This needs recasting I think: I couldn't remember who Turgeon is and had to look back up. Perhaps break up the sentence because it's from two sources, or to keep the flow do something like, "Rosa realises that whites are not always welcome in the anti-apartheid liberation movement, writes Turgeon,[6] and literary critic Carli Coetzee explains this is what makes her leave the country." Not crazy about that either, but it separates the two critics.
    • Clarified who Turgeon is and moved the two citations to the end of the sentence – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I did make a mention in the PR about establishing the credentials of the critics, but reading through now, I'm wondering if that can be trimmed back a little - feels as though it's become slightly repetitive.
    • I also feel it's a little overdone – I've trimmed it back a bit. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The duplicate link detector shows quite a few duplicate links; those need to be eliminated.
  • In the text, footnote 46 displays differently than the others with a colon and page number visible. Should be made consistent with other footnootes.
    • Can you explain this one please. The other JSTOR citations also have a colon and page number – I don't see FN46 (Boyers, Robert (1984)) as being any different, or am I missing something? —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, I noticed this citation style in the PR and lots were rendering like that; oddly now only 46 renders that way for me. I thought you'd changed the style and forgot one. I wouldn't worry too much about it; there are so many interface changes at the moment, that anything is possible. Victoria (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sorry, I was looking in the References section, not in the body of the article where the Boyers citation was made. After the PR I moved all multi-page Google Book citation sources to the Works cited section, but I left Boyers behind because it wasn't a Google Book. But, for consistency, I've now also moved Boyers to the Works cited section. —Bruce1eetalk 05:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's all from me. Nice job on a book about an important subject and I'm please to see how much it's been developed since the PR. Victoria (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support and the comments and suggestions. I've dealt with all but one of the points you raised above, it's just the footnote issue I can't work out. —Bruce1eetalk 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 00:19, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the support, and for your copyedits – they've helped, and I appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:23, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Happy to help. - Dank (push to talk) 12:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

  • Plot summary: It would be nice if the full version of ANC was presented in the article, like is done with the first usage of the SACP.
  • Background: "In an 1980 interview". "an" → "a"?
  • "as 'a coded homage' to Bram Fischer. Fischer's...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
    • I've reworded that section, but please check if that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 06:02, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since you gave the shortened version of the SACP earlier, you should probably just use that in this section and not bother giving the full name again.
  • Publication and banning: "She said that similar 'transgressions' in the future would be difficult for the censors clamp down on." Feels like it needs "to" before "clamp".
  • Genre: Since Mandela was linked in a previous section, I don't think we need another link here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:39, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments -- First FAC, Bruce? If so, a belated welcome; that means I'd also want to see a reviewer perform a spotcheck of sources for accuracy and avoidance close paraphrasing (a ritual all new nominators are expected to undergo). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do it this evening.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

Spotcheck
  • 1 - Fine
  • 2 - Fine
  • 3 - Fine
  • 7 -Can't find a quote on p.161 which says "a long time"
    • It's there on p.161: "Well, I was fascinated by the idea of the story for a long time." —Bruce1eetalk 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 8 - Fine
  • 9 - Fine
  • 10 - Fine
  • 11 -Fine
  • 19 - Fine, except wording is quite close to "Gordimer has said that Burger's Daughter was inspired by the children. Could reword said to "stated".
  • 20 - Fine
  • 25 - Fine
  • 28 - Fine
  • 29 - Fine
  • 34 - Fine
  • 78 -Fine

I can't access a lot of the sources, I think another reviewer who has access to JSTOR, Questia, Highbeam and preferably those books in a library should resume. Looks very good generally so far.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the spotchecks. I've addressed the points you raised above. —Bruce1eetalk 05:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and a review in The New York Review of Books described the style of writing as "elegant", "fastidious" and belonging to a "cultivated upper class".[4] A critic in The Hudson Review had mixed feelings about the book, saying that it "gives scarcely any pleasure in the reading but which one is pleased to have read nonetheless."" Inconsistency in " before and after full stop. I believe you are using British English so it should be consistent with that I think. Please check it is consistent throughout which I believe it appears to be.
    • Where punctuation marks are part of the quote, I've generally included them in the quote (as per MOS:LQ), but I've also left them out in the case of quoted sentence fragments (again per MOS:LQ). I've moved a few periods outside the quote marks. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lead and reception - well received is hyphenated.
  • Why is Johannesburg and Nice wiki linked but not London and Paris?
    • Per WP:OVERLINK, London and Paris are "major ... locations", whereas, IMO Johannesburg and Nice are not. But it doesn't matter to me whether they should or shouldn't be linked. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, although what is a major city is somewhat subjective I think, I would certainly consider Johannesburg to be a major city, being the largest city in South Africa and " one of the 50 largest metropolitan areas in the world".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've delinked Johannesburg. —Bruce1eetalk 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Burger's Daughter took Gordimer four years to write" Do you have an idea what time frame this was?
    • I haven't found any specific dates, if that is what you're asking. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "While Burger's Daughter was still banned in South Africa, a copy was smuggled into Nelson Mandela's prison cell on Robben Island"- Do you know when he read it, was it in 1979 or later in the 80s? That would indicate to me if there was an urgency for him to read it which I'd find interesting.
    • Not much information is available about this. But no, I haven't found when he read the book. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "with roles thrust on her by her parents, and her own buried role". -Can you try to reword this, it seems a little awkward to me.
  • "Irene Kacandes, professor of German Studies and Comparative Literature at Dartmouth College, calls Rosa's internal monologues apostrophes, or "intrapsychic witnessing",[40] in which "a character witnesses to the self about the character's own experience"[41]." Move ref after full stop.
  • Reception has quite a lot of repetition of xx said that. Can you reword some of them to stated or noted?
  • Why is nobelprize.org. italicized in the sources? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments – I've addressed the points you raised. —Bruce1eetalk 15:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Thanks Bruce. This is a terrific piece, and unlike many articles we have on similar topics, it is easy to digest and really learn from. A hearty congratulations on what will surely become your first FA on wikipedia, and I hope to see many more of your articles here in the future.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your support, and for the compliments. I really appreciate it. —Bruce1eetalk 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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 User:Ucucha on 01:43, 21 August 2013 [17].

Parity of zero[edit]

Nominator(s): Melchoir (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ran the article through a peer review and a failed FAC a few years ago, and I've implemented a lot of feedback since then. (See the talk page and especially the links in the "Article milestones" template.) I recently held another peer review, which had (a small amount of) good feedback. Now it's time for FAC round 2! Melchoir (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • What is the image in the Numerical cognition section supposed to convey? Nergaal (talk) 05:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's a statistical analysis showing that zero is special. Melchoir (talk) 06:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meant that to a casual reader that is completely not clear. what are the axes? the colors? Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I expanded the caption on the image description page[18] and added a link from the caption, which is hopefully a little clearer[19]. The description page now says that the axes aren't meaningful, and it expands on the description of the colors, which have to do with whether an odd or even number was responded to with the left or right hand. For the present article, the colors aren't really relevant, so I think we can leave them out of the caption.
Is that better? Melchoir (talk) 02:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not really, but at least now I know where it is coming from. As a side note, the 1 is missing in the image. To me 1 seems as isolated in that graph as 0. Although I am a scientist, I have no idea what SSA means, therefore I feel like I am looking at Pollock painting. Going back to axes: what does the 2D space of the graph represent? Nergaal (talk) 06:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good catch, I accidentally cut off the 1 on the right side when I cut down NuerkFigure4.svg to make Nuerk figure 4 bare.svg! I just re-added it: [20] vs. [21]
The 2D space of the graph doesn't represent anything. It's just a way to arrange the data in such a way as to bring correlated series closer together. To quote the cited source:
"In this study, nMDS is used to map the number stimuli (different numbers for different response hands) in a space of low dimensionality such that stimuli with high (positive) correlations are mapped close to each other while stimuli with low (negative) correlations are placed far apart. In nonmetric MDS only the pattern of ordinal relations among correlations (larger vs. smaller) is mapped into the corresponding pattern of ordinal relations among distances between stimulus points (Borg & Lingoes, 1987). … In contrast to metric MDS or other metric multivariate dimension-reducing procedures, the dimensions of the solution space themselves are not interpreted. It is the configuration of stimulus points in space that matters (Borg & Lingoes, 1987)."
The authors later discuss why nMDS is appropriate for this kind of experiment. Briefly, they're looking for categorical effects, not linear effects, and their data include responses by many individuals, who may have different response patterns. It's all very interesting. Melchoir (talk) 07:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't get me wrong, I do think that the image is trying to convey something useful and interesting. However, I am not sure exactly how is the information understandable if the axes are meaningless. Nergaal (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, do you think it would help to say more about the interpretation of the diagram in the caption? I don't want it to get too long, but something like this maybe?
Statistical analysis from a reaction time experiment, showing separation of 0. In this diagram, only the clustering of data is meaningful; the axes are arbitrary. See image description for details.
Melchoir (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referring the reader to the image description page in order to understand the figure is a very bad solution, and a self-reference at that. It would be of no use if someone printed the page, for example. There really needs to be an explanation in the article, without having to go to another page to see it. Short would be good, but if necessary a paragraph in a subsection with the figure could be used. Modest Genius talk 23:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, how about this? [22] Melchoir (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Image copyright review by Stifle: All images are free and properly licensed and tagged. Stifle (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

Lead
  • Zero fits the definition of "even number" - I think there should be an "an" before even.
  • In the binary numeral system used by computers, it is especially relevant that 0 is divisible by every power of 2; in this sense, 0 is the "most even" number of all. - I hope this is explained later in the article! Otherwise it sounds like OR.
Why zero is even
  • In the second paragraph of the basic explanations bit, it's a bit confusing when you switch between numerals and the spellings of the numerals. Just checking because I want to confirm that I'm reading it correctly; are you using the numerals for the actual diagram?
    • When a number is used as a quantity, like "six apples", I always spell it out. In that case, I'm referring to a property of the numbers themselves, as in "6 is even". It also helps to connect to the diagram, yes. Melchoir (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Before the 20th century, definitions of primality were inconsistent, and significant mathematicians such as Goldbach, Lambert, Legendre, Cayley, and Kronecker wrote that 1 was prime.[9] - This is an example of this inconsistency. Here one should be spelled out. In fact, this is quite an inconsistent mess throughout the article I realize.
    • I don't agree that it's a mess. The spelled-out version "one" is used throughout to quantify a noun or as a pronoun, and "1" is used to refer to the number. Does that make sense? Melchoir (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I love mathematics articles because they are fascinating, and this one does not disappoint. I just wish more people cared about math around here! That's it for now. ceranthor 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I wrote some replies above. Melchoir (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mathematical contexts
  • example, the fact that positive numbers have unique factorizations - link factorizations
Not being odd
  • Rather than prove that there exists a completely labeled subsimplex by a direct construction, - jargon
Even odd
  • such, it is useful for computer logic systems such as LF and the Isabelle theorem prover - LF is linked but the article doesn't exist. Not helpful at all
  • If a (connected) graph - why is connected in parens?
  • What is an "explicit bipartition"?
  • There are only two cosets of this subgroup—the even and odd numbers—and it can be used as a template for subgroups with index 2 in other groups as well. A - jargon and just plain confusing
2-adic
  • number, but it is tricky to quantify exactly how many times that is. For - tricky is slang
  • is the number of times n is divisible by 2, or the exponent of the largest power of 2 that divides n, or the multiplicity of 2 in the prime factorization of n - no need to repeat or twice, once will suffice

More later! ceranthor 01:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Student knowledge
  • couple fourth-years realized that zero can be split into equal parts: "no one gets owt if it's shared out - this quote is hardly encyclopedic!
  • Isn't et all usually italicized?
    • I seem to remember researching this and concluding that "et al." shouldn't be italicized. A quick Google search seems to confirm that. It's also listed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations#Miscellaneous shortenings without italics. The MoS also says it should normally only be used in references, but I'm not sure that writing out "Levenson, Tsamir, and Tirosh" would be any easier to read. Melchoir (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why is one study linked but not the others?
  • Referring to a person as a major is slang.
    • I'm not sure about that. The cited source, Dickerson & Pitman (2012), uses the phrase "mathematics majors" four times, including once in the abstract. Melchoir (talk) 01:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Teacher knowledge
  • a more in-depth 2008 study - should be an NBSP between 2008 and study
  • This misconception was held even by a teacher who is exemplary by all measures; it was "one of the few incorrect answers she gave" on their test.[47] - This sentence is awkward.
  • The literature contains a couple of data points concerning teachers' attitudes - The literature?
Group discussions
  • forms: Zero is not even or odd; Zero could be even; Zero is not odd; Zero has to be an even; Zero is not an even number; Zero is always going to be an even number; Zero is not always going to be an even number; Zero is even; Zero is special.[52] - why are these italicized?
  • students have learned something valuable about their own learning process.[56] - switching tenses within the sentence
Everyday
  • That is, the numbers read ...6420135... from port to starboard.[78 - the diction here is not encyclopedic
  • The game of "odds and evens" is also affected: if both players cast zero fingers, who wins? - I really don't think this should be phrased as a question

Almost there! :) ceranthor 00:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update
  • I still have some issues with the education and everyday sections. I'm going to wait for hamiltonstone to provide you with more comments before I !vote. ceranthor 02:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Okay, thanks for the feedback so far! I'm done for the moment. Did you have more specifics on the Everyday section? Melchoir (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final Everyday stuff
  • In a 2012 news article on gas rationing in New York, care is given to explain that zero is considered an even number.[73 - I really don't think this adds anything useful to the article.
    • Removed. [43] (That reference was added by another editor, and I was reluctant to remove it unilaterally at the time.) Melchoir (talk) 04:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are also situations where calling zero even or odd has consequences. - I don't think this is phrased like an encyclopedia. I mean technically it always has consequences, petty or not. Needs to be rephrased.
  • In other situations, it can make sense to separate 0 from the other even numbers - Same as above.
    • Eh, I've simply removed both sentences. [44] The idea was to delineate the grouping of examples, but maybe that isn't necessary. Melchoir (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise, I'll support on the basis of the prose, which has improved a lot. ceranthor 03:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Hamiltonstone[edit]

Interesting stuff. The article has improved, though it still shades into being a pedagogical manual for teachers. I have a few specifics that focus in the section on education:

  • I don't think the following is of great interest and could be omitted. It is of some amusement or concern in a teacher training context but not in an encyclopedia article (which in my view is already a bit on the long side in its 'education' section):

    In a more in-depth 2008 study of the relationship between teachers' content knowledge and their quality of instruction, the researchers found a school where all of the teachers thought that zero was neither odd nor even, because a math coach in their building had told them so. This misconception was held even by a teacher who is exemplary by all measures; it was "one of the few incorrect answers she gave" on their test.

    • I've shortened those two sentences, which should help. [45] If that still feels like too much emphasis, we could also remove the mention of the exemplary teacher. I would like to retain the mention of the math coach, though, as coaches aren't mentioned elsewhere in the article. It's interesting to note that they can play a role. Melchoir (talk) 16:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lichtenberg's study was published over forty years ago. i think it is seriously misleading to write about it in the present tense. Given the age of a the study and the fact that education and training has likely changed significantly since then, and that it is only a single study, i would in fact consider deleting it.
    • Okay, I put it in the past tense. [46] I would be very reluctant to lose this study, since it's the best we have. I did qualify the generality of the result ("It is uncertain...", "One report comes from..."), and it should help that the date is mentioned. Melchoir (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This para has some issues, and I also question its value in an encyclopedia article:

    The literature contains a couple of data points concerning teachers' attitudes about students' attitudes. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics's Principles and Standards for School Mathematics records a first grader's argument that zero is an even number: "If zero were odd, then 0 and 1 would be two odd numbers in a row. Even and odd numbers alternate. So 0 must be even..." In a survey of 10 college students preparing to teach mathematics, none of them thought that the argument sufficed as a mathematical proof. When they were told that a first grader had written the argument, most agreed that it was acceptable reasoning for that age level.

    First of all, "a couple of data points" is both colloquial ("couple") and oddly formal ("data points"); then in fact there seems to be only one data point; then it turns out not to be about teachers, but about college students; it is a study of just 10 people; then it tells us the result but without fully explaining why it matters. Again, I'm not sure why this is being included.
  • The subsection "group discussions" probably is not needed. The amount of weight given to the Ball research is way out of proportion to its significance, and i don't think the subsection adds anything substantive to what i learned through reading the "students knowledge" section. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think the subsection is useful, but I agree that Ball was overweighted. I cut the second paragraph on that research. [48] Melchoir (talk) 17:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Maybe we can see what others think. I literally cannot understand what Ball is telling me: I can extract absolutely no information from this para. Maybe the nature or significance of her research results needs to be explained differently. The table of claims seems a slightly more complex version of info in the "students' knowledge" section and, if I could work out what Ball is talking about, my guess is that it belongs as an additional general sentence at the end of the third para under that earlier heading. I'm not trying to be difficult - can you try and explain to me what Ball's point is? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think the general point for Ball is that the children are doing mathematics. They're not just solving exercises correctly or incorrectly, depending on how smart they are. They're engaging in questions of definition and of the relative importance of patterns, and they're backing up their claims with examples. Also, it's surprising that the spectrum of claims is so rich. You might expect the claims to come in only two forms: "zero is even" and "zero is odd". After reading about Frobisher's studies, you might think there are four possible claims: even, odd, both and neither. What Ball observed was still more complicated: the children seem to be making modal claims about what "must" be true and what "will" be true. I know that's not what I expected!
          So, hopefully you agree that this information is interesting in principle. I might need a few days to re-read the sources and see if there's a better way to explain it, though. I wouldn't want to copy what I just wrote into the article; there might be some Original Research in there. Melchoir (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I might try and have a go at revising it if I get a moment in the next few days. Thanks for the explanation, I hadn't understood that that was her point. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Well, I should probably wrap up this issue. For the public record: I'll make some kind of edit to that paragraph in the next 24 hours. There, I said it; now it has to happen. :) Melchoir (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • ...a little late, but here's what I've got: [49] Melchoir (talk) 08:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • OK, I conducted some significant surgery on the section. It now reflects how I thought it should look and has trimmed material from what I always thought was an overly long section of the article. I'm happy to support the article in this form, but I recognise that the nominator or others may not be happy with my edits, and I will monitor for discussion or different views. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks! I think I've addressed all the specifics. What are your thoughts on what remains? Melchoir (talk) 17:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On other material: "Often students will independently ask if zero is even; Israel's national mathematics curriculum reminds first grade teachers that zero is even but advises that it is unnecessary to mention this unless the class brings it up". I think this can be deleted. I don't think what Israel's curriculum says is that important; it seems to me unremarkable information that students will sometimes ask the question; and also this doesn't seem to be relevant to "group discussions", the heading under which it occurs. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One other thing: I have never seen such a long "other reading" list in an article with an already enormous bibligraphy, and none of them seem directly to pertain to the subject. See also WP:FURTHER: "This section is not intended as a repository for general references that were used to create the article content." Happy to hear other views, but my inclination would be to delete it.hamiltonstone (talk) 11:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Suggest you get rid of the graph "The 2-adic integers". It is not comprehensible to a lay person, nor is it referenced in the article text. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Actually, I just went ahead and did this as part of my reorganisation of the next section. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Casliber[edit]

we have "Zero is an even number." and "Zero fits the definition of "even" " two sentences apart - be good if we could combine or streamline these. Makes the prose a bit laboured as is.
  • I think it's good to have both a plain statement of fact, which should be as short as possible, and an explicit argument from the definition a little later. The relationship between the sentences wasn't clear, I agree. This change should help: [53] Melchoir (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes reads better now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't see any other prose or comprehensiveness issues that I can tell, so I am tentatively support ing (pending what other folks say). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:29, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from 99of9[edit]

  • Ball, Deborah Loewenberg (2003) is not linked from anywhere. --99of9 (talk) 05:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments[edit]

This review has been open six weeks without achieving clear support for promotion. If Hamilton and Cas are still in the process of commenting and might wish to declare one way or another, I'm prepared to leave it open a little longer, otherwise it will have to be archived as no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is tricky - I read a comment about the prose being a bit to "how-to-ey" but I think that it does help for mathematical articles as I think they pose an interesting challeng to make accessible. I read through and only found one real improvement that needed making (noted above). Given that it is a mathematical article (which are underrepresented) I'd be thinking of cutting some slack timewise to try and reach consensus. I will read through again but am inclined to think it is at or near-FA-worthy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:50, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Cas! I know this FAC has been open for a while, but it took some time to pick up steam. Once it was listed at User:Deckiller/FAC urgents, it started progressing pretty well, I think. Of course, a delegate-nudge helps. :)
About the "how-to-ey"-ness, that is indeed an interesting challenge. In previous incarnations of the article, a lot of the content in the "Why zero is even" section was posed as an overview of explanations recommended in the education research literature. The general feedback was that the article shouldn't address the content as if to teachers, but rather present the explanations directly to the reader. Melchoir (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems fine to me. ceranthor 04:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Ian et al. Per my post above, I went in and edited the education section, and if other editors are ok with my version, I am supporting it, as i was already happy with the other aspects. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, where are we at now? I plan to close this long-running nom in the next day or so, one way or the other... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I take it you are hoping Casliber will come back and take a further look? It appears Melchoir and I are happy as it stands, as was ceranthor. I'm pinging cas now... hamiltonstone (talk) 10:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am happy with it. I can't think of anything else I'd add or change, but I concede I am no expert in the area (I tentatively supported above). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:45, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by the Dr.[edit]

  • Can you format the dates of the C. Arnold source in words rather than digits? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Understanding zero is one goal, but there is also a wider lesson" seems a bit "text bookish" for an encyclopedia article.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "More in-depth investigations were conducted by Esther Levenson, Pessia Tsamir, and Dina Tirosh," -do you have a time period for this?
    • Well, the article date is 2007. The article doesn't specify when exactly the interviews were conducted. Does it matter though? The rest of the references in that section don't mention dates. Melchoir (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Adults who do believe that zero is even can nevertheless feel unfamiliar or uncomfortable with the fact, enough so to measurably slow them down in a reaction time experiment. " Can you cite this directly, seems a bit OR, quite a generalized statement.
    • Fixed? [57] The former phrasing with "uncomfortable" is hard to cite, but "familiar" is well-cited elsewhere in the section. Melchoir (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support -Absolutely, seems an authoritative article on the subject. Excellent work.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Melchoir (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [58].Reply[reply]

Mike Capel[edit]

Nominator(s): Albacore (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that I have written this to the best of my ability and to the best of Wikipedia's expectations. Thanks to User:Wizardman for a copyedit and User:Gamaliel, who provided a newspaper article of great importance for the article. Albacore (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support, with the disclaimer that I did do some copyediting; I received the aforementioned source as well so can vouch for its proper use (and in hindsight, perhaps it was best the first FAC failed so that source could be implemented). Wizardman 03:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

  • Collegiate career: "and pitched a 9 win and 0 loss record with a 3.68 ERA". Sounds like it needs "to" after "pitched".
  • Milwaukee Brewers: "the" needed before Denver Zephyrs. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: This is greatly improved since I last read it, and the prose reads smoothy now. I have a few nitpicks, but my biggest problem, and the only reason that I am not supporting at the moment, is that this feels a bit lightweight. It is quite stats heavy, with quite a bit of jargon (incidentally, all adequately explained and linked in my view) and the overall effect makes the article slightly dry and repetitive. Perhaps that is unavoidable, but it spoils the read slightly. I am nowhere near (and will not be) opposing, but I can't quite support yet. Here are some fairly minor additional points. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The lead seems a little light, although there is nothing concrete I can put my finger on.
  • I assume there is nothing available about his childhood?
    • I moved something around and added it to the childhood section.
  • "and Capel earned All-State honors": Can we link/explain this?
    • Explained.
  • "He set several pitching records at Spring High School": I apologise if I asked this before, but can we say what record he set?
    • I'm not sure on the records. the source just says "And Clemens' best friend, Mike Capel, set several pitching records at Spring before joining Clemens to win the College World Series for Texas in 1983." The school's website has an "individual records" page but it's empty.
  • "with the 605th overall pick in the 1980 MLB Draft, where organizations choose athletes to play for their teams": I don't often say this, but I don't think we need the drafting explanation here as it is already linked, and it rather interrupts the flow of the sentence.
    • OK, removed.
  • "but instead of signing with the Phillies, he attended the University of Texas": I wonder would "chose to attend" be better here?
    • I agree that it sounds better. Changed.
  • "and pitched a 9 win and 0 loss (9–0) record with a 3.68 ERA": This doesn't quite sound right. I've sent this done before as "pitched a 9-0 win-loss record" with either the numbers or "win-loss" linked.
    • Reworded.
  • "as the Longhorns finished 59–6": And could this be incorporated into that win-loss explanation as well?
    • I linked in the same sentence, so a jump from a pitcher's win–loss to a team's win–loss doesn't seem like too far of a stretch.
  • "ties him with 10 others for the single-season Longhorns record": The record for best winning percentage, I assume?
    • Clarified.
  • "when he allowed no runs off of no hits and a walk": To me (and it may be an engvar thing), "off of" sounds too informal for an encyclopaedia.
    • Rewrote.
  • "On May 17, Denver placed Capel on the DL ": What is the "DL"? It should be spelt out in full on its first mention.
    • Explained in the "Chicago Cubs" section: "Capel continued to pitch for the club until June 30, when the Cubs optioned him to Iowa to open a roster spot for Rich "Goose" Gossage to come off the 15-day disabled list (DL)."
  • "For his Brewers debut, Capel faced five batters and allowed four runs to score (two charged to Capel) against the Baltimore Orioles.": Allowed four runs to score? Never heard that one before. It could be me, but it doesn't sound correct.
    • Rewrote.
  • The personal life section, perhaps unavoidably, reads slightly like a trivia list. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I agree but I don't think there's much I can do about it. I previously reorganized the information to follow a chronological sequence, which it follows now. Albacore (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I significantly rewrote the lead to the best of my ability, and I feel some of the dryness from the article came from the dull and repetitive lead. I added in a sentence in the "Collegiate career" section on Texas that should remove some dryness (later changed "the" to "their"). I read the article again and I'll add some more context to the "Chicago Cubs" section in the next few days. After that section, I think the article reads well. Albacore (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The changes look good. I'll hold off for now until some more reviewers turn up, but if some non-sports people can take a look at this and see what they think, I may switch to support. In any case, good work. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 3: The source is William P Clements Jr papers. How does this source support the sentence: "During his senior year in 1979, the Spring Lions won the AAAA conference state championship, and Capel was named to the All-State team, composed of the best high school players in the state"?
  • Ref 16: The source is The Gadsden Times
  • Ref 33: "Retrosheet" does not look like a professional-quality source. Who publishes it? (also refs 44, 45 and 50)
  • Ref 51: This is marked "subscription required", but there is no indication on the link page as to how to sign up for this service.
  • Ref 59: not high-quality reliable source. Is it not possible to find a better source for the wedding details? In any event, the present source does not cover all the information in the cited sentence.
  • Ref 63:What is the purpose of this source? There's no mention of Capel on it.

Other than as I have indicated, the sources in general look of appropriate standard. Because the great majority of text sources are behind paywalls, I have not been able to carry out meaningful spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the source review. The William P Clements Jr papers are "Types of records in the Proclamations subseries include drafts and final versions of proclamations (officially called Official Memorandum) issued by Governor Clements". Order "21-129" is: Baseball Championship, State AAAA, Spring High School North, 1979, providing verification for the state championship. The All-State team is referenced by reference four. Ref 16: Added a newspaper parameter. Ref 33 (and others): Retrosheet is published by its founder, David Smith, who won the Henry Chadwick award given by the Society for American Baseball Research to "baseball's great researchers—historians, statisticians, annalists, and archivists—for their invaluable contributions to making baseball the game that links America’s present with its past." [59] ESPN [60] cites Retrosheet, and speaks highly of it too. Ref 51: You click on the article's title to purchase (or log in to purchase, in this case). Ref 63: The source had Capel listed as the "general manager" but he isn't listed now at the position. I removed the reference and the specific car company. Bloomburg says "Hardin asked Michael Capel, a former Major League Baseball pitcher who is a general manager of a car dealership in Houston." Ref 59: Removed. That reference just supported the year of marriage and maiden name, so I removed those two. Thanks again. Albacore (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Capel pitched 62.1 innings, had a career win–loss record of 3–4, struck out 43 batters, and had a 4.62 - I realize any word other than had will be forced and awkward, but I think the sentence would flow better if the hads were next to each other. Might be even better as just "... pitched, struck out, and had a career win-loss ... with an ERA of ..."
    • Reworded to the latter.
  • While he played in MLB, - Not positive, but isn't there usually a "the" in front?
    • I don't think that is appropriate here. If you expanded the abbreviation to "Major League Baseball", the "the" before would create an awkward sentence.
  • Drafted by the Cubs, Capel left Texas and signed to play professional baseball. - I think this needs an "After he was" before the drafted.
    • I agree, added.
  • He agreed to terms with the Brewers and played in MLB - same thing
    • See above.
Early life
  • Future teammate Calvin Schiraldi called Capel a "hard thrower when he came out of high school" and "the top guy out of the state in 1980".[6] Roger Clemens said he was "probably the best pitcher in the state at that time".[5' - I think these ideas should be linked together; they're a bit choppy as separate sentences.
    • Agreed, combined.
College
  • defeated the Oklahoma State Cowboys and the Stanford Cardinal, - Cardinals?
    • It's singular; from our Stanford Cardinal football article: "The team is known as the Cardinal, referring to the color, not the bird. The team was known as the Indians from 1930 to 1972 and Cardinals (also referring to the color) from 1972 to 1981."
Cubs
  • On his time with the Crushers, Tom Alexander of the Lodi News-Sentinel said Capel's luck "has been all bad when it comes to wins".[23] - Awkwardly phrased.
    • Reworded.

More later. ceranthor 14:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cubs
  • he led the Midland club in losses (10), wild pitches (11) and wild pitches, no comma
    • Removed.
  • The Cubs recalled Capel to the majors on May 3 with Mark Grace, - how can he be recalled with someone?
    • Reworded.
  • when he allowed no runs and no hits but issued a walk in a 2–1 Cubs loss.[33] - Get rid of when and insert just allowed or allowing
    • Removed.
Brewers
  • Invited to the Brewers' spring training camp, Capel competed against - Invited should be replaced with another phrase. The after thing might not work here. I don't have any suggestions; just play with it.
    • Reworded.
  • The Brewers optioned Capel to their Triple-A affiliate, the Denver Zephyrs, on April 5, before the start of Milwaukee's season.[41 - the year would be nice...
    • Added.
  • Was his ERA actually 135? The math doesn't seem right.
    • Yes, (5 earned runs allowed / (1/3) innings pitched) * 9 = 135.00. Baseball Reference has him at 135.00 too.
Personal life
  • In 2012, Capel worked as the general manager of a car dealership in Houston.[61] - As of 2012?
    • No, in 2012, as the specific source used [61] removed his name in 2013.

The prose seems a little weak in places. ceranthor 16:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think I articulated it poorly. Sarastro seems to have the same feeling; the article is rather stats-heavy which makes it seem choppy at parts. I suppose that's hard to avoid, though. ceranthor 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final Ceranthor Comments
Collegiate career
  • Capel attended the University of Texas in 1981, - This was his first year. I think it should be enrolled at or matriculated at, not just attended
Professional career
  • Capel began professional baseball with the Class A Quad Cities Cubs and the Double-A Midland Cubs. - How can he begin with both?
  • Over winter, Cape - "Over"? Avoid confusion and use during.
  • After the Cubs acquired Mike Bielecki from the Pittsburgh Pirates on March 31, - new year?
General
  • Nothing else at all about personal life?
  • Newspapers generally have publishers. Therefore sources 8 and 23 need them.
  • MLB.com, I would assume, is published by the MLB. That should be mentioned.

ceranthor 14:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Addressed all. As for the personal life, I've exhausted all literature on Capel. Albacore (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - On prose, which is fine. I am still a little uneasy about the lack of content, but I cannot really comment on it fairly. ceranthor 23:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I went back and looked at the record of teams Capel was on, and added this to the prose. Albacore (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Clarification: Albacore has formally asked me "Where else does the prose feel light?". I'd just like to make it clear that I feel uncertain that this article is fully comprehensive (for example, the personal life section is ridiculously brief), though I have absolutely no proof that's the case and that should not bar this worthy article from being promoted should the consensus be reached that it should be promoted as an FA. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. ceranthor 20:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comment -- Although consensus appears to be for promotion, support is still light on. You might want to ping Sarastro and Giants and see if they're willing to revisit, given the reviews/work since they were last here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support - Before supporting, I wanted to see if some of the general issues that had been pointed out in the first FAC had been resolved, since I'm starting to reach the point where I'm too familiar with the text. At this point, I'm satisfied that the article has been improved enough to meet the FA criteria. Since there are a couple of things pointed out above, I feel that I should respond to them. About the lack of content, I think that's a product of this player not having a particularly long career or being well-known. If all of the known information on Capel is in the article (and I think it is), that's all the FA process can ask for. I also noticed that Brian is concerned about the reliability of Retrosheet. We have found that site to be reliable in the past, per User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet. If the site is still found wanting, Baseball-Reference has box scores here, here, and here that may have the information you need. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 25 August 2013 (UTC) [62].Reply[reply]

HMS Warrior (1860)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The world's first iron-hulled, armoured warship, HMS Warrior had an uneventful career before becoming a floating refuelling jetty in 1929. She was saved from an ignominious end 50 years later when she was turned over to a charitable organization dedicated to restoring her to her 1861 condition. She is now a museum ship in Portsmouth, berthed not far from the sole-surviving 1st rate ship of the line, HMS Victory and the remnants of the Tudor warship Mary Rose.

The article just had a lengthy and contentious MilHist A-class review over the issue of how important the ship's growing obsolescence over her career was to the history of the ship in the article. I think it only deserves a passing mention as every warship becomes obsolete as technology advances, but one reviewer strenuously disagreed and wanted more detail. He made the necessary change to the article, without changing his oppose, and it was promoted before we could discuss the issue further. I've tweaked the article a bit since then, but I've left his edit alone and I'll notify him of this nom once I start it in case he wants to discuss it further here.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's only fair that I get to give my own view on the ACR, as Sturm has given his. Prior to the ACR, there was no mention at all of the ship's obsolescence a decade after it was launched, despite it being a notable element of every source I've seen on the ship (it gets its own chapter in two books and its own page on the official website). I didn't feel that the article was properly reflecting sources, so I eventually added two sentences on the subject, which I feel is little more than a passing mention (but the minimum of what the article should contain). As Sturm seems to be okay with the addition, I'd have switched to support in the ACR, but have been quite busy offline of late and haven't had time. However, I'm not sure that its sufficient for FAC. I'll post a review soon. Ranger Steve Talk 15:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • Support on prose per new standard disclaimer. Ian and I tag-teamed the prose on this one, and the things I spotted were fixed by Sturm at the A-class review. Well done. - Dank (push to talk) 10:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • One question ... "a new hard was constructed": ? - Dank (push to talk) 16:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Good question since I don't have Winton. But I think that a new jetty is meant. Apparently that area of the Dockyard is known as the Hard.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and as well as being open daily as a museum, she is a venue for weddings and functions.": sentence fragment. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update ... Andy (Laser) and Steve are opposing. To avoid interfering with their process, I'll strike my support, and I hope someone (Andy? Steve?) has the time to do justice to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 14:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I'm not opposing, but I feel the article needs work (which is happening). Ranger Steve Talk 09:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox are unsourced - ex. complement
    • Fixed.
  • FN32, 34, 49: should use endash
    • Done.
  • Emdashes, if used, should be unspaced
    • Where, in the notes? That's how they're formatted in the original and I'm reluctant to alter that.
  • Baxter: verify publisher name. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Comments

I’ve reviewed the article against the FAC criteria, and I think it’s lacking in a few crucial areas, namely 1a and 1b.

1a. Prose.

I don’t mean to criticise the work of the editors who have copyedited this article, but I don’t feel it meets the requirements of FA. I raised this concern at A-Class and although the example I gave was corrected, not much else was. I’ll list some more examples here, but they are just examples. Although not everything is bad, there are many more cases of less than satisfactory prose and grammar. I feel that the article needs a thorough copy edit (perhaps from the guild) to meet FA requirements.

  • “The destruction of Russian coastal fortifications during the Battle of Kinburn during the Crimean War by French armored floating batteries and multiple tests of armour plates in the late 1850s showed that unarmored ships could easily be destroyed by ironclads that could not be damaged by their guns.” … and breathe.
    • Agreed. To be fair to my copyeditors, I wrote that after they went through the article. I'll have to think about a good way to rephrase that because nothing's coming to me right now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “The ends of the hull were subdivided by watertight transverse bulkheads into 92 compartments and had a double bottom underneath the engine and boiler rooms.” A bit confusing. It appears to change subject mid-sentence.
  • “The Warrior-class ships had a single two-cylinder trunk steam engine,” Did they take turns with it?
  • “Warrior's original armament was replaced during her 1867–68 refit with 24 seven-inch and four 8-inch (203 mm) rifled muzzle-loading guns.” Switch from numerals to words isn't consistent, neither is use of metric.
    • Measurements are converted only upon first unlinked use. Consistency enforced.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “Between March and June 1862, defects exposed during her trials were rectified, and damage received during the trials repaired.” Repetition.
  • “Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the defective Armstrong guns were removed and her armament was upgraded to the latest rifled muzzle-loading guns. She was briefly commissioned with the intent of becoming guardship at Queenstown, Ireland, and appeared in the 1867 Fleet Review. This commission was cancelled after 24 days when the Admiralty reconsidered, and on 25 July she was again recommissioned under Captain Henry Boys. After working up at Spithead, she sailed to join the Channel Squadron on 24 September. In 1865 she was deployed to Osborne Bay...” I’m totally lost time wise now.
  • “The hulk was towed to her new home, Pembroke Dock, Wales, in March 1929. Upon arrival, she served as a floating oil jetty known from 1942 as Oil Fuel Hulk C77. For the next fifty years, the ship lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove…” Fifty years from 1929 or 1942? I know the answer, but the average reader might then think that she was at Pembroke until 1992.
  • “For the next fifty years, the ship lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally being towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance…” Tense. There’s a lot of examples of this.
  • Rephrased. You'll need to point them out then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “Restoration of Warrior as a museum ship began in August 1979, when she began her 800-mile (1,300 km) journey to her temporary home in the Coal Dock at Hartlepool, where the £3 million restoration project was carried out, largely funded by the Manifold Trust. The ship arrived in Hartlepool on 2 September 1979.” Restoration began in September then. This is another long sentence as well.
  • Consistency: Both armoured and armored are used. Also Channel Squadron and Channel Fleet.
    • Sorry, only armoured is used. Channel Squadron and Channel Fleet are indeed both used because that's what my sources used. If I knew which one was correct, I'd use that one, but I'm fairly certain that the official term changed at some point over Warrior's active life, so I just can't arbitrarily choose one or the other.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Tense: I appreciate the need to use past tense most of the time, but for example, “HMS Warrior was 380 feet 2 inches (115.9 m) long…” Surely she still is. Perhaps corrections along the lines of “When launched, Warrior was 380 feet…”
      • Fixed.
    • Some good points, some not so much. Sturm, if you'll go through and do what makes sense to you, I'll respond on the points where you disagree. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, but this isn't all there is. FA requires "prose [that] is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". A thorough copyedit is required, not just the correction of these examples. Ranger Steve Talk 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sorry, more information will likely be required to identify issues not noted by other reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • No dice. My support is reliant on this article getting a thorough copy edit. I have already provided a dozen examples of why this is the case, I'm not going to pick through the entire article identifying every example of poor prose - nor am I required to. Just to show how common the issues are though (and why I therefore think a copyedit is required), here's another: "The coldest winter in 50 years caused problems during her launching on 29 December 1860 as she froze to her slipway and required additional tugs and hydraulic rams before the dockworkers could rock her free by running from side to side." Did she freeze to her slipway that day? What were the dockworkers running side to side for? Does it mean they ran from one side of the deck to another? Why did she require rams and tugs before she was rocked free? Where's the punctuation? Your own corrections to my points above have also introduced errors. We now have 40-pounder guns and seven-inch guns; consistency has not been introduced in naming styles. What about this: "For the next fifty years, the ship, known from 1942 as Oil Fuel Hulk C77, lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance work." I'm sorry, I don't wish to seem overly critical, but I think this needs a dedicated copyedit. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Ok, let's break down your examples. While the sentence probably does require reworking, you're questioning stuff that really isn't obscure of confusing at all. Why is the day that she froze important? Do you honestly think that the fact that the dockyard workers lit braziers under the grease the night before the launch in a failed attempt to ease Warrior's launching is important and worth adding to the article? And the other questions that you pose are answered quite clearly in the sentence. Nonetheless, I will ask for copyediting assistance as I have a hard time editing my own writing.
            • The names of the guns are correct as given. Yes, there are seven-inch guns and 40-pdr guns. Given that the seven-inch, 110-pounder Armstrong gun had at least three designations during Warrior's lifetime, I combined the two primary styles used. And the guns used after Warrior was rearmed were both measured in inches (7 and 8-inch RML) and pounds (20-pounder Armstrong), so the consistency you seek is historically inaccurate.
              • My point regarding the launching is that the sentence structure at present implies that Warrior might have frozen to the slipway on the day of launching, which is obviously unlikely. The exact day it froze is unimportant, but to say she froze to the slipway during her launching is wrong. I'm sorry, but the poor sentence structure makes the meaning of the content unclear.
              • My point isn't about the gun designations, but the manner in which they're presented. Why do you use numerals for the pounder guns and written words for the inch guns? For consistency's sake you should chose numerals or words to title all the guns, both pounder and inch. I'd suggest numerals - you've even used numerals immediately above for an inch gun (7 and 8-inch RML).
                • That wasn't at all clear from your comment; this is much more useful and a valid consideration.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • OK, I find these detailed comments far more useful in identifying any issues than your earlier dissection. I've reworked the sentence to clarify things.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • "lay just offshore from an oil depot at Llanion Cove, occasionally towed to a nearby dry dock for maintenance work." Ranger Steve Talk 06:28, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • The expansion of that paragraph has caused that particular sentence to be rewritten.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • The fact you can't see these issues (that I find quite obvious) without them being explained in absolute detail, only strengthens the need for a copyedit in my opinion. Ranger Steve Talk 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                    • The fact that you felt it necessary to comment on my acknowledgement that I have a hard time editing myself is not at all helpful. Most people do, it's a simple fact of life that you would do well to learn. Perhaps you are one of those lucky few who can edit your own prose, but you've created far too little content here for anyone to judge. Do I really need to quote Teddy Roosevelt at you?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                      • Please quit the low jibes right now. My point above is simple - you cannot see the various issues in this article (you've just admitted it as well). Therefore my request for a thorough copyedit is totally valid. This is not a criticism of your work, but it if you can't see that and would rather pursue a line of condescension of other editors then I can save us all tie by switching to oppose and leaving it there. You comment above shows that you recognise there is an issue, the issue will remain unresolved and this FAC will fail. Ranger Steve Talk 05:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                        • I have never denied that it could use a copyedit and I've said that I will ask for one. Your continued harping on the fact is not helpful.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                          • My apologies. I realise from re-reading the exchange above that you probably read my comment about "issues.. without them being explained in absolute detail..." as a response to your comment about having a hard time editing your own writing. It was meant as a response to your comment that you find the detailed comments more useful in identifying issues (my point there being that a thorough copyedit by a practised copyedited should hopefully avoid the need for explaining exact issues in too much detail). I was not trying to disparage your own abilities. Ranger Steve Talk 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, let's move on then. But be advised that I'll finish adding the info that you've requested before I ask for a copyedit, so as to avoid duplication of effort.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1b. Content and context

  • I think a lot of the sections could use expansion; for instance, the restoration. Lambert’s book is practically a book about the restoration, so I think some more should be included per weight. For instance, there needs to be clearer distinction between restoration and replication; the guns and engine aren’t real (and why is it 'engines' if there's only one?). The background to how the guns were found should be included. Likewise, the publicity brought to the project by the figurehead and Prince Philip, the importance of Midshipman Murray’s plans and the removal of 250 tons of concrete from the main deck are all the sort of facts I would expect to see in this section. Warrior was also dry docked in 2004 for maintenance, which could go in the following section. A word or two on her significance as a preserved ship wouldn't go amiss either.
    • She's already mentioned as the oldest ironclad afloat; I'm not sure what you mean by her significance as a preserved ship. Some of your points here are worthy of being addressed, but others seem trivial and "gee-whiz".--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Trivial to you perhaps, but you clearly have no idea how important Warrior is considered as a museum ship in England. Ranger Steve Talk 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would similarly like to see the service section expanded. It presently reads rather like a list of facts, with no context or explanation. For instance “In 1878 she was mobilised in reaction to concerns that Russia might be about to attack Constantinople, but this did not happen”. Why was Russia about to attack Constantinople? We have a whole article on this war that should be linked to. Similarly Warrior’s various appointments are unexplained. What did the Channel Squadron do? What was special about the floating drydock? One bit that definitely needs expansion is this: “Warrior was then used as a storage hulk and, from 1902 to 1904, as a depot ship for a flotilla of destroyers.” This is a major change in the ship’s service. She was demasted, stripped of her engine and had buildings constructed on her main deck, effectively ending her career as a sailing ship. I appreciate that hulk article is linked to, but a little more explanation is needed to fully appreciate the change that occurred. Similarly how was she adapted for her role as a floating oil platform?
    • Most of these are valid points and have been addressed. The function(s) of the Channel Squadron is sufficiently covered by the link.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other points:

  • “Warrior began a refit that lasted until 1875, that added a new poop deck”. Was there an old poop deck? As there is no description of the ship’s open deck design and double bridge, this amount of information lacks background. I’d suggest expanding the description when built.
    • That sort of info goes into the class article, which focuses on technical detail. The individual ship article focuses on the ship's history.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, but I disagree. The article currently has 12 whole paragraphs of technical detail, with no less than four on the armament alone! I think a simple description of basic design is not out of place, and as has been pointed out in the ACR, this page gets far more views than the class article. The 'new poop deck' still lacks clarification if you don't put anything else in, whether you agree with my point above or not. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • This is ironic as all get out as you're the primary person responsible for the addition of much of the technical detail. You even added a whole paragraph yourself on the ship's boat and training guns that I'd thought not worth mentioning. I've removed the word "new" regarding the poop deck that was added during the refit which will clarify that it replaced nothing. The conning tower and navigating bridge get two paragraphs in Lambert amongst the miscellanea like boat complement, anchors and pumps, while the guns get a lengthy chapter. I think that they're best left to the class article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I have no idea what you're talking about. Although I have strongly recommended that a basic description of the ship be included during the ACR, I have made no additions to the technical detail, least of all a whole paragraph or any detail on the armament or boats. Perhaps you could back up this assertion with a diff? I still don't agree that technical detail should be in a class article while history goes in the ship article. Is there some sort of policy or just your own view? Ranger Steve Talk 16:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • My apologies, I'd thought that you'd added a paragraph of excessive technical detail on the ship's guns, but it was someone else. Common sense tells me that the class article focuses on technical detail with an overview of the ships' careers and the ship article gets the reverse with a detailed account of the career and an overview of the technical side. Otherwise the two would be near mirrors of each other. The level of technical detail that you want strikes me as excessive for the ship article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
              • No worries. I agree to a certain extent that a class article should carry more detail, but not at the expense of relevant detail in the ship article. Readers shouldn't need to refer to the class article for basic descriptions; I think the open deck design is relevant. Ranger Steve Talk 20:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Really? It's not even mentioned in Parkes or Ballard and only tangentially in Lambert or Welles, mostly confined to asides that most all of the ship's crew would be below decks in combat, unlike most wooden ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “Her name was changed to HMS Vernon III in March 1904, a month after she joined Portsmouth-based Vernon, the Royal Navy's torpedo training school.” I understood that Vernon was a HMS, but aren’t the individual elements (Vernon I, II and III) more like buildings of a shore establishment and not individual HMSs on their own? I can’t find any mention of HMS Vernon III in my sources, just Vernon III.
    • Colledge & Wardlow don't actually use the prefix at all, but I think that you're right.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • “Warrior was saved from being scrapped by the efforts of the Maritime Trust, led by John Smith MP.” Confusing because there is no prior mention that she was at risk of being scrapped at this point in time. In fact it risks breeding confusion with the previous paragraph.
    • That's actually kinda complicated. Since the Trust was actively pursuing the ship, there was a minimal risk that she'd have been scrapped. OTOH, if the Trust hadn't existed she would have undoubtedly been scrapped just like Agincourt was nearly 30 years earlier. But I think that the risk of confusion is minimal given that the previous paragraph only mentions scrapping in the first sentence and more than 50 years earlier.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Even if it's complicated, it's still confusing to say it was saved from being scrapped when there is no previous mention of a risk of scrapping. So the opening sentence of this section doesn't make sense. I'd suggest including the information you've just included (sourced of course) or reworking the sentence. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Clarified that scrapping was the usual fate of ships sold. That said, I still need to get a good transition between the last sentence of the construction and service section and the first of the restorations section. Nothing comes to mind offhand, any suggestions?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I think it needs a bit more detail, as the transfer was a tad more complicated. How about redoing the paragraph thus:
Were it not for the effort of two trusts and a number of individuals who recognised Warrior's historical importance, she would almost certainly have been scrapped when Llanion Cove Oil Depot closed in 1978 (Winton p.46). Consideration had first been given to restoring Warrior in the early 1960s, although none of these ideas developed into a serious project (Winton p.47, Lambert p.45). In 1967, the Greater London Council proposed a scheme to restore the ship and make it an attraction in London, but at this point in time Warrior was still required in Pembroke by the Royal Navy and the scheme went no further (Winton p.47, Lambert p.45). The following year the Duke of Edinburgh chaired a meeting that considered the possibility of rescuing and restoring Warrior and other historic vessels, and a year later the Maritime Trust was established with a view to saving the decrepit ironclad and other historic ships (Lambert p.45). The Maritime Trust and a major supporter, the Manifold Trust led by John Smith MP, maintained an interest in Warrior and when, in 1976, the Royal Navy announced that the Llanion oil depot would close in 1978, the Manifold Trust began to seek funds to restore her. With the promise of financial support for restoration, the Royal Navy donated the ship to the Maritime Trust in 1979 (Winton p.51, Lambert p.45). Ownership was transferred to the Ship's Preservation Trust in 1983, which became the Warrior Preservation Trust in 1985 (Winton p.50). Ranger Steve Talk 21:53, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

2a. Lead.

I think it’s a bit too short. A little bit of expansion on her service history and restoration is needed; presently the last 100 years are dealt with in only two sentences. Typo in the fourth sentence as well.
You're probably right about the length of the lede, but she really didn't have an eventful history. Typo? Where? Storeship is OK either with or without a space.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dank seems to have fixed it. Ranger Steve Talk 19:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regards, Ranger Steve Talk 18:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note to say that I'll now be away from the web for a week from Saturday 29th, and can respond to any comments when I get back. Ranger Steve Talk 10:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two more comments on content.

  • Both Lambert and Winton say that Warrior was laid down on the 25th May 1859 (Lambert p.27, Winton p.4), and the Pitkin guide also says May. It's also in the infobox. As you declined to improve the referencing of the article, I can't tell where you have got the June date from, but perhaps you could check if it's correct?
    • Curious how you willfully failed to note the cite only one sentence after the one which interested you. The 2010 edition of Lambert corrected his earlier information. Thanks for catching my failure to update the infobox after changing the main body.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • But don't you see? I'm not wilfully ignoring the cite - I have no idea what the cite refers to. It follows information about the construction firms near insolvency, not the date of the ship's laying down. This is exactly why I pressed for more references. Aside from that, you've updated the infobox to August, not June. Does Lambert specifically correct his earlier work, or just give different information? If he doesn't specifically correct himself, I'd be inclined to put the 25 May date in a footnote, given it's presence in two texts. Ranger Steve Talk 19:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • It seems pretty obvious to me that a cite covers everything up to the previous cite or the beginning of a paragraph. That's the way that it works in academia and your desire to cite every sentence exceeds academic standards by a large margin. Yes, Lambert specifically changes his earlier work for the reasons that I listed. He does not give a date for the keel laying, only mid-August for the start of construction as stated in the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • I don't know where you do 'academia', but where I do it, 10 page cites are not sufficient. I have no desire to cite every sentence (that would be absurd), but an ability to identify the source of an individual fact or assertion is what cites are for. It's not enough for me to oppose, but your increasing resistance and attempts to belittle reviewing editors is noted. Ranger Steve Talk 22:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Winton states that Warrior cost "about £390,000" and Lambert says £357,291. If there is disagreement amongst the sources, it may be worth including a footnote to give the differing opinions. Ranger Steve Talk 17:11, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You may be right as Parkes splits the difference between the two you listed. Of course some of these are including the armament costs as well although they came from a different vote.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose, 1a. The writing is not up to FA standards in some places.
  • "they were built in response to the first ironclad ocean-going warship, the wooden-hulled French ironclad Gloire" The second "ironclad" seems redundant.
  • Why use the term "paid off"? Is that the term used in your source? The link redirects to decommissioning which says the term "paid off" is a more modern one (although that is uncited).
    • Actually I'd say that paid off is the older term as it refers to a ship's enlisted crew being paid their back wages upon the ending of the ship's commission and their release from service. AFAIK that system began around the 1600s and endured until (late 1800s?) sailors enlisted for specific terms of service rather than with a individual ship. And that is the term used in my sources.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Take care to properly re-introduce topics in the body text that your describe in the lead. The lead should summarize body text. For example, you thoroughly introduce the Gloire in lead but mention it in Background without really saying that it's either an ironclad or a French ship.
  • "The situation got so bad" is overly vague and colloquial. "Bad" is a very subjective and not very descriptive adjective.
  • "Indecision by the Admiralty caused many delays and nearly drove her builders bankrupt" Indecision about what?
    • Lambert doesn't say specifically, but says: "Frequent design changes during construction, and a fair amount of Admiralty prevarication ..."--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Warrior began a refit in November 1864 during which the defective Armstrong guns were removed" You haven't said anything about defective guns. Which guns were defective and in what way?
  • Awkward writing and inconsistent tense: "She was briefly commissioned in 1867 with the intent of making her a guardship at Queenstown in Ireland, and appeared in the 1867 Fleet Review."
  • Propensity for using the vague "this" in reference to previous subjects or statements. This what? A couple examples, only one sentence apart from each other:
  • "This was cancelled after 24 days"
  • "This was not merely an honorary guard"
  • "During one of her maintenance dockings before World War II, the ship's upper deck was covered with a thick layer of cement." This is a sentence that definitely suffers from the use of passive voice. Who covered it with cement, and why? Or did a cement just randomly fall on it? Passive voice prevents us from discovering key details.
Not far off, but lots of wrinkles to iron out. --Laser brain (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I really appreciate all the perceptive comments. I was asked by the nominator to copyedit and have had a good hack at it under difficult conditions; I've been camping and doing a lot of the work by torchlight on a patchy connection with a laptop. I shall be back home tonight UTC and would like to have one more look. I think I have addressed most of the faults identified with the writing but with one more push I think I can get it looking really good. Thanks for your patience. --John (talk) 09:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update I've used Laser brain's comments and my own sources to rework the article slightly. I think the only specific point I haven't addressed is the one about "Indecision by the Admiralty..." and I've messaged the nominator about this. He's indicated that he will dig out the source and help me clarify this point. Once again, thanks for all the criticisms as it has really helped me. I'm far too close to the article by now to formally support but I think the prose is much closer to standard now. --John (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lambert says: "Frequent design changes during construction and a fair degree of prevarication by the Admiralty ensured Thames Ironworks made a considerable loss on the contract." So I've added frequent design changes to the sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks to Laser brain for reviewing this and to John for helping to resolve most of the issues raised by Laser brain and RangerSteve. I've been moving this last week and hope to be able to expand the restoration section as RangerSteve asked in the next few days.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not totally sure about this but I went ahead and did it anyway. --John (talk) 11:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So is the article expansion complete? I've been sort of waiting to see what gets added before I look at it again. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Was the decking added later made of cement or concrete? --John (talk) 17:31, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good catch. Wells says cement, but later discusses the removal of concrete, while Lambert and the ship's webpage both say concrete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the quick fix. --John (talk) 18:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, it's looking quite good now. Thanks to John, Eric, and of course Sturmvogel for your efforts. --Laser brain (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks for the improvements, guys. I'll be out of town until Monday, so the expansion of the museum ship section will have to wait until then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments -- So where are we at now? I've left this open well beyond the usual (admittedly elastic) time limit because I don't like closing reviews when people are in the middle of extensive copyedits, even though FAC isn't supposed to be the place for that. The copyediting appears complete based on the comments above but I still don't see clear consensus to promote. It'd be a shame to archive as no consensus after so much work has gone into it but without some more declarations one way or the other I won't have much choice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, the article is pretty well complete. I pinged Ranger Steve a couple of days ago to see if he has anything else he'd like to see added (some of his comments were pretty cryptic), but no response as of yet, and just pinged a couple of others who've been peripherally involved to see if they're willing to offer formal comments. I'll ping John and Eric to see if they're willing to support on prose issues since they've both copyedited the article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd support on prose and also on completeness; since being asked to "copyedit" I have read several of the sources and extensively reworked the article. In the process I have added new material and new sources, and made over 100 edits to the article. So, with that disclaimer about a possible COI, I think this article is as good as it can be and meets FAC in the areas I have examined. --John (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - it looks good now & next time I'm in the UK i'll try to visit! Kirk (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm somewhat dumbfounded that my comments can be described as cryptic given the sheer amount of explanation and justification I've had to make for almost everything I've commented on. Perhaps this is related to the random comment on my talk page asking how I wanted to see the museum ship section expanded. Sturm might do well to remember that I originally wrote the section as there had only previously been a solitary sentence, and have not asked for it to be expanded in this FAC. The rather misleading comments that have been made since the very moment this FAR opened are disappointing and to me smack of an effort to demean content reviews rather than tackle the issues they are raising.
I'd like to raise a concern that this article was never ready for FAC when it started, which is reflected in the length of time its been open for. This isn't just another WP:Ships article that can be pulled together into some set template on design and service; Warrior is a cultural and historical icon and a major tourist attraction in Britain and should be approached differently. On the Warrior Talk page back in 2008, User:The Land makes an interesting statement that I fully agree with: "Preservation doesn't necessarily affect a ship's importance to naval history but it does affect their importance for the purposes of writing an encyclopaedia." The excellent articles on the Mary Rose and USS Constitution serve to show how well it can be done. A peer review might have been a better place to start, rather than opening an FAC the day after the article had just got through a difficult ACR.
I still feel there is room for expansion of this article, which I may tackle if I get more time on Wikipedia. For the time being though, my major concerns listed above have been addressed, so I'll support. Ranger Steve Talk 10:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, with the proviso that I did a bit of copyediting on this. Easily meets the FA criteria in my opinion. Eric Corbett 17:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Dr. Blofeld[edit]

I'll take a look at this tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Just a few things:

Lead
  • "HMS Warrior was the name ship of her class of two armoured frigates" Not sure why you've piped lead ship with name ship?
    • Beats me, fixed.
  • Same with decommissioned piped to paid-off below, is there a reason why decommissioned can't be directly used?
    • Paid off was the RN term, which differed from decommissioning as, forex, the USN did it. If there was an article that explained the differences, I'd use that, but, for now, decommissioning suffices.
Overview
  • "her iron hull" why is hull linked in that instance when it isn't linked above?
    • Fixed.
  • Same with Admiralty, not linked in the first instance but linked below, can you switch the links to both?
    • It's linked on first usage in the Background section.
Armament
  • Delink wrought iron, already linked in preceding section, also there is inconsistency with wrought-iron in the first instance and wrought iron in the second.
    • Done, but it gets a hyphen if the term is used as part of a compound adjective like wrought-iron armour.
Propulsion
  • Boilers is linked but isn't linked in the Armament section, switch the links again.
    • Somebody switched my paragraphs around, but done.
Construction and service
  • Can you use the currency adjusted for inflation templates, I'd be curious to know what £50,000 and £377,292 would be equivalent to today.
    Those inflation templates are unsuitable for capital projects such as building a warship. Eric Corbett 12:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's OK, still curious though.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll add a proper conversion later. Eric Corbett 13:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eric's right; the Ships project had a long discussion over how to convert building costs into modern equivalent and basically came to the conclusion that you really can't as they're capital expenditures. All I can do is provide a contemporary value to get a feel for how much it compared to other costs of the time for similar objects.
  • Madeira and Bermuda linked, but Gibraltar isn't? Did Jimbo do that? ;-].
    • You mean it isn't already well-enough known after the whole imbroglio? ;-)
  • "She was modified into a mooring jetty beginning on 22 October 1927. " -any idea where this was done and where exactly it served as a jetty in Portsmouth? I gather it's the harbour but I'd like some reference to a nearby landmark or something to get an indication like "just to the west of St. Finns Church in Queen Street".
    • The conversion was done in Portsmouth, but she never served as a jetty there; only in Llanion Cove.
Restoration
  • London International Boat Show, I gather this is London Boat Show? If so pipe link to it.
Museum ship
  • Delink jetty, and link in the first instance if it hasn't been already.
  • "She is the world's oldest surviving ironclad warship." Citation needed for a strong claim.
    • This has been surprisingly hard to find a cite for; I'm waiting for a book which I hope will give me what I'm looking for. I've deleted the text until it arrives. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [63].Reply[reply]

The Diary of a Nobody[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Diary of a Nobody is a seminal work in comic English fiction, much imitated over the years in terms of format and characterisation. The putative diarist, Charles Pooter, is the epitome of all who take themselves and their small lives too seriously; Adrian Mole and Bridget Jones are among his more recent descendents, though arguably somewhat less engaging. It's comedy without malice; the book has never been out of print, and if you haven't read it before I hope this article might inspire you to do so (free, online of course). Particular thanks to the peer reviewers for the improvements they have engendered, especially to Ssilvers for lending his Grossmith expertise to the task. Brianboulton (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support had my say at the peer review. Excellently done and I plan to read it if I ever have time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image review. Mostly OK

  • File:Grossmithsor01.jpg I'm not convinced by the license tag. It is surely not a US work. No evidence of publication but this is plainly a publicity shot.
That's it. Other images look good.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have replaced the Grossmith image with one that has incontrovertible pre-1923 publication information. Per Tim's point below, I will see wheter it's possible to squeeze Weedon in (there is a photo from the same source). Thanks for your help with this, and with the review. Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – I too took part in the peer review. I have known and loved this book for more than forty years, and the Grossmiths are home territory for me. Despite this I could find precious little to quibble about at peer review and can find nothing now. I learned a fair few things, as well. The nominator has shrewdly avoided (as I wouldn't have done) falling into the trap of overloading the article with an excess of quotations; the choice of three of Weedon's drawings is similarly judicious. (I did just wonder on rereading if there might be room without too much of a squeeze for a picture of Weedon, as we have one of George.) The balance of the article is good, the content comprehensive, the referencing thorough and widely-sourced, and the prose a pleasure to read. Meets all FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many thanks for your review help and these comments. As you will see from the above, I am investigating the possibility of squeezing an image Weedon in. Can you suggest where, in the article, you think it might best fit in? Brianboulton (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about this one? Just uploaded. Could go where GG is at present on his own. Tim riley (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is a superb image and entirely appropriate. I have replaced the GG pic with this; many thanks for finding and suggesting it. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: I also participated in the peer review and was pleased to be able to suggest a few changes, mainly to the background section about the authors. The article is a neat and efficient, yet readable, description of the novel, its literary reputation, cultural influence and adaptations. It is well written, well organized, nicely illustrated and covers its subject throughly. May I also say that this is the type of article that shows Wikipedia in its best light: there is nothing like this on this topic elsewhere on the internet or even in print encyclopedias. Well done to Brian Boulton and the other contributors to the article! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your help in getting the article up to standard; I needed your and Tim's particular knowledge of the Grossmiths to polish up the background detail – and as you can see, above, Tim is still on the case! Your support and encouraging words are much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per Tim and Ssilvers. I had meant to participate in the PR on this but I'm sorry to have not got around to it. Looking at it now the article is in really fine shape. As is typical of Brian's work, the prose is excellent. The article is well organised and discusses the Diary thoroughly. I see no problems with sourcing, neutrality or anything like that. I've made a few tweaks here and there but nothing major. Here are some very minor nitpicks, which don't affect my support:

  • In the plot section maybe make clearer for international readers where some of the places being referred to are: while we don't want to unnecessarily clog up the prose (and it is clear from the context that most of them are in or around London), it should perhaps be mentioned that Oldham is in Lancashire and that Broadstairs is a seaside town (hence the Pooters spending their holiday there)
  • Maybe find a replacement for the word "engaged" in "engaged with theatricals" as it directly follows "engagement" at the end of the previous paragraph
  • Shouldn't the image captions have wikilinks in them?

I can't see anything else to mention right now, but I will be looking over the next few days and if there is something I will add it. Well done Brian and everybody else who helped with this! —Cliftonian (talk) 23:47, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thank you for your support and positive comments. On the points you raise:
  • Oldham: it is wikilinked; I'm not sure that adding "in Lancashire" will be any more helpful to international readers, who would probably need to use the link anyway.
  • I have added that Broadstairs is a seaside town - it also is wikilinked
  • Replaced "engaged" in the theatricals context
  • Where the caption is directly adjoining linked names in the text, as is the case with the Grossmiths, Birrell and Waugh, it does not seem necessary to link again in the captions, and I don't normally do it. If someone else thinks otherwise, I would not make an issue of it. Brianboulton (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Okay, all that looks good to me. Well done again on this really admirable piece of work. If there's something else I can help with please do let me know —Cliftonian (talk) 21:47, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by the Dr
Lead
  • City clerk. Not sure why it is capitalized, if it's London I'd say London clerk.
  • Capitalisation of "City" as shorthand for the "City of London" is commonplace, but may not be obvious to non-British readers so I have followed your suggestion. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"a City of London clerk" -- can this be changed to "a clerk ... in the City of London? -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inconsistency in number form, fifteen, 12. Should be 15 I think seems as you adopt the over nine digit form elsewhere in the article.
  • " mature collaboration" -what is meant by a mature collaboration?
I think it is clear that this means that it was their only collaboration as adults, in contrast to the youthful collaboration that we mention above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:12, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Repetition of the word modest.
Authorship and origin
  • My opinion is that this is a little excessive and some of it isn't really relevant to the book. I understand that some of it is relevant to the artistic development and influence, but I'd expect a relatively short summary for their career backgrounds and context, or a higher percentage of material directly related to the book's development. For instance I'm not sure sentences like "In May 1888 he played alongside Henry Irving at the Lyceum Theatre" do much to help the article about the actual book. I'd condense this section a bit, the middle paragraph especially. Just a suggestion anyway, there's obviously a reason why you thought it was all relevant.
  • I feel that background information on the lives and activitiies of the authors is useful, particularly as both led interesting lives, though obviously we don't want to overdo it. I see that Ssilvers has trimmed this section a little, and I have trimmed and polished it a bit more. I hink that should do. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BB, I think that your additional trimming left the Weedon information unbalanced, so I removed the Tony Joseph quote, which I believe would be misleading without the Findon quote to balance it. I'd rather have them both back, as I had left it -- your choice. Also, I think it is necessary to make clear that George continued his piano career "at the same time" as he was starring in the Savoy operas. Finally, if the clause following the conjunction is an independent clause, then you need a comma before the conjunction. If you remove the "he", then you need to remove the comma, which I have done in two places. Finally, there is a long sentence in the middle of the George paragraph (that you formed by combining two sentences) that includes too many thoughts and causes a little problem with chronology. Here are the facts: George prolifically wrote his own piano sketches and songs. Separately, he wrote operettas that were performed as curtain raisers at the Savoy and also some other comic operas, including Haste to the Wedding (1892). George "became" the greatest comic entertainer in two ways - first, as the G&S leading man from 1877 to 1889, and second as a phenominally successful piano sketch entertainer from 1889. Any thoughts about how to clarify? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:57, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have restored the middle of the George paragraph to what you wrote before my further trimming, except that I have replaced "At the same time" with "While appearing in the operas...". I am slightly bothered about the close repetition of "writing", and may find an alternative, though I don't have time at the moment. Please feel free to tweak further for clarity, though I don't think we need add any significant material. Brianboulton (talk) 07:43, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks ok to me. To eliminate one "writing", you could make "writing and composing" just "composing". Or "penning"? "creating?". Similarly, you now have the word "operas" in two sentence in a row. How about "while starring in these..."? But none of these is essential. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll leave it for the moment. One can fiddle about for ever (I often do) without any real improvement. Fresh eyes in a few days might provide inspiration - we'll see. Brianboulton (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Synopsis
  • I see City linked this time. Can you change both to London?
  • "keen anticipation" Both words have the same meaning, much anticipation?
  • I must disagree here. One can anticipate events with a dull dread, e.g. a looming visit to the dentist, a performance of Bartók's Violin Concerto, a discussion about infoboxes... (you name it!). Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, just never heard of anticipation being anything but keen!♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What is meant by ""fast" habits"?
  • It means vaguely disreputable, the sort of thing that "respectable people" don't do. I would have thought the term was clear in context, but I'll see if an alternative might do the job better. Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Certainly not! One used to have fast habits oneself, though regrettably they've slowed to a standstill nowadays. Eheu fugaces! (Anonymous edit by Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 11 August 2013 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Lower sections look flawless to me.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 11:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Looks a sound article now to me. Nicely done.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 09:15, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support – unreservedly. I have read the book and believe this article to be a true, accurate and through account of the subject matter. Flawless! --CassiantoTalk 10:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. I've made some very minor tidies: please feel free to revert anything you think weakens the article. Only one further minor comment: the British Library have the Christopher Matthew's book as first published in 1978, rather than the 1979 you list. An excellent piece, as always. - SchroCat (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To the above two, many thanks. The Matthew date was my error, as the source clearly shows the initial publication as November 1978. As to "flawless", I don't honestly think that could ever be applied to any WP article, but hopefully we can aspire to produce work without significant flaws. Brianboulton (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support, although this nomination is hardly suffering from lack of support. Interesting, thoroughly prepared, and of the quality I have come to expect from Brian. --Laser brain (talk) 15:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source Review - as requested, I have reviewed the sources used in the article. The sources are fine with two minor possible exceptions.

  • Current ref 12 (to abebooks.com) is used to cite the sentence "Audiobook versions have been available since 1988.[12]" While I like the used book website, I think that WorldCat is a better source, and it shows a 1982 audiobook version as the earliest one (not 1988). See here
  • Is this a typo? Should it be "p. 32" (not "p. 3.2"?) Current ref 19 is "Untitled". The New York Times. 19 December 1892. p. 3.2."

PS In the interest of full disclosure, I cropped the image of Daisy used in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have altered ref 12 source to WorldCat per your suggestion, and have corrected the year to 1982. The NYT page no 3.2 is correct. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - I have also read the article and find it fully meets the FAC criteria. Well done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the sources review and for the support, also for earlier images help. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [64].Reply[reply]

Old Church of St Nidan, Llanidan[edit]

Nominator(s): BencherliteTalk 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An article about a church that was mostly demolished in 1844 when a new church in a "debased barbarous style" was built to replace it. (Progress, eh?) Despite this - or perhaps because of this - I found a surprising amount to write about it. Eric Corbett (talk · contribs) has given it a copyedit and Tim riley (talk · contribs) made some useful comments at its peer review. I think it's close enough to FA standards to make it worth having a go for the star. Thanks in anticipation for your comments. BencherliteTalk 14:01, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – As mentioned above, I peer reviewed this article. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is concise, but seems to contain all the relevant facts; it is well illustrated and properly referenced; and I found it a delight to read. A small gem! Tim riley (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much, Tim, for your kind words and your earlier help. BencherliteTalk 14:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Jim excellent article, just a couple of quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • A sandstone chest containing bone fragments, possibly relics of a saint...The reliquary—Since reliquary isn't linked or glossed, I'm not sure that it's clear that the chest and the reliquary are one and the same
  • Ref 7 is dead
  • People associated with St Nidan's—I don't think it's MoS to have the article's subject in a heading
  • 3 feet (0.9 m) ... 2 feet 10 inches (1 m) —????
  • Two verses from Psalm 84 (in Welsh) — could you put the original Welsh in a footnote?
  • Changed "reliquary" to "chest" for clarity.
  • Hmm, odd for a BBC link to go dead like that. It might be a temporary thing (I hope not, as I use that link in lots of articles!) but I've added an archiveurl parameter as backup.
  • I think that only applies if the full article title is repeated, but I've changed it anyway.
  • (grin/grimace) fixed.
  • Neither source gives the Welsh, alas.
Thanks for your comments, Jim. BencherliteTalk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No further comments, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Nicely written, I made a couple of small tweaks, hope you like them, if not tis a wiki...... I was wondering about the choice of images and their positioning. In particular you mention the stoup, the bellcote and the heads over the North door and we have photos of them available. Perhaps this article would benefit from the sort of mini galleries used in Inner German Border. ϢereSpielChequers 06:27, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the tweaks and the support. I'll have a think about the mini-gallery idea and see how it looks, although there isn't as much text to play around with as in the IGB article and I don't want to swamp the article with pictures. BencherliteTalk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (own work, Geograph, PD-age). Sources and authors provided. Tweaked a few summaries and captions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the check and the tweaks. BencherliteTalk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Gerda

I am very impressed by the thorough article on a "melancholy fate". Minor remarks:

  • As long as a link is read, I would not repeat it in the lead.
  • Foundation ...: It may be just my lack of English, but the sentence starting "As a result, writes the historian Antony Carr" is so long and complex that had to start over, and still am not sure I understood.
  • I suggest to link "medieval", - yes, you and I know ...
  • Replacement ... "St Nidan's Church, Llanidan", - I would say "The new St Nidan's Church". If left unchanged, a comma please.
  • I smiled reading "Parish worship transferred to the new church, along with some of the fittings.", placing worship and fittings on one level.
  • I didn't know "mortuary" but should have concluded.
  • Psalm 84 is (unfortunately) not very informative. What do you think about quoting the source Psalms 84? (Its verse 10.)
  • I would take the phrase "homing stone" to the lead.

Agree: should not be missed, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Gerda, and glad you like it.
  • Not sure what you mean by this one - do you mean "link is red" instead? If so, I don't think there's a rule against having redlinks in a lead - and the house is a listed building with a long history, so it passes WP:GNG and WP:REDLINK and someone (perhaps even me!) will write about it eventually.
Not by any rules, I try to avoid to have the same red link twice. Best help: create at least a stub ;)
  • Split into two sentences.
  • Good point, already linked to medieval architecture in the infobox so I've repeated this link in the lead and the body
  • Addressed in a slightly different way ([[St Nidan's Church, Llanidan|A new church]], also dedicated to St Nidan, was built...)
  • Glad you like that. A bit of zeugma never hurt anyone, did it?!
  • Link added to mortuary
  • Not sure what you mean here - I already quote that verse. I'm not particularly sure that the article would be improved by telling readers that the English translation of the original Welsh comes from a particular version of the Bible. If you mean something different, please say so.
  • Hmmm... both of the two sentences about the stone in the lead already say that it comes back, so to say so a third time would I think be excessive in the lead.
Hope this helps keep you happy, Gerda. Vielen Dank! BencherliteTalk 14:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for taking my thoughts, and for good replies. Let me not speak here about my happiness, I keep dreaming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note for delegates: I had a source spotcheck at my last FAC, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Boden Professor of Sanskrit election, 1860/archive1. BencherliteTalk 10:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Infobox says church is 78 ft, text says aisles alone were 78 ft - which is correct?
  • "Biblical texts that once decorated the internal walls" - source? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Church was 78 feet pre-demolition, so infobox was right (good spot); article reworded.
  • I'd reworded that bit in response to an earlier comment and forgot to repeat the references...
Thanks, NM. BencherliteTalk 11:05, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments by the Dr
  • Some inconsistencies 12th century and 14th century vs 13th-century and 15th-century in the lead. Generally you appear to use the hyphen, which I believed is preferred.
    The hyphen is only used when the century is being used as an adjective, as in "13th-century font". Eric Corbett 20:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, seems a bit unnecessary to me but I'm sure it's conventional.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd place "The authors of a 2009 guide to the buildings of north-west Wales record the tradition that a church was first established at this site in 616.[5]" in a new paragraph, seems unrelated to location which you document before it.
  • "The churchyard is kept locked, but the church and the gardens of Plas Llanidan are occasionally opened to the public." Why occasionally? Seems a bit vague, surely there's a reason why it opens, like for fêtes or festivals or something or by request..
  • The southern aisle, he said, had had “a small circular headed window, filled up from a pointed one" and “a small circular headed window, filled up from a pointed one" For some reason you use an old-fashioned apostrophe to start these quotes rather than " which is used to end the quote and in other quotes.
  • "The 15th-century roof has exposed woodwork". What is meant by "exposed woodwork" on a roof? Not sure what you mean. Roof beams showing through or something? Can you elaborate a little?
  • "Most of the fittings now in St Nidan's are not original, and come from other churches in north-west Wales; the granite altar is modern." Do you have knowledge of some of the churches materials were taken from? I'd be interested to know what was from where if you have the information.
  • "St Nidan's has national recognition and statutory protection from alteration as it is a Grade II* listed building, the second-highest of the three grades of listing, designating "particularly important buildings of more than special interest" Seems a little superfluous, I'd simply say St Nidan's became a Grade II* listed building on 30 January 1968, listed for the reason that it is "a good example of a simple medieval rural church, enriched by 15th-century additions."... For people who are very familiar with listed buildings like myself I sort of find it rather obvious, I think if anybody who doesn't know really wants to know what Grade II* is they can click on the article. I'm not sure you'll agree but just a suggestion. For the sake of a general audience, perhaps you're right to fully elaborate on it, but imagine reading lot of church articles and reading the same thing!...
  • Delink Angharad Llwyd in the Pre-demolition comments section unless there is a specific reason why it is linked twice within the body of the article.
  • Ref 26 "Barnes, David (2005). The companion guide to Wales. Companion Guides. p. 331. ISBN 1-900639-43-2." Shouldn't the book title be capitalized?

♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 20:32, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree with Eric re the "-century" issue.
  • Disagree, a new paragraph here seems unnecessary to me, since we're still dealing with location of the church.
  • I don't know why the owners only open the church occasionally, and none of my sources say. Probably they like the peace and quiet of not having their house and garden invaded by tourists...
  • Fixed one instance, probably a word-processing glitch; did you think that there were two? (You give the same quote twice)
  • Re "exposed woodwork", I've had this discussion with Eric in the past e.g. Talk:St Beuno's Church, Trefdraeth/GA1 about how to say this in another way. I hope my revised wording keeps both of you happy (and I've also mentioned the exposed woodwork in a photo caption for good measure)
  • The sources don't say, or I would have added it in...
  • As you've guessed, I'd rather keep a brief explanation of what a Grade II* listed building means, because not everyone is as familiar as you with the concept. In fact, this wording has developed over time as other reviewers (for GA) of other articles in the series have asked for more explanation than just "St Z's is a Grade II listed building because [reason]"
  • Done
  • Done
Thanks for your further comments (and for the help you gave as the GA reviewer long ago...) BencherliteTalk 10:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Excellent job, great to see so much for such a place.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 21:09, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [65].Reply[reply]

Aleeta curvicosta[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC) & 99of9 (talk · contribs)Reply[reply]

The floury baker is a cute and loud cicada and is another critter found in my garden I have buffed for hopeful FA status. A bulk of work was done by 99of9. With two of us co-nomming we should be able to answer queries double quick...have at it..CHEEP. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Casliber. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • Floury bakers are popular with children due to their distinctive appearance and loud call. - Appearances so it matches the subject
umm, 'appearance' is a collective noun and hence singular. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The species is preyed upon by a wide variety of birds, cicada killer wasps and a cicada-specific fungal disease. - Is it really preyed upon by fungi?
lead rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description
  • Measuring 9–10 cm (4 in) in length,[9] - There's no difference between the conversions for these two?
  • My training says you conserve the (minimum) number of sigificant figures in a conversion, which would make both of them 4 in.--99of9 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • about 200 nm in height, separated by about 180 nm. - Just impractical to convert?
nanometres are way too small to convert to imperial units... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • These are thought to aid in anti-reflective camouflage, anti-wetting, and self-cleaning.[12][11] - Keep the lack of serial comma consistent, and don't use it here!
removed comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The abdominal tracheal air sacs surround the sound muscles and extend into the abdomen, acting as a resonant chamber to amplify sound. - Does each act as a chamber? Then it should be chambers.
pluralised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ,[18] and has been rhetorically termed "the best musician of them all".[5] - Rhetorically?
removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Life cycle
  • growing and feeding through their rostrum on the sap from tree roots, moulting five times, before emerging from the ground to shed their final shell.[21][22] - This sentence is a mess!
sentence massaged for flow and split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It then extracts its head and clypeus by hunching its body, and when they are out, arches back to draw the legs out of their casing.[22] - Changing plurality of subject?
the "they" refers to the head and clypeus - have reworded it a little to make it more obvious (?) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Distribution
  • The floury baker is found from the Daintree River in North Queensland through to Bendalong in southern New South Wales.[3] - Could we get rid of "through" and just use to?
yup. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Predation
  • brush wattlebirds, white-faced herons, and even the nocturnal tawny frogmouth, - Serial comma absence should stay consistent!
removed comma Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good work. ceranthor 05:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. ceranthor 15:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments from Jim I must have heard these without knowing what they were. Generally sound, but a few infelicities. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Its eyes and body are generally brown with pale patterns including a pale line—two "pale"s, and seems odd to put eyes before body
switched and one pale --> light Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The female is larger than the male, although their size—clunky change from singular to plural even if grammatical
changed to "although species size overall... " Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A solitary cicada...—lots of "can"s in this para
one removed, leaving two. Removing either of the remaining leaves alternatives that are wordier... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • uncal lobes—redlinked and unexplained
specific term used in describing cicada male genitalia. Need to think about this.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The floury baker gains its common...—lots of "common"s in this para
removed two... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 9–10 cm (4 in) in length,[9] with forewings between 3 and 5.1 cm (1.4–2 in) long,—If you are converting to 1 sig fig, the second range should be 1–2. If to 2 sig fig, the first should be 3.5–3.9 and the second 1.4–2.0
I'll take 3.5–4.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Their wings are transparent—Preceding sentences have a singular subject, what does "their" refer too?
changed to definite article - clearly the cicada..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • one second sibilant—hyphen, I think
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • they are often found on various species of Melaleuca... It was associated—change from plural to singular
rewritten and trimmed a bit Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • wrens —you are hereby expelled from the bird project (: follow the link...
redirected now to Maluridae...oops... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • bearded dragons (a large lizard)—change from plural to singular
removed - let the link explain..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 100 meters. —AE
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They are then shoved into the hunter's burrow, where the numb cicada—numb is something of an understatement, "paralysed"
changed to "helpless" - as we already have a paralyse just before... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Personally I wouldn't link to publications in refs. I'm particularly unconvinced by redlinks to publications
delinked redlinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ref 1 espšces typo, I think, looks more like Serbian than French. What's "Latr." short for? You can link to the paper
Latr. Pierre André Latreille (genus authority fixed), typo fixed - Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ref 15 has the journal's publisher, others don't
publisher removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll leave you to sort out the genitals (!). I'm happy with the other changes, now supporting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492

  • Images are all okay - All given free licenses by their authors, no qualms over copyright here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Individuals typically emerge through - Emerge from what?
from the soil - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Shouldn't the bird names all have initial capitals?
names fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any parasites?
not that I've seen published..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No mention of them sometimes perching while facing upwards?
not specifically - se can only fllow sources which say "usually face downwards" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Behaviour section feels awfully light
can only add what's in source. The information on some organisms can be meagre Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've found an extra source and added a paragraph about their flight inabilities. Please proofread. --99of9 (talk) 04:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • re User:Crisco 1492: They used an average which included an arbitrary negative value if the cicada failed to react at all. So I can't give a useful numerical value, but I can say that it's in the middle of the pack compared to the other Australian cicadas they studied. "moderate" was my word for this, but there may be something better. --99of9 (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's it from me. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support on prose and images. Seems reasonably accessible to a dolt like me, though I'll admit that some parts were quite technical. Good job guys, (and kinda feeling pleased as this work began not long after the POTD was selected... glad to see that section of the page gets articles written) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, the POTD notification was definitely the catalyst for the expansion. --99of9 (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support - Read this pre-nom and post this stage of the FAC review. Supporting on the basis of its use of high quality sources, its comprehensiveness and for its clarity of writing. Small niggles I can look after myself. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments. Prose and MoS needs some tweaking; will be back soon with a lit review and check of sources. Sasata (talk) 19:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • link authorities: Maxwell Sydney Moulds,Walter Wilson Froggatt, Carl Stål, Frederic Webster Goding, William Lucas Distant
linked once each Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • what is the format for listing the synonyms? It appears to be neither alphabetical nor by year of appearance
It follows the two initial binomials used as they have been transferred through genera and synonymised Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It is native to the continent's eastern coastlines; described in 1834 by Ernst Friedrich Germar." fix grammar
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "light coloured line" needs hyphen
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link genus earlier, link Aleeta
Genus is now linked on first occurrence (in lead). There is no separate page for Aleeta, it redirects here, as this is the only species in it. 99of9 (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The male has very distinctive genitalia" (another instance later)
removed x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It is solitary and occurs in low densities." What is "It"? The species, or the male, described in the previous sentence?
the species - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Germar used two specimens now in the Hope Entomological Collections, Oxford, but did not designate a type specimen and their exact locations was not recorded." Used them for what? was->were
  • link genetic distance
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ensure short-form binomials have non-breaking spaces
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • what's an uncal lobe?
an obscure part of the genitalia. Currently at a bit of a loss where to link it to, and explaining what it is is tricky too.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Aleeta's and Tryella's I think it's probably best to avoid using the possessive forms of Latin names, but at the very least, the apostrophe + s should not be italicized
got rid of second, but can't see how to get rid of first without making prose more cumbersome. Have de-italicised the final 's' in any case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "…and both the vernacular terms baker and miller were known to be in use by 1860." can we remove "known to be"?
sure. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "another species of Australian cicada (Altria perulata, now Arunta perulata) which has white "sacks" " which->that (please audit the rest of the article for which/that usage)
umm, a comma and a "which" (all white drummers have white sacs) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "With a body length of 2.9 centimetres" no need to spell out the unit here
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Their dry mass is around 36.2% of their total bodymass" odd to give the qualifier "around" and then such a accurate figure; perhaps replace "is around" with "is on average"?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The female is slightly larger than the male,[3] She has generally similar colourings" fix
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "…at the base of apical cells 2 and 3." how many apical cells are there?
lots - 8 on the forewing and 6 on the hindwing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "continuous zigzag infuscation" infuscation is jargony, is there a more accessible replacement word?
it means darkened bit, which is added by subsequent words. Hence removed and meaning remains same.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • discoloration->discolouration
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link nanometre
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The male call can be heard at any time of day" Really? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say something like "The male makes its calls throughout the day"?
hmmm, they start and stop - so I think the way it is wrtten captures that better than your suggestion which more strongly suggests they do it all the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 7-10 s -> endash, not hyphen
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:57, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The tune has been described" Is it accurate to call the insect sounds a "tune"?
tricky this - some books use "song" or "call", both of which sould weirder to me. Too complex to be a "note". Have rejigged so we avoid the word. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link Hz, sound frequency, resonance, modulation
✔ done, but I went for resonator rather than resonance 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "very wide range of native…"
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link introduced
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The metabolic rate over a period of about 6.5 hours during emergence of A. curvicosta is about 1.8 times the resting metabolic rate of the adult." So…? It seems obvious that an actively emerging nymph will be more active than a resting adult.
Is it obvious that it will be a factor of 1.8? Gruelling costume changes like this could be very expensive? Someone thought it was worth studying, so I prefer to keep it. 99of9 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • provide link & Latin binomial for broad-leaved paperbark earlier
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • link Sydney
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "92 day emergence period" needs hyphen
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • is it "South East Queensland" or "South-East Queensland"?
former. offending hyphen removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • citations are unnecessarily repeated for the final 4 sentences of the 2nd paragraph of section "Life cycle"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "and mating and egglaying occurs." -> "and mating and egg laying occur."
fixed x 2 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • what is the Massospora fungus that infects this insect? How does it "affect" the genitalia and abdominal cavity?
I've had a stab at this, but perhaps a specialist on fungal taxa could bluelink it :-). 99of9 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review Sasata (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • ref#2 missing issue#
found it - added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • retrieval dates not required for online versions of print documents (several instances)
✔ done 99of9 (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Moulds (1990) source is repeated several times in the references. Could you place this source under a subsection "Bibliography" (or similar) and convert these to short-form citations?
will do this a bit later today. chores to do now done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ref#8 needs a date
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • article case and page range format are different in ref#9; MacNally given as single word in doi page
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • page range format ref#15
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • author format ref#17
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • case format refs#18, 19
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • is there a space between author initials (e.g. #17) or not (e.g. #23)
shouldn't be - fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • something's a bit different about the format of book ref#27 (note the comma after the year)
'twas in citation rather than cite book format. fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ref#31: childrens->children's
apostrophe added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, sources look fine. A lit search of my own failed to turn up any omissions pertaining to WIAFA criteria 1b and 1c. As a final suggestion, it would not be a bad idea to indicate the sources used for the synonyms in the "synonyms_ref" parameter of the taxobox. I support the promotion of this candidacy to FA. Sasata (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [66].Reply[reply]

Wordless novel[edit]

Nominator(s): Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it to be a comprehensive article on a medium of expression whose time in the sun was short, and was long forgotten until recently. There seems in the last decade to be a bit of a boom in reprinting these things, many of which were out of print for generations. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: before anyone brings this up (because it has come up in more than one of my FACs), the word "comics" when referring to the medium is an uncountable noun, like "politics" or "mathematics". Uncountable nouns" are often called "mass nouns", but the latter term is confusing as such nouns do not always refer to masses of anything; they often refer to abstract concepts and do not take a plural form—so, no, "comics theorist Scott McCloud" (where "comics" is used as a noun adjunct) is not an error. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "where Masereel told tales of Man's struggle against Society, Nückel told of the life of an individual woman" - the primary source supports the description of the latter's oeuvre, but is there a secondary source that makes this comparison?
    • The compariosn is made in the third paragraph: "Qu'est-ce qui différencie cette œuvre d'Otto Nückel publiée à Munich en 1930 de celles de Frans Masereel ou de Lynd Ward? L'Allemand [that would be Nückel] montre le destin d'une femme, quand les autres parlent de celui de l'Homme avec une majuscule." Technically, she's comparing Nückel's work to both Masereel and Ward, but the Ward comparison would be anachronistic at this point in the article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:18, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ISBN for Willett?
  • Compare date formatting within the Rhode entry, and add publisher.
  • Nikkimaria (talk) 22:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support, as prior GA Reviewer. High quality article. Educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments. High quality, generally comprehensive treatment of a sometimes-overlooked predecessor to a modern art form. I look forward to this being promoted, but in the meantime, I will pick some nits:

  • You have parenthetical links to foreign-language Wikipedias alongside the redlinks to Thomas Ott and Hendrik Dorgathen near the end of the article. I've never seen this done before, and can't imagine that it's standard practice. There's nothing inherently wrong with a redlink or, ideally, the foreign-language articles can be used to create a stub here.
    It's done using the {{ill}} template. When an English Wikipedia page of the same name is created, the foreign-language link magically disappears. I actually did create a numver of the articles linked to from this article; in the case of Ott and Dorgathen, the articles were unreferenced, so I didn't bother (I've seen reviews of Ott in the comics press before—if I were sufficiently motivated, I could track down the sources myself. But I'm not). Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Reference 16 looks like an em dash instead of an en dash. I think that's the only page range with a problem, but may have missed one. I hate little horizontal lines, sorry.
    Fixed. Good eye. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • You've got inconsistent date formatting in the works cited. Some of this probably can't be helped, with sources that unhelpfully provide us with season of publication, of all things. But compare the Cohen reference with the Bi reference.
    Done. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand what earns some works a place in Further Reading and some in External Links. The Frans Masereel Foundation link is clearly an External Link, but is there a reason the 2006 Bi, Boxer, and Rhode works aren't under Further Reading instead? For that matter, is there nothing from these sources that can enrich the article? Boxer's work, just by example, looks like it might have value for modern reactions to the form.
    This was my "logic" (though I'm not taking a hard line with this):
    • The Silent Shout was cited by several of my sources, so I assumed it was a worthy "Further reading", even if I couldn't get my hands on it.
    • Bi is interesting, but it's mainly about silent comics, with detours into the wordless novel along the way. Interesting, but it's out of scope for the article. so I put it in "External links".
    • "Stories Without Words: A Bibliography with Annotations" also has a much broader scope, but includes a bibliography of wordless novels ("Woodcut Novels") at the end. As it's a list, I didn't feel it qualified as "Further reading" per se.
    • Boxer was interesting, and I had originally intended to use it as a source, but I found it didn't say anything about wordless novels in general that wasn't already in the article (it focuses on Lynd Ward). I've now removed it and put it in the Gods' Man article. Curly Turkey (gobble) 22:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - please do not use templates on the nomination talkpage. They tend to break the nominations viewer and slow down page processing within FA-nominations. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age, PD-1923, PD-US no notice, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.

Comments from Ceranthor
Overview
History
  • mediaeval Europe - is this a typical spelling?
    • The article's in Canadian English, where's it's definitely an accepted spelling. After searching a couple dictionaries online and off-, it appears to be acceptable even in American English (to my surprise). Curly Turkey (gobble) 00:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • disillusioned by the horrors World War I. - I fixed the typo, but this reads a bit awkwardly and it's too vague for an encyclopedia article. Needs a rewrite.
General
  • Keep usage of serial comma consistent throughout. I went through and fixed what I saw, but I could miss some instances.
  • Incorrect usage of semicolons. Look up the rules if you are not sure! WP:MOS probably has a section!

Once my comments are resolved, I can !vote. ceranthor 14:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - ceranthor 02:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notes from requested WP:GOCE copyedit I have copyedited this article, as requested on the Guild of Copy Editors' Requests page. This is not a support/oppose statement, just feedback. The following are notes on problems with the text that I could not resolve with a copyedit:

  • Lead: "Following World War II, examples of wordless novels became increasingly rare, and early works went out of print." Do you mean that the novels were being destroyed, or that new novels were not being written and published, or that existing published novels were not being reprinted, or something else? The sentence is ambiguous.
    • They were being suppressed, but the intended meaning was that new wordless novels were rarely being produced. Changed to "new examples"Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lead: "Cartoonists such as Eric Drooker and Peter Kuper took direct inspiration from worldess novels to create wordless graphic novels." The difference between "wordless novel" and "wordless graphic novel" is not clear here in the lead. It is explained below. Maybe add a link to graphic novel, which would make it visually clear that the word "wordless" modifies "graphic novel" and not just "novel".
  • Overview: "Wordless novelists" is awkward. "Novelists" is usually preceded by an adjective identifying the person, not the type of novel, e.g. "American", "female", or "gay". I suppose "graphic novelists" would be acceptable, though it does have an ambiguous meaning. The phrase "wordless novelists" appears three times in the article. If it is an accepted term in the field, I'm fine with it. Otherwise, I recommend changing it.
    • There doesn't appear to be an accepted term at all. "Graphic novelists" is right out, as it's not a given that these books are comics. To be honest, I don't see what you do when you call "wordless novelists" "awkward", though. Any other suggestions? Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Images: Some images have no alt text.
  • English variant: I suggest placing some country's version of {{British English|form=editnotice}} on the page. The variant of English appears consistent to me, whichever one it is.
    • The talk page already notes the article's in Canadian English. Should such a notice go on the article page itslef? I've never seen that done before. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Decline: "Lynd Ward, who found himself on an FBI "person of interest" list..." Person of interest and other sources appear to say that the phrase dates from 1996 or later, so using it here is probably not appropriate.
  • Relation to graphic novels: You introduce the apparently redundant term "silent comics" without a link or an explanation of it. Comics are by their nature silent, like novels, paintings, and deceased parrots, are they not? Like "wordless novelists", if this is a common term in the field, I will accept it (with a link or a quick explanation). If it's a phrase that you made up, please change it.
    • I definitely didn't make up the phrase—in fact, even in French "bandes dessinées muettes" is used. I can see the issue, though, so I've switched in "textless" and "wordless" for silent in that paragraph. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relation to graphic novels: You quote Eisner on Ward, and then you quote McCloud, but there is only one citation for the whole paragraph (Chute p. 410). I looked at the source, and I think you need to move the Chute ref up to the Eisner quotation and cite Understanding Comics or another McCloud work at the end of the paragraph.
    • I removed the McCloud bit. I think it was likely that I just decided to through in the word "closure", since it's "obvious" to comics people that that's what Eisner was talking about, before the accepted vocab had popped up. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Relation to graphic novels: Again in the Dorgathen sentence you use the word "silent", twice. I object gently to both instances.
  • See also: Another "silent comics".
  • I think that's it. Overall, great work. The above are nitpicky, but you asked for an FAC review. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Thanks a lot! I could've sworn I took down the GOCE request when I put the article up for FAC, but I'm glad that wasn't the case. Curly Turkey (gobble) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: All of the above edits, changes, and non-changes are acceptable to me. Nice work. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comment -- Quite a few duplicate links in the History section; not sure they should be necessary in an article of this (relatively modest) length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was because I felt the links seerved the reader best in the History section, but that the History section should follow the Overview. I don't feel that strongly enough to make a stink about it, though, so I've removed the five duplicate links. Curly Turkey (gobble) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'm not fanatical about them, and will generally respect reasons for keeping them, but if they're not considered vital... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [67].Reply[reply]

X-Cops (The X-Files)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is The X-Files meets COPS episode of the series, and its particularly well-loved by the fanbase. I feel that this episode able to both balance the humor and scariness, both of which were facets that The X-Files was famous for. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FA criteria. The references have been combed through to meet MoS, the prose is good and has been looked over, and the sections are in-depth. A year ago, it passed GA review, and just recently, it was pretty heavily critiqued, reviewed, and copy-edited by Sarastro1. Any comments would probably inevitably make this article better, but I feel it is ready.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "Originally aired by the Fox network on February 20, 2000, "X-Cops" received a Nielsen rating of 9.7 and was seen by 16.56 million viewers."—Perhaps insert "in the US" after "aired", which would clarify the stats?
    Added.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the two" might be smoother as "they", if you think that works.
    I switched it in some places. It felt funny in others.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "wherein" is a bit olde worlde; what about "in which", or just "where".
    Changed to "where".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "green-light" probably doesn't need the hyphen (unless it's a double adjective, "green-light" threshold).
    Removed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "as well as its presentation as if it were"—three × "as". I can't think of an alternative wording at the moment.
    I tried to reword this, how does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nested phrase ... commas on both sides: "When the agents track down Chantara, whose face is pixelated she claims that her ..."
    I believe I fixed this.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "the show fresh [...] I think [Carter] appreciates"—does MOS allow us to dump the square brackets around ellipsis points? I'm sure it does. I never use them because they seem clunky; especially here next to a good use of square brackets around "Carter".
    I changed them to just bare ellipsis points, sans that brackets.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Utilized—I never know why "used" isn't good enough (memo to scientists and engineers).
    "Used" is used right before the word, but I changed it to read: "Gilligan and the writing staff applied methods previously used..."--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't looked further than "Conception and writing". My feeling is that this has legs as a nom, but needs some close auditing for tiddleys, preferably by someone who's fresh to it. Tony (talk) 08:23, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for looking over this. I believe I've addressed your concerns. Do you have any idea about who I could approach to look over it?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My only concern is the mention of the cancellation in the lead. There it states that the crew felt the show would be cancelled, but in the production section it says that the fans/critics did (and that Carter felt it had run its course). Miyagawa (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I changed it so that the lede reads "when the crew felt that the show was nearing its end with the conclusion of the seventh season". While critics felt that it would be cancelled, most of the production team also thought the show would end at the conclusion of season 7.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That's great. Happy to Support. Miyagawa (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support another winner from a truly passionate project. igordebraga ≠ 04:44, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments
  • Should the A-class review be closed first?
  • Nielsen rating is linked twice in the "Broadcast and reception" section.
    Whoops! Good catch!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • ""X-Cops" serves as a fictional crossover with Cops and is the only X-Files episode, after the sixth season's "Triangle,"..." Well then, it's not the only episode.
    Fixed. Good catch.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Gilligan was given the green light..." Perhaps link green-light? (It is linked in production.)
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "analyzed for its use of postmodernism and its presentation as if it were reality television." Kind of confusing. Perhaps "and its presentation as reality television"? Or are the postmodernism and presentation related? If not, then maybe the "reality television" aspect of the sentence could be likened to realism as it is in "Themes".
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Having never really watched Cops, I thought Wetzel was a main character on that show before I saw the actor in parentheses. I'm not sure if this could be clarified anywhere (in production?) that the crossover does not involve any of the people from Cops.
    I moved some stuff around under "filming" to explain that only the camera and sound guys were from the actual series.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Vince Gilligan, who wrote "X-Cops", was inspired by Cops, which he describes as a "great slice of Americana." I'd rearrange this so the two instances of Cops don't appear so close to each other.
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Broadcast and reception: link New York (city or state?)?
    Reworded to add author and remove "New Yokr".--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps the reception section should distinguish which reviews are retrospective and which were contemporary, or at least provide dates from the reviews of The A.V. Club, etc (especially as that makes a comparison to House).
    I divided it into "initial" and "contemporary" paragraphs, with the finale one being an accolade-type section.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What was Vitaris' critique of the episode/what did she find wrong with it? And why CFQ rather than Cinefantastique?
    I just removed this, since -- believe it or not -- she pertty much praises the episode but then gives it a stinky score. It's CFQ because the magazine had changed its name around that time.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concerns are minor. This article has improved quite a bit since I reviewed it for GA. Glimmer721 talk 19:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good; I especially like what you did with the reception section. What do you think about closing the A-class review? Glimmer721 talk 23:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The X-Files A-Class Review portal has been dormant for such a long time. I'll just do it myself, and if I get yelled at, whatevs.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did a rudimentary job, but none of the delegates have responded to me. What say you now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 23:45, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks fine. FA trumps A. I support. Glimmer721 talk 15:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ruby2010

Saw your message on Glimmer's talkpage and thought I'd add my two cents here. Overall a well-written, well-researched article; have only found a few nitpicks:

  • "Directed by Michael Watkins and written by Vince Gilligan, the installment serves as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story, a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files." -- would prefer if you replaced the final comma with a dash ("...as a "Monster-of-the-Week" story – a stand-alone plot unconnected to the overarching mythology of The X-Files.")
    Done.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The episode received positive reviews from critics..." -- perhaps change received to earned, to avoid repetition with the previous sentence
    Changed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...and is one of only two X-Files episode..." -- episode -> episodes
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there a relevant wikilink for Sheriff's deputies?Ruby 2010/2013 04:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Unfortunately, there's only a mention of deputies in the sheriff article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyvio check
I ran the Duplicate Detector software on several of the links I can access and didn't find any issues (see the links below):

Assuming good faith on the book sources. In short, I see no issues with copyvio. Regards, Ruby 2010/2013 04:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for looking over those. I appreciate the feedback/comments!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are welcome! I am happy to support this one for promotion. Keep up the good work! Ruby 2010/2013 05:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (fair-use, CC 2.0). Sources and authors provided. Just one issue:

  • File:X-cops.png - Please check, if a lower resolution would still show all necessary details and replace the fair-use image with a lower resolution, if possible ("minimal usage"). I won't count every single pixel, but with 350,000 the image is well above the recommended image size of 100,000. Aside from that fair-use is OK (tweaked FUR a bit more). GermanJoe (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thank you for looking things over. How does the image size/resolution look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks fine now, thanks - all OK (have requested deletion of old image with "subst:furd"). GermanJoe (talk) 17:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments –

  • Conception and writing: Period needed at the end of the section's first paragraph.
  • Filming and post-production: "in addition to the shots caught by the usual camera operators The X-Files." Another word is clearly needed after "operators".
  • The "in order" in the last sentence of the section is extraneous and can safely be removed to make the writing tighter, without affecting the meaning. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I believe I have addressed them!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support - The article seemed solid before, and with the fixes I think it meets the criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review

  • No glaring formatting problems (tweaked a few minor issues).
  • Sources appear reliable.
  • One minor problem: The links in #1 and #11 to the Wiki-articles of season 7 and 6 look out of place (and similar labels are later used for external links). Both seasons are already linked in the article - if needed, the links should be put in a proper "See also" section. GermanJoe (talk) 13:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    OK, I just removed the links. How do they look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Looks fine now, thanks. I know, that other episode articles of the series handle it similarly, but it's not the best way to guide the reader to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [71].Reply[reply]

Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has had some spit and polish applied since its last FAC, and I believe meets criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - It is excellent, just like it was last time it was nominated, and even has some more material added. Great work as always! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I must say that I agree: this sets a high standard on my quick look through. Tony (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support Definitely, a very good article. — ΛΧΣ21 23:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sources
  • Support - comments below have been addressed. --JDC808 ♫ 03:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First off, I read the whole article and it looks great.

There are a couple of inconsistencies in the sources and a lot are missing their publisher.

  • Ref #2, "IGN" is not italicized while all others are. All of the IGN sources are also missing the publisher (Ziff Davis). Ref #12, 22, and 49 have same publisher as IGN.
  • Ref #5, 44, 45, and 46 are missing publisher (Think Services).
  • Ref #7, 13, 19, 39, 50, 52, 57, and 58 are missing publisher (Future Publishing).
  • Ref #11, 18, 26, and 54 are missing publisher (GameStop).
  • Ref #12 has "1UP.com" unitalicized, but Ref #49 is italicized.
  • Ref #14 is missing publisher (Turner Broadcasting System).
  • Ref #20, 40, and 55 are missing publisher (IDG).
  • Ref #23 is missing publisher (Viacom).
  • Ref #34 is missing publisher (AOL).
  • Ref #36 is missing publisher (G4 Media).
  • Ref #37 has EGM and Ref #52 has Electronic Gaming Monthly. Both should be Electronic Gaming Monthly.
  • Ref #47, 48, 56, and 60 are missing publisher (CBS Interactive).
  • Ref #61 is missing publisher (Hearst Magazines UK).
  • Ref #62 is missing publisher (Alloy Digital).
  • Ref #63 is missing publisher (Guardian Media Group).
  • Ref #65 is missing publisher (Fairfax Media).
  • Ref #66 is missing publisher (Incisive Media).
  • Ref #67 is missing publisher (Condé Nast Publications).

I'll do some spotchecks after this is done. --JDC808 ♫ 06:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment - I'll be stopping by to look at the prose sometime tomorrow. ceranthor 03:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Ceranthor
Gameplay
  • Xbox Live achievements, - Might be useful to link to Xbox Live. I notice it is linked later in the section; it should be linked at first mention.
Plot
  • After fleeing the Covenant's destruction of the human world Reach, the human ship Pillar of Autumn made a random slipspace jump to avoid leading the Covenant to Earth and discovers a massive ringworld orbiting a gas giant. - Random usage of past tense.
Development
  • Saber's Chief Operating Officer Andrey Iones recalled that the offer was "an opportunity we [could not] miss", as Saber had never before worked on a major game franchise and many team members were fans of Halo. - Citation?
  • The game was completed and released to manufacturing ("gold") on October 15, 2011.[18] - What is "gold"?
  • the developers looked at how they used the third-party Havok physics engine to handle object positioning, velocities and collisions. - Previously you used the serial comma. Why did you stop?
  • show how environmental effects, improved lighting and new textures - Again, you've stopped using the serial comma here, but you just used it a couple sentences ago!
  • and it still wouldn't have been the experience [players] remember."[5]:1 - Why is there a 1 after the reference?
  • Though Iones described Anniversary's one-year development cycle as a "very smooth ride", - Citation?
Release
  • Microsoft launched the Halo Living Monument, consisting of a live-action short and a website to celebrate the ten years of completion of original Halo.[34][35] - The last part of this sentence needs a copyedit, or it's missing a word or two.
  • Thirteen retail Microsoft Stores hosted launch events for Anniversary's November 15, 2011 - Thirteen should be 13, since later in the sentence you use 16, not sixteen.
  • It was the third best-selling Xbox 360 game in North America.[44][45][46] - Ever? This is a bit vague as is.
Reception
  • avoiding "revisionist horrors" and Star Wars re-release moments.[57] - Citation?
  • Aziz complemented the feature as "fantastic", considering its use in Anniversary to be more subtle and pleasing than in other games. - Citation?

Prose looks very, very good. ceranthor 01:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. I've gone through and clarified some citations and made edits to the prose. For the last two notes in the "reception" section, the citations are provided directly at the end of the clause and at the end of the passage sourced; in the interest of keeping the prose legible I've tried to only place citations where necessary as opposed to every sentence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Excellent prose. ceranthor 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments

  • "Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and new graphics" You haven't yet told us that there are "new graphics" so this is a bit out of context. Maybe change it to "Players can switch between the original 'classic' graphics and the graphics developed for the remake"?
  • "the original game's visuals are presented in high-definition, 16:9 widescreen as opposed to the original game" ???
  • Given the number of differences you've outlined in the Gameplay section, I don't necessarily agree with the wording "nearly identical" to kick it off. Maybe the core gameplay is nearly identical, but adding online multiplayer and co-op seems pretty significant.
  • Overall, the Gameplay section is pretty lackluster and disorganized, I think. It doesn't present a very clear narrative that says, these parts of the game are basically the same, and these are the parts that are different. This section doesn't meet 1a in my opinion.
  • Plot: "Master Chief" or "the Master Chief"?
The rest of it is pretty good—I think just the Gameplay section needs some TLC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hey Laser, thanks for the review. I've taken a stab at addressing some of the issues. I'm a bit stumped on options for the gameplay section though. I've tried shuffling around the info, but as it stands there's a paragraph to explain the gameplay, a paragraph for the graphics, a paragraph for additional features and then a paragraph for added multiplayer. Most of the sources focus on the additions, rather than the contrasts themselves; there's not really much that talks about what's "the same", they talk about what's different (and hence why it says "this is basically the same except for the gameplay mods, multiplayer and shiny coat of paint.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Maybe I'll take a shot at it today. The "original game's visuals ... as opposed to the original game" problem is still there. --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Maybe I'm conflating the issue here. What I am attempting to say is that when it was released, the game rendered out its graphics at standard definition 480p in a 4:3 ratio. The original graphics in the remake are rendered out at 720p and 16:9--they're they exact same graphics, but output at a higher resolution and different aspect ratio. Would "the game's original graphics…" help with the confusion? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comments

  • Did I miss an image review above?
  • Pls check your duplicate links -- Xbox Live for example appears to be linked three times in the main body, but this script will show all the repeat instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Edited out some dupes using the script. The images were touched upon in the previous FAC (nothing's changed since then) but I don't think it's received a proper review. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (2 fair-use, Flickr CC). Sources and authors provided.


  • Comment. Some of my bullets from last time are still unaddressed. They aren't dire, but I'd like to see them addressed before I add my support. Other than my nitpicks (alas, this is FAC) and the source checks beyond my reach (listed in my notes), the rest of the article is excellent [[:|delicious]]. Good work czar · · 05:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Given the time this nom has been open, during which it has garnered a good deal of support for promotion and ticked all the boxes, I'm going to promote shortly. If there are still some minor outstanding points then perhaps they could be addressed via the article talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [72].Reply[reply]

Batman: Arkham Asylum[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to Arkham Asylum, I am Warden Sharpe. Here you will be treated for the maladies and criminal tendencies that separate you from normal society. Psychopathic killers, crazed monsters, and drug-addled terrorists, all will find hope here in Arkham Asylum. Your struggles with supporting this nomination will find relief in our state of the art electro-shock therapy suite. Such detachment from reality is the result of a sad and broken world, but here we will nurse you back to health, transforming you into an obedient, productive member of society liberated from derangement, and free to pursue a life of religious fulfillment. Arkham Asylum, we hope you enjoy your stay.

Fun aside, Batman: Arkham Asylum is a Good Article which I have significantly expanded over several months and now believe to be the best it can be on par with it's FA brother Batman: Arkham City. I believe this article competently covers material relating to the game, and that it meets the FA standards. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by JDC808[edit]

Support as per comments below. --JDC808 ♫ 23:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm going to try and start my review tomorrow. By the way, once again, great intro. --JDC808 ♫ 08:18, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done copy-editing throughout.

Lead

  • End of third paragraph, maybe mention Arkham Origins too? Maybe something like "A prequel, Batman: Arkham Origins, is set for release in October 2013."
    • It's not a direct prequel and I think that just encourages the adding of all additional sequels that are released. The Series itself is linked twice immediately, in the infobox and Lead, and the directly related, next sequel is linked at the end. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Development

  • Last paragraph before "Design". This paragraph talks about several ideas that were cut from this game. It also talks about how they developed ideas for Arkham City. Since some ideas that were cut from Arkham Asylum appeared in Arkham City (e.g., Mr. Freeze, Mad Hatter), it might be a good idea to mention that although they were cut from Arkham Asylum, they were used in Arkham City.
    • The ideas weren't really used, just the characters, doesn't seem notable to just say the characters appeared in a later game. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • "Batman would find the Mad Hatter hosting a tea-party" -- That was used in Arkham City. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release

  • Although it's covered as exclusive to PS3 in the DLC section, shouldn't it be mentioned that the retail copy for PS3 included the Joker? It's been a few years, but didn't it include a voucher code for him? Or was that just a sticker saying he's exclusive to PS3? I bought the game when it came out and I thought it had a voucher code inside. (I can't personally check because I don't own it anymore, not because I didn't like it. I loved it. After I unlocked everything in the story and beat most of the challenges, I was done.)
    • The method of delivery doesn't seem notable, the important info is that it was exclusive to the PS3, and I think it was just on the disc with the GOTY version. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accolades

  • I haven't fully compared it, but it looks like the first paragraph has every award/nomination listed in the table. So, is the table necessary? If you really want to keep the table, I would suggest trimming back some awards/nominations in that first paragraph. Or, remove them all from that paragraph and open it with something like "Batman: Arkham Asylum received numerous awards, such as (name a couple). It has also received several nominations, such as (name a couple)." Then continue this paragraph with the rest of the paragraph beginning with the "According to Metacritic," sentence and merge the second paragraph. --JDC808 ♫ 00:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The table is an alternative overview, it's a similar setup to FA Arkham City. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Okay. Still seems unnecessary as it's two lists of the same stuff. It's not something that'll keep me from supporting though. --JDC808 ♫ 03:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THanks for the comments, I unfortunately lost net access almost as soon as I posted this nomination, so I will get to work on it soon. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Hellknowz[edit]

  • I fixed the last 4, the first I switched both publishers to NBC Universal, is that OK? I tend to use the publisher at the very top of the chain. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, I see, it is X-Play with a dash. I searched "XPlay" on that site and it didn't get any hits, so I couldn't understand where that came from and I didn't check the article properly so I didn't know this was their show, I was looking for some parent company. It's probably ought to be |work=X-Play under |publisher=G4? But since {{cite web}} is using |website= as an alias for |work= now, I have no clear idea how these are supposed to be used. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok I changed it to G4, I didn't know they'd added a website field but it seems kind of pointless when you have a URL field. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "interviews with some of Arkham's inmates" - interview tapes, not actual interviews
  • I would say Synopsis goes before Gameplay, as plot explains the story and what happens and gameplay then deals with details of how the player plays through what happens.
  • "Amadeus Arkham" - first mention doesn't explain who that is
  • "the system went through three iterations" should probably be said before actually going through the iterations, so 2 sentences before.
  • "3 Scarecrow areas" probably means a more explicit explanation these are the areas the player plays in while hallucinating
  • I feel like there should be a link to Batman's utility belt somewhere, gadgets being a large focus of the game.
  • "GameRankings and Metacritic gave" - they don't give scores, they calculate them
  • ""excellent visuals, a compelling story and superb voice acting."" should be paraphrased, as there are a lot of quotes there
  • ""Even if you were controlling a generic ninja rather than an iconic superhero, this would be a polished and engrossing game."" and ""Rocksteady have struck the perfect balance of giving you the confident power of a superhero, but with enough weaknesses to make the game challenging; a remarkable feat of balancing and design"" are both long quotes that can be paraphrased easily
  • ""one of the things I wanted to do was capture..."" is way too long of a quote
  • Lead says "Arkham Asylum's success launched a series of Batman: Arkham sequels", but Sequel section makes no mention of this
@Darkwarriorblake: I wasn't sure, but I think you may have missed my comments amidst everything else. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had missed the added comments, I will take a look. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. I'm usually nitpicky, but this is a well-written and covered article. I have also played the game to completion, so I can vouch for completeness. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've addressed some of your issues. The gameplay before synopsis is a pretty standard layout and I think enough context is given in the gameplay to suffice. The gameranking and metacritic wording I think is OK, and it is the same wording used in Arkham City's article, it makes clear they are aggregating review sites and not themselves reviewing bodies.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Missed your support, thanks Hellknowz, I am losing it lately O_O. I forgot to address the sequel issue, I have made a small change to try to. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not going to participate in support or oppose, but I will say that the rationales for the gameplay images are not acceptable. They both claim the same thing - "demonstration of gameplay" - a rationale that's not very good for one image, and very bad to use for two. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a quick glance, agree. In addition, I think the second image is not unique enough (i.e. other games have done this or similar) to be more than 1 fair use image. The first one shows unique gameplay though, so that is more than suitable to be included under fair use. Besides expanding details on it, further explanation includes that this is 1 of several unique "detective" modes. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I removed one and improved the rationale on the other, though I don't know why you wouldn't want to support the article Hippie. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not that I don't want to support the article, it's that I haven't the time to review it. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from FutureTrillionaire[edit]

As far as I can tell, all the sources in the article are reliable, except for Monsters and Critics. See these two RSN discussions: [73] [74]. The source should be removed (and replaced if necessary).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would Comic Vine be OK? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably not. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources/Archive 7#Jill Valentine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about MacRumors? Running low on options/. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure about the reliability of MacRumors (See [75]). The first two sentences are the Sequels section consist of what appears to be basic information about the sequel. Which part are you having finding sources for? Is it the "set one year after..." part? There's an IGN source for that:[76].--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the love of... I've been searching for an hour for a source for that. Thanks FutureTrillionaire, no thanks Google. Changed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about this, but I am now taking a wikibreak. I will return to finish reviewing the sources in a few days.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm back. I've spot-checked about 20 sources, and didn't find any issues except for this one part. At the end of the first paragraph in the Accolades section, there are three citations that are the same and lead to the same webpage. Also, the sentences about the metacritic rankings are misleading. For example, how is "Arkham Asylum ... tied with God of War Collection and Forza Motorsport 3 as the fourth-highest-rated game of 2009" when there are seven games with a higher score? Shouldn't the sentence say "...eighth-highest-rated...?" The PlayStation 3 ranking is problematic for the same reason. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may, the scores as indicated in the article are correct. You were probably looking at the number of games listed and not the scores. If you look at the scores, Uncharted 2 is first with 96, then the next three games each have a score of 94, making them tied as the second-highest-rated, then the next three each have a score of 93 making those tied as the third-highest-rated, then the last three (which includes Arkham) each have a score of 92, making them tied as the fourth-highest-rated. --JDC808 ♫ 20:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed, the webcites were correct so I must've copied the completed cite template but not updated the URL. I'm not a fan of that ranking style but I've been challenged on it two to three times so I've deferred to the popular opinion which is as JDC described above. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Future for taking time out from your wikibreak! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check[edit]

Image check - all OK (fair-use infobox and gameplay, CC, Flickr with no problems). Sources and authors provided, fair-use has already been improved. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 17 August 2013 (UTC) [77].Reply[reply]

Robert Howe (Continental Army officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The next article in my series on North Carolina's Continental Army generals during the American Revolutionary War is Robert Howe, North Carolina's sole Major General on the Continental establishment. Howe was a relatively controversial commander, a failed tactician, a duelist, and possibly an attempted spy for the British. All around, that makes for a fascinating character, whose story I believe I've captured fully. There are only a handful of lengthy sources discussing Howe's career in existence, and I don't believe I'm lacking for any detail. Thank you in advance for your reviews! Cdtew (talk) 14:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I realize the linkchecker is saying I have a dead link to an NYT movie review; the link's not functionally dead, and I've tried everything I know how to resolve it; any expert help would be appreciated. Cdtew (talk) 19:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This page needs to be transcluded to the FAC page. - Dank (push to talk) 14:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha! I did this at work yesterday and got caught up in something else, completely forgot to do that. Thanks for the reminder. Cdtew (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note: I will be on vacation between July 12 and July 20, and may not be able to respond to suggestions on this page. I will get right back to responding at full force when I return. Cdtew (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I'm back from vacation and welcome further reviews. So far no comprehensive ones. Cdtew (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support per new standard disclaimer. I've checked the changes since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN100: title formatting
  • Check edition formatting
  • Compare publisher for Powell and Whitaker. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Done -- (I think) -- except for the last one. UNC Press is a full-service publisher, but wasn't founded until 1922; prior to that there existed a different entity, which was not a full-service publisher, but was literally (as I understand it) a "press". Powell was published by the former, Whitaker was published in 1908 by the latter. That's why I can't do anything about the publishers. I appreciate your comments! Let me know if you see anything else I can improve, or if I did something wrong. Cdtew (talk) 13:00, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: please seek additional sources on the attack on Verplanck's Point. Specifically, Rankin appears to be in error: Israel Putnam was no longer commanding in the Highlands at the time of the Battle of Stony Point, and it is probably Col. Rufus Putnam, who led the initial demonstration against Verplanck's point, who is meant. Stricken; I misread, and Gen. Putnam was in local command at the time. Choess (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, we're told that Kendal is "upriver from Orton Plantation"; did Howe have any particular link to Orton Plantation? This seems tangential. Choess (talk) 19:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(1) Ah, you appear to be correct about Putnam. Since it wasn't the more prominent commander, I've just removed that entirely. My sources don't say what, if any, interaction Howe had with Rufus Putnam, so I feel comfortable exempting it.
No worries, I will revert my past edit then. Cdtew (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(2) As for the Orton Plantation mention, I have that in there solely as a reference point (although it was owned by Howe's cousins). Orton is a still-existing, quite famous plantation home in NC, and I would prefer to keep the mention of it in here for context. Thanks for your comments so far, and for your edits! Cdtew (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Choess:: I appear to have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have any further comments or review notes. Cdtew (talk) 04:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Quadell

At a first read, this article looks to be of high quality. Here are a few issues that jump out at me.

  • Hope you don't mind if I answer between your questions. That picture isn't one I uploaded, but a quick check shows it wasn't a US government production; it was done in 1783-84, and I've thus marked it as PD-US.
  • Footnote 89 references "Rankin 1988, p. 142", but Rankin 1988 only covers pages 218–219. Is that supposed to refer to Rankin 1971, perhaps?
  • Well I'll be damned. That's actually Bennett/Lennon (1991). I've now corrected. I checked the other cites, and they appear to be correct.
  • The bibliography frequently links the titles to the Google Books entries for the book in question. But when there is an ISBN present, this is redundant, since the ISBN will link the reader to host of places to find more information, including Google Books. The documentation for the "cite book" template specifies that the URL should be used for "an online location where the text of the publication can be found" but instructs "Do not link to any commercial booksellers such as Amazon.com". Thus the link to the free online version of Gobold's Gadsen is correct, but the link to Google's invitation to buy Kars' Breaking Loose Together for $19.25 is not.
  • I've never really thought about that. Generally I like leaving a Google Books link even when it's snippet view, just because I believe the ease of access improves the reader's experience, regardless of how little the reader can see. When it's not in snippet view or more, you're right, and I've deleted the two I found that were purely inviting readers to buy the book.

I will more fully review this article when those three issues are resolved. – Quadell (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Quadell:: Thank you for your review so far. My responses are below your comments, in italics. Please let me know if you see anything further you believe needs attention. Cdtew (talk) 21:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very good, nice improvements. I have very few complaints or suggestions for further improvement. The prose is excellent, the organization is just right, the "legacy" section is balanced, and the lede effectively summarizes all of the article. Here are a very few nitpicks:

  • In my opinion, cite 4 should be broken into two. Only in the first use (a) are the Ashe and Rankin comparisons useful.
  • This one was a toughie. After fooling around with the sfn format for a while, I couldn't seem to suppress the postscript in future occurrences of that note. Instead, I just converted it to harvnb and used the following code on the first appearance: <ref>{{harvnb|Bennett|Lennon|1991|p=5}}, cf {{harvnb|Ashe|1892|p=496}}, where Jane, Job's third wife, is attributed as his mother, and {{harvnb|Rankin|1988|p=218}}, where Howe's mother is called Sarah</ref>. I don't really like the way it's coded, and it's too messy for my taste, but that's a template issue (or a "I don't know of the right way to do it" issue), and I agree with your point.
  • The infobox seems to have a problem, wherein the time span of his command at West Point is given as "(1779".
  • Fixed. It was the wrong date anyways. Text makes it clear it was Feb-Aug 1780.
  • The word "proroguing" is not in common use. Can a more common word be substituted without losing meaning?
  • Ah - you got me where it hurts with this one! I love the word. But, stepping away from my partiality, I'm not really sure if there is a better word. There are better words (plural) - forced adjournment, executive closure of a legislative session, etc, but those are less succinct. It's my understanding that outside the US the word is still used very frequently for the general end of the sessions of parliaments - in fact, Legislative session and Prorogation in Canada are rotten with the term. In other words, in the UK and commonwealth states, the use of the term is common. Here (in the U.S.), we've expanded the word "Adjournment" to mean many types of legislative breaks, but I don't believe adjournment was used historically to describe the exact procedure I'm discussing here. In this context, when an Assembly was prorogued, it would have been illegal for that Assembly to continue to pass laws. Adjournment, because it's so flexible, doesn't convey that same hard-and-fast limitation, and it would require more explanation if I used it instead. I could wikilink it to the Prorogation dablink page, which contains a definition -- or perhaps I could put in a Wiktionary box, much like that used in the Legislative session article? I'd appreciate your thoughts.
    • I don't think a link to Wiktionary would be appropriate. I wish we had an article with better information on the term, but we don't seem to. If that's the best wording, despite its rarity, then so be it. – Quadell (talk) 19:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Once these are dealt with, I'll be happy to support. – Quadell (talk) 17:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Quadell:: Again, my responses are below your comments in italics. Many thanks for your comments, and such effusive praise coming from such a prolific and accomplished Wikipedian as yourself is heartening! Let me know if you think there's any other way to improve this article. Cdtew (talk) 19:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-art|PD-age, PD-1923). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 06:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Avoid PD-US as license tag, it's vague and can almost always be replaced by a more specific tag like PD-1923 or PD-US-no-notice (tweaked some, no action required). GermanJoe (talk) 07:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @GermanJoe:: Thanks for your comment. I wasn't aware of a preference over the PD-US tag, so I will use more specific ones from now on. Let me know if you see anything else that you think would bring this up to FA-level. Cdtew (talk) 13:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotchecks

I checked the sources listed for references 4, 7, 8, 9, 15, 33, 65, 72, 97, 99, and 100. In every case, the sources listed fully supported the statements in the article. Never was text unduly copied from a source in an inappropriate way. I am confident the sourcing is impeccable. – Quadell (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor
Lead
  • As a personal friend of Tryon, Howe suffered greatly when his friend became Governor of New York and staunchly opposed Tryon's successor - This sentence is very confusing. What exactly is it trying to say?
  • Continental Army and Patriot militia forces in defeat in the First Battle of Savannah. - Isn't it to defeat?
Early life
  • descendant of Governor John Yeamans.[3 - his mother was?
Political service
  • In about 1755 - What does that mean?

This is a long article so I'll go slowly through it. ceranthor 15:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceranthor:: Thank you for your comments so far! I've attempted to address your concerns as follows:
  1. Clarified the remark re: his friend; I was trying to say Howe was Tryon's friend, and when Tryon went to become governor of NY, Howe both suffered politically/financially and also opposed Tryon's successor.
  2. I believe I had it as "to defeat" in an earlier version, but Dank (I believe) suggested in my A-Class Review that "to defeat" sounds a little fatalistic or makes it almost sound like Howe was the sole reason and cause for defeat. "In defeat", I agree, is clearer in that defeat is a very complicated thing.
  3. His father was a descendant of John Yeamans; the next sentence makes it clear we're not really sure who his mother was.
  4. "In about 1755" - none of the sources know when this actually happened, but they all say "around" or "About" 1755; I've changed it to the former, but I don't really want to get into using "Approximately" or "during or before" language, because that doesn't read well to my mind.
Let me know if you see anything else that could be changed, or if you have any comments on my responses. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are just precursor comments! I'm going to post a lot more, no worries. I'll post more tomorrow, but no promises that I'll finish by then. ceranthor 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Post war
  • Howe participated in the establishment of the national Society of the Cincinnati, and was the second officer to sign the national charter, - national is redundant
  • was again forced to mortgage his plantation, but eventually received a monetary settlement of $7,000 in 1785.[94] -from who? should be clear it's congress
  • his way to a meeting of the legislative body, Howe fell ill, dying on December 14, 1786, in Bladen County. - I don't like the second half of this sentence; it could use a ce.
Legacy
  • ] In 1940 the - Previously in phrases like "IN 19--" or "During 17--", you'd been using a comma afterwards. Keep this consistent. I think there were a couple other outliers throughout. Check very carefully for these.
  • Loyalist merchant named Henry Kelly advised Secretary of State for the Colonies George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville that Howe could be easily tempted to join the British, and further advising that Howe could offer a great deal to the British in their war effort.[103]- Grammar issue.
  • While neither Washington or the Congressional Board of War believed Joel's story, Joel later fought on behalf of Thomas Jefferson and the Virginia state government against Loyalists in that state.[105] - Why is this relevant?
  • In treating Joel as a witness, I want to present both sides' attempts to accredit or discredit him; in this instance, scholars who've written about the subject point to the fact that Joel was hired by Jefferson shortly after he attempted to defect directly to Washington, and actually had an honorable career serving the Patriot cause as a way of bolstering his credibility; obviously, the counter-argument is that Washington and the BoW believed he was either a spy or someone who would say anything to gain an officer's commission with the Continental Army. Without getting into all that, I wanted to at least present those facts for the reader to make a judgment thereon.
  • one scholar has contrasted Schuyler's otherwise shining reputation with Howe's record of failures, and draws the conclusion that Howe likely was attempting to defect. - Who is this scholar?

I'll finish up the last section as soon as these are resolved. It looks great! ceranthor 02:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceranthor:: I believe I have addressed all of your comments in this round, and look forward for more to come. Cdtew (talk) 01:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Final Round
Burning
  • newly created - I think this should be hyphenated.
  • ravaging the tidewater region - probably should link tidewater
  • North Carolinian - does this refer to Howe or the regiment?
  • engaged in contentious negotiations over access to supplies with the captains of British ships, now overcrowded with Loyalist refugees, anchored in the Norfolk harbor. - Not sure what happened here. Looks like a pronoun was deleted.
  • fire raged on for two more days, and Howe ordered most of the buildings that remained standing to be razed before withdrawing to further render the location useless to the British.[46] - before he withdrew is better.
Charleston
  • North Carolinians who had been poached by the South Carolinians. - This makes it sound as though the people themselves were poached. I think that's the case, but I think this needs a rewrite.
Florida
  • the only North Carolinian to reach that rank in the Continental Army.[47 - Ever? If so then this is fine as is.
  • It is what it is -- other North Carolinians have been Major Generals in the US Army, and some were Major Generals of their own militia, but no other was a Major General of the Continental Army
  • which formed the border between Georgia and Florida - does it not anymore?
  • Shortly after this minor incursion, the British were reinforced and pressed toward Savannah.[16 - received reinforcements is clearer and it avoids linking verbs.
Removal
  • path was "so remote" - citation?
Hudson
  • but was given few field pieces, entrenching tools or provisions and little ammunition. He - this is a bit of a cluttered mess! What are you trying to say?
West Point
  • Howe served on the court-martial board that convicted Arnold's co-conspirator, Major John André, of espionage and sentenced him to death. - source?
  • Cite added. This one got lost when I made a previous edit. Cdtew (talk)
Mutinies
  • Carlisle ordered Howe to convene a court martial of General Alexander McDougall - I'm not sure but I think there's a grammar mistake here.
  • While "court-martial of" appears to be correct grammatical structure, I don't much like it, so I clarified. Cdtew (talk)


Almost done! ceranthor 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ceranthor: I have completed this list of corrections, with my notes above. Please let me know if you see anything else that needs changing. Cdtew (talk) 14:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support ceranthor 14:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [78].Reply[reply]

Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because…I think it meets the criteria. The Stone Mountain Memorial half dollars is one of the stranger stories of commemorative half dollars, involving an eccentric sculptor, a drive to remember the Confederacy, and the KKK. Enjoy. Wehwalt (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Image review
It is my understanding that the card is blank on the other side. I've seen them. I don't have a photograph of the back, which I recall to be blank. But then, none of the images of these online or in Swiatek's books have the back illustrated or even mentioned.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alright, we can AGF here (that was my assumption as well, though I suggest that, if you come across one, you acquire a photograph of the back just to be safe) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Like most of this memorabilia, it is surprisingly pricey but I will see what I can do. The others are done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oh, no need to buy one for this image review. I think we can AGF here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I do not own a Bernard Baruch holder, but I can attest that the reverse is blank. Ideally, we'd have a photograph of a Baruch card with the coin still attached (the coin was contained in a small plastic pouch, stapled to the card; you can see the staples holes in the image we have now). I know that Liberty Numismatics has made a scan of one such card available, but it's markedly lower resolution than the image we're using now, and I'm not sure whether it's still public domain (since it's no longer "purely" a printed item). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If it had a coin, it would be three dimensional and we couldn't use it. I am starting to learn that there is much that goes into coin photography.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose comments moved to talk page.

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comments. Reference formatting isn't my preferred style, but seems mostly consistent. I poked around in the literature for overlooked sources, but can't find anything significant, so I think it's safe to declare it comprehensive as well.
    • I'm not sure that the parenthetical is needed on the Slabaugh source versus just listing the publisher as it was at publication (Western), but I'm not sure it's hurting anything.
The source reviewer keeps bringing up that some online source says published by Western. I'm just trying to make my life easier by heading the next such off at the pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Also not an actionable issue, but if you could get access to a physical copy of Commemorative Coins of the United States: A Complete Encyclopedia, that big block of mostly identical web-cited references could be replaced with a tidy book ref (and the citations made to page number). Unfortunately, I don't have one handy, so I'm of no help there.
I've ordered one used through Amazon. Prices have come down considerably, it was much more expensive when I checked a few months ago. I'm not going to switch them here, but the next time I start a commemorative coin article I will use it. That being said, there is some value to having web-based references for the reader to check up on me more easily. I'll work out some happy medium.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • My only real prose concerns were mentioned previously, but I guess I'd like to echo them. I don't think Helen Plane needs "Mrs." when everyone else just gets referred to by bare last name. There's no male Plane in the article to confuse her with. I might also replace the "huge rock outcropping" with a more technical description of Stone Mountain; perhaps call it a "large quartz monzonite dome"?
Perhaps a bit too technical? I'm open for suggestions here. I will un-Mrs her.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Any value in finding and adding an image of one of the counterstamped coins?
I don't own one and don't have a free-use image. Getting properly licensed coin images has been a big problem all along. There are some out there on the web and I will look into getting permission.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I greatly appreciate it. Hope you're doing well.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Support: See my detailed comments at the peer review. Nothing more to add, the usual succinct job. Brianboulton (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review

  • All sources fine. One micropoint: I would drop the words "in fact" from the note. Brianboulton (talk) 07:08, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you on both. I am learning to discard such phrases.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [79].Reply[reply]

Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it's ready. Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang (The Rose of Cikembang) is, in my opinion, the most beautiful work of Chinese Malay literature I've read yet. It's the only one I know of which has been translated to English, and it is also one of few Malay-language novels to get a screen adaptation almost fifty years after publication. This article received a GA review from Dwaipayanc and a peer review from J Milburn (as "quick comments"), Sarastro1, and Wehwalt, leaving the prose shining. I have received permission to run this a little early as my other nom nears completion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review, seems worthy.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Image review Not much here, all images seem validly in the public domain except the first image, for which a proper claim of fair use is made.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN17, 27: page formatting
  • FN36: suggest using location/at (whichever works with that template) rather than page. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Review by Quadell[edit]

The prose style throughout is excellent. The organization is appropriate, and it covers all aspects of the topic. The images are used appropriately, with good captions, and the lede effectively summarizes all sections of the article. I am left with very little to suggest for improvement. Still, I was able to find a few potential issues.

  • You do not capitalize "eastern" philosophy, though the Eastern philosophy article does. Would it be more standard to capitalize it?
  • You first mention "Sidharta" in the second sentence of "Themes", but later give her full name and link to Myra Sidharta in paragraph 3 of that section.
  • "Sumardjo describes novel" should be "Sumardjo describes the novel".
  • Regarding the final sentence in "Themes", it is unclear whether that is a statement of fact, a statement of Sutedja-Liem's opinion, or Sutedja-Liem's interpretation of Kwee's message to all women.
  • "Suryadinata gives the film as" should probably be "Suryadinata judges the film to be" or "stated that the film wa" or something similar. "Gives as" is a less clear construction.
  • "Modern reviews have been positive" would be better as "Modern reviews of the novel have been positive", since the previous two paragraphs talked about stage and film adaptations.
  • I'm unsure of the need for footnotes [b] and [e] through [i], which give the original language(s) for certain phrases from the article. I assume all are Malay, though Kwee was fluent in many languages, and other reviewers could have been speaking a different language, so the language should be specified if the footnotes are kept. But I'm not sure how they help the reader. It is usually not necessary to give the original language for phrases -- for instance, it was fine to refer to Court Malay as a "language of administration" without giving the Dutch phrase for this. Giving the original language could be useful if there are subtleties that are difficult to translate, but then a word-for-word translation or comparison of possible translations would be useful in a footnote. I don't believe seeing the original language for a phrase, sans commentary, is useful in an English Wikipedia article.
  • Regarding this issue, see WP:NOENG (particularly #Quoting non-English sources). A similar format is used in various scholarly articles on Indonesian literature, including throughout the book of Clearing a Space)
  • Further, footnote [b] raises other questions. The article describes this as being his internal decision, not something he wrote down, so I'm not sure where "original" text would come from. (Footnote 6 indicates that it's from Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang itself, which seems odd.) I can't imagine what criteria would determine which of a person's thoughts should be rendered in Malay as well as English.
  • Original here is not intended, nor has it ever been intended, to indicate the thought process of the author. Instead it is used the same as the other footnotes beginning with "Original", namely to indicate that the quote is shown in its original language (Malay in this instance). This is from Kwee's foreword, and the full sentence is "Saja liat di dalem itu njanjian—jang sebagian ada dimoeat joega dalam pagina 52 dari ini boekoe—ada terdapet stof jang bagoes sekali boeat karang satoe tjerita atau lelakon komedie jang sedih" ("I saw that in said song—which is reproduced in part on page 52 of this book—there was material which was very good for the writing of a sad story or stage play"). I could split the foreword off from the novel proper in the references if you prefer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Footnotes [c] and [d] internally reference the source where their information comes from, and in addition, the article cites the same reference in the article body itself right after the footnote marker. Is it necessary to do both? (That's a sincere question; I don't know.) Compare this with footnotes [b] and [e] through [i], which do not internally give the source their information comes from, but instead rely on the reference for the sentence in the article body. I hope my question here is clear; it's difficult to explain what I mean.
  • [c] and [d] are asides (i.e. information which is relevant to the sentence being discussed, but not worth including in the main text) which may or may not be sourced to the same reference as the main text (in Lie Kim Hok, for instance, there is a footnote which combines information from two different sources); as such I've included an in-text reference for these types of footnotes. The others (except [a] which is just to clarify how this article stands among the various forms of Indonesian spelling systems) are the originals of direct quotes, which by definition are from the source provided in-text and thus are not cited again in the footnotes. I've used this style since my first FA, Chrisye, back in March/April 2012 and it's served me well since (Sudirman and Albertus Soegijapranata make heavy use of it). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

All in all, the article is very good, and I anticipate supporting once these issues are addressed. – Quadell (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow-up

Everything above is fixed, except for issue involved with footnotes and Kwee (2001) references. I have looked carefully over the WP:V section you mention and all of the examples of FAs you list, and you make some important points, but there are still some legitimate issues with clarity and sourcing here.

  • I like that you split the forewords from the novels -- I think that will be useful for the reader. But could you translate "Permulaan Kata"? Does that mean "foreword" or something similar? 1930b specifies that it is a foreword, but I can't tell that 2001b is.
  • The order in "Works cited" now seems incorrect. Kwee (1930b) splits the two 2001 works. Also, shouldn't 2001a and 1930a be the forewords, coming earlier in their respective texts that the novel itself?
  • D'oh again, forgot that the templates do Name, year, title (had ordered for name, title, year). Fixed the a's and b's, I believe. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It has to be clear where the "original" comes from in your footnotes. In all of your examples in Lie Kim Hok, Sudirman, and Albertus Soegijapranata, it is immediately clear from the article text (not just the reference for the section) what the "original" would be. It is also clear in this article what the "original" would be for footnotes [e] through [i]. The only issue is [b]. I know that this comes from Kwee's introduction, since you've said so at this FAC, but it isn't clear from the context that this is a quote from a later written work. (The reference is several sentences later.) I believe this could be fixed by adding to the beginning of the sentence or paragraph a contextual clue like "As Kwee described much later in an introduction to the novel," or words to that effect.
  • Right, done (actually, per V it should be anyways as it is a direct quote). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great work so far, – Quadell (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thanks for the follow up, I think I've gotten everything thusfar. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spotchecks

This was a very difficult article to spotcheck, since few of the sources are available online and many sources are in Indonesian. But using the online sources, Google Books snippet views, and Google Translate, I was able to confirm refs 2, 3, 38, 39, 40, and 42. In each case, the statement was supported by the source, and in no case was there any plagiarism. In other cases I could at least confirm that the page numbers listed matched up to the general part of the book where the topic was discussed, and for reference 46 I could roughly determine that the statement seemed plausible, given the dense and cryptic executive summary available.

I did find an issue, though: in footnote 38, should the reference to "The Jakarta Post 2012, Remembering" instead say "Ramsay 2012"?

I'm willing to go out on a rather sturdy limb here and confirm that the sourcing seems solid. – Quadell (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree regarding Ramsay; done. Thanks for the spotcheck, I haven't had one of those in a while. If there are any claims you want me to help you back up, I can provide scans/photographs of the pages in question. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. This is fully worthy to be given as listed as a featured article. – Quadell (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Support Comments from Jim Very good, just a couple of quibbles before I support. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • young Chinese man—bit Easter-eggy. I'd prefer "Chinese-Indonesian" or "ethnic Chinese".
  • same traits which made him fall in love with Marsiti, but even more polished—can you polish a trait? Not a big deal if you want to keep.
  • Trying to think of a good wording, an encyclopedic way of saying "all that and more". Marsiti was a good singer, Giok Nio could both sing and play the piano. Both were dedicated wives, but Giok Nio could better entertain guests owing to her higher education (Marsiti, a villager, had no formal education at all). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This drives Bian Koen to consider suicide and drives Aij Tjeng and Gwat Nio to despair.—over-drive.
  • based on his musings... based on the outline —double-based.
  • Panorama—not sure that there is any point to repeating a redlink.
  • Lead vs. body? I don't think there is an issue there, so long as its not repeated more than once in the body. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I wasn't suggesting that the repeated redlink was contrary to mos, just that it was, well, pointless... Anyway, no big deal, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the review! I generally treat red links as if they were blue links, so I'd stick with the double redlink (Chinese Malay literature is another one... now that's an article to build on) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: All my concerns were addressed at the PR, and I think the article has improved further since then so I am happy to support. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support I like this article because this literature is comefrom Indonesia...--Hanamanteo (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • While that unfortunately is not a valid reason for featuring the article, there is sufficient support from other reviewers, based on the FA criteria, to make it so... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [80].Reply[reply]

Battle of Hastings[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... it's been through GA, it's had copyedits by two fine copyeditors (John and Eric Corbett), and I've read a large chunk of both older and new sources in the course of getting this (and Norman Conquest of England) up to snuff. It's a good, well sourced introduction to a complex subject. It continues on with the Norman conquest of England topic I've been working on for a while, this article treats the actual decisive battle that assured the Normans control of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Ealdgyth. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: generally an easy-to-read account that avoids overdetailing and is especially good in explaining background and context. I have a few quibbles, suggestions and queries, nothing major:

  • The section "Tostig's invasion", is as much about Hadrada's invasion as Tostig's so you may want to vary the heading
  • Section: "Harold's preparations and the English army" - it would make logical sense to reverse the paragraph order in this section
  • "suffered such horrific losses" - moderate "horrific" as contrary to WP:PEACOCK
    • The sources are all pretty secure on this - 24 out of 300 ships works out to only 8% of the ships were needed to take home the survivors. That's not just horrific, it's pretty much obscene. Stamford was a devasting loss for the invaders. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting that the losses weren't horrifiic, merely that use of such descriptions should be attributed to a source. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Rather than fight against the stupid idiocy that is the usual interpretation of WP:PEACOCK, I've changed "horrific" to "great". (You'd be hard pressed to find any historian that comments on the losses at Stamford who doesn't use some sort of word like horrific... but it's not worth the fight.). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • explanation of "hide" required in text; I had to use the link, which was disruptive to my reading
  • "William's preparations and landing": include a year somewhere in the first paragraph of the section, e.g. "In April 1066 Halley's Comet..." etc
  • "After landing, William's forces built a wooden castle at Hastings..." Since Hastings is a good 10 miles east of Pevensey, maybe "after landing" is an oversimplification. Presumably he established and extended his beachhead.
    • But we don't know that for sure. I'm not sure that I see that there is a big problem here - he built the castle soon after landing (it was built before the battle) ... so it was soon after landing. Suggestions are welcome to help refine this .. but most of the sources I've used go direct from landing to castle building. (It was a wooden motte-and-bailey castle, not a big stone keep, if that helps. It was thrown up in a few days.) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • We know he landed at Pevensey, and then built a castle 10 miles to the east at Hastings. Do no sources explain why he shifted his base to Hastings, rather than use the existing stronghold at Pevensey where, according to your image caption, he built a fort after the battle? it just seems a slight hole in the story – but unless the sources provide explanations, there's little we can do. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Nope, we really don't know - the original sources don't state why, and I haven't seen any speculation of why either. Having travelled over that countryside, my guess is that Hastings is on higher, drier ground and it was a good spot to build a castle and control the countryside, likely the first good spot he came to. Perhaps one of the men in his army had previously served in England (there were Normans who served as soldiers in England during the 1050s) and knew the area. We just don't know. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "only about 35 individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at Hastings." Needs revising to avoid the impression that William only had 35 in his army. E.g. "only about 35 names can be reliably identified as having been with William at Hastings."
    • Went with "only about 35 named individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William at Hastings"... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "William's scouts reported the English arrival to the duke." Clarify where the English were encamped before the battle
    • This is that Brit thing with the silly hoar apple tree, isn't it? I've put it in, but really, none of the historians mention it (gaze up). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • English forces at Hastings: the figures suggested from Norman sources (400,000 to 1,200,000) are not just unreliable (total Eng. population at the time was around 3 million), they are absurd - I would emphasise this
    • I can't really do much more without going into OR territory. As a general rule, figures of any army before the modern era are unreliable - it's merely a question of how unreliable. Historians just don't feel the need to ridicule them that much.. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Few individual Englishmen are known to have been at Hastings, with the most important being Harold's brothers Gyrth and Leofwine.[25] About 20 named individuals can reasonably be assumed to have fought with Harold at Hastings, including Harold's two brothers and two other relatives." These two sentences should be merged, since they are essntially saying the same thing.
  • "The battle occurred on Saturday 14 October 1066". I'd absorb this information into the second substantive sentence of the paragraph: "The only facts that are undisputed are that the fighting began at 9 am on Saturday 14 October 1066 and that the battle lasted until dusk".
  • I'd also try to avoid the repetition: "...the battle.[69] The battle..."
  • You say the battle took place between two hills - "Caldbec Hill to the north and Telham Hill to the south". The lead and infobox say it took place at Senlac Hill; in the text, "Senlac" is given as an alternative name for the battle, with no mention of a hill.
  • The information about the London-Lewes road and the hike over local tracks probably belongs earlier in the narrative: Lewes is at least 20 miles (a day's march?) from the battle site. As I mention earlier, it would be useful to know where the English were encamped the night before the battle.
  • "with some of them rallying on a hillock before dying". Does "them" refer to the Norman counter-attackers or the English pursuers?
  • (I love the idea of the battle having a meal break. Just like cricket)
  • "the English pursuit and subsequent rout". It needs to be clearer who was routed.
  • "What exactly happened" → "Exactly what happened"?
  • "Harold had to dismiss his forces in southern England on 8 September..." → "Harold had dismissed [or 'demobilized'?] his forces in southern England on 8 September..."
  • "Sent to the papacy"? to the pope, surely?
    • Well, papacy includes the whole surrounding bureacracy surrounding the pope - which would have had a say in things. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Hmm, I'm not sure. For example, would you say "sent to the presidency" rather than "to the president"? Or "to the monarchy" rather than "to the queen"? They too have surrounding bureaucracies. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Ah, but historians use pope=papacy interchangably for this period. It's very common, and not at all unusual in the sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...troubles in Northumbria in 1068. In 1069 William faced more troubles from Northumbrian rebels...." Avoidable repetition of "troubles" here, and later on of "rebellions".
  • " the site of the battle has been altered." This reads ambiguously; it is the topography of the site rather than the site itself that has been altered.
  • The last sentence might imply that the Bayeux Tapestry is within Battle Abbey rather than at Bayeux. Perhaps clarify.

Good stuff. For old time's sake I will do a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review

  • Footnote c contains uncited information. It also contains some WP:WEASEL stuff: "Unfortunately for Edgar..."
  • Refs 20 and 108: "Nicholle" should be "Nicolle" I believe.
    • Yes. I have a friend who spells her name "Nicholle" which causes me endless problems with Nicole... Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the footnotes and the citations look neater in 4-col format (I've tried it).
    • I have them set to be a certain width instead of a certain number of columns. It appears as 4 columns for my screen... I prefer a bit more white space and less bunching of each citation. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Two columns only on my screen. We haven't got Cinemascope here yet. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You mean not everyone has a 30" screen? (But I also have a smaller screen, and prefer this spacing on that screen too). Ealdgyth - Talk 18:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Otherwise all sources look of appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support: All issues resolved Brianboulton (talk) 08:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Parutakupiu[edit]

  • Link Tostig (Godwinson) in its first appearance in the lead.
  • "... marked the culmination of the William's conquest of England."
  • Every "In <month or year>"/"On <date>" instance at the beginning of a sentence should be followed by a comma.
    • Only in American English. British English does not. This is a British subject, so we don't do that. (Trust me, I have my British English articles copyedited by TWO Brits to make sure I follow Brit English). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "... converting to Christianity[3]..." – place a comma before the ref tag.
  • "... the formidable Godwin, Earl of Wessex..." – WP:PEACOCK
    • No, he was quite the important person and a prime mover of events. It's not peacokery when all the sources would agree. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I understand, but does he become less formidable because you don't say it? Anyway, it's just an opinion. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Harold Godwinson was Edward's "immediate successor" because he was his brother-in-law? Because he was the most powerful English aristocrat? Or both? It would be interesting to clarify this.
    • It all depends on who you ask. This is better gone into in Harold's article (which I'm working on). It's something of a historian's delight to argue about this... we couldn't do it justice in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The English army does not appear to have had a significant number of archers, although it had some." – not having a significant number or archers doesn't mean having no archers at all, so you can drop that last part.
  • Note g feels repetitive regarding the modern sources accounting for Pevensey's landing.
    • It's the only way I can safely say "most" - as it's not something that is explicitly given. Many little towns along the coast "claim" that William landed there, so we needed to mention that modern historians are united in it being Pevensey. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A contemporary document claims that William had 726 ships..." contradicts note d that states 776 ships.
  • "Harold, After defeating his brother Tostig and Harald Hardrada in the north, Harold left much of his forces..."
  • "... threatened Norman invasion." – you mean threatening?
    • No, threatened. It's likely that Harold still thought it was a threat, not an actual event, when he left the north. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The rest of the army was made up of levies from the fyrd..." – forgot to italicise fyrd.
  • Javelin is only linked on its second instance ("English forces at Hastings"); link to it at the first appearance in "Norman forces at Hastings".
    • I've just removed the link... it seems to be something that should be known anyway. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Change the sub-section title "Background and site of the battle" to "Background and site" (it is already nested in the "Battle" section).
  • "Several roads are possible. One, an old Roman road..." – replace the period with a colon so it doesn't read like a telegram.
  • I'd drop one of the battlefield images, so that the image showing the tactical formations could be moved to the corresponding section.
  • "After the bombardment from the archers,..." – bombardment is not the best word.
  • "William had more experience with leading armies.[110] The lack of cavalry on..." – Link both sentences.
    • Hm? Not sure what you mean here. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • I hate short sentences. If there's a possibility to merge two consecutive and content-related sentences, I prefer it be done. Parutakupiu (talk) 20:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I cannot see how we can combine sentences here, honestly. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Using "and"? Anyway, this is hardly important and seeing that there are many more examples of this, I won't insist. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "HIs personal standard was presented to William." – typo in 'His'
  • "1 in 7" → "one in seven"; "1 in 4" → "one in four"
  • Try to comply with WP:IMAGELOCATION.
    • I've fiddled with images just to conform to this (rather idiotic) idea that you can't put images aligned left under a heading. It's pretty dang silly but whatever. It's done. Everything is now a paragraph down on the left side. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

— Parutakupiu (talk) 20:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In the bibliography: "Douglas Douglas C. (1964). William the Conqueror. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press." – error in the author name? Plus, just wondering if this book source does not have an ISBN? It's the only one... Parutakupiu (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Fixed - and it doesn't have an ISBN because it was published before ISBNs. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – Like any supposedly educated Englishman I vaguely knew the gist of this article, but to have the facts set out clearly, as here, in well-proportioned, detailed and pleasing prose, is both instructive and enjoyable. I don't see how this could be improved on, and in my view it meets all the FA criteria. Two small comments, which ignore if you wish: "35 named individuals can be reliably claimed to have been with William" is not the most streamlined prose, and "the beaten foe" seems a touch quaint. Mere suggestions. Otherwise cordial applause. – Tim riley (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for the praise, and the support. I'm open to suggestions on how to better word the first, but I honestly can't think of one right this moment. I kinda like "the beaten foe", myself, I'm not always opposed to using quaint when it helps vary the wording choices. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could substitute "fleeing defenders" instead of "beaten foe". Eric Corbett 18:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I went with "fleeing soldiers"... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK (CC own work, Geograph, PD-art|PD-old-100). Sources and authors provided.

  • Some summaries and licenses tweaked for FAC-preparation. - OK GermanJoe (talk) 08:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments: Returning from an involuntary break, so mostly looking at reference formatting rather than content until I re-acclimate:

  • When multiple citations support the same text, convention is for them to appear in numerical order. For example, at the end of "Background and location", you have a statement cited to [67][86][83][87], but those references should be reordered to read [67][83][86][87]. Note g has the same issue.
  • I believe that the little horizontal line in the Bennett et al. title should be an en-dash.
  • The Douglas reference lacks an ISBN number (978-0520003484).
  • In the Nicolle Medieval Warfare reference, I believe the "In" should be lowercase.

I had to pick nits pretty minutely here; this looks like excellent work. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed all but the Douglas - it predates ISBNs, so the edition I'm using doesn't have one. That isbn you give is for the 1999 Yale University Press edition - I'm using the original first edition first printing of the University of California Press. (they don't differ in content but do in printing, possibly in pagination). Douglas died in 1982, so he never revised that work. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. Some books, especially ones that got a lot of use, have had ISBNs retroactively assigned. There does seem to be some confusion in the databases regarding some printings, however. I show 978-0520003484 for the June 1964 "1st Folio" University of California Press edition, 978-0413243201 for the Methuen Publishing hardcover later in 1964, and 978-0520003507 for the 1967 University of California paperback reprint. Different formats of the 1999 Yale reprint appear to have been assigned 978-0300185545 and 978-0300185546. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It really doesn't matter though ... as ISBNs are not required, especially when it's a matter of a book originally published before them. It has an OCLC which allows someone to look up the edition, thus it's consistent with the other references. (For that matter, references are not required to be in numerical order at FAC - plenty of FACs I've shepherded don't have them set up that way) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've looked back over this, and I'm happy to support this article. I might consider rewording the first sentence of "Reasons for the outcome"; "probably" feels awkward there to me, and is repeated at the start of the next paragraph. I don't have the sources on hand, so I'm not sure how much equivocation they give over the causes. Can we say something like "Several circumstances contributed to Harold's defeat."? Perhaps with "may have", if needed, just to avoid the qualifier duplication? Regardless, I don't consider this an actionable objection (nor is the issue with the Douglas book's identifier, on which we may agree to disagree). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. Very engaging read, I can't fault it. I made a few small tweaks. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment By no means a vote against, but I think that the description of the composition of the forces could focus more on the military traditions of the two armies. The respective compositions follow naturally from the Germanic-Scandinavian infantry traditions of the Anglo-Saxons and the modification of that same tradition by exposure of the Normans to the French and the presence of native French forces in William's army. Doug (talk) 15:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I follow the sources - they don't discuss that as an aspect of Hastings. It'd be a better fit at an article on Anglo-Saxon military or Norman military forces. (I have no idea if we have such an article or not.) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see we do. Anglo-Saxon military organization. I've linked that article. We seem to be lacking a similar one for Normans - probably something to suggest at MilHist. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - reflects the specialist literature well. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:20, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support with a few comments:

  • The narrative is a bit confusing when it goes from mentioning "Godwin, Earl of Wessex", and then "Earl of Wessex, Harold Godwinson" Was the title passed between those two somewhere in there?
  • "William and Harald immediately set about assembling troops and ships for an invasion." Were they doing this in concert, or were they each planning their own invasions? It becomes clear later, but could use some clarification here.
  • "The fyrd and the housecarls both fought on foot, mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour." I don't understand what the modifying phrase "mainly distinguished by the housecarl's superior armour" is modifying. What was distinguished?
    • now reads "fought on foot, with the major difference between them being the housecarl's superior armour." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:28, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Learning of the Norwegian invasion he rushed north" How did he learn of it?

Interesting read! --Laser brain (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [81].Reply[reply]

Quagga[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC) LittleJerry (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a co-nomination with LittleJerry. Surprisingly little is known about this animal, so we have attempted to assemble a lot of obscure information to flesh out the article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support Looks good to me, & I can't find anything to say. Johnbod (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from User:ColonelHenry[edit]

This is an excellent subject, and I applaud your work and research. It does need IMHO a rather significant copyedit for clarity and conciscion to meet criteria 1a. A few things after a cursory reading:

  • The quote in the "Behaviour and ecology" section that acts as a second paragraph, beginning "The geographical range of the quagga...". For such a long quote, I would use <blockquote></blockquote> to set it off from the non-quote text.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Section "Distribution and habitat" is three sentences...rather short for a section. And there's relevant material in the section above...it would be better in my estimation to merge these two, or find a better way of splitting the material. Refer to MOS:PARAGRAPHS or WP:BODY
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rephrase: The quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers from the 17th century, and later by their descendants the Afrikaners, as they were easy to find and kill. Their meat was eaten and their skins were traded or used locally → to "As they were easy to find and kill, the quagga was hunted by early Dutch settlers and later by Afrikaners to provide meat or for their skins. The skins were traded or used locally."
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "...and the last wild population, living in the Orange Free State, was extirpated in the late 1870s" This should be a separate sentence and rephrased, starting "The last population in the wild located in the Orange Free State was extirpated in the late 1870s"
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Regarding the above...is extirpate the right verb? We extirpate things that are inherently bad or not wanted. We extirpate foes in battle (by killing them and vengefully razing their cities) and vegetation (to pull up stumps by the roots), we extirpate sins, or extirpate by deeply excising to removal tumoral or necrotic tissue during surgery (i.e. cancer). I've never seen the verb used in terms of hunting animals to extinction.
Yes, it is used for local extinction. LittleJerry (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For an article that uses BritEnglish spelling, why are we using MDY dates and not DMY? WP:MOSNUM asks for consistency.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a few things for consideration. Good luck! --ColonelHenry (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments, I was about to fix the issues, but Little Jerry has already done it. We waited for a copy edit for weeks, but decided to nominate it now anyway. It is still listed under copy edit requests, so we can hope someone takes it up soon. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I know what you mean, copyedits and reviews sometimes take forever or never come. With an ongoing FAC & FLC, and real life pressures, I'm a little limited for time but I can try to find time to do a c/e for you in the next day or so...but no guarantees.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Further comments
  • In the Lede: Its name is derived from the plains zebra's call, which is heard like "kwa-ha-ha". Since the Quagga is extinct, do you mean "is heard" in comparision to the still extant Plains Zebra, or "was heard" for the extinct Quagga? Clarify.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is the same sound. Reworded, is it clearer? By the way, the image that was moved to the right, the manual of style is very specific about images having to face the text (not away, as now), of humans as well as animals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I moved the image because it was throwing off the on-screen formatting of body text and blockquote. MOS says: In most cases, images should be right justified on pages, which is the default placement (MOS:IMAGESYNTAX) and 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. (MOS:IMAGELOCATION). The needs of the text formatting trump the direction of the Quagga's eyes. I do not think the advice of having the eyes face the text is relevant here (the next sentences discuss people, not animals), no matter how pretty the animal is, a Quagga isn't Grace Kelly and no one would be sorrowful if the Quagga was looking elsewhere. If this were Grace Kelly, we wouldn't have her looking off the page.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well alright. How about the sound issue, does it seem clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consider linking genetic, craniometric, morphological, ungulate
Linked. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • quagga was heavily hunted, and it competed with domesticated animals for forage. — are these two facts related, or is the quagga simply losing out on food?
The former. Should it be changed? FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK as is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The subgenera are treated inconsistently, with Hippotigris redirecting to zebra and Quagga unlinked. Personally I'd unlink both, but your call
Quagga as a subgenus is invalid, would be synonymous with Hippotigris now. I think the zebra article should be split, but for now, Hippotigris is just a redirect. It will probably be split one day (when zebra taxonomy is more resolved), so I think it would be nice to retain the link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • were erroneous, since using skeletons from stuffed specimens might be problematical — "were" or "might be"? The outcome seems more certain than the cause.
Added "can", is that in any way better? FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The way I read it is that all the results were erroneous because some of the specimens were dodgy. Is that what is intended? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it is more that the method is unreliable for the purpose, since it is unknown when non-quagga elements have been used to fill the skins. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It was probably a grazer — is there any doubt that a zebra (or any horse) living on open plains wasn't a grazer?
Probably no doubt, but LittleJerry wrote it, so I'll see what he says. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • and tsetse flies— I would have thought any mammal the size of a zebra would be pretty obvious to the fly. Do they use sight to find their victims?
Should we elaborate this part? It is general for zebras, but I see no problem in adding more text here, good for fleshing out. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not looking for much more. Mosquitos hunt by smell, so it would be helpful to know if tsetses use sight. If possible (which it may not be) a clarification of why stripes wider than the insect confuse it Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not at home this week, so can't check the source, but will fix it after thursday, if Jerry doesn't beat me to it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to be a very complex, and almost controversial issue, so it will be hard to say anything without going into much detail. Tsetse flies are attracted to the odour of animals, yet some experiments have shown that they are less attracted to striped objects though an attractive odour is present. But the reasons for this seem to be unknown. If I expand on this, it would seem logical to expand on why stripes should protect from other predators as well, but is this going too much off topic? FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • quaggas were used as harness animals for carriages in London, probably being gelded — unless they were all males, needs to be stated more accurately
I'll wait and see what Jerry says,he wrote it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 04:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think there is some confusion here, Jerry. You have fixed the grazer issue above, but without comment on this page. I wonder if you have have put that response here, since there is no change in the harness section. All I'm looking for is something like ...London, the males probably being gelded... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not remember writing that but fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
May have been AshLin instead, who dropped by and added a few lines at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • high strung — highly strung, unless they are hanging from trees
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • on telegony—why italics?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's only the tsetse point remaining, I've changed to support above on the assumption that Funkmonk will fix after Thursday Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will! FunkMonk (talk) 06:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK mostly OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided.

I'm pretty sure it was created by the uploader, I've been in contact with him in the past. He has uploasded many selfmade images from museums, better to contact him directly than other editors that may not know. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No doubt, the uploads were made in good faith. It's just a matter of clarifying the permission a bit, but i am on it :). GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Permission has been clarified, link to talkpage with more information added. GermanJoe (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just some suggestions: Please add the author's year of death, when the image's PD-claim is based on age. Also use the maximum possible PD-tag (PD-old-100 for author's death before 1913). Tweaked all cases, no action required. GermanJoe (talk) 13:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When I couldn't find the exact date of death, PD 70 seemed more "safe" to use. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support Comments. Reference formatting issues. I tweaked a couple references (added a volume number, culled an errant punctuation mark), but there are still a couple things to consider.

  • You have some inconsistent date formatting. I think reference 28 is the odd man out that needs correction, but I didn't want to choose poorly and make things worse.
  • Author names/initials in references aren't consistently formatted. Compare reference 1 (initials with periods, no spaces), with 2 (initials with neither periods nor spaces), with 3 (full first name), with 5 (initials with periods and spaces). Similarly, sometime multiple authors are comma-delimited (reference 1), and sometimes with semicolons (most of the rest).

Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fixed both. LittleJerry (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Changed to support. My only prose objection is already being dealt with below, and I'm happy to go ahead and give this the nod now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Review by Quadell[edit]

Spotchecks

I read the pages for the sources given for 2 (Skinner and Chimimba), 5 (Groves and Bell), 7 (Nowak), and 14 (Hofreiter et al). I also examined the relevant parts of sources 19 (Kingdon) and 25 (Piper). These source are used a total of 31 times to support sections of the article. In every case, the statement in the article was fully supported by the source listed, and the material was adequately summarized and rewritten to avoid plagiarism. Well done.

Style
  • The article overuses the passive voice. There are many, many cases where a passive sentence could be rearranged where you could rearrange a sentence from the passive voice to the active voice to increase clarity and improve flow. This is not needed in every instance, but many sentences would be made clearer this way. (Examples: Shortridge placed the two in the Qugagga subgenus; most experts now suggest the two populations represent ends of a cline; some observers suggested the stripes were light, but Rau (83) claimed that this was an optical illusion. Etc.)
Fixed examples, will try to fix others I come across. FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I made some minor edits to the article for grammar and prose style. Feel free to revert any you disagree with, but please explain why if you do.
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Description
  • The source says quaggas are 125-135 cm tall at the shoulder. Our text just says they were 125-135 cm tall, which could be misleading, since a quagga with raised head would be much taller.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The 2nd paragraph is a little confusing. It almost sounds like some people thought the stripes were light-colored, while others thought those same stripes were dark-colored. (Actually, the dispute was over the configuration.) The alleged "optical illusion" is not explained well either. One rewording that would work would be as follows: "On the basis of photographs and written descriptions, many observers suggest that the configuration of stripes on the quagga is light stripes on a dark background, contrary to the configuration in other zebras. Reinhold Rau, pioneer of the Quagga Project, claimed that this is an optical illusion: that the base colour is a creamy white and that the stripes are thick and dark. However, embryological..."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Source 19 (Kingdon) flatly asserts that the quagga has a thicker winter coat than horses. I don't think the other source, Groves and Bell, says anything contrary. Is there a reason for the doubtful-sounding "possibly"?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Taxonomy
  • The "oug-ga" statement is true, but it doesn't have anything to do with the taxonomy of the Quagga, and should be omitted.
Well, since the specific name itself (a taxonomic name) is derived from human interpretation of the sound, it should be relevant in that paragraph which discusses etymology, no? FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had thought that the word "Quagga" came from "kwa-ha-ha", with the "oug-ga" interpretation being an unrelated behavioral note (more fitting in the "Behaviour and ecology" section.) That is the impression one gets from the article. But when I look at the source, it appears the name is thought to have derived from Oug-ga as well... or rather, the name derived from the sound, which has been written both ways. I have tried to reword the article's text with this edit. Feel free to revert and reword any way that makes sense to you. – Quadell (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You nailed it, it is two ways of transliterating the same sound. FunkMonk (talk) 11:57, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Related to the "passive voice" issue, some sentences in paragraph 2 are unclear. You say that the southernmost population of Burchell's zebra was thought to be a distinct subspecies, but also that it was then regarded as a full species. A person could not have thought that this southernmost population was both a distinct subspecies and a full species at the same time. What is it you mean to say?
Rewritten, does it make more sense? FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does. It's still a bit confusing, but I think that's because the taxonomy is inherently confusing. No further problems here. – Quadell (talk) 11:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Behaviour and ecology
  • "The practical function of zebra striping" seems abrupt. I would start a new paragraph there, and, in my opinion, the sentence would be clearer as follows: "Since the practical function of striping has not been determined for zebras in general, it is unclear why the quagga lacked stripes on its hind parts."
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The last paragraph of this section has several problems. For one, "Captive individuals" should be "Captive quaggas", since many zebra species had just been mentioned.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Piper claims that quaggas were aggressive and volatile, and that "taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." That's not the impression I get from this paragraph. Nowak says they were more docile than Burchell's zebra, but that may not be saying much. Piper says they were used as guards because they were easily startled and prone to attack invading animals, not because they were docile and easily tamed.
Seems quite complicated, LittleJerry, what do you think about this issue? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For comparison, Nowak says quaggas in zoos "were said to be much more tractable than E. Burchelli and to quickly become docile and tamable." On the other hand, Weddell says quaggas in zoos were "generally too high-strung to breed in captivity", and Piper describes the quagga as "a very lively, high-strung animal, and the stallions were prone to fits of rage, so taming one of these animals must have been interesting and practically impossible." Piper goes on to describe them as guard animals: "Any intruder, be it a lion or a rustler, was... most probably attacked by this tenacious horse."
You'll have to give fair weight to these sources when describing their behavior, before I can support. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reshuffled the text so it doesn't seem so selfcontradictory[82], so that it basically says "they were said to be wild and lively, yet were also said to be tamer than Burchell's zebra". FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text in the article now follows the sources well. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Highly strung nature" would be more clear and less casual as "highly volatile nature".
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Remove "until" from the last sentence. (All animals live until dying.)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
References
  • It seems to me that reference 7 should refer to pp. 1024-1025, rather than just p. 1024. Do you agree?
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Should "van Bruggen" be capitalized?
Fixed, though I think I've seen both versions used. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think "Smart Human" should use single quotes.
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any other problems with this article. The lede in particular is excellent. The images are all valid and used appropriately, with fitting captions. I hope to support once the above issues are addressed. – Quadell (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the comments, I'll fix these issues later today. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great work. I think the only thing left is the question of how docile vs. aggressive they were. – Quadell (talk) 12:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I'd like to see what LittleJerry thinks about the last issue. As for having the exact date of extinction in the lead, I think it's important, since it is otherwise so rarely known exactly when a species went extinct (therefore it is quite notable in itself), and because I am thinking of submitting it as a today's featured article candidate for that date, so it would need to be in the lead anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, okay. – Quadell (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I never really thought about the docile vs. aggressive when I edited the article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So it seems like the sources are contradicting each other? We could say that one source says one thing and one another,not sure how. FunkMonk (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, summarize and contrast the two viewpoints, and it should be fine. – Quadell (talk) 20:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to give it a shot today, and LittleJerry is of course free to make suggestions as well. FunkMonk (talk) 12:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support. This article fulfills all the requirements of a Featured Article. – Quadell (talk) 11:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [83].Reply[reply]

Diamonds (Rihanna song)[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I have worked on the article, since the song was released. Constantly editing it, made me creating what I created today. I believe the article is detailed enough, precise and shows the main impact the song had on the music. Again thanks to Dan56 (talk · contribs) who helped me with the prose. For all the users who decide to oppose, please provide the issues you found so I can fix them. Cheers! — Tomíca(T2ME) 17:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Cassianto

  • "The single topped music charts in more than twenty countries and was a top ten hit in over thirty countries." — Two "countries" in close proximity.
  • "Some critics believed that the heavily tattooed man intertwined with Rihanna's arm in the video resembles Chris Brown."— We slip from past tense (believed) to current (resembles). I would say: "Some critics believe that the heavily tattooed man intertwined with Rihanna's arm in the video resembles Chris Brown."
  • First mention of Rihanna in the body needs to be linked.

Down to critical reception, more to come. -- CassiantoTalk 23:09, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "...and felt that it has the potential to be another hit for Rihanna." —Time travelling again: "has" should be "had" if we are using "felt" and not feels.
  • "According to James Montgomery of MTV News, "Diamonds" is a more positive than previous singles..." —A more positive what? Either that, or we have a stray "a" lurking within the sentence.
Removed the 'a'. — Tomíca(T2ME) 13:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In the US, "Diamonds" debuted at number 16 on the Billboard Hot 100 and sold 133,000 copies in its first week. In its fourth week, "Diamonds" climbed to number eight on the chart and became Rihanna's twenty-third top-ten single. For the week ending December 1, 2012, "Diamonds" became..." — I don't think we need to keep mentioning the single by name: a pronoun would suffice on the second and third mention.
  • "On the Radio Songs chart, "Diamonds" debuted at number 28. In its fourth week, "Diamonds" climbed to number ten..." — Again here.
  • "...one on the chart. It remained atop the chart for four consecutive weeks." — repetition of "the chart"
  • "Photographs of the production were leaked on..." — "leaked to the press" I would say (if it was indeed the press).

Down to Live performances. -- CassiantoTalk 08:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "...she wore a black lingerie" →"....she wore black lingerie"
  • "The show was aired by CBS on December 4. On November 10..." – Is there a reason as to why this is not chronological? Also, these two stubby sentences can be combined in my opinion to make for a smoother flow.
  • This isn't chronological, because it was shot earlier and aired the next month. I combined the sentences though. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Joe Reid said that her performance was the highlight of the show's episode and was more favorable of the digitized background..." — Who was more favourable? Was the digitized background more favourable than the show itself? I think I know what you mean, in which case may I suggest: "Joe Reid said that her performance was the highlight of the show's episode and favoured the digitized background in particular...."
  • "Tess Lynch of Gratland was impressed by Rihanna's exceptional singing ..." — slipping into POV territory there.
  • was "astonished viewers" part of the quote? See above re POV if not.
  • "On November 25, Rihanna performed the song on series 9..." — pronoun preferable.
  • "Hayes of Irish Independent praised the performance and wrote that it..." — Watch the prose, can you think of another word other than "wrote"?
  • ""Diamonds" was remixed by rapper Flo Rida, whose version was premiered on November 12..."
  • "He also makes raspy-voiced shout-outs to the Illuminati and Tay Zonday..." -- I don't get this. Who were the "Illuminati"? what was he shouting out? Who is Tay Zonday? The reader will be forced to use these links to find out.
  • Without wishing to sound crass, is "on his Brad Pitt" Rhyming slang for something?

That's it, a good job as always Tomica. I will leave the tables to the technical persons looking in but your refs look OK too. -- CassiantoTalk 19:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments
  • [[New York City, New York]] → [[New York City]], [[New York]]
  • [[Los Angeles, California]] → [[Los Angeles]], [[California]]
  • "It was written by Sia Furler and its producers, Benny Blanco and StarGate." — At first I didn't get that "its producers" meant "the song's producers." Is there anyway to make it sound clearer?
  • I adjust it a bit. Is it more clearer now? It's better like this than writing, It was written by Sia Furler, Benny Blanco and StarGate, while the production was done by the latter two. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:19, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • twelfth number one single on the ''[[Billboard (magazine)|Billboard]]'' [[Billboard Hot 100|Hot 100]] → twelfth number-one single on the [[Billboard Hot 100|''Billboard'' Hot 100]]
  • "...and said that it will first be played on American radio..." → "...and said that it would be first played on American radio..." (since the song has already been played)
  • [[Drums (musical instrument)|drums]] → [[Drum kit|drums]]
  • [[synthesizers]] → [[synthesizer]]s
  • the [[Supremes]] → [[The Supremes]]
  • "seventh number one single in the country" → seventh number-one single in the country
  • [[New Zealand Singles Chart]] → [[Recording Industry Association of America|New Zealand Singles Chart]]
  • [[Australian Singles Chart]] → [[ARIA Charts|Australian Singles Chart]]

As you can see, it's mostly nitpicking. SnapSnap 17:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support. SnapSnap 19:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Et3rnal

Most, if not all of the issues I noticed beforehand have been picked out above by other users. Things I will say though.

  • MOS:ALBUM#Track_listing states that track listings should generally be formatted as a numbered list, unless in more complicated situations. Personally I think this one can be written the latter form. Doing this also removes the large amount of space leftover from using the Track listing template, especially when viewing on wide screen monitors or in larger resolutions.
  • Shouldn't the year-end charts be formatted like the weekly charts and certifications (WP:ACCESS).
  • I can't see the difference tbh. Can you please point it out? — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Besides that, the article is written well and covers the topic in lots of depth. Et3rnal 18:39, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries, I've done it, and with that in mind, I'll now Support. Et3rnal 19:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Adabow[edit]

The following part of the 'writing and production' section is extremely confusing: "According to Blanco, he and StarGate went into the studio with an idea to create something "Kanye [West] could rap over" and that was not Rihanna's usual sound: "We weren't thinking of Rihanna at all and then it's the one that we weren't thinking Rihanna, is the one that turned into the Rihanna record ... But that's how it always happens like with me, when I'm really thinking, 'Yo, you got to make this hit right now, we got to make the first single right now.'"[1] They made the record first, followed by its beat.[1]"

Paraphrasing could help, IMO. Was the track originally designed for West? Say that! I can't decipher the quote at all. What does it mean by making he record first and then the beat? Adabow (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The quote "It's the one that we weren't thinking Rihanna ... that turned into the Rihanna record ... But that's how it always happens like with me". Is it really necessary? I can't see what info it gives the reader. I still don't understand how the beat could have been made after the music, considering it is part of the music. I would suggest removing this sentence. 00:13, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't agree with you. Yeah I think it's necessary. It's paraphrased and people can understand what's the point of the sentence. — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. I'm not going to oppose on this, but in my opinion it is unclear. Adabow (talk) 10:17, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Status[edit]

  • We got a few dead references in the release history (Australia, UK, to name a few). I suggest replacing with Amazon or 7digital links; we've spoken about the use of iTunes before.

 — Statυs (talk, contribs) 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media check[edit]

Media check - all OK mostly OK (fair-use, own work, Flickr-images with no signs of problems). Only one minor issue:

  • File:Diamonds_video_shoot.png - please provide a more detailed "Purpose of use" in the fair-use template: what exactly is illustrated (context between image and article text) and why is this illustration needed to significantly increase the reader's understanding? (note: fair-use is OK, just the argument for it should be a bit more detailed).
  • Fair-use for images and sound sample is OK aside from the minor issue above. GermanJoe (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments from Colonies Chris[edit]

  • Emeli Sande should be Emeli Sandé. Dave Aude should be Dave Audé.
  • The article titles for well-known cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, and Atlanta are not qualified by the state name; there's no need for "New York City, New York"; "Los Angeles, California", "Atlanta, Georgia". Why would any reader care that Los Angeles in California (in the unlikely event they didn't know already)? There's no other Los Angeles it might be confused with. Only the city is important here, the state has no value.
  • Many citations have superfluous publisher parameters (e.g. work=Billboard|publisher=Prometheus Global Media, work=New York Times|publisher=The New York Times Company). These have no value at all to anyone checking references, and in fact Template:Citation#Publisher recommends omitting publisher for periodicals. (And in the case of most US newspapers, the legal owner (e.g. The New York Times Company) is different from the publisher (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, Jr.), so it's not only useless but inaccurate too.) Colonies Chris (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review: I have so far checked out the first of the three columns of refs:

  • Ref 14: Date in source is September 25, 2012, not October 2
  • Ref 21 returns "Page Not Found"
  • Ref 22 requires purchase after first page
  • All the information that is present in the article is visible so that's not really an issue. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 24: How is "The Marquee Blog" connected with the BBC?
  • Ref 36: The source is "Independent Woman.ie" which I believe is a website rather than a print source
  • Yeah, but it's published by the Irish Independent, so I adjusted it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 08:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ref 41: Again, I don't think the Irish Independent' is the source. It may be the parent organisation, but the source here appears to be the Enniscorthy Guardian.
  • Refs 59 and 60 appear to be identical

I'll add more when I can Brianboulton (talk) 18:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review continued (second column)

  • Ref 80: source is dated 12.8.13 not 22.7.13
  • Ref 82 and other MTV: a note should be added, that MTV sites are not generally available to users outside the US
  • Tbh, I live in another country and continent from the US, but I can still visit the sources (apart of one note that says maybe I would like to see MTV Europe), so I think the note will be useless.
  • Ref 93: "Latin Times" or "Los Angeles Times"?
  • Ref 98: Beth Graham is the author, not the publisher
  • Ref 124: Source does not appear to be informative
There is a problem with the {{singleschart}}, it will be fixed soon. — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:45, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finish soon! Brianboulton (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sources review concluded (third column)

  • 124 and 125: Instructions required for use (I know they're Hungarian, but...)
  • As I said above, this is an issue with the template, I can't do nothing about it, a friend of mine will hopefully fix it. — Tomíca(T2ME) 00:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • 136 returns "page not found"
  • 138 returns "not found"
  • 141 returns "page not found"
  • 142 returns "page not found"
  • 157: I can't see where this source confirms the statistic cited to it.
  • 169 goes to a blank page
  • 170: I failed to find mention of either Rihanna or Diamonds on this source.

I'm not an expert on the sourcing of pop music articles, but the sources used here look broadly what I would expect to see. Certainly the article has been most thoroughly cited. I have checked every link, identifying those not working and raising queries on a few more, which you seem to be addressing. This has been a marathon - I apologise for the time taken. I hope not to do another like this for a while. But good luck with the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support: I've gone through the whole article. It's an easy, interesting read that is definitely FA material. Great work! Arre 10:41, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delegate comment -- pls review duplicate links with this script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[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, 15 August 2013 (UTC) [84].Reply[reply]

A Song Flung Up to Heaven[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because as part of my on-going effort to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's next in line. Actually, it's the last of her autobiographies that are expanded to this point, and ready to be reviewed. (There's one more, her 7th and most recent, Mom & Me & Mom, which just came out this year.) A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation:[85] Thanks, and enjoy. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Note: This is a WikiCup nomination. The following nominators are WikiCup participants: Figureskatingfan. To the nominator: if you do not intend to submit this article at the WikiCup, feel free to remove this notice. UcuchaBot (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "Angelou's long-time editor, Robert Loomis, agreed..." - source?
  • Be consistent in whether states are abbreviated
  • FN33, 40: page(s)?
  • Hagen: which university press?
  • Don't mix templated and untemplated book citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the above addressed, except for final one, which I think is a editing choice. When I use them, I don't use templates in the "Works cited" section because the standard book templates is Harvard style, which is different than the standard citation used for references. If that's a problem, I can change the citation templates to untemplated, which has become my preference after most of the editing of this article occurred, anyway. I also went through all the links and made sure they still work, which they do. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, that's fine - otherwise looks good. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (fair-use for infobox image, PD), sources and authors provided. Just two suggestions (both done):

  • File:Paul_Laurence_Dunbar.jpg => the caption is quite long and the 2 sentences are not well-connected to each other (the connection Dunbar to "bird as symbol" is somewhat missing). I'd remove the second sentence completely and include this information in the main text, if you think it's vital for this article.
  • quote box for Patricia Elam => quotes should be as brief as possible. The first part from "Billed as ..." to "Why the Caged Bird Sings, this new book" could be replaced with "... this new book" without loosing any context. GermanJoe (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Followed suggestions. Thanks, Joe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support - but a few comments so you know I read it.

  • Judy Feiffer, inspired by her tales about her childhood, contacts editor Robert Loomis Ambiguity here. On first reading I thought "her" referred to Feiffer.
Clarified.
  • What are you looking at me for. Can you double-check that a question mark is not supposed to be here?
Done so, and no there's no question mark in the source. However, I found that the original doesn't have a break in between the sentences, so I removed it. What do you think about putting it in a blockquote?
Npw that iot is one one line, that would probably look better. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'd like to tell Elam that you don't sketch with a brush.
Ha ha. Doncha love those mixed metaphors? ;)
  • How about a reference at the end of the last paragraph?
Done.

Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the valuable feedback as always, and for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I have not spent time verifying the content of this article, but I believe the prose is well-written and trust its accuracy based on the author's additional work. I would support the promotion of this article assuming concerns by all other reviewers are addressed. Christine, thank you for contributing great work to Wikipedia! --Another Believer (Talk) 14:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, AB! Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this edit and forgot to mention this one request after reviewing the article. Thanks, Quadell, for actually articulating something that came and left my mind! (The joys of being a distracted Wikipedian...) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Spotchecks by Quadell:

  • 4a and b: Quotations are correct
  • 4c and d: The opinion of the reviewer is well summarized without plagiarism.
  • 7a, c, and e: Quotations are correct
  • 7b and d: The insight of the reviewer is correctly stated and reworded without plagiarism.
  • 8: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
  • 12: Facts are present in source. Well worded.
  • 15: Fact is in source.
  • 26: The source is very will summarized. Well cited, no problems.
  • 34: Quote is correct.

All in all, the sourcing is excellent, as I've come to expect from the nominator. – Quadell (talk) 14:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)Reply