Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/January 2009

January 2009

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 SandyGeorgia 20:48, 31 January 2009 [1].

---

Suffolk Punch

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk)

The Suffolk Punch is a rare breed of draft horse from the UK that doesn't get much attention today, although it was quite popular in the past. The article is comprehensive, although not long. This is a self nomination, but there has been extensive help from several other editors, including Ealdgyth, Montanabw, and Richard New Forest, among others. Dana boomer (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review: images are fine, coming from Flickr with appropriate licenses. Jappalang (talk) 00:53, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments - Good work overall. Some minor comments:
• The Suffolk Punch was developed for farm work, and gained in popularity during the early 20th century. - Remove "in".
• there has been a resurgence in interest and population numbers are increasing. - Add a comma after "interest".
• As well as being used for farm work, the breed pulled artillery, as well as non-motorised commercial vans and buses - Try to avoid using "as well as" twice in the same sentence.
• Per MoS, short quotes (like the one in the Characteristics section) should be part of the text.
• By 1908, the Suffolk had also been exported from England to Spain, France, Germany, Austria, Russia, Sweden, various parts of Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina and other countries. - Link the lesser-known countries, like Austria and Argentina.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The first four are done. For the linking - my impression was that linking should be applied consistently, either linking all of the countries or none of them. Wouldn't it look odd to only have a couple of the countries linked? Especially when they're not really "lesser-known" (I would consider Andorra and Bahrain lesser-known, not Austria and Argentina). Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (Yes, I double checked them from the last time I did a check.) I have contributed a very slight bit to the article, but mainly in terms of throwing some sources up on the talk page to be used or not, as well as doing some source checking. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support from Dr pda, with the disclaimer that I don't know enough about the subject to judge comprehensiveness. I reviewed this article at Wikipedia:Peer review/Suffolk Punch/archive1, and my concerns were addressed there. Dr pda (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support prose is crisp and clear. I tweaked a few things (please tweak again if meaning inadvertently changed). I suspect it is as comprehensive as possible. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:48, 31 January 2009 [2].

---

Beorhtwulf of Mercia

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk), Angus McLellan (talk)

Another king of Mercia; Wiglaf of Mercia would be a good comparison FA. Thanks for all input. Mike Christie (talk) 10:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - The lone image has a verifiable license and an adequate description. Awadewit (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Query A map would be helpful, unfortunately the ones I found in History of Anglo-Saxon England are too far out in either direction WereSpielChequers 20:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a map of Britain as it was in about 800, and labelled it "early 9th century". Not much changed by Beorhtwulf's day; Dumnonia was possibly reduced or overrun by Wessex at that time, but I think the map can stand with the caption I gave it. Mike Christie (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, thats about the same time as File:Britain 802.jpg the 802 CE one, which I prefer slightly as it at least names Lincoln though not Lindsey, and it does have Cornwall in Wessex. What do you think? WereSpielChequers 18:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of things I don't like about File:Britain_802.jpg. One problem is that it shows boundaries; these are somewhat speculative and almost all modern secondary sources don't do this. The map I used doesn't have boundaries; instead it shows the location of the kingdoms. The boundaries changed over time and though in some cases and at some times they can be fairly well documented, generally it's safer not to show them. Another problem is that the map shows Bernicia and Deira, which had long disappeared as independent kingdoms. There are anachronisms, too; some places such as the Solway Firth and The Wash are named with modern names, whereas others use names of the period. "Witby" is mis-spelt; it should be "Whitby"; so is "Nectanisnere", which I believe (I don't have a ref to hand) should be "Nechtansmere". The map gives the names of kingdoms in England and Scotland, but not in Wales, which seems inconsistent. Finally, I don't think I've ever seen a secondary source divide the British territory into "North Wales" and "West Wales" in that way. I do recall sources for "West Welsh", but the secondary sources almost always use "Dumnonia" for that territory. I've never seen "North Wales" used that way. So I'd prefer to stick to the map I have in the article at the moment. Mike Christie (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would agree on the borders, and then there's the gigantic "Strathclyde", most of which should be Northumbrian likely. For the record, this map (number 1) shows where the new BBC history of Scotland series put Nechtansmere. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Not much known about this guy, is there? I particularly liked the "Background and sources" section, which greatly helps a reader such as myself, who is not familiar with the history and documentation of this period. This is a well-written, comprehensive, and well-researched article. The map is a nice addition. Two small suggestions:

• Beorhtwulf (also spelled Berhtwulf) (died 852) was King of the Mercians from 839 or 840 to 852. His ancestry is unknown, though he may have been connected to Beornwulf, who ruled Mercia in the 820s. Beorhtwulf restarted a Mercian coinage early in his reign, initially with strong similarities to the coins of Æthelwulf of Wessex, but later with independent designs. - I found the sudden discussion of coinage confusing. Most readers will not understand its importance, so perhaps we should add a sentence about the lack of historical evidence for Beorhtwulf or something like that as a segue?

  Done; I think the fact that he had to restart the coinage is the thing that's interesting to the reader, so I elaborated a little on that. I hope that makes it a little smoother. Mike Christie (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Should "Æthelwulf" and "Ælfflæd" be redlinked? There are other names that seemed like they could be redlinked as well.

  "Æthelwulf" is linked once in the lead and once in the body. I sometimes link a name again if it hasn't been mentioned for a bit -- let me know if you think that would be a good idea here. "Ælfflæd" is quite probably not well-known enough for an article; I don't think she's mentioned at all in the early sources, and is known only from the later life of Wigstan. I looked through for other links and found two: Æthelbald and Æthelstan, both of which should definitely have been linked; I've fixed them. Mike Christie (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A pleasure, as always. Awadewit (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Excellent work. Karanacs (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. There's a bit of confusion about the order of his sons, which I've mentioned in the talk page. Additionally, the map makes it rather surprising that Mercia controlled London, as I would have guessed that there would have been an Essex / Wessex boundary in the intervening territory. I'm not sure how the map could be improved. Perhaps moving "Essex" slightly to the south-west? Or perhaps space out the letters in "Mercia" slightly, and rotate it a smidgen clockwise? But neither of these points are enough to object to the nomination. Bluap (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Angus has fixed the issue with the sons; it's not known which is the older. Improving the map is hard because boundaries can't reliably be drawn -- see the comments above to WereSpielChequers. Mercian control of London is well-established; I will take a look and see if there's a sentence or two that could be added about that. Mike Christie (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - beautifully written and meticulously researched. I am sure that this will achieve FA. I cannot believe that it is still rated as a stub. Graham Colm ^Talk 20:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:48, 31 January 2009 [3].

---

Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel

Nominator(s): Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I think it meets all the requirements at WP:FA?. Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel is a radio show from the 1930s, starring Groucho and Chico Marx. I picked a book up about it in a thrift store and wrote this article. I've had a lot of fun writing and researching it, and I think it's one my better ones.

There is one thing I'm a bit bothered about, and that's that I can't think of a suitable Lede image for the infobox. I can't find any pictures of them performing the radio show on stage, no Esso posters from the period, or anything. Any suggestions for one would be welcome, and all other concerns brought up will be addressed to the best of my ability. Thank you Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Sources in the references section should be in alphabetical order

• On it. Done Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

• What makes http://www.old-time.com/ a reliable source?

• The New York Times ([4] and [5]), Deseret News ([6]), and Variety ([7]) all reference it; PBS ([8]) lists it as a teaching resource; Western Connecticut State University ([9]), Northeastern State University ([10]), and Elon University ([11]) lists it as a research resource; and the Library of Congress ([12]) uses it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email)

Leaving this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm on the fence here. The LoC and the New York Times are the most convincing, but even these mentions are extremely brief and hard to really put into context. Sites that include old-time.com next to Wikipedia or as fodder for high school projects are totally unconvincing. Am I correct in that the only information being used from this site is the ratings? Could this information be sourced to a stronger source? Awadewit (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

References 50 and 51 say the same, but they're books. I added this cite because it's an online reference and this article doesn't use many. Unless the reader has the books much of the information here cannot be verified, and they would have to assume good faith on my part. It can be removed without leaving the statements it's connected to unsourced, but it's doing no harm either. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, then. Awadewit (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for looking! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Flywheel BBC.jpg - This fair use rationale needs a specific purpose of use - the generic template is not enough. See this dispatch on non-free images, particularly the section at the end about writing purposes of use. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. There is a specific purpose of use in the template. Fair use policy isn't my strong point, but this cover-art, its purpose and rationale don't look to be much different from other cover-art images used in recently promoted FAs that you commented on, such as File:The Simpsons Hit and Run cover.png, File:The Simpsons Game XBOX 360 Cover.jpg, and File:UTND.jpg which you said was "sufficient". What would I need to add to make this image alright for this article? Would it be better if I just removed it? Thanks, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Those images were all being used in infoboxes - that is a different kettle of fish. Did you read the section of the dispatch that I pointed you to? It offers excellent advice on how to write a good purpose of use. I would only repeat its advice here. Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done? (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AFlywheel_BBC.jpg&diff=264916247&oldid=260149687) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Awadewit (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The prose struck me as a bit flabby. I've made changes in this edit, but as I found so much so easily I suspect there is more. Prose aside, there are at least two oddities of content.

First, we read The CAB rating is the percentage of radio-set owners polled in a given area who are listening to a given show. Thus, if out of 100 radio-set owners polled in the area covered by the broadcast, 20 report that they listened, then the rating which appears in the report is 20. The percentage is not a percentage of the listening audience, but of the radio-set owners interviewed. To which my response is: Well yes, of course, but what's your point? I mean, this seems to be in contradistinction to some hypothetical system whereby every potential member of the "listening audience" is polled; but that notion is absurd: you always have sampling. Is the point perhaps that the samples were very small or otherwise unrepresentative?

Secondly, one paragraph starts with the sentence The show was popular with other comedians of the time, however. This isn't sourced. I expect that the rest of the paragraph will substantiate this claim, but it does not; instead, it quotes later writers saying how good the show was.

But the article is interesting and surely can make it to FA.

Incidentally, I changed the description of Zeppo from "straight man" to the more specific "romantic interest". The latter is slightly odd in that the term is usually applied to the girl, but in context here I think it's fine. However, I'm working here from my Original Memory of his rather tedious patches in what are otherwise funny movies. What's particularly worrisome is that I made this change to a sourced assertion and without checking it against the source. Feel free to revert. (I think and hope that all my other changes were innocuous.) Morenoodles (talk) 09:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for copyediting it. Re: the CAB rating; many people won't know what a CAB rating is, and explaining it provides WP:CONTEXT to the reader. Sure, people familiar with US radio may be aware, but not those who click on Specal:Random may not. The references don't say how many people were polled, so do you have a suggestion on how to keep the explanation of what it is, without the other stuff?

What does "is "of the2 what's intended?" mean that you added to the dubious tag in the sentence, Sales in Fire Chief Gasoline were also high."?

"The show was popular with other comedians of the time, however." -- I think it is sourced by the next two statements. Steve Allen was a vaudeville and radio star, as was George Burns.

I'm not sure what to do with the Zeppo thing. The source does say he was the "straight man", but I don't know if that's particularly true.

Thanks for taking a look, best, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Really, I thought that most people were familiar with the general concept, if not the specifics, of sampling for opinion surveys. No company that wants to know what radio programs the people of Boise listen to and like finds this out by interviewing every resident of Boise. Instead, the company samples. And you can treble-underline that for surveys of Idaho or the US. I see no reason even to mention the sampling here unless somebody knowledgable has credibly claimed that the sampling (or some other aspect of the research) was poor by the standards of the time or is otherwise remarkable.

Sorry about the "2" typo in my comment. I intended to ask "is 'of the' what's intended?" To me, "Sales in Fire Chief Gasoline were also high" is odd; "Sales of (the) Fire Chief Gasoline were also high" is idiomatic. However, I'm not completely sure that the latter is what you mean.

The article says: The show was popular with other comedians of the time, however. In 1988, Steve Allen said, "when judged in relation to other radio comedy scripts of the early 30's, they hold up very well indeed and are, in fact, superior to the material that was produced for the Eddie Cantor, Rudy Vallee, Joe Penner school. The rapid-fire jokes [...] run the gamut from delightful to embarrassing."[18] George Burns also found it "funny".[55] (My bolding.) The generalization looks to me like a statement about what people thought then, but it's backed up with two statements made half a century later (when memories might have been altered by exposure to Duck Soup and the rest).

If the source says "straight man", "straight man" is what it should be. To me, a straight man is somebody who's straightness is a needed prop for the comedy of his partner(s). My memory tells me that in the movies Zeppo was pretty much irrelevant to the comedy: instead, comic bits would be interrupted by boring romantic episodes starring Zeppo and some babe. Meanwhile, the comic foil would be the inimitable Margaret Dumont, who was never boring. But this is not what is written, and also the article on Zeppo shows me that my memory is at least partly wrong.

Another gratuitous comment. Is it just me who gags on the term "Old-time radio" (in the very first sentence)? To me it looks like a marketer's term to cash in from the nostalgia demographic. Morenoodles (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

PS I have fixed the bit about having been popular with other comedians of the time. I have not removed the explanation about sampling, which I believe is completely unnecessary, because the primary author has said that he thinks it's necessary and I therefore fear that my removing it could be construed as disruption or even vandalism. However, I'm certain that it should go, I have explained this on its talk page, and I must regretfully oppose promotion to FA until it is removed, it is substantially altered, or I'm persuaded that I haven't noticed some factor. The article and this FAC page are on my watchlist and I hope to be shown something that will let me strike my "oppose". Morenoodles (talk) 07:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Bit struck out Morenoodles (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the old-time radio link out of the first sentence, and have completely removed the Fire Chief gasoline sales sentence and the CAB-rating footnote. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy support. Morenoodles (talk) 05:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's much appreciated! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:17, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. The References list should be alphabetical, and I don't know how to fix the hanging comma here:
• —Variety, December 2, 1932, [8] (also, there should not be a space before the ref).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

All done, thanks Sandy. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops -- Sandy, should they be alphabetical by title, author, or something else?

By how you've listed them (which is usually author last name, but title when there is no author). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I noticed that these recordings are readily available. What do you think about uploading them to Commons, since they are in the PD, and selecting some clips for the article? Awadewit (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

See User talk:Awadewit#Recordings of episodes of "Flywheel" - This is in the works. Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Two audio files have been added to the article. The second half of Episode 25, and Episode 26 in its entirety. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful! Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - I think this is a wonderful article. Do we have any FAs on radio shows? If we do, they have been few and far between. Thanks for writing this! My only question is whether any more information could be added on the content of the series, particularly the characters of Shyster and Flywheel and the plots and themes of the episodes. Awadewit (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Writing this was an enjoyable experience. As far as I can tell, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (radio series) is the only other radio-related Featured article. The plots and themes of each episode are pretty much the same. Flywheel, or occasionally Ravelli, scams someone, but by the end of the episode their plans have come undone or they haven't really gained anything from their actions. Flywheel seems to come across as a lazy and incompetent lawyer and a bullying employer, and Ravelli is the one either being bullied or being blamed when things go wrong. However, this is just my interpretation of the scripts in their printed form. I think I will have missed the intonations, sarcasm, and even some jokes by not listening to the episodes. I wouldn't want to spoil the article by putting something in that could be seen as WP:original research. List of Flywheel, Shyster, and Flywheel episodes has been spun off this article though, which at the moment gives detailed episode summaries of the first 10 episodes. Since the scripts have entered public domain, I am also thinking of adding them to Wikisource. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Too bad there isn't more information that isn't OR - that's the way the cookie crumbles, though. Changing to support. Awadewit (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. This was a lot of fun to read - thank you! Karanacs (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thank you for your support. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [13].

---

Beauchamp–Sharp Tragedy

Nominator(s): User:Acdixon

previous FAC withdrawn

I had to withdraw my previous nomination because I already had a nomination of another article underway. I hope to see this article promoted so it can be the main article of a featured topic with FA Solomon P. Sharp and GA Jereboam O. Beauchamp. I welcome your comments and hope to respond to them promptly. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's note: Due to a catastrophic ice storm, my access to the internet will be limited and unpredictable for the foreseeable future. I appreciate your patience as I try to respond to your comments as I am able. Thanks. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I'm not going to go through the sources and check validity here, but I would like to support this as an example of Wikipedia's best writing. It's very well written and very interesting. There was only one tiny thing I spotted that I didn't like: I think it is silly to wikilink the word "disinformation" in the Background section. Looie496 (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Overlinking is something that shows up in my reviews often. Still, I'm not sure how widely understood this term is, so I'd like to wait for another opinion before de-linking it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review Please note that WP:IUP states that a good source for images will "provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author."

• File:Beauchamp kills Sharp.jpg - It would be best to have the complete publication and author information for this image.
• File:Anna Cooke.jpg - It would be best to have the complete publication information for this image.
• File:Solomon P Sharp.jpg - It would be best to have the complete publication information for this image.
• File:Jereboam O Beauchamp.jpg - It would be best to have the complete publication information for this image.
• File:Beauchamp hangs.jpg - It would be best to have the complete publication information for this image.

I just copied this from the previous FAC. Awadewit (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just added all the info I have. There is no author given for The life of Jeroboam O. Beauchamp : who was hung at Frankfort, Kentucky, for the murder of Col. Solomon P. Sharp, and although The United States Criminal Calendar is by St. Clair, I don't know if he did the etching of Beauchamp killing Sharp. All were published in the U.S. well before 1923, and are out of copyright. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not have the author, publisher, publication location, etc. for the source for the Solomon Sharp image? Awadewit (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I knew I missed one! No, I do not have any of this information for that image. I scanned it either from Bruce's book or Cooke's article in the Register. (I forget which; it appears in both). Bruce only credits it as "Courtesy of the Kentucky Historical Society". As it is a photograph (or something like one), it had to have been created before 1826, and thus the author would have been dead for well over 100 years. It is also likely that it was first published before 1923. Either way, it should be in the public domain. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

As the source is the Bruce book, we need to add the publication information for that book. I have now done so. I have also changed the wording and the license on the image - we don't know for sure that it was published before 1923. The evidence is a little thin for PD (all of those probably's!, but I suppose it will do. All image issues have now been resolved. Awadewit (talk) 05:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support - Great article. Just have one question for you, are there any online sites that other people can look at? Also, I would suggest altering the image in "Trial" down because under the header, I think is a violation of MOS. Good job though.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the article. I definitely enjoyed researching it, as it is an interesting event in the history of my state. Thanks for your support. As far as online resources beyond what you'll find at the end of the article, here's one that didn't quite pass muster as a reliable source but is a good read nonetheless. Also, there's a preview of Dickson Bruce's book on Google Books. Other than that, a Google search for Jereboam Beauchamp or Solomon Sharp would likely turn up some things.

If you're really interested, though, I have to recommend the two part article on Solomon Sharp in the Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, and they are unfortunately not available online anywhere that I know of. Also, be advised that the anonymous The Life of Jereboam O. Beauchamp is identical to what is published in St. Clair's The United States Criminal Calendar (available online from Lehigh University). The only thing you won't find in St. Clair's version are the illustrations. Hope that helps. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments All comments addressed or satisfactorily responded to. Definitely worth FA status, but first, some comments:

• "allegedly fathered an illegitimate child with a woman named Anna Cooke" Perhaps it's just my view, but what other sex could he have fathered a child with?

It's not so much to emphasize the sex as it is a cue to the reader that, "No, you have not missed the introduction of this character, Anna Cooke, before. She's just some random woman who has heretofore gone unmentioned." Does that make sense? If you have a suggestion that sounds less awkward, I'm open to it.

No problem; I had an idea that you were going to respond along that line of thinking, but I just wanted to make sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Sharp denied paternity of the child, which was stillborn." Why not "Sharp denied paternity of the stillborn child."

Again, the idea was that the fact that the child was stillborn hadn't been mentioned yet. I didn't want it to jar the reader. Nevertheless, I've adopted your wording here.

• WP:CAPTION says that image captions that are complete sentences should have periods at the end. Example: "Anna Cooke alleged that Solomon Sharp was the father of her illegitimate child"

Corrected. Thanks.

I fixed one more. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "allegedly destined for Bowling Green." "allegedly" has a negative connotation. Is this what you are trying to convey here? Maybe "apparently".

It was alleged that he was headed for Bowling Green, but apparently, he was not, since when Beauchamp arrived, Sharp was not there and not expected.

OK, so it was said that he was headed for Bowling Green. The wording is fine then, I must have missed something in the text. Dabomb87 (talk)

• "she sent a letter to him denouncing Beauchamp's actions"-->she sent a letter to him that denounced Beauchamp's actions

Done.

• "between debtors seeking relief"-->between debtors who sought relief

Done.

• perjury is overlinked; I don't think it is necessary to link poem.

Fixed.

• "leaving him imprisoned and deprived " Not sure of the purpose of the italics here. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

He was already imprisoned; the italics were to emphasize a further consequence if the New Court turned on him. I've removed them, as they aren't really necessary.

Thanks for your helpful comments. I hope you will eventually be able to support the article's promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, hope I got them right. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, friend. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 03:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [14].

---

Mozart in Italy

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

This is a companion piece to Mozart family Grand Tour. It continues the story of the travels and musical education of the child genius Mozart, this time in Italy where he learns to write opera, gets a knighthood from the pope, meets Bonnie Prince Charlie and gets chased by brigands on the road to Rimini. And that's just the first of the three journeys! Thanks to the peer reviewers who gave the article a thorough going-over, and to Ruhrfisch who rescued my bungling efforts to draw a map. Brianboulton (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: the article gives an account of Mozart's trips in Italy wonderfully, describing each of the three journeys and the notable events. Brian has done a wonderful job in bringing this aspect of Mozart to life. Disclosure: I was one of the peer reviewers and have worked on the images to ensure compliance (so someone else should have a look at the images). Jappalang (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Few comments I've made a few minor word changes, but these would be beyond my knowledge of the field (which is minimal):

Background:

• • "illness and a bereavement in the imperial court prevented the children from performing there". Do we know who died? it might be worth piping the name to "a bereavement". Also, shouldn't Imperial Court be capitalized.
    • I've reworded to say who actually died. I don't think capitalization is required; it generally isn't in the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 01:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "through his over-eagerness to secure a performance of Wolfgang's first real opera". Does over-eagerness need a hyphen? And Leopold offended one and complained about the other? The connection may not be absolutely apparent to the reader
    • You're right about the hyphen. As to the rest, Leopold offended Gluck, and complained to the emperor about Affligi, the connection being Wolfgang's opera, which Leopold was trying (a little too hard) to get performed. I hope this is clear in the text as it stands. Any suggestion for greater clarity would be welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 01:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph, Nannerl: First paragraph says that Leopold's purpose was to basically show off his kids. The second paragraph implies his main purpose is their education. I see a disconnect.
    • Leopold always had joint a double motive - to show off his kids, and to further their musical education. I've clarified that in the first paragraph, so the disconnection should disappear. Brianboulton (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Sounds like a lot of 21st century parents!--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "church music of the highest order" I imagine what is meant is the best church music, but that may not be clear.
    • I've changed "order" to "quality" (which is the word used by the source). Brianboulton (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "women should stay at home" Nannerl and who else? Assume the reader has not read the Grand Tour article, and may be unfamiliar with the Mozart family generally.
    • Clarified: Nannerl and her mother. Brianboulton (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC) Journey to Milan:

• "The general arrangement was the same as for the family's grand tour". Maybe "Leopold's financial plan for the Italy journey was the same ...". And for "travel and accomodation costs". Why not just "travel expenses"?
  • I've adopted the "Leopold's financial plans" suggestion, but I see no harm in emphasising "travel and accommodation costs", since much of Leopold's grumping is about the high costs (and poor service) of the inns. Brianboulton (talk)
• "extensive stops en-route" does that mean a lot of stops, or long stops. And I personally would say "en route" rather than "en-route".
  • "Extensive" should be "extended" - my error. Also, hyphen deleted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Leopold not revealing his finances: Did he always do this? Then I would state it in more general terms, as a personal characteristic, rather than something that relates to the tour only.
  • This point is, I think, covered in footnote [14]. In view of the density of information already in this narrative, I'd prefer to leave the information footnoted. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "plenty of improvisation" maybe "much improvisation"?
  • Agreed and done.Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More later.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Milan to Naples

• Is a string quartet a "genre" like, say, punk rock? I'm trying to come up with a better word.
  • A string quartet is not a genre; "chamber music" is the genre, and I have altered the text accordingly. Thanks for picking that up. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Leopold was anxious to develop a stronger connection" As there was not yet any connection, suggest deleting "stronger".
  • On this first Bologna visit Martini met Wolfgang and tested him with some musical exercises. That was the brief, initial connection. Leopold wanted a stronger connection, for the reasons given, and therefore planned the extended tuition for their return Bologna visit. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "carrying letters from Pallavicini". He's referred to by a hyphenated name when he's introduced. Nickname? :)
  • There were other Pallavicinis around, including a cardinal, so I dare say the Bologna one added a bit to his name to avoid confusion with his namesakes. As he's the only one mentioned in this narrative, we can just call him Pallavicini.Insert non-formatted text here
• "close emotional friendship". Not sure what is being conveyed by the word "emotional". Suggest striking the word or rephrasing to make it clearer what is meant. Same paragraph, "making much music". Playing? Composing? It's a cute phrase, but I'm just not sure what is meant by it.
  • The "emotional" or "tender" nature of the friendship is thus described in the sources. No further details are given, but the inference is merely of two boys, in a strange land, surrounded by adults and yearning for company within their age group. To avoid misunderstandings I've withdrawn "emotional". As to the rest, "making music together" is standard phrasing for performing music. I've slightly reworded, removing the "much" to avoid sounding, as you put it, "cute". Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "It took five days to reach Rome, through wind and rain". I guess this is Leopold kvetching about the weather again. Not sure if this is saying they were delayed and took longer than usual.
  • Five days sounds about right for a 150-mile journey. I've rephrased to avoid the impression of a delay. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The route through the Pontine Marshes was believed to be harassed by brigands". Can brigands harass a route? And believed? Either there were pirates, excuse me, brigands there or there weren't.
  • Rephrased. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More later. Sorry, it is an excellent article, but it is filled with information and it takes time to read it with the attention it deserves, and I can only take so much at a time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments thus far. I look forward to more. Brianboulton (talk) 11:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Return from Naples:

• "They were under military protection, because marauding pirates were attacking the road." Ah, pirates! I know just the guy for that. As they were travelling, were the pirates attacking? Sounds that way. Incidently, while we are on the subject of military, I think the article could use an offhand sentence here and there about the political situation in Italy, perhaps a mention of when they entered a town within the Papal States, or a mention that Naples was a part of whatever it was a part of then (Two Sicilies?). Especially since the map is that of today's Italy, which is the product of wars and compromises and is a bit different from what was thought of as Italy then. Not asking for an accurate political map of Italy then, because that would be a tremendous pain (though long term, if you could get one, with the Mozarts' journey superimposed, that would be a real boon.) This might be a good starting point.
  • Reworded to the road being "subject to attacks from pirates". As to your suggestion about the political state of Italy at the time, it's a good one, but I have to tread carefully. None of my sources mention this aspect. I am not an expert on 18thC Italy, so unless I'm careful, what I say could be challenged. I have therefore confined myself to the briefest description, after the first mention of "Italy" in the Background section. I have cited this to a general history book. I see no point in going beyond this, as the political situation did not affect the Mozarts' journeys in any way. On the question of the map, that's definitely for the future, after the painful birthpangs of the one we have. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Milan revisited:

• "Evviva il maestro!" (Long live the master!) I think most people understand "maestro". Suggest "Evviva il (long live the) maestro" or a similar construction. I think maestro suffers in translation, though literally correct, especially since master is a (a bit archaic now) salutation for a boy. (not that archaic, my great uncle used to address letters to me as (Master so and so). And I'm uncertain if you need italics for that phrase, you are probably more of a MOS hawk than I am.
  • I think how I have it is OK. You are right that "maestro" suffers in translation. In Italy it had a particular connotation for musicians, signifying their mastery of the craft, but I don't want to put all that in. As to italics, per MOS, quotes should not generally be italicised; the maestro di capello is part of a quote in which italics are used. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Mitridate anywhere, before its revival in Salzburg in 1971." Probably you could lose that comma.
  • Got rid of the comma, and the anywhere, too. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Journey home

• "took a detour to Venice". Almost slangy. "detoured" might almost be as bad. And I am not sure it conveys what you want, because detoured is most commonly an unintentional act. Something like "journeyed home by way of Venice" might be better. Not sure, though
  • I've changed it to "travelled to Venice" Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Despite the generosity of their treatment" What generosity of treatment? You mention signing a contract, giving some gigs and maybe playing the ospitali.
  • Reworded. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "the Prince of Aragon" can you pipe to the actual guy?
  • The guy was Don Giuseppe Ximines, Prince of Aragon, and I've named him now. There's no place to pipe him to, so it would be a redlink, rather an unnecessary one I think. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "subsequent performance history" Subsequent implies that there was an initial performance. You say there may not have been. Suggest striking word "subsequent"
  • Reworded. It's the "performance" that hads to go; the subsequent history is obscure.Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "In Verona a few days later, more commissions awaited" There's an implication that these commissions were almost dropping into the Mozarts' laps as they drove through the city. I'd suggest "were secured". Also, suggest ending the sentence here, the rest of the sentence can stand on its own.
  • Reworded and organized as you suggest. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "clash of dates" Maybe "conflict of dates" or "scheduling conflict"?
  • Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• 2,900 florins. Is a modern day equivalent possible?
  • In note [10], dealing with the archbishop's gift of 600 fl, I compare this with Leopold's annual salary of 354 fl to indicate the value of the gift. I have added a footnote to the 2,900 fl, again using Leopold's salary as a comparator. I think this gives a better indicator of the size of Leopold's profit than saying something like "worth about £30,000 in today's values". Brianboulton (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll finish this afternoon or tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Second journey:

• Should "I'm sorry" be italicized in Leopold's quote? Just cauz this is about Italy ...
  • I have copied the exact format from the source. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The main reason that kept them". Awkward. Perhaps "The main reason for their extended stay ..."
  • Agreed and done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• I'm confused by the timeline here. Rehearsals began on 23 September, but the Mozarts didn't arrive in Milan until 21 October? Were the rehearsals someplace else? And what happened to the convention that arias are composed in consultation with the artistes? I suspect 21 August or September is meant.
  • Sorry, my mistake. They arrived 21 August. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Upheaval

• "This was an awkward matter for Leopold," "This" clearly refers to the death. The loss of the Archbishop no doubt put the Mozarts in an awkward situation, but unless Leopold was responsible for death coming for the Archbishop, the death itself was not awkward, if you appreciate the distinction.
  • Understood, and reworded more appropriately. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Third journey:

• Second carnival opera: It says under the Return to Milan subsection that Mozart was not able to fulfil this commission due to a conflict in dates. Yet here he is fulfilling it.  ?
  • No, it says that he was unable to fulfil the San Benedetto (Venice) contract due to the conflict over dates. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "until two o'clock the following morning". perhaps "until two o'clock in the morning"? You may use a different idiom than I.
  • Basically these are two ways of saying the same thing. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evaluation:

• Looks good, though I wish you could end the article with Leopold's "We shall not go under ... " quotation.
  • It would be dramatically more satisfying, but I think the short endpiece is necessary to round the story off. Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyhow, really good article. Make the changes you like, in your discretion, but I'm not going to waste everyone's time by withholding my:

• Support. This is a topic about which I was happy to know more, presented in a lucid style not without humor and irony, with information to satisfy anyone from the casual reader to the Mozart buff, who really knows his K numbers.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed review and for the helpful suggestions, most of which I have happily adopted. Thanks also for your support. Just one last thing: if you are still watching this page, could I ask you to relocate the bolded support statement to left, or Sandy might miss it! (Not a major issue, though). Brianboulton (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and good descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Support. My concerns have all been addressed, and provided that the article remains stable in something close to its present form, and continues with a rational first sentence in the lead, I support it. My congratulations to the proposer on a valuable contribution to the music articles.–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 11:51, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see this well-researched article succeed. The content is worthwhile and thorough, and even considering the absence of Deutsch's standard work it uses its sources well.

Noetica's concerns that have been addressed

Despite recent fixes, I cannot think that it meets criterion 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard". I don't rule out doing some editing myself, but I have had no involvement with the article so far except to correct "fons et origio". Let's have a look at the lead: Mozart in Italy describes three journeys made by the young Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and his father, ... Am I alone in thinking this an inept way to begin? Why not something more direct, like this: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart made three journeys into Italy with his father, ... This is surely a case in which the article's title does not happily transfer to the first sentence of the lead, and as such is exempt by the usual provision at WP:LEAD: As a general rule, the first (and only the first) appearance of the page title should be as early as possible in the first sentence and should be in boldface: [...] However, if the title of a page is descriptive it does not need to appear verbatim in the main text, and even if it does it should not be in boldface. Response: I am grateful to Awadewit for the copyedits in the first paragraph, but I'm not convinced by your suggested opening sentence, which to me seems flat and dull. A similar change was considered and rejected during the peer review. Using the same approach as your suggestion, I have posted a variation which I think sounds better on the read-aloud test, and also flows better into the next sentence. Now this: The second and third journeys were shorter visits to Milan, fulfilling opera commissions that Wolfgang had acquired during his first visit. The wording that Wolfgang had acquired during his first visit is flat-footed like so much else in what follows; and we have too much use of during in the lead. Response: I'm sorry you find this wording "flat-footed". It is a simple statement of fact; if you have an alternative phrase, let's hear it. The number of "durings" in the lead has been cut to one. Since that date, he had ... Again, since that date is quite a pedestrian way of moving forward. Response: Resolved by Awadewit's copyedit to furthering the musical education of his gifted children, ... This use of furthering is inelegant and unnecessary. You can do it without any such verbal form, perhaps like this to the education of his musically gifted children, ... Response: I am happy that "furthering" has been deleted, but I think we must be clear that it was the children's musical education that was Leopold's primary concern. Now this: an extensive European "grand tour" during 1764–67, and, later, on a visit ... Extensive is redundant. The tour is already "grand", and it is already longer than three years. And then, during 1764–67 is poor for this sort of article; more suited in a company report than here. How would it be read aloud, after all? I would suggest from 1764 to 1767. Then ..., and, later, on a visit .... This can surely be managed without a flurry of commas. Response:This has been reworded, broadly as you have suggested, with reduced commas. During these journeys the children's performances made a considerable impression across European society. From this perspective, the journeys were a considerable success. (During, once more.) I would start from a simpler formulation: The journeys were in a way successful, since the children impressed audiences across Europe. Response: I dislike "...in a way successful", but the sentence has been rephrased and trimmed to a neater form. Now about Italy: Italy, the fons et origo of modern music and much of its terminology. This doesn't help much. Sure, Italy was an important destination for musicians at the time, but "modern music" is ill-focused. And why mention terminology here? Response: I'm not clear what doesn't help much. I wrote a fair summary of what the source, Zaslaw, says about Italy: "...the land where the terminology and much else of modern music had originated." This I believe gives weight to the otherwise unexplained fons et origo, though I am happy for it to be left as "of modern music". ... to write three operas to be produced in successive seasons (1770–72) at Milan's prestigious Teatro Regio Ducal, ... The repetition in to ... to ... is typical of the article's style. And again this range ... (1770–72) ...: why not say ... from 1770 to 1772 ..., which at least we know how to read out because it uses words! Try this: ... to write an opera for each season from 1770 to 1772 at Milan's prestigious Teatro Regio Ducal, ... Response: I believe this has been resolved in the copyedit. There is clunky repetition here, too: He met many of Italy's leading musicians, including the leading musical theorist Giovanni Battista Martini, ... Many readers would be allergic to leading ... leading ..., and again it is unnecessary. So are the qualifications with Italy's and musical, in the context. This is neater: He met many leading musicians, including the theorist Giovanni Battista Martini, ... Response: The repetition of "leading" is an obvious mistake that should have been picked up in the peer review. The repetition has been removed. However, some indication of Martini's standing should be given. Sadie uses "leading", Gutman "unparalleled", Halliwell calls him "acknowledged master" and Solomon "renowned". Of these, perhaps Solomon's is the one that fits best. The rest of the lead is similarly inflated, like this: ... and was pursued by him to a point where his persistence offended the imperial Habsburg court and precluded any appointment being offered. Response: This wording has been simplified The rest of the article needs tightening and skilful tuning if it is to meet criterion 1a. Just one more particular point, for now. You can indeed say string quartet genre, and it is better than saying chamber music genre. Look at the impeccable sources to be found with a simple Google books search, for example. The genre is distinct in its aesthetics and compositional technique from others that are closely related, like string trio. In any case, wording like this is possible, and it sidesteps any contentious issue: ... a string quartet, K.80/73f: his first attempt in that genre. Depending on your definition, you might think that Mozart wrote chamber music before this quartet (see Köchel catalogue). –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Response: I am happy to revert to my original description of string quartet music as a genre, and I think your suggested wording deals with it neatly. Ah, I see that Awadewit has edited since I began writing all that. But many of the points still apply; and they still illustrate the general problem with the whole article. –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 23:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your review. You make some challenging points, though I don't agree with all of them. I will consider each in turn, and give you my views in due course. Brianboulton (talk) 01:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC) (Later): I have responded to your specific points, with alternative suggestions where necessary. I will go through the remaining text, hopefully with the help of a non-involved editor, to identify other areas that may need attention. If you have further specific suggestions I will be glad to attend to them. Brianboulton (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Brian. I think the article is in better shape now. Some responses to concerns you had with my comments. Here are three of the excerpts mentioned above, in the form they take as I write (after subsequent editing, that is): Excerpt 1: The second and third journeys were shorter visits to Milan, fulfilling opera commissions that Wolfgang had acquired during his first visit. I would still prefer to see the wording with acquired done away with. I propose something like this: The later journeys were to Milan, for Wolfgang to complete operas that had been commissioned there on the first visit. Response: I am happy to adopt this version. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) This is enough detail in a lead. It goes without saying that they were shorter, since the first visit is described as "extended". Excerpt 2: However, he had devoted much time to furthering the musical education of his gifted children, Wolfgang and Nannerl, taking them on a "grand tour" between 1764 and 1767 and, later, on a visit to the Imperial capital, Vienna. However is unnecessarily awkward; but is natural. The date 1767 seems incorrect, if we are to believe Mozart family grand tour. And then there are those commas. We know very well from other statements that the children are "gifted". The following gives more new information, more concisely (passing over the briefer time in Vienna in late 1766, which was interrupted by the smallpox epidemic): But he had also devoted much time to Wolfgang and Nannerl's musical education, taking them on a "grand tour" between 1764 and 1766, and spending most of 1767 with them in Vienna, the Imperial capital. Note the markup with " " outside the piped link; this may be better, since the underlining no longer falls under the quote marks as well. Response:I apologise for the date error. I would be happy with this version subject to two things. First, neither "However" or "But" really fits the bill at the start of the sentence. We need something that conveys a sense of "As well as these duties..." "As well as..." is ugly; What about: "Beyond these duties..." followed by your version? Secondly, should it not be Wolfgang's and Nannerl's musical education, since they are separate entities? (That is how I have now written it, but feel free to copyedit if you think otherwise). Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) WE also have to say who Nanerl is, since this is her first mention. Therefore "Wolfgang's and sister Nannerl's..." Brianboulton (talk) 17:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Excerpt 3: ... in Italy, the fons et origo of modern music. Once we have discovered a fine phrase like fons et origo, it is hard to let it go. But it serves little purpose here, and can only be contentious. What is not contentious is this: ... in Italy, a crucially important destination for any young composer in the 18th century. Response: Clearer, if less poetic. I'm happy to adopt this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) I hope you will consider changes such as this, and also give some thought to putting spaces in all the Köchel numbers – preferably hard spaces, using  . That is by far more standard than omitting the space. Also please adjust the form of numbers: why 13-year-old Wolfgang's education but his fifteen-year-old prodigy pupil, for example? Agreed, I will do these things, though this may take a little while. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (Later) K numbers fixed with &nbsps. General numbers (ages, etc) have been standardised, I think. Brianboulton (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC) I'll come back and have a look after 24 hours or so. I might then edit it myself a little, which I have only done very sparingly so far (too many cooks, and all that). Looking better all the time! (Note that I have made an article for Giovanni de Gamerra in the meantime, reducing the redlink problem.) Thanks – and, inspired by this example, I will do one for Quirino Gasparini Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) –⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 08:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to finish a little polishing of the article that I intended to contribute (I'm away interstate at the moment). I'll do it within about 18 hours from now, and then probably change my oppose to support. One thing: there has been talk of music samples for the article. While this seems like an enhancement, I don't think this article (being biographical and historical) cries out for such a thing, and it certainly should have no bearing on its FAC.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

---

Note: I am copyediting this article. Awadewit (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I have finished copyediting the article. Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support - I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article - for a classical music fan like myself, FAC is like a desert. :) This article is well-researched and comprehensive. I have listed some places which require clarification or rewording on the article talk page. My only real substantive suggestion would be to add audio clips of the pieces Mozart composed during this trip. Let's exploit the multimedia possibilities of Wikipedia to the hilt! Awadewit (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your encouragement, and especially for your copyediting help. I will look into the matter of clips. Brianboulton (talk) 16:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

All my questions and issues have been resolved (see the talk page for my offer to help obtain clips). Awadewit (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - in the interest of full disclosure, I helped with an earlier version of the map in the article, and have made a few edits and suggestions for improvement along the way. While I agree some sound clips would be a plus, I feel this already meets the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Great article on my favourite composer and an obvious FA. I have just a few comments, but they have no impact on my vote. The article starts as if it is in the middle of book or the beginning of a chapter. Perhaps the first sentences could be slightly rewritten so that the article appears more independent. Is a reason given for Prince Michael of Thurn and Taxis' snub? If not, then perhaps it should be mentioned that it was unexplained. Finally, the Hieronymus Count Colloredo image should probably be moved down a paragraph in order to conform to WP:ACCESS#Images. Let's hope we see more musical history FAs. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

We have wrangled quite a bit over the beginning, Rel. I think it's all right to start in medias res, myself. After all, it is effectively a chapter in Mozart's life, isn't it? And the links to the larger story are all plainly visible.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 13:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you RHB for the support. I have added a bit about the possible reasons for Prince Michael's snub, and I've shifted the Colloredo image as you suggest. I too am inclined to think that the first sentence lacks some force. Among other things, I have thought about adding the description "the young composer", so that the beginning reads: "Between 1769 and 1773 the young composer Wolfgang Anmadeus Mozart..." etc. I don't think we should rely on links to provide context - though some may say that everybody knows who Mozart is. Your thoughts on this would be appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This is probably just something personal with me, but I tend to ignore the lead section when I read an article. The lead is a stand-alone independent summary so there shouldn't be anything in the lead that is not in the article. So when I started with the Background section, it seemed to assume that a previous "chapter" was already read. Mozart's family is not introduced which kind of threw me off. By the way, that's why I linked Nannerl. I consider the links in the lead and the links in the article to be separate and are not examples of double-linking. The independence of an article is not a WIAFA issue though so I leave the decision on how the article should begin with you all. --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [15].

---

Bruce Kingsbury

Nominator(s): » \ / (⁂ | ※)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it has met the criteria. It has been rated as an A-Class article my the WP:MILHIST Wikiproject, is stable, and the prose has undergone adequate scrutiny. Well cited, illustrated with free imagery, a worthy article. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 10:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images check out fine; they are from Australian War Memorial and are in the public domain according to Crown copyrights. Jappalang (talk) 15:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Nice read, could Mersa Mutrah actually be Marsa Matruh? WereSpielChequers 20:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hmmm. The books I read had Mersa Mutrah, but I've also seen Mersa Matruh. The towns article links to Mersa Matruh Airport, so obviously the spelling it somewhat unclear. I've linked it anyway, and moved Marsa Matruh to Mersa Matruh, and it appears to be more common. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 00:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.kokodahistorical.com/
• The McCarthy ref is lacking a last access date.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:33, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added date, removed non Reliable source, but I am confused by your first point. Are the inline citations using both Harvnb and Cite Web not acceptable? Or was it referring to the cite web in the references (which has since been resolved). » \ / (⁂ | ※) 02:55, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You use the {{cite web}} in the short notes, but {[tl|citation}} in the references. The two template "families" give inconsistent output, and shouldn't be combined in the same article. If you switch the {{cite web}} to {{citation}} in the notes, you'll be fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I think I understand you. The citations in the references are now all using the citation template. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, it's the footnotes/notes (the little numbered things you get from the <ref></ref> tags that are using the {{cite web}} and that need to use {{citation}}. This is one of those MOS things that are picky but need to be done for the pesky parts of the FA criteria, unfortunately. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Better? Sorry for the confusion. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Got it. It's one of those things that first time nominators often have confusion with, so no worries. You got it, and now you know about it for your next FAC! Good luck! Ealdgyth - Talk 04:58, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I have made a few minor contributions to this article, mainly with a little bit of copy-editing, corrections, etc, but Backslash Forwardslash has done a very fine job and I believe it meets all of the FA criteria. My only comment is that cite #2 (Dornan 1999) should have a page number(s). Well done! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the page numbers, I originally had the citations for that broken up into sections, but somewhere along the line it was merged. The whole book is about Kingsbury and Avery, so page number's wouldn't be all that useful. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 23:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of the page numbers is to know exactly where a certain piece of information came from in a book. May I suggest having a look at a previous version of the article and breaking the cite up again with each of the individual page numbers? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. I also followed the instructions SandyGeorgia gave in regards to dashes and c., and couldn't find any additional errors. » \ / (⁂ | ※) 04:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Raul654 (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (with minor proviso that I've been involved at a purely copyediting level) Comment I believe this article still has a way to go re. Criteria 1 (a). Sorry I hadn't reviewed it earlier in its life at MILHIST or here at FAC, when I could have caught some of this, but hopefully better late than never... Just reading the intro, to me the prose is not overly "engaging", and certainly not "brilliant", subjective as those terms may be. Some of the things that could be improved upon are:

• Repetition / statement of the obvious in the first line, i.e. "an Australian soldier who served in the Australian Army..."
• "Although he fought in the Middle East, Kingsbury is renowned for his actions during the Battle of Isurava..." Why "Although"? Many Australian soldiers fought first in ME, then the Pacific.
• "Due to the bravery shown during the battle, Kingsbury..." Surely "his bravery" works better, and "shown" is redundant.
• "...on Australian soil..." "Australian territory" is more appropriate.
• "...have been identified as what undoubtedly saved the Battalion Headquarters..." "Undoubtedly" is over the top, and the expression here in general could be snappier.

There's more, so I was tempted to just be bold and copyedit the whole thing in the article itself but instead I've done so in my sandbox here (or view the diffs here). Please have a read and see whether some or all of it looks like an improvement. If so, I'll go through the rest of the article to suggest further improvement as necessary, or I'd be happy to just go ahead and copyedit direct, if you'd prefer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. After reading the draft I would agree it is an improvement; if you have enough time to go through the entire article I'd be quite appreciative. I'm fine if you edit it directly - it's not mine. ;) Thanks again! » \ / (⁂) 10:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool, will get that done soon. It's very good re. structure, refs, supporting materials and so on, so after copyediting I'll be happy to offer my support as well (with proviso that I've become a minor contributor to it). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - pls let me know if you think I've wrongly altered the meaning of anything. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly good work! Thank you very much! » \ / (⁂) 21:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No prob, you did the tough job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [16].

---

Fred Moosally

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

Respectfully nominate this BLP about the former captain of the United States Navy battleship USS Iowa for FA consideration. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. I could not find a birthdate for this article's subject. None of the sources had his birthdate and it wasn't listed in the Birthday Database. Self-nomination with greatly appreciated help from Maralia, ed17, Ched Davis, and Abraham B.S.. Cla68 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• If the first section of the references is printed media, why is a website listed first?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved that cite to the web section [17]. Cla68 (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:USS Kidd (DDG-993).jpg - This image is up for deletion. Once this issue is resolved, I will be happy to strike the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

An image with the same name is in Commons [18], so once the Wikipedia image is deleted, renamed, or transferred to Commons the Commons file will show. Cla68 (talk)

It looks like this is going to happen on 28 January or so. Waiting with bated breath. :) Awadewit (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The new image is now in place [19]. Cla68 (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support presuming the image issue mentioned above gets cleared up. It was kind of Cla68 to mention my work on the article, but I only did a straightforward copyedit just prior to the nomination, so I think I'm sufficiently uninvolved to register my support. Maralia (talk) 05:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments - This is my 40,000th edit, FWIW :)
• During his naval career, Moosally served in many different assignments, including as commander of a destroyer and the battleship USS Iowa. - Remove "as".
• I wouldn't mind if the lead was expanded some, just enough so that the first and third paragraphs are equal in size to the second one.
• The paragraphs in the Naval career section are pretty choppy. Is it possible to merge some of the shorter ones?
• At 08:31 on April 19, Iowa prepared to engage in a main gun firing drill as Moosally and Johnson watched from the ship's bridge. - Specify the year.
• The Retirement and media portrayal section feels somewhat like a time-line disguised as prose.

Looks good otherwise. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I've responded to your concerns [20]. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Issues have been addressed. Comments
• "Between September 1988 and January 1989, Iowa conducted little training with her main guns, in part because of ongoing, serious maintenance issues with the main gun turrets."

Reword? The use of "little" there is slightly confusing.

• "Vogel, Steve (2001-03-18). "Deadly Blast Haunts Battleship's Skipper", Washington Post."

(In Notes, Printed media) Is it really necessary to link the date? (Though it doesn't show up with the cut&paste I did)

• At 08:31 on April 19, Iowa prepared to engage in a main gun firing drill as Moosally and Johnson watched from the ship's bridge.

Any way to write this so you don't have to link to 24-hour clock?

• Note Julian's comments on the Retirement and media portrayal section. Actually, I'd review all the section for timeline-y prose.
• I would do a thorough c/e, but I'm short on time :) Icy // ♫ 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed your 2nd issue (the linked date), as well as a few date formats that were inconsistent with the rest (possibly my fault, as I'm used to international style on Navy articles). Maralia (talk) 01:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've addressed the remaining concerns [21]. Cla68 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Support now that the citation minor issues have been fixed. Good work! Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Comments by karanacs. This is a well-done article and I am leaning towards support. Some questions and minor quibbles:

• Need a citation after the quote and his "slap-on-the-back" personality.
• Do we know what rank he received at commissioning?
• I'm not that familiar with navy or ship jargon - what does this mean? difficulty in conning the ship through shallow water (conning?)
• I'm not sure what this means either: was trained forward with its own mechanism
• Need a citation at the end of the sentence with the quote "superbly fit"
• Also need a citation at end of sentence with "most probably" quote - even if this means citations are duplicated in subsequent sentences, all quotes need an immediate citation.

(see also Lawsuit section for another uncited quote)

• Any idea what he did between 1990 and 1997?

Karanacs (talk) 17:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe I've addressed your concerns [22]. Conning does appear to be the correct word to use for that sentence. Cla68 (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I learned a new word today :) Perhaps we can include the link to wiktionary? I suspect a lot of others won't understand that either. Karanacs (talk) 14:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [23].

---

Hellingly Hospital Railway

Nominator(s): iridescent

This is a bit of an atypical one in that it's a relatively short article. However, as far as I can see it says everything about the topic that it would be reasonable to include, and further expansion would either be filler, or wandering off topic. This went through the GA process a few months ago; following a very long discussion last month it went through peer review, as a result of which it was completely restructured and rewritten following some very helpful suggestions, most significantly from User:Lamberhurst. Although at that time I had no intention of taking it as far as FAC, in the course of the rewriting I noticed that in March we're about to reach the 50th anniversary of its closure and thus the topic will actually get press coverage for the first time in half a century; if it's ever going to reach FA status, it would be nice to reach it by then.

Pre-emptive mention of a couple of issues:

• I'm well aware that British Isles is a power word on Wikipedia; however, its usage in this article ("the oldest operational electric locomotive in the British Isles") is necessary. The preferred Wikipedia formulation of "The UK and Ireland" doesn't cover the other islands of the archipelago, and Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and the Isle of Man all had their own rail networks at the time in question;
• Most rail-line articles use standard route diagrams. However, this is such a short line that a diagram would be pointless (it would just be a line with a dot at either end), so I've stayed with the map as opposed to a diagram, despite being non-standard.

Hopefully, most of the other concerns will have already been discussed at the peer review page. – iridescent 18:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.countyasylums.com/index.html
  • http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I took the liberty of tweaking your refs to consistency) Ealdgyth - Talk 18:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The former is purely a citation for the fact that part of the hospital is still in use although the main building is closed. I agree it's not the greatest of sources, but I can't off the top of my head think of a better way to source this without a messy explanatory footnote. It's easy to source the fact that the main building of the hospital is derelict; it's also easy to source the fact that part of the hospital is still in use (their own website is the most obvious example). However, the countyasylums page – although not necessarily a RS – appears to me to be more useful to any general reader looking for more information; the countyasylums page is itself cited to reliable sources, most significantly to the planning application for redevelopment of the parts of the site not in use. If you think it warrants it it would be easy enough to change the citation to point directly to the planning application, but I personally think the countyasylums page is more useful to a "passing" reader.

The latter normally wouldn't be reliable as it's effectively a fansite. However, in the context in which I used it I think it's a legitimate use; it's used purely as a citation for the statement that "Traces of the railway can still be seen today, notably a single remaining cast iron pole which formerly held the overhead cable, the railway's engine shed, and a short remaining section of track", and contains (dated) photographs of said pole, shed and track. The same statement also appears in Harding which is a more reliable source; I've added a second reference for that as well. – iridescent 18:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's do what we've done in the past, which is double cite the first one, include the planning site direct link, as well as the secondary link. Maybe add an explanatory note that the second, less RS source is for the readers convienence. That way, we've got the reliable source covered as well as a handy "For Dummies" version for folks wanting to explore more. that work? It's basically what you've done with the second one, without the explanatory note. I'm not against "ease of use" sources, I just feel they should be linked to a solid source also, and should generally explain somehow why we're putting something less reliable than usual in the sourcing. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done. Part of the problem is that because the Hellingly Hospital article is such a mess (it was a redlink when I originally wrote this article, and is currently an unsourced mess) that facts which would normally not be covered in this article need citation here as well. – iridescent 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

One hurdle passed... next up ... prose and pictures! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Trifling comments: Have you considered using {{Harvnb}} for the book citations? It can make the references section even easier to use for the reader. You might also consider naming the external links first, then describing them (and checking the capitalisation). Skomorokh 01:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• {{Harvnb}} only works with the {{citation}} template, not with the {{cite}} family used in this article. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Regards, Skomorokh 01:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, would you Adam and Eve it? I'm wrong, as you say. Had to happen one day though I suppose. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No harm to have the wind taken from one's sails every now and again :) À tout à l'heure, Skomorokh 01:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

D'accord. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really a fan of Harvard referencing on articles with only a couple of books in the bibliography. When there are dozens of sources cited, it makes things easier on the reader; however, because most of our editors don't understand them, it makes it harder for anyone else coming along to add new material. If anyone thinks it warrants it I've no objection to changing them, but on an article this short with only three books in the bibliography, I don't think it's really necessary. – iridescent 13:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hellingly Railway 1906.jpg - Do you have the complete publication information for this advertisement? The issue and volume number and page number?

• If you took this image from Harding, you need to list that as the source, and also include the original publication information. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• ✓ Done. – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hellingly railway route.png - We need a reliable source for the information in this diagram per WP:IUP.

• The RS, which looks like it will be Harding, should go on the image description page, not in the caption. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• ✓ Done; I've also added a link to the 1957 Stones article showing a similar map. – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hellingly station layout.png - We need a reliable source for the information in this diagram per WP:IUP.

• Same as above. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• ✓ Done. – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hellingly Railway Station.jpg - This image is up for deletion.

• I would add the information about the platform to the image description. Awadewit (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• ✓ Done, although whether that's enough to convince whoever decides these things at Commons is now all inthe hands of the deletionists. I've also added a date for the platform shortening to the article – it had somehow slipped out (or never been in). – iridescent 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully these issues will be easy to resolve. Awadewit (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Hellingly Railway 1906.jpg is from an advert for Robert W Blackwell & Co, Ltd, appearing in Great Western Railway Magazine, June 1906. I don't have the page number as I've taken it from a facsimile of the page reproduced in the Harding book; appears on p9 of Harding.
• As regards citing the two hand-drawn maps, I'm not sure how one would go about it. It's easy enough to source them – the route map appears in multiple sources (for example, p2 of Harding), as does the diagram of the station platforms (appears on p12 of Harding). I've added citations to the image captions to this effect, although I think it makes the captions look somewhat messy.
• Regarding File:Hellingly Railway Station.jpg, I'm baffled as to why it's up for deletion, but as it's Commons-hosted there's nothing I can do about it. It demonstrably dates from before 1923 (as it shows the wooden platform which was demolished in 1922); it's a scan of a postcard which User:Lamberhurst assures me was postmarked 1915, and I've no reason to doubt that. It's not essential to the article (it was only added a couple of weeks ago) so even if it's deleted it's not a disaster. – iridescent 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I put it up for deletion primarily because there was a copyright claim to the image while there was no clear evidence supplied of its nature (date and postcard). The image was directly taken from the hobbyist site (who received it courtesy of a private collector). This is not a photo, which one can not dispute the moment of its creation. It is a painting, which an artist can recreate the scene from earlier photos or drawings. Furthermore, postcards can be printed years after certain events as commemoration series; hence there is a need for proof that this was published before 1923 to qualify for PD-1923. Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm virtually certain it's a hand-tinted B&W photograph, not a painting based on the photograph. The original B&W photograph appears on p3 of Harding (credited to Lens of Sutton) – it's also used about 15 seconds into the Vobes video (which has been removed from the external links as it's a paysite, but this photo's in the free-preview section). – iridescent 22:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• If it is hand-tinted, then the colorized work could be a new copyrighted work (depending on the artistic interpretation). The issue is the lack of proof that the colored work is in the public domain. PD-1923 means that the work was published (distributed en masse legally) before 1923, not created before 1923. Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd say wait & see what Commons says. If it's kept, then there's no issue; if it's deleted, then it's a nuisance rather than a disaster. – iridescent 01:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Once the deletion issue is resolved, the image issues will be resolved. Awadewit (talk) 19:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• This image has raised the broader question of whether for every postcard, it is necessary to upload not only a scan of the front, but also the reverse to show when it was postally-used. I personally think this is a bit ridiculous, and have raised the issue here for those who want to comment. As an IP practitioner, I can confidently say that there is nothing legally wrong with this image, it's more a question of internal Commons rules. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• With regards to the FA criteria, I think when an article has an image that is up for deletion in it, the article has become unstable. Once the deletion debate is resolved (I'll leave the details up to the Commons folks), I will strike the oppose. If the Commons debate starts to develop into a long-winded wiki-drama, I would recommend removing the image until the decision is made. Awadewit (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I agree and have removed it temporarily until the issue has settled, as it's not essential to the article. User:Durova has made the very good point that while it may not meet the UK copyright laws (as required by Commons) it does meet Florida laws, and consequently can be hosted on Wikipedia itself as free-use even if Commons deletes it – but if "potentially unfree image" is the only thing holding the FAC up, it seems easier to remove it until the issue is settled. – iridescent 17:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Striking oppose. I hope that debate is resolved soon. Awadewit (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Slight oppose - for now, mainly from some glitches

• Okay, I"m unclear if George Hine designed the railway or the asylum? Which was it?
  • Added a clarificatory note – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• You mention the electrification in the lead, but it's not mentioned in the body of the text where I would expect it, the construction and opening section.
  • At the time of the hospital's construction (1900-1902) the railway was still running on steam; it was converted to electricity once the construction was finished, as the generators were in the newly-built hospital. I've tried to keep the technical aspects of the operation of the railway together in the "motive power" section. Since the electrification would need to be mentioned in the "motive power" section anyway, I'd rather not duplicate it, but if you think it's necessary can certainly do so. – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Not how I'd do it, but that's why we're all different. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• A couple of railroad terms might need explanations "partially gated"
  • That one links to level crossing which (hopefully) explains the concept; I've removed the "partially" which I think makes it appear confusing. I'm reluctant to get into detailed explanations of terms which aren't essential to the article, especially when the bluelinked article is very detailed (as with the level crossing article). – iridescent 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I"m not looking for a long explanation, but something so that readers don't have to click through to the linked article just to get the sense of what is meant. Removing partially here does the trick for this one. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Route section, third paragraph "As it approached the hospital, the line split; the southern fork led to a siding to the northwest of the hospital, while the other turned sharply right through almost 180° before splitting again." This sentence just reads awkwardly to me, especially the last phrase. Perhaps "... while the other turned sharply right almost 180 degrees..."?
  • Reworded to cardinal directions ("turned east and south…") – iridescent 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • excellent solution! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• A few wikilinked terms might benefit from a capsule description near them. Specifically "sidings", "points", "trolley pole"
  • As with "level crossing" I'm reluctant to; all three of these are relatively insignificant to this article, and bluelinked to articles which explain the concept. Realistically, most of the readers of this article are likely to have at least a basic knowledge of rail operations, and "the line had no automatic points (switches that guide trains between different sets of tracks at rail junctions)" or similar – which I think is what you're suggesting – seems to me to be a waste of space. If you think it's necessary I can certainly include them, though. – iridescent 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • See above. And don't sell this short, you might make the main page, which would expose the article to lots of non railfans. Also you may get locals looking to learn about local history, school kids needing to find new places to vandalize... The idea is that the reader doesn't have to click through to the linked article to get the sense of what is meant in this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • How about this? I don't want to get into technical descriptions of (for instance) the difference between a trolley pole, a bow collector and a pantograph – anyone who really cares can look it up, and diverging into technical explanations would swamp the article – this seems a reasonable balance between "assume no knowledge" and "assume full knowledge". – iridescent 16:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • works perfectly! That's really all you want to do, is give enough information that you don't lose your readers when they go off to another article! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Operations section, first paragraph first the last bits "...and the agreements between the hospital (renamed the East Sussex Mental Hospital in 1919) and the LBSCR updated." Shouldn't there be a "were" between LBSCR and updated?
  • Done – iridescent 11:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support when the above concerns are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. In the interests of full disclosure I've done quite a bit of copyediting on this article, but I've had nothing to with its content, --Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning toward support but a few minor issues:

• "hospital authorities no longer considered passenger usage of the line to be economic" - 'economic' should be 'economical' in both this sentence and the later one, I believe.
  • Personally, I marginally prefer "economic" as an adjective, in the interests of, well, economy, but have changed to "economical" in both instances – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• "while the other turned sharply right through almost 180° before splitting again" - This phrasing is a little ambiguous; is 'right' an adverb ("right through") or a relative direction? I presume it's meant to be a direction, in which case a cardinal direction would be preferable.
  • Amended (see re to Ealdgyth above)
• I dislike the breaking-the-third-wall note on ref #25 (Cracknell). It looks like the content is double-cited; if so, could the Cracknell link be moved to External links, thus avoiding the need for the RS disclaimer?
  • See the discussion with Ealdgyth above (in the 'What makes the following reliable sources?" discussion); the current arrangement is the result of that. Basically, the fact being cited is that part of the building is still in use as a hospital but the main section is derelict. The planning/zoning application (currently ref #24) does confirm this, but one has to dig around in there to find it; the Cracknell page isn't as reliable a source, but explains the situation in plain English. I know "it's useful" is generally A Bad Argument, but I think it applies here. – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry for making you repeat yourself on that one; I should have assumed Ealdgyth had already raised the issue. In the interest of avoiding speaking directly to the reader, I tried to locate an alternate RS for that factoid. How about this article from The Argus in September 2008, which includes:

"Christopher Fincham, the trust’s former director of finance ... confirmed that part of the site was still being used to treat and care for psychiatric patients, including Ashenhill, a medium secure unit, and also a halfway hostel. But the main Victorian buildings were boarded up, roofs have caved in and damage caused by fires started by vandals."

If this meets the need, the countyasylums page could go into External links, without the disclaimer. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I found a series of Hellingly shots at Flickr; unfortunately they are all of the hospital itself, but some of them are really striking. Maralia (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think any of them are creative-commons licenced, though, and given the (ahem) difficulties the images on this article have been having, don't want to include anything that isn't 100% sure to be free-use. The Abandoned Britain gallery linked in the article (click the link at the bottom of each section) includes some absolutely extraordinary images, as does the Vobes documentary (removed from the EL section as it's a paysite, but even the free section is quite interesting). As I've said elsewhere, part of the problem with this article is that the Hellingly Hospital article is in such poor shape, there's a temptation (and sometimes a necessity) to cover things in the railway article that should really be covered in the hospital's article, and I want to try to avoid that as much as possible. – iridescent 12:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually those are the results of a Commons derivative license search; I believe they are all compatibly licensed, but I understand your reluctance to include hospital-only shots. Maralia (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments Support. I like the article, but a few things are bothering me:

• The one footnote at the start of the lead section. To me, leads read better without any footnotes, and to have just one there makes one wonder why the rest of the lead isn't footnoted as well. In this case, perhaps the "Construction" section should say "Construction work on what would become known as Hellingly Hospital ..." and then put the footnote on that, to explain the whole name history.
  • I've moved it out of the lead and appended it to the first paragraph in the "Construction and opening" section. I really don't want to move it out of the footnotes and into the body text – and consequently double the size of the section – however, I think it's necessary to include it as an explanation of why the hospital is referred to by so many different names, and why outdated terms such as "lunatic asylum" are used. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The lead needs to motivate the article a bit better, by saying that Hellingly Hospital was enormous (thus needing a railway line). In other words, I presume not all hospitals of the time had their own line? The lead might also say it was a mental hospital, as this adds to the flavor of the overall article.
  • I've added "psychiatric" to the lead. To be honest, I'm not sure if the hospital was all that large (I don't have a source for patient numbers, or comparative sizes for other hospitals of the period, but the County Asylums page describes it as "a smaller version of the asylum at Bexley", implying that it wasn't abnormally large). The practice of laying temporary rail lines to transport materials for large construction projects isn't particularly unusual even now (if you look on this Google Earth image you can see a rail line carrying material for the 2012 Olympic stadium) and would presumably have been more common in the days before bulk road haulage; what was unusual was that the hospital kept the railway in service after construction. One could obviously speculate about the reasons for that – lack of adequate road transport, and electricity generated from coal burned on site instead of drawn from the power grid, would seem the obvious reasons – but in the absence of sourcing, it would be IMO too far over the line into original research. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Is it true that the line was used to transport patients, during its passenger years before 1931? This should be made clearer. Did the passenger cars have any special provisions for these being mental patients, such as restraint systems or attendants to watch over them? Unless this asylum was more enlightened than most of its era, I shudder to think about what went on inside it once the train got there ...
  • I've reworded the second paragraph of the "Construction" section to try to make this clearer; patients would get off "normal" trains onto a separate, isolated platform at the mainline station, and transfer across onto the hospital railway which would take them into the hospital. (This image would have made the explanation easier, but is subject to dispute over its status – see above.) The railway only had a single passenger car, and I can't find any descriptions of it; photographs of it don't show anything particularly unusual. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Why did the passenger load drop off so much by 1931? Because there were fewer patients (and thus visitors) at the hospital, or because they were travelling there by alternate means, such as motor cars?
  • I would assume the combination of a drop in patient numbers due to the WW1 population dip, and , and improved alternatives (motor cars and buses, improved roads due to wartime construction, and cheap war-surplus ambulances) but can't be certain; I can source the drop in people using the railway, but not the reasons. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Why are siding names in italic font? Line names aren't and station names aren't, and sidings are less important than both of those; is this some kind of railway writing convention?
  • They weren't when I wrote it! Someone else changed them and, having no strong opinion, I didn't see a point in changing them back. To be honest, I'm not sure we even have a policy for it; because stations almost always have their own articles and the bluelink itself acts as the highlight, the situation doesn't often arise. On the only other examples I can think of, Alderney Railway and Hammersmith & Chiswick, the intermediate stations are just shown in plain text. I've removed the emphasis altogether, as I don't think it's necessary. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The acronym LBSCR is never introduced.
  • Fixed – that was an artifact of my reshuffling the sections. – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• As someone else said above, footnote 25's "This is not a reliable source ..." is horrible. We can't break into WP-speak in our articles. The "County Asylums" website can be included in the External links section as a useful site (which I gather was your goal in including it), and then you can do what you need to do in this footnote to support the text statement. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done – iridescent 16:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that's all of them; let me know if you have any concerns still outstanding after that!

OK, thanks for the changes and responses, looks good! Wasted Time R (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [24].

---

Michael Tritter

Nominator(s): --Music26/11

I'm nominating this article for featured article because i got it up to GA status last year, since it had a PR, I have my doubts about the "Storyline" section, but I think the article is good enough to be nominated. Your comments on the article are of course very helpfull and appreciated. Thanks. --Music26/11 22:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I think a two columned reference list would be better. —TheLeftorium 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I like the single-columned reference list. –thedemonhog talk • edits 23:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, people. Most of the world looks at Wikipedia using IE, which can only display single-columns anyway, making this entire discussion moot. Awadewit (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

70% and dropping Gary King (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm on Firefox, and I prefer a two-columns reflist. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me, I use IE, so I don't see the difference between a single-collumned and a two-collumned reflist.--Music26/11 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:DetMichaelTritter.jpg - I see no need for this fair use image. I do not think we need a fair use image to convey this character, as claimed in the fair use rationale, particularly when there is a free image available (see WP:NFCC #1). The article provides no commentary on the character's appearance that requires the reader to have a visual representation of him (such as perhaps a giant bug monster might, for example). I do not think that the reader gains anything significant from this image, as required by WP:NFCC #8. Awadewit (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, your points seem fair. But there are a few things I don't agree with. The image is taken on the set of House, which is a little bit significant, but that is just minor. The most important thing is that the image is a photo of the actor in costume and in character. The free available image is an image of the actor, not in costume nor character nor anything else. Plus, but this is just my opinion, if the image was to be deleted, the lead goes under the infobox wich looks a bit ugly (I think). I don't really mind if the image was deleted, but I would like the opinion of other users first.--Music26/11 14:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not mention the set or the costume - that is, there is no critical commentary on this image, a requirement for a non-free images. Note that at WP:NFC, the acceptable uses of images require critical commentary (with the exception of logos, stamps, and currency). If the article discussed this image, including the set and costume, I would agree that the argument for this image would be a lot stronger - but it does not. Unfortunately, ugliness is not a relevant factor in the decision. Awadewit (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I've removed the image.--Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Music26/11 09:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/show/house/que_ser_ser.php (see below, --Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC))
  • http://www.mywire.com/pubs/PhiladelphiaDailyNews/2006/10/26/1925842?extID=10037&oliID=229 Removed (this is actually a "subscribers only" link, but it is displayed by the link-checker tool as dead, I don't know why).--Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

deadlinks

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read this, it shows that Television without pity is a digital asset of Bravo network (which is owned by NBC Universal), which, I think, makes it reliable.--Music26/11 20:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by sgeureka. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The toolbox still identifies variety as a dab. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

I cannot explain that. –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Me neather, the article has only two links to variety, and both are correctly disambugated to variety (magazine).--Music26/11 14:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed.--Music26/11 19:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: Comprehensive and factually accurate: excellent!--Andrea 93 (msg) 06:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistent dates in citations, some ISO dates, other Month day, year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed by Sceptre.--Music26/11 15:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I love using the libre image for the character, cheers on that!

  There're some inconsistencies between the article and its parent, as well as within itself as to what the name of the show is. It's sometimes referred to as House, M.D., sometimes only as House. Is there a rhyme or reason to where certain usages were included as opposed to others? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've never really thought about it, I've renamed all of the links that said House, M.D. to House, since wikipedia depicts the show as house without m.d; (see this and this, both discussions regarding a move of the House article).--Music26/11 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support : Disclaimer : I reviewed this article as part of the Peer Review process. Still, I'm pleased to say that the prose has mightily improved since then, especially the Storyline section. It meets all my expectations. Have a nice day, Rosenknospe (talk) 17:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
• Leaning support (I was the GAN reviewer), but some minor issues before then:
  • Could we get a link to a recap or similar for each episode, as a way of bolstering the primary citations? TVGuide.com or even Television without Pity would probably suffice as a convenience link (best to go with straightforward recaps, though) (edit: actually TVGuide's are user-submitted. Find one where its staff created or similar.)
  • There's also some prose issues, but I think a light copyedit will catch them. Here's the diff, so make sure I didn't accidentally change any meanings. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copy-edit, it really helps, here are a few comments it:

• Why did you change Primetime Emmy Award to Emmy Award, Emmy Award refers to name of the award, but there are various kinds of Emmys (sports emmys, daytime emmys, primetime emmys etc.)
• Why did you unlink perjury?
• Why did you delete "however" in the reception. (sentence: "Morse, however, gained...")

No further comments.--Music26/11 20:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was trying to reword the emmy bit to be more straightfoward, if I lopped off a word by all means fix it. I unlinked perjury as I figured it was a common enough word, and removed "however" because it feels a little awkward to start out a new paragraph that way. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 21:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added back "however", since it shows that although the character mainly received negative responses, Morse didn't. The other points are explained clearly enough. Thank you very much for your help.--Music26/11 16:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you found recaps yet? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know where to find them, but why exactly do we need them again? Is it so that readers can read what happened in the episode? I don't really see the point. Anyhow, if you can explain a reason to me, recaps can be found on Blogcritics, Entertainment Weekly or Television Without Pity. Blogcritics and EW are more critical, while TWoP (is also critical but) also describes the events of the episode.--Music26/11 11:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In the interests of Verifiability, recaps should be linked so that readers can confirm what happened in the episodes for themselves. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added them.--Music26/11 17:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that takes care of my concerns, thanks. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) Weak support for no other reason than I feel wary of immediately supporting after a review where there was relatively little comment. I will come back for a final read-through tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "House quickly and charmlessly diagnoses Tritter" Is "charmlessly" necessary? Consider the opposite.
  • Well, as (I assume) you know, House isn't really all that charming.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unsure on this one, but I will let it fly. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "House declines Tritter's request to take a sample for testing, on the grounds" I don't think this comma is necessary.
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "When Tritter pulls over House for a traffic violation later that night, Tritter reveals himself as a police detective." Awkward sentence: "pulls over House"-->pulls House over, "Tritter reveals himself as a police detective"-->Tritter reveals that he is a police detective
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Wilson finds his bank account frozen because Tritter did not believe him" I think there is a stronger way to write this sentence. Who froze his account?
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Tritter has the pharmacy's log and says the deal is off." Not the most precise way to convey this information. The fact that Tritter simply had the log doesn't automatically lead to the deal's cancellation.
  • Fixed--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "In the final days leading up to House's court case"-->In the final days before House's court case
  • Why? it's pretty clear the way it is now.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "guest-stars" I don't think the hyphen is necessary.
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "with House recovering from being shot,"-->in which House recovers from being shot,
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "worth all his time and aggravation"
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "made Tritter all the more scarier" Unless this an almost-direct quote, is there a better, more-concise way to phrase this? Maybe "made Tritter even scarier".
  • Quote: "Tritter’s all the more scary because of Morse’s understated performance"; I've put all the more scarier between quotation marks.
• "Zap2it's Daniel Fienberg regarded Morse "one of our very best character actors"." Add "as" before the quote. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 23:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support I've just given this a copyedit, and left a few inline comments there with specific questions. Altogether this is well done, and very close to FA. Maralia (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments Looking good! A couple comments to resolve before I support:
  • "Morse stated in a 2006 TV Guide interview that, although discussions had been made ..." You don't "make" discussions, and this needs to be switched to active voice so we know who had the discussions. The mention down in the Creating and casting heading needs active voice as well.
    • Reworded.--Music26/11 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "When House refuses to take the deal, Wilson convinces Cuddy to stop prescribing House's Vicodin ..." We haven't been told that Cuddy was prescribing the Vicodin, so this doesn't make sense.
    • Fixed, sorry this must have accidently been deleted with the copy edit.--Music26/11 16:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response, looks good now. --Laser brain (talk) 17:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak support. I've done another copyedit, and I think the article now meets FA criteria. Karanacs (talk) 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC) Weak oppose by karanacs.

• The quotation(s) in the lead should be cited in the lead. The rest of the lead does not need citations.
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This has not been fixed. The second paragraph of the lead has several quotations, and none of them are cited there. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, sorry I didn't understand what you meant the first time. I've cited the quotations.--Music26/11 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• I think the storyline section might go into a little bit of unneeded detail. It reads like a play-by-play of every action the character took, and I don't see that as necessary. I don't watch the show, and the many details distract and confuse me a bit. A slightly higher-level overview would make much more sense for me, and those who want the nitty-gritty details might be able to better get them from the episode article.
  • Various copy-editors, have slimmed down the section to a readable prose. It used to be much longer, but if you can be more specific on your concerns I'll see what I can do.
    • Have you seen the proposal I placed at the article talk page for what I think is a more streamlined version of the storyline? It makes more sense to me as a non-fan of the show. Karanacs (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've replied on the talk page.--Music26/11 16:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• What are the standards for referencing quotations from the show? Does this need a specific minute mark, so that someone could go through and verify?
  • I don't believe minutes are manditory (see Martin Keamy, Nikki and Paulo, Dalek and Troy McClure all character FAs that don't use the parameter), if you want to determine what happened exactly, an option is reading the Television without pity recap.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The real-world sections are chock-full of quotations. At times, this feels like a bit much. It is not necessary to quote everything; paraphrasing can often lead to a much more readable bit of prose.
  • I've tried to reword some sentences so that the quotation marks aren't necessary anymore, but it's a bit difficult. Tell me what you think.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Very little was actually changed, and I'm worried that in a few cases the quotation marks disappeared without the text changing enough to justify that. Karanacs (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Karanacs (talk) 18:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I get your point, I did some rephrasing in the reception section (and had to delete a ref while doing it), now every section has 7 quotation marks. Which is still too much, I think, if anybody could try and get every section up to a maximum of 5 quotations that would be great. I've tried, but it's hard.

• Personality - 7
• Creation and Casting - 7
• Reception - 7 (originally 10)

--Music26/11 14:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• When the case ultimately comes to court, the judge sentences House with one night in jail and finishing his rehabilitation, telling Tritter that she thinks House is not the drug addict he tried to make him out to be. - change "thinks" to "believes".
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Nevertheless, Morse was praised for his portrayal, and gained an "Outstanding Guest Actor in a Drama Series" Emmy Award nomination for his appearance in the episode "Finding Judas". - "nevertheless" → "however".
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• When House attempts to leave the room, Tritter kicks House's cane so that House trips. - Remove "that".
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• In "Merry Little Christmas", Tritter and Wilson work out a deal for House so that he can keep practicing medicine if he pleads guilty and spends two months in rehab - Ditto with above.
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• I echo Karanac's concerns about excessive quotations. For example, every sentence in the Personality contains a quoted word or phrase. It would help to even remove some of the quotation marks to allow for straight prose.
  • I've tried to reword some sentences so that the quotation marks aren't necessary anymore, but it's a bit difficult. Tell me what you think.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• The producers did not want a "bad guy" character, but someone "with the strength and presence to really stand up to House" and "as focused and as smart" as the doctor, so that House has to come up against a real force. - Remove "that".
  • Fixed.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support - Fix Juliancolton's and Karanacs's concerns, and I will support. I didn't see anything besides what was above and a few minor things much higher up. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Fixed almost all of their concerns.--Music26/11 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose, based on the very first part of WP:WIAFA: "A featured article exemplifies our very best work." I think this article's subject – a fictional character of no great fame who appeared in six episodes of a not-very-serious TV series – is just too unimportant to be an FA. In other words, it can't possibly be our "very best work", because the subject is just too insubstantial. I'm fine with it being an article (and I don't mind that WP has ten jillion articles on fictional characters overall), and I'm okay with it being GA. But GA as I understand it was originally defined to be the goal for articles or subjects that weren't substantial enough to become FA, and I think this is such a case. And I think it would be embarrassing to the project if this ever showed up on the main page. Said with no offense to anyone involved, and the FA directors are free to strike my position if you've been through this argument before. But I just had to say it ... Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Not actionable FACs are evaluated on their content and presentation, the subject matter does not apply to whether an article is important or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I couldn't find anything wrong with it. Nice job! —TheLeftorium 19:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 02:32, 31 January 2009 [25].

---

Mother's Milk

Nominator(s): NSR77 ^T

Mother's Milk is the fourth studio album by alternative rock band Red Hot Chili Peppers. This is a project I have been intending to work on since the last Chili Peppers' album, One Hot Minute, was completed and subsequently Featured in November 2007. Since then I've undergone a number of other projects and continually neglected this one but it is finally done after roughly one month of work. I elected not to nominate this article for potential GA status as I feel that process has become a useless outlet of mere waiting; it is a test not of the article's quality but of it's contributor(s)' patience. Mother's Milk did, however, receive reviews from outside eyes and it is, in my belief, ready for FAC. All questions, comments or concerns will be addressed promptly. NSR77 ^T 21:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 3 (VH's behind the Music..) you need to format that ref like the other refs, with the title in ""'s, etc. As it is now, it looks like you're referencing the wikipedia articles. Also, I presume this is an episode? Further details would be useful for WP:V. {{cite episode}} is handy for this sort of thing.
• What makes http://www.chartstats.com/index.php a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I replaced the source on your list with a more verifiable one and reformatted the VH1 source as well. I'm not quite sure if this satisfies your request because I'm not positive as to what you were getting at. If there are any further issues please do not hesitate to point them out! NSR77 ^T 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The VH1 thing is better, but right now, it is just a set of blue links, and there is little on it to make it clear that you're referring to an episode of a show. Maybe add "episode" after the "Red Hot Chili Peppers" or delink the band name in the note? Or both? I'm not sure why the name of the band needs to be linked in the footnotes, honestly. Yes, I know it's picky, and I'm certainly not going to oppose if you don't do anything more, but we want our notes to be clear and understandable, and when the whole note is blue .. it's not clear whether the whole thing is being linked in one link or if there are multiple links, etc. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem at all! I removed the link to the band as it is unnecessary and added "episode" right after. Let me know if this has not satisfied your requests. NSR77 ^T 17:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good now, so that folks who don't know about the series will realise its a tv show. All done with sourcing! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All media have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. FURs meet WP:NFCC. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mother'sMilkAlbumcover.jpg - I replaced the generic FUR with Template:Album cover fur. We need a specific source for the image and the name of the cover artist, if possible.
• File:Red Hot Chili Peppers - Knock Me Down.ogg - The purpose of use for this fair use rationale is too vague. It states that the clip "allows the reader to note a stylistic divergence that would lead to future music styles of the band". Instead, it should explain what that stylistic divergence is and what the future music style is. I would suggest something similar to what the article states about the move between punk and alternative.
• File:ChiliPepperstour89.jpg - According to the fair use rationale, this image is in the article because "its inclusion adds significantly to the article because it illustrates (a) the subjects of the article in live performance and (b) their approach to visual and conceptual spectacle in live performance, which is pertinent to the prose of the article". However, in a quick glimpse at the section of the article around the image, I didn't see any discussion of these topics. The image appears to be merely decorative - fair use images need to be much more than that to justify inclusion. Considering that there are free images of the band available, the inclusion of this image is even more difficult to justify.

I look forward to resolving these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I noted the source of the cover art to be iTunes, which is where I took the image from before resizing it. I took your advice and used the "punk and funk rock divergence" sentence in the article and incorporated it into the Fair Use of the sound clip. As for the image, I added the information into the prose (which I had neglected to do) and used a quote from the photographer, who followed the band around since this tour, which claims it was the biggest concert he had seen them play up to that point. If you are unsatisfied with any of the additions/edits I have made please do not hesitate to point them out! NSR77 ^T 16:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The article still does not discuss the band's "approach to visual and conceptual spectacle in live performance". It discusses fans stage-diving (not seen in this photo) and it discusses a single incident of members of the band diving into the audience (not in this photo). As such I do not see a reason for this photo. We do not need to see an image of the largest concert they played at to understand that claim. The closest thing to a reason for this image is seeing the entire band and audience together, but that is actually much better communicated in this quote: "People in the audience, steeped in sweat and pressing against the barricade in front of the stage, threw their arms up in unison and barked out approval of one fast, furiously-played song after another". I still think this image should be removed. Awadewit (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The image has been removed. If you are not satisfied further please do not hesitate to point out remaining issues. NSR77 ^T 21:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Note: please do not strike out reviewers' comments - reviewers determine what has been addressed, not nominators. See the FAC instructions and WP:TALK. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll try to squeeze in a thorough copy-edit tomorrow. One thing I can see right away is that sentences are a little too fragmented/complicated (ie, too many commas). For eg: "Flea, with Kiedis present, had jammed with Frusciante on two previous occasions—before hiring McKnight or Peligro." and "Frusciante, who, as a teenager, practiced guitar in his room for roughly twelve hours a day, altered the band's ..." But these are just nitpicks; this is another FAntastic RHCP article. indopug (talk) 14:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The rationale for File:ChiliPepperstour89.jpg doesn't say why it couldn't be replaced by a free image - could be a useful addition. Guest9999 (talk) 03:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. NSR77 ^T 17:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, that rationale makes no sense. People could take pictures before there were digital cameras. Awadewit (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, all the tools were down when I started the FAC so I forgot to check them. NSR77 ^T 04:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. Good start! A wealth of information to be sure, but unfortunately a lot of prose, sourcing, and POV problems emerge just in the lead. This really needs a thorough copyedit to start before we can get to the other problems. Samples:
  • "... regrouped with the addition of John Frusciante and Chad Smith on guitar and drums." Consider "... guitarist John Frusciante and drummer Chad Smith." for parallel structure.
    • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Frusciante significantly altered the band's sound by placing more emphasis on melody rather than rhythm..." Choose either "placing emphasis on melody rather than rhythm" or "placing more emphasis on melody than rhythm".
    • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Jargon such as "excessive layering" in the lead needs context or wikilink.
    • There is no Wikipedia article on "music layering". NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Maybe Wall of sound covers something? igordebraga ≠ 23:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Yeah maybe. If there is no article, we need to briefly provide context. My point was it's confusing to throw out there for the masses. --Laser brain (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Linked to overdubbing. NSR77 ^T 02:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Returning producer Michael Beinhorn fought with Frusciante over his guitar playing as he favored heavy metal riffs and substantial distortion whereas Frusciante sought to remain original and play what he desired." Badly-written, nebulous "he favored", and shows a bias for Frusciante's POV.
    • I cut the "remain original", but Anthony Kiedis clearly states that Frusciante was attempting to remain original in his autobiography. Jeff Apter, who wrote the other source I used for this article, confirms this. NSR77 ^T 20:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The album was a greater commercial success than the Chili Peppers' past three studio records." Unclear - past three individually or combined?
    • Combined. Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • What's the difference between a key single and a single?
    • Reworked. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • That whole sentence mixes several ideas in a way that suggests they are related.. but not how. Does the album's gold status somehow relate to its international success? What do the singles have to do with it?
    • The sentence is attempting to relate the album's success across various platforms. The singles, gold certification and charting all have to do with the success of the record. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "While the record was not met with the same universally positive critical reception that its predecessor The Uplift Mofo Party Plan (1987) had garnered..." Sensational claim - there were no negative reviews of that album? At any rate, the claim is not backed up here or Mofo's article with a citation.
    • Indeed, fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - another great RHCP article. igordebraga ≠ 23:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

comments from giggy

• "Returning producer Michael Beinhorn fought with Frusciante over his guitar playing as he favored heavy metal riffs and substantial distortion whereas Frusciante sought to play what he desired." - If you're saying what Beinhorn wanted I would say what Frusciante wanted too.
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• "seek to invite Frusciante to the Chili Peppers" - why not just "invite Frusciante..."?
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• "according to Flea, "lit a fire under our asses"" - with the disclaimer that I'm an unhip Australian, I have no idea what this means or what message it's supposed to get across
  • Its alluding to the fact that Smith was a powerful drummer. What happens when someone lights a fire under your ass? NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Kiedis later said the situation left" - what situation? The belief of a strong friendship?
  • The situation with Smith. Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• "As a teenager, Frusciante had practiced guitar in his room for roughly twelve hours a day" - I don't think this is really relevant or helpful here
  • Agreed. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• "it proved that these Peppers were more than knuckleheads with socks hanging off their cocks" - the incident the quote is referring to isn't obvious unless you already know about it - a link would be useful
  • What do you think should be linked? NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The words "socks hanging off their cocks" (or say, in brackets, what it's referring to) - do we have an article that mentions the time they put socks on their cocks? Giggy (talk) 04:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • It was linked to The Abbey Road E.P. which is probably the best location. I personally don't feel this needs linking but it doesn't seem unreasonable that some people may be confused by the wording. NSR77 ^T 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The bassist also felt the reason the band covered the song was to pay homage to Wonder and his importance to music." - don't need to make it seem like his opinion if this was the actual reason they covered the song (so change to something like "The band covered the song to pay homage...")
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggy (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Giggy (talk) 02:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm still finding MoS, grammar and clarity issues that I'm convinced could be solved by a solid hour with a good copyeditor. I urge you to get this done so we can get on with it. --Laser brain (talk) 04:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have time this afternoon. Until then, I hope it is not too much to ask to be patient. NSR77 ^T 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Please consider getting a fresh pair of eyes on this. It is desperately difficult to edit one's own work after a spell. --Laser brain (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I have no doubt in that. I asked several people to give the article a once-over and what has come out of it, more or less, is a little work here and there, but nothing substantial. Feel free to give it a copyedit yourself. I will do so right now and if you wish for me to seek further assistance don't hesitate in point it out. NSR77 ^T 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I gave the article another pretty thorough copyedit. Feel free to take another look over it yourself and as always you are welcome to make any edits you see fit. NSR77 ^T 23:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Article is strong in terms of content, style and sourcing. Appears to be complete. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

• More comments It's getting there, but still finding problems that a fresh copyeditor would find. I made some changes but there are far too many to delineate in an FAC review.
  • I fixed some of them but got tired of looking - you need to make sure your periods are consistent when quotations end a sentence. If the period is part of the quotation, it always goes inside the closing quote. If not, you either need to put all of them inside or all of them outside.
    • Cleaned up all and made more consistent. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You also have mixtures of punctuation and capitalization when beginning quotations mid-sentence. They're all over the place. If the quotation continues what you were writing, you can just type a quote and begin with a lower case letter. If the quotation doesn't flow with the rest of the sentence or begins its own sentence, you have to capitalize and punctuate properly.
    • Fixed pertinent quotes. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Promotion, release and reception - why no serial comma?
    • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The album's official launch, however, was held in New York City at a club..." I don't follow why this is a "however". Are you implying that the club was smaller than the subsequent venues they would play on tour? Please say so.
    • It is stated in the sentence before. Reiteration would be rather redundant. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "It was not until after the band returned from the UK that "Taste the Pain" was released as a single and subsequently charted at number twenty-nine." Charted where?
    • Clarified. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Can we get rid of the scare quotes in "A 'clean' cover was manufactured" and use a suitable term instead?
    • Reworked. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Artwork section.. I hate to split hairs but it is her nipples that are concealed, not her entire breasts.
    • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 22:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I didn't see anything that stood out. Lots of information. Few images but thats not too bad. It seems like most of the problems above were taken care of. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Revisiting the page at the nominator's request, I want to reiterate my opposition above: I feel the prose needs more work than can reasonably be delineated here, and I won't attempt to do so. I've already listed dozens of examples, which have been fixed, but my comment that my list was not comprehensive and the whole text needs treatment has been disregarded. Just a casual glance at one paragraph tonight revealed MoS and grammar issues. I will be happy to revisit the article after a fresh copyeditor has combed through it. --Laser brain (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Oppose Normally, I would not oppose, becuase this article is close enough and the remaining polishing could be done during FAC. However, FAC's backlog is such that we can't dawdle. Little glitches all over:

• "Flea and Kiedis had jammed with Frusciante on twice prior to hiring McKnight and Peligro." What purpose does "on" serve here? "prior to"-->before.
  • Mistake, fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "With a new guitarist, the Chili Peppers remained without a drummer and were forced to hold open auditions." The first clause doesn't really fit with the rest of the sentence. Maybe: "Although they now had a new guitarist, the Chili Peppers remained without a drummer and were forced to hold open auditions."
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Smith was a hard-hitting" What does "hard-hitting" mean here? Perhaps I am not knowledgeable with these idioms, but chances are, there are a lot of other English-speakers who would share my same confusion.
  • He hits the drums hard. I'm not sure how many ways one could word this. If you feel it is necessary to change I have no objections. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• Redundancy: "would frequently be absent in order to"
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• And again: "embarked on a short tour in order to familiarize"
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "including various concerts on the East and West Coast" "various" is vague and doesn't really tell the reader anything. Strengthen the sentence and remove it.
  • Done. Changed to "several". NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "ultimately came to resent his playing" Why not simply: "ultimately resented his playing"?
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Mother's Milk showcases a vast array of musical styles" Array implies "vast"; readers will assume that unless otherwise told.
  • Reworked. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• ""Higher Ground" became another important song that helped the band achieve international success." Obviously, if it helped them to greater success, then it was important.
  • Removed word. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• ""Knock Me Down" reached number six on the U.S. Modern Rock Tracks while "Higher Ground" charted at number eleven" "while"-->and, you are not really contrasting here, that is more of additional info.
  • Agreed; used "whereas". NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
• "the band members were having difficult adapting" Wrong word.
  • Fixed. NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

And so on. If you can get this copy-edited before your time is up, I will happily strike my oppose. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Your comments have been addressed. Please feel free to point out any remaining issues! NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment - am going through the prose (my wife's favourite band so I should help out...) - will post queries below..I think we are over the line prose-wise now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The only two "prior to"s left are in quotes. all others changed to "before"

I think I got all the "in order to"s

Sensational job on the copyedit. Thank you very much! NSR77 ^T 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder note: I will return to check up on the progress. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Questions - I'm almost ready to support, but some questions linger:
  • The beginning of the Recording and production heading talks about "pre-production" going smoothly and then transitions into talking about recording. The impression is that recording is part of pre-production, but it isn't, is it?
    • It is in some ways. Pre-production is the first step in recording an album where a band begins to write material and "lay down" (record) the basic tracks. NSR77 ^T 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "In April 1989, the Chili Peppers embarked on a short tour to familiarize Smith and Frusciante with the performance procedures." I'm not actually sure what "performance procedures" might be referring to. It sounds technical, like load-in, load-out, logistics.. but do you mean the way the band would perform on stage?
    • I have not been able to word this sentence correctly. What it is suppose to mean is that the band went on the tour in order to familiarize Frusciante and Smith with the whole process of being Red Hot Chili Peppers and plying songs. Perhaps you can take a stab at it? NSR77 ^T 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I gave it a shot. --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Beinhorn pushed the Chili Peppers to produce the best possible takes for each of the record's thirteen tracks with the intent of the band obtaining a hit record." I think "producing" might be a better word than "obtaining"?
    • I agree but the word is already used once in the sentence and I didn't want it to sound redundant. Again, that sentence was a hurdle. NSR77 ^T 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I caught several of them, but please check throughout for period placement when ending a quotation. If the quotation ends in a period, the period needs to be inside the end quote.
    • Got all the pertinent ones. NSR77 ^T 02:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 02:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, thanks for all your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments A few things:

• The sentences "The album features considerable use of distortion in the form of heavy metal guitar riffs as well as excessive layering. Returning producer Michael Beinhorn fought with Frusciante over his guitar playing as he favored heavy metal riffs and substantial distortion whereas Frusciante sought to play without the added layering" are somewhat redundant. Combine and/or condense.
  • This was a revision made by a previous copyeditor but I changed it nonetheless. NSR77 ^T 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The background section really only needs to start with the death of Hillel Slovak. Everything before that is not necessary for context, and is best left for the band article.
  • I disagree. Introducing this article with Solvak's death is an arbitrary place to begin and would require the reader to do extra research; here we give them a concise summary of the events leading up to his overdose in a mere paragraph rather than the section it takes in the Red Hot Chili Peppers article. NSR77 ^T 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It's not arbitrary to start with Slovak's death, because his death was the impetus for the line-up changes. Basically just begin with something along the lines of "After the release of their third album The Uplift Mofo Party Plan, guitarist Hillel Slovak died of a heroin overdose . . ." Everything before that is unnecessary for this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I just don't see how three sentences are a hindrance to this article in any way. If several other editors agree and feel this should be removed then I will not object but as it is now I believe it adds to the quality of the article. NSR77 ^T 22:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The paragraph that introduces John Frusciante is unclear. The paragraph begins with Flea suggesting he audition for Thelonius Monster. Then the prose mentions that Frusciante jammed with Flea and Kiedis before hiring McKnight and Peligro. Then they ask him to join the Chili Peppers. Frusciante is never properly introduced; he's just there already associated with the group. Compare that with the sentences that describe how Chad Smith joined the band, which are clearer.
  • Attempted to make it clearer. Frusciante was merely acquaintances with Flea. NSR77 ^T 22:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• If there's going to be two different articles for Stevie Wonder's original version of "Higher Ground" and the Chili Peppers cover, you nontheless need to avoid easter egg links when linking to the articles.
  • Feel free to come up with an alternative. I don't think there is one, however. Linking "Higher Ground" twice—to two separate articles, nonetheless—would be redundant and repetitive. NSR77 ^T 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• The mention of "Show Me Your Soul" and the BTO cover are superfluous, since they have nothing to do with the album.
  • They were recorded shortly after the record was released and do not fit into any other Wikipedia article, save for "Show Me Your Soul" which has its own. They are pertinent to the record. NSR77 ^T 22:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No they are not, since they were recorded after the record. it doesn't belong. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I supported above. Great job! Dabomb87 (talk) 23:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment You've mixed the {{citation}} and {{cite web}}/(cite xxx) templates, use either one or the other. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• This needs to be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• I looked through the article and didn't see the citation template used at all. I only saw the cite web/cite book templates. Where did you see it used? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• Apparently Sandy fixed it. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [26].

---

Nigel (Bishop of Ely)

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk

I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I've had it copyedited, peer reviewed, and I don't think there is a thing I could add more that is available in secondary sources that I can lay my hands on. Nigel was yet another of those very interesting but very unknown bishops from England. He was Lord Treasurer, and arrested, rebelled, exiled, fought with his monks, had interesting relatives and had a son who was Treasurer also. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Addendum - I just asked for the dash tool to be run over this article, something I spaced doing before noming. Sorry! All dashes should be correctly shortly. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And the dash tool has been run. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting on the source review... Ealdgyth - Talk 23:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you mention it, I just noticed that the Fairweather translation of the Liber Eliensis is not listed in the sources. I haven't gone through and checked that each source used is listed, but will do so later. I just glanced down the list and the only weblinks I saw were to evidently reliable sources such as ODNB; and the books that I recognize all look good. Mike Christie (talk) 23:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh. I could have sworn I put the Fairweather in... it's in now. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review: no issues here. Jappalang (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• This seems to be very scrupulously done. There's one oddity, in my eyes. You have a set of "notes" and another of "footnotes". "Footnotes" seems strange, in that web pages offer no obvious way to have [specifically] footnotes (so named to point up the contrast with endnotes). I do understand the motivation for having two sets: one is dutifully provided to head off complaints and also to cater for the true scholar; the other adds parenthetical information that's more likely to interest the (more or less) casual reader, whose attention you want to draw. But rather than ^[notes 1], etc., pointing to [interesting] "notes", and then a pile of [less interesting but of course necessary] "footnotes", how about ^[A], etc., pointing to [interesting] "notes" and then a pile of "source notes"? Although there may be a yet neater solution I haven't thought of. Morenoodles (talk) 09:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a system that's passed FAC before, and recently. I think most folks understand that "footnotes" now can mean, especially on wikipedia, any small numbered note that gives a source. And I particually dislike the lettered approach to reference tagging (it's a foible.) If it really bugs others, we could change the "footnotes" to "references", but I'm loath to do that unless others feel a need for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

In articles I've promoted (Star Trek II, Bone Wars) the repeated references are put in the titular section and the actual reflist is under plain "Notes"; it's a scheme I've found commonly on articles that split called references in such a manner and I think it makes sense. (Admittedly there are two types of notes here, so it has to be juggled, but I think 'references' makes the best sense for the bibliography). I don't really care one way or another but I think in pure aesthetic terms its best to have the headings be as different namewise as possible. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd keep "References" (or of course "Bibliography") for an alphabetically ordered list of references, and not for notes. Also, while I'm not too fond of ^[A] I think it's less obtrusive than ^[notes 1]. But maybe this is just me. Morenoodles (talk) 08:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, it's not technically possible to have ^[A]-type markers with the current <ref group="arbitrarytext"></ref> syntax, you can only have ^{[arbitrarytext 1]} etc. See WP:REFGROUP. Dr pda (talk) 09:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the "footnotes" to "references". I don't want to use "bibliography" as this is a biography article and somewhere in our MOS there is a guideline that "bibliography" should be used for the subject's writings. So we now have "notes" "references" "sources" which hopefully keeps things separate. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments Wow, nice work. Only a few comments here.
  • • Thank Malleus and Maralia, who kindly pick up after my wordy prose. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nigel rebelled and deserted to Stephen's rival Matilda, but was eventually reconciled with Stephen." Hmm.. "was reconciled" suggests a third-party action, while leaving out the "was" suggests the action was between Nigel and Stephen. Which is the correct meaning?
    • It was between Stephen and Nigel (involving a 200 pound (VERY large sum of money then) err.. bribe. I've removed the "was", by the way. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Although he subsequently held some minor administrative posts, Stephen never ..." As written, it seems that Stephen is the subject of the sentence until one reads on. Could use some reworking.
    • Reworked to "Although he subsequently held some minor administrative posts, he never regained high office under Stephen." which hopefully works well. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Some historians argued that Nigel's brother was Alexander of Lincoln ..." "Argued" suggests the matter has been settled?
    • Most historians write as if they were brothers. I'm not sure on the best way to word this, because I don't want to say they were 100% proven to be brothers, but... a lot of historians write (after the initial "We don't have any contemporary references that say they were brothers, but they probably were" waffles) as if they were. Suggestions? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm inclined to something more strongly indicative of what you just explained. Maybe, "Many historians agree that Nigel's brother was Alexander of Lincoln"?
        • Went with "Most modern historians agree that Nigel's brother..." since obviously the medieval ones don't seem to want to say... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • You use "around" 1100 and "about" 1120 - can we make these consistent throughout? Not sure which is preferred, but they both sound oddly informal to me. I suppose "circa" is more formal.
    • Circa is pretty formal. You have a preference? I lean towards "around". Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't have a preference.. I just prefer consistency. --Laser brain (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • went with "around" and should have got all of them (The remaining "abouts" deal with non chronological things) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some work needed on consistency in comma usage (ex. In some places you have "In (year)" with no comma and in some places you use a comma).
    • Heh. Which is correct? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Does "either" surprise you? My personal view is that if you would naturally pause there in speech, a comma is preferred. I think most of them have commas already. --Laser brain (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Whacked at what I could see. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. I've been communicating with Ealdgyth via one of my sandboxes about this article, and everything I found has been fixed. This is a fine, detailed and thorough article, and I'm glad to support. Mike Christie (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments I've given this another quick copyedit, and left a handful of inline queries requesting clarification. Maralia (talk) 04:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I got all but your last one about the marriage. We dont' know anything about his marriage (if indeed it was one, and we aren't talking concubinage instead) and the only reason we have to suppose it is that he had a son. Several historians say he was married without saying anything else about the "wife", the others just mention his son. Unlike Nigel's uncle Roger, we're totally at sea about the domestic arrangements of Nigel. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been more clear in that query. I wasn't questioning the lack of detail—only the placement within the article. If the point being made is that he was married, that could be inserted anywhere, long prior to the paragraph about his death and legacy. If the point is that he was a married bishop, then perhaps it belongs in the section about his 'ascendance' to the bishopric? (Not to complicate things further, but I just noticed the section about this is headed 'Treasurer under Henry I'; perhaps that header should be expanded.) Maralia (talk) 05:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's more that he was married than that he was a married bishop, the emphasis is on the married part. And "married bishop" is often shorthand in the field for "lived with some woman for a while and had children in a sorta married condition". It's extremely unlikely that he actually had a true marriage ceremony. I put that information there because that's where I usually stick the "boring biographical details" for bishops (I'm following the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography outline, in fact.). As for the header, would "Under Henry I" work better? fits in with the scheme. (I really don't do "catchy" headers well.. ) Ealdgyth - Talk 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

What struck me was the apparent incongruity of a lead that primarily introduces him as Bishop of Ely versus a section header that instead focuses on his treasurership. I'm fine with your suggested alternate. This is something like the 7th FAC I've reviewed today; I'm off to bed :) Maralia (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the copyediting, it's very much appreciated. And the finding of problems too! Ealdgyth - Talk 05:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support and comments I can't see enough quibbles not to support, but a few comments jimfbleak (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lead, para 2. Five Stephens in five sentences – is it possible to vary a little – eg On the king’s death?
  • Changed that sentence to "On the king's death, Nigel was returned to the treasurership the new king, Henry II." which eliminated two Stephens. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Laon – as a non-historian, I’m unclear whether Laon was in territories ruled by the English crown, the Dukes of Normandy or the French king. (if I’m being thick here, please ignore)
  • Now reads "Nigel was educated on the continent before..." which seems like a fine level of detail for the lead. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• besieged quickly reads oddly to me, siege and quickly seem almost opposites - soon besieged maybe?
  • Changed to your suggestion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Both occupying forces did damage to the lands of the diocese. Does this mean the crops, or were the dykes destroyed, or what? Perhaps we don't know
  • We don't. The monks whined a bunch in their house chronicle, but monks do that a lot, so it's hard to take it seriously. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Didn't know this was going forward so quickly, but it is a high quality well cited article worthy of the status. Eadgyth is really a fountain of energy. It had copy-edit problems a few weeks ago when I read it, and reading (the first third of) it again, these seem to have gone and doubtlessly if they are still there will be solved by the countless great copy-editors who patrol these FACs. I don't like the Notes-References-Sources style I must say; prefer Notes and References to be in Notes and Sources to be in References, the ole fashioned way, and I hope this doesn't mean people are going to be expecting me to write in this format ... but this ain't otherwise a big deal. Great work Eadgyth, Malleus (as always) and Mike, and the other copy-editors. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It's winter. I'm stuck in the house. It's either Wiki or pack. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [27].

---

Woodes Rogers

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it recently passed GA and I think it can pass FAC as well. The 300th anniversary of some of the events in Rogers' life is upon us and it seems a good time to move forward on it. Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments: Weak oppose (see comments added below). Pretty good, but a few random concerns after a quick read-through:- *Some tendencies to POV evident, e.g. "An ill-fated attack", and the sentences towards the end: "Rogers' second term as governor was less dramatic than the first, but was still difficult".

• One very awkward phrase stood out: "Rogers' friend, Daniel Defoe's, classic novel Robinson Crusoe" Needs rephrasing to avoid the confusion of commas and apostrophes.
• I'm a bit concerned at the over-reliance on a single source (Woodard) - 36 out of 55 citations.

*Reference [39] is not properly formatted.

• • It's now [50] but still not formatted properly
    • Comment I got rid of the author's blog and just cited to the book.

I'll try and read it more thoroughly over the next few days and perhaps add to these comments. Brianboulton (talk) 00:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. I can bring down the reliance on Woodard. I've corrected the awkward phrase and the two phrases you think are POV. I've taken care of the ref--Wehwalt (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reduced the use of Woodard by about four. Also added two other refs and used one or two from each.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Added comments: I have read through to the Homeward voyage section, and have found numerous concerns which I think need to be addressed before the article is ready for promotion.

• Lead

**The assertion "He is best known..." reads like a personal view. The "best" is the problem; I suggest modify to "he is also known..."

• • • Done

**I think it would be appropriate in the lead to mention that Rogers completed a marine apprenticeship, which would make "Rogers led the expedition..." more understandable.

• • • Done

**I have problems with the statement: "Rogers became the first Englishman to lead a cicumnavigation of the globe while retaining his original ships and most of his men". The impression is that this feat had greater validity than Drake's. Drake's circumnavigation 120-odd years earlier was completed in the same ship he started out in, admittedly after the loss of the rest of his flotilla and many of his men. But it was still an historic feat, and shouldn't be lessened by implication. I would prefer something like "Rogers matched Sir Francis Drake's feat of circumnavigating the globe, in his case retaining his original ships and most of his crew".

• • • Rephrased without reference to Drake, since they are not directly compared in the refs I have.

**It would be helpful if, in a few words, the basis of the crew's suit could be mentioned.

• • • Done
• Early life

**What was the nature of Rogers' apprenticeship? I imagine it was served at sea; are there any details of what he did or where he went? Seven years is a big slice of early life to be passed over without comments.

• • • Comment Little says it was "to learn the art of a sailor" which I've rephrased to "profession". I can find nothing on what he did, and he doesn't address it in his journal. Woodard speculates that he would have gone with the Newfoundland fleet, but doesn't say it for a fact. Sorry.

****Even with the sparse information available, it may be worth adding a line such as: "It is possible that during this time he served with the Newfoundland fleet". The point is to demonstrate that he had sea-going experience before emerging as a captain. I don't think my suggested sentence goes further than what is said in the source. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC) **There are confusions in the second paragraph, partly arising from Rogers' father having so similar a name. I suggest the second mention of "Woodes Rogers" becomes a pronoun "he" ; that Whetstone becomes "the Rogers' neighbour and a close family friend"; that the rather anonymous "the captain died" becomes "Captain Rogers died".

• • • Done
      • I've tweaked it a bit further, to avoid over-repetition of names. Brianboulton (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

**Captain Rogers was earlier described as "wealthy". Woodes Rogers now inherits the family ships and businesses, so presumably he became wealthy, too. Yet there is no information given as to what he did with these assets. Later we learn that his share of the proceeds from his round-the-world voyage was used to discharge family debt. So what happened to the ships and businesses?

• • • Comment I've cleared that up. The Rogers (some of this must have happened before Woods died) suffered considerable losses against the French. We know about the slave trader that he lost to the French. Rogers also mentions unspecified losses to the French in the introduction to his book, and I've discussed that now. I think the continuity of the article is improved.
• Preparation and the early voyage

**I don't think the first paragraph of this section is relevant to this article.

• • • Comment I'm happy to talk about it, but the only reason privateering was possible was that Spain and England were at war. If they hadn't been, Rogers would have been, pure and simple, a pirate.
      • The revisions have dealt with this point. Brianboulton (talk) 14:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

**"This was a desperate move on the part of Captain Dampier to save his career". If that statement isn't cited, it's POV

• • – as are phrases such as "a disastrous expedition". The details of this expedition - the munities, sinkings etc - also need to be specifically cited.
    • Comment They are from pages 67 and 70 of Woodard (68 and 69 is a map). A sample: "Dampier was more desperate to leave England than Rogers could possibly have known. Despite his fame, his career was in shambles ..." But I cited more directly. It is all there, and there is a generous free sample of the book on Google books if you want to double check.
      • I'm happy with the additional citations. Would it be possible, in the bibliography, to include the links to the Google books (Woodard and Leslie), as this would be most useful to readers?

**How was Rogers "forced" to spend a month in Ireland? What is the source for the information about a mutiny and various punishments? This whole paragraph looks seriously in need of extra citation.

• • • Comment I just cited at the end of the paragraph, but I have broken it up. According to Little, 40 of the Bristol sailors deserted or were dismissed, and they had to be replaced.

**"They were forced to nearly sixty-two degrees south latitude". Why is this information written out? It should be "62°S", or "62° South".

• • • Done

**"...nearly setting a furthest south record for that time". As a matter of interest, does the source indicate what the farthest south was thought to be at that time? If it was Dirk Gerritsz's claimed sighting of the South Sandwich Islands in 1599, that claim is unconfirmed. Rogers, if he really went to 62°, may well have held the record, but there are many unconfirmed claims to high latitudes in the Drake Passage, up to the time of Captain Cook.

• • • Comment That's coming from Woodard, because Rogers notes in his book that they made it to 61°53' S and says in his journal, "for ought we know is the furthest that any one has yet been to the southward, and where we have no night". I avoided citing directly to Rogers' journal because of WP's dislike of primary sources when secondary ones are available. There's no citation to anything in Woodard. I can easily cut it out. Woodard is probably hedging for the same reasons that you are commenting on.

****I think it's OK to leave the latitude in, but expressed in terms of a claim rather than a fact. When I worked on Farthest South, I deliberately left out a number of claims to high southern latitudes, including those of Gerritsz and Rogers, because these claims could not be verified. I would suggest: "...a difficult oceanic passage; Rogers claimed they were forced to almost 62° South which, "for ought we know...." etc. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Rescue of Selkirk

**The facts in the first two sentences of the section look in need of citation.

• • • Done

**"...his old commodore" – "commander" would be better (Dampier wasn't Selkirk's personal "commodore").

• • • Comment They weren't shipmates. Dampier led the expedition from the St. George; Selkirk was in the Cinque Ports. Woodard says (p. 75) of the Cinque Ports: "whose captain and officers had lost confidence in their commodore's leadership and sailed off on their own". So it seems a proper usage. If you think commander is better, that is fine, I was trying to stress that they were not in the same ship without going on a tangent.

**"(today Ecuadorean) town..." reads clumsily. I am sure there is a neater way of putting this, not involving intrusive brackets. '***Done' **"...and even after capturing the town, the expedition took little away except the bubonic plague, of which six men died" This reads rather glibly, more journalism than encyclopedia. Suggest reword.

• • • 'Done with reluctance, because I kinda liked that wording, but Mattisse said the same thing.
      • Well, I liked it, too, but we all have to make sacrifices. Brianboulton (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• Homeward voyage
  • "...with the British company eventually receiving £6,000" - which British company, and why did they receive it?
    • Done It was to settle the BEIC's claim for breaching the monopoly. In fact, as soon as the three ships (Duke, Duchess, and a prize renamed the Alderman Batchelor dropped anchor, agents of the East India Company threw notices of seizure aboard. It was an amicable settlement, though one of the investors was fairly ticked off.

**Can the various amounts be given modern equivalent values? A visit to MeasuringWorth.com will calculate these.

• • • I did, although the six thousand pound figure gave two variant equivalents, of which I chose the lesser. How do I cite that?
      • I've done the citations, which include a note that RPI equivalents have been used. Brianboulton (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I am enjoying the article, but feel these points need to be settled before I can support it. Brianboulton (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll deal with these and get back to you with either changes or comments. To work.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've taken care of all those except where noted.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on remaining sections:-

• Financial difficulties etc

**"...and Rogers was forced to sell his Bristol home to support his family". I suggest, by way of a reminder as to his financial position, a brief insert: "...and Rogers, because of his heavy business losses, was forced..." **("first, this time, ...) is awkwardly put. I suggest simplify to "this time getting advance permission ..." - and doing away with the brackets. **It might be useful to add: "who had succeeded Queen Anne in 1714" to the first mention of George I

• • "bailiwick" should be linked.
    • Each of these done
• First term

**I'm not sure I understand "the ex-pirates living on the island who had not been called upon to accept it" (i.e. the King's pardon). Can you clarify?

• • Blackbeard: at first mention, would it not be more encyclopedic to refer to him as "Edward Teach, known as "Blackbeard"?
  • There are two ands in this (the Blackbeard) sentence.
  • "...who had gone pirate" is just a bit too informsl. "Turned" might be more acceptable, or "become pirates".
  • The sentence beginning "The execution so cowed..." is a bit long and convoluted. Suggest omit the second "so", and end the sentence after "support". Then: "After their arrest Rogers had them released as harmless.
  • The first sentence of the 5th paragraph might read better as "On 16 March 1719 Rogers learned that Spain and Britain were at war again".
  • In the final paragraph, to avoid repetition of "peace", you could say: "The year 1720 brought an end to external threats to Rogers' rule. With Spain and Britain at peace again...."
  • "...thrown in debtors prison". Isn't "thrown" a bit dramatic? Is there a neutral way of saying this?
    • Each of these done
• Return to England

**Sentence should not begin and end with "The assembly"

• In fiction

**This is trivia. Suggest delete.

When the outstanding matters are dealt with I shall have no problem switching to support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All sounds good. I am in a seminar all day and am checking this at lunch. Will work on it tonight.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

All changes implemented That should do it, Brian. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just two points remaining: the links to the Google books, and my suggestion relating to Rogers' farthest south (see above). Meantime I have struck the oppose, and will support when these two final issues are answered.Brianboulton (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rephrased the latitude question, again avoiding citing directly to Woodes' book in favor of a secondary source. I gave the URL for the generous limited preview on the Woodard book. As there is no such preview (only a snippet view) available for Little, I don't see any point in adding the link, but I will if you insist. Up to you.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I have formatted the Google book links (including one to a large slice of Leslie's book) and put them under External links. I wonder whether you need the "Government offices" template at the end of the article, since it merely repeats information given in the infobox. I am happy with the various responses to my points; this is an excellent article fully deserving of promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The succession boxes? I consider them harmless and since we don't name Phenney or Thompson, and they are not likely going to have articles anytime soon, might as well leave them, because if you take them out, someone will just try to reinsert it. I kinda like them actually, I've had some fun and have put in succession boxes for Plantagenet Palliser. Anyhow, thanks for the support and the work on the links, you clearly had something in mind a little different from what I thought you were saying.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• On the "succession" boxes, it's just that this exact information is given in the infobox. It's not a sticking point with me, but do we need the same info twice? Brianboulton (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, point taken. Succession boxes scrapped.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment:

• Sources look good. But, the notes need en-dashes between page ranges (some have them, most don't). JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Support JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Rogers,Woodes.jpg - We need a source and an author for this image. A more specific date would be preferable.
• File:William Dampier - Project Gutenberg eText 15675.jpg - The source link is broken. It is best to list the entire bibliographic entry for the source per WP:IUP. We also need a date and an author.
• File:Vane.JPG - We need a source for this image.
• File:Rogersplaque.jpg - The Flickr check says that the license doesn't match, but it does, therefore the Flickr check needs to be changed on Commons.

These issues should be relatively easy to resolve. I look forward to striking this oppose soon. Awadewit (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Images are not my area; I've asked for help on this one after I think taking care of what you wanted in the first image. It will get done, don't worry. I really don't have a clue how to deal with Flickr licenses personally!--Wehwalt (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've updated the source link and basic information for File:William Dampier - Project Gutenberg eText 15675.jpg, added source and date information for File:Vane.JPG, and updated the Flickrreview information on File:Rogersplaque.jpg. All should be good. - auburnpilot talk 03:54, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks AuburnPilot! Now you have piloted a privateer in addition to the university! OK, I think that resolves Awadewit's concerns. Who's next to walk the plank?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think I cleaned up the things that Sandy referred to in edit summaries on the article. If anyone sees an odd dash that shouldn't be there, please let me know. I think they are all cleaned up.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Provisional Support

Will be able to fully support once the remainder of User:Brianboulton's very good comments are addressed. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

They're all done, Mattisse. Whew.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support

Changed to full support per resolution of Brianboulton's points. I appreciate your responsiveness to these issues. It is a wonderful article, incorporating many "threads" of history and adventure. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support As a ships enthusiast, and having worked on Edward Low early in my experience at FAC, I am delighted to come across this article. This is well done. I got a good chuckle when I was fixing the date formatting in the references and found an accessdate that was the same as a publication date, checked the edit history, and found that was the same day you began editing the article. I guess you read the Telegraph, eh? :) I do have one minor quibble: the section 'First term' ends with several sentences about Rogers' return to England, yet the subsequent section header is 'Return to England'; suggest relocating those sentences. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment You tracked it back to the source! Well done! I'll play with the Return to England situation, it seems better to rename the section than to move the material. Thanks for the edits and the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [28].

---

SS Minnesotan

Nominator(s): Bellhalla (talk)

This is an article about an American-Hawaiian Steamship Company cargo ship launched in 1912. It served as a U.S. Army and U.S. Navy transport in World War I, and also carried cargo during World War II. During the 1930s the ship played a minor role several maritime labor disputes. The article has passed a GA review and a Military History A-Class review. — Bellhalla (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review — images check out fine, except for one slight niggle (not really opposable). Bellhalla, could you point the "source" parameter on each image to the page where the image link resides, rather than to the image directly? (File:Atlantic convoy, 1942.jpg is the example for the others to follow.). Jappalang (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://convoyweb.org.uk/ports/index.html?home.php~armain
  • http://www.convoyweb.org.uk/jc/index.html?jc.php?convoy=17!~jcmain

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The website (the same for both references) was compiled from research of the late Arnold Hague, who was a noted author on World War II ship topics, notably, in this case:

• The Allied Convoy System, 1939–1945: Its Organization, Defence, and Operation, Naval Institute Press, 2000.
• Convoy Rescue Ships 1940–1945: A History of the Rescue Service its Ships and their Crews, World Ship Society, 1998.

The website owner, with permission from Hague's widow, has incorporated the information into a free online database. — Bellhalla (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I lean reliable, but I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, it's as reliable as any published book could be (that is, it states is source and really it's up to the reader whether or not he wants to give the author the benefit of the doubt or look into the sources him/herself). JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support I gave this a quick copyedit; it's in great shape. Maralia (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Very well-done. Karanacs (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a couple comments.
• She ended her career in Italian ownership as the SS Maria Luisa R.. - Do we need the double punctuation?
• During World War II, Minnesotan was requisitioned by the War Shipping Administration and initially sailed between New York and Caribbean ports. - New York City, or New York State?
• The final cost of Minnesotan, including financing costs, was $65.65 per deadweight ton, which came out to just under $668,000. - "Came out to" → "totaled".
• Is it possible to merge the short paragraph at the end of the WWI section?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [29].

---

The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), TheLeftorium

"Did you know that The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II is the sequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth?" Gary King (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Images: Fuchs has taken a look at them below.
• References: They're all standard video game references, as far as I can tell. Some of the less commonly used references, but which I still think are reliable, are used only for reviews.

Gary King (talk) 04:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Note: Gary King did most of the work. ;) TheLeftorium 10:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey I helped too!LOTRrules _Talk ^Contribs 22:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

a couple of the links to EA give 'connection time out' when reviewed with the external link check tool. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They still work when you try them, though, so I don't see what the problem is? Gary King (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments—The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth II is the sequel to The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth? Really?

• Images
  • Images look pretty good: low-res nonfree shots with good rationales. Could we get some sources for the images, though?
  • In the Elrond actor caption: "Hugo Weaving, who played Elrond in the Lord of the Rings film trilogy, reprised the role in BFME2, also acting as the lead voiceover." wouldn't "lead voice actor" make more sense?
• Initial random cmts
  • "Similar to The Lord of the Rings: The Battle for Middle-earth, the game requires that the player build a base with structures to produce units, gather resources, research upgrades, and provide defenses." is a pretty weak opening. Start from the top: what kind of game is it, then its goal.
  • The paragraph about effects in development ("The game's water effects...") sounds rather clunky, possibly due to repetition of "water" a bajillion times.
  • Does the plot have a set outcome (i.e., one campaign comes before the other) or are they just alternate events with no story connection between them?
  • Wouldn't it flesh out the development section if content from "The Making of The Battle for Middle-earth II" were included?

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. What sources? Their Source fields are already filled. "Voiceover" is what the reference refers to him as. The Plot is linear, as opposed to the predecessor. Unfortunately, I don't have The Making of. Gary King (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I mean a source URL or similar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'll leave it as is for now and go searching. I didn't originally upload either one. Gary King (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
• What makes http://www.gamezone.com/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I cannot find where the article uses the {{citation}} template. GameZone is reliable per this. Gary King (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's probably called in one of these templates: Template:ME-ref/FOTR Template:ME-ref/ROTK and Template:ME-ref/TH. (mutters) Struck. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose, 1a. This is very good. However, my main beef is the persistent passive voice that either obscures or eliminates the subject of the sentence (ex. "liberties were taken" without telling us who took them). It needs a run-through with an eye toward switching to active voice and identifying a subject where prudent.
  • "... containing bonus material and a documentary featuring the game's development." Maybe "about the game's development"? The word "featuring" doesn't seem right here.
  • 4th or fourth? Check MoS please.

--Laser brain (talk) 02:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be better now. Gary King (talk) 05:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am still finding a lot of passive voice (the section about digital water has 3 or 4 instances just in one paragraph) and other grammar problems. More work is needed to get this ready. --Laser brain (talk) 16:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well, those I made passive because I didn't want to start every sentence with "The developers added", "The developers included", etc. Unless, that's what you want...? Gary King (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we don't need to do that. However, there are other ways of writing in the active voice without beginning sentences the same way. Passive voice is not a preferred writing style. --Laser brain (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

How's the water paragraph now? Gary King (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The way you've done it is much too forced. For example, rather than "They made the digital water simulate deep ocean water" why can't you just say, "The digital water simulates deep ocean water"? Still active voice, not forced. See what I mean? The whole article needs such treatment. --Laser brain (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "The game's water effects got substantial upgrades" Is there a stronger verb than "got"?
• "To make a rich visual experience, lost towns, corals, and fish were added underwater." One of those passive voice things that Laser Brain was talking about. I'm not sure I can provide a satisfactory suggestion without changing the meaning. Maybe: "Underwater lost towns, corals, and fish enriched the visual experience."?
• "Richard Taylor had the responsibilities of designing"-->Richard Taylor was responsible for designing
• "Taylor found it very essential " Not sure "found" is the right word here, maybe "considered"?
• "especially the heroes, who" I think it should be "whom" here.
• "The results also pleased 1UP.com" And two sentences later, "The integration of The Lord of the Rings into a video game pleased Game Informer"
• "reviews brought up several issues with the game" Reviews or reviewers?
• ""in no way is it anywhere near the game we hoped for. What a waste."" "What a waste" is seems unnecessary, especially considering that this quote is introduced with "concluding that". Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

All done Gary King (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• "After playing the game, PC Gamer found it difficult to find much fault with it," Why not "After playing the game, PC Gamer found little fault with it," or something like that?
• "GameZone was happy with the gameplay of BFME2, despite a few minor issues, " I think the order of these clauses should be switched around.
• Inconsistency: "The graphics were appreciated by ActionTrip, which" but "The results also pleased 1UP.com, who"
• "Tom Bombadil, a merry hermit from The Lord of the Rings, is given a combat role in the game" Unnecessary passive voice, maybe: "Tom Bombadil, a merry hermit from The Lord of the Rings, assumes a combat role in the game" or something similar.
• "newly-introduced" No hyphens after -ly adverbs.
• "Instead of the world-map overview in the previous game, the player goes through nine fixed missions in either easy, medium, or hard difficulty mode." I don't know if this sentence belongs in the Plot section.
• "The heroes are informed after their victory that the Goblins"-->After their victory, the heroes are that the Goblins
• "and completely destroy all remaining Good forces"-->and completely destroy the remaining Good forces

It's pretty close now. I will take a look at the Gameplay section later. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• That which/who inconsistency within critics was only an example, here is another one: "The game's multiplayer portion disappointed GameSpy, who found"
• "there are a total of six playable factions" I am pretty sure that "a total of" is redundant, unless you are trying to emphasize that particular fact.
• "the Ents, can perform a combination of melee" Link melee here and remove the link from the "Trolls form the core of the Mordor forces, having strong melee attacks..." sentence
• "With his army, Sauron moves forward with his plan to destroy all the remaining Good forces in the North." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I will support after the resolution of these comments. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All done (I think). —TheLeftorium 23:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

More comments

• I performed a copyedit, removing some passive voice and some extremely repetitious repetition of "EA = publisher" prevalent throughout. I also left some inline comments where I felt more introduction could be given; the plot is rather confusing to someone who has never read the books, as new places and people are thrown into the text without any indication of who they are. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit. I've resolved the comments, too. Thoughts on it now? Gary King (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is ready now. --Laser brain (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I can't find anything to oppose on, I guess. :P --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 01:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support prose is succinct and crisp, and I can't see any comprehensiveness issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I read through the first two sections (tried to anyway; video games are boring :P) and I found nothing of concern. I'm in the WikiCup with Gary and Theleftorium, as a disclaimer. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [30].

---

Operation Brevity

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc

previous FAC (04:05, 23 August 2008)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I really believe it now meets all FA criteria.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a preliminary scan:

1. The article needs supporting maps! Its very hard to piece together the war details without maps that chalk out the strategies, frontlines and locations.
2. Preferably SVG maps. (JPEG one is bad)

   What exactlly is wrong with the JPEG one? It displays find to me and shows no JPEG corruption (shouldnt since i snapped it up via photoshop).--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

   If the File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG is sourced, I can throw up an SVG version almost instantaneously (seems simple enough). Jappalang (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   I still have the original photoshop image for the second map that i could send to you to be SVG'd if you wished. As for the one at the top of the article, what do you mean by sourced? IT doesnt show any formation movements but it does look fairly accurate of the area.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Well, I was talking about SVGing the first one. Anyway, Fort Cappuzo, the barracks, Pt. 206 and 208, the frontier wire, and border are not readily verifiable. Hence, a source (either a picture, or text that describe the cartographical placements) would make it easier to ensure the locations are a good representation of where they are supposed to be. It is just like what you did for File:Operation Brevity.jpg. Jappalang (talk) 12:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   Ah i see what you mean. Unfortually the editor who created that piece of work dropped off the project during summer just gone, which is very unfortunate. :( --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   You are in luck. I found Tobruk 1941. The frontier wire and a far off southern town have to be removed, but everything else is verifiable with respect to this book, Google Map and your sourced File:Operation Brevity.jpg. File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg is now up on display in the article. Jappalang (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

3. All those times need to be attributed to a timezone

   I can double check my sources but i dont think they mentioned one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

   I have checked my sources (Thomas Jentz and ISO Playfair) and cannot see anything regarding what timezone was in use. I know however that British Double Summer Time was in use within the UK but am unsure on how that effected Anglo-CW/Imperial/Allied operations elsewhere in the world.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Similarly, all mile units need a km equivalent. I thought I saw some without equivalents.

   Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

5. The coordinates would also be good

   Sorted - co-ords are roughly where Fort Capuzzo is.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

6. In recompense -- comma needed
7. How could they be taken by surprise "nevertheless took them by surprise" if they knew it was coming? What were they surprised about?

   I've made some minor prose tweaks that should hopefully address your last two. EyeSerene^talk 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Replies

• What exactlly is wrong with the JPEG one? It displays find to me and shows no JPEG corruption (shouldnt since i snapped it up via photoshop)
  1. The image has JPEG artifacts. Look carefully around the text for blurring.
     1. Also see WP:IUP#FORMAT. Its mentioned why SVG should be used for maps.
• About maps:
  • All addressed thanks to the help of Jappalang.
  1. What makes this image File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG reliable? I think it needs sources.
  2. Looking for these kinds of strategy maps File:Crusade of 1101 v1.svg in First Crusade; File:Battle of the Gebora.svg in Battle of the Gebora.

Am afaid as far as my knowledge on the subject goes, your not going to find a map with movement markers on it for Brevity. I have checked mulptiple sources and have not been able to find any - to make one myself would be taking best guesses and would probably be compeltely wrong for the chaps out on the desert flank and the German moves and counterattacks.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Is this any good as a basis for a self-made map? I don't know if it would meet WP:RS though. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• About coordinates: Meant the coordinates of the battle area in the infobox. Need not be overly precise.

Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 18:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

References--

• See my comments on article talk page. I can never figure out how to edit these FAs properly. --KP Botany (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Will do.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Addressed--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of the faint Egypt-Libya text along border on the map, the words Egypt and Libya in bold would be more eye catching
• The source map may not be reliable, can be considered as a source if the movement markers tally with the text. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I assume you are talking about File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg. Note that as I took File:BattleaxeContestedArea.JPG as the base (hence I have to attribute to this work as it is CC) but verified the work with the three sources I mentioned (removing what could not be verified). There is no movement markers in the SVG (it is only geographical details), hence I do not understand what is the concern here. I have replaced the smaller border text with larger country names on the two sides. Jappalang (talk) 22:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think Nichalp may be referring to my post above, suggesting this map. EyeSerene^talk 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm, if he is referring to an ops map, would this qualify? The site (http://www.ian.a.paterson.btinternet.co.uk/) is recommended for the history of a participating unit by the official Desert Rat Memorial Web Site.[31] Jappalang (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Sorry i havent been available that much this weekend to help relsove the final few issues. Anyway, this map is no good as it is for Operation Battleaxe, not Brevity. The 4th Indian Division, 7RTR nor the entire wieght of the two German divisions took part in Brevity, the focus of fighting around Hafid ridge was also a feature of Battleaxe. The map linked to above by EyeSerene does give the general idea of the operation although not to specific.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Hmm, I would still like to know if the map on Paterson's site is reliable, since it would help expand the details for File:BattleaxeContestedArea.svg (tracks and missing cities). Jappalang (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Ill upload a photo of a map shown in Jentz' book later on to my photobucket account, one will see patersons map does basically match up. Although it shows Hafia ridge, Jentz' map doesnt - the later also shows a further settlement that Patersons doesnt. So i think Jentz' would confirm that Patersons is reliable.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support; I looked over the article, and made an edit on the lead; but, in general, that's the only thing I could think of improving! I also did some edits that had to do with MoS (spelling out single digits, for example). Personally, I'm not a fan of the footnotes style; you have to read the footnote, and then click on the citation which cites the footnote. It doesn't make much sense to me. Including the footnotes as citations, on the other hand, as "notes" (like they tend to do in books) seems simpler and easier to follow. Otherwise, I'm going to be going everywhere before eventually going back to where I dropped reading. I also think that, although I will leave someone with better judgment to make the call, that the fair use image is not going to fly; it's not really necessary to illustrate the topic, and there are other images that are public domain. Seeing what the fort looks like did not really increase my understanding of the article. The same goes for File:Halfaya pass.jpg. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Halfaya pass.jpg is actually in the public domain; it was created in 1943–44, thus falling under the "works produced before 1945 only has 50 years copyright". I have changed the image's licensing to as such. Note also that the source link for File:Fort Capuzzo.jpg is dead. Jappalang (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:IWM-E-5366-Cruiser-IV-and-Matilda-Egypt-19410905.jpg - This image is hosted at Commons, which means that it needs to be in the PD in both Britain and the US. Please explain why it is in the PD in the US. If it is only in the PD in Britain, it should be hosted at Wikipedia and deleted from Commons.
  • Wikipedia:Public domain#Country-specific rules: If the work was in the public domain in the country of origin as of January 1, 1996, it is in the public domain in the U.S. (Even if it was published after 1923, but only if no copyright had been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.) It is public domain in 1991 (1941 + 50 per http://www.museumscopyright.org.uk/crown-a.pdf), hence PD in US. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • This information needs to be on the image description page. Currently, only the British PD info is. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Am a tad confused, there is an email which acompanys the Crown copyright template. The email states:
      • "Thank you for your email enquiry dated May 23rd, 2005. Crown copyright protection in published material lasts for fifty years from the end of the year in which the material was first published. Therefore, to use your example, material published in 1954, and any Crown copyright material published before that date, would now be out of copyright, and may be freely reproduced throughout the world."
      • So surely there shouldnt be need for additional copyright templates?
        • On Commons, images must be shown to be in the PD in the country of origin and in the US. This template shows the PD in Britain. We need a template or an explanation of why the image is in the PD in the US. Both explanations have to be there. Awadewit (talk) 19:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Problem here: Commons has the commons:Template:PD-1996 and commons:Template:PD-old-50; the first, however, requires the image to have been published, while the latter is meant for a dead author 50 years past. commons:Template:PD-reason could possibly used, but I am seeking a Commons admin for advice on this (on the rulings and templates). Jappalang (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
            • If there is no specific template, I would just suggest adding the information manually to the image descriptions page. Awadewit (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
              • At commons:Commons:Village pump#PD in UK, but not in US, what do to?, User:Carl Lindberg said that commons:Template:PD-UKGov applies worldwide and that it is unneeded for a separate US PD template. Jappalang (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Interesting and, frankly, rather confusing. Commons policies seem to change frequently. Ah well. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• File:PanzersJune1941.jpg - This image is hosted at Commons, which means that it needs to be in the PD in both Britain and the US. Please explain why it is in the PD in the US. If it is only in the PD in Britain, it should be hosted at Wikipedia and deleted from Commons.
  • Per above, it is public domain in 1991 (1941 + 50), hence PD in US. Jappalang (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Same as above. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• File:Fort Capuzzo.jpg - I am unconvinced that there is not a free version of this image available. Note that the fair use rationale says "One of the few photos available on the internet of the fort". And? What kinds of photographs do printed histories of this event have, for example? Also, the source link for this image is broken, so we cannot verify it. Finally, the purpose of use is "To provide visual reference of what Fort Capuzzo looks like". Generally, we need a reason much stronger than mere illustration to include a non-free image in an article.
  • You were right, i had not looked hard enough. A free photo of Fort Capuzzo has been found and uploaded in its place.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
    • New image checks out. Awadewit (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully we can clear up these issues quickly. Awadewit (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I suggest that this article would benefit from a "newspaper" style introduction, in which the first sentence summarizes the story, the first paragraph retells it with more information, the rest of the lead retells it with more information yet, and the body gives all the details. For example, the first sentence could be something like, Operation Brevity was a limited offensive conducted by the British in north Africa in May 1941, which was aborted after one day because of a failure to make progress. Looie496 (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I've tweaked the lead a little - I'm not convinced that the story needs telling three times in the lead, but certainly the first paragraph was incomplete. I used paras two and three to expand on the first; hopefully the balance has now improved. EyeSerene^talk 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support although I tweaked this article a bit a while ago. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support - on the whole beautifully written, well-researched, nicely illustrated and satisfies the FA criteria. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support*Object for now. This lead seems to bog down in details, especially the third paragraph. The lead should be an intro and summary, not a listing of moves in the battle. This is also probably why you felt the need to put so many refs in the lead. A well done lead will need few if any refs as it's a summary of what is in the body. Leads can have refs but when I see more then 3 or so, that's a signal of one of two things:

  1. The lead is not a summary and has details that are not repeated in the body
  2. The lead is a summary that is expounded upon in the body and has refs that it really doesn't need

For example, this lead does not expound upon the importance and aftermath of this battle at if I stop at the lead, I think wonder about it. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that (and I agree!). I think starting from scratch might help, so I'll do that as soon as I get the chance. EyeSerene^talk 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've removed all the duplicated cites and tried to tighten things up. Better? EyeSerene^talk 13:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Much, support now. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [32].

---

Northern Bald Ibis

Nominator(s): jimfbleak (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I think this now meets all the criteria. I've spent a great deal of time on this one, it had a very thorough Good Article review, which I think sorted out the worst infelicities in presentation and a couple of image/referencing issues. It's also had much helpful input from the Birds project. Time to be thrown to the wolves jimfbleak (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This hungry wolf was looking for nice bird meat to chew on, but returned mostly disappointed. :) Could only manage to make away with feathers below:

• as described above. -- redundant
• =In culture= has extra whitespace at the end of the section.
• For an article of this caliber, the maps are a letdown, especially the map of Morocco. Have you tried Wikipedia:Graphics lab? I'm not sure what image editing software you use, but try gaining experience with Inkscape. It's cool. =Nichalp «Talk»= 12:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply Thanks for reviewing, sorry you left without a full stomach :)

• as described above. now removed
• Hadn't spotted that a previous editor added a <br>, gone now
• The maps were actually improved by another editor! I have inkscape, but I've never really mastered it. If the article seems likely to fail on the quality of the maps, I'll remove them, since they are not mandatory anyway.

Thanks again jimfbleak (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unlikely that the article will fail because of the images, but good articles should have professionally-created images. This time I returned and managed to get some nice meat, catching several peacocks and weasels too.

1. Eritrea,Saudi Arabia -- +space needed

   Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2. I think =Reintroductions= needs to be promoted to a top level heading. It does not seem to be a "conservation status" of any sort.

   Don't like, separates from wild pops, changed to conservation jimfbleak (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

3. now thought/has been suggested -- check for peacock/weasel terms

   I think I've got them all - only remaining thought and suggesting are where appropriate jimfbleak (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

4. has recently been and Until recently, the main cause of breeding, has now put protection -- vague --> how recent?

   2006 for first occurence, second removed jimfbleak (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

5. have a good record for conservation -- how "good"?

   I can't quantify beyond the BirdLife International source. If you think that good is inadequate, I'll remove the sentence, since I can't realistically evaluate better than a major international conservation organisation jimfbleak (talk) 19:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

6. heavily managed?

   rephrased The birds were taken into captivity after jimfbleak (talk) 19:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

7. A trial migration using tagged birds confirmed the risks presented to travelling birds by pesticides. -- points to Ref 27. But the source there mentions tagging in future tense: To solve the riddle, more Turkish birds will be tagged next year by Czech expert Lubomir Peske.

   I think you have misread. The first sentence of the reference refers to a past trial with tagged birds which were poisoned. Peske's future trial will be to find where juveniles winter jimfbleak (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

8. which had wings of brass and sharp metallic feathers they could fire at their victims -- what could be fired?

   which had wings of brass and could fire sharp metallic feathers at their victims jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

9. origin should be used. -- rephrase. The word "should" sits odd here.

   Only birds of known origin will be used in future captive breeding and releasing programmes. jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

10. as of July 2006 --> use the {{As of}} template

    Done jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

11. dramatic mortality incident? check wording

    major now jimfbleak (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• There is a left-aligned image under the third-level heading at "Zoo populations", breaching [[WP:ACCESS], but moving the image right will breach WP:MOS#Images, with the bird facing off the page. Can the image be moved to another location in the article? I saw a missing publisher, and accessdates are not consistently formatted (some are ISO and some are Day Month Year). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Awadewit seems to have fixed the image and retrieval dates, i checked through and couldn't see any discrepancies (although I don't know what ISO is, so I might have missed something.

Are the ISOs the downloaded = ones - if so, they're fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 08:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopdische Zeitung von Oken I assume is the one missing a publisher, but I can't find one jimfbleak (talk) 08:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:Moroccomap-02.png - We need a reliable source for this map (although, like the above reviewer, I think a better map is preferable). Have you tried Knusser or Ruhrfisch?

I can't find a reliable source for the detail of the location of the Souss-Massa NP (which I assume is what you are challenging since the location of the towns is indisputable}. Given the concerns about quality, I've removed the map altogether jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Atlas-Mountains-Labeled-2 new.jpg - We need a RS for this map.

I've rewritten the image description to go directly to the NASA map which is the source of the original image, and also added an atlas reference for the labels. jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Ahk-glyph2.jpg - Why do we have a drawing of this and not the original image? If the original is under copyright, please explain why the drawing isn't a derivative work.

GA reviewer thought original was copyright, I now think that was incorrect and have restored original image File:Bald ibis hieroglyph.jpg, which I think is appropriately referenced for the Birdlife international source and the FAO for the age of the carvings. If this is incorrect, I'll put back the drawing and rewrite description to source as derivative of Birdlife International photo jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The original is definitely under copyright - see this statement: "All photos are copyrighted by BirdLife and/or its contributing photographers and may not be reproduced or exploited in any fashion without permission from BirdLife." Since the carving is a three-dimensional objects, PD-Art does not apply here, so we cannot use this photo. The photographer has creative rights in this photo, in other words. That then raises the tricky question of whether the drawing is a derivative work of the photo or whether it is a just a drawing of the hieroglyphs themselves. Hm. As you copied this directly from the drawing, I am leaning towards derivative work (meaning we cannot use it), however, how different would the drawing look if you were standing in front of the glyphs themselves? I will solicit further advice on this question. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the drawing was not traced from the photo, but is a freehand version, and far from an exact copy. I accept your view that the photo is copyright, and I've put the drawing back, but surely the photographer cannot own the copyright to all non-first-hand depictions of these ancient carvings? I could of course claim that I drew it from life (; jimfbleak (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Based on this and my assessment that the drawing does not copy original elements of the photo, I believe that this drawing is not covered by the photographer's copyright. Awadewit (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

These should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this oppose. Awadewit (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the image review and the very helpful copyedit, jimfbleak (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

There are several Ibis hieroglyphs in commons:Category:Ibis-crested_(hieroglyph) and the "akh" glyph is included in commons:Category:Hieroglyphs_of_Egypt:_birds they are public domain. So there should be no problem of copyright here. Shyamal (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. Example only - current ref 22 (Nothern Bald Ibis... RSPB).
• Current ref 64 (Stymphalian Birds..) is lacking a publisher. Also, what makes this a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I think I've fixed all the RSPB-type abbreviations, IUCN is templated but has a direct link to its article anyway. Ref 64, I really only wanted the image link, so i've changed the url to direct straight to the picture and sourced it to the museum. If there are still concerns, I'll remove the image link and just keep the text and ref to the museum. jimfbleak (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - comprehensive and well written. A few comments:

• searches with ahk+ibis and akh+ibis on google scholar suggests that the spelling should be "akh" - I have added a glyph based on the work of Egyptologists - if it is art it is public domain since the original artists died many thousands of years ago. Otherwise I am not sure if an alphabet (non-ornate) can be copyrighted. File:Akh_glyph.svg. Scholarly references that use the spelling "akh" are http://pes.ff.cuni.cz/pdf/PES2-2003-janak.pdf,
  • Janak, Jiri: Spirit migratory. Význam ibisa skalního ve starém Egyptě (Migratory Spirit. The Bald Ibis in Ancient Egypt); In: Lidé a zvířata . Meaning ibis in ancient Egypt rock (Migratory Spirit. The Bald Ibis in Ancient Egypt); In: People and animals. 1. vyd. 2007, Soubor studií pracovní skupiny „Člověk a krajina v dějinách“. ed 2007, The working group study "Man and Landscape in history." Praha: Orientální ústav Akademie věd ČR; s. 56-62. Prague: Oriental Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences, p. 56-62. ISBN 978-80-87180-00-6. Anotace: Migrace a chování ibise skalního se odráží v egyptském pojetí ducha (ach) zesnulého člověka. ISBN 978-80-87180-00-6. Description: Migration and behavior ibise rock is reflected in the Egyptian concept of the spirit (oh) the deceased man. (Migration and behaviour of the Bald Ibis is reflected in Egyptian conception of the akh-spirit.) (Migration and behavior of the Bald Ibis is reflected in Egyptian conception of the AKH-spirit.)
  • Englund,G. 1978 Akh – une notion religieuse dans l’Egypte pharaonique, Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, BOREAS [Uppsala Studies in Ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern Civilizations 11].
  • Friedman, Florence D. (Florence Dunn) On the meaning of AKH (3H) in Egyptian mortuary texts Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brandeis University, 1981
  • Janak, Jiri: Migratory Spirits: Remarks on the AKH Sign editor: Cannata, M.; In: Current Research in Egyptology 2006. 1. vyd. 2007, Oxford: Oxbow Books; s. 116-119. ed 2007, Oxford: Oxbow Books, p. 116-119. Stěhovaví duchové. Migratory spirits. Několik poznámek ke znaku ach) ISBN 978-1-84217-262-9. Anotace: Research on the Waldrapp bird has brought some new foundings about meaning of the akh spirit in Egyptian religion. A few notes on the character ach) ISBN 978-1-84217-262-9. Description: Research on the Waldrapp bird has brought about some new foundings meaning of the AKH spirit in Egyptian religion.
  • Dows Dunham (1946) An Egyptian Diadem of the Old Kingdom Bulletin of the Museum of Fine Arts, Vol. 44, No. 255 (Feb., 1946), pp. 23-29

I am unable to find similar references to "ahk" and that seems to be a widespread misspelling. Shyamal (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the research and support, I've fixed the spelling as you suggest - my ancient Egyptian isn't what it used to be (; - also hadn't occurred to me that writing symbols, which is what the akh is, cannot realistically be copyright, even if not ancient jimfbleak (talk) 08:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support (moral or otherwise) I have copyedited and looked over this article a few times, and feel it meets criteria. I disclose I am another birdo :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the support and the corrections - I'm particularly impressed by the Latin! jimfbleak (talk) 07:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - engaging, well-written and beautifully illustrated. Graham Colm ^Talk 10:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, the text owes a great deal to input from awadewitt and members of the bird project jimfbleak (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Can the "Arabic and English" (boldface) in the "Beaky the Bald Ibis" source be formatted in the same way as the Spanish and German sources. Right now, the bold text jumps out above anything else in the references section.

It looks as if the language templates were changed to debold, and this untemplated one was left behind -fixed now jimfbleak (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• My second concern is the Ibismap_2003 graphic. It's a political map, with roads and other such features, and really is not so suitable as a backdrop for a nature/bird migration map. MODIS Blue Marble [33] would be an excellent backdrop, possibly with country boundary outlines. That's something that I could help with, though there are a number of tools to use such as NASA's World Wind, that you might not need assistance. --Aude (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I would be grateful if you could help on this - I'm a computing dunce, and I couldn't really see how to do what you were suggesting. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

SupportSlight oppose - for now, mainly from some glitches, but also for a few neglected spots.

• Lead feels a bit skimpy to me. Might mention the fact that they unlike other ibis they don't wade. Maybe mention how far back in the fossil record they date. Might mention size? Might mention that it disappeared from Europe over 300 years ago? Might mention the discovery that they weren't extinct in Syria after all?

Done, please check

Better.

• Might give time frames for the fossil finds .. i.e. "... found at a Holocene (about 10,000 years ago)..." as not all your readers are going to be familiar with the time frames. Might also mention the specific date ranges for the mentioned fossil finds also.

Done I've added approximate times, can't do more accurately than that from available sources

• Taxonomy section, fifth paragraph .. "The specific..." I know you have specific wikilinked, but might put in a capsule explanation.

Done now sentence just starts with Eremita is -is that clearer?

• Description section .. colonial ibis? What are those? And how do they differ from other varieties?

Done expanded - and, as with other ibises that breed in colonies, have longer bills. The longer-billed males are more successful in attracting a mate. Non-colonial ibis males wouldn't be competing so directly, so it would be less relevant

• Overall, capsule explanations for some of the wikilinked terms wouldn't go amiss. Such as "nominate form"

Done nominate (first-named) form now. I couldn't see any others not already fixed, but let me know if I've missed anything

• Do they attract new mates each year or do they bond for a few years or do they bond for life?

Done added that they pair for life

• Conservation status ... second paragraph the sentence starting "These include significantly human persecution, especially hunting,..." do you mean "Significantly, these include..." or "These include significant human ..."? It's unclear from the context, but the sentence is awkward as it stands.

Done grammatical error fixed and a redundant human chopped, now These include significant human persecution, especially hunting, and also the loss of steppe and non-intensive agricultural areas (particularly in Morocco), pesticide poisoning, disturbance, and dam construction.

• Reintroductions section, last sentences... "In future captive breeding and releasing programmes, only birds of known origin should be used.[11] 850 birds in"... the 850 birds in bit is just tacked on there, is it a remnant of editing?

Done just stray debris

I'll be happy to support when the above concerns are taken care of. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and comments, jimfbleak (talk) 07:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

The prose is still a bit dry, but it's acceptable and works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look again in the morning to see if there are things I can improve jimfbleak (talk) 15:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [34].

---

USS Iowa (BB-61)

Nominator(s): TomStar81 (Talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because from where I sit it still meets all FA-established criteria. I do know that there are a few things left that need addressing, but I think I can handle those without too much trouble. I wish to thank Cla68 (talk · contribs), he helped get the article concerning the turret explosion through FAC, and validated this article's sources on the explosion for this FAC attempt. TomStar81 (Talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Links for ref 20 and 47 are dead. Several dabs require fixing. - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Links are fixed. Of the dabs I have fixed all but four; two (USS Iowa and Evasive action) are false positives, USS Iowa is a dab because established procedures at SHIPS demand a bad link for other ships sharing the same name, and evasive action links to abad page where the term is explained. The other two dabs (Thomas Hayward and Captain) I can not seem to locate, so I will try again later. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • All dab links save the two execptions noted above are fixed. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.
  • I must be honest and state that I actually have no idea what the problem is here, nor do I know how to fix it. It would seem to me that since the citation templates are suppose to cover all aspects of sourcing citation that there should be no trouble mixing one type of template with another, however it appears that my understanding of the policies is in fact incorrect. Could you clarify what needs to be done to resolve this problem? TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that Jappalang (talk · contribs) just corrected this problem, if you would check to be sure that would be awesome. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
• The following deadlinked:
  • http://www.cedarland.org/war.html
    • As it happens this article can do nicely without this link, so I replaced it with the DANFS link for New Jersey. Thank you for bringing this to my attention though, because the cederland link provides a lot of information in the Lebanese civil war section for the battleship New Jersey, and will need to be replaced in the New Jersey article before any FT attempt. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • https://wrc.navair-rdte.navy.mil/warfighter_enc/aircraft/UAVs/pioneer.htm (Note that it's just a link title in the refs also, so would need to give a publisher and a last access date)
    • Replaced this with a functional link and added the remaining parameters as requested. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_tanker.html
    • DId you overlook this one? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, just been looking for a suitable replacement, and it would appear I found one. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• What is "All Hands, October 1985, pg 40"? A publication? I see later that there is a link to a pdf of it, so it's a magazine. The references to this magazine need to be formatted like a magazine, with authors when known, the magazine title in italics, the publisher of the magazine (I presume the US Navy), etc.
  • I actually tried to get as much of that as was possible down, but in many cases I couldn't find things like the author and such. I will look into addressing the remain problems forthwith. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • How's this coming? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Slow. The Library on the UTEP campus is operating on a restricted access shedual to allow the computer techs and library staff to overhaul the network system and reorganize the library layout, respectively, and at the moment the library basement (the area where the magazines in question are stored) is off limits while the work continues. At this moment it appears that the are will remain closed until school restarts, so I may be unable to adequately address this issue until sometime next week. I want to assure you though that I am working on it, its just at this moment the circumstances surrounding the use of this source have turned against me. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Heh. I'm familiar with the universe conspiring against you! Just wanted to check in on things. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Newspaper titles should be in italics, you can use the work field in the template to accomplish this.
  • It appears that all links are now italics, so I beleive this has been addressed. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per the MOS, link titles shouldn't be in all capitals, even when they are in the original (even just parts of the title).
  • I think I found and correct all of capitalization errors. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 40 (Mark 7..) is lacking a publisher
  • Likewise, did you overlook this one? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Iowa-26-03-2006.jpg - I'm unsure precisely who is releasing the rights to this image. Ken Freeze needs to, but I am not sure if he is the uploader.
• File:Wfm suisun navy nest closeup.jpg - We need a link to the source and a date, if possible. Right now, we cannot verify the license.

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Both images have been replaced. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:08, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Could you please list the replacements here so that I can check them? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The new images are File:USS Iowa (BB-61) decommissions.jpg and File:Mothballfleet suisunbay.jpg. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
        • File:Mothballfleet suisunbay.jpg - Please add a description, source, date, and author for this image. Awadewit (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I do not have that information, so I just removed the image altogether. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
            • All remaining images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy there Hi Tomstar, nice read, but what's a TF 77 as in "was operating with TF 77,"? Also can we have more details on crew sizes, we have "Complement: 151 officers, 2637 enlisted" but not the year that statistic applied and how much that changed with the various refits. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just this second gotten into the house, and we are about to leave for dinner, but I can answer your TF question: TF 77 is short for Task Force 77, a naval surface group that would have been composed of battleships, cruisers, destroyers, brigates, carriers, or some combination there of. On the other issues, yours included, I will begin looking into fixes this evening or tomorrow, circumstances permitting.

As it happens we have a page on Task Forces with a whole section devoted to the USN task force concept, so I have linked that term for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:46, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• The pages in citations are inconsistent, mixing pg. and p. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. I have also dash copyedited the references. Cam ^(Chat) 02:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comment Can you wikilink "Shakedown" to something that explains the term? Some non-military people (like me) have no idea what that term means. It is military jargon that should be either defined or replaced with another more encyclopedic term. NancyHeise ^talk 03:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I can link shakedown for you, but since I am familiar enough with the jargon terminology I regret to inform that it doesn't register as needing a link unless someone points out the words in question. To compensate for this, I would offer to link or rplace all such words in the article if you would bring them to my attention here. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see you linked it already, that's great and is enough for me and I'm striking my comment. I am sorry I have not been able to offer a more in-depth review, I have been a little busy this week but I will try to spend some more time on the article later this evening. NancyHeise ^talk 19:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I myself am a collage student and am thus well aquantied with the word "busy". We do what we can when we can, and that is what matters :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I really like this article, it is full of great facts but it needs some more work before I can support it for FA. Here is a list:

1)Prose. Many sentences are in need of punctuation corrections and rewordings to eliminate run-on sentences. I started to go through the article and have spent an hour making some corrections but it needs more work.

I am actualy famous for my various sp&g issues, so this does not suprise me. To be fair, insofar as prose is concerned, this is my weak spot; I depend on other to make sure all is well in an article. This is the one area that I am genuinely unable to assist in, but I will put in a request for a copyedit at the milhist special projects department, noting you concerns, and see if someone would be willing to look the article over. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

2)Some facts are accurate but do not help make the article meet the "brilliant" criteria. For instance,

As flagship of Battleship Division 7, Iowa departed the United States 2 January 1944 for the Pacific Ocean, transiting the Panama Canal on 7 January in advance of her combat debut in the campaign for the Marshall Islands. From 29 January to 3 February, she supported carrier air strikes made by Rear Admiral Frederick C. Sherman's Task Group 38.3 against Kwajalein and Eniwetok Atolls

this information is long and boring and could be reduced to

In 1944, under the command of Rear Admiral Sherman's Task Group and as flagship of Battleship Division 7, Iowa supported carrier air strikes against Kwajalein and Eniwetok Atolls

I think it is necessary to take a more in-depth look at the article and see where these kinds of facts and sentences can be trimmed to improve readability. I can help with prose and rewordings if you would like my help but I can not offer that help in depth right now. NancyHeise ^talk 19:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I repect your opinion on this particular manner, but I have never had a complaint of this nature before and would like to wait a few days to see if anyone else agrees with you analysis of the presentation of certain information is "long and boring." If others concur then I will see about rewording the article to address this concern, though I must confess that I am reluctant to do so since I pride myself on writing the articles to this technical degree. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, sometimes one person's personal opinions are just that and we have to remember that FAC criteria support brilliant prose which could be interpreted in different ways. For a military subject like this one, more detaild "militaristic" language might be preferred by most. I am not one to block an article's advancement to FAC based on one person's personal opinions. I will continue my copyedit of the article, please feel free to revert my edits if you disagree. Thanks. NancyHeise ^talk 16:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have finished a copy edit of the entire article. It looks good but there were a couple of uncited sections that you need to ref (see my last edit to the page today). NancyHeise ^talk 19:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well written, heavily cited. No objections from me. Cam ^(Chat) 03:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Nice article and I am sure this should attain FA soon. I somewhat agree with NancyHeise, at least that the shakedown section seems a bit long and to have perhaps more blow-by-blow details than necessarily, though i don't feel strongly about it. But I like the mention of transiting the Panama Canal which Nancy's proposed edit would cut. If it stays at its current length, I think the shakedown section needs a summary, topic sentence to describe what the section will say, rather than proceeding step by step as it does. Some wording suggestions, perhaps ones of type that Nancy would like to have addressed:
  • Among the vessels escorting Iowa on this trip was the Fletcher-class destroyer USS William D. Porter (DD-579) which had already been involved in a major mishap the night before when her anchor tore the railing and lifeboat mounts off of a docked sister destroyer while backing up. Perhaps: "Among the vessels escorting Iowa on this trip was the Fletcher-class destroyer USS William D. Porter (DD-579). The night before joining Iowa, Porter had a major mishap: while backing up, her anchor tore the railing and lifeboat mounts off of a docked sister destroyer."
  • Fires occurred in three carriers when planes broke loose in their hangars and some 146 planes on various ships were lost or damaged beyond economical repair by fires, impact damage, or by being swept overboard. Did the planes breaking loose cause the fires? And split into at least 2 sentences, otherwise "when" is not clear. Perhaps: "Planes breaking loose caused fires in three carriers. In total, approximately 146 planes were lost overboard or damaged beyond economical repair by fires or by impact damage." Was reworded. --Doncram
  • Iowa continued to support fast carrier strikes until the cessation of hostilities on 15 August as a result of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There seemed to me to be a few too many sentences constructed like this with "as a result of" or other phrases extending a sentence when it could have just stopped. For this one, perhaps (though not necessarily better): "Iowa continued to support fast carrier strikes until the atomic bomb drops on Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to cessation of hostilities on August 15."
  • While in the bay she received a number of sailors from sister ship Missouri who were temporarily transferred to Iowa for the duration of the surrender ceremony aboard Missouri. Reword to avoid saying both that the sailors were received and also were transfered: it was one transfer. Was reworded. --Doncram
  • After serving as Admiral Halsey's flagship for the surrender ceremony on 2 September 1945, Iowa remained in the bay as part of the occupying force. As part of the ongoing Operation Magic Carpet, she received homeward bound GIs and liberated US POWs before departing Tokyo Bay on 20 September, bound for the United States.... I'd prefer avoiding "as part of" twice in a row.

Hope this helps! doncram (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Every little bit helps :) I was just about to log off when i spotted this in the watchlist, I will look into it tommorow (I was up early this morning and am now struggling to stay awake). TomStar81 (Talk) 04:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Okay, good. Addendum: The intro sets up that there will be one combat tour in the Atlantic, but I don't find out which is that tour. Was that the anti-Tirpitz trip, or the presidential transport trip? And it didn't actually engage in any combat, as far as I see, so saying it was on a combat tour may be technically correct but seems a bit misleading. Perhaps explain along the lines of: "Although Iowa did not engage an enemy ship, this tour is regarded as a combat tour because it traversed a combat sector." doncram (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC) I see that the combat tour language has been dropped from the intro, resolving this. doncram (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Concern was raised during GA Review that the armament section is inappropriately sited in the construction section. I agree. The parent article Iowa class battleship has an excellent armament section that it would do well to link to in a summary style section. That there were adjustments to the armament could come either in the Armament section itself, or in some kind of Refitting section, it which all modifications done to the ship over the years could be placed. SilkTork *^YES! 10:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is linked to via summary style: the article Armament of the Iowa class battleship, linked to at the top of the construction section, deals with the details of the gun and missile batteries in a vastly superior quantity. A discussion of the original guns is needed in the construction section because the battleship was constructed to use those guns before she put to sea. If need be I can cut the discussion of the '84 refit weaponry from the construction section and leave the description to the reactivation section. Would that be acceptable? TomStar81 (Talk) 20:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

There are various choices to be made about what goes in the construction section to be sure. I noticed in Iowa_class_battleship#Birth_of_the_Iowa_class that there is mention of it being built to a Panamax size. Also, as this was the lead ship of her class, some sense of the dimensions and general equipment would be useful, as the other ships in the class would be based on the Iowa template.

I notice that the Infobox has the date of the adjusted armament as 1982, yet it appears from the text that the guns were adjusted toward the end of the 1982-1984 refit.

I think it would be helpful to remove the details of the later guns from the construction section - though I still think that a distinct section on armament with a mention of the original guns and the changes would be useful.SilkTork *^YES! 22:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

On point 1: information concerning the class as a whole is located on the class page so that we can aviod as best as possible having to repeat the information in the articles themselves. This helps keep the individual battleship articles focused on each battleship's specific carreer. If you would like to add the panamax mention then I will do it, but try to come up with one or two other things that would be worth mentioning so I can create a paragraph rather than adding one ackward line.

Adjusted infobox date to read 1984.

Done. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to make it clear that I am not opposing, and that my comments should not be seen as an objection to this article being an FA, but simply an observation. I came here via a GA comment, and felt it appropriate to raise the issue of the way the Construction section was written, as I agree with the concern. The feeling is that a section that is termed "construction" should be concerned with matters related to construction; at present the section is mostly about armament. It would seem more helpful to have matters related to armament put into a section called Armament. Having raised this as a comment rather than an objection, the matter is simply here as a matter of record, and it is the decision of those involved in writing and reviewing the article what to do about it - and that could include ignoring the concern. If Tom is having difficulty finding information related to the Construction to put into that section, then an option is simply dropping the Construction section and moving the bulk of the material to an Armament section. However, this has some details of the construction; a little more here and here, in which it mentions that asbestos was used in the construction - so it seems that there is material out there which can be found reasonably quickly and easily. The USS Iowa at War book appears to have some information on the construction with the tantalising phrase "The Iowa was a brand-new concept in battleship construction." I hope this is helpful, and is what Tom wanted. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 11:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - a well written article with adequate referencing. -MBK₀₀₄ 07:43, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please have a fresh set of eyes go through the article carefully. I'm finding measurements (miles) with missing conversions, and inconsistent use of hyphens (sometimes on 16 inch, sometimes not, for example). Perhaps Epbr123 (talk · contribs) will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Got it. I will get on this ASAP. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I have added the missing conversion templates, and am in the process of going over the hyphens for the article. Cam ^(Chat) 16:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
      • FYI: Epbr123 has also checked the article and made some tweaks concerning the conversion templates. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - copy-edits have done wonders for an already excellent article. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Please google "use of however" and follow suggestions.[35] [Our overinclusive blacklist will not allow me to add the other cite, which is first in the results.} After a semicolon, "but" will do just fine in place of "however" (or change semicolon to full stop). Kablammo (talk) 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to address this particular issue just yet because this is as noted above the last article in what me and others hope will become an FT. Since you comment will likely have more merit on all of the articles rather than just this one article I wonder if you would mind me moving a copy of your comment to the FT "war room" so the others involved in the effort can add this to the FT todo list. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure why this shouldn't be addressed in this article; perhaps Maralia worked on this during her ce? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I've just done an audit for 'howevers'. Maralia (talk) 03:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, no, you misunderstand: I am going to address this, but the means by which I was planning to address it are to go through all six of the articles at the same time to locate all instances and address the however issue raised above. I was planning to do handle the however issue in this manner because I am sure that if its a problem in this article it will be a problem in the other Iowa class battleship articles as well. I would rather not split the work up and force people to come back and fix the other three to five articles later when I could ask a few good editors to look at all the articles all at once and correct this problem in one single pass. That was my plan, anyway, but if it impedes the promotion of this article to FA class I am willing to revise this plan. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Almost ready to support I've given this a copyedit. I left a couple of inline comments that need to be addressed. There's one inconsistency in subsection levels: why is Post World War II 2nd level, but Post Korean War is 3rd level? Maralia (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably owing to size. WWII sections always seem to have more info than Korean War sections, so I tend to break out Post WWII as a two level header and post Korea a 3 level header. This is one of a number of uniformity edits that I plan to address ahead of the FT nom. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I located and addressed two hidden notes left in the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Lean support some minor things make me hesitant to fully support. However, I see nothing to keep the article from being an FA. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [36].

---

The Swimming Hole

Nominator(s): Raul654 (talk)

This is a little something I started last month after seeing it red-linked from Wikipedia:ACF Regionals answers. Modernist and JNW have been helping me to polish and expand it. Now I think it's ready to be a featured article. Raul654 (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.artchive.com/artchive/E/eakins/swimming_hole.jpg.html
  • http://blogs.princeton.edu/wri152-3/f05/jcfields/cezannes_male_bathers.html (this ref, current ref 5, also needs a pubisher and to have the access date moved out of the link title)
  • http://www.glbtq.com/arts/eakins_t.html (This ref, current ref 7) needs to list the author, publisher and last access dates also.

Reply Removed the above three refs; latter two can be seen as superfluous; will find another ref for dimensions. JNW (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 2 (Goodrich et. al.) the magazine title should be italicised and it needs a last access date.

Check. Goodrich ref is explained both in cite and under sources. JNW (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 6 (Aimee Brown price) magazine title should be italicised, and needs a last access date

Check Italicized and dated. JNW (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 8 (Figliano...) needs to have the bibliopgrahical information not in the link title. This is a journal, correct? Then the article title goes in quotation marks, the journal in italics, etc.
  • Done. Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 9 (Martin A Berger...) needs to be formatted like a journal article. Needs a last access date also.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "formatted like a journal article". Done? Raul654 (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I took care of it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 11 (Sidney Kirkpatrick...) is a book, why does it have a last access date?

Check. JNW (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sources, shouldn't they be alphabetical?

Check. JNW (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 12, (Tom Lubbock..) is this a newspaper article? Needs a last access date, newspaper needs to be in italics.
• Current ref 13 (Eakin's...) needs a last access date

Check. JNW (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 14 (Darrell Sewell..) is this a book? If so, title in italics, etc.

Check Italicized. JNW (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some of your references, you use a short form but some you don't, even when they are in the Sources section. You need to be consistent and use the short form all the time.
• Current ref 16 (Grace Clueck...) newspaper titles go in italics.

Done. JNW (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• What is "Sewell, Marc Simpson, 2001" Is it a book? If so, it's not listed in the sources, so I need more bilbiopgraphical information on it.

Check. Refers to 2001 book. I've simplified the various authors now as 'et al'. JNW (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 19 (William Innes Homer...) book title should be in italics

Check. Italics done. JNW (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 22 (Some Recently ...) is this a journal article? Author should be first, also. If it's a journal article, see above ... title in quotes, journal title in italics, needs last access date.
• Current ref 24 (Foster, Kathleen A...) Shouldn't the author be first name first to be consistent with the rest of the refs? Needs a last access date also.
• Current ref 25 (Doreen Bolger...) is a journal, same deal as above...
• What is "Sewell, Kathleen A. Foster, 2001"?

Check. Refers to 2001 book. I've simplified the various authors now as 'et al'. JNW (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

New problem - current ref 1 (Doreeen Bolger...) needs a last access date. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Raul654 (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Sketch of harry thomas eakins.jpeg - "Scan from art book" is not the best description of the source from which this image was scanned. WP:IUP suggests that we provide a full bibliographic citation for sources; note that it says "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)".
  • Done, we decided to lose this image until a better source shows itself...Modernist (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Note - I think I've found the source from which this picture was scanned. I'll know more tomorrow. Raul654 (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
      • My hunch panned out. The dog now has a source and I've restored it to the article. Raul654 (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Well done..Modernist (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I see User:Jappalang finished filling out the citation. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Study for swimming thomas eakins.jpeg - Ditto.
  • Done, switched source to online image from the Hirshhorn Museum...Modernist (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully this should be easy to fix. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, changed one..the others are okay...Modernist (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Finally, my chance has come to review an article by the FA director himself. As someone with no prior knowledge of the topic, I must say that the page reads well overall. Here is an initial round of suggestions.

• Perhaps move reference 1 after the dash. Not sure whether the rules on placing cites after punctuation apply to dashes, though.
  • WP:FN, footnotes go after all punctuation except dashes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Never mind. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• Title and composition: two identical Mill Creek links here. I think the latter can be chopped.
  • Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
• Studies: "recent scholarship has proposed that marks incised onto the canvas and later covered by paint evidence that Eakins made use of projected photographs." Not sure if "evidence" is the right word; I think that "indicate" would read better.

Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• "All six men appear in the sketch, as does the dog and the background foliage." Should this be "as do"? The dog and the foliage are plural when put together. I believe "does" is singular, but am not entirely sure on that one.

Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Provenance: Is it Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts or Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts? The former is used in this section, while the latter is used in the lead.

Done. JNW (talk) 06:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• The $10 million figure needs a non-breaking space, like the one I left here.

Done. Raul654 (talk) 06:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Some inconsistencies exist in the references. Most don't have access dates; one has the access date, and publisher, as part of the title. Also, The New York Times and The Independent, as printed publications, need italics. And give ref 16 an en dash.
  • Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to support this after these are responded to. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe all objections have been resolved. Raul654 (talk) 08:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're right. Support. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support (as VA project member and copy editor during the pre-FAC drive) with two comments. I'd be in favour for a page move to Swimming (painting) per the reasoning below, and I still think the lead is over cited. Otherwise very fine work all. Ceoil (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Its very good, but can ye cite the first two captions in the Title and composition section (statements are "evidences the influence of a classical conceit" & "Eakins may have seen this painting while studying in Paris.") Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The caption statements repeat cited claims made in that section of the article. Hope that's sufficient. JNW (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Might be safer to duplicate the refs (I know, I know). Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The opening para tells us that the painting is an important work, but not why. Ceoil (talk) 18:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cited the captions--I think it's overkill, but if the guidelines call for it... JNW (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, though I do agree with you, I'm just playing devils advocate here. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why does the lead have 8 citations; if the statments are developed in the article body there is no need to cite so early (quotes are the exception, I think). I rereading now and making minor ce's.

• • There are some surprising declarative statements in the lead that are cited; like Eakins took advantage of an exception to the generally prudish Victorian attitude to nudity, in that, for men and boys, swimming naked was widely accepted that needed a cite..although the original statement didn't specify men and boys, just swimming naked. Modernist (talk) 01:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  "Eakins's choices for the composition were notable in several respects" - and only two respects following. Many critics have noted that each figure is positioned or angled so that no genitalia are visible - Is this unusual / notable.

  There's six naked guys in the picture and there's not a single penis visible. That's not an accident. Or as Bolger put it, Eakins gave them a "metaphorical fig leaf". That's certainly relevant. Raul654 (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  I sure in the 19th century simillarly coy pics were not unusual. Either way ye need to be more explicit about this. Were deptctions of naked guys common in high / pop art, did they usually get it out, who by, which schools etc. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  I think you are assuming academic artists of the period were more prudish than they actually were. Bolger 14 says that artists of the period liked painting nudes because of its challenge, but could find few scenarios in contemporary life to depict them and that Eakins had to search hard to find one. Bolger 15 says that in 1882 Fairman Rogers (then head of the PA Academy of Fine Arts) revised the PA Academy of Fine Art's curriculum to emphasize nude paintings. In the school circular, he wrote "The course of study is believe to be more thorough than that of any existing school. Its basis is the nude human figure." Does that satisfy you? Raul654 (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  PS - I've added a few more facts about the compositional choices. Raul654 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

  pps I'm not assuming anything is my point. I just want ye to be more explicit in yer reasoning. I'm not questioning the validity, I'm just drawing you out to state what is obvious to you but vague to the general reader. The article is very close otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have a little trouble with the "Eakins's choices for the composition were notable in several respects" passage, too, though I'm not sure of the solution. The opening, that of the diver, is such a strong start that the subsequent points seem too prosaic. The hidden genitalia are not so unusual; Eakins's contemporaries got around that by not painting the male entirely nude. It's just that given his leap of painting so many male nudes here, it seems unusual. I think if that point is to be made, maybe it needs heavier artillery, along the lines of what is mentioned under 'interpretation' re: how he broke with tradition. The points about the reflections are interesting, but not so noteworthy by comparison. All told, it looks very good. JNW (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fleshed the passage out a bit (pun intended?), and I think it holds together better. Further improvements welcomed! JNW (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Took out the "several respects" claim. The text did only idicates two respects, which makes me wonder if five aspects are missing. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten that line again, so that it refers to composition but also to other appropriate themes. JNW (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What digs at me now is the following passage, that of In 2008, the art critic Tom Lubbock described Eakins's painting as "a classic of American painting... it's great, but I wonder if the section has expanded so that it now breaks the flow. My question is whether there might be a better place for it. If not, I'm not averse to keeping it where it is. JNW (talk) 02:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

One possibility would be to include a detail of the painting, using Lubbock's words as a caption, possibly in the final section, in place of one of the current images. Any thought? And if there's a concurrence, does anyone know how to do the photoshopping? JNW (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure this article needs another picture (it's already got quite a lot), but if you need photoshopping, I can do it for you. Raul654 (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it's got plenty already, that's why I was suggesting moving it under interpretation, in place of one of your photos of the lake, primarily because I think the Lubbock quote would 'finish' the article nicely. Since you contributed both the quote and the present-day photos, your input on this is most valuable. JNW (talk) 03:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's finished now, and that at this point we're pulling at loose threads ;)

More seriously, I'm OK with removing one of the present day lake pics. I don't have strong feelings toward the Lubbock quote - it could reasonably go in the intro or in the interpretation section. Raul654 (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You may very well be right re: loose threads--is there a Wikipedia essay on that? I was having fun with the idea, as more window dressing, but I'm content to leave that thread hanging. We can mull it over. However, I do think the title question is a good one--besides it being a pain to change it now, wouldn't it make sense for it to be called Swimming? JNW (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I see you've begun this: [37]. Well done! JNW (talk) 03:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

About the title - first, you're right about it being a pain in the butt. There's quite a lot of links to this article using its current title. Worse, there's already an article called Swimming, so if we do rename it, we'd end up having to rename it to something like Swimming (painting). Second, while 'Swimming' is arguably more accurate in that it more closely corresponds to the artist's original intentional, 'The Swimming Hole' is by far and away the most common name for the work. So - all things being equal, a good case could be made for either name. But all things are not equal, because 'Swimming' would be difficultly to rename the article to - and needlessly so.

As for the Agnew clinic, yea, I think that might be my next project, if I can find a good source or two. :) Raul654 (talk) 03:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah a detail with Lubbock's quote would be a good move, IMO. Ceoil (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So long as it doesn't focus only on the standing figure's backside... JNW (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ask Lith ot Ty, would be my best suggestions here. Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to Tyrenius. In the meantime, the move to the opening looks like an improvement. Thanks. I also think you raised a question which ought to invite discussion here: if the painting is now entitled Swimming again, should not the article's title reflect that? JNW (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Interested in the responces, JNW. Ceoil (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Comment I am in favor of a name change...Swimming (painting) would work...Modernist (talk) 03:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to make sense. JNW (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment There are some sentences that are entirely quotations with no attribution, which I find awkward. I think it's one thing to complete a thought using an unattributed clause—for example, "Each of the men is looking at the water, 'apparently lost in a contemplative moment.'"—but in the cases I'm talking about, the article falls into someone else's voice for an extended period, and we don't even know whose! Examples:
  • " 'In both expositions, it apparently garnered a resounding critical silence. During the following three decades, likely no one beyond the painter's immediate circle of family and friends saw the painting. Nor is there any extant anecdotal or pictorial data to testify to the painter's sense of the work during these years... The painting simply failed to register in any significant, public way during Eakins' lifetime.' "
  • In this case, I don't know if the quotation mark is in error--there's no ending quotation mark--but an ellipsis follows it. " 'The range of surviving images suggests that Eakins was exploring several possible topics involving groups of male nudes, rather than posing figures for particular compositions... But none of the poses seen in the extant swimming photographs appear in the painting, nor are the viewpoints, framing, or composition of the landscape in those photographs (which are taken from three different spots) exactly repeated in the final composition of the oil. The divergence between these sets of images may hint at lost or destroyed pictures, or it may tell us that the photographs came first, before Eakins's mental image had crystallized, and before the execution of his first oil sketch.[27]"
• –Outriggr § 06:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For the last example I've added the missing quotation marks to the end of the cited text. These are long passages in which writers are quoted, but each example has been cited, attributing authorship. Would you suggest shortening these, naming the authors more explicitly in the article ("Witherspoon notes that the painting...") or re-writing some or all of the text in our own words? I think these are Raul's contributions, so his thoughts would be welcome, too. JNW (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that Outrigger is referring to quotations from secondary sources which are a full sentence or longer. (FWIW, I'm planning to add the text of Coates's rejection letter soon - another primary source). There are three such quotations in the article, which I don't consider excessive. They are "The range of surviving images ... oil sketch", "In both expositions ... Eakins' lifetime", and "The restoration revealed relatively ... landscape elements". I added these as quotations because I didn't feel comfortable that I could paragraph them without repeating them nearly word-for-word or otherwise modifying the meaning. I've gone ahead and pruned down the first of these quotes. Raul654 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed down the first quote, moved the secondinto a footnote, and added explicit attribution to the third. Raul654 (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind if I tried to trim further? You are welcome to revert if I mave a hash of it and loose meaning. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Raul654 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I cut Coates's politeness and apologia; the Eakins is ok as it stands - its to the point and inciteful. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - The prose of this article leaves something to be desired. Let me analyze two passages to illustrate the kinds of issues that need to be addressed:

First paragraph of the lead

• The Swimming Hole is a painting of 1884–85 by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844–1916), in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The painting was executed in oil on canvas and measures 70 × 92 cm (27 × 36 inches). - Rather than saying "is a painting of" and then repeating "the painting" in the next sentence, it would be better to say "The Swimming Hole is an oil painting by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844-1916), in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. Finished in 1885, it measures 70 × 92 cm (27 × 36 inches)" (or something along those lines).
  • Fixed. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Swimming Hole is regarded as a masterpiece of American painting. According to the critic Doreen Bolger it is "perhaps Eakins's most accomplished rendition of the nude figure", and has been called "the most finely designed of all his outdoor pictures". - The quotations that follow "regarded as a masterpiece of American painting" do not explain this claim - the quotations explain why it is one of Eakins's masterpieces.
  • The quotations are not there to explain the "masterpiece" claim - that's what ref #1 (to Bolger VII) is there for. The quotations simply expand on the theme. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • But that is precisely the problem - nothing explains the "masterpiece" claim. Why is this painting considered a masterpiece of American painting? The reader is just left hanging. The paragraph suddenly moves on to a new topic - why this is a masterpiece among Eakins's works. Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • The articles masterpiece claim reads clear to me, I confess that I do not understand why it is not crystal clear to you. It reads perhaps Eakins's most accomplished rendition of the nude figure",[2] and has been called "the most finely designed of all his outdoor pictures I think that does describe what a masterpiece by Eakins would be...whose oeuvre was the human figure. Modernist (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
• Since the Renaissance the human body had been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art, yet for Eakins this picture offered an opportunity to display his mastery of the human form. - The meaning of this sentence is unclear - does it mean "During the nineteenth century, the human body was considered the most challenging subject to depict in art" or does it mean "Since the Renaissance, the human body has been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art"?
  • The answer is, at least to me, obviously the latter. I don't understand how you can read the quoted sentence and think it's the former. Raul654 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The version in the article is confusing because of the verb tense. "Had been" suggests that from the Renaissance until the nineteenth century, the human body had been considered the most challenging subject, but that it is no longer considered so. However, the crucial "nineteenth century" bit is missing from the sentence. If you mean to say that "since the Renaissance" (meaning "up to the present day"), you should use "has been". Awadewit (talk) 20:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ok, I've switched it to "has been". Raul654 (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• ''Since the Renaissance the human body had been considered the most challenging subject to depict in art, yet for Eakins this picture offered an opportunity to display his mastery of the human form. - "yet" is used incorrectly
  • Fixed by Modernist. Raul654 (talk) 02:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The work's depiction of six men skinny dipping represented a subject—the study of the nude—which was the centerpiece of Eakins's teaching program at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts. - convoluted
  • Fixed by slight re-arranging. Raul654 (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would have started the lead this way:

The Swimming Hole (1884–85) is a painting by the American artist Thomas Eakins (1844–1916). It is executed in oil on canvas, and resides in the collection of the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, Texas. The painting depicts six men skinny dipping in a pristine lake, and is regarded as a masterpiece of American painting.

(Let me know if I'm still wanted around here.)  HWV258  02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph of "Interpretation"

• Though the painting has been viewed as a platonic vision of the male nude seen unselfconsciously in a natural setting, by the 1940s some American writers were beginning to see Eakins's work, and specifically The Swimming Hole, as having homoerotic implications. - It is not entirely clear who is having what views here - the first part of the sentence is unnecessarily passive and the second part simply mentions "American writers". I'm sure not all American writers felt this way. Because this is such a specific view, it is worth listing the names of the writers.
  • I've added a ref (#62) containing specific writers and works. Raul654 (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• In this respect, particular attention has been paid to the compositional prominence of the standing figure's buttocks, which has been interpreted as suggestive of "homoerotic interests". - "in this respect" is unnecessary; the passive voice is unnecessary again; who is putting forth this interpretation (note the unattributed quotation)?
  • I've dropped the "In this respect" and switched the sentence from passive to active voice. The person putting forth the quote is Adams, as given in the citation at the end of the sentence. Raul654 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• It has been proposed that The Swimming Hole marked the beginning of homoerotic imagery in American art. - This is a bold claim - in the passive voice! Who is proposing this?
  • Good question...Art historian Jonathan Weinberg in his book Male Desire: The Homoerotic in American Art...Modernist (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• Eakins left a record simultaneously provocative and ambiguous on matters of sex. Based on the same visual evidence, that of the photographs, oil sketches, and the finished painting of swimmers, art historians have drawn markedly varying conclusions as to the artist's intent. - "markedly varying" meaning the two interpretations offered here - classical and homoerotic? Those don't seem that different to me, especially since classical often bleeds into homoerotic, especially in nineteenth- and twentieth-century art.
  • Actually it seems to be an accurate statement - Adams interprets Eakins as an over the top gay artist obsessed with anal sex while most other art historians have varying degrees of differing opinions...some like Goodrich saying he was just a master of the nude, with little implications into his personal sex life...markedly differing opinions given the same evidence..Even if you are correct in pointing out that the classical often bleeds into the homoerotic, the markedly varied differences would still be there in the multiplicity of interpretations given the ambiguity of the record...Modernist (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that an uninvolved copyeditor go over the prose carefully as well as someone familiar with the MOS (I saw a lot of little MOS problems, like WP:DASH and whatnot). Epbr123 is a MOS guru. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I committed some of the aforementioned offenses; though greater specificity is requested, and would surely be of benefit, all of the statements are supported by cites. I could go in and attempt to clean these up, but am struck by the suggestion to have an 'uninvolved copyeditor' go over this. Please do. JNW (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Relax. Mos is a tough bag, but Epbr123 is most helpful. A polite request and likely s/he will help out; that editor is very much one of the hidden heroes of FAC, and just capabale of wonders. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Very much agreed re: Epbr. I'm done. JNW (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Epbr has done his (her?) pass through this article now. Raul654 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you found a copyeditor yet? Awadewit (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Tony1 to take a look. Raul654 (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Drop me a line on my talk page after the copyedit is finished and I'll revisit. Awadewit (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Amusing note - William Innes Homer (Eakins' most distinguished living biographer) is a professor at my University. I've emailed him and asked him for feedback on the article. Raul654 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I just got off the phone with Homer. He said it's a "good piece in general" and suggested fixing a couple of minor factual errors. (Calling Doreen Bolger a critic instead of art historian, and calling Eakins's Feb 15 1886 letter his resignation letter when in fact he resigned on Feb 9) Raul654 (talk) 16:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I know what "skinny dipping" is but I have never gone "skinning dipping" - but seriously, how about just "swimming naked"? Graham Colm ^Talk 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"Skinny dipping" versus "bathing naked" seems to be an American/British english thing (Americans say the former, Brits say the latter). I talked with Yomangan about it, and "swimming naked" seems to be a compromise that everyone can accept. That's what the article says now. Raul654 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Not in the Gallery: Eakins's students skinning dipping in Dove Lake, c. 1883–84 the others. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, "skinning dipping" - not skinny dipping. That is a typo that no one caught :) Raul654 (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Except me, best of luck with the FAC :-) Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - this image is on the cover of a book of Walt Whitman's poetry that I have had for many years. I find I keep returning to this article and each time I realise just how good it is. I am particularly impressed with the research (not original of course, but excellent) that has been undertaken. And, to find I can read an article three times or more without getting bored once, is my definition of engaging prose. At first I thought the amount of images was a little excessive, but no; each one adds to this comprehensive and fascinating article. I'm going to print this one and tuck it in the back of the Waltman book. I like to imagine the future when someone else picks up the book and discovers this treasure. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Thanks for your comments...Modernist (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've had a quick go at the lead, which I thought was pretty good already (we'd be pleased if all FAC leads were as good). I'll go through the rest soon. Tony (talk) 10:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Just lovely. I made a few minor punctuation tweaks. I'd like to see the presentation of long quotations standardized (the Bregler quote uses blockquote, while the lengthy Coates and Eakins quotes are presented in boxes with {{quotation}}). Maralia (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done...and thanks for your input...Modernist (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a couple comments, nothing major. Beautifully written.
  • "It has been noted that the reclining figure is a paraphrasing of the Dying Gaul, and is juxtaposed with the far less formal self-depiction by the artist." Can we change this to active voice and tell who noted? I can click the citation and see Sewell but we don't know if Sewell noted it or he wrote about someone else noting it.
  • "It is not unlikely ..." Not a huge fan of that phrase. It reminds me of when my daughter tells me I'm "not wrong".

• • Done...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I favor "Eakins'" over "Eakins's".

--Laser brain (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done...thanks for your comments...Modernist (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on picture size. It says '92.3 cm' which looks odd to me. I would put '923 mm'. Unfortunately, paintings on Wikipedia don't appear to have any consistency when it comes to formatting size units. Some don't have metric values at all. Lightmouse (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Of the ones that do have measurements, all of them that I have seen use centimeters, not millimeters. Raul654 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. For values that are in tenths of a cm, then it seems to make sense to use mm. However, the use of cm may fit with the general precision of larger paintings. So that brings me on to the matter of precision. If I were to measure a painting of that size and age, inside or outside a frame, I would probably expect precision to be 5 or 10 mm which would give us values of 920 mm or 925 mm (or cm equivalent). However, the metric dimensions are almost certainly conversions from the 1/8 inch non-metric dimensions and implying a precision of around 3 mm. If the non-metric value is the original, then can you check the arithmetic please, I get 924 mm. Lightmouse (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Most museums seem to use cm or inches on pictures this size...Modernist (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have changed the metric value from 92.3 cm to 92.4 cm to suit a conversion from the non-metric value. I don't trust the other values but I haven't checked them. Lightmouse (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment on language. Some of the language seems arcane and sometimes less than plain. For example, I think the term 'fellows' sounds out of date. I don't believe the claim for 'uniqueness' is true, if it means it is the only painting with naked men outdoors. It may be true but I would be surprised. The phrase 'Each of the men is looking at the water' doesn't seem to be true for the one diving and the one swimming. I hope you don't mind these comments. Lightmouse (talk) 23:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Actually the term fellows is from a direct quote from Tom Lubbock's February 2008 article, that is referenced.

• • There really are plenty of other paintings with naked male bathers - Cezanne for one; which was referenced..no claims of uniqueness here..although it is said to be unique for its time in American art. Thanks for your comments...Modernist (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes. I see now that 'fellows' is a quote. So 'unique for its time' sounds to me like 'first time'... Would I be right in concluding that it was the first time that the naked male form was shown in an outdoor setting in American art? Lightmouse (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, to my knowledge an important well known American painter like Eakins was considered to be breaking new ground there...by painting naked men swimming together outside..Modernist (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

As I suspected, there were more errors in the dimensions. There were also inconsistencies in whether each value had a unit label (cm or in) or whether the unit label was only after a pair of values. I believe I have corrected both these issues. The format of dimensions is still inconsistent: the main picture puts metric first and non-metric second after a comma. The other pictures put non-metric first and metric in parentheses. Parentheses are a better indication of which is the original value and I think the format in the main picture should be changed. Unfortunately, the comma format is hard-coded into the Infobox_Painting template. The painting template is also designed in such a way that it prevents the convert function being used and that is a shame because we have seen examples of manual conversion errors right here. I see that other people have suggested that the template should be modified. Please support the request for changes at Template_talk:Infobox_Painting#This_template_is_not_compatible_with_convert. Lightmouse (talk) 10:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments (I made some minor edits to the first versions, & on talk) Near support, but some comments above still may need dealing with, & like many above I am chary of some of the statements placing the nudity in a historical context:
• It would be as well to mention that drawing from the nude figure (live or casts of classical statues etc) had been the basis of the training of nearly all fine art painters for several centuries past, originating in the Italian Renaissance. It was no doubt the "most challenging subject" but it was a challenge all painters were used to facing. Many, like Eakins' contemporary Burne-Jones habitually painted all their figures nude first, then added the clothes.
• The caption to Arcadia says: "A painting which, like The Swimming Hole, evidences the influence of a classical conceit.[22]" which is a round-about way of saying "gives its subject a classical setting" or something (given the instruments). but how does 'The Swimming Hole evidence the influence of a classical conceit'? "Conceit" seems the wrong word here, whatever is meant.
• "The depiction of someone diving into water was nearly unprecedented in the history of Western art" - Ho-hum! It doesn't help that the earliest outstanding large Western painting we actually have (the Paestum Diver) shows just exactly this (and with penis flying free)! There are actually many more minor examples from naval battles, shipwreck scenes, background figures (Icarus in the Landscape with the Fall of Icarus) & so on, though as the subject of a major work it is certainly very rare. I think the phrasing should be toned down.
• "Prior to the mid-19th century, the subject of the male figure in Western art had long been reserved for classical subject matter. In the 19th century it was not unusual for boys and men to swim without clothing in public, but there was no precedent for this subject in American painting.[48] Although there was an informal convention for multiple-figure compositions featuring female nudes, such paintings were exhibited in saloons rather than galleries; Eakins altered the gender, and presented the subject as fine art.[49]" - Needs a "nude" at the start. I wasn't sure if "saloon" was meant to be "salon", but I guess not - it needs a link really, although the poor Western saloon seems to be all we have. The 3rd sentence needs extra clarification to stress that (if true) this was specifically an American issue - European galleries were already full of "multiple-figure compositions featuring female nudes" - like the two Titian poesies, which have been all but continuously in galleries since 1720-odd (see Orleans Collection).
• I wouldn't rename it - the change will no doubt take many years to percolate through to public awareness. If renamed it should go to Swimming (Eakins painting) I think.

Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an aside, I mentioned the novelty of nude male swimmers in American art of the period, not in the rest of the world of art, of Eakins time; that's why I linked the Cezanne bathers on the Talk page.. Certainly the nude - male and female has been treated in every period from the Ancients forward and I agree there is no particular franchise that Eakins had on the issue...as to the uniqueness of the diver in the painting; he's about to enter the water and Eakins does capture an almost cinematic feeling of movement. Although Icarus has sped by us too fast in the Bruegel to appreciate his dive and the wonderful figure in the Tomb of the Diver is in near perfect silhouette...Modernist (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Icarus is "diving"? That puts a new spin on his story. Yomangani^talk 10:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Well the Eakins' guy's technique is nothing to write home about either :) Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Either he is a sloppy diver or the painting of the rapidly moving body is error prone (see Horse_gait#Gallop). Incidentally, I noticed that five of the six men are arranged to form a visual triangle. But I couldn't see any reference to that but then I saw the phrase "The composition is pyramidal". This reinforces my earlier comment that the language is not plain English. I suggest replacing that phrase with "The painting contains a visual triangle in the centre made up of five of the six men." Or something like that. The more I look at the text, the more I notice that it contains useful information that is concealed because of the extra effort required to convert it into plain English. Lightmouse (talk) 12:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think a name change to Swimming (painting) makes sense because most of the recent books on Eakins refer to the painting as Swimming as does the museum that houses it...At this point it would seem like a natural move..Modernist (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

well, maybe, but it certainly needs "Eakins" in there (or "Thomas Eakins"). No doubt others have used the title (did he for any other works?), & with many people looking for a "hole" .... Johnbod (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Currently, all of the quotes and most of the titles of cited references in the article refer to The Swimming Hole. I'd leave it where it is and put in redirects for the other titles. No predicting what name will be en vogue in a few years time. Yomangani^talk 10:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. I have no expertise in this area, but it's an ambitious article done very well and a motivator for others to do the same. And I think the article name should stay as it is. My only quibble would be the quote box at the end of the lead section; I haven't seen that usage anywhere else, and it was a bit visually jarring to me. On the other hand, it does prepare the reader for the visual pattern the rest of the article will take. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I didn't find any problems except for there not being enough cats. :P But seriously, I didn't find any problems with the article. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support—Well done to Raul and Awadewit. I enjoyed reading it. Tony (talk) 14:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Lots of good stuff in it. Some of the useful messages are obscured by grand or arcane language. I would like to see more use of plain English so that it is more accessible to non-specialists. But I still vote support. Lightmouse (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [38].

---

Alaska class cruiser

Nominator(s): the ed17, La Pianista, IceUnshattered

Hello everyone! I've been working on this article since October-ish, and I think that it is finally ready after beautiful copy-edits from La Pianista and Icy, a little help on the side from Julian and Little Mountain 5 and the greatly appreciated offer from Colosseum to let me use a beautiful image he drew in the article. Anyway, stopping this before I violate WP:TLDR. :) Thanks and cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Aww, c'mon, I only made one edit! :P –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Every little bit helps... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, and I even messed up that edit. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Inconsistent date formatting in citations, some access dates are day month year, and others are ISO.

^ An example of a newer ship: "South Dakota". DANFS. Retrieved on 19 October 2008.

^ a b c d DiGiulian, Tony (2008-02-07). "12"/50 (30.5 cm) Mark 8". Navweaps.com. Retrieved on 2008-10-15.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Doing —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done - did a quick automated search through the document for hyphens. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 20:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Query Interesting read, there are a couple of red links, and can you dab San Pedro Bay to California or the Philippines? Also I'd like to see a little more on the crew apart from the three stats. ϢereSpielChequers 21:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done fixing the dab part after checking references. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No graphics in this, Pianista. See the rules at (?) WP:FAC. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • -_- I'm new here, folks. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • (@ WSC) The red links are articles that will be created eventually. Off the top of my head, they are only naval guns and superfire (which I promised to create in the A-class review...so many things to do, so little time!) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          • (@ WSC again) What would you like to see? I don't know if there is much, but I'll try to hunt something down... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Hi Ed, Well I was looking for a paragraph explaining how the crew varied in size over time and maybe a bit about their facilities and any famous people who served on them. But I can't find any other Wiki ship articles that cover that sort of issue so perhaps this is just my hobby horse, but there has to be a reason for those widely disparate crew sizes. ϢereSpielChequers 21:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Hey WSC lol. I still don't know what to make of the crew sizes. It seemed like every source I went to gave a different number... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
                • Is it possible that crew size varied over time, especially if they were projected crew sizes based on the various design configs? ϢereSpielChequers 00:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• (out) By 700?!? No way, unless the second part of your thought is correct. I really don't know what to do there. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:CB-1 Alaska Outboard Profile 1.gif - We need a reliable source for this diagram per WP:IUP.
• File:USS Alaska (CB-1) launching.jpg - The link to the source wasn't working for me today (what is it with this site?). Is it working for other people? Also, we need an author name. If the author is unknown, the "author" field should be marked "unknown".
• File:H41961.jpg - Can we link to the html page on which this image appears, instead of the jpg directly, as recommended by WP:IUP?
• In my opinion, the infobox is taking up too much space and intruding on the article. Is there any way to remove some of fields? Are they all really necessary?

• I see some fields have been removed. I still think it is a large infobox, but this is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, I was try to stay in line with other ship FA's here... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think that the image in the "Notes" section is distracting and I would recommend its removal.

These issues should be easy to resolve and I look forward to striking this objection quickly. Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know about that first one - I'll leave it to Ed17 to fix.
• Done - fixed link. Better? :)
• Done and Done (@ 00:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC), missed earlier) - through a quick advanced search via Google.
• I'm not sure - Ed17 should be back online sometime around 500 or 600 UTC.
• Done —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, got off of work 3 hours early and so I don't have to go to my friends' house right away.
• Going to the creator now through his site...may be a bit before he replies, who knows. =/
• Will look at and reply (infobox thought). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, and Awadewit - that site is really slow for me. Could it be your internet thinking that the server isn't responding? (Do you have slower internet that me?) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think I've fixed the link - it was broken earlier. There was a missing "www" in the url, but it works on my CPU now. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 00:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Alright, he e-mailed me back. According to him, the majority of his info for the image came from Conway's All The World's Fighting Ships 1922–1946, and I added that to the image. Is that enough? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• According to WP:IUP, "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information)". We need to provide enough information so that a user can find this source, if they want to. A title is not really enough. Awadewit (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ok, I believe that this has been done? Thanks for the help :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 07:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome (thanks for mentioning it!). Everything is in order. I'm striking the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 02:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: This is probably too trivial for the article, but as a resident of Alaska, I'm curious to what the popular reaction was to having a ship class named after the territory. Have you run across any sources that mention that? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have not run across any sources at all that discuss that...I don't think that there would have been much of a reaction to the class being named "Alaska", though - but the ship itself is a different story. :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.navweaps.com/
  • http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/BookDetail.aspx?BookId=SKU-000021005 (published by iUniverse, a "Supported Self-Publishing" press
• The following deadlinked:
  • http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/ca68.htm

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Done with the deadlink - I think it was supposed to link to http://hazegray.org/danfs/cruisers/ca68.txt , instead. Will see about the first two issues. Icy // ♫ 18:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't give any evidence to my defense (I can't find it), but I'm sure that navweaps was cleared by the RS noticeboard at some point. I'll keep hunting...

Humph. :) I'll try to find a different source. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

On navweapons.com

This particular site has been flagged before as being of questionable reliability, however the site has been ruled a reliable source by wikipedia's RS standards. The basis for this ruling was a result of the Montana class battleship FAC, which compelled the Military hisotry project coordinators to weigh in on the matter, and when that did not appease the crowd the issue was brought before the reliable sources noticeboard. It was then discovered that the author of the navweapons.com site had in fact been published in written mediums, and this coupled with the fact the pages on navweapons.com cite independent sources resulted in a ruling that the navweapons.com was acceptable for use as a reliable source on wikipedia. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Darn it...I knew that it was one of your FACs...I went through all of the Iowa class ships, the class' article and the armament article and couldn't find it...but I forgot about the Montana article. :) Thanks Tom! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Support - In no way were these ships "the last true dreadnoughts to fly the U.S. Flag". Nor does the cited source claim they do. The Land (talk) 13:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello The Land. I removed the sentence; does the rest of the article look satisfactory? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And having inserted the word 'some' into note A4, I'm very happy to support it. :-) The Land (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

*facepalm*...good catch. :) Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually looking at what Morison et al say, it might be more accurate to say in that footnote that there was confusion at the time as well. The 'cruiser or battlecruiser' section is pretty good overall. The Land (talk) 10:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Morison too much w/ Google Books lately and I can't view the required page...would you mind adding it? (I don't want to add something with a citation when I can't view said citation =/) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've tweaked it. Essentially, Morison is only taking about the confusion *at the time* - I assume that Worth provides justification for "some modern historians think they were battlecruisers"... Anyway, I am happy to support. The Land (talk) 10:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support w/question Were the 12"/50 caliber Mark 8 guns semi-automatic like the Des Moines-class heavy cruisers? TomStar81 (Talk) 06:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Slap me with a trout and correct me if need be, but weren't the Des Moines cruisers the first with big semi-automatic/rapid-fire guns? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 06:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the Des Moines page says they carried a new "type" of semi-automatic guns, not new semi automatic guns - the wording was ambiguous and to me suggested there had been an earlier type of semi-auto guns. They couldn't be battleship guns, so that leaves only a handful of other big gun ships that could have mounted semi-auto guns. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Well, on here it gives that as '8"/55RF Mark 16' ... no RF for any other large gun.
      • Then I saw "One of the few large-caliber automatic gun designs that proved reliable in actual service use, ..." Could DiGiulian be referring to a failed Brit or Japanese gun 8" gun? Well, he has to - a 12" gun is just too big - those shells get awfully big at these size guns, Tom, as I'm sure you know. :) maybe he means the 8"/55 Mark 71? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Or the 6-inch 47 dual purpose guns that were mounted on the Worcester-class cruisers?—Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 08:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Not sure. At the moment there is insufficient evidence to answer my question. I conclude that further research will be needed. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Lovely. Anyone have a copy of Naval Weapons of World War II on hand? =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. It appears that all of the concerns by reviewers above have been addressed. I believe you might consider including a little more detail in the article about the ships' war records, such as how many aircraft in total they claimed to have shot-down, but otherwise I believe it meets FA standards. Cla68 (talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why are the measurements in "Bofors 40mm anti-aircraft guns" and "Oerlikon 20mm anti-aircraft guns" unspaced; they are spaced on every other article I checked. They are also inconsistent in the infobox: sometimes a space before mm, sometimes not. Is there not a MilHist guideline? Consistency, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done, hoping that I didn't miss anything. Icy // ♫ 21:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Icy! However, Pianista reverted you along with some of GoldDragon's edits...darn her. :P I fixed that, so no worries. :) Thanks again! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yep, darn me. Sorry for that, Icy. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having a hard time with the prose in the first section (didn't read further); please have some fresh eyes review the prose:

• Heavy cruiser development was steadied between World War I and World War II by the terms of the Washington Naval Treaty and successor treaties and conferences. In this treaty, the United States, Britain, Japan, France, and Italy had agreed to limit heavy cruisers to 10,000 tons displacement with 8-inch main armament. U.S. cruisers designed between the wars followed this pattern. After the Treaty was effectively lapsed in 1939, the designs were slightly enlarged into the Baltimore-class cruiser.
  • was steadied? was effectively lapsed?
• I also found a typo on the infobox and little glitches. Another set of eyes would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments This does need a fair amount of MOS cleanup and prose tightening. I gave it a first pass copyedit/MOS workup, but I've skipped the entire armament section as I have a tremendous headache. Please revisit the presentation of armament names and conversions. The CommonsCat link ought to be moved to the External links section, and both of the See also links look like they should be evaluated for inclusion within the article text. Maralia (talk) 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Doing —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, to be more specific, doing the best I can. Please come back and check the work whenever I'm finished, or whenever you feel better. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 05:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'll have to leave this 'til tomorrow, as I'm busy in the morning and need the sleep. Apologies again. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 06:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the copyedit/MOS pass! Commonscat was moved by someone, but I would like to keep the "See also" - WP:LAYOUT has that there for a reason, and I don't want to include them in the article as they have absolutely nothing to do with why/how the development of the class...however, they are the only ships that are/were comparable to them! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone? :D —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:18, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I was too lazy to look at the history. :P —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - is there any way to improve the composition of the graphic design in the infobox? It looks really fuzzy at that size. Cam ^(Chat) 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Doing Yeah, it looks a little granular. I'll see what I can do with my little photoshop. ;) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • No. It has something to do with the way Wikipedia reduces images, I think. This is the reason why I have the "click image for higher detail" in there... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I knew that. :) I was just looking to see if I could help. Maybe you have a low-res version? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Nope...that was the only copy the creator made. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Hm. Well I guess then Not done - I've wrestled enough with Photoshop. And, with the little note, I believe that's at least...wait for it...remedial. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Remedial? —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Remedial to the blurriness, I mean. But, what the heck, Ed is always right, Ed is always right... *bows* —La Pianista ^(T•C) 04:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Crucial comment - recent edits have added information sourced to non-reliable sources, and removed information sourced to reliable sources that need to be dealt with immediately. -MBK₀₀₄ 22:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Question - I honestly do not want to sound uninformed, but how do I approach this? Message the user? Undo his edits? What is the accepted method of work? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 22:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
    • The best thing to do for the time being would be to revert back to the previous version and add the changes to the talk page. From there, you can work to locate reliable sources and then add the new information to the article. You can leave a message on Ed's talk page about this, or on the article talk page explaining why the edit was reversed. Alternatively, you can do nothing and the FAC will fail, but the benefit of this is that it will allow for additional time to locate and readd the material to an RS ahead of another FAC attempt. Given a choice, I would opt for the former, it means more post FAC work, bu the trade off is that the article receives a bronze star. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Doing - MBK's already messaged Ed, and I'll see what I can do. Thanks bunches, Tom - I was getting a little worried that it was going to fail because of my stupidity! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Done. I hope I handled it well. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
          • (@ post-FAC) - see what I did to USS Nevada (BB-36) after its FAC. ;)
          • (@ crucial, et al.) I've left my two cents on the talk page. I do not believe that I can reference any of that outside of the armor percentages... —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Rlevse • Talk • 12:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:CUP participant; Pool F (with me :) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 16:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the notice; this is exactly the sort of disclosure that should accompany WikiCup supports and opposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • ? —La Pianista ^(T•C) 01:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
        • This, I believe? Icy // ♫ 02:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Ah. In that case, I (re)disclose that I'm a participant as well. Sorry for missing that! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 02:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support Comments Nice work, and an interesting read. A few issues emerge:
  • "The idea for a U.S. battlecruiser class ..." The term "battlecruiser" is dropped on us here without much context or explanation, after we are told these are cruisers. What, then, is a battlecruiser? A type of cruiser? Bigger, smaller?
    • Hesitant done - I've only added a link, but I hope that's sufficiently explanatory. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No, remove the word "battecruiser". That is a mistake; a holdover from when the page was named "Alaska class battlecrusier" - try "large cruiser" instead? (w/o quotes) —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Avoid the use of "this" in reference to a previous concept without restating (ex. "To facilitate this, they were given large guns..." and "At $160 million, this was seen as cost-prohibitive, so a second study was initiated.") This what?
    • Done —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't actually think you need the quotes around the term "pocket battleship" and especially not after the first use. I could settle for the first mention in the lead and in the body to be in quotes only.
  • Same with the term "super cruiser".
    • Done both of above. I've retained the first mentions, however. There must be a reason for the quotes, but I agree with their removal later in the text. —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Quotes were put there because they were not actually called that in service...just nicknamed as such. The pocket battleships were just really big guns mounted on a heavy cruiser, and they were called something else by the Germans...look at the page for more. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "... the Alaska cruisers only carried six: four at the superstructure corners, and one at each fore and aft on the centerline." This description lacks clarity; I can't tell if it means four on each corner or four total. The second phrase is very unclear... "one at each fore and aft"? Do you mean "one each at fore and aft"?

--Laser brain (talk) 23:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• • • Done - took some thought, but the fact that there were six guns helped a lot. :) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Look at the lead picture, Pianista, if you need more - I would explain, but short on time here. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks, looks great. Good luck. --Laser brain (talk) 02:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• Lean support Support - a few things left above to deal with, but most of the article seems clean. I don't like the additional headers under "Secondary battery" and I think it can do without them. Also, the "see also" can be integrated into the text. Furthermore, the first and second paragraph of the lead could be merged. Regardless, enough to support it with a little bit of AGF added about correcting some of the above. Disclosure - I am a WikiCup participant. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done removal of headers and merge of paragraphs. I'll leave the link integration to Ed, seeing as I might mess up some things if I try to reword too far. Disclosure - I am also a WikiCup participant and I need points. ;) —La Pianista ^(T•C) 23:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I'll get to it probably tomorrow - rather busy with school and work at the moment. My apologies, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 20:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh wait. As I said above to Maralia (hidden somewhere), I would like to keep the "See also" - WP:LAYOUT has the section in for a reason, and I don't want to include those links in the article as they have absolutely nothing to do with why/how the class' development/the class was developed. However, they are relevant to the article, as the only ships that are/were comparable to them - which in itself is another reason why i would like to keep the links there...comparisons to the ships in one place. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair enough. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

• Note/comment/whatever - I am in the process of totally rewriting the "Genesis" section. The work in progress can be seen here; comments are fully welcome. Thanks! —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 18:41, 27 January 2009 [39].

---

Tropical Storm Keith (1988)

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone})

Yes, another storm article, but it's a good one. It's from 20 years ago, meaning it's older than most users on here would remember. After some copyediting and pushing by another user, I decided to nominate this article, which I feel is a great standard for a tropical cyclone article in the 1980s. Two quick notes: first, I used Lexis-Nexis for several of the sources, hence why there are no links for them. Second, I know I have another active FAC right now, but it has two supports, and I received two copyedits to deal with the oppose (which the person has not responded to yet). So, as the saying goes, here goes nothing. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

Lead

• It tracked northwestward, and under generally favorable conditions reached a peak intensity of 70 mph (110 km/h) shortly before striking the northeastern tip of the Yucatán Peninsula. - IMO, a comma should be added after conditions, it just reads better
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Minimal damage was reported in Mexico, which was still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Gilbert two months prior. - to me, devastating sounds like WP:POV, if you remove it, it still has the same meaning
  • Good point, changed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Overall damage was widespread but fairly minor, totaling about $7.3 million (1988 USD, $12.7 million 2007 USD). - in this context, a comma before but should be added
  • Actually, I disagree; the sentence is grammatically correct, and the addition of a comma would just suppress the prose flow. We'll see what the nominator thinks. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • True.--Truco 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Near the coast, damage occurred mainly from storm surge and beach erosion, while further inland, flooding and downed trees and power lines were the extent of the damage. - which coast? --Truco 14:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Got it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Body

• The trough which turned Keith northwestward rapidly accelerated northeastward; this left the storm moving slowly to the northwest until making landfall on the northeastern tip of the Yucatán Peninsula at 0800 UTC on November 21, at an intensity slightly below hurricane status. - comma before which and after northwestward
  • Agreed, changed. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• On November 20, shortly before the tropical depression intensified into a tropical storm, the government of Honduras issued a tropical storm warning for the Swan Islands, along with a tropical storm watch for the northwestern coastline and three islands. - since you're talking about the Swan Islands earlier, it would be better if you state that you are talking about the Honduran coastline.
  • Alright, I added Honduran before coastline. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Still recovering from the devastating effects of Hurricane Gilbert two months prior, Keith caused only minor damage in the area. - like above.
  • I specified Yucatán Peninsula. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • My bad, I meant the same suggestion I suggested for the lead above.Truco 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Oh, I see. I fixed that. Are you ready to support yet, or are there other issues? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Someone's eager for support :P--Truco 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• In Lee County damage totaled $1.5 million (1988 USD, $2.6 million 2007 USD), - comma after Lee County--Truco 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Got it. Thanks for the review. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - A very interesting article about a storm from 20 yrs ago that fulfills WP:WIAFA.--Truco 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Cool, thanks! ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Per WP:OVERLINKing, do you want every commonly known country linked? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I removed the useless location ones. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review File:Keith 1988 track.png - Please list the authors who created the image in the author field. Awadewit (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 23:46, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. (I changed the one parameter that should have been work from publisher) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - I found the prose stilted in places and it would still benefit from a little more attention (I don't like all those "whiles"). I made a few edits (suggestions), but on the whole this article is worthy of FA status. Graham Colm ^Talk 18:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

PS. I think in 100 or 1000 years time that these descriptions of the weather in the 20-21st century, will be a goldmine for climatologists. Graham Colm ^Talk 23:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "Tropical Storm Keith was the latest Atlantic tropical cyclone to strike the Continental United States since 1925." IMO, "latest" seems vague. Was it the latest in the year or the most recent overall? Also, can you make the piped link more explicit?
• "totaling to $7.3 million (1988 USD, $12.7 million 2007 USD)
• "A tropical wave moved off the coast of Africa on November 5—a tropical wave is an elongated low pressure area embedded within the easterly trade winds." Very strange order here. Maybe: "A tropical wave—an elongated low pressure area embedded within the easterly trade winds—moved off the coast of Africa on November 5."
• "An eastward moving"-->An eastward-moving
• "this left the storm moving slowly to the northwest" noun + -ing sentence stucture is awkward.
• "although when the motion of Keith became more clear, the watch was canceled." What in the motion of Keith allowed them to cancel the watch?
• "state water officials ordered to decrease the water levels" Whom did they order?
• "tropical storm warning was posted from Jupiter northward" Can we have a state to accompany "Jupiter"?
  • Unneeded, IMO, as that paragraph contains only Florida information, and there is a link to Jupiter, Florida. Also, I doubt anybody will mistake the city for the planet. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Still recovering from the effects of Hurricane Gilbert two months prior, Keith caused only minor damage in the Yucatán Peninsula." Sounds like Keith was still recovering from the effects.
• Inconsistent ref date formats. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This is a result of the varying cite X templates; not sure how to fix it. Done with the rest of the comments, except for one which I've explained above. Thanks for the review, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I accept your explanation on your first point. On your second point, I know a little trick to bypass those inconsistencies, but it has to be done manually and I can't (read:don't fell like) doing it right now. I will come back to support in a little bit of time. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually, I didn't have to do anything fancy. Since they unlinked the accessdates in the cite web template, you can use whatever format you want. Take a look at the last ref though, the access date is 2009-02-02, that can't be right. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, ok, I see. Fixed. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - I would like the prose clarified before I can support. - Support --Aude (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• "receiving the name Keith. Keith quickly intensified" - Can you say this without repeating the word "Keith"?
• "and on November 21 the storm attained" - punctuation appears to be missing
• "Early in its duration, Keith dropped around 3 inches (75 mm) of rainfall along the northern coast of Honduras, with totals of around 10 inches (250 mm) reported on offshore islands." - This sentence is not quite clear. Saying "early in its duration" seems to contradict saying "totals" (whole duration?); I also don't like the "with" in the sentence, and thought maybe to change it to "and". But then, it would be saying "Early in its duration [...] totals of around 10 inches reported on offshore islands." I realize that the storm affected Honduras and then moved on to other places, so that might be what you mean by "early in its duration". The wording here could be improved to make things more clear for the reader.

Other than these minor issues, the article appears to meet the FAC criteria. The sources are all good, and I'm glad to see Lexis-Nexis consulted to access sources not directly available on the web, to help make the article more comprehensive. --Aude (talk) 15:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the review. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments
  • "Based on ship observations, it is estimated the system organized ..." Who estimated?
  • "An eastward-moving upper-level trough in the Gulf of Mexico turned the depression to the northwest." Turning it "to the northwest" suggests placement but not movement. Turning it "northwest" would suggest movement.. which is the correct meaning?
  • Avoid constructions such as "this caused the storm to move slowly" and "this was due to increased vertical wind shear" where "this" refers to something stated prior. Restate the subject for clarity (this what?)
  • "... very large upper-level low ..." Huh?
  • "... the government of Honduras issued a tropical storm warning for the Swan Islands, along with a tropical storm watch for the northwestern Honduran coastline and three islands." Three islands other than the Swan Islands? Do you mean three more islands?

--Laser brain (talk) 22:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

{{done}}. Thanks for the review, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick response, and it's always a pleasure reading the tropical storm articles. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have low expectations for storm articles but this one had a lot and surprised me. I didn't see anything that stuck out or was bad. It seems like most problems were addressed above. Disclosure - I am part of the WikiCup and in opposition with JC. I have not worked out any deals with him, nor discussed the article with him. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [40].

---

Hurricane Linda (1997)

Nominator(s): ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone})

Nomination restarted (Old nom) Raul654 (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support My issues were resolved right before the restart. The prose is much better now. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, I believe this meets the criteria now. My concerns were addressed during the last go-round. --Laser brain (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review: all images were checked fine before the restart, and they are still okay. Jappalang (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Nicely done. Cyclonebiskit 19:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [41].

---

Barton Fink

Nominator(s): Scartol • Tok

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I have done some exhaustive research, copyediting, and polishing over the past several months. It has undergone a peer review, and the concerns raised have been addressed. All of the fair-use images are properly rationaled, and I believe I've been able to combine all of the duplicate references. (One small note: I prefer to used spaced en dashes as allowed by the MOS in place of em dashes, but the original texts in some spots use em dashes, which I've preserved. Hope this seeming incongruity doesn't cause too much confusion.) Scartol • Tok 16:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Glad to see the process underway! Hope to find the time to have an extensive look... in the meantime, did you ever get to look into the Literature/Film Quarterly resource I mentioned at the peer review? I think I could access it, if you're interested and seeing if there is any value it provides. —Erik (talk • contrib) 16:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, I'd love to have a look. I tried to find it myself, but was unable to do so. You can email it to me or leave a talk page message or whatever works for you. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 17:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I've added a number of references to this article. Thanks again for sending it! Scartol • Tok 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• All images have verifiable licenses and have sufficient fair use rationales, if necessary, as well as adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:BartonFink.jpg - This fair use rationale needs to contain a more specific link to the source (we don't want to have to hunt for it). It also needs to list who the copyright holder is.

• Erik has remedied these issues in a most appreciated WikiFaerie-esque manner. Scartol • Tok 17:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Barton Fink pictures of women.jpg - The purpose of use in this fair use rationale is too vague (the "fictional" vs. "real" distinction is a bit strange, too). I would simply use some of the material from the article to write a more specific purpose.

• I've taken a whack at this. Hopefully it's more appropriately detailed. Scartol • Tok 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I still don't think that the purpose of use quite gets across how central the image is to the film. The article does this much better. There is a whole section of the article dedicated to this image, but the fair use rationale does not make it clear why the image is so important. Awadewit (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried again, adding more info from the article (which I always thought wasn't a good idea, but perhaps I was wrong). Third time's the charm? Scartol • Tok 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg - I am on the fence about this fair use image - I am unconvinced that it meets WP:NFCC #8. How is the reader's understanding "significantly" increased by this image? It is of course nice to compare the actor to Faulkner, but how necessary is it, really, in the end? We could just have the free image of Faulkner and say that the actor resembles him.

• See below. Scartol • Tok 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Louis B. Mayer.jpg - This image is missing source, date, and author. The license cannot be verified at this time.

• I think I told myself that I'd go back and check this before submitting it to FAC. Obviously, I didn't, and I feel really dumb as a result. I can't find an original source, so I expect I'll need to switch the Mayer photo to this image, for which I'll need to plead more Fair Use. But at least we have copyright info for it. Scartol • Tok 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Mayer was born in 1884. I find it highly unlikely that there isn't a free image of him somewhere. We are required to use free images whenever possible. How much work have you really done to try and find a free image? Awadewit (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've tried everything I can think of – I have pored over at least ten pages (~20 images each) at Google Image Search, tracing each site to its source, trying to find a free image. The LOC has three images; the one linked above is the only one with any kind of detail. The Life images are all post-1923. Most of the other sites I've tried return nothing at all usable.
• If you or anyone else has suggestions about where else I could look, I'm all ears. (I suspect that as a film magnate he was very careful about who took his picture and how they were copyrighted, but that's just a baseless speculation.) Scartol • Tok 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• The first place I would check would be biographies of Mayer. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'll see what I can find. Scartol • Tok 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg - I am on the fence about this fair use image - I am unconvinced that it meets WP:NFCC #8. How is the reader's understanding "significantly" increased by this image? It is of course nice to compare the actor to Mayer, but how necessary is it, really, in the end? We could just have the free image of Mayer and say that the actor resembles him.

Hopefully I will have time to read the article itself! Awadewit (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I feel that the images of Lipnick/Mayer and Mayhew/Faulkner are necessary, since they demonstrate the specific visual connection between the characters and their inspirations. For example, Michael Lerner looks very different in the movie Poster Boy. John Mahoney also usually doesn't resemble Faulkner (bow tie, moustache, etc). The screenshots demonstrate the similarities in ways that a simple allusion by itself cannot.
• Thanks for being so comprehensive about the images, A. I hope the prose is more satisfactory! =) Scartol • Tok 18:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not yet convinced by your argument regarding the Lipnick/Mayer and Mayhew/Faulkner comparisons. I suggested just including free images of Mayer and Faulkner, which would give the reader a sense of what the character looks like as well as the inspiration. How much does adding the fair use image really add? The more I think about, the less I think these images are necessary. They are a nice addition, but not one that adds significantly to the reader's understanding. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I disagree in the strongest possible terms, and I was very very careful about which Fair Use images I inserted from the movie. I still believe that the side-by-side comparisons (which I didn't use, incidentally, for Barton Fink or Charlie Meadows/Mundt, even though I think they would have been interesting) are helpful for the reader's understanding. However, I'm more interested in having the information featured than in stonewalling on this point, so I've removed the Faulkner image. I'm going to keep looking for a free image of Mayer, and in the meantime I've removed that comparison pic too. Scartol • Tok 20:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• What I was going to suggest now was that we ask other reviewers to comment on the fair use rationales for these pairs of images - that way the decision to keep or remove them will be a consensus of some sort. Awadewit (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine with me, but given the slow (and here in the FAC, very sparse) feedback about this article, I'm not sure how much commentary we'll get. I've posted a notice at Talk:Barton_Fink#Screenshot_comparisons, and I'll drop a note in at WP:FILM. Scartol • Tok 20:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Striking oppose as images have been removed. However, I would much prefer feedback from other reviewers on the fair use images. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• The isbn on the Bergan book is not working correctly.

• Fixed. I must have typo-ed an extra number. Scartol • Tok 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/database/?id=122 a reliable source?

• I just used a website which provided info on the soundtrack. I've switched it to the listing at Amazon.com. Scartol • Tok 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Music2611

* Comments Well, I finally finished reading the article, wow, it's really (I mean really long), anyhow below are my comments on the article (I didn't check the images or references, since they have already been taken care of above). Lead section "...it won the prestigious Palme d'Or prize...", should the award be referred to as "prestigious", it might be against MOS:OPED Removed. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) I have not read the rest of the article yet, but who is charlie, I assume it's the name of Goodman's character but it's not mentioned anywhere else in the lead besides (in paragraph three) "including a mysterious box given to Barton by Charlie" Added. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) There's almost no mention of the critical reaction. Added. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Background and writing No comments. Production No comments. Plot The images and information about Turturro and Goodman is not really related to the plot of the film. Perhaps they should be (re)moved, or at least the information. I disagree here. I find it's good (Awadewit convinced me) to have unique info in the image captions. Both of the captions in the Plot section, I feel, are relevant to the actors' appearances in the film. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Setting No comments. Genre "...Palmer calls Barton Fink a", Palmer is mentioned for the first time in the article, so his full name should be credited. In the earlier paragraph, he is mentioned: "literature professor and film analyst R. Barton Palmer calls it a Künstlerroman...". Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Style No comments. Sources, inspirations, and allusions As usual, no comments. Themes You'd think there would be something wrong in a section this long, but no, it seems fine to me. Reception (drumroll) No comments. Other Commments The article doesn't have a casting section, instead, casting information is scattered all over the article; for example Mahoney's resemblance to Faulkner, Lerner's resemblance to Mayer (which has now been removed) and Goodman being cast due to his warm and friendly projection to the viewer. I think all this information can be moved into one big casting section, on this, I would like some input. When reconstructing the article, I found it more sensible to put info about characters into the "Sources, inspirations, and allusions" section. I don't consider a casting section necessary, especially since the info is – as you point out – already in the article. I feel the same way about sections for Characters and Popular Culture references: it's best to work them into the article as a whole. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Overall Applaus for expanding the article the way you did, if you can resolve my (tiny amount of) issues, I'll support the article.--Music26/11 11:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for your feedback. I hope I've remedied your concerns. Scartol • Tok 12:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support issues have been resolved.--Music26/11 12:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Please weigh in on the fair use issues raised above. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought, since some of them are struck, and all the images used in the article (besides the poster and the image of the woman on the beace, both of which look fine to me) are free, the fair use issues are fixed. Currently, the article seems fine (to me).--Music26/11 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

If you could please read the discussion, you will see that is not the case. Please do read the comments on the fair use images above. We would appreciate your input. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the comparison images File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg and File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg? Music2611 is fine with them being struck, it seems. I do not have a strong opinion either way. What needs to be discussed? —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I only struck them because they were removed. They deserve a wider discussion, as I explained above. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We've seen that CactusWriter said at Talk:Barton Fink#Screenshot comparisons that the Lipnick/Mayer photo had a shaky rationale and that the Mayhew/Faulkner photo could be more acceptable. In reviewing the relevant context, I think that both comparison images have little merit. The Mayhew/Faulkner photo is not strongly backed by enough context; what exists is more about characteristics than physical appearance. The article would be better accommodated by a non-free image of the hotel setting, for which there is extensive critical commentary. Perhaps we can explore this venue instead? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am, indeed, fine with the images of File:Mayhew&faulkner.jpg and File:Lipnick&mayer.jpg, not being in the article, the images are a plain "nice" addition to the article, but it looks fine the way it does right now. An image of the Hotel would provide some clear visual identification (I agree with Erik), but is, in my opinion, not really necessary.--Music26/11 17:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like the consensus is to drop the two non-free images that have been removed, with the possibility of adding a screenshot of the hotel. (I agree that it would be nice but not necessary.) Awadewit, how would you feel about such an addition? Scartol • Tok 18:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that WP:NFC can be too strictly interpreted to exclude any and all non-free images; nothing in the end is "necessary". We could easily have a Wikipedia without any non-free images, yet there is tolerance for such images as visual aids to clear-cut commentary. The film article is rife with critical commentary about various aspects of the hotel, and we should not hesitate about including one. More readers than not will find such an image useful in the context of the various descriptions of the hotel. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Erik, who makes a very clear point, Scartol (since you're the main contributor), can you provide a screenshot of the hotel to the article? My only question would be where this image should be placed, the plot summary seems like the best location to me but placing another image there would possibly make the section a bit overcrowded. No wait, perhaps the "setting" section would make an even better location for the image, Any thoughts?--Music26/11 20:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll put one in tomorrow afternoon. I agree with Erik's point about how "nothing in the end is necessary". Scartol • Tok 05:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added this screenshot to the start of the "Setting" section (where the discussion of the wallpaper is most prominent). The only other screenshot which really reveals the interior of the Earl is this one, but there's more discussion about the dripping wallpaper than the shoes, so I opted for the other one. Scartol • Tok 03:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a better choice for a screenshot, as the setting is clearly very important in this film. Awadewit (talk) 19:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — This is one of the strongest film articles I've seen thus far in terms of content. Strong sources. Looks to be complete. Enough images to adequately support the article, but not to decorate. Looks great. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC))
• Comment: Terrific screenshot choice! I'd like to give a more extensive review, but I was wondering, can the "Plot" section not be written to be consistent in terms of names? "Barton" seems to be the most consistent name (which I'm fine with), but there are a few usages of "Fink" that seem inconsistent. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I thought I caught them all on my earlier go-round, but apparently not. However, I just went through and examined each appearance of "Fink", changing any solo fliers to "Barton". Thus, the word "Fink" now appears only as part of his full name (usually as the title of the movie) or inside quotation marks from an original source. Whew! Scartol • Tok 20:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support, with comment - The article is thoroughly well-researched and written. Though, when I look at an article, I first skim and then read in detail. When skimming, I was thrown off by the M. Keith Booker blockquote in the Fascism section. With the picture to the left of the quote, it does not indent and does not format in way that's obviously a quote. So, I was at first puzzled by the ellipse (multiple periods), "typical of postmodern film...." Looking at that image, I wonder if it really is necessary, especially in that spot? Donald Lyons is not mentioned at all in that section. The other option might be to take the key points of Booker and paraphrase rather than a direct quote. Having both a block quote and image (both attention grabbers) right together is too much. --Aude (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, right aligning the image is not an option, since the Donald Lyons image would be facing away from the page, which is a MOS no-no. --Aude (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• That blockquote is formatted with the {{Imagequote}} template, which I designed for precisely this purpose – allowing a blockquote to show up properly beside a left-oriented image. Perhaps the margin was set too small? (I just made it bigger; does that help matters?) Could you take a screenshot so I know what you're seeing? (Also, you do know that the image is of Adolf Hitler, not Donald Lyons, right?) Cheers. Scartol • Tok 05:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have seen Hitler in other photos, but did not recognize him in that one. The way the caption is worded made me think the photo was of Donald Lyons. Please reword the caption to make clear what the photo is. Anyway, the imagequote template doesn't seem to work well. On Firefox, the quote does not indent at all and appears formatted in no way different than an ordinary paragraph. I also looked at the article on my iPhone browser (Safari), and the quote and image were not lined up together, and there was a huge margin on the left of the quote. I'm thinking that left-aligned images and quotes do not go together. Could you find another photo of Hitler that does not have him facing off the page? That might be the best solution, so the image could be right-aligned. --Aude (talk) 16:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done and done. Scartol • Tok 18:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Hi, on Rotten Tomatoes (link) you can view critical reviews from Newsweek, Chicago Reader, Rolling Stone etc. Which you could use to expand the reception section.--Music26/11 13:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Rotten Tomatoes ranking is already in the reception section, as is commentary from the Chicago Reader. I didn't want to overload that section with various comments from assorted reviews, so I just chose a couple that were indicative of the different points of view. Others are of course welcome to add them if they see fit. Scartol • Tok 13:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I said could, it's completely your call, I think the reception section looks fine as it is now, but (I figured) a little expansion can never hurt.--Music26/11 15:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [42].

---

Columbia Slough

Nominator(s): Finetooth (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. It recently went through a peer review by User:Ruhrfisch, whose suggestions improved the article. Most of the photos are mine or User:EncMstr's, taken recently by us and uploaded to the Commons. I made the watershed map using a public-domain U.S. Census map for the base. Image:Chinook.png appeared also in Johnson Creek (Willamette River), and User:Elcobbola found the licensing to be odd but OK here. User:Northwesterner1 made the photo map for the slough as he kindly did for Fanno Creek and Johnson Creek. This is the fourth of a planned set of five articles about the most important minor bodies of water in Portland. Finetooth (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions.

• File:Columbia River Slough (small).jpg - Could we link to the appropriate location at the USGS for the source? Also, could you list what sources you used to make the image, rather than just saying "various sources"? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for checking these. I've sent a message to User:Northwesterner1 asking if he can add the USGS source location and the other sources to the image description at the Commons. I'd add them myself, but I don't know what they are. Finetooth (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Any news? Awadewit (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
      • No. User:Northwesterner1's talk page suggests that he has been relatively inactive since late summer or early fall. One solution would be to remove the map and not re-add it until the two missing pieces of data are added to the licensing page. Nothing in the article falls apart without the map. Would it be a good idea to delete it? Finetooth (talk) 20:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Could you find another source that contains the same information? Awadewit (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I will try. I'll work on this and post an update note here later today. Finetooth (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
            • My guess is the other sources could be as simple as a good atlas of the area (does DeLorme publish in Oregon?). I looked around a little on the USGS web site and did not find the images, but did not look that hard. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
              • Thanks for looking. They are hidden from plain view and can only be seen with the help of NASA's World Wind software. Northwesterner1 has a tutorial explaining his methods here. In one place he says, "To follow my methods, the creek needs to be within the United States urban areas mapped by the color USGS Digital Ortho satellite survey at a .25 meter resolution." I believe that answers Awadewit's first question. To answer the second, I compiled a list of three maps in my possession that together would provide all of the details I would need to create Northwesterner's map if I started with the Ortho satellite base map of Portland and knew what I was doing. I doubt that Northwesterner used these exact same maps, but I believe they would suffice. I have added a note similar to this note, including links and bibliographic data, to the image description at the Commons. I think is sufficient, but I am open to further suggestions. Finetooth (talk) 23:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - as noted, I peer reviewed this and felt it met FA criteria then. I like the addition of the name section and some copyedits since, they have only improved an excellent article. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 08:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

CommentsSupport: An impressively detailed article, with wonderful images. I have had numerous prose concerns, mainly minor, which have now been fully addressed

• Lead
  • I'm probably being pedantic, but I dont think that "highly" artificial is necessary. Just "artificial" will do. If a thing isn't natural, it's artificial.
    • I don't think you're being pedantic, but I don't agree that all things are either natural or artificial. A lot of things are mixtures: dammed rivers, people with metal knees, trimmed hedges. The slough is partly artificial and partly natural, but the proportions probably can't be quantified. However, "highly" is a weasel, and "partly" would be a weasel. After more thought, I've re-cast the sentence to avoid classifying the slough as artificial or natural. I think the degree of artificiality becomes more clear later in the article. Please poke me up if you don't like this solution. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • This sentence: The Port of Portland operates Portland International Airport along the middle slough and marine terminals near the lower slough, and agencies such as the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality and Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services (BES) deal with environmental issues.
    • First, the sentence is too long. Suggest split after "lower slough". Then, "Agencies such as..." etc
    • Then, consider the first eight words. "Port" or "Portland" occur four times in this opening phrase. Is there any way of rewording? For example, does Portland have to be written as "The Port of Portland"? Is it possible to simplify to "Portland operates its international airport..."?
      • Yes to both. I split the long sentence as you suggested and eliminated three instances of "Port" in those sentences. Your question made me realize that I had not made clear in the article that the Port of Portland is not the same as the City of Portland. It's a regional agency run by commissioners appointed by the Oregon governor. I have now added a clarification to the "Jurisdiction" section. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • There is too much use in the lead of the "such as" phrase. We have agencies such as..., explorers such as..., laws such as..., and trails such as... The phrase crops up numerous times in the main text, too. I wonder if it possible to vary it in some way?
    • Yes. I had not noticed this repetitive pattern before you pointed it out. I went through the whole article looking for instances, and I changed about 10 to a variety of other constructions. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Course
  • Mention of its location within Multnomah County should, I think, be at the start rather than the end of the paragraph, where it looks like an add-on fact.
    • Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Another repeated phrase "from the mouth" occurs rather a lot in this section, three times in the first few lines. Could one of these be changed to, say, "from the Williamette"?
    • Yes. Your suggestion plus "from the mouth" plus the RM-RK pair now give me three ways to avoid a repetitive pattern in the Course sections of this and other stream articles. To break up the monotony, I changed some of the "from the mouth" phrases to either of the other two options. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The sentence beginning "Passing Johnson Creek..." has too many "ands" in it. It should be reconstructed as two sentences.
    • Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Geology
  • "Vancouver, Washington..." is a slightly troublesome formation. I know it refers to the town of Vancouver in Washington, not the Canadian one, but on a read-through it feels like Vancouver (and) Washington (and)....so on. To avoid any confusion you could say "...water for the town of Vancouver in Washington, and..."
    • Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Hydrology, Main channel
  • Is there a word missing? "A fourth district, Sandy Drainage Improvement Company (SDIC) [was] formed in 1939 to manage..."
    • Done. Someone else noticed that too and added "the". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• History, Early inhabitants
  • "Nonnatives" in unhyphenated form, looks very odd, and I couldn't at first work out that it meant non-natives. I suggest on this occasion the hyphen is necessary, even though Am-Eng normally deplores them.
    • I agree with you. I originally hyphenated this because of the double "n", but someone else removed the hyphen. Where is the Hyphen Czar? Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Did Broughton travel alone? If so, he "made the first trip by a non-native". If not, he "led the first trip by non-natives" etc
    • Good catch. Changed to "led". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Farming, commerce and industry
  • "Lewis Love, one of them..." sounds funny to British ears. If we say someone is "one of them" (accent on the them) we mean something derogatory. Could this change to: "One settler, Lewis Love, became wealthy..."?
    • Yes. Done. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "...platted in the same year..." I have a vague idea this term has come up before, but I can't find any verb "to plat" (or "platt") in any of my dictionaries. What does it mean? Since it is a somewhat obscure/specialist term, could it be explained?
    • I wikilinked it to plat. It's defined in my Webster's dictionary as "a plan, map, or chart of a piece of land with actual or proposed features (as lots); also: the land represented". I will include an explanation in the text if you think the wikilink is not enough. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Here, in this section, you use the American term "named for". In the earlier "Name"section you had "named after". It would be best to be consistent.
    • I'm fonder of the British term. I changed the second one to "named after". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• History, WWII and after
  • Destruction of Vanport: since this important matter is understandably dealt with at some length, could we be told if there was loss of life as a result of the flood? If the town was destroyed, and 18,500 lived there, it seems likely there was loss of life and I think that would be relevant to this article.
    • Very good catch. I added the coroner's body count and some other data explaining how it was possible that the number of deaths was so low. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • However, I don't see the relevance of the paragraph beginning "The promise of good jobs..." This seems to be about the region's racial policies and problems, rather than about the slough. I suggest you consider removing this paragraph.
    • I had to think about this for a while, but I agree that it wandered away from the central topic. I have removed it. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Pollution
  • "Deicing" is another word almost indecipherable without its British hyphen. I had to look it up in the dictionary before I realised it meant "de-icing".
    • Again I agree, and I put the hyphen back in. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Habitat
  • Shouldn't small numerals (5, 1) be written out?
    • That's the general rule, but MOSNUM lists quite a few exceptions here. One of them says: "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." For consistency, I used figures for all of the percentages. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Redundancy: "...10 percent, but this had been cut in half to 5 percent". Delete either "in half" or "to 5 percent"
    • Done. Deleted "to 5 percent". Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• Public parks and wetlands
  • I wonder if, in a relatively long article, this section s a bit overdetailed? For example: The park, managed by Metro, offers boating,trout fishing, swimming, picnic areas, a lake house that can be used for meetings, an educational garden, wildlife viewing, an archery range, playgrounds, spoorts fields and sculptures commemorating former Chinook villages along the river Phew! But do we need all of this, in this article? There are other list sentences in the section. Is it time for some blue pencil work?
    • Yes. As I was working on the parks section of this article, I was also creating separate articles for four of the parks. Any reader who wants to know more about Blue Lake and some of the others can click on the relevant link. With this in mind, I greatly compressed the parks section along the line you suggest. Most of the lists are gone, and I simplified the over-precise park measurements to make the section less eye-glazing. I also added a little variety to the park locations relative to the stream (from the mouth, RM-RK, from the Willamette) as in the Course section. Please let me know if you think this section needs further work. Finetooth (talk) 18:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I think what you have done is fine. Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I imagine none of the above will create too many problems. I am leaning to support, but will wait for your responses. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you very much for your suggestions, which look interesting and helpful. I'll make changes to the article and insert responses below each of your individual suggestions above. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your kind words and support. It takes a good deal of time and effort to review these articles so thoroughly, and I appreciate it. Finetooth (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references. An example is current ref 6 (Portland BES), but there may be others.
  • Thanks. I think I have now fixed all of these. I spelled out BES in the "Works cited" section as well. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.topoquest.com/
    • The underlying sources are the topographic maps of the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS prints these maps on paper but also scans and converts them to Digital Raster Graphics (DRG)s available to the public. The problem for most of the public is that to be readable, the DRGs have to be found, downloaded, and read with software that most people don't have. TopoQuest finds the DRGs, downloads them, and provides an on-line viewer to look at the maps, all at no charge. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm going to leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
        • Thanks for your help. For this particular reliability question, I'll add some links that might be helpful. The TopoQuest home page is here. The USGS DRG page is here. The Wikipedia articles Digital raster graphic and Libre Map Project might also be helpful. If anyone still has doubts, please let me know. Finetooth (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I think that Topoquest is reliable, but would make it clearer which USGS topo map is being cited. Would it make sense to use cite web (as is now done), but list USGS as the author, and give the title of the map as something like "United States Geological Survey Topographic Map, Sauvie Island, OR quad"? There is also {{cite map}}. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
            • Excellent idea. I have modified the cite web citation as you suggested, and I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• Current ref 18, perhaps the publisher could be a bit more informative than "Metro". Maybe "Oregon Metro Regional Government"? Or "Portland Metro Regional Government"?
  • Good catch. Metro reminds me of Paris rather than Portland. I changed the entry to "Metro (Oregon regional government)". Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 52 (Little, Charles ...) this is a book, correct? Needs to be formatted as such, with the title in italics, etc.
  • Yes, it's a book, and I have now added the missing italics. Finetooth (talk) 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for checking the links and for your other suggestions. I'll respond to each of them above as soon as I can. Finetooth (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support While I have not "flyspecked" this article or checked sources, it reads well, is well-organized and illustrated, and by all appearances is covers its subject. It also is the type of article which can be the most accessible and comprehensive source on a subject for a general reader. Kablammo (talk) 20:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply: Thank you for your kind words and support. Finetooth (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments, leaning toward support. This is very good—either I'm tired or it just doesn't have any issues. A couple suggestions:
  • "Used as a waste repository and cut off from the Columbia River, the slough became one of Oregon's most polluted waterways." Can we say when, here?
    • Yes. I changed the sentence to say, "Used as a waste repository during the first half of the 20th century, and cut off from the Columbia River by levees, the slough became one of Oregon's most polluted waterways." I can't narrow it down to a specific year or a specific decade because lots of polluting things happened serially over many decades. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the course section, I think all the left/right directions need to be changed to east/west/north/south. So, it doesn't pass something on the left, it passes it on the west or whatever. This convention has long been in use at the roads projects.
    • Although you are right about the highway convention, the stream convention is to name the tributaries either left or right from source to mouth. I thought it best to adhere to the general convention. However, your comment prompted me to add a (south) for further clarification in the first sentence of the second paragraph: "Running slightly north of and parallel to U.S. Route 30 (Sandy Boulevard), the slough flows by Zimmerman Heritage Farm on the left (south)... ". Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, thanks for educating me. --Laser brain (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 05:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply Thank you for your kinds words and suggestions. I think I've addressed your two concerns. Please let me know if you have others or if my fixes seem inadequate. Finetooth (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for your review and your support. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Finetooth on using left and right for river course descriptions. Although Left bank and Right bank are dabs here, a link to Wiktionary might be in order as it has definitions of left bank and right bank Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Ruhrfisch Good idea about the Wiktionary links. I have added them. Others besides Laser brain have raised the same left-right question about creek articles I've worked on, and the additional links should help. Finetooth (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [43].

---

The Raft of the Medusa

Nominator(s): Modernist Ceoil JNW

I'm nominating this article for featured article because...It's an important painting by an important French Romantic painter who revolutionized painting in the early 19th century..and it is a milestone in art history. Thanks to Johnbod, Lithoderm, Kafka Liz, Outriggr, Yomangan, and Tyrenius....Modernist (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/oct2008/cour-o10.shtml
    • removed the reference as it was redundant anyway...Modernist (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Awadewit, appreciated...Modernist (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Awadewit (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Medusa-contemporary engraving.jpg - Could we get some sort of reliable source for this image? Note that we have to be able to verify the information in this description according to WP:IUP. Currently, there is no way of doing that. Surely, one of the Raft of Medusa sources mentions this diagram and we could reference it here?

It is an illustration from the book. Noon, p. 75 shows an impression from the 1818 English 1st edn, but no doubt the plate was passed to all the printers. This image seems more worn, but if it is a copy from another plate it is a remarkably exact one. One doubts it is "by" Correard, though no doubt based on a drawing by him, & it may not be strictly an engraving - Noon is unhelpful on these points. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - (we changed the image)Modernist (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I added more information to the new image. Awadewit (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Gericault - study for Raft of the Medusa.jpg - This image does not seem to be all over the web (13 pages of Google image search turned up only Wikimedia versions). We need to at least list the museum which holds it, but having the online source as well would be best.

The file says ARTstor, so someone with access needs to check it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

:::Unfortunately the entirety of ARTstor is Javascripted, so it is impossible to link to the location of the specific image. As the uploader, I can attest that that is the source of the image.... Lithoderm 16:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How come on the image description page it doesn't list ARTstor as the source, though? What am I missing? Awadewit (talk) 16:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry cmt relates to the one below! Litho - plse confirm you meant this too, and check the owner. Johnbod (talk) 16:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, yes, I did... I'm not sure where this one is from. Lithoderm 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• On this one, there is a stamp at bottom left saying "Musee de Besançon". Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - we changed the image to one with a better source...Modernist (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added more information to the new image. Awadewit (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:RaftMedusa7.jpg - A quick Google images search didn't turn up this image. We need to at least list the museum which holds this image, but having the online source as well would be best.

The file says ARTstor, so someone with access needs to check it. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the entirety of ARTstor is Javascripted, so it is impossible to link to the location of the specific image. As the uploader, I can attest that that is the source of the image.... Lithoderm 16:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

ARTstor does not give the museum, and also lists it as "pencil on paper", which is obviously inaccurate... It looks like it was scanned from a book, because on the ARTstor version you can see the dot matrix... in the bottom left there is a mark that reads FG or TG or FC or TC, I really can't make it out... TG would be the obvious reading, but it could be a museum mark... Lithoderm 20:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done - changed the image to one with a better source...Modernist (talk) 23:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added more information on the source. Awadewit (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• We added a new and better image of the raft with source and text...Modernist (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• The images in the "Influence" section are a little squished and are sandwiching the text. I mention this so that debate can ensue about the value of these images. :)

I also added information to most of the images, such as online sources, artist dates, and information about the paintings (there were a couple of incorrect descriptions). Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC) you.

My question re: the legacy section is whether we (including myself here) have been a bit enthusiastic. Any thoughts as to whether this section ought to be pared down, or is everything there essential? JNW (talk) 17:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

As much as I like the Manet, and seeing the painting at the Met..it seems a little gratuitous and maybe we can let the image go? Modernist (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and done. I think that the section is still unwieldy--more later. JNW (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

<–– Alright, I can't help myself, because Wikipedia's public responsibility is more important than this article: Artstor's terms of use do not allow their database of images to be re-used on a GFDL project like Wikipedia. That is my common-sense reading — IANALawyer — do with it what you will, and hate me later :-). –Outriggr § 02:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done - All ARTstor images were eliminated...Modernist (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we eliminated the ARTstor images, except for the detail of the ship on the horizon. The WMF's policy is to ignore any assertions of copyright on PD-art, but I suppose terms of use are another thing entirely... Lithoderm 05:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

ARTstor is trying to claim a right they do not have, I believe. We can use these images. The digitization does not grant them a copyright over the image (just like digitized texts are not suddenly "owned" by the databases that provide them). Awadewit (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Awadewit. It amazes me that someone who has taken up fair-use image review which such zeal can suggest at the same time that we can ignore the terms of use of a closed institutional database. Surely the terms of use supercede claims about our right to re-use Artstor's holdings; if we access an Artstor image, we have agreed to limit our use of it to the personal and educational, and, unfortunately, this project is licensed in such a way that we don't get the "educational" card. Would you take your argument to the logical conclusion, that it is within our remit to upload to Wikimedia Commons every (pre-whatever-year) image contained in that database? That's very bold, and I would never wish to put forth Wikipedia as a petty thief that ignores other institutions' policies while insisting on the principles embedded its own. I wonder if this particular case has ever been examined on Commons. –Outriggr § 04:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation policy is clear that we should uphold the use of PD images, notwithstanding attempts by institutions to thwart this. This is the case, for example, with museums that have artworks out of copyright and forbid photographs to be taken on the premises, only releasing their own reproductions as copyright material. The Foundation statement is that this is an attempt to thwart the proper free use of such PD images, and they are therefore allowable on Wikimedia projects, despite the museums' assertions of copyright. Artstor would seem to be an identical case. Ty 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, friendly neighborhood Wikimedia Commons admin dropping by here. The relevant pages are Commons:Licensing and Commons:Derivative works. Awadewit is quite correct. Durova^Charge! 04:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Foundation statement: The position of the WMF. Ty 05:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but these policies don't address the heart of the matter; indeed Artstor does not seem an "identical case" to me, because Artstor does not assert copyright. They require that you abide by certain terms of use if you use their service, and this supercedes the public domain aspect, because you can't access the image without agreeing to the terms. I think it's deplorable, and dangerous, that Wikipedia will not respect another institution's legal terms of service. Some of Artstor's reproductions are hardly slavish and have had considerable "reproductive effort" put into them. We are peers within the community that educates and provides access to knowledge, and we have to act responsibly with peers even when they play by different rules. Anyway, upload all the purloined pics you want and let the lawyers sort it out, I suppose. –Outriggr § 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It is a good thing that there are those of us that care about the public domain, which clearly you do not. You would let any profit-seeking corporation claim that they can bring public domain works back under legal protection (they can't actually claim copyright, so they have now started to claim an illegitimate "terms of use"). Well, I, along with Wikipedia, will fight that kind of greed. Without us, there would be public domain left. And, frankly, we are not peers with the profit-driven corporations that produce these databases (we are a non-profit). I've seen enough of their inner workings to know that they are not working for the benefit of their users. Awadewit (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I love the public domain, and I'm rather insulted that you'd suggest otherwise. (Here are my commons contributions.) Do I look for any possible excuse under Wikipedia policy to ignore complex issues related to the public domain? No.

Artstor is non-profit: see [44]. So there's no greed, I don't think, and I don't think you've done your research. Johnbod, below, adds a rather pragmatic addition to one point I'm trying to make here: the zeal to limit fair-use images unless one can supply a "rationale" which is never "rational" (good) enough is misplaced, and of little pragmatic consequence to Wikipedia, compared to the (hypothetical) repeated uploading of content from a legal entity in violation of its terms. As Johnbod implies, much of the fair-use busywork is in response to rather imaginary legal concerns—meanwhile we have the same group advocating taking content from a private, non-profit institution that has a considerable investment in its content, and certainly the potential legal ramifications are much less imaginary in this case. I'll end my debate here. –Outriggr § 01:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoever signed on to ARTstor and uploaded the images here is certainly in breach of ARTstor's terms & conditions. I rather doubt myself that the Foundation's policy allows us or Commons to retain material so received. Also having some personal experience of this area, I would say that the chances of getting a lawyer's letter from ARTstor are far higher than in most of the far-fetched scenarios round non-free images beloved of the WP image people. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to reconfirm - we are not using any ARTstor images...Modernist (talk) 01:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth the images that I changed actually didn't have sources and although I presumed they were ARTstor images, like this great image that I reluctantly let go [45]. I went with the current PD images that do have sources...Modernist (talk) 05:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Whoever is interrupting and striking my comments, please stop. It makes it very hard to determine what has actually been done. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Not aimed at anyone but I'm thinking now; whatever. It's actually very difficult to balance the ratio of text and images in an article with this many images. How many add value and are capable of containing meaningful citable captions vs. how many are just decorative is the yard stick I'd hold, and just draw the line there. I'd hate this FAC to be bogged down on broader issues that I have no understanding of or care for. I respect the rational for FU, but it should not be debated on FAC. My preference would be to cut (if in doubt cut) any contencuois imgs, and discuss elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment This article would benefit from a more compelling introduction. Not all of the facts and figures on the wreck are needed, and the space saved could be devoted to mention of the work’s genesis and influence. Kablammo (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Have redrafted the lead. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose—overall a good read, but needs work Switch to neutral (22:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

• "At 491 × 717 cm" — couldn't that just be put into meters? Also, translation for us Americans?
  • I added - 16.1 x 23.5 feet...now we have cms, inches and feet listed, I'm not an expert on conversions to meters, someone might give that a shot...Modernist (talk) 11:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Done, - Outriggr added 4.9 x 7.2 meters Modernist (talk) 13:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• I have to agree with Kablammo that the lead could use some tinkering. More on the impact of the work and its construction would be nice, and less on the actual background event; just hit the bullet points and save a few sentences.

  Agree also. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• "on the incompetent actions of the Méduses captain, Hugues Duroy de Chaumereys, a returned émigré." this introduction is redundant to the introduction of Chaumereys a paragraph earlier.

  This was fixed earlier, as far as I can tell...Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• There are lots of bad sentence construction throughout, mostly via tacked-on and breathless clauses such as "By this time only 15 passengers were still alive; the others having died of hunger or starvation; having only wine and human flesh to survive on.", or "In 1818, he contacted the authors of published accounts, and later made sketches of bodies in the morgue of the Hospital Beaujon,[12] and even brought severed limbs back to his studio to study their decay."
  • Done, lots of changes...Modernist (talk) 14:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  The article had an extensive copyedit yesterday, I think most of this was resolved. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Until 1818, Géricault had not yet found his artistic voice. He was an admirer of Peter Paul Rubens and Antoine-Jean Gros, and while his first exhibited work, 1812's The Charging Chasseur, owes a debt to Rubens in its ambitious and monumental scale, it also indicates an interest in the depiction of contemporary subject matter. By the age of 25, Géricault had travelled and been witness to victims of both insanity and plague. From what he saw, he became haunted by the stiffness of corpses." - this doesn't adequately introduce us to Gericault the artist pre-Raft of the Medusa, and also is very vague about filling in details: how did he see all these dead or disease-ridden people? Admittedly, this was the 1800s, but I went to France and Germany and wasn't haunted by corpses, just zombies.
  • Done, I think it is better now...One source [46] has Gericault obsessed with this painting by Gros of the sick and the dead [47]Modernist (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• "According to Borias" - be nice to have him introduced in the article body rather than suddenly thrown in.

  Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• More to follow later.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for thaking the time David. All good points. We're working towards resolving. Ceoil (talk) 09:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there are or were some tacked-on clauses... ("There are lots of bad sentence construction" is bad too :-). I did some work on this article at the same time as you were posting a review; it should be improved now. –Outriggr § 11:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Has David Fuchs been pinged to revisit his oppose? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reading through the article now, Sandy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping my oppose. The prose is better, but there are still glaring issues (like incomplete sentences.) I've done some minor fixes, and also left inline comments in the first sections of the article where I think that there could be more elaboration, restructuring, or I was unsure what a passage meant. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: The article is undergoing an extensive c-e, and we will contact David when we feel it is complete. Ceoil (talk) 14:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nice work all. Comments:
  • There is some redundancy between note 17, note 30 (which I admit, I just made), and the main text on David etc. I think this may be the result of multiple authorship, and in general I sensed some redundancy in a number of sections, which hopefully I've edited out.

    Seems to be fixed? Ceoil (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • There are two references authored by Riding, and both have a 2003 publication date, but the Notes do not distinguish these. How about moving the journal article to the References section and making the corresponding Note "Riding (2003a)" or what have you. Assuming the references to Riding with a page number all belong to the book chapter, add "(2003b)" to them (to get "Riding (2003b), 77"), and to the main Reference.

    Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

    Now you've got a month for reach, but how would I (or you) know the book chapter is "June 2003"? –Outriggr § 07:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

    Fixed. Ceoil (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with comments about the lead. Most significant is the sentence "Scholars have generally attributed two inherent meanings to the work", which is not explained, and indeed I would have tried to explain it myself if I knew what two they were after reading. Are they the political overtones and the transition from neoclassicism to Romanticism and beyond? If so, I'm not sure "meanings" is the right word; I would just explain both ideas briefly in the lead.

    Cut as fanciful. Ceoil (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

    Done, hopefully. Ceoil (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Continuing, I don't find the final sentence of the lead that consistent with the article: "In the words of ... Borias, Géricault's Medusa represents 'on the one hand, desolation and death. On the other, hope and life'". I get only the first sense from the article. Too picky?

    No, work is needed here. Ceoil (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Another sentence I didn't quite get: "The ragged state of the figures' clothes allowed the "unromantic" nature of modern dress to be largely bypassed." Does this mean Gericault is able to escape the issue of contemporary clothing making his painting look "unromantic" because there is no need to dress the poor souls on the raft in contemporary clothing?

    I cut this as it contradicted later statements. Ceoil (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

  • I don't know the subtleties of British vs American English, being a hybrid. Is the "-ise" always required? If so, there are still a few "-ize"s in the text.
  • Done:I s'd the z's that I found, seems right now....Modernist (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Are dates in the references "supposed to be" in the same format as that chosen in the main text?

    Yes I think I have them all consistent now.Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, –Outriggr § 11:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. Lithoderm 04:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Full pass made for dabs. Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Nice work, I enjoyed reading that. If possible 20,000 francs could use more indication of value. ϢereSpielChequers 23:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, trying to find a converter, but its not easy. Ceoil (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've added a link, what do you think? ϢereSpielChequers 00:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The link looks useless, says basically nothing of relevance to the article or to how much 20,000 French francs were worth either in 1824 or today...I think we should lose it...Modernist (talk) 00:32, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done, by someone it seems to be gone..Modernist (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• For what its worth 20,000 French francs today would be the equivalent of 3049.24 Euros or 4064.91 US Dollars...What 20,000 francs were worth back in 1824? - well - probably a good deal less than that painting is worth today....Modernist (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor problem: "At 491 × 7.17 cm (16.1 × 23.5 feet)..." - Can you check those metric measurements? The 7.17cm is clearly wrong if the imperial one is at all right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I removed the period for now, but have no idea if the measurements are correct to begin with, Lithoderm 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that was my error. Though a 491 × 7.17 cm painting on a topic like this would be interesting enough! I've verfied that 491 × 716 cm (16.1 × 23.5 feet) as the article currently reads is correct. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment will jot a few notes and maybe do some copyediting. Feel free to revert any inadvertent changes. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

''After 147 passengers were forced onto a raft, it was abandoned by the other crew. - I don't get this, where'd they go (bolded bit)?

• Done, I rewrote that passage - I agree; I think it's better now...Modernist (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Raft of the Medusa, depicts a scene following the wreck of the French naval frigate, Méduse, when, after 13 days adrift on a raft, the remaining 15 survivors view a ship approaching from a distance. - yeah this is clunky, but I am not aware enough of the sources to reword.

• Done, I think my changes are improvements...Modernist (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

..sombre, dark, mostly brown pigments... - could remove this "dark" I think as sombre and brown sort of imply the same (and this would be the second 'dark' in the sentence)

• Done, took out the dark, good call, thanks...Modernist (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The raft is shown as very unstable as... - here's a weird one, 'unstable' I always imagine as likely to tip over, whereas in this case I guess the meaning is more 'flimsy' , 'fragile' or something equivalent to 'lots-of-holes-and-likely-to-fall-apart-at-any-moment' ?

• Done..I think it is a little better now..Modernist (talk) 12:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Géricault shaved his hair... - should this be 'Géricault shaved his head'?

• Done, looks better..Modernist (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think linking some of teh more obscurely-known colours might be a good idea in Final work.

• Done..Good idea, I linked all the colors that could be linked, with the obvious exceptions of black and white...Modernist (talk) 04:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Style issue; is there a reason why David and Gros are not bluelinked and named in full in their first mention in the Influences section?

• Done, good catch...Modernist (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

which it seemed he had hoped to achieve. - 'which he seemed to seek'? (bit ungainly on read through)

No 'seemed' about it. It was a calculated move, and I've reworded as such. Ceoil (talk) 15:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
  • Scène de Naufrage is translated as Shipwreck Scene, although Scene of Shipwreck would seem to be a literal and more elegant translation.

    I'll defer to....Modernist....on this. Ceoil (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    • Made the change, thanks David...Modernist (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the quote from Delacroix about his running like a fool after seeing the painting, "faubourg" (suburb) is given without a capital although Faubourg Saint-Germain, the name of an area, would normally be capitalised. Is the capitalisation as per the original (translated) quote?

    no, but fixed. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

  • In the text list of his paint colours, Naples yellow is capitalised but not Prussian blue, which should also be.

    Yes, all done. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    • No caps at all is correct....Modernist (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The block quote from Montfort about G's working methods is introduced by a comma rather than a colon (as used later for the Wellington quote).

    I prefers comma's to introduce quotes; brought some consistency to this. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    • I've used colon's on the quotes...Modernist (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  • In the Interpretation and Legacy section, there is no mention of Julian Barnes' discussion of the incident and the creation of the painting in chapter 5 of his book A History of the World in 10½ Chapters. Barnes' uses the artistic process of the painting's creation to examine the way in which art interprets reality.

    Whoes interepration of what. The section is a wide overview, we are not pretending to be exhaustive compenduim of each view in each book. Or at least, I think! Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

    I wasn't suggesting incorporating any of Julian Barnes' commentary, which is somewhat satirical, just a mention that his book discusses the painting, i.e. it is influenced by it.--DavidCane (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

--DavidCane (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read it is the god's honest truth. Seeing if I can track it down on on of the online libaries and will come back on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably unwise per to give weight to passing mention per WP:UNDUE, considering all that has been written by so many about this work to date. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned this on talk before; I don't think it is essential to mention it, but Barnes is a useful antidote to loose talk about the "realism" of the painting, though I'm not saying we have any. I'll see if I can find my copy. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the read, other suggestions were helpful. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I've had a fiddle with the intro which I think went overboard with wreck-specific material that was needed in the fuller account under "Background" but not in the first paragraph.

• • Nice job...Thank you..Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• The images that are being used for comparison are a vital part of the article, because both the development and the influence of this painting need covering and illustrations are the best way to do this. On this score I have two comments and a suggestion.

1. Using thumbnails for large and detailed paintings that you want people to compare is none other than ridiculous. I say that in full awareness of the fact that the "style-police" routinely reduce all pics to thumbs and uprights, even those at the lead of the article. This practice shows no comprehension of what art or art history is about or how "comparison" as an educative tool functions. Nearly all the pics need enlarging so that the reader does not have to continually hop backwards and forwards to wiki commons. And the argument about "giving readers a choice of how they view them" doesn't hold water as most viewers don't know they have a choice.

• Although I sort of agree, I'm seeing both sides of the image size issue..given the range of preferences people have...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

See reply below to Mattisse.Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Linked to this is the fact that you only have room for so many pictures, before they start disrupting the formatting and orphaning headings. So when you write a very long caption under a picture, then you have used up good picture space with a large number of words instead. Picture captions are best kept brief, to two lines if possible, not 8 ot 10 lines which extend the box down the side of the page, reducing space for the next pic. The discussion of the work illustrated doesn't need to be in the thumbnail box.

• I'm seeing both sides to captions also. I think referenced images with text is one solution to the Fair use problem, although not in this article...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

3. Expanding the size of the picture effectively shortens the number of lines taken up by the caption, because the caption spreads horizontally.

• Good point...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• Solution. Enlarge all the pics that would benefit from so doing, and remove most of each caption into the text. The whole article will benefit.

• Thank you for your input...Modernist (talk) 12:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise Support

Amandajm (talk) 06:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• I appreciate all the work that has gone into this article. I agree that the article would benefit from an abbreviation of the captions. The first caption (which almost makes no sense to me) is rendered (on my computer) adjacent to this eyeopening description: "Crazed, parched and starved, they slaughtered mutineers, ate their dead companions and killed the weakest." It is a weird contrast between the vivid description and the dry caption—the caption taking several readings—and I am not sure if it makes sense—it's a plan of the moment of rescue, it's a front piece—too much content for a caption that doesn't quite relate to the article content of the section. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I trimmed two, and broadly agree on principal. I wonder if we could loose the formats of the painting (ie oil on canvas, black crayon etc) for works by other artists. It would save space for text that would give concise context or reasoning why the img is being included. Ceoil (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I prefer to trim the redundant or extra text from the captions where possible and keep the oil on canvas, size, collections dates etc. those are important to include...Modernist (talk) 05:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I rather disagree - all that info should of course be on the image page for those who want it. Dates should normally be included, and in this case perhaps sizes, but if it looks like "oil on canvas" it isn't necessary to add this to the caption, unless eg it is actually a gouache. In the case of chalk & mixed media studies etc, it is probably best to keep the medium, as it won't be as obvious looking at the image. In the same way if a painting is much larger or smaller than one might guess from a thumb, the size should be included - but for eg a portrait head at about life-size it isn't vital. Current collections are generally a matter of happenstance in this period, and don't themselves add much to the understanding of the image. Johnbod (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me you could lose formats of the paintings by other artists, in favor of info as to why img is being included, as info is on image page. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, I've cut some of this, though I now realise some of the captions are now shown to be lacking in descriptive text. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support (with a couple thoughts)

• "marked the origins" > would not "marked the beginning" be better as it was not the source of the Romantic moverment but rather the beginning point, no? There were larger forces, even though it may have "laid the foundations".

Agree; was maybe too fancifuly worded. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Too bad there is no room for Homer's The Gulf Stream as it makes a nice contrast colorwise, etc. from all the darkness, plus shows spread of influence to another hemisphere. (I had never pondered the connection between the two paintings.)

If the section can be developed enough to accomadate a fourth imgage, the Homer should be included. (Note this is not the long finger, but Modernist is the expert in connecting artists and works together, not me. Modernist...? Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• I believe that the following was objected to by Maralia (below) as a lead in to a blockquote (and I agree) : Over 30 years after the completion of the work, his friend Montfort recalled that Géricault's "manner of working was quite new to me",[38] [blockquote].

• I don't think the quote "manner of working was quite new to me" is significant enough to be worth confusing the blockquote mark up. Plus, it means you have to have a footnote there as well as in the blockquote. Also, I know you stated that you prefer commas to colons, but the commas to make the blockquotes more confusing, I think.

Yeah, agree, cut that bit. I've changed the general structures of the quotes so that they are now just part of the paras; the article has more images that usual and the quotes and images seem to have been conflicting and causing problems at lower resolutions (I tried it on a few, and saw problems up to 1024 res) Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, all good suggestions; it will take time to work through them. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support from Maralia I gave this a copyedit. I left some hidden comments, and have a few more questions:
• Quote issues:

• In many cases where you have ended a quotation with outside punctuation, it feels like said punctuation belongs inside, but has been moved outside, perhaps in an attempt to satisfy logical punctuation rules. Is there some confusion over this? It feels forced and reads awkwardly in many cases.

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Delacroix quote is very short; why is it in a blockquote?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The Montford quotes are strangely presented; why include a quoted phrase inline, followed immediately by a lengthy blockquote?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• The presentation of lengthy quotations is a bit wonky because {{blockquote}} does not indent a quotation when the text is floated around an image. I notice that the long Montford quote does not use the blockquote template, and thus indents properly. Perhaps this is a good solution in general? (And my apologies if my minor shifting of images has contributed to this.)

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect it is because I am no art historian, but I have a hard time with statements such as a painting 'anticipates' or 'fore-echoes' one which came years later by someone else. While that may be standard phrasing in the art history field, to me it rather defies logic. Could these statements at least be directly quoted?
• What is meant by this: "282 1/4⅝ in"?

Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why give both 10- and 13-digit ISBNs?

Quite. Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for a really interesting read—it's always a pleasant surprise to come across an article that ties in to one of my pet interests. Maralia (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

And thanks for the copyedit...! Ceoil (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

One further issue: I think the Montford quote would be better incorporated thus:

his friend Montfort recalled:

"[Gericault's method] astonished me as much as his..."

• • Done...Modernist (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck addressed concerns above; one remains, in addition to my Montford suggestion. Maralia (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What else? Modernist (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have these sorted. The Montford quote is ok now? Ceoil (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

All addressed except one of my original comments above, about stating that a work 'anticipates' another later work. Maralia (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Ceoil just got that one covered...Modernist (talk) 04:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, bad phrase, I think we have it. Ceoil (talk) 04:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, you got one instance, but there are two more (both about Prud'hon, one in a caption). Maralia (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, Modernist (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything addressed; changed to support. Well done, folks. Maralia (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the look. Ceoil (talk) 10:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 14:29, 24 January 2009 [48].

---

Isaac Shelby

Nominator(s): Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)}

Over the last couple of weeks, I have substantially expanded this article and believe it is now ready for an FA review. I hope to respond to all comments quickly and see the article promoted. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

*Query "until July 1755 when Lord Dunmore ordered the garrison destroyed, fearing it might become useful to colonial rebels." Looks like the wrong decade to me, 1775? ϢereSpielChequers 14:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ah yes, a disconnect between brain and fingers. Especially unlikely that Shelby would have been second in command of a garrison at five years old! Thanks for the catch. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• A bit of over linking going on here, do we need to link "fur trade", surveyor, garrison, reconnaissance, peaches, orchard, hanged, theft, murder, arson, treaty, etc?

Otherwise, sources look okay, couldn't check links as the tool server is still down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I've de-linked the terms you mentioned. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Went back and checked links and they are fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment - It would probably be best if you split the "References" section into two distinctive sections; the citations under the header "Notes" and bibliography under "References". Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Different editors like it different ways; I have no real preference and have changed it to match your suggestion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - what sources the "Places named for Isaac Shelby" section? It's obvious that they share Shelby's name, but I would like to see a citation that proves the cities and counties were named after Isaac himself. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• How would you like to see the sources done? A separate cite for each county, city, and military base? I considered doing this before nominating, but thought it might grow the References section excessively and clutter the list with superscripts. Still, if that's what it takes, I'll get on it. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 00:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• If possible, an all-encompassing source would be great, but if not, it might be necessary to cite each item individually. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• A book like American place-names by George Stewart should cover most of this with a single citation. I can consult it in my local library if Acdixon doesn't already have this or another source. —Kevin Myers 01:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's good info, Kevin. I can get access to sources regarding Kentucky place names pretty easily, but I don't know about the others. If one source could cover it all, that'd be great. Would you mind to see how many you can knock out with the source you mentioned, and I'll try to pick off any that aren't covered there. Thanks so much. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I gave the wrong book title above, but with a different book I added a cite for all of the counties and several of the towns. It seems highly probable that the remaining towns and military posts were also named for Isaac Shelby, but they were not specifically mentioned by my source. —Kevin Myers 22:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, I would bet that most if not all of the Shelby Townships are named for him, in case you come across a more detailed source for place names. —Kevin Myers 22:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the help, Kevin. I've found sources for the remaining cities and military posts except Shelbyville, Michigan. If someone can find that one, it'd be great; if not, it can just be removed. I think for now I'll skip out on adding the Shelby Townships. I don't think they'll add that much to the article. Maybe I'll eventually split this list off into a separate article (List of places named for Isaac Shelby). I might consider researchign the Shelby Townships then. Thoughts on that? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, apparently Shelbyville, Michigan is named for some other guy. I wouldn't worry about the townships now, either. An eventual list is a good idea for when you run out of better things to do! —Kevin Myers 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for tracking that one down for me; I've removed it from the list per the source you provided. The Christmas break has given me enough time to bite off more than I can chew, so I've probably got too many irons in the fire (and cliches in this sentence!) to do this list now, but perhaps eventually. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review - I've added some information to the images, but we should still add the names of the museums which hold the three following paintings:

• File:William H. Harrison.jpg
• File:Shelby Isaac.jpg
• File:John Sevier.jpg (please add the information to the Commons file)

Thanks! Otherwise, the licensing and descriptions all look good now. Awadewit (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the portrait of Shelby, everything I've found on it says "Courtesy of the Kentucky Department of Libraries and Archives". I've only seen that building from the outside, but it's certainly large enough to potentially hold a gallery that includes this portrait. As for the others, I just grabbed them from the articles on their respective subjects; I have no idea how to find out where they are housed. Is this a requirement for FA? Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons that it is a good idea to include this information is that copyright laws for art works are different in different countries (and constantly changing). Just last year, for example, we went through several permutations of the PD-Art tag over at Commons (could it be used for every country or not, etc.) Having as much information as possible makes it easier to stay on top of the ever-evolving copyright situation. Besides, it is pretty standard to list where paintings are located in the art history field. When I took final exams in art history, I always had to list "artist, title, year, location, type of work, etc." If you can't find the information, we'll have to live with it. I tried to look around a bit on the web, but nothing came up in about 15 minutes of searching. I was hoping the books you had mentioned where the paintings were. Awadewit (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What is happening with images here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not opposing based on this, as you can see. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's a good thing, because I might be able to find a little bit of info on the Shelby image since I know it comes from the Kentucky Historical Society, but I'm clueless on the other two. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 04:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• It says no dabs found. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaning towards support This article is clearly written and outlines the essentials of this man's life. A couple of questions and suggestions before I support:

• Is no more known about his domestic life? His wife and children seemed to get short shrift in the article.

Generally, I try to avoid going into much detail about a person's family because it's easy to get off-topic, which would especially bad in an article this long. There is a mention that Shelby's son Thomas was known for taking detailed notes about the breeding of cattle and advancing the science of breeding cattle, though it doesn't specify what advances he was personally responsible for. Other than that, there is mention that the Shelbys were known for producing excellent whiskey and a great amount of beef. There are a couple of pages of marriages, births, etc. without much mention of any of those mentioned becoming particularly notable.

I'm satisfied here. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the section on his first term as governor, the article states "Much of his term was devoted to establishing basic laws, military divisions, and a tax structure" - I was wondering if any more could be said about this. The bulk of the article seems to be about Shelby's military exploits, but perhaps that is what he is most known for?

In Shelby's own opinion, his military service was much more what he was known for. One of the sources listed in the bibliography (I forget which one at the moment) mentioned that in Shelby's autobiography, he devoted only a page to his two terms as governor, while most of the book was devoted to his military service.

What do historians think is important about Shelby? Have historians said a bit more about the non-military aspects of his career? Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

At least in terms of his second term, more than one source says domestic issues were virtually ignored in favor of considerations related to the War of 1812. In Wrobel's discussion of Shelby's first term, the establishment of basic government structures is covered in three paragraphs; the issues of navigation of the Mississippi, conflict with the Indians, and the Citizen Genet affair occupy the next 5 1/2 pages. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied here. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Shelby used both indentured servants and slaves as laborers on his expansive farm at Traveler's Rest. Despite having bought and sold slaves as property, he was, by all accounts, a kind master. In his first gubernatorial address to the state legislature, he had called for laws ensuring the proper treatment of slaves. According to a family report, the good master from Kentucky in Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin bore the surname Shelby in honor of Isaac Shelby. - I found this paragraph strange. What is "a kind master"? By whose "accounts" was he a good master? White Kentuckians? When the article says "by all accounts", does that include his slaves? What are these laws "ensuring the proper treatment of slaves"?

The only source that mentions this is Wrobel's biography. Regarding his treatment of slaves, she simply says "Isaac Shelby was considered as being kind to the slaves at Traveler's Rest." The end of this paragraph says "He [Shelby] seemed to have hard-working slaves, who looked after the interests of Traveler's Rest. Many of the women showed their admiration of 'the Colonel' by naming children Isaac or Shelby or both, in the case of twins." Though it seems a little ambiguous to me, it sounds like "the women" might be the slave women, who apparently admired Shelby enough to name their children after him.

Regarding the laws, the source lists five things that Shelby called for in his address to the state senate; number five (and they are literally numbered in the text) is "laws compelling the proper treatment of slaves." There is no elaboration.

I almost left this paragraph out because it is based on so little information, but the connection to such a well-known novel seemed too notable not to include. Based on what I have provided here, I'm open to suggestions for rewording, and I would even reluctantly agree to remove the paragraph if you think it would be best.

I would lean towards removing this paragraph since the information is, in my opinion, so controversial and the source information is itself so thin. I think that controversial claims such as this should be sourced to extremely detailed and solid material. It also concerns me that there isn't more than one source that contains this material. If you want, we can see what other reviewers think. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The part of the paragraph that strikes me as particularly problematic is the "by all accounts, a kind master" sentence. While this may be true, it sounds old-fashioned. The Wrobel biography was published in 1974; much has changed about the writing of slavery since then. (Now, we must ask: if so many slave children were named after Shelby, does that mean he fathered some of them?) I would drop the "by all accounts" sentence right away, and then look for an additional source and information about his calling for "proper treatment" laws, which if true, should be possible to verify. Otherwise, drop that sentence too. —Kevin Myers 16:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph because of weak sourcing. If I eventually find more support, I'll try to re-add it in an appropriate manner. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article uses the word "patriot" to refer to colonists in the Revolutionary War. I think this is slightly POV. Could we come up with a less "pro-American" word?

I understand your concern, but what would you suggest instead? I hoped by linking the term on its first use, perhaps it would counter the POV concerns.

I would suggest "colonists" or "revolutionaries". Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replaced "patriot" with "colonist". Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 17:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

This was an enjoyable article to read - thanks! Awadewit (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed the article, and I hope I'll be able to address your concerns sufficiently for you to support its promotion. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Changing to full support. Awadewit (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. A well-written and informative article, which appears to be comprehensive and accurate. The bit about the Kentucky motto is perhaps too trivial for the lead section, but that's just my opinion. I'd instead add some sort of summing up statement, like this quote from the American National Biography: "In many respects Isaac Shelby was Kentucky's George Washington." Can't beat that! —Kevin Myers 05:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the support. I can definitely agree with the sentiment behind ANB's statement, but it strikes me as being arguably POV. I thought the line about the motto helped show, not tell, Shelby's importance to Kentucky. Regardless, support from someone so well-versed in this time period means a lot. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments Good work, and an interesting read. I think it is almost ready, but a few items emerged:
  • "... and became involved in the effort to separate Kentucky from Virginia" Can we provide any context here? Or is there an article about this we can link to?

There is no article, although there probably could be. What kind of context seems appropriate? The lead is already pretty long, and I want to guard against straying off-topic. That said, I'm not opposed to adding something that makes this clearer if we can decide what that is, exactly.

I'm just concerned about the reader reaction, "Huh? Kentucky and Virginia were combined?" --Laser brain (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with you now. See if my latest change addresses your concern.

• • "He organized the state's first government and secured it from Indian attack." Reads as if he secured the government from Indian attack. I'm assuming you mean the whole state.

Yes. Clarified.

• • "Shelby retired from public life..." When?

Clarified.

• • "... and at the request of William Henry Harrison ..." Who was Harrison at the time? I know, but the readers don't know. Don't make them click the link or read on to find out.. just say "at the request of General William Henry Harrison" or similar.

Done.

• • "The next year, he returned to claim ..." Returned from where?

Clarified.

• • Can you wikilink first mentions of historical military ranks so people can read further?

I had these linked, but they were removed as "overlinking" by reviewer Awadewit. I'm fine with doing whatever consensus dictates. The only one that may be problematic is "captain", which has no disambiguation for U.S. militia captains.

It's not a big deal. I'm just a reader who's interested in clicking through and reading about the ranks. --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • The prose of going "back" to places needs revisiting. Almost every time you've mentioned him going somewhere, he is going "back" there. If the meaning is not diminished, you can remove any "back".

OK, I think I addressed all of these.

• • "Partisans" is no longer in use the way you've used it - please wikilink or explain.

Linked, although most of that article seems to talk about WWII. Hope it will be improved at some point.

• • "The combined force pursued Ferguson to King's Mountain, where the latter had fortified himself" I think "where he had fortified himself" would suffice.

Done.

• • I don't care for the use of the term "Indians" in your prose, even if they were known as such during that period. In quotations, yes, but can you call them by tribe based on your sources?

Generally, I use the tribe name if I have it, because I realize the term "Indian" is problematic. Based on that, I assume the sources didn't specify which tribe, though it's been three weeks since I've looked at the sources in any depth. I'll try to look a little closer this weekend, but I'd say we'll need to find a general acceptable term.

Comment: Your use of "Indian" is perfectly okay and scholarly. The New York Times style guide from the '90s is still the best approach: "American Indian" on first usage (to make clear you're not talking about people from India), and "Indian" thereafter (most American Indians still proudly call themselves Indians). "Native American" is okay too, though most specialists in this era seem to avoid it as wordy and anachronistic. Equating Shelby's military opponents as "tribes" here is problematic, because "tribes" of the Old Northwest were not necessarily political units, and the Indians fought in multi-tribal ad hoc coalitions. Tecumseh was Shawnee, for example, but most of his followers were not, and most Shawnees didn't follow him. —Kevin Myers 14:43, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Kevin. I agree with what you've said. --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, Kevin. I was hoping you would jump in here. This info will be useful in several other articles I am interested in. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

• • "Furthermore, he was limited by federal regulations that limited ..." Needs reworking.

Done.

--Laser brain (talk) 02:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll get these ASAP, but I'm out of town at a training today and tomorrow. (I'm on break right now.) I might catch a long enough break to fix it from here, but if not, it could be as late as Friday afternoon or Saturday morning before I get to it. Just wanted to explain the delay. Thanks for your patience. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I had some time this morning to fix some of these. It will probably be Saturday morning before I get any more done. If you have additional comments, please leave them between now and then. Thanks for your continued patience. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with your changes. The outstanding items (the rank linking and Indian name) are not issues. Thanks for all your hard work. --Laser brain (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. Glad I was able to get to most of them this morning, and the remaining ones during this quick break! Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 16:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - with a few niggles.

• Wouldn't it make more sense to give his highest governmental office in the first sentence of the lead? Something like "Isaac Shelby (dates) was the first and fifth governor of Kentucky as well as a member of the state legislatures of Virginia and North Carolina. He also was a soldier ..." With the current order, it's kinda confusing to the reader, who wonders why being a soldier in three wars is so important. My general rule is to make the first sentence of the lead the "One sentence summary" of someone's life so it's all there.

It may be arguable which he was more notable for (probably more so during his life than now) but I've changed it anyway.

• I'd say what war the Battle of Point Pleasant is from, jsut so you don't lose readers who are forced to click through the link to figure it out. It's not a well known battle like Pearl Harbor or even Lexington, so either giving the war it was part of or a date would help ground the reader in a timeframe.

It's in the paragraph dealing with Lord Dunmore's War, and the date of the battle is in the same sentence.

No, this one is from the lead. That's where I noticed it. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Fixed now.

• Are we linking state names now? I can't ever remember the consensus.

I didn't even know there was a discussion! If you find out what consensus is, let me know.

• One thing I'm noticing is that sometimes context is mising in the body of the article. You link to articles, but sometimes it's best to give a quick phrase explaining what the linked term is. I noticed it especially with the Transylvania Company, but there are other places where context might be helpful and keep your readers from leaving the page to find out more about an obscure subject. (Another example.. stands of arms? What does that mean?)

Honestly, I don't know what a "stand of arms" is either; that was the term the source used, so I used it. I'd have to do a bit of reading myself to provide context on Transylvania Company, but I can do that if necessary. Just not at the moment.

I've added a bit of context on Transylvania. A "stand of arms" is the complete musket setup for one soldier. It's a term known only to military history buffs, so I think we can eliminate it here and just relate the number of prisoners taken. —Kevin Myers 00:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

These are mainly quibbles, and I'm happy to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, with comments - Here are some comments regarding the prose, but I think these are mostly minor:

• Overlinking in the lead section - I don't think "militia" needs to be linked; "he declined President James Monroe's offer" - I don't think "President" needs to be linked.

Done.

• "He secured the state from Indian attacks" - would "Native American" be more appropriate than "Indian", or "American Indians"?

See Kevin's comment above. I'm taking his word on this one.

• "led troops from Kentucky into battle at the Battle of the Thames" - can you word this without saying "battle" twice?

Yes, fixed.

• "Shelby died at his estate, Traveller's Rest, on July 18, 1826." - I think naming the estate is overly detailed for the lead section. Instead, could you say "Shelby died at his estate in ("___, Kentucky" or just "Kentucky") on July 18, 1826.

Done.

• "establish a boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina.[9] Shortly after his arrival in the state, Governor Richard Caswell" - this is confusing - what is "the state"? I assume North Carolina? The sentence should probably be explicit and say that. Only by putting my mouseover the "Governor" link, do I see the link is "Governor of North Carolina" and thus figured it out. I would reword it to either say "Shortly after his arrival in North Carolina, Governor Richard Caswell" or "Shortly after his arrival in the state, North Carolina Governor Richard Caswell..."

Fixed.

• It's somewhat confusing again when I mouseover the Sullivan County link, which comes up as Sullivan County, Tennessee. I assume that Tennessee was part of North Carolina then? I would clarify that in the paragraph, by saying something like "to establish a boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina in the western frontier region" or something like that.

You are correct regarding Sullivan County (there was no Tennessee). I have added the word "frontier" to the sentence.

• "dubbed him "Old King's Mountain."" - I think the period is supposed to go outside the quote, in this case.

Yes, I still haven't gotten the hang of this logical quotation thing.

• The "I shall upon all occasions be averse to..." quote formats on my computer in a way, partially wrapping around the image on the left, and is not set apart enough to make it obvious this is a quote. Perhaps, try using {{Quotation}}? or right-aligning the image? Though the portrait would then be facing away from the page, which I think is undesirable.

Yes, I have this formatting issue too, but if I change it to {{Quotation}}, it leaves I big white space under the picture of Citizen Genet. And you are right about the portrait facing away from the prose; I originally had it aligned on the right, for just this reason as I recall, but SandyGeorgia changed it based on the MOS. Doesn't look like there is a good solution on this one.

• In the "Second term as governor" section, I think "major general" needs to be capitalized as "Major General".

Judging from the capitalization in the article on this rank, you appear to be right. Fixed.

• There should be no hyphen in "Vice President".

Fixed.

• In the "Later life and death" section, "Upon Shelby's leaving office in 1816, U.S. President James Monroe offered " - Monroe is already mentioned several times, and it's clear he is "U.S." President. I suggest saying "in 1816, President Monroe offered" or "in 1816, President James Monroe offered".

Fixed. This is what happens when you build articles up one source at a time, as I do.

• The sources all look good and reliable.

--Aude (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments and the support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support A good read. I found nothing wrong with the prose or the sources. TomStar810 (Talk) 22:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - very interesting and, on the whole, well-written, and excellently referenced. I made a couple of very minor edits. Graham Colm ^Talk 11:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [49].

---

Operation Uranus

Nominator(s): JonCatalán^(Talk)

Operation Uranus was the Soviet encirclement of the German Sixth Army in Stalingrad, during the Battle of Stalingrad. This article recently passed its good article nomination, and I believe it's ready for a featured article nomination. Some notes:

1. All images are taken from those provided by the Bundesarchiv to Commons, so they are all legitimate; the map was created by a Wikipedia user.
2. There is no use of any online resources; all sources are published. I would say that the footnotes are all worked out, but I just saw one that has to be united; this should be taken care of soon, though.

Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's strange, because it tells me to disambiguate Kalach; I wikilinked it in the lead (the correct disambiguated link), but there was no wikilink originally. It still tells me to disambiguate Kalach, but I can't find the wikilink it's referring to. I even searched for every instance of the word "Kalach" in the text. Do I need to get my vision checked? JonCatalán^(Talk) 00:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen comments in other places that dab tool's results take time to update. If you think you got them all, wait some hours and check again. --an odd name 01:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I think toolserver.org is having problems; edit count says that I have 32 edits total on the page, while WikiChecker claims I've made 83. There may be a similar problem with the dabs page. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Support After a thorough copyedit, my only blocking issue is seeming inconsistency in how the number assigned to a given military group is written (e.g. "Romanian Third Army" vs. "4th Panzer Army"). Per WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, the latter seems to be correct. Instead of "Romanian Third Army", the correct way to write it out seems to be "3rd Romanian Army". The same applies more broadly: (number) (nation) (branch), not (nation) (number) (branch). This is perhaps trivial, but FAC seems to be the best place to iron out these minor issues with consistency. Other than that, the article is a comprehensive, well-written narrative that meets WP:FACR. Emw2012 (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Different books have different methods. Most books have German armies written out, while Soviet armies are numbered; I have feeling that this is to distinguish one from the other. In terms of corps, sometimes a book might call the 48th Panzer Corps the XXXXVIII and others might call it the XLVIII. I think that as long as its consistent throughout the article, the naming is fine; as far as a I know, the naming is consistent. What I don't know is if the 3rd Romanian Army was how the Germans called it, and there was no other 3rd Army. Or if there was a German 3rd Army, and then there was also Romania's 3rd Army. In that case, then Romanian 3rd Army is fine (or with the 3rd spelled out; if German army names are spelled out, so should other Axis Army names). JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I also notice that there's alternation between "Romanian Third Army" and "Third Romanian Army". Would it be preferable to maintain a consistent style with the order in which the number and national affiliation of a given unit are written? I didn't do an exhaustive check throughout the article for variations of that issue, but if it is something that should be fixed then I would suggest such a check. Emw2012 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

After looking through my sources, it seems that the most popular name for the Romanian army is "Third Romanian Army", and so I will go through the article and make sure these are all consistent. JonCatalán^(Talk) 23:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

All of my concerns have been addressed, so I support this article's promotion. Emw2012 (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support based on the lead and the first two sections of the article. I found no flaws whatsoever in the prose, and the content is engaging and, as far as I can tell, comprehensive. My only concern is that you'll get yet another FA, which isn't allowed to happen. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Shouldn't the ref "McTaggart (2006), pp. 49–50" used a name reference? Currently, there are multiple references with this. Xclamation point 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that! JonCatalán^(Talk) 05:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - Now that that's fixed. As with Juliancolton, I see no errors in prose. Seems FA quality. Xclamation point 05:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - there don't seem to be any problems (this is my first FA image review if anybody wants to double check my work, but it looks pretty straightforward: there's one GFDL-licensed user-created image with all required information, and the rest are all from the Commons:Bundesarchiv donation). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Eastern Front 1942-11 to 1943-03.png - The information in this map needs to be sourced to a reliable source per WP:IUP (everything else checks out - thanks for helping out!). Awadewit (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Should be resolved as per the other FAC. :) JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Awadewit (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Lead is good; pictures are all fine; prose is good, no problems that I can see; refs all read correctly, no problems there. Finally, content is accurate as far as I know, no flaws or false information, no POV. Excellent article worthy of FA. Skinny87 (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [50].

---

Meshuggah

Nominator(s):  LYKANTROP  ✉

This article is about a Swedish band. I'm nominating it because I think it meets the FA criteria.  LYKANTROP  ✉ 02:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - All sound clips need separate fair use rationales for the Meshuggah article. They currently have fair use rationales for "Metallica". Also, each clip should be justified using a very specific explanation. For example, the "Choirs of Devastation" fair use rationale could say something about the "angular" riffing and double bass drumming mentioned in the article. Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to fix all the problems you mentioned. The "Metallica" fair use rationales were a mistake - I used one Metallica sample as a template and missed that heading. I have added the appropriate information to all of them and rewrote better summaries as well.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There are four fair use audio clips in this article. I am not really competent to judge whether all four of them are necessary. I would appreciate it if some editors who have some knowledge of this style of music assess the necessity of these clips. I am more capable of assessing the value of Mozart clips. :) Otherwise, all images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your comments! I believe that 4 clips are competent...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The point is that we need an independent assessment. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "In the early 1999, Meshuggah joined Slayer on its US tour" That sentence looks funny with 'the' as the second word. Maybe change to just 'In early 1999'?...
• "The album Nothing was released in August 2002,[21] selling 6,525 copies during its first week in the US and reaching No. 165 on the Billboard 200." In the lead, instead of being No. , it is №. I think it should be more consistant through the article, choosing just one variation for the whole article.
• There are very few references in the first paragraph of the 'Music genre and typical traits' section. Is there some kind of deal with that, or could more be added?
• Just as a question, why are so many references in the Footnotes section rather than the article.

Everything else looks amazing to me. I like how you've got a runthrough of every album in the Musical Style section. I'd also like to add that "Cadaverous Mastication" is my favorite song from them and that the drumming in "Bleed" owns everyone in the face. :P If those minor things are taken care of or explained, I'd be happy to support. Burningclean _[speak] 01:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! The footnotes have been created after several editors told me, that the amount of sources in some sentences is a huge problem for the readability of the article. The problem was that some sentences had like 15 sources, often 5 sources one after another. This was not easy to read. Or for instance the sentence from footnote "e" has 1-2 sources every third to fifth word, which doesn't look very nice in the article as well. So I used the special footnotes, rather than just deleting good sources...

Now I reordered the footnotes: I've put some of the sources back to the article body, where it was possible and reasonable. I've also split the long footnote (first paragraph of the 'Music genre and typical traits') to 4 separated footnotes. This makes the sourcing of the paragraph much more transparent.

I also fixed the other things you mentioned. So I hope that's it...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support :D Burningclean _[speak] 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me about the mistakes and for the support!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support — Article is very strong in terms of content and sourcing. Nothing appears to be missing. However, I feel that there may be too many images. I've always found that less is more when it comes to photographs in featured articles, especially when it comes to music biographies. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Thanks a lot! I removed one image of the band on a show. Now there is just one image for each member.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I specifically asked reviewers to weigh in on the necessity of all four audio clips (per WP:NFC above. I would appreciate your opinion, especially if you have any knowledge in this area. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support, the article meets WP:FACR. Cannibaloki 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I specifically asked reviewers to weigh in on the necessity of all four audio clips (per WP:NFC above. I would appreciate your opinion, especially if you have any knowledge in this area. Awadewit (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment. With respect to the four clips that Awadewit suggested reviewers comment on, my reaction is that the first one ("Choirs of Devastation") is too long -- the guitar technique is very clear from just the first ten seconds. At a short length such as ten seconds I think this is acceptable fair use. The second one is problematic because you never define what a "breath controller" device does, or what the listener should hear. If you can give a sourced description that makes it clear what the listener is identifying via the use of the clip, then it might be fair use. The third one is again too long -- once the lyrics start it's hard to focus on the guitar, and even harder to justify fair use. I'd chop just before the lyrics, and you could probably cut a bit from the start too -- there's a change in tempo at around 7 seconds, so you might run it from there to the lyrics. I think it's a stretch to say that "slow tempo" enhances the listener's understanding, though; does a reader who listens to that really understand what you meant to say more? That is, does it "significantly increase readers' understanding"? Hard for me to see how it does. For the first clip, I felt I understood what the article meant by "angular" once I listened to it, so that seems OK; the second one might be OK once you explain what a "breath controller" is; but this is a stretch. For the fourth clip I also have doubts -- I understand what "spectacular" means without the clip; all I get from the clip is what the band actually sounds like, and I have that with clips one and two. I don't think this clip really improved my understanding. So I'd oppose clips three and four, but I think one is OK and two may be salvaged. Mike Christie (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

When I was choosing the clips, I tried to act accoring to WP:NFC, which says "Music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group,"...etc. and of course as you mentioned to "significantly increase readers' understanding". The breaking points of Meshuggah's career are 3 albums: 1995 Destroy Erase Improve (clip 2), 2002 Nothing (clip 3) and Obzen (clip 3). With DEI the band attracted its first worldwide attention (in the scene of this kind of music). With 2002's Nothing (clip 3), the band completely changed their musical approach and made their biggest breakthrough in their style ever. The clip number 1 from 91's album is NOT an example of their fast style of 95 DEI or 98's Chaosphere (for which there is no clip - clip number 2 is a guitar solo). And the change is not about the speed, but also about a completely different downtuned sound. This album also led popular Rolling Stone magazine to give Meshuggah the first review. The clip number 4 is from their latest album, which sold twice as much copies as the band's yet best selling record and represents the song, which became the trademark of the album and the new trademark of the band, for which the band has become known for much more mainstream heavy metal scene. Every journalist mentioned especially this song in his review.

It maight seem contradictious to your suggestion but if I should remove the clips one after another, I would definitely abandon the clip 1 at first. This is an example of their earlier work when they were unknown. As the most important I see the clip number 3. Since that album the band is know for their downtuned sound, which is represented by this song. But it also gives an example of their vocals, which are mentioned in the article as well as a tempo change and a polyrhythm (their typical musical traits). I can't say whether clip 2 or 4 is more important. Clip 2 stands for the whole soloing of the band, which plays a huge role in their music and has been countlessly mentioned by journalists and is completely unique (in terms of heavy metal of course. Jazz scene is something different). Clip 4 represents simply what the band is now. Both of them absolutely "significantly increase readers' understanding". Without clip 2, it is like the band didn't have any lead guitarist and solos at all. And to remove the clip number 4 means to get stuck in 2002.

Removal of the clip 1 seems to me the only one, which would not really "damage" the article. So I'll remove that one...--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 02:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough response. I'll go through and have another think about it; and I agree that the note in NFC that music clips can be "used to identify a musical style, group" is relevant. (It also gives a limit of 30 seconds, so perhaps I was being too strict with 10 seconds.) However, it would be helpful if you could give some indication for those of us without any understanding of musical theory just what you mean by "downtuned". It seems you might also argue that the "Straws Pulled at Random" clip is "iconic", to use NFC's word; but it would be nice to have some understanding of this in the article. And how about "breath controller"? Any more info on that? Mike Christie (talk) 02:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "downtuned" is about Musical tuning. Normal guitar (6 strings) is typically tuned to E, A, D, G, B, E tones. "Tuning" is pitching an instrument to the level you want it to be. Meshuggah uses custom made 8 string guitars. In addition to the normal 6 they have 2 extra low strings. 7th string is a B♭. It is a B which is dropped half a note down (dropped half a note down=♭). The string number eight is a F♯, and it is basically a string from a bass guitar, which gives the guitar completely different sound. Except for this, since 02 Nothing, the band plays all their songs in general dropped half a note down. This information is from an interview with the guitarists (link) It is a little bit complicated if the reader does not have a knowledge of the musical theory, so I think it is unnecessary to explain the whole think in the article. I tried to explain this in the article using third-party sources. I actually "let the sources decide", what is enough or too much for an avarage reader. So I used "eight string guitars for Thordendal and Hagström, with two extra low strings" (link, see paragraph 11) as a mainstream source says it, rather than explaining every single string as it is in an interview. The "downtuned" is ment to be just a little bit more exact term for "low" as it is said for instance here: "lower tempos and massive, downtuned riffs played on eight-string guitars"(link, see praragraph 2) and here: "explore the depths of the lowest registers possible" (from the same "pragraph 11" as above) or "ultra-low, subwoofer-rattling"(link, see paragraph 4). I don't think that there is a need of an in-depth analysis in the article if the journalists do not make one.

About the song "Straws Pulled at Random" being iconinc - for example in popmatters.com review of the album, this song is chosen as a video sample below the text as well, because it features most of the typical traits. A time change and afterwards a polyrhythm and an example of vocals. It contains also the most "memorable" and most typical "slow and low" riffs from the album. This seems the best song to give all these features in 30 seconds.

The breath controller is small box where the guitarist blows in during the solo. It creates a smooth, almost saxophone-like sound for the guitar. I did't find any reliable information more than that it is used "most famously on the opening track "Future Breed Machine"" (link, see parag. 3). I've seen him using it on some videos (example here) and live shows. But the sample in the article is first of all an example for the guitar solos by Meshuggah (which are totally unusual for this music genre), not the "breath controller" device. I used this solo becasue it is a the most famous Meshuggah solo and in addition there is the breath controller. I fixed the description of the sample, which was a bit misleading and also specified the sample of "Straws Pulled at Random".--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You've convinced me that the "Future Bleed Machine" and "Straws Pulled at Random" clips are fine as they are. It's a pity there's no better description of the breath controller, but if that's an issue I'll leave it those reviewing the whole article. For "Straws Pulled at Random", I take your point about the details on the tuning being too much for a reader, but how about putting that into a footnote, with the source given in the footnote too? Up to you, though; I don't think it's necessary -- just an idea. For "Bleed", can you tell me what the reasoning is behind including it? Mike Christie (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Bleed" is from obZen, their lates album (March 2008). With this album, Meshuggah attrached much bigger audience than they've ever did. Their yet best selling album Nothing sold since 2002 until now about 80,000 copies while obZen sold 50,000 in 6 months after the release. The band also gained much more media attention (sources are in the article). The song "Bleed" is in fact totally iconic, what is explained by such statements: "(...) On highlights like "Bleed," all those elements blend together into one mammoth percussive instrument." (Rolling Stone) or "What's most remarkable is the live drum kit work by Haake. He's constant and startling -- the completely crazy bass pedal work on "Bleed" would leave most drummers in the dust." (Allmusic, he says "live drum kit" because Meshuggah used computer programmed drums for their previous album). This song is actually what they've become known for in the mainstream audience of this scene.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I think that does it. The three you have look OK to me now. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome! I hope that my English was not a pain to read :)--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 22:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Source discussion carried forward from FAC archive 2:

Comments - sourcing is mostly addressed. The last few concerns from the previous FAC, have been addressed by the nominator at an exchange on my talk page User talk:Ealdgyth#Meshuggah FAC. I post that so other reviewers can evaluate the situation for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The last two concerns that were discussed are:

• Rockdetector - specifically this text. The sources I provided about this source are listed here.
• Fuzz.com - specifically this text. The Fuzz.com "about us" is only what we have about this source. The page says that the artists can promote themselves on the website, but nothing more explicit. Although the source contains useful information, I prepared for the case if it will be considered as non-acceptable and I sourced most of its information with other sources. Only 2 statements about festival shows would have to be deleted.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that I'm not watchlisting this FAC, we're at the stage where it is up to other reviewers to decide for themselves on the sources. I'll add that on the Fuzz stuff, having it backed by other sources is a help. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector seems reliable enough for me, as there are a number of websites and news stories that mention it. I'm somewhat skeptical about the Fuzz one, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought the same as well. Fuzz.com has been completely removed from the article.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 11:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Fuzz.com has been removed from the article several months ago. For Rockdetector I posted sources such as this or this from Blabbermouth.net (hosted by Roadrunner Records). I also asked for a feedback on the noticeboard and and recieved a positive answer.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 15:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) I supported this in a couple of the previous FACs, but I want to look at this article with a fresh eye again before supporting.

• The new audio fair use rationales look good.
• ", while other times the band performed with two guitars, often with Hagström using a pitch shifter to play his guitar at an octave lower than usual." The noun + -ing sentence structure is awkward, try this: ", while other times the band performed with two guitars—in this setup (lineup?), Hagström would use a pitch shifter to play his guitar at an octave lower than usual.
• "Meanwhile, Nuclear Blast re-released Contradictions Collapse with the addition of songs from the None EP."
• The quotation in this section is awkward and choppy: "Nick Terry of Decibel Magazine describes the album as a four-movement symphony.[56] Some songs still use Meshuggah's "familiar template combining harsh vocals and nightmarish melodies over coarse, mechanically advancing, oddball tempos"[40] but with the addition of "ambient sounds and quieter dynamics".[40] "The first third of Catch Thirtythree centers around two simple riffs.""
• "Except when Hagström needs a soloist"-->Except for when Hagström needs a soloist
• "His lyrical inspirations are derived also from books and films."
• See WP:CAPTION, image captions that are not complete sentences should not have periods. "Frontman Jens Kidman in 2007." is not a complete sentence. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I think it is all fixed now. I integrated some of those quotations into the text, where a quotation was not neccessary. It seems to be done.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [51].

---

Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk)

Perhaps the most controversial video game in recent times. It touches on all aspects of the game including development, reception and its legacy; I've done a copyedit and it's gone through a peer review, so I believe all major issues have been ironed out. I'm posting a defense of certain sources on the talk page of this FAC to keep things short.Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review I don't know video games, so you'll have to help me out here.

• File:Super-columbine-massacre.png - Instead of saying "some of the objectionable images commented upon in the press", could you spell out what was objectionable about the images in the fair use rationale?
• File:Columbine-battle-screen.png - The purpose of this fair use rationale is a bit confusing to me. It states: "To illustrate the games' battle system, a major component of the game, the turn-based action, and "enemies"; to display graphics cribbed from news reports, part of the developer's research into the events of the shootings, which informed the game." - What does "battle system" mean? What does "turn-based action" mean? Also, I would suggest adding a phrase about the 16-bit video-game look - that would strengthen the rationale. Awadewit (talk) 01:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review; looking back it was kinda awkward so I've revised the FUR so they are hopefully more clear. Thoughts? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've worked a bit more on the "purposes of use". Please check to make sure everything still makes sense. Awadewit (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The rationales look fine, thanks. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

All fair use rationales are sufficient and all images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 19:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • http://freetalklive.com/files/ledonnethompson.mp3
  • http://www.destructoid.com/
  • http://kotaku.com/gaming/super-columbine-massacre-rpg/columbine-creator-unmasked-175942.php (Kotaku is the one we show the author is an expert)
  • http://kotaku.com/gaming/danny-ledonee/clip-crecente-ledonne-talk-columbine-230798.php (Likewise, is this a copyright vio?)
  • http://kotaku.com/gaming/danny-ledonne/feature-columbine-rpg-creator-talks-about-dawson-shooting-201829.php (again, author needs to be shown reliable/etc) same for http://kotaku.com/gaming/heather-chaplin/slamgate-the-aftermath-232200.php (same author)
  • http://www.joystiq.com/2007/01/31/columbine-game-blocked-from-receiving-slamdance-special-jury-pri/

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

See the talk for the Kotaku and Destructoid rationales; as for Joystiq, they are once again using the creator's words (interview); Free Talk Live is a national radio program airing in forty-something markets that interviewed the creator. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The problem with interviews is that we need to know that the publisher of the interview is reliable also, so that we know that the interview has been published correctly, without bias/errors. Also, I need to be sure that the video clips aren't copyright violations. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Kyle Orland of Joystiq also contributes to GameDaily, and is an occasional guest on NPR[52], so I think that should cover the Joystiq ref. I'll look into the destructoid author. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't able to find anything for Destructoid or the individual author so I've removed the ref. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support The page meets FA criteria. It is a very interesting article about a game I never heard of. How shocking at first to think that someone could make a game out of such a horrible event but this article is not a promo for the game nor a critique, it is just placing all the facts in context. It is very well done, I thought it might be a little too detailed about the controversy but considering the subject matter, it is justified. I did not know we could use podcasts for references but since Ealdgyth checked them, I am fine with them too. NancyHeise ^talk 03:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's a panel by a reputable group (Denver Film Society), it just happened to be in podcast form as a convenience link. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Sorry about that, the dab tool wasn't working when I nominated; they are now fixed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Support (Full disclosure: I was a participant in the article's WP:VG peer review)
  • There seem to be a mish-mash of date styles in the references, with ISO style dates intermixed with "day month year", often in the same note. See note 36 of Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!&oldid=262030066 the current version for an example. (I'm aware that most of this was probably brought on by changes to the citation templates.)
  • In the "References" section, several of the works cited have multiple links to their corresponding Wikipedia article, like Ars Technica (and shouldn't that title be in italics?) and The New York Times. I'd recommend liking to the WP article once.
  • In the "Development" section, the image is placed in contravention of MOS:IMAGE, which recommends not placing an image directly under a heading.
  • I have not reviewed the prose or content in this incarnation, but had no objections at the peer review.
• — Bellhalla (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
  • • In response; yes, the difference in date styles is due to a mixed use of cite web and cite news. I've tried to get people at both templates to just pick one style, but so far have gotten nowhere. Af for the refs, as I assume people aren't going to click on the first ref they see, it makes sense to wikilink all the publishers; Ars Technica is a website, not a print publication, so it's not italics. Finally, MOS:IMAGE only prohibits left-aligned images under level three headings, and "Development" is level two. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
      • In both {{Cite web}} and {{cite news}} the date field will accept a non ISO-style date. And each template will also accept the parameters accessyear and either accessdaymonth or accessmonthday (depending on the preferred date style) to avoid the ISO-style dates. I have struck the image comment; the MOS:IMAGE section that addressed the issue previously only specified "secondary headings". — Bellhalla (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments by Guyinblack25

The article looks good; it's well written, properly sourced, and comprehensive. I noticed a few prose issues that I think should be addressed.

• Maybe link "perdition" to Hell in Christian beliefs. This was a term I wasn't familiar with, and I'm sure some others aren't either.
• There was some repetition here and there. Not a big deal, but something I think should be avoided.
  • The first two sentences in the second lead paragraph both start with "Ledonne".
  • The second and third sentences in the last lead paragraph both start with "The game's".
  • "Battle" is used every sentence in the second gameplay paragraph. Maybe switch out the second with "combat". I think it'll make that sentence sound less awkward too.
• I'm not certain, but should a colon be used instead of a semicolon? "Battle has two options;"
• I mentioned before that I think the plot should be before the gameplay. I still think the plot is a bigger component than the gameplay, and should be first. But if others don't take issue with this, then I see no reason to either.

Other than the list above, the article looks good and I don't see any major issues. I'll check back in later. Good job Herr Fuchs. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

I've fixed all the above except the plot; if others find that the article is improved by moving it up, I'll do it, but right now I like it where it is (I also don't want to give the impression that it's all true events, even though there was significant research going into it; that's why I just drop a quick introduction of who/what/where in gameplay.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: Assuming the minor issue with the plot and gameplay sections is not raised, then I see no reason to withhold support (even if it is raised I'd probably only switch to neutral or weak support). The article is well sourced with reliable sources, well written, comprehensive, and the image usage looks good. Another good article David. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC))

• Support. I can't find anything that needs fixing. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - There are some serious POV issues here, as the article's overall tone is clearly supportive of the game. Examples:
  • "Initial reception of Super Columbine Massacre was largely reactionary..." - the use of the word "reactionary" appears calculated to discredit that initial reaction.
  • "The game was largely condemned by the press, including those who never played the game." - the addition of "including those who never played the game" appears, again, designed to trivialize the condemnation.
  • "The most positive reviews of Super Columbine Massacre came from critics who recognized Ledonne's intended message." - This implies that less positive reviews were from people who failed to recognize this intended message.
  • "Thompson also noted the game's subtlety..." - the use of the uncritical verb "to note" takes it as a given that the game is subtle.
  • There are two extended block quotes from the game's defenders, but nowhere near similar prominence given to its detractors.

These are just examples; there's plenty more bias in there, and I'm surprised that nobody as taken umbrage with it before this. Looking it over I also see some issues with prose (one example is in the second example of bias I cited, in which the word "game" is unnecessarily repeated) but in my view these are less fundamental than the POV stuff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• In response. For the first bullet, "reactionary" is the word that was used; I have put an express citation after the word, it is not any sort of "calculation" on my part. Secondly, the fact that many who complained about the game in the press never played it (or the families who were interviewed about what they thought about it) is extremely relevant; to leave that out would be a detriment to understanding. It's quite simple: many reviewers didn't give the game a fair shake, and this is part of the reason for the inclusion of the first block quote. For the third bullet, I changed "recognized" to "accepted" to make it more even. For "Thompson also noted the game's subtlety...", what verb do you suggest I replace it with?

• Finally, I take issue with the suggestion that the blockquotes are unbalanced. The reason there are the long quotes is A) a large part of Ledonne's experience with the game has been defending his artistic statement, and it would be remiss to leave out the creator's own words and defense of his game. Secondly, there's just not as much of good long-form passages to quote from detractors, who are quoted at least six times earlier and afterwards, in varying degrees. Dugan's comments are included because they sum up the general "supportive" sentiment among the gaming press at large who felt that the video game was been unfairly shafted by the mainstream media, as well as offering one example of how it was considered a work of art. Also, I fixed "the game" example you cited. In short I do not feel that the article is overly supportive; as is mentioned, even Ledonne's biggest supporters took issue with what they considered trivializing elements. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
• (Noting that I have left a note for Sarcastic at his talk page. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• First, I think the change from "recognized" to "accepted" was an excellent one. As for the blockquotes, I still have some concerns about them, but I can live with your explanation. Instead of "noted the game's subtlety", I'd suggest something along the lines of "credited the game with subtlety" or "called the game subtle". Regarding the other points: "reactionary" is indeed the verb that was used by the source, but the source is itself highly POV (it being titled "Soapbox" and all). That a subjective statement is portrayed as fact in an editorial does not make it appropriate for portrayal as fact in a Wikipedia article, even if the source is a reliable one. As for the "including those who have never played the game", we don't expect journalists to have firsthand experience of what they're reporting on. We don't say "Bob the Politician's actions were condemned by the the press, including those who had never served in Congress" or "Jim the Hockey Player was portrayed as a destabilizing dressing room influence in the press, including those who had never been professional hockey players". Stating it outright looks like an attempt to undermine the credibility of the commentators. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Re-reading things, I have to agree with Sarcastic about the "reactionary" and "never played" statements. I think the statements should be removed from their current locations (first sentences of the first and second reaction paragraphs). However, I don't think it would be inappropriate to include them as commentary of the reviewers. Like Ben Kuchera's comment on those that never played the game. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC))

• I've removed the reactionary bit as I understand your point and redid the "subtle" part. But I'm still unconvinced about removing the comment about gameplay. The politician analogy isn't really comparable, because for video game reviews it's a general assumption that people have actually played the game; that's different, of course, from journalists who were simply reporting the controversy and quotes from the family, etc. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "reactionary" bit could added back in, but as part of someone's commentary of the reaction. Same thing with the "never played" part, if a reviewer felt the initial reviewers never played it, you could add it in as their words.
  But how do you prove those people never played it? I remember reading about some of the initial reception when it first happened and agreed with it at first. After more reading, I learned that there was more to the game and figured those guys never played it and jumped to conclusions. But, even if that's right, I have nothing to back it up because it's just my assumption.
  Given the controversy of this topic, I think it's best to follow Wikipedia:Verifiability very closely to ensure the article's high quality. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC))

• Alright, removed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• My specific concerns have been essentially addressed. I'm still not sure that this is FA-level, but my oppose can be considered struck for the time being. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support A well written article about a controversial game. It manages to be neutral and covers a broad swath of information in the coverage. --Pstanton 21:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

• Support - Well-written and comprehensive as far as I can tell. I've never heard of this game, but I found the article very interesting, and I learned quite a bit from it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [53].

---

2008 Japanese Grand Prix

Nominator(s): Apterygial

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe the quality is there. It follows the same structure as the 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix, which is also at FAC. The article had a peer review here, and the depth which the four reviewers took with the PR convinces me that the article is comprehensive. Thanks in advance for the comments. Apterygial 10:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support I am impressed by the detail with which the race is told. I see room for improvement in terms of the writing, as compared with other formula 1 prix articles that are FA, but it is very good quality.--Kiyarrlls-talk 16:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Questions: How can you support for FA if you see room for improvement in the writing? FA is supposed to be the pinnacle etc etc blah blahblah (well, supposed to be anyhow). And where do you see room? Please disclose full details. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 23:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• • well, FA the pinnacle, but there are necessarily gradations within pinnacle, after all, shakespeare and X other being both great poets, nevertheless, it can be said that Shakespeare is much better. love the blahblah. I would love to see what some more "poetically" or linguistically minded people have to say regarding the writing, whether comparing to other prix FA articles or not.--Kiyarrlls-talk 02:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

@Dwarf: Generic "Support" statements are often qualified by "it could use some touching up". This immediately create an impression of two things: 1) knee-jerk, non-reflective voting, possibly caused by WikiProject fan club issues, or possibly by a lack of commitment to the time and effort needed to review an article, and 2) a minor quibble thrown in for the sole purpose of (attempting to) obscure the nature of the knee-jerk vote. Now, of course I'm not saying that you're Supporting for any reason other than that you have examined the article in great detail, read all the sources that are linked, etc. Of course you've done all of those things. I just wanna help you avoid the impression that your vote took less than 5 minutes. Keep up the good work!

• I was very surprised by what you say. I looked above and was again surprised. According to "nomination procedure" and "supporting and opposing" nominators should ensure it meets all FA Criteria before nominating. However, before supporting procedure notes only that a support "should be based on a full reading of the text" - which does not include reading the sources or MOS or copyright. Note: I don't remember how long my vote took. I read the entire article as well as a FA of another prix article. I can see why it could be perceived as a comment from the fan club.--Kiyarrlls-talk 05:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• For clarification for all involved: I have never encountered Kiyarrlls before on Wikipedia, he is not listed as a member of WP:F1 and has (as far as I know) never commented at WT:F1. I would say that Kiyarrlls would have every right to feel confused or insulted by the insinuation that his support was in any way "caused by WikiProject fan club issues". Apterygial 06:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Leaning Oppose Incoherent, no context, background etc (which means 1a). I'm not impressed by the level of detail. Writing things in sequential order and adding many details does not = FA; it does not even = coherence (though it lends a surface air of coherence).. Part of the skill of writing involves knowing what to leave out... and how to tie things together well. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Can I ask for some examples for how it is "incoherent" and has "no context"? I appreciate you taking the time to look at the article, but your leaning oppose leaves me with little idea of how to improve the article, or any specific issues that have to be addressed. Apterygial 08:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• The article will be in FAC for two weeks or so, giving me time (I hope) to read all of your sources. I have to catch a plane in an hour and a half or so, and will either be in planes or airports for nearly the next 24 hours.
• Meanwhile, I've only read one—http://www.grandprix.com/race/r801racereport.html—and that article is far better than this one. It does add some editorializing in a way that Wikipedia cannot, but it presents a coherent narrative involving a unified sequence of events etc. I didn't see mention of the cold weather in your nom, and apparently the cold caused problems. It seemed as though your nom tried a little too hard to list every detail... I saw at least one instance where people were mentioned once, never mentioned again, without explanation of why mentioning them was significant etc. Curently not FA material; needs rewrite for coherence etc. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you for the clarification. The GrandPrix.com source benefits also because it is able to assume an understanding of its readers in areas of F1 that we, in a Wikipedia article, cannot. I chose not to explain the effects that the wet weather had on the tyres during the race because the lengthy technical explanation for that would have distracted from the focus of the article. However, I await any further comments you may have, but for now have a safe flight. Apterygial 10:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Ling.Nut (talk · contribs), you say: Part of the skill of writing involves knowing what to leave out... - surely if we left things out in this, the article would fail WP:WIAFA1b, right? Also, the context bit, in my view the article puts it in context with the season, it has a background section which summarizes the standings without going into excessive detail and it seems fine. D.M.N. (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comment. My reply: Nope. The article should present a unified, coherent sequence of events rather than a sequential hodgepodge. As I noted above, check for cameo appearances that are unnecessary distractions. Check also for topic sentences that present the topic of a coherent paragraph, rather than... a list of actions semi-arbitrarily broken into paragraph form. Also present background and context. Did I miss the part about how many racers there were? Did I miss the mention of whether there was a prize of some sort? What about the cold weather? Come on guys. Grammatical sentences do not an FA make; neither is FA owed to anyone. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 11:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, Ling.Nut, for not coming back to this sooner. RL has been quite busy lately and I have only had time to shoot off the odd facetious remark on F1 talk pages. I'll see if I can add more about the cold weather into the article over the next few days. Your comment about the number of racers is answered in the Classification section. The prize, quite simply, is points. There is a trophy given but it is hardly of note and is never commented on at any of the GPs I have ever looked at in any detail.

Could I request that you furnish this FAC with some examples of these cameos that you mention? The article is not a "sequential hodgepodge" and (I believe) approaches the race itself in a coherent and comprehensive manner. The other reviewers who have commented here and at 2008 Brazilian Grand Prix's nom had no problem with the manner in which the race was told. Regards, awaiting further comments, Apterygial 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Please review the image captions per WP:MOS#Captions, specifically, punctuation at the end for sentences vs. sentence fragments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Fixed. All fragments. Apterygial 23:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• "he was unable to recover higher than 12th place." Reads awkward.
• "The penalty prompted widespread crtiticism from the media and ex-drivers." I'd change this to say "racing media" or similar.
• Report: "In the battle for fourth place, Renault had 51 points, ahead of Toyota with 46 points." "ahead of Toyota with 46 points" doesn't read that well if you isolate it. A slight rewording is in order.
• "Alonso had managed to jump to front of the race..." The is needed before front.
• Race: "though managed to rejoin after losing his front wing." He before managed.
• On two occasions, references are ordered like this: [24][23]. They should be placed in numerical order.
  • Still one of these left, but it's not the biggest issue in the world. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Got the last one. Apterygial 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Trulli, Vettel and Bourdais pitted over the following laps." How many laps is this referring to? Another similar sentence later gives the number of laps.
• "complaining over the radio to his team of understeer". Don't like the last part; "team of understeer" sounds like the team, not a car problem.
• "though successfully maintained his position." Again, he needs to be added.
• Post-race: "Kubica said that his second-placed finish was better than his win at the Canadian Grand Prix earlier in the season." Minor, but I think the d in "placed" can go.
• "40 minutes after the race". Numbers should be spelled out to start a sentence.
• Formatting error in reference 30 (Autocourse). While fixing that, change the pages= parameter in the template to page=. This will make the single page number singular instead of plural. Ref 51 is similar. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Everything fixed. Apterygial 02:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm waiting on the jargon issue before offering my support. This is the one thing I have trouble reviewing for; I'm too familiar with sporting terminology. The one suggestion I will give is to provide wikilinks for technical terms, like "out-braked", if avaliable. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately no such page exists. My minor argument with Ling.Nut is about how teams and drivers are introduced, and it is my belief that the wikilinks provided do enough to address that (I'm not trying to lobby you into a support, BTW, but I agree with you on the wikilinks aspect). Apterygial 01:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I like this article and am leaning towards support. However I can perhaps understand at least something of what Ling.Nut says above. For example: "Massa pitted on lap 53, and rejoined behind Heidfeld in tenth.[33] The Ferrari driver ... Massa drafted down the straight and attempted to pass Webber.[24] The Australian ... " You'd need to know or work out (not that hard, I admit) that Webber was the Australian to understand that, and that Massa was driving for Ferrari. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the copyedit and comments. That was one of the problems about writing it. F1 articles can be quite formulaic (no pun intended) and finding ways to vary the wording is tricky. I came to the (admittedly shaky) conclusion that the classification tables at the bottom of the page could help explain some of the context issues you mentioned. Massa was introduced as a Ferrari driver in the lead and Background section. I'm going to address Ling.Nut's specific issues when I am of a clearer mind. Apterygial 03:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. I think this article has greatly improved during this FAC, and enough has been done to satisfy me that it now meets the FA criteria. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question What specifically is being referred to by the term "stint" in this context? Is it defined anywhere on Wikipedia? Thanks Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:26, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• It is defined at Wiktionary. Should I add that link into the article? It is a standard expression in motor racing. Apterygial 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• I added a definition at pit stop last night, though I have little idea how that could be referenced in the article. Apterygial 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The "hodgepodge" I was referring to is... forex, who the heck are Force India? You just drop the name in like this: "... but was ahead of Kovalainen and Raikkönen, in 16th and 17th positions, respectively. Both Force Indias spent the majority of the session in their garage, suffering numerous mechanical problems." In context, it looks like Kovalainen and Raikkönen are Force India. No prior mention is made of Force India. This is just one example; the whole article assumes a vast amount of familiarity with the topic. That's OK for rocket science articles; F1 isn't rocket science (although they hire rocket scientists.. it's still just a car race). Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• But the links are there. The teams and all the drivers are listed at the bottom of the page. Introducing each of the drivers or teams whenever they are mentioned would get tedious and repetitive. Kovalainen and Raikkönen, for the record, are introduced earlier, in the background section. Apterygial 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Support: I think that this article is full, has quality, fully referenced and is fully worthy of FA status. BTW, I have just added references for the Qualifying and Races timesheets, so you have references there too. I'd pass it. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Fuji.svg - We need a reliable source for this image per WP:IUP. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Easily fixed, and done so. Apterygial 04:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominator's note: I have contacted Ling.Nut on their talk page and asked them to return and comment on the changes made to the article. Apterygial 00:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Weak support - My concerns have been met to my satisfaction and it's comparable to other featured race articles, but the jargon issue is my weakest as a reviewer, in terms of detecting it. Therefore, I'm tempering my support. At the same time, I don't think this is "incoherent" at all; at least I'm not seeing it, and I don't have that much knowledge of Formula One. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a good way to progressively lower the bar at FAC. As is being done, here and elsewhere. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry but I am trying my best. I have written this article to the best of my ability. Your contribution thus far to this FAC appears to be simply turning up every few days, announcing that you have serious reservations in areas you appear unwilling to expand on and really giving me very little to work on. I am quite seriously very disappointed you feel that this FAC is in any way an attempt to "lower the bar". I love working off constructive criticism, in fact I thrive off it, but criticism without base or content is worthless. Apterygial 03:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you're frustrated. I'm trying to say that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS should be flatly unacceptable as a FAC rationale. Every article stands or falls on its own merit, period. I'm also saying that this article leaves much to be desired. I read it. When I was done, nothing stuck in my mind in any coherent fashion, because the facts were not presented in a way that would add structure to them. I'm sure you've edited it since then. I hope to read it later today, after I finish grading papers. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 04:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So the bar is being lowered, huh? I'm contributing to the decline of the FA standards, which Sandy has said I know as well as her? Come on. If I didn't think it met the standards, I wouldn't have supported it. As I said above, jargon is what I have the most trouble detecting; that's why I'm tempering my support. My opinion above stands. We are allowed to disagree on an article, right? And I do read every article I review from start to finish, unless it gets archived in the middle. Nobody gets a drive-by decision from me. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if an article can't be favorably compared with similar recently promoted articles, why should it be featured? While it doesn't automatically mean an FAC should succeed, the ability to be favorably compared to a similar FA is an important factor for any FAC that has similar models (in other words, almost all of them). Giants2008 (17-14) 17:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• (undent) Two problems here:

1. First, you took the remarks too personally. I don't think you're one of those watering down FA, but you have nonreflectively accepted a standard of judgment that is symptomatic of the problem (and in fact is a tool of those who have created the problem)... and that standard is, "This article compares favorably with [name of FA article here]." That standard is evil. Giants, just look at old FACS. Fan club passing is a reality, and so is substandard passing because not enough reviewers eyeballed an article. The two problems overlap in fact, and necessarily so. You must take each and every article on its own merits, for fear of comparing the current one with a fan club pass or a.. what's a good word for it?.. an article that snuck past the security guards.
2. No no no no no. No models. Models suck. Models are evil. Models are for folks who don't wanna think. Models lead to paint-by-numbers passes. Poop—I can't reply, almost, without naming names :-). But if you lean on models, then you can automagically say, "OH, editor X nommed it, it is of paint-by-numbers type Y, so PASS. Have a nice day." IN fact, that is exactly what already happens, and it is a horrible crime against anything vaguely resembling reflective criticism, or quality standards.

• So unhurt those hurt feelings and buck up. It's not about you. It's about the articles. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 01:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can we get back to the FAC of this article now? Please state any existing problems with the article. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It has been almost five days since my last post, and no one has come forward with any comments or problems with the article. I therefore suggest that the article is passed. Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 21:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If three is almost five. But no, that's not exactly how it works. Apterygial 12:04, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Oppose for the time being. It's fantastically researched, but it suffers from a lack of serious audience analysis that must be remedied before the prose can be examined in detail. I believe Ling.Nut alluded to this, but the article is full of excruciating detail for a general audience.
  • The run-down of driver and team standings may be inappropriate detail for the Background section. The casual reader probably just cares who was the points leader and whether those standings were affected by the outcome of the race.
    • I'll wait for some other opinions before I cut this down. Apterygial 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The whole green tyre thing seems out of place in the Background section. You've written about events leading up to the race, then written about something that really happened in the race.
    • The trouble here is that the green tyres were used over the whole weekend: Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Short of mentioning it in each section, Background would appear the best place. I changed the word "race" to "background" in that section to reflect that. Apterygial 04:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • More inappropriate detail in the Practice and Qualifying section. We don't need the granular information on the number and length of the practice and qualifying sessions - it's way too much for a general audience.
  • The play-by-play in the Race section is hard to follow and it's unclear why you've chosen to offer high detail of certain laps. You seem to have highlighted crashes and other race elements that your sources no doubt called out, but many of them are far too detailed. All the pitting and whatnot is way too much, in my opinion. Pare it down to a concise recount of major race events that affected the outcome; every position change does not need to be described in detail.

--Laser brain (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with most of what you've written above Laser, but disagree with Point #3. That's done to introduce the reader to the layout of the race weekend... the layman doesn't know how many sessions of practice there are and whatever therefore that sentence is there to help them gauge the detail needed (hope that makes sense). I'm pretty sure that was a suggestion from someone in the FAC's for the 1995 Japan/Pacifc articles that I worked on a while back.... D.M.N. (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I see your point as well, and I know you have a lot of experience working on these articles. Do you expect that non-race fans need to know about all that stuff to understand the significant events of the race? The qualifying determines the starting grid, obviously, but what about describing all the practice sessions? Would you expect an article about a hockey game to describe the practice skate before the game? --Laser brain (talk) 22:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. A quick question before I make some of the changes: are we not also writing for F1 fans as well? Most F1 fans would want to know about the pre-race championship positions, what happened in practice, the incidents in the race. A general audience could skip those details and read the other stuff, I know I do when I am reading other articles when I am not previously acquainted with the subject matter. An F1 weekend is not just about who won the race and how that affected the championship, but about all the other little stories that come out of it; F1 is a race from first to twentieth, and I think we have to represent that. Apterygial 23:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The qualifying is important because passing is rare in F1. I don't know much about it, but I know that. I can see Laser's other points, though (great to see Laser back at FAC, by the way). To the nominator: we strive at FAC to produce articles for a general audience first. I'll come back to re-review if major changes are made, but I am somewhat concerned. If I'm not mistaken, in most F1 races the leader drives away from the field early and nothing much happens involving changes at the front of the pack. I'm not sure how "compelling" that would be for 1a purposes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Many races would be "Driver X started from pole position, held the lead into the first corner and for the rest of the 71 laps". My point above was that the article was for a general audience, but includes details that F1 fans would want to know. I am very happy that we are having this discussion; I plan to write more similar articles and this helps me understand what will be expected for the future, as well in this FAC. Apterygial 00:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose there isn't a hard and fast answer to this, is there? It is a subjective concern. I believe we are writing solely to a general audience and, thus, high detail is best left to web sites devoted to racing. I agree that racing fans will eat this up - I did myself - but I try to imagine my mother reading it and she would get frustrated. It's not fair to ask readers to skip over things they don't want to read. Criterion 1a is brilliant, engaging prose; to me, that means things can be detailed to a fault. I may be alone in that opinion, in which case consensus may still be to promote the article. --Laser brain (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Can I continue this semi-philosophical discusion on the talk page? Apterygial 04:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• More comments - I'm still finding clarity problems that will be burdensome for the general reader. Examples:
  • "Cars which competed in the final session of qualifying were not allowed to refuel before the race, and as such carried more fuel than in the previous sessions." I don't follow. If they weren't allowed to refuel, wouldn't they be carrying less fuel?
    • Added this explanatory sentence: "Cars which failed to make the final session could refuel before the race, so ran lighter in those sessions." Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Alonso lapped consistently in the low 1:19 range, setting a new fastest lap of 1:19.101 on lap 41..." Is that fastest lap in the race, or fastest lap ever for the track? Or for himself?
    • The race. Clarified. Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "... their teams fuelling them to the finish" Hm, this may be jargon. Can we reword to something like, "their teams giving them sufficient fuel to finish the race"?
    • Changed. Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Massa spun, but rejoined the track." You didn't say he spun off the track.. did he?
    • "Rejoined the race". Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "The stewards announced that they were investigating the incident on lap 54..." Unclear. They decided during lap 54, or the incident occurred during lap 54? From reading the surrounding prose, it's unclear which incident you are referring to.
    • "On lap 54, the stewards announced that they were investigating the incident and would make their decision after the race"? Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Barrichello and Button took the next two positions, their Hondas proving uncompetitive at the Fuji circuit." I'm not crazy about this statement, because the source doesn't really back it up. It's clear that the drivers blame the cars, but you've written it like the problem was definitely the cars. At least make it clear this is the drivers' opinion.
    • "Barrichello and Button took the next two positions; both drivers blamed their Hondas for their uncompetitive performance at the Fuji circuit." Apterygial 23:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I've adressed your concerns. Apterygial 23:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this is ready from a prose perspective so I changed to support above. --Laser brain (talk) 03:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Drivers' Championship leader Lewis Hamilton" Then or now? Six months from now? Needs time frame. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Clarified. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• What's a "pointscoring position"? * Found it, sorry. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
• What's all this about restoring the team's confidence, showing they could win etc.? This seems like helpful context.. but I'm going to lunch now. ;-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 05:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are you asking why I didn't use it in the article? Because that whole section in Background with Bob Bell uses this article... Apterygial 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Cars which competed in the final session of qualifying were not allowed to refuel before the race" You mean, they ran on Saturday, but then were not allowed to refuel before the race on Sunday? Isn't that odd? Why was that the case? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• That's it. A few seasons ago they introduced the rule (I think because teams were "burning off" their fuel on the way back to the pits after qualifying). It provides an interesting strategical battle, as those cars with less fuel qualify better but have to pit earlier. But you're right, that is odd. Apterygial 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Is "led from" a British English expression? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)}

• I've heard it, they mention it on the British F1 coverage I watch. I gotta go to dinner, but I'll be back to answer your last question soon. Apterygial 08:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• As in "X led from Y"? I believe it's normal usage in British English. That's based only on my being British and being having followed F1 for the last 20 years or so. I don't know that I could prove it! Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• What does "swerving down Räikkönen's inside line" mean? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Attempting to overtake in the inside of the corner. Apterygial 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I added a new "notes" section to define "out-brake." If you don't like it you can find another way to deal with it, but I think "out-brake" needs a definiton... I'm not done with the article, but my Significant Other is calling me away. Maybe later tonight I'll look again—I still have probs with some of the sentence construction, forex. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm currently in talks with Wikiproject Motorsport about the possible creation of a terminology page, but to borrow a phrase of yours, they often hear a "whoosh" sound as glaciers go past..." Apterygial 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and created the page, and linked "stint" and "out-brake" to it. Apterygial 04:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Quibble: I think we went over this at PR. Although Hamilton was penalised for forcing Raikkonen off the road, and certainly drove like a loon, I think we agreed that it was Kovalainen who actually pushed Raikkonen off the road. Can we tweak the words in the lead so that they are more in line with the words in the body of the article? I mean something like: "At the first corner Hamilton braked late, forcing Räikkönen wide. Hamilton was later given a penalty for pushing Raikkonen off the track, and was critised by the British racing press for overly-aggressive driving." (Italics to emphasise changes) Thoughts? 4u1e (talk) 08:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet again we come to that great question: to agree with what we, the sane folk of Wikipedia, see, or what those stewards rule. I went back and watched the first corner again, and you're right: while LH played a part in running KR wide, it was HK who "pushed him off". I changed the first part of that to "At the first corner Hamilton braked late, forcing Räikkönen wide", but I don't think we should stress too much the difference between what happened and what the stewards saw, especially considering the stewards don't release reasoning. Apterygial 09:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• "He added that Kovalainen's impact with him at the first corner had caused handling difficulties in his car, which left him unable to pass Kubica late in the race" Would you please double-check the source? I'm not sure tht he clearly made either of those two assertions. He said there was an accident, the accident caused trouble in the front of his car; the trouble hurt his speed... did I misunderstand? Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• Checked. You're right, he didn't explicitly say it, but I must have inferred it from the comments. Change to "He added that Kovalainen's impact with him at the first corner had caused handling difficulties in his car, which left him unable to improve on his third-placed finish"? Apterygial 10:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

• I changed it. Apterygial 10:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment to FA Director I don't think I could Support this article, but I'm on a 1-week vacation and am unlikely to be able to watch it to see if it improves to Support-level quality. [ The "From[51]:" by the tables looks unprofessional, can't we find a better way to do this... the tables comprise entire sections, is that a violation of MOS? No time to look.. and some sentences in later sections are still clumsy]. I have stricken my Oppose, just becaue I don't think it's fair to let it stand when I can't keep up with events. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 06:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it's desirable to place a single row at the bottom of the table, spanning all columns, that includes a proper citation for the table data. Having no citation is not a good solution. --Laser brain (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Does it look OK like that? =) D.M.N. (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose (for now, sorry!). Support There are an awful lot of short sentences following each other in the race section. We need to get more variety into the flow of the text and work on clarifying the connections between the facts. I'll help, but as ever, my time is limited! 4u1e (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've tweaked to hopefully make the text flow better and make the progress of the race clearer in places. Opposition is struck. 4u1e (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support—I'm struck by the similarities between this article and the single-game college football articles I've submitted to FAC in the past. You're forced to strike a balance between explaining everything and taking away from the event by explaining too much. Here, I think the authors have done a good job wikilinking relevant terms and explaining events in clear, concise prose. I'm not a regular Formula One follower, but I was able to follow the content of the article and understand it after a quick readthrough. I do have a few concerns, however.

• The citations seem to vary in format in places. In #17, the publication date comes before the title. In most of the rest, it comes after. Some of the other citations also seem to lack author info, but I assume that's because no specific author is listed.
• I may have missed it, but I don't see a mention of who eventually won the championship that year. I clicked on the Wikilink to get that information, but putting that information in this article will help readers put the race into context a little bit better.
• The previous editor mentioned not caring for the short, staccato sentences in the race section. Personally, I find them a breath of fresh air. Too often, I find myself writing lengthy sentences in order to cram every bit of information possible into a paragraph.

I hope these items help you improve the article, and once they're complete, you have my full support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding that bit about the championship. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

In reply to JKBrooks85's comments (in order):

The date comes at the start because the templates cite news and cite web do that if you put an author into the field. Note the date of the work only comes at the beginning if an author is present. I can't see what can be done.

I have added a bit in the intro. Does it look OK?

I agree with you there.

Also, re. table citation: does it really need to be part of the table? If we aren't going to have it the way it was (which I put there, and I also think I was the first to do it that way), can't we just have it underneath the table instead? Cdhaptomos talk–contribs 23:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

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 SandyGeorgia 20:39, 20 January 2009 [54].

---

State Route 74 (New York – Vermont)

Nominator(s): Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} and Durova^Charge!

We're nominating this article for featured article because after several months of working, this article, (formerly New York State Route 74), is now a great co-nom and we believe it meets criteria. We're open to all comments. Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 00:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments This article did not go through a successful ACR - I am reviewing it here:

• Lead: At Lake Champlain comma
• "The highway has a short concurrency with 22A " - SR 22A?
• 1.1 - Route 74 intersects with the north–south U.S. Route 9 shortly after the northbound ramps of the Adirondack Northway, then meets Stowell Road before crossing the Schroon River. - run-on
• "Shortly afterward" comma
• "After leaving Eagle Lake" comma
• "NY 74 intersects with New York State Route 9N and New York State Route 22 in the hamlet. The latter of the two highways becomes concurrent with 74." - combine sentences (now is a run-on - use a semicolon)
• "The highway passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga shortly before passing the Ticonderoga Amtrak station, then terminates at a ferry landing by Lake Champlain at the state border." - run-on
• 1.2 - last 2 cites could be combined.
• At 0.49 miles (0.79 km), Route 74 intersects with Route 73, then encounters Barnum Hill Road shortly afterward. - run-on. "before encountering"?
• VT then turns to the northeast at Smith Street and enters a patch of forest. - VT 74?
• Early history - Minerva split from Crown Point in March 1817, then another municipal reorganization in 1840 implemented further reductions to the land area of Crown Point. - then -> before?
• Perhaps current USD conversions should be given for the dollar amounts? - not addressed
• 3.1 - Shoreham center - you mean town center?
• Might be nice to add some links to section 4.
• --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: There's nothing wrong with forgoing a comma after an introductory "Shortly afterward" or "After leaving Eagle Lake". Some people want a comma, which is their stylistic choice; some people don't, which is theirs. I've had nothing to do with the editing of this article but I'd tend to skip the comma. Morenoodles (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done, Rschen.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for the delay. I hope to address this within 48 hours. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, once again, Rschen.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support meets FAC and USRD standards. --Rschen7754 (T C) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I'm not happy with the way the article treats the reader like an ignoramus or amnesiac. It starts New York State Route 74 and Vermont Route 74 are state highways running through Essex County, New York and Addison County, Vermont in the United States (my emphasis). Do the writers, or do those who opine in these FAC affairs, seriously propose that there are people who are likely to be sufficiently interested in "State Route 74 (New York–Vermont)" to want to read an article about it but who wouldn't realize that it was in the U.S.? Pull the other one! (If this is done in deference to some rule of "MOS", it shows that MOS badly needs fixing.) Morenoodles (talk) 06:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD? --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This very sensibly does not mandate specification of nation(s). It says It should establish the context in which the topic is being considered. The context is here established as New York and Vermont. People know where these are. Morenoodles (talk) 07:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's readers are not exclusively from the United States, so that clarification provides necessary context for foreign readers. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I've removed it temporarily until the decision is made to keep it.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 15:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

On the whole I'd leave it in. How ignorant would one have to be to think, for example, that Vermont might be in Canada? Perhaps not very. Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

No, not very. But these "foreign" readers are expected to be interested in a "State Route" yet think that Vermont might be in Canada (or Mexico)? I think not. (Incidentally, I'm "foreign".) Morenoodles (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Per WP:DASH, en dash in title should be spaced, as "New York" has an internal space in it. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:New York and Vermont Route 74 map.png - This image needs to list the source for the map information more specifically. It needs to be specific enough that a reader could find the information off-wiki, if they wanted to. Awadewit (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Finished.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 22:39, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose stricken. Awadewit (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Weak Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• Does "United States" really need to be linked? WP:OVERLINK advocates against linking well-known geographical locations, and most (if not all) readers know what and where the United States is. done
• "It passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga along its 20.44 mi (32.89 km) route." I think it says somewhere in MOS that units should be spelled out in full on their first appearance. done
• "Multiple realignments have also occurred on the corresponding Vermont highway" Passive voice seems unnecessary, why not: "The corresponding Vermont highway has also been realigned multiple times." done
• "eastward out of Schroon." "out of"-->from, maybe? done
• "Cotters Pond is a small landmark located beyond a few mountains and hills on the southern side of Route 74 near the end of Paradox Lake." Rather out of the blue, is there no further description? done (There are little sources for that)
• "The highway then terminates at a ferry landing by Lake Champlain at the state border.[5]" done
• "1.1 inches (2.8 cm) steel cables"-->1.1-inch (2.8 cm) steel cables... done
• "At 0.49 miles (0.79 km), Route 74 intersects with Route 73" Do you mean "After" instead of "At"? done
• "European-descended settlement" Don't understand, do you mean those of European descent (no need to change)? done
• "by selling a total of 600 shares" done
• "The stretch from North Hudson to Tawahus is currently designated as County Route 84" "Currently" is implied by the present tense. done
• "Spring 2014." Why the capitalization? Is there any way to disambiguate these seasons? Spring means different things in different part of the world—and nothing in other parts. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC) done
• "It extends 20.44-mile" Not an adjective here, try "It extends 20.44 miles..." done
• "Due to extensive designation reassignments during the twentieth century the entire length of the present highway consists of renamed segments from other New York state highways." A comma for readability would be preferable here, perhaps after "century"? done
• "Funding will come entirely from state sources and run an estimated cost of $8.6 million." done
• Image captions that are nominal groups should not have a period (full stop) at the end, for example: "NY 74 reference marker approaching its eastern terminus." done
• "sixteen ton tugboat"-->sixteen-ton tugboat done
• "After 0.49-mile (0.79 km) "-->After 0.49 miles (0.79 km)... done

All done. Thanks for the check.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 18:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am only weakly supporting because while the article is mostly good, it could use with some polishing by someone new to the article, as evidenced by these issues from three small-to-medium sized paragraphs:

• "The Ticonderoga–Larrabees Point Ferry is the oldest and southernmost ferry on Lake Champlain and is one of the last remaining cable ferries in North America." I don't see where this fact is in the source.
  • I still can't find it. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Found it, half the sentence wasn't in it. The part about the Lake Champlain one is in the source.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 16:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
• "The seven minute passage" Hyphenate "seven-minute".
• "The United States Coast Guard inspects the ferry because Lake Champlain is a federal waterway.[7]" I don't see how this is really relevant to an article about a road.
• "The current ferry barge is powered by a sixteen-ton tugboat built in 1979 that can hold up to 18 cars and has been in operation since 1959." Logical flow is off here, sounds like the tugboat was built in 1979 but has been in operation since 1959. Is it really that important to know when the tugboat was built?
• "Route 74 intersects with Route 73 before encountering Barnum Hill Road shortly afterward. " Why is "afterward" necessary? You already said that the intersection with Route 73 is before the encounter with Barnum Hill Road.
• "Within central Shoreham" Comma after this phrase.
• "As VT 74 leaves the densely populated portion of Shoreham" Comma after here also. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

All done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 02:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disappointed.

• Yes, "United States" is still linked after Dabomb's comment. done
• Spell out "mile", I suggest. done
• Why insist on the bolding? The readers will lose the sense of the point you're making, so why make it? The appearance is slightly messy. done
• The lead is just so boring. I'm sorry to be negative, but it's just full of numbers and letter symbols and does zilch, niente, zero, null, to interest the reader. It's a structural problem. The infoblot at the top doesn't help: it just makes things busier, and the map is so small (without clicking on it) that it adds little meaning. How nice it would be to have the first real pic at the top instead—or even that interesting historical map.
• "Larabees Point Ferry history" is a clunky subtitle. "Repaving plans" seems hardly worth a new section—it takes five seconds to read. done
• On many displays the pic will overlap with the table. done
• It does warm up as you persist reading through, but the opening is very disappointing. I think these highway articles are being churned out to a certain formula that does not serve some of the individual topics well. Tony (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not opposing; just disappointed to see a FA factory churning out large quantities. Has anyone taken stock of the program? I wonder whether it's time to be choosier about which highways you work up to FA nomination, on the basis of historical, social, geographical and technical interest. Otherwise, they become a little thin for "our very best work". I have in mind that there might be a slightly more international flavour to the WikiProject, rather than concentrating exclusively on US highways. Spot check on one little bit:
  • "approximately one for every ten miles completed highway"—"of" is missing.
  • "The turnpike management raised funds by selling 600 shares valued at $25 each. $20,000 was also readied for properties along the highway." Remove "varied"; what does "readied" mean here? Tony (talk) 13:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done again.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• A bit polysyllabic, no? (My favorite nugget: "extensive designation reassignments", which I think means "many name changes".) And are formalize and upgrade happy as intransitive verbs (in the start)? Morenoodles (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• I read The area's first municipality was the town of Crown Point, which originally included considerable portions of thinly populated land that later developed into separate townships. The first of these divisions occurred on March 20, 1804 with the establishment of the town of Schroon. I'll admit that I'm not familiar with US naming (as I was recently reminded by the way the humble Wasilla -- no university, no cathedral, not much obvious spark(le) to its cultural life -- was solemnly called a "city"). However, I thought that "municipality" was no more than a grand term for "town" in the legal sense of the latter. A "town" that "originally included considerable portions of thinly populated land" is not a town as I normally understand "town" and surely it must only be a town in the legal sense. Let's provisionally -- just here, not in the article -- write town with this legal sense as "Town", with a capital T. So now we have The area's first Town was the Town of Crown Point.... I don't see how this differs from The area's first Town was Crown Point.... This entity became more populated and bits of it split off as townships. The first time this happened was with the establishment on one day of the town of Schroon. Now, what I think of as a normal town, like Witney or Kremnica, became established over centuries; one-day establishments surely refer to a legal process. OK, but if so then this is actually the Town of Schroon. But it's also a "township". Yet "township" has a certain legalistic air to it: how can something be both a township and a Town? All in all I'm very confused by all of this. And I wonder how much is necessary; I mean, what matters is roughly how many people were roughly where, and what their settlements were popularly called, not boundaries and incorporations. Or anyway so I'd have thought. Morenoodles (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In New York State, towns are minor civil divisions and do often contain considerable rural territory in addition to one or more compact settlements. In other words, towns = townships as a general rule in New York and are legally municipalities. The term township is not really used locally. Although you do have a point that some of this municipal information is probably unnecessary detail for this article and can be streamlined. --Polaron | Talk 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What Polaron said. In New York State (unlike most of the U.S.), township is a level of local government between village and county: one township may include several villages. So township has a specific legal meaning in that state, while municipality is more of an umbrella term when referring to local governmental bodies. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected. But I'm still a bit bewildered: In this context (as opposed to an article on the demographic and governmental history of the area) this kind of thing seems rather nitpicky (as Polaron too seems to think). And a correct understanding of it seems to assume a degree of familiarity with the area that I think would only be shared by people who knew Vermont was in the US. Morenoodles (talk) 08:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I think that this article meets the criteria for a Featured Article. Sam ^Blab 15:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional image review: File:Eagle Lake Adirondacks New York.jpg was uploaded by Urban (who has many uploads deleted), claims to be GFDL but lists "Copyright: © Jared C. Benedict." The source is also not pointing to the page where the image resides (the photo gallery has 64 main pages). Benedict is a user here (User:Redjar), who have uploaded some of his photos under CC. It is possible that he may not have released this Eagle Lake photo under GFDL or for public use, and I have notified him of this.[55] Jappalang (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Well. I don't think it matters. I removed the image as a precaution.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 01:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problems then. Jappalang (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question: Is it usual to not talk about the geography and/or demography of the road? Forex, by looking at the 1836 map, it looks as if the highway goes through some hills. That's not stated anywhere in the article. I've got a similar question about what surrounds the road -- is it a built-up area or rural? I can infer some of that from the maps, but it's not stated anywhere in the article. Again, I'm not familiar with road wikiproject style, but those questions occurred to me as I read, and answering them might make the article more useful for a reader. Other than that, it looks like a good article. It made me interested enough to read the whole thing, after all! :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

With an 1836 map,no, but with the current day info, yes. I did write about that, I did a lot of that in the Route description.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments
• Due to extensive designation reassignments during the twentieth century, the entire length of the present highway consists of renamed segments from other New York state highways. - "twentieth century" → "Twentieth Century"?
  • Why? Such a change introduces yet more unneeded pomposity. For if "extensive designation reassignments", phrase I brought up weeks ago, means something other than "much renaming", I don't know what it means. Morenoodles (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done on condition that no one agrees here.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's only a change in capitalization... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

But I have never seen "twentieth century" capitalized when used as a chronological item. See 20th century. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The starting interchange has a view of local landmark Severance Hill, which reaches an altitude of 1,600 feet (490 m). - Original research, not supported by given source.

Reworded.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The highway passes the entrance to Fort Ticonderoga and the Ticonderoga Amtrak station. The highway terminates at a ferry landing by Lake Champlain at the state border. - Avoid starting consecutive sentences with the same thing.
• The current ferry barge, in operation since 1959, is powered by a sixteen-ton tugboat built in 1979 that can hold up to 18 cars.[7] The seasonal ferry is half a mile long and operates from May through October.[8][9] The seven-minute passage operates during daylight hours.[7] - Redundant sentence structure. I suggest: "In operation since 1959, the current ferry barge is powered by a sixteen-ton tugboat built in 1979 that can hold up to 18 cars.[7] The seasonal ferry is half a mile long and operates during daylight hours from May through October.[8][9]" The bit about how long it takes is pretty trivial, IMO.
  • Lots of operation in that; how about The current ferry barge, in use since 1959, is powered by a sixteen-ton tugboat built in 1979 that can hold up to 18 cars. The seasonal ferry, taking seven minutes to go half a mile, runs in daylight hours from May through October. But far more worrisome is the assertion that the tugboat holds cars and is followed by a barge. In the land of the automotively free, what can be in that barge? Isn't it the barge that holds the cars? Morenoodles (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not done, again because of disagreements.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The article as a whole needs a check of comma usage. Commas are often a personal preference, but in some sentences, such as "Through this stretch the highway winds through forests and occasional farmland", the lack of a comma is confusing.
• Two toll gates were erected specifically for use on the highway, and the charter allowed for additional toll gates at a spacing of approximately one for every ten miles of completed highway. The turnpike management raised funds by selling 600 shares valued at $25 each. - Remove "specifically".
  • Well, yes. Feel free to go ahead and remove it. Morenoodles (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• $20,000 was also set aside for properties along the highway. - Is this 1832 USD, or 2009 USD?

Done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• On the Vermont side, the road connecting Larrabees Point to the main north-south highways in the area was designated in the mid-1920s as Vermont Route F-9. - "North-south" needs an en dash.
  • More importantly, "named" instead of "designated as". Morenoodles (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• The project is in preliminary development. Construction is expected to begin in early 2013 and reach completion about a year later. - Choppy prose. Is it possible to merge these sentences?

Done.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)}

• According to its website, the ferry operated informally from 1759 and in an organized way from 1799. - "According to its website" would imply that other sources contradict it; is this so?
  • I don't read it this way. Instead, I read it as a subtle warning, pitched about right, of sub-optimal sourcing. Morenoodles (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good otherwise. The article has definitely improved since its last FAC. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Final disagreement, so not done either.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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:Raul654 17:15, 17 January 2009 [56].

---

Typhoon Tip

Nominator(s): –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}, User:Hurricanehink

Typhoon Tip was the strongest tropical cyclone in the entire world, hence this is one of WPTC's most important articles. This was a collaborative effort between myself and Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) (he wrote most of the current meteorological history section). Hope you like it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Co-nom. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Prose is pretty darn good, but I found a couple breaches.

• and offshore shipwrecks left 44 killed or unaccounted for. - ending is kind of awkward, could we reword this?
• and later on the same day the tropical disturbance which would later become Typhoon Tip organized to the south of Pohnpei. - Organized? Also, that verb is over-used in that section.
• The extratropical remnant of Tip continued northeastward and gradually weakened, crossing the International Date Line on October 22; it was last observed near the Aleutian Islands.[2] - Mention by/in Alaska, for ignorant readers.
• In the last section, I think the one-sentence paragraph is close enough to be included in the big one.

I hope I can support this article. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Also, to save time, refs check out. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• All done. Thanks for the comments. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Then, I support. ₪Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 23:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Some more stuff for you per your request. I have comma use issues which may just mean I'm insane. Feel free to ignore me as necessary.

• Initially, a tropical storm to its northwest hindered the development and motion of Tip, though after it tracked further north Tip was able to intensify. needs a comma after north.
  • Actually, I tend to use commas as little as possible, so the prose flows smoothly. Same with the similar points below. I'll add them if you feel it's necessary, though. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• a worldwide record low sea level pressure of 870 mbar (hPa, 25.69 inHg) on October 12. At its peak strength, it was also the largest tropical cyclone. Noun and then adjective? Can we make it the same for consistency's sake?
  • Do you have any suggestions on how to reword this? I'm a bit unsure about it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Methinks there should be a hyphen in "sea level". Dabomb87 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Good catch, fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• U.S. Air Force Reconnaissance flew into the typhoon for 60 missions, making Tip one of the most closely observed tropical cyclones of all time. Just replace of all time with ever so it's less awkward.
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• A disturbance to the southwest of Guam developed into Tropical Storm Roger on October 3, and later on the same day the tropical disturbance which would later become Typhoon Tip developed to the south of Pohnpei. Awkward comma usage, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
• The typhoon continued to intensify further, and early on October 12 Reconnaissance Aircraft recorded a worldwide record-low pressure of 870 mbar (hPa, 25.69 inHg) with winds of 305 km/h (190 mph), located about 840 km (520 mi) west-northwest of Guam. needs a comma after 12. There are several cases similar to this that I did not point out.
• Marines inside the camp weathered the storm inside huts that were situated at the base of a hill which housed a full farm. can be reworded to say Marines inside the camp weathered the storm inside huts situated at the base of a hill which housed a full farm.
  • Got it. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• 42 people died throughout the country, with another 71 missing and 283 injured. I think With another is awkward. They're all part of one statistic, so they shouldn't be separated like that.
  • "With" implies that the statistics were related, but again, I'll replace it if you feel it would be beneficial. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• almost double the previous record of 700 miles (1,130 km) in size. Isn't in size implied and therefore unnecessary?
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• I personally dislike the high frequency of ; as it breaks the flow of the section on the damage. If more of those sentences can be linked together by conjunctions instead of punctuation, I believe the passage would flow better.
  • I removed several semi-colons; should be better now. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

Cheers and good luck! DARTH PANDA^duel 05:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yea, this article is so good all I can do is sit here and nitpick flow details that really shouldn't have any impact on the FAC at all. I will go ahead and support. DARTH PANDA^{duel • work} 19:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• File:Tip 1979 track.png - Please add the author names into the "author" field.
• File:Typhoon Tip full.PNG - If possible, please link to the HTML page rather than directly to the PNG file, per WP:IUP.

• Now there is some sort "internal error" with the link. Awadewit (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The website often does that; just refresh a couple of times and it should work. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 18:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I've got nothing to add to this, great job! Cyclonebiskit (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 15:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Support-Love the article! --क्षेम्य Tranquility 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• Newspaper titles go in italics (whacks Julian.. you know that!)
• Current ref 17 .. UNC Press? What's that? Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the references.
• Current ref 3, the publisher should be NOAA, etc, not "monthly Weather log" which is actually the "journal" title for this work.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed (I thought {{cite news}} automatically inserted italics, hmm...) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

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:Raul654 17:15, 17 January 2009 [57].

---

Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment

Nominator(s): Tfhentz (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has passed as an A-class article, and I've added more explanatory prose to help readers unfamiliar with the subject matter. I believe it meets the standards for FA status. Tfhentz (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Why are there no level-one headers in the text? –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 19:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I was bold and tweaked the headings and also the image placements. In the A-class review, Tfhentz didn't like the way the heading lines intersected the images. Hopefully, my tweaks resolved the issues. BuddingJournalist 19:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Looks good, thanks. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Juliancolton and BuddingJournalist for your comments and tweaking. It looks just fine to me now. The issue of heading lines intersecting the images was never a biggy with me. I also deleted the periods after stand-alone sentence fragments in two other image captions. SandyGeorgia, I corrected the disambiguation links for Forts Pitt and Washington identified in the toolbox -- good catch. I couldn't find a problem with the "Fort McIntosh" link or with "Maryland and Virginia Rifle Regiment," however. Cheers Tfhentz (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support Generally excellent. "already had been all but" is a bit awkward. Some of the paragraphs seem a bit long, and might be better broken up. I also wonder whether this article may be confusing to those unfamiliar with the American Revolution. There are terms (Board of War, for example) that may need to be further explained or linked. Hopefully, a non-American editor will review this article and give his/her perspective. BuddingJournalist 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I just added a second paragraph under "Fort Pitt and The Western Department" regarding the third and last change in the regimental commander. I noticed that I'd listed it in the Infobox but hadn't documented it in the main text. You might want to give it a look-see before finalizing your support. I don't plan to make a habit of making big additions. Thanks! Tfhentz (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
    • The addition looks fine; interesting anecdote. BuddingJournalist 01:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Per your suggestion, I split a couple of the long paragraphs in the latter sections of the article. Regarding the use of "already had been all but," I can't really come up with an alternative phrasing that gets the point across as concisely. I'll write up a separate, short Wikipedia article on the "Board of War" so that I can link to that -- I've already done so for my link to "Extra Continental regiment." I'll look for other terms that potentially need short articles or further explanation in this article. It's hard to cover all the bases with such things. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'm a hair concerned about how much of this article is cited to primary sources, and other reviewers should probably check to make sure that the primary sources are being used appropriately. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

On my read-through, the primary sources seemed to be used as a source for reported statistics and dates or other non-controversial facts. They didn't seem to be used for synthesis/interpretation. I didn't do a thorough check though, and I'll probably undertake a more thorough check of sources in the next few days. BuddingJournalist 01:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review — as follows:

• File:WILLIAMS exb.jpg, File:DanielMorgan.jpeg, File:Fort Frederick, Hagerstown vicinity (Washington County, Maryland).jpg, and File:Fort Pitt in 1776.jpg are all fine and dandy; they are paintings that are old and fall under PD-Art. File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg is not PD-Art as its painter has only died 10+ years ago; it is, however, PD-USGov as the US Army Center commissioned McBarron to paint the piece, which it published. I kind of doubt November 8, 2007 for its date as like I said, McBarron died in 1992; hence I have removed the date. Can someone confirm if this was a belated publishing, or find out the original completion or publishing date of the painting (not necessary for this FAC, but would be helpful for the image at Commons)?
  • I'll get in touch with U.S. Army Center of Military History and get the correct publication date for the painting. Thanks for your review. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775.jpg — can Tfhentz re-upload the cropped image without removing the EXIF metadata? This would greatly help to reinforce the fact that it is his image to bestow for free. If it was a scanned photo, I think uploading the original-size scan would help. The full-size scan can be uploaded to the same file name to include in the File history, then overwritten with the crop, or uploaded as another separate file (and linked from the cropped image). Jappalang (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I just uploaded my larger, original-size image as "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775_2" as a separate image file. I also cropped this original and overwrote to the old file "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775" (the image that is now in the article) as you suggested. "Flintlock rifle ca. 1775_2" may be redundant, and someone may want to delete it. I hope I resolved the issue. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, it seems there is no metadata for File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg as well. The size also does not seem to be an original camera image (typically, in the 4:3 ratio). Since you are using Photoshop, you can use the "File -> File Info -> Camera Data x" (where x is 1 or 2) to check that the EXIF has not been erased. Typically, this happens if you had copy a selection from the original image, pasted into another window and saved it as a new work. Working within your original image window (and saving it under a new filename or otherwise) would preserve the EXIF. I have also edited the two flintlock images to link to each other. Note: depending on the scanner drivers used, scanned photos may not have EXIF. Jappalang (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
      • I found the 4:3 ratio image on my disk -- I grabbed the wrong photo before because it's close in dimensions to File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg. I opened this in Photoshop, and under "file Info," no EXIF data appear either. I must have made a copy of it at some point and saved that -- just don't remember. I'm stymied. Is this a no-go situation (hope not!)? Tfhentz (talk) 16:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
        • The original 4:3 should suffice as a form of proof; it will be better if the EXIF is available, but this should do. Upload the 4:3 over File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg, and this should be okay. Jappalang (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
          • I uploaded my original 4:3 over File:Flintlock rifle ca. 1775 2.jpg. Thanks for your flexibility. Tfhentz (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Images are fine. Those that are PD have their relevant necessary data filled (the McBarron painting lacks a date, but it is only a bonus to have that), and the user-contributed picture has the original picture to vouch for its veracity. Jappalang (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The McBarron painting was published in preparation for the Bicentennial in July 1975. I added this to File:Riflemen at Saratoga.jpg Tfhentz (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone know why the ISBN number doesn't appear for Williams, Glenn F. (2005) in the References? According to the MoS, ISBN #'s are "wikified automatically" (Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style). This is what happened with my one other applicable book reference. Tfhentz (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Got it. I'm learning! Tfhentz (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Comments The prose is very good, and I fixed any minor issues I saw. A few items:
  • Suggest wikilinking the first uses of jargon like "company" and "regiment".
    • Thanks very much for reading through the text. I added links to "company" and "regiment" in the introductory section and to "brigade" at it's only use, although their Wiki description is of modern military examples. I'm not sure they're totally appropriate here, but I guess they're better than nothing. Tfhentz (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you have the "sic" after the word "compleat" in the Fort Frederick and reorganization section? It is a valid modern word and correctly spelled - it is not archaic or historical.
    • I'm afraid I can't find evidence of its modern use. Merriam-Webster defines "compleat" as an archaic spelling of "complete," as in "The Compleat Angler" (1653) by Izaak Walton. I looked in two other dictionaries and couldn't even find a listing for this old variant. Tfhentz (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
      • Ah, you're correct. Verified in Oxford as well. --Laser brain (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "... probably included no more than about 30 to 40 new enlistees." Can we remove the "about"? When you give a range, the inexactness is implied.
    • Good catch. I corrected it. Tfhentz (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

--Laser brain (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Excellent work, just a few nitpicks:

• "'discharging a Soldier after having been duly inlisted [sic] and receiving his regimental cloathing [sic] through private and interested views thereby defrauding the United States,'" Logical punctuation WP:PUNC, are you sure that the comma is part of the quote?
  • Thanks for taking the time for your review. The comma is not part of the quote, and I revised the punctuation. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• "On November 1, 1780, Washington issued orders approved by Congress specifying plans" A bit wordy and contains the awkward noun + -ing phrase. Maybe: "On November 1, 1780, Washington issued Congress-approved orders, which specified plans..."?
  • I revised the phrasing per your suggestion, although I used "that" in the restrictive clause. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
• The second paragraph of the "Disbanding" section looks stubby, can you merge it with the previous one? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The second single-sentence paragraph was added by a reader interested in the 201st Artillery Regt., and it really doesn't fit in the first paragraph that describes the disbanding. Tfhentz (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [58].

---

New Super Mario Bros.

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

Did you know that New Super Mario Bros....

• ... is the first original side-scrolling platform game starring Mario since Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins in 1992?
• ... is the first game to be a part of the main Mario series of video games since Super Mario Sunshine in 2002?

Gary King (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Images: User:ESkog has checked the images, below. Gary King (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

References: All of the references should be standard video game ones, except for this (Nintendo World Report), which I'm using after this conversation. Gary King (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Gary, you are the nominator or co-nominator of three other FACS at a time when this page is backlogged. Just the other day, Acdixon withdrew a nomination to help with the backlog. Please consider doing the same; reviewers are lacking at the moment. P.S. I will re-review Scene7 when I am back from my travels. BuddingJournalist 02:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Budding; I can help out with the reviewing, no problem. But, I nominated this article because of "Users should not add a second FA nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed.", which is the case for my FACs. This includes my previous one, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Simpsons Hit & Run, which has three supports and zero opposes. I think that clause exists to only allow new nominations when there are enough reviewers; also, I think that this current FAC meets the criteria, which is why I nominated it. I've got a few more articles ready for FAC, which is another reason why I'd like to get a few through when I can. Gary King (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just checked to see which FACs need more comments; they all would benefit from more comments, of course, but the only one that I see which definitely needs more is Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Flag of Singapore, which I'll review right now. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Almost all of the FACs need more comments and review; while the page is backlogged, lacking reviews, and Ealdgyth, Moni3 and Awadewit are having to check sources and images on every candidate, pls remember not to overload the page until previous nominations are successful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments from a video game fan.
  • The Australian date in the Infobox should have a source, since the others do. I'm also a little concerned where ref 1 (link) mentions the release date.
  • The game's story is similar to those of other side-scrolling Mario games, drawing inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular.
    • I have a bit of a problem with this sentence. While it might seem harmless enough, there is no source that says it drew "inspiration from Super Mario Bros. in particular." The source provided (ref 4) doesn't say that at all.
  • Speaking of "ref 4", I'm slightly concerned whether it's reliable enough, but I'm more concerned in its usage as a source in the article. No offense, but it seems like a lot of the content was in place in the article (like in this revision before you started working on the article), and then you used that link as an easy reference. If that is the case, then I would oppose. If that is not the case, then I'll look closely to see if all of that information is indeed from that reference.
  • For the image in the plot section, I'm a little concerned if it qualifies for fair use. The image isn't that helpful for what the text is talking about; it seems like decoration.
  • Is there an estimated for games sold, more recent than September 2008?
  • I have a quick question, which I think should be mentioned in the article. How come the game was released 10 days later in Japan than in the US? I thought Japan always got Nintendo games first. I just checked, and every other Mario game (including SMB2) was released in Japan prior to North America.
• I haven't gotten too much further in the article, but these are significant enough that I wish to wait for them to be resolved. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 05:11, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. Regarding references in the infobox, I moved them to the first sentence of the Reception section (all the dates are referenced now, also). I removed the "inspired by" bit, considering none of the references specifies this directly. I'm keeping the game guide reference as it is indeed reliable, but I also added a few other references to specific parts of Gameplay and Plot to back it up. I removed the image in the Plot section; it is indeed unnecessary. I can't find a more recent estimate than September 2008, which frankly is actually pretty recent, considering the game was released in May 2006 (most of the sales usually happen closer to the release date and wane later down the road). Good question on releasing later in Japan; I've added a sentence about that to the Reception section, after the article mentions the release dates (I also added Korea's release date, which was missed earlier). Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Korean release date be in the Infobox? That's fine about the sales estimate; I always just like a double-checking, but yes, Sept. 2008 is nice how recent it is. That works about the delayed release date. So just a question about the reference for "Nintendo EAD. New Super Mario Bros." I assume that's the player's guide? If so, that should be specified. But my question: is all of the info in the plot section definitely in the player's guide? I reiterate my earlier concern, because you only switched references. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the Korea release date; it was actually already in the infobox but was done incorrectly. I've specified that the manual is the reference. Gary King (talk) 17:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but with the player's guide, are you positive all of the info sourced to it appears there? None of the content was changed when you changed references, and some of the content existed before you even started working on the article. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. As I said, I added other references for the stuff that couldn't be referenced to the game or the manual. Gary King (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose based on criterion 3 and the usage of File:New-super-mario-bros-worldmap.jpg. I agree with the above commenter that this is not accompanied by the requisite critical commentary in the text of the article, and the image description page's "Purpose of Use" actually seems to be more a detailed description of what's going on in the game rather than an explanation of how the image is allowable under our non-free content criteria. One image to show the unique aspects of gameplay is typically sufficient unless there's something truly groundbreaking or hard to describe using text alone. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Okay fair enough; I have removed the image. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Great, from an image perspective (which is all I really feel qualified to talk about) I'd say everything's in order. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Excellent, thanks! Gary King (talk) 18:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comments Support
  • Hyphenate single-player in the infobox and gameplay section.
  • Nintendo is linked twice in the body, is that really necessary?
• Other than that, nice work. —TheLeftorium 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just added the hyphen in the infobox, for "Single-player, multiplayer". I don't think it's needed in the Gameplay section because it's "single players [...] multiple players" not "single-players [...] multiplayers", which would be grammatically incorrect. I'm going to leave the Nintendo link, because I think it's useful in the Development section where it's more likely to be clicked on. Gary King (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is necessary in the development section, but what about the reception section, is it necessary there? —TheLeftorium 20:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay, removed. Gary King (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done, I'll support the article. —TheLeftorium 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. But one comment I have is that in the plot section where it says Bowser falls into the lava, killing him, it should be noted that this happened exactly the same way in the Old Super Mario Bros. Other than that, great work. ^Tezkag₇₂ 02:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support. Article appears to be complete, well-written and referenced. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

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:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [59].

---

George H. D. Gossip

Nominator(s): Krakatoa (talk)

The article has successfully passed A-Class and GA review. The GA reviewer, Crystal whacker, wrote, "I would support this article at Featured nominations if it came that way." Commenter Caissanist wrote, "This article is a model for how biographies of chess players should be written in Wikipedia, if not for all biographies." Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm stopping by here to stand by that comment. Support. Crystal whacker (talk) 15:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Gossip Chess-Player's Manual (2).jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Note that WP:IUP states "A good source for an image from a book is to provide all information about the book (Author, Title, ISBN number, page number(s), date of copyright, publisher information) and not just title and author."
• File:Gossip's Vest-Pocket Chess Manual 2.jpg - Could you please include the complete publication information for this book? Awadewit (talk) 12:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

DONE for both. Krakatoa (talk) 16:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (These are awesome pictures, by the way - I love book covers like that!) All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• What makes the following reliable sources?

• http://www.chessgames.com/index.html

ChessGames.com is the leading site on the Internet for chess games. It is cited in practically every chess article. The reliability of this site was raised and established in the FA review of First-move advantage in chess. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To concur, here is a link to the mentioned FA review. Here are a few of the reasons stated then:

1. This website is used in about all chess-related articles managed by the WP:WikiProject Chess, as this is the only one that is notable, reliable and "linkable".
2. It is used extensively in the articles Chess, The Turk and First-move advantage in chess, that are all featured articles.
3. An interview (in page 2) of the site manager by the online magazine "Chess Today". The interviewer introduces the site as "one of the most impressive and unusual chess web projects around".
4. A rating of various chess websites. Note that www.chessgames.com is one of the very few to get a "A" rating.

SyG (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Use by other FAs doesn't make it necessarily reliable. I'll leave this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider ChessGames.com a reliable source, apart from comments on games made by users. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that links to games from ChessGames.com are a good idea (the reader can replay the game easily), but it is always better to add a citation of the same game from a printed source. Because the games on ChessGames.com are added by anonymous users of the site - it works on a similar principle like Wikipedia.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm

The article cited is an article about Ellen Gilbert, written by Neil Brennen. This article won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America in 2006 - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm

Its author, Neil Brennen, is a chess historian. Here is a biographical note about him from 2003:

Neil Brennen is Historian for the Pennsylvania State Chess Federation, and is editor of the PSCF's award winning magazine The Pennswoodpusher. He is a columnist for Correspondence Chess News. Aside from CCN, his articles on chess history have been published at The Chess Cafe, and in Quarterly for Chess History, California Chess Journal, Illinois Chess Bulletin, and other publications. Neil's first book, a biography of American master Sydney T. Sharp (1885-1953), will be published later this year by Moravian Chess.

– http://www.correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a030507.htm

In 2004, Brennen won the award for "Best Historical Article" from the Chess Journalists of America - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2004.htm In 2005, he won an Honorable Mention in the same category - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2005.htm In 2006, he won the award for "Best Web-Based Review" and the aforementioned Honorable Mention for the Ellen Gilbert article - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2006.htm In 2007, he again won an Honorable Mention in the category "Best Historical Article" - http://chessjournalism.org/aw2007.htm Krakatoa (talk) 00:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the article is acceptable as a source here - not because of the site, but because of the author and the award.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://web.archive.org/web/20071013075435/http://excaliburelectronics.com/history0499.html

Excalibur Electronics runs the U.S. World Chess Hall of Fame, which is also sponsored by the United States Chess Federation (USCF) and its members. See US Chess Hall of Fame News and World Chess Hall of Fame and Sidney Samole Chess Museum. The article from that site that I cite (http://web.archive.org/web/20071013075435/http://excaliburelectronics.com/history0499.html) is one of a series of historical articles commissioned by the U.S. Chess Trust, a non-profit charitable organization affiliated with the USCF - see About the U.S. Chess Trust; the identical articles are published in print form as "The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Part I", which I also cite. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In case my previous comment did not make it clear, the cited article is a verbatim reproduction of the chapter "Chess in the Old West" on pages 50-52 of this book: McCrary, Robert John, The Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, Number 1, U.S. Chess Trust. Given that the article cites the book as a reference, no one contends that the book is not a reliable source, and the website cited in the article simply reproduces a chapter from the book verbatim, it should be just as reliable a source as the book it reproduces. The book is referred to here: "In addition, these donors, upon request, will receive a numbered copy of the limited edition Hall-of-Fame History of U.S. Chess, the most unique history of American chess ever written!" Since only 250 copies of the book were produced (mine is number 158), the website is a far more accessible way for readers to view the material. Krakatoa (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is solved. It is possible to cite a book from a reliable web site.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.chesshistory.com/

This site is run by Edward Winter (chess historian), probably the most respected chess historian in the world, who has published Chess Notes for many years. The back cover of his book A Chess Omnibus quotes Yasser Seirawan and Jan Timman, two of the world's strongest grandmasters, as well as CHESS magazine, regarding Winter's stature as a chess historian. Seirawan: "Edward Winter is the chess world's foremost authority on its rich history. ..." Timman: "Writers on chess history and the games of yesteryear are not normally pathfinders or perfectionists, but Edward Winter is an exception, taking great pains not only to tackle difficult research tasks but also to present the facts precisely. ..." Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Leaving this out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

CHESS magazine wrote of Winter (from the back cover of A Chess Omnibus), "Over the years he has not only amassed a vast amount of knowledge on chess lore - much of which had been lost or forgotten in the passage of time - but he has shown great skill in evaluating, correcting, utilizing and publishing this information. A perfectionist through and through, his energy and enthusiasm are fuelled by a commitment to presenting the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." That would seem to be the epitome of a "reliable source". Krakatoa (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Winter has also written six books on chess history. Four of them are largely collections of his Chess Note columns; one is a collection of material on José Raúl Capablanca, the world chess champion from 1921-27; and the last is World Chess Champions. Winter has also written over 20 50 articles for ChessBase, which you have accepted as a reliable source: http://www.chessbase.com/columns/winter01.asp (note "Next Page" key at bottom, and use repeatedly). Krakatoa (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider Winter to be a reliable source. One thing though (and this is my opinion and I don't know if it matters) is that Winter seems to like to criticize other writers for minor errors. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I doubt anyone would argue with the proposition that Winter sets high standards, both for himself and others. That is completely consistent with being a reliable source, of course. Incidentally, in December 2008, in Chess Note No. 5919, he specifically praised the article now under review:

5919. Wikipedia

It is impossible not to have misgivings, both general and particular, about Wikipedia, but we have recently noticed a great improvement in some of the chess articles in the site’s English-language version. There is, for instance, excellent treatment of G.H.D. Gossip, and it is also good to see a fine article on Hugh Myers.

Krakatoa (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, a non-anonymous blog/private website of a noted expert in the field can be cited if no better (printed) sources are available.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Issues resolved, Ealdgyth - Talk 21:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://db.chessmetrics.com/CM2/Introduction.asp?Params=188510SSSSS3S000000188904111000000000000010100

This is the site for Chessmetrics, a well-respected site that publishes current and historical rankings of leading chess players. See the "Popularity" section of the Chessmetrics article, which says the following (with sources cited):

The original article on Chessmetrics was published in Chessbase in October 2002.[3]. Since then, Chessmetrics has become reasonably well known, due to numerous articles in Chessbase and The Week in Chess.[5] Respected chess author John L. Watson has referred to Chessmetrics numbers.[6], and Chessmetrics has been cited in at least two academic papers.[2] [7]

Krakatoa (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I consider ChessMetrics a reliable source. Bubba73 (talk), 00:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.chessdryad.com/articles/mi/354.htm

This is the very-high-quality newsletter of the Mechanics Institute Chess Club in San Francisco, one of the oldest chess clubs in the United States. I believe it is written by International Master John Donaldson, who has written high-quality historical books such as Alekhine in the Americas. I cite this site just for its verbatim reproduction of an article by Gossip in Steinitz's International Chess Magazine. Krakatoa (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.kingkong.demon.co.uk/ngcoba/ngcoba.htm

This is the "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors". It is listed as an online copyright resource by the Association of American University Presses - which writes in its "Copyright Resources Online" (http://www.aaupnet.org/aboutup/copyresources.html):

Kingkong also offers the"New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors" a growing database of the dates of book publication and authors' deaths (as many non-US copyrights are based on life+x years).

– http://www.kingkong.demon.co.uk/ngcoba/ngcoba.htm

The "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors" site explains that "The aim of this site is to catalog all deceased authors, and all authors of books published before 1964, including their full name(s), date of death, date of birth, pseudonyms, sex & nationality (for non-EU citizens who died after 1920), and their books published before 1964." Krakatoa (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did a WorldCat search that shows that all of these books are owned by various libraries in the world. That resource also indicated an additional book not listed by the "New General Catalog of Old Books and Authors", an 1882 collection of Gossip's games. I amended the article to list this source, as well. http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3AGeorge+Gossip&qt=advanced Krakatoa (talk) 19:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have eliminated use of this source, and substituted WorldCat instead. Krakatoa (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.chessbase.com/

ChessBase.com is one of the leading chess websites on the Internet, and publishes high-quality chess articles. It is one of just four sites listed under "Useful links" by The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/chess). Krakatoa (talk) 07:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 90 (Showalter-Gossip...) is lacking a publisher.

I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 100 (Mason-Gunsberg..) is lacking a publisher

I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Current ref 103 (Chigorin-Gossip) is lacking a publisher

I have added it. SyG (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Books on Google books should give their original publisher, not list Google Books. The links to Google books are just convience links, and the works should be treated in every way as a printed work (i. e. use {{cite book}})

I have changed the publishers, and changed the template "cite web" by "cite book" for Google Books used in the "References" section. SyG (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.

CommentsSupport: My numerous concerns, itemised below, have been resolved, and I am satisfied with the responses to other reviewers. This is now a quality article, well worthy of promotion to FA. The featured games are terrific, though I doubt I will have the chance to exploit these strategies in real play. Well done, Brianboulton (talk) 11:17, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• The unexplained title "Master" in the infobox looks odd. Where did the title come from, who awarded it, was it an official chess ranking of his day? The infobox needs to be more forthcoming, especially as not all readers will be chess-wise.

"Master" at that time was a loosely used term. (Today, organizations like FIDE and the United States Chess Federation award titles like FIDE Master and National Master.) As stated in the "Chess career" section, Gossip played in the "Master sections" of a number of tournaments. He thus must have been considered a "master". Chess tournaments at that time (and often today) often had multiple tournaments of different strength levels played at the same time and place. (For example, London 1883, referred to in the "Chess career" section, had the major tournament in which the "masters" played, and the minor tournament in which lesser lights (including Gossip at that time) played. I have added a parenthetical "(unofficial)" after "Master" to make clear that no body formally awarded him that title. Krakatoa (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me nuts, but I have removed the mention from the Infobox. I find it too unofficial to be of any value. SyG (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I think the "Non-chess career" section has too many details, some barely relevant. The organisation of the section into eight short paragraphs creates a choppy feel which disturbs the narrative pace. I believe the paragraph could be considerably condensed by removing marginal matters, e.g his wife being a year older, the places of each of his children's birth, his children's marriages, etc. I would also expect to see his last years and death at the end rather than the beginning of the article, in a section which discusses his posthumous reputation and legacy (broadly in the manner of the last pararaphs of the present Manner and Reputation section).

I have shortened the section as you suggested, removing the bit about his wife being a year older and the children's birthplaces. I retained mention of the children's marriages in Australia, because those facts support the sentence about his wife and children apparently staying in Australia while he moved to the U.S. I did shorten the mentions of the children's marriages, omitting their spouses' names. As for why the information about his last years and death being in the "Non-chess career" rather than elsewhere, they are here because, as far as we know, he played no chess in his last years. All the other sections pertain to chess, so this information would be out of place in them. Krakatoa (talk) 07:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

And I have regrouped paragraphs, now down to 5. Although I do not know what to do with the last one, two lines about his grandson. It cannot really go in the other paragraphs as it has nothing to do with Gossip's life, but it would be a shame to remove it as it may be of interest for some readers. SyG (talk) 10:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits look fine to me. I have tried an alternative approach, putting all the information about his family's further life in Australia (wife's death, kids' marriages, WWI flying ace grandson) in one paragraph. I deleted the sentence about the grandson's 1922 death and burial in Istanbul - adds a little color, but I'm not sure how many readers would be interested in that. Krakatoa (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Mrs Gilbert famously announced..." Why was this announcement "famous"? – victory in a minor correspondence tournament.

Chess historian Neil Brennen wrote in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm:

The results of the games, as well as the announced mates, caused a sensation in the chess world. Her townsman and friend John Belden declared the games against Gossip "stamp Mrs. Gilbert with the impress of genius." Steinitz annotated two of Mrs. Gilbert's games for The Field; poetry, good and bad, was written to the new "Queen of Chess", and at least one chess problem composed in her honor.

These were probably the longest announced mates in history. Announced mates in three or five are normal. For examples, see http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Achesshistory.com%2Fwinter&q=Announced+mate&btnG=Chess+Notes+search One does not normally, even in postal chess, calculate 35 moves deep; given how many moves are possible on each turn, it is impossible. See http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4904 regarding unusual examples of over-the-board calculation (as much as 15 moves deep). The fact that Mrs. Gilbert was a woman no doubt added to the "famousness" of the achievement. It was extremely unusual for women to play chess with men in the 19th century, and doing so extraordinarily well was even more unusual. (See the discussion in http://correspondencechess.com/campbell/articles/a051107.htm ) Mrs. Gilbert's feat was sufficiently remarkable that World Champion Wilhelm Steinitz commented on it, verifying the accuracy of her analyses. Irving Chernev, Wonders and Curiosities of Chess, Dover, 1974, p. 132. Krakatoa (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to say "famously" in the source, so I don't think it should in the article. It does say "sensation" in the source, so you could alter "famously" to "sensationally". This is my only outstanding point; otherwise I am ready to support. Brianboulton (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to the quotation "caused a sensation in the chess world" - as in the cited Brennen article. Krakatoa (talk) 05:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Gossip was unable to repeat this comparative success...". Hmmm, tied 17th out of 20 a success? I think it might be fairer to say "even this modest level of success"

I have revised it as you suggested. Krakatoa (talk) 07:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The single sentence paragraph towards the end of the Chess career section should be merged into the final paragraph, which needs a bit of rephrasing to avoid repetition of "in the world bt Chessmetrics"

I merged the single-sentence paragraph into the paragraph about Gossip's last tournaments. I edited the last paragraph to avoid the repetitious "number x in the world according to Chessmetrics". Krakatoa (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The games themselves were most interesting. Brianboulton (talk) 19:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I put in a request to User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix the faulty endashes in the page ranges on citations. I noticed a good deal of WP:OVERLINKing; words and countries commonly known to English speakers need not be linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. It seems this has now been cared for my Dabomb87. SyG (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - Here are some initial thoughts. I'll give it a closer read in the future, as I too am interested in this one.

• Do all of the world's best players of Gossip's time need to be listed in the lead? I would expect a handful of examples to illustrate, not eleven.

I have shorten to 3 of them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed the lead further to just "playing against most of the world's leading players", not listing any here. Krakatoa (talk) 06:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• To expand on Sandy's point, journalist and translator don't need to be linked. Those are in the lead.

I have dewikified them. SyG (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• More examples from Non-chess life: newpapers, magazines, continents and a bunch of others.

They've been dewikified. Krakatoa (talk) 00:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Place The Times in italics, since it's a printed publication.

Done. SyG (talk) 21:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Chess career: "finished 5th–6th out of 7 players." As someone without much knowledge of chess, this confused me somewhat. Does "5th–6th" mean that he finished in a tie with another player? If this is official chess terminology, don't worry about it. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Standard chess terminology, used in e.g. the books of Alexander Alekhine's and Jose Capablanca's best games (full biblio details are in these articles). Similiarly e.g. "3rd-6th" would indicate a 4-way tie. --Philcha (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As this is the first time a tie is encountered in the article, I have clarified it. SyG (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm back (finally) to offer more comments.

• Chess career: Chop the second of two World Chess Championship links in the section.

Done. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• "finishing in a tie for third-fifth of seven players." Should an en dash be used here?

I've now used an en dash here, and in all similar situations in the "Chess career" section. In addition, I have now changed the text to consistently use numbers throughout (for example, "3rd–5th of 7 players") in order to comply with WP:MOSNUM, rather than mixing numbers and words (e.g. "third–fifth of seven players" and "17th–18th of 20 players"), as had previously been the case. Krakatoa (talk) 04:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Chess books and articles: Watch for POV here; a couple of problems spots are "the critics who had savaged his earlier treatice" and "Unfortunately".

I've changed the "Unfortunately, Gossip 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." bit to "Unfortunately for Gossip, he 'was the victim of an act of gross privacy' ..." As for the "critics who had savaged his earlier treatise", it is not POV, but a fair summary of the cited source (Diggle in the British Chess Magazine). Diggle wrote regarding the reviews of the earlier treatise, "The book was greeted by a roar of condemnation", referred to "its ferocious mangling by the reviewers", and also characterized the reviews as "contemptuous" and "venomous". Diggle, p. 1. Unless I'm to repeat all that, "savaged" seems an appropriate summary. Krakatoa (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• "An anonymous reviewer in the New York Times...". Capitalize "the", and put in in the italicized link. Do the same in Manner and reputation. Back in the books section, there's another World Championship link nearby.

I've changed all instances of "the New York Times" and "New York Times" to "The New York Times". I also deleted the redundant link. Krakatoa (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Notable games: Can the inline links be turned into regular references? Also, watch the order of the references in this section. Usually, references are given in numerical order.

Done - I turned the inline links into regular references, and put the references in numerical order. Krakatoa (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Reference 71 (New York Times book review) doesn't have a page number, but it may not need one. The paper's archives make freely accessible everything published before 1923; a link to the review would be a nice touch.

The link I had before went to the abstract of the review; I have substituted a link that goes directly to the review. It just displays on my computer as one big document, with no page numbers. Krakatoa (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Overall, it was an interesting read and I enjoyed it. Giants2008 (17-14) 19:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now addressed all your points as best I can. See what you think. Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only word the tool identifies as needing disambiguation is the place name Hatfield. I have now disambiguated that. Krakatoa (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Question Shouldn't this article be moved to George H. D. Gossip? I vaguely recall the MoS mentioning something about a space between initials. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Response I searched for "initials" in WP:MOS, but found nothing relevant. My understanding has been that in British English, the space is invariably used (the British writers A. A. Milne and G. H. Diggle, for example), but that in American English the space was commonly not used. For example, the name of the late American actor E.G. Marshall is often seen with no space between the initials. But Wikipedia's practice, whether written or not, seems to be to use the space, even for Americans: E. G. Marshall, E. B. White. L.L.Bean has no spaces at all, but that refers to the name of a company that uses no spaces, not the person for whom it was named. I looked in the Modern Language Association's MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers, Sixth Edition, p. 262, expecting it to support the "no space" practice. Alas, it does not: it says that for the initials used for personal names "a period and a space ordinarily follow each initial" (citing J. R. R. Tolkien as the example). So I'm reluctantly going to move the article to George H. D. Gossip. Krakatoa (talk) 21:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Note I have accordingly tried to move the present page to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George H. D. Gossip, but without success. Could someone please help with that? Thanks! Krakatoa (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I have to warn I was somehow involved in the article, as I performed first a B-class review and then an A-class review on the article. That being said, I think the article upholds the FA-criteria, with solid sources, appropriate length and structure, and good style (for what is possible with this type of article). I also think the significant concerns of other editors above have been cared for. SyG (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments - I was also involved in the A-class review, and a couple of what I think are minor blemishes have crept in since:

• Done In "Chess career", the phrase "X of Y possible points" is repeated a lot. After the first instance (4th para, "Gossip finished 3rd with 6½ of 9 possible points"), I'd abbreviate it to "X out of Y". --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
• Done
  

I think "Diggle writes that Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the observation of the 1889 BCM commentator that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament" could be slimmed a bit. How about e.g. "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's observation in 1889 that Gossip was more at home in a match than a tournament"? --Philcha (talk) 23:37, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I shortened it to "In Diggle's opinion, Gossip's drawn match with Pollock vindicates the BCM's 1889 observation that Gossip would be more at home in a match than a tournament." Krakatoa (talk) 00:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Support In my opinion, the main issues are solved, the article fulfills FA criteria.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [60].

---

Orval Grove

Nominator(s): Wizardman

I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that after writing it, it meets the appropriate criteria. I modeled this after my other FA, Art Houtteman, and everything appears to be in order. Wizardman 22:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Somewhat short, and straight to the point. We need more FAs like this. —Ceran [ Falalalala... ] 23:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Maralia Yay baseball! A few quick comments:

• The black border (background?) around the lead image is uneven, wider on the left than on the right. Could the black be cropped out?
  • Unfortunately, I cannot, as it is an unfree image, and as such I cannot mess with it since I'm not the copyright holder. If it was free I would gladly do it. I'll handle the other two issues shortly. Wizardman 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I've never heard that we can't crop a nonfree image. Seems nonsensical; aren't we in fact encouraged to use the smallest portion of a nonfree image necessary? Maralia (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, I did some sleuthing, and according to my findings, the photograph is actually PD. Ergo, I'll crop it shortly. To answer your question, I assumed it was a derivative work. I'm sure I could ask 10 fair use people and they'd be split on the matter. Wizardman 03:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• The periodical names (The Sporting News, The New York Times) in your citations aren't getting italicized. My guess is that you have them in the publisher= field instead of work=.
  • Done.
• Also in the references, almost all of the dates are nicely formatted, but there are a handful of ISO-formatted dates (refs 14, 16, 18, 22, 38, 42).
  • Done. I didn't realize that the iso-formatted dates didn't work anymore until just now. Now I know :)

I'll be back shortly to do a more thorough review (must get my son off to bed first). Maralia (talk) 01:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments through 'Transition to the majors' section:

1. "He had a career year in 1943" - 'career year' probably warrants explanation
2. "As a freshman, he was a member of the varsity team, the first freshman in school history to do so." - He became the first freshman member of the varsity team in school history.
3. "until management began to replace youth with veterans" - replace youths with veterans
4. "At the 1940 Chicago White Sox season began, Grove became" - As the 1940
5. "Although Grove was an official part of the team as the 1940 season began." - this is a sentence fragment
6. "The Sox did plan to use three rookie pitchers during the final week of May, including Grove, as the result of having three doubleheaders that week." - The Sox did plan to use three rookie pitchers, including Grove, during
7. "he spent most of the nest season in Oklahoma City." - next season
8. "He finished the season at Oklahoma City with 17 wins and seven losses" - here we break the <10 rule for consistency within the sentence: 17 wins and 7 losses

   Done with above points. Wizardman 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

More as I get more time. Maralia (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Can we get the newspaper/journal/magazine titles into italics?
  • Done.
• What makes http://oaklandoaks.tripod.com/solons/rosters.html a reliable source?
  • The author of the site, William B. Shubb, is recognized as a baseball historian here. If it's not acceptable as reliable I can try to find elsewhere where the statistics may be located (though it would take a little while, sporting news had nothing).
    • Ideally, we'd have several nationally known media vouching for his credentials. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
      • I'll look deeper. There's just a lot of sources on his judiciary career that I need to wade through to get to anything, most likely. (He's probably worthy of an article on here, but that's a different point altogether) Wizardman 17:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
        • What's the status on this? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
          • Per the note above, I can't access the Sporting News archives for about a week or so, and as such can't fix the sourcing issues until then. (Google News search didn't really give me anything to help) Wizardman 16:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
            • How about looking in the libraries for this book, Sacramento Senators and Solons by John E. Spalding, which is the book this site gets its rosters from ("following rosters, courtesy of John Spalding, from his book Sacramento Senators and Solons,")? Jappalang (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
              • That would be a good idea should I want to re-add in some more info. closest library that has it is the one in Cooperstown, so we'll see if i can get it in the future. Wizardman 03:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

• Upon signing with the team should be followed by the year.
• Link Minor League Baseball, Doubleheader (baseball)
• I think mentioning Hall of Fame votes in the lead of this article is misleading. Leave that fact for the main body.
• Explain why his high school career was only three years if he eventually graduated, but began as a Freshman.
  • First three are done. For the fourth, I mention in the article that he went for three years, then later came back and finished his senior year of high school. I'll make it more clear in the article. Wizardman 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
• great deal of possibility s/b much potential
• official part of the team? Do you mean 25-man roster or 40 man roster?
• typo - nest season
• Shreveport Sports of what league?
  • Don't need to link Texas League again.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• he was back on par with the other White Sox pitchers s/b his playing ability was back on par with that of the other White Sox pitchers
  • Grammatically it has to be that of the other players or specifically the playing ability of other players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Almost there. We need a plural. Abilities or ability levels for the players.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:52, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Another issue came up for Grove in 1943, the issue being World War II. Say something like In 1943, Grove also had to deal with issues related to World War II.
• Grove took advantage of now being in Chicago's starting rotation, winning nine consecutive decisions to start his season, and not losing a game until a match against the Yankees which he lost as the result of a balk. s/b Grove took advantage of now being in Chicago's starting rotation by winning nine consecutive decisions to start his season and by not losing a game until a match against the Yankees, which he lost as the result of a balk.
• At the time, Orval Grove became the second member of the White Sox to win nine consecutive decisions to start the season and the third in White Sox history, the first being Lefty Williams in 1917 and the most recent being LaMarr Hoyt in 1982. is confusing
  • third in White Sox history still makes no sense.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Change career-highs to career-bests
  • A best ERA is a low!!!!--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Grove started the 1944 Chicago White Sox season was an interesting honor s/b Grove started the 1944 Chicago White Sox season with an interesting honor
  • No comma after season.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• Mention the accident and its remifications in the 1941 section
  • Now it sounds redundant the way you mention it in the second part. It wasn't an accident it was the accident. You should have mentioned the deferral in 1941. The reader already knows so don't repeat that "His knee was injured in the accident"--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
• instead of Closing pitcher say closer
• top outing s/b best outing.

That is all for now. I will finish the article later.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Continuing

• Why only 19 starts in 1947. Was he injured, benched, sent to the minors?
  • See below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• "The 1948 Chicago White Sox season saw a difficult decision for the Sox in who their pitchers would be, as well as who would be in the starting rotation." is ungrammatical and garbled. Try "The 1948 Chicago White Sox faced difficult decisions regarding determining their pitching staff and starting rotation."
• "started 11 games out of 32" Sounds wrong. Weren't they using 4-man rotations and a 154-game season. 38 sound more like it.
  • see below.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
• Tigers would agree s/b Tigers agreed
• Do you have a citation for the final sentence.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Article copyedited. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 15:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reviewers are suppose to strike their own comments, unless maybe Sandy strikes stuff. I will check back in a few hours to do my own striking. If you want to show you have responded to a comment, add a line below it saying what you have done. See my Four Freedoms candidate below as an example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Noted, I won't strike anything else. Wizardman 22:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done with the exception of the 19 starts in 1947. I cannot seem to find anything sourced about it. No mention of an injury or minor league stint, so my guess is he simply didn't start every game and became a spot starter (the Sox used 11 starting pitchers in 1947 four or more times, so it could've been that the squad was just bad).

• • • • I think you should mention the number of appearances for seaons in the late career section. He was not exclusively a starter and in order to give a complete biographical description of this part of his career just talaking about games started is leaving a lot of information out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:20, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done with the new fixes, still nothing on 1947. Wizardman 21:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Now I think I finally got everything :) Wizardman 17:40, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I should oppose on principle for writing a quality article about the wrong Grove, but I'm in a good mood because of the holidays, so I'll spare you. :-) Seriously, it is a good article. I saw a few things that need tweaking as I read it, but overall I'm quite impressed.

• "After retirement, he worked with his uncle in a trucking business in Chicago while continuing to pitch baseball at the semi-pro level." I think the word baseball can be removed, or it can be changed to "play baseball". Either of those would be a slight improvement on the current wording.
• Minor league career: There are two "in order to" uses in the first paragraph. The word-smiths of FAC consider this wordy, and prefer just "to".
• St. Paul Saints links to the modern-day team, not whatever club existed back then.
  • The article did cover the old team after all. I re-added a link to it while I was copy-editing.
• Transition to the majors: "he pitched a complete game that lasted twelve innings, winning the game 1–0 against hall of famer Dizzy Dean." Capitalize Hall of Fame?
• Texas League link is repeating one from the minor league section.
• "In October, Grove was hurt in an auto accident in Missouri, and injured his other knee as a result.." Double periods.
• Career years: "At the time, Grove became the second member of the White Sox to win nine consecutive decisions to start the (change to "a") season at the time and the third in White Sox history." I'm confused by the sentence, as it seems to contradict itself. Just guessing from what the next sentence says, but is it supposed to be "and one of three in White Sox history."?
• Remove comma after 1944 Chicago White Sox season?
• In the same paragraph as the last comment, there's some en dash code that needs fixing.
• "Grove also managed to shut out the Yankees on May 18, the first time the Yankees had done so in 1944." I'm not sure that the flow is as good as can be. A small adjustment to the end will probably be good enough to work.
• One thing that's bothering me as I read this is the unpiped links to xxxx Chicago White Sox season throughout. I can see having one link like that to avoid confusion, but most of them can just be xxxx season without losing anything. That would make it a little smoother for readers.

It's difficult for me to keep up with the reviews I currently have, but I'll come back to read the rest ASAP. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Done. I just delinked the Saints as I don't have enough info on them to create another article. Wizardman 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

For someone with my review backlog, ASAP means about six days. :-) Anyway, I'm back to finish my review. There's quite a bit left to do, but I want to get it all out there at once due to the amount of active reviews I have.

• The auto accident referred to in 1945 was already mentioned in 1941. I think a change from "an auto accident" to "the auto accident" would help tie those sections together.
• "after becoming the only player who remained holding out." Needs fixing.
• Link Ed Lopat
• "and as a result the coaching planned..." Also needs fixing.
• Later career: "The 1948 season faced difficult decisions..."
• "the White Sox beat the Chicago Cubs 1–0, giving Grove a complete game shutout." The second clause doesn't come as a result of the first; just because the Sox won in a shutout doesn't mean that it was a complete game.
• "which prompted concern for Indians..."
• "which was declared by some as 'the best any Coast League club ever had'." Who is some? An attribution would be nice here.
• "en route to a 17 win, 20 loss season." Hyphens?

I also want to see the Tripod source removed or proved acceptable. If it stays, it needs a publisher added to the citation. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Sorry if I seem like I'm rushing, just trying to get done what I can before the first, since arbcom will then take up all my time. The Tripod thing's troubling me since I'm struggling to find a source for that info but can't really remove it since it a nice detailed chunk of minor league info. The rest I will handle within a couple days. Wizardman 03:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Done with the exception of the tripod source issue. I will definitely work my ass off on this particular one tomorrow, I think it's bugging me more than the reviewers :) Wizardman 23:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. That Will Farrell messing me up... :P Wizardman 04:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support following my own copyedit and the resolution of comments by other editors. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 04:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments

  "Before graduating from high school during autumn 1937, Grove was signed" is awkward. It is unclear if he was signed during autumn 1937, if he would have graduated then or both.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  "He played with the Steers until management began to replace youths with veterans due to their struggles". Is their referring to youths, veterans, management or the Steers?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  Watch the WP:PUNCT with "They'll never drive that sinker very far". the period goes inside the quotes for full sentences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  What is the full Tulsa team name (link it).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  After establishing the team name, I think convention is to refer to teams by nickname and not city. Thus, later when you say Tulsa, you should say Oilers. Feel free to convince me otherwise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

  Check out the other baseball FAs. I think you will find more extensive year linkages to Year in baseball, Major League baseball season articles. Follow the convention. Especially in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  I believe the semi colon should be conjoining independent phrases, but "he did not think much of at the time" seems to need an object. Maybe add it after of.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  It looks like you fixed it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  Sox is too slangy. Change to White Sox.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  change it was discovered from passive to active.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

  rm now from of now being.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  becoming the only player who remained holding out should be becoming the last remaining hold out.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  due to eagerness seems POV.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  That statement comes directly from the source cited. I can tweak it if needed though. Wizardman

  go the distance is slang that will be lost on many readers.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  link first instance of opposing teams such as New York Yankees.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

  Most are done now. Wizardman

  • Support After several rounds of comments, my concerns are now satisfied.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment by Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) — Fixed a few formatting issues using Advisor.js. I recommend it before running for GA or FA just to make sure the article is in top form. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

• <Off topic moved to talk.> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Tentative oppose—Reluctant withdrawal of oppose. See my comments below. Tony (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)I found plenty of minor glitches at the opening. It needs someone new to it to run through the prose carefully. These are random examples only:

• "He had a career year in 1943, finishing the season with career bests in ERA, wins, and complete games, and in 1944 he made his only All-Star appearance." Last "he" could be removed (ellipsis); there's lots of "he" in the vicinity.
  • I did something altogether different: "Grove had a career year in 1943, finishing the season with career bests in ERA, wins, and complete games; in 1944, he made his only All-Star appearance." The proposed fix didn't do anything to combat the "he" overload, and the two seasons felt forced together. I think the semi-colon improves it further.
• "By eighth grade, Grove developed a fondness for baseball, and began pitching for the Proviso East High School baseball team." Remove the comma?
  • Yes.
• "Grove lost only two games, pitched a no-hitter, and pitched a couple of one-hitters." You couldn't make it: "Grove lost only two games, and pitched a no-hitter and a couple of one-hitters."? But it's still a little stumpy—the "lost only two games" is more comfortably embedded in the longer period, but the pitching references look like single incidents within games. Perhaps I'm too much the non-expert here.
  • A no-hitter happens when a pitcher doesn't allow a hit during a game; it's a rare feat. The one thing I would change is to say how many one-hitters he had; I'd guess two, but can't do anything without having access to the source. Fixed it as suggested otherwise.
• Pity there's no sense of the magnitude of a $2,500 contract in 1937. Sounds like the cost of one electronics item for the sitting room.
  • I'll look for it later, but this sounds like it will be hard to find. Wizardman would probably have better luck finding 1937 salaries than me.
    • Note:Lou Gehrig had the highest salary in 1937, at $36,000.[61] so 2500's nice, but maybe it's not as huge as I thought. Wizardman
• Can you check for "he" throughout? "He played with the Steers until management began to replace youths with veterans due to the team's struggles, and as a result he was moved to the Longview Cannibals." Or "... struggles; as a result, he was ...".
  • Chose the latter option. And yes, I will be searching for "he" later.
• Can one purchase a contract?
  • Actually, baseball teams do. This is correct.
• "in order to"—spot the two redundant words. But there's another problem: four "to"s. And the last phrase is unnecessary: "As his first minor league season drew to a close, Grove planned to return to Proviso High School to complete his education when the season ended." Try: "As his first minor league season drew to a close, Grove planned his return to Proviso High School to complete his education." Tony (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Did "Grove planned on returning to Proviso High School to complete his education." Didn't like the double "his" in the proposed fix, especially considering the large number of "he"s scattered throughout. Didn't find the "in order to", but I'll get it later during my full run-through, assuming that it's still there. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

PS Your hope that a reader might realise that the blue "1940" and "1949" are in fact links to years in baseball is a long-shot; they look like those silly solitary year links that go nowhere relevant. Why not arrange one reference to Years-in-baseball in the main text instead, where it's a proper service to readers, not a guessing game (see MOSLINK). Please see my comments below in Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Sunderland_A.F.C.. Tony (talk) 08:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I got rid of the infobox links and will look for a spot to park a year-in-baseball link in the body. A full cleanup job is coming from me later. I did review this earlier, but I saw some good copy-editing opportunities while searching for these fixes. For now, I have a bunch of reviews to do and football on TV, so I'm stopping here. Thanks for this review and all the others you do. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Cleanup complete. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review - Soooo. I suppose the only way for someone to verify all of these wild speculations about File:Orval Grove.jpg being in the PD is to actually go to the George Burke Archives (wherever those might be)? :) Is there any citation we could provide readers for any of this information? Pretty please? Awadewit (talk) 22:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• I am uncertain that the license for this picture is correct. According to Wikipedia:Public domain#Published works, "Even if a work was published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, there would need to be proof to that effect. The proof must contain a valid resource justifying the claim in order for the U.S. copyright office to accept it." Where is the proof that this picture was published? Note that George Burke takes pictures of baseball players, but supposedly never sold them to the public. He kept them in his collection, selling copies to the players themselves;[62] hence, his photos were accorded as collectibles.[63][64] George Brace, who was mentored by Burke, similarly practiced the same thing (personal collection).[65] Some of Burke's work could be considered "published"; he sold stamps to players who used them to post replies to fans.[66] However, the key here is to prove that the photo of Orval Grove was published in the media or sold as baseball cards to the public, and that no copyright was registered for that photo. Jappalang (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Tricky. I have asked a Commons admin for advice on this one. Awadewit (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• I was asserted the image was PD upon asking User:Zscout370 about it, which was confirmed by another user whose name escapes me. If it's determined to actually not be PD, i'll just rv and put the fair use tag and rationale back in. Wizardman 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• User:Elcobbola has offered to help track down this image. Could you leave the details on the talk page? Awadewit (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would suggest that the image be reverted back for "Fair use" at this moment, and only declared as PD when proof is found. For fair use, the single image has a case for identification of a deceased person. Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• At this point that's probably best. I may be able to assert that it's PD later, but no sense guessing right now. Wizardman 12:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been working on the FUR: A couple of things: 1) We need more information on the source, that would allow readers to track down the image, if they so desired. 2) WP:NFC requires that non-free images have been published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia. We need some evidence of that. Awadewit (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, I cannot believe I missed that clause in NFC... Anyway, if File:Orval Grove.jpg is invalid due to lack of proof of publishing, would Grove's baseball card (at "Virtual Card Collection") be appropriate for fair use here? Jappalang (talk) 06:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
• Belay that suggestion. Check out p. 84 of Nov 1973 Baseball Digest.[67] The image in the Digest can qualify as a fair-use image, agreed? Jappalang (talk) 06:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would think so. Write it up and let's see. Awadewit (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• That works :) I have a thing against using baseball cards in articles, I find it to be a can of worms issue. That pic works though. Wizardman 18:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• (outdent) New image uploaded. Wizardman 19:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• The image issues are now resolved. Yeah! Awadewit (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support: An interesting, well-researched and mostly well-written article. In addition to Tony's comments could you check all the occurrences of "also", especially the very tired "not only...but also" construct. Often "also" is redundant and worse, for me at least, slows down the reading because it refers back to previous lines. Also, "nixed" is not in my Oxford English Dictionary—the nearest are "nix" and "nixie", male and female water elves :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 16:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • "Nixed" –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment to TonyTheTiger and Giants: You both appear to disagree with each other on the linking issue regarding x in baseball and the like. Can't really compromise on this one, seeing as either it is or isn't in. Wizardman 18:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't really care either way, though I personally prefer the MLB links. Year in baseball links would be fine as well. While I'm here, I left an inline message regarding the "it was discovered" that he had an injury. If this can't be found due to your computer, don't worry about it too much. I'm also leaving responses above to the other Tony. Have to cut a new ArbCom member with a busted computer a break once in a while, right? :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 18:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh, is this referring to the infobox? If so, leave them out and just put them in the text. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just finished a full copy-edit. Please check my work, as I don't usually copy-edit articles I review. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, article reads a lot better now. I'll go through tonight and hopefully satisfy the two tony's final issues. (except for the discovery issue, which will have to wait until I can access pdf files again.) Wizardman 16:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the "not only...but" sentence. While I was copy-editing this, I found a few more things, which I want to bring to your attention.

• The last sentence in Later career, on the end of his career, feels like a run-on. Perhaps breaking it up before "as he said" would solve the problem.
• The given publishers for notes 11 and 14 are Section Two and Sports, respectively. Are these the names of newspapers, or are they sections of unnamed newspapers?
• Do a "he" check before pinging Tony1, since that was his major concern. I changed a few of them, but there are still quite a few. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Got your points done, now to tackle Tony1's (and the image and the one source, heh) Wizardman 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional Support as of this version

Resolved issues. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments as follows:

Early life

• "West Mineral, Kansas on August 29, 1919"

Should there not be a comma after "Kansas"?

Minor league career

• "due to the team's struggles"

Would "due to the team's struggling form" be better?

• "After the 1939 season began"

Should this not be "After the 1939 season had begun"?

• "Grove walked three men in a row—which allowed a run to score—and received credit for the loss, despite that fact that he did not allow a hit during his time on the mound."

Not being a fan of baseball, but having an crude understanding of the basics of the game, I am puzzled by this sentence. Basically Grove foul-balled 12 times to let 3 men onto the bases, thus earning the Oilers one run, but why "credit for the loss"? Should it not be "blame for the loss", and should he not be blamed if he foul-balled that many times (despite that no opponent had hit any of his pitches)? Or is my interpretation totally wrong?

Reworded, hopefully this is better.

Career years

• Would classification as 3A mean that he was an only son?

I'm not sure, actually. 3A means "Whose deferment is advisable because his child(ren), parent(s), grandparent(s), brother(s), or sister(s) is dependent upon him for support." (he was not married yet). This implies that he was taking care of his parents and/or grandparents with the money he made as a ballplayer, which would be my best guess. I don't have a source to prove that though. He had at least one brother (per having a nephew), so he's not an only child.

Okay, not an actionable issue—nicely fulfilled my curiosity though. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• "On July 8, 1943, Grove almost made baseball history."

Would that have been the first time a Major League no-hitter was achievied if Jordan did not hit the ball? If so, that should be noted. Otherwise, I do not see how that was baseball history unless it was the first White Sox no-hitter or a no-hitter was so rare no one did it until many years later.

No-hitters are rare, and it does give a baseball pitcher a certain kind of greatness if they are able to throw one. "History" is probably too strong of a word, I'll try and reword it.

• "$310 in damages from the auto accident"

Is it "from the" or "for the"?

I think it's from the. Maybe I should change it to "$310 in damages stemming from the auto accident"?

I think it should be "for" since he was "awarded"; it would be "from" if he "received", right? Perhaps, someone else can weigh in on this? Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Later career

• "and refused to report, instead pitching at the semi-pro level."

Is it supposed to be "and refused to report, choosing instead to pitch at the semi-pro level."

• "narrowly missed a perfect game when a runner got on base with, coincidentally, two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning."

Again, as one not in full tune with baseball, why is this "coincidentally"?

Coincidental because that is the same thing that happened to Orval (that sentence discusses his nephew, Wayne Grove)

Do you meant that Wayne did not get a no-hitter? That is, he was pitching what would have been a no-hitter until the last batsman hit (like what happened in Grove-Jordan)? The current sentence reads to me as if no one hit Wayne's pitches, and a runner (due to foul balls) stole the base during Wayne's pitches. That does not seem to mirror Grove-Jordan, or is the coincidence supposed to be Wayne's missing a perfect game at the same instance in the match as Grove's miss of a no-hitter? Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The latter. The O. Grove-Gordon situation mirrored the W. Grove situation. Only difference was it was a perfect game for Wayne. I'll take it out though since coincidence is probably a judgment call for the reader.

Later life

• "receiving five votes ... and seven votes in ..."

I think the words "votes" here are redundant, considering that the preceding clause has established that he got a few votes.

Miscellanous

• Why are all (or most of) the pronouns currently converted to "Grove"? The mentions of his name constantly seems repetitive. Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

That was what I thought, but Tony1 above disagrees. Maybe I'm overdoing it though. (other issues are now done) Wizardman 02:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tony1 saw a lot of "he"s, but I believe he was not asking all of them to be converted to "Grove"s. Personally, it has been overdone to resolve his concern (Giants2008's and Henry8787's copyedits have removed much of the excessive pronouns; in my opinion, only a few more needed to be tweaked after their work). I think a good approximate guide for when to remind the reader of the subject is about every third mention of the subject, or when it is possible to mix up who the pronoun is referring to (such as cases when another man is mentioned just after Grove) on reading the sentence. Jappalang (talk) 03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

A splendid read on the whole for a baseball-ignorant me. Just some niggles above (most are likely not issues on explanation). Jappalang (talk) 10:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Finished your concerns, except for those where I left comments. Wizardman

This article qualifies for FA, once the sourcing for Sacremento Salons is settled. Jappalang (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

(To do: finish Tony1's remaining issues (double-check "he" usage and the $250 salary) and the source issue on the Sacramento Solons) Wizardman

SOURCE HAS BEEN REPLACED (yes, :) I think it deserves all caps) Wizardman 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you pinged Tony to revisit? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll do that now. If he does have any outstanding issues they should be minor ones to fix. Wizardman 04:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - A lot of work was needed here, but the article has risen to FA standards as a result of that work. Well-researched and well-written. Disclaimer: I copy-edited this, as I stated above. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I found some confusing patches of prose: please doublecheck my edits and inline queries.[68] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Yours are good; I dealt with the concerns and knocked out a couple other "as a result"s (there are now only two in the article). I have no idea if Tony's coming back to look at this or not yet; I pinged him but nothing came of it yet. Wizardman 22:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have withdrawn my tentative oppose above, but reluctantly. This nomination was way premature, and the FAC page far too long. Please do not submit another nomination in such a bad state. Why do I still see things like "Additionally,"? Just remove it. It's OK overall. Tony (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:19, 14 January 2009 [69].

---

Scene7

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk)

I'm nominating this article for featured article because there wasn't that much activity in the last FAC, so a consensus could not be formed. Hopefully the second time around is a bit better. Gary King (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: The article is quite short; have all the available reliable sources been exhausted? The article seems to only cover corporate history and affiliated companies – for a comprehensive article on a company, one would hope for a section devoted to the company's products, comments on its management style and labour relations, as well as critical commentary on its actions and the quality of its services. To nitpick, is it possible to add URLs and bylines for those references that lack them? Thanks for writing the article, Skomorokh 01:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  Yep, I've exhausted all references that I could find on the company. Most of what I haven't used are just press releases, primarily relating to business deals that the company has made with other companies (I've only mentioned a few in the article; we don't need them all). Also, references without URLs and/or bylines are because they don't have them, sometimes because they are press releases. Gary King (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

  Ah, I see, thanks. I'm concerned that the lack of comprehensiveness precludes this from being some of Wikipedia's best work, but that is no fault of yours. Skomorokh 03:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments
• Scene7 products rely on several Adobe Systems products, including Adobe PhotoShop, Adobe InDesign, Adobe Flash, Adobe Illustrator, and Adobe Flex; this relationship existed even before Adobe purchased the company. - Remove "even".
• Rather than maintain their own servers, since August 4, 2008, Scene7 rents storage space, allowing them to pay for only the resources that are used. - This sentence needs to be reworded, as I got stuck upon reading it.
• National Business Furniture, a furniture retailer based in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, implemented Scene7's technology on November 3, 2008, to allow visitors to the company's website to dynamically change the colors of product images. - Could this be reworded to avoid repetition of "to"?
• The program was used to virtually preview room decoration projects before working on them, and allowed users to create virtual rooms, change walls, and arrange furniture, and render photo-realistic renderings of the completed designs. - "Render renderings"?
• Adobe plans to integrate Scene7's products into Adobe LiveCycle, the company's suite of server software products. - When?

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice catches. All done. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Image review: All images appear to be fine. --Moni3 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done Gary King (talk) 05:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments Leaning oppose Comprehensiveness, among other issues.
  • "The company, founded as a division of Autodesk, created a desktop CD-ROM program called Picture This Home in the mid-1990s." What is a "desktop CD-ROM program"? I've never heard that phrase before, and Google seems mystified as well. Why would a simple "program" not suffice? Also, this sentence only leaves readers wondering what Picture This Home is. At least give a few adjectives describing what this software does.
  • What was the company known as from the beginning (with Autodesk/Broderbund)?
  • "subsidiary of Adobe Systems,[1] which provides" Ambiguous which...seems to be referring to Adobe Systems instead of Scene7.
  • "to allow it to pay for only the resources that it uses." I don't understand this (rather unwieldy) add-on. Wouldn't maintaining one's own servers also mean paying for only the resources it uses? Presumably, the company wouldn't buy servers that it wouldn't use, right? "To allow it" is odd here.
  • "to combine their sales and marketing activities" A bit too generic business-speak. What does this mean?
  • "Fathead, a company that builds and sells wall graphics, used Scene7's services " Past tense, so they don't use it anymore? Might want to then give the time period in which they used it then.
  • "The company was founded as a division of Autodesk in San Rafael, California," Date?
  • The History section does not seem comprehensive to me. Among the many questions left unanswered: Why was it founded? What was Autodesk's vision for it? How successful was Picture This Home and the division in general at Autodesk? Why was it sold to Broderbund? Why did Broderbund want to buy it? What was its role at Broderbund? Why was it spun off into its own company? Besides the quotation from the CEO, there's no discussion of the company's role in the marketplace. The New York Times article ("Fast access brings virtual catalogs back") offers some good discussion about the growth potential of companies such as Scene7, and why high-speed Internet has led to the comeback of online catalogs, which were all the rage in the late-90s but never got anywhere because of slow connections.
  • "whole B2C market" Explanatory info in parens or brackets please.
  • "approach us to license the technology" What technology?
  • The first three paragraphs of History mostly deal with financing. There's no discussion on the company's health or growth. How was it doing in the advertising business? When did it start focusing on developing online stores/catalogs for clients?
  • "to help boost Adobe's overall services strategy,[2] especially its software as a service efforts." Good, but anything more specific on why Adobe wanted Scene7.
  • Are you sure there aren't more sources out there? My LexisNexis search yielded 410 hits. One of them was a substantive interview with Doug Mack discussing the problems of GoodHome.com in the online furniture market. BuddingJournalist 13:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I've got all of these points. I've expanded the article further. I got a few dozen hits, not 400+, but I used what I could find. I couldn't find that interview, but I think I did find a few useful statements and quotes from him, among other people related to the company. The server renting is a "pay as you grow" program that only requires Scene7 to pay for the resources that it uses. If the company rented a server, let's say it had to pay $1,000/month. On "pay as you grow", though, it would only pay for the storage space it uses, so if that's 10 GB, even though the computer can hold 100 GB, then it would pay $100 (10% of $1,000 for the entire server). I tried to explain that a bit better in the article. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• The history section is a much more fulfilling reading now.
• "Mack later noted that while at Broderbund, there was a "big culture clash" between Broderbund, an established company, and GoodHome.com, a new media division." No need for "later". More importantly, this seems to contradict the previous sentence, which stated that Broderbund spun it off into a separate company, not an internal division.
• "When asked how GoodHome.com managed to launch so quickly, Mack half-jokingly said, "We don't sleep," further noting that customers were the most important part of their business." Don't think this adds anything substantive (aren't customers the most important part of any business?).
• "The phenomenon was dubbed" What phenomenon? Be more specific.
• Several quotations are not immediately followed by a citation. Usually, "covering" citations are perfectly fine, but when dealing with exact quotations, it's best to cite them immediately at the end of the sentence (or quotation), so there's no ambiguity. Otherwise, later on, someone might add a sentence with a new source between the quotation and the "covering" citation, leading to trouble.
• Discussion of Scene7 between its GoodHome.com phase and acquisition by Adobe is a bit scant. There's only information on deals and financing at the moment. What was its growth like? Was it profitable? What were its main products/services? BuddingJournalist 02:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
• Do we not know a more specific date for Picture This Home or the dev team's founding? BuddingJournalist 02:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

All done. I couldn't find much more information on what you wanted. There is at least double the amount of information available for GoodHome.com as there was for Scene7, perhaps partly because as Scene7, there were so many other companies like it that it was given less attention, and partly because they were more cautious this time around compared to as GoodHome.com, so there were less major announcements to make. Also, I think that the company probably never managed to pass its peak revenues of $1 million, which it reached while as GoodHome.com. I did find one article that talked about Mack's business plans while the company was Scene7, which I have added to the end of the first paragraph of "Reorganization". Gary King (talk) 03:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Gary, I was wondering if you had access to ProQuest. I do, and if you need anything, I can provide text of articles for you. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't have ProQuest; is there anything interesting on there about Scene7 that isn't already in the article? Gary King (talk) 23:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Dabomb87/Misc, may or may not help; if you find this stuff helpful I can give you more. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like mostly press releases to me; I've come across a lot of those, and I think the article already includes enough about the company's business deals. Gary King (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I was just checking because I noticed the concerns above; most of the hits do seem to be press releases. The only things I see that you don't have are a couple marginally relevant quotes that wouldn't add much anyway, they would be better served on Mack's article anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Support For the record, I made some copy-edits to the article but had no further role in its development. I am satisfied about the article's comprehensiveness, no outstanding prose and MOS issues remain, I trust that all images check out fine according to Moni3, and Ealdgyth said that sources looked OK at the previous FAC. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Tony (talk) 13:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)—1a. My impression that it's a workaday topic wouldn't matter so much if it were better-written. Here are examples from a few random windows of the text. They indicate that a thorough massage is required by someone completely new to the article.

• "Several companies, mostly retailers, use the company's services to showcase products on their websites and allow customers to interact with the products." I think "to" is needed before "allow" (changes the meaning subtlely).
• Apart from an initial phrase and the refs, this text string starts both the lead and the first section: "Scene7 is an American on-demand rich media software company[1] that provides document hosting and interactive publishing services such as online catalogs, targeted email, video, and image management.[2]" The readers will switch off.
• You don't need "US" for dollars in a US-related article.
• "this relationship had already existed before Adobe purchased the company"—Spot the two redundant words.
• "similar to the way that they would inspect merchandise in retail stores"—lose one word.
• Was it the CEO who received the $30M, or the company?
• Clunky: The decision to spin the company off as a separate entity was praised by Mack, who claimed, "We would have never been able to build our Web business if we were not in a separate building with separate funding." Unnecessary passive; Mack is in the background, so does not need another mention. "who" is laboured. Try this—He praised the decision to spin the company off as a separate entity: "We would have never been able to build our Web business if we were not in a separate building with separate funding." Remove "also" from the subsequent clause.
• "spending $20 million on advertisements in its first year"—you're sure it was specific "ads", and not an overall promotional effort involving sponsorships and other strategies? "Advertising" might be safer, but check.
• Too much of the quoted material is simply plucked out and shoved in here without proper scrutiny. Take this, for example: Mack decided that the company should target women in their 30s,[18] since "women make 80 percent of decorating decisions". The quoted causality explains only gender, not age group. Tony (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have copyedited the entire article. I think it's a lot better now. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support The article meets FA criteria, it is comprehensive and well referenced to the extent this subject can be referenced. More expansion would make the article too long and boring so I am against the addition of more info, it is fine right now. NancyHeise ^talk 03:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support prose wise, if Tony removed his oppose, then I believe the article is up to par with the standards. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Tony's minor concerns seem to have been addressed, and I can't see any reason why this isn't of FA standard now jimfbleak (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 10 January 2009 [70].

---

New York State Route 311

Nominator(s): User:Juliancolton

previous FAC (02:29, 2 October 2008)

A tad on the short side, but it is comprehensive. The article was upgraded to A-Class a couple months ago. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 20:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment The article did not go through the A-class review of USRD. --Rschen7754 (T C) 03:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

True; I reassessed it as GA-Class. –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Did it go through the A-Class review of WikiProject Hudson Valley?--SRX 16:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but HVNY doesn't have an organized A-Class assessment system yet. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

So how does it have an A-Class assessment in the banner on the talk page for that project?--SRX 17:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) assessed it as A-Class, in a manner similar to that of Start-, C-, or B-Class assessment. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay.--SRX 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lead Comments

• It crosses NY 164 and NY 292 as it heads into the northwestern part of the county, finally bending east to reach its northern terminus at NY 22 just south of the Dutchess County line. - bending sounds awkward, how about curving?
• Part of modern-day Route 311 was originally the Philipstown Turnpike, a road built in 1815 to overcome a lack of transportation means when the Hudson River froze over during the winter months. - is over needed? Seems repetitive with during
• The turnpike was a large business center for the county, though was abandoned due to insufficient tolls to maintain it. - it would help if it was added between though and was
• Another section was constructed in the early 1900s from the Patterson Baptist Church near the modern-day intersection of Route 311 and Route 164 to the Village of Patterson, by a group of Italian immigrants. - I think if a comma was added before from, it would help the flow of the sentence--SRX 21:13, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Nice catches, done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Route description comments

• Carmel Lake has a surface area of about 200 acres (81 ha), and is sits at 618 ft (188 m) in elevation. - is? You mean it? =)
  • Done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• The road crosses into the town of Patterson and interchanges with Interstate 84. - how about adding then before crosses, since in the previous sentence it spoke about the river
  • Fixed. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• NY 311 curves gradually northeast before turning almost due north to an intersection with NY 292 in the community of West Patterson. - is the due suppose to be there?
  • Yes. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• In the hamlet of Patterson, an historic district exists along the route. - wouldn't it be a and not an?--SRX 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • This has been a longstanding issue within the 'grammar community', and despite the general rules of English, both "a history" and "an historic" are correct, if I recall correctly. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Confirmed –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Final comments

• In November 1901, when the Putnam County's Board of Supervisors hired an engineer to create plans for a new road that would run from the Westchester–Putnam County border into Dutchess County. - the when makes this an incomplete statement, remove
• After the Lloyd Lumber Company moved to a larger building along NY 311, the post office occupied the smaller structure. Both were situated on the east side of the New York Central tracks. - IMO, I think this would work better as a semi-colon.--SRX 02:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • All done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support - based on my review of the article, it meets WP:WIAFA. Its also an interesting read, despite its size.--SRX 02:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. :) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: This is an interesting, well-researched article but I have a few nit-picks:
• It should say in the Lead that this route is in the United States.
• Here, Along the way, the route passes a number of historical sites I think "along the way" is redundant since we have "passes".
• I'm not sure about "transportation means" - but a the moment I can't think of any alternative accept "access".
• Instead of "Prior to" - can we have "before"?
• Here, where does the quotation end: One of the intentions of the turnpike was to "greatly promote the public good, as well contribute to their individual interest. However, the turnpike was eventually abandoned, because the tolls received were not sufficient to defray the expense of maintaining the road and associated bridges.
• Here, shouldn't the "while" be "and": Children were asked to participate in the filming by dressing in western or American Indian apparel, while girls were asked to dress as frontier women.
• Who is drafting whom here: By 1966, Putnam County's men began drafting for the Vietnam War. Should it be "began to be drafted into the armed forces to fight in the Vietnam War"?
• The sources look fine except number 11. It says "Journal", but should it be Journal of the Assembly of the State of New York? Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the helpful comments and support. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• As in the previous FAC, http://www.historicpatterson.org/index.php remains a concern, as it's a local historical society, and thus might be an unreliable source. I'm merely pointing it out for other reviewers to be aware of, and to make sure that nothing controversial is being sourced to it.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that source is reliable, as it's run by the Town of Patterson. Also, that site lists its acknowledgments and resources, which includes the Putnam County Historian's Office, the Patterson Town Board, the Patterson Town Historian, etc. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Support with minor comments

• It passes by a Christian youth camp, and intersects with NY 164. - no comma
• Link to Phillipstown Turnpike?
• Other than that, I'm pretty impressed. The prose is really good and the article is broad. --Rschen7754 (T C) 07:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Done. Thanks for the support and comments, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3

• File:New York Route 311 map.png - This map needs a reliable source with which to verify its information per WP:IUP. All other images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 03:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removed for now until I figure out how to fix it... –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Removing the map doesn't really solve the problem, as you really need that map for the article. don't you?. Just keep it until you have the information. Surely you have a source that could work for this? You're writing an article on this road! Awadewit (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the map isn't particularly crucial to the article, and I didn't want it to hold up the FAC. Would Google Maps suffice as a reliable source for it? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 04:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Not crucial? Um, this is an article about a road. The map seems central to me. Another NY State FA used this source. Would that source your map? Awadewit (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All done, Awadewit. Julian, that ref that I added is the official reference.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 11:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the oppose. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 01:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support; looking at the above comments and reading the article, it seems it's ready. JonCatalán^(Talk) 04:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 22:28, 10 January 2009 [71].

---

2003 Insight Bowl

Nominator(s): JKBrooks85 (talk)

Hello, everyone. This is another American college football article in a series, and it comes on the heels of a successful FAC for 2006 Gator Bowl. Thank you to everyone who commented on that one, and I hope you will provide feedback on this article as well. It's somewhat older than it's predecessors, 2000 Sugar Bowl and the aforementioned Gator Bowl article. As is the case with most of these articles, the lack of pictures is the most lacking element. The prose also reads somewhat differently from those other two articles, something I attribute to it being written before the other two. I've checked it with the dead links and DAB checkers, and appreciate any and all comments, positive or negative. Thanks for your time. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Most of your authors are listed after the titles, but there is one that is listed first. Consistency?
• Make sure all your newspaper/book titles are in italics (I noted current ref 32 (Tedford Has...) but There are many others.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made those fixes. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• I admit I got all gooey and warm inside when I saw one of my photos had made its way into this article. I'll try to come back to is with a more neutral mind (before I go on a 2 week vacation). --Bobak (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments - I figured that I should comment early, because someone's going to be busy next week. There are a few more problems than the last one, and I've detailed some of them below.

• Photos: Aaron Rodgers has a great photo on his page, though he is wearing a Packer jersey.

• Thanks for pointing that out for me.

• "Virginia Tech accumulated an 8–4 regular-season record that saw the Hokies lose four of their last six regular-season games." The "that saw" part isn't working for me.

• Fixed.

• Pacific 10 needs a hyphen.

• Fixed.

• Team selection: Semi-colon after "but after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference". Also, required and chose clash in this sentence.

• Fixed.

• "behind previous year's champion Miami and Pittsburgh." Put "the" after behind.

• Fixed.

• "brother of star former Hokie Michael Vick." Change it to something like "brother of former Hokie star Michael Vick." Sounds like he's still a star; um, not so much.

• Fixed.

• Contraction that needs to be removed: "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for the Hokies the next week".

• Reworded.

• Needs a source: "the biggest win in school history" against Miami. It wasn't their largest margin of victory, and I question whether it was their most important win; didn't Michael Vick's teams have some big wins? Is this the highest-ranked team they've ever beaten? If so, it would be better to just say that. And add a hyphen for "39 game" winning streak.

• I've added two citations to justify that remark. They're not specifically about that statement, but they do address it.

• What makes Techsideline.com a reliable source? Is it a printed publication? It says that it has no affiliation with the university. I also question how much it backs up the claim that some fans were disappointed with Virginia Tech's berth in this game. I'm sure it's true, but it reads to me like one fan's opinion.

• That particular entry was more in line with a blog post, but I've backed up the information with other cites. TechSideline is the oldest and best-established independent site covering Virginia Tech sports. It started as a fan-run operation, but transitioned into a business about a decade ago. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll come back when I can, but it may be a while due to a large review backlog. Giants2008 (17-14) 20:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for what you've been able to provide so far. I can't wait to see what else you can find! JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• "It was California's first winning season in several years". How many? Is "several" used because they were 6–6 after a bowl game one year?

• Replaced with "since 1993". I also added wikilinks to the appropriate seasons.

• Pregame buildup: "and had higher expectations in the Insight Bowl." Replace "in" with "than". The next sentence copies the last sentence in the previous section.

• Fixed and removed.

• "McArthur fractured a bone in his wrist and was unable to play." Which wrist?
• Game summary: "Bank One Ballpark hosted the Insight Bowl from 2000-2005 with seating reconfigured from the standard used during baseball games." Change the date range to "from 2000 to 2005"; en dashes aren't even recommended.

• Fixed.

• "making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game and the fourth-highest rating of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Check to see if "rating" should be "rated"; I'm not 100% either way.

• Fixed. It should be fourth highest-rated, I think.

• Can the post-quarter recaps be merged into the preceding paragraphs in each case? I don't think having a bunch of one-sentence paragraphs is optimal, especially because they can be combined so easily.

• Fixed.

• "Tech faced a second down and needed just two yards for a first down, but could not gain the required two yards on two attempts." To avoid a redundancy, change the second "two yards" to "yardage" or similar.

• Fixed.

• "As time expired in the first half, Warley's kick sailed wide." Left or right? Giants2008 (17-14) 02:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just removed the reference, since I wasn't sure.

• Thank you so much for being such a reliable reviewer for these. You're quite proficient at nailing down things I missed, and it's really appreciated. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Third quarter: In a similar vein as the review below, I'm not sure "California seized the moment" is encyclopedic prose.

• Removed. There also was another of those "unfortunately for"s nearby.

• "Following the touchdown, Virginia Tech received the ball and performed its first three and out of the game." I think "performed" looks odd here.

• Fixed.

• Fourth quarter: "Rodgers recovered by the fumble by...". Try replacing the first "by" with "from".

• Fixed.

I'm done here after these. The reviews below really helped, at least in the later sections. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for the detailed review. One of those last suggestions reminded me to go through and clear out the past perfect verbs in a lot of places, and I think that has helped. :P JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not too impressed with the prose. Consider getting a copy-editor to run through this. Some random samples:
  • "ended in a 52–49 victory for California. Cal and Virginia Tech combined for 101 points; only one bowl game in history, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored by the two teams in regulation." I think we can assume readers can do the math themselves. "Regulation" should probably be linked somewhere. Redundancies: "only one bowl game, the 2001 GMAC Bowl, saw more points scored in regulation".
    • I'd agree that most readers can do the math, but it's not really convenient if you're trying to get at the information quickly ... I do agree with you on the redundancy, however, and have removed it.
  • " partially recovered from its 14-point first-quarter deficit by scoring two touchdowns" I'm not getting the use of "partially" here.
    • Fixed. The partially doesn't make sense unless you know that Virginia Tech also scored a touchdown, thus keeping a lead. But that isn't revealed until the next sentence.
  • "With time running out, Cal began to drive for a game-winning score. The post-score Tech kickoff went out of bounds, giving the Bears possession at their 35-yard line." Seems like these two sentences ought to be switched.
    • Agreed. Fixed. Also removed a "game-winning" redundancy.
  • "after that game was required to invite Virginia due to its contract with the Atlantic Coast Conference; it chose " Wrong use of the semicolon. Not sure how a game can be "required to invite" nor how it can have a contract. "it chose" meaning the game chose?
    • Fixed. It's somewhat awkward to talk about the bowls' organizing committees without repeatedly using the full names of the bowls, but I think I've managed it. If you could double-check to make sure it's not too confusing, I'd appreciate it.
  • "The other option for the Hokies " I don't understand how this could be another option if they weren't invited.
    • Fixed. "Possibility" is a better word there, I think.
  • "third-place Oregon received a bid to the Sun Bowl instead of California, which was tied with Oregon for third place in the conference." Again, redundancies ("third place", "instead of California") can be eliminated: "Oregon, tied for third-place with California, received a bid to the Sun Bowl"
    • Fixed.
  • "Things seemingly wouldn't be much easier for Tech the next week" Encyclopedic, not journalistic, prose please. And what does "seemingly" mean here?
    • Heh. That's my job intruding on Wikipedia again. Fixed.
  • "biggest win in school history" What does "biggest" mean?
    • "Highest-profile", perhaps?
  • "including three losses in their last four games" Weren't we just told this?
    • Removed. I typically prefer to explicitly state things for the reader (as if you couldn't tell), but I'd agree with you that's a little too much.
  • " season that had begun with hopes of participation in " Bit awkward, especially with those three rapid-fire prepositions.
    • Changed to simple past tense.
  • "began the 2003 season after going 7–5 the previous season, culminating in a 30–7 victory" "began the 2003 season" adds nothing here (and only leads to awkward sentence structure) since the rest of the sentence is about the previous one, and in fact, the rest of the paragraph does not broach the 2003 season.
    • Fixed.
  • " in what was the season opener for both teams."
    • Fixed.
  • "game, which was played at home. The Bears outscored the visiting Southern Miss Golden" More redundancies. One will suffice: "which was played at home" or "visiting".
    • Fixed.
  • "but hadn't been able to earn the win" More contractions! BuddingJournalist 21:47, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Fixed.

Thanks very much for taking the time to take a Weed Whacker to some of this prose. It definitely can be quite dense at times, but I really appreciate it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to re-read the article yet, but I'm striking my oppose for now since I will be traveling for the next few days. BuddingJournalist 02:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:InsightBowlLogo.png - The fair use rationale for "2003 Insight Bowl" is missing a specific "purpose of use". It simply says "For use on the Insight Bowl article and related articles". See this dispatch on non-free images for help writing purposes of use, particularly the section at the end. The fair use rationale also needs to indicate who owns the logo. Awadewit (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this one. I've removed two other uses for that logo (they should've been using a different one) and replaced the boilerplate with the newer version that has been provided. I've also expressed that this is a historical logo no longer in active use by the Fiesta Bowl, which is the parent company/organization (as far as I can tell) of the Insight Bowl. Feel free to take a look and let me know if I'm missing anything else with that. I'm definitely not an expert on the intricacies of copyright law. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! Striking oppose. Awadewit (talk) 11:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

• "But in that quarter, the Hokies clawed back into competition."

• Removed.

• "The Hokies then evened the score at 49–49 "

• Removed.

• "Big East champion Miami was awarded an automatic Bowl Championship Series game spot" "game spot"-->berth.

• Fixed.

• "while second-place Pittsburgh accepted a bid to the Continental Tire Bowl in Charlotte, North Carolina." "while"-->and, this is additive info.

• Fixed.

• "In its seventh game, however, Tech suffered its first loss. " False contrast, with "however", sounds like Tech lost in spite of its six previous wins, which in all likelihood had little tangible effect on its loss.

• Fixed.

• "third-ranked Tech lost 28–7 to the No. 23 Mountaineers" Add "the" before "third-ranked".

• Fixed. I also changed Tech to "Hokies" in order to have agreement with the "the".

• "Virginia Tech running back Kevin Jones drew media attention one day after Virginia Tech's selection for the Insight Bowl" Comma after this phrase.

• Rewritten.

• "The only first-team All-America player for the Hokies," That season, or all-time (although I have no doubt that it is the former).

• Rewritten.

• "successfully completed just 14 field goals in 29 attempts"-->converted just 14 field goals in 29 attempts

• Rewritten.

• Audit throughout the article for cases in which comparative quantities are not written out the same way as dictated by MOSNUM (all numerals or all words). Some examples:
  • "Hall finished the regular season with 54 tackles and one interception."
  • "he returned 30 punts for 434 yards and two touchdowns."
  • "who accumulated 99 tackles—the most on the team—and two interceptions"
• "despite only playing three games for the Bears"-->despite playing only three games for the Bears

Will return for the rest of the article tomorrow Dabomb87 (talk) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed.

• Thanks. Can't wait to see what you turn up for the rest! JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "On December 24, two days prior to the game" "prior to"-->before.

• Fixed.

• "making it the 13th most-viewed bowl game that season and the fourth highest-rated of the 20 bowl games broadcast on ESPN that season." Despite being a follower of college football, I don't quite understand what "fourth highest-rated" means. Was it the fourth game to be the highest-rated? I think the hyphen use is wrong here.

• Fixed. I was referring to the television rating, and I've rewritten that sentence.

• "After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California received the ball to begin the game."-->After the ceremonial pre-game coin toss, California chose to receive the ball to begin the game.

• Fixed.

• "Running back Adimchinobe Echemandu ran the ball twice for short gains each time, but Rodgers continued making long passes" Change "but" to "and", and "continued making"-->continued to make.

• Fixed.

• "During the post-touchdown kickoff, Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the ball and returned the kick 52 yards"-->Virginia Tech's Mike Imoh fielded the post-touchdown kickoff, returning the kick 52 yards.

• Fixed.

• "Though Tech quarterback" "Though"-->Although, we want a slightly more formal register here.

• Fixed.

• "capitalized on a two-yard touchdown run" "capitalized"-->scored, as I don't understand what there was to capitalize on.

• Fixed.

• "Unfortunately for the Bears" Your journalistic elements are showing through...

• Fixed.

• "California began its next drive at its 29-yard line following a short kickoff return" "following"-->after, this avoids the clumsy noun + -ing construction

• Fixed.

• "Owing to the limited time available, it seemed as if Tech would simply run out the clock and head into halftime with the lead. " Original research?

• Removed. That was based on a series of comments the TV announcers made during the game. Since there's no cite, it's best to simply remove that sentence.

• "It took California just 2:44 in game time to advance 88 yards for a touchdown" Let the stats speak for themselves.

• Fixed.

• "It took California just three plays to earn a touchdown from its 34-yard line."

• Fixed.

• "Tech was forced to punt after just three plays and four yards"-->Tech was forced to punt after running three plays for four yards

• Fixed.

• "In total, California ran 7:09 off the clock before Vincent Strang broke free for a 13-yard rush that resulted in a touchdown."

• Fixed.

• "kicking the ball four times for 159 total punting yards" Another one of those comparative quantities instances.

• Fixed. I really don't like that rule.

• "Echemandu had one rushing touchdown, while Rodgers earned two." "while"-->and.

• Fixed.

• "In total, Virginia Tech's offense broke or tied 14 school bowl records, either individually or as a team."

• Fixed.

• "He led all defensive players with 12 total tackles in the game."

• Fixed.

• "California's win brought it to a final record of 8–6,[31] while Virginia Tech's loss took it to a final record of 8–5." Don't like the use of "brought it" and "took it".

• Fixed.

• "Virginia Tech had five players selected: DeAngelo Hall and Kevin Jones were both taken in the first round, while Jake Grove was selected in the second, Ernest Wilford in the fourth, and Nathaniel Adibi in the fifth." "while"-->and.

• Fixed.

• The formatting of ref 73 is different from the rest. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• That ref is the only book ref and it uses an automatic citation template. I believe someone else added it.

• Thanks for all the suggestions! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - After the many revisions detailed above, it meets the standards set by other bowl game featured articles. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Another well written bowl article. All major issues have been addressed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I'd rather see the author first in the citations, but since author is consistently placed after the title, I'll pass this anyway (although it greatly pains me to pass an article in which Cal Berkeley won the Big Game). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• I normally write it that way Sandy, but this is an older article from before I settled on that style. Rather than trying to switch everything around, I just tried to make it internally consistent. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009 [72].

---

New South Greenland

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk)

As a change from the serious expedition stuff, here's a lighter tale of the earliest days of Antarctic exploration. It tells of the discovery of land by a New Yorker, Benjamin Morrell. Other people tried to find his land, but couldn't, and it was eventually proved nonexistent - a fact that made headline news in the New York Times. Captain Morrell was by all accounts a bit of a chancer, a plausible rogue, perhaps, but an engaging character all the same, whose story is worth telling. Thanks to Ruhrfisch for mapping the nonexistent land, and to peer reviewers generally for some excellent suggestions.

Re sources, a couple of points: South-pole.com is a huge site that covers just about every Antarctic venture since before Captain Cook and until after World War II. Its reliability largely comes from its being approved by the Scott Polar Research Institute. This is SPRI's Index to Antarctic Expeditions which provides links to what it calls "the best summaries" of expeditions, and every link is to a South.pole.com sub-page. Also, I can't find out who is behind Geonames.com, but it is a brilliant resource for finding and confirming placenames anywhere in the world. Enough from me. Brianboulton (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - another excellent Antarctica-related article. I read the page and did some copyediting a few days ago, and the writing is brilliant. Well done. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 21:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review File:1894 map of Antactica.jpg - Do you have the issue and volume number for this magazine? According to WP:IUP, we should give a complete bibliographic entry for sources. All images have verifiable licenses and adequate descriptions. Awadewit (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It's Vol X No. 2, as confirmed by this. I have added these details to the image source details. Brianboulton (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments -

• You mentioned above two questionable sources, I'm a bit concerned about geonames, and would like to see some more about it. But I'll leave these out there for other reviewers to decide for themselves.
  • I don't think South-pole.com can be termed "questionable" when it has endorsement from SPRI. As to Geonames, it is one of the few sources not connected to Wikipedis (e.g. wikimapia, etc) that actually gives Morrell Island as an alternative name to Thule Island in the South Sandwich Group. Geonames doesn't give much information as to who is behind the site, but the organisation is clearly world-wide, with 8 million names on the database. The site gives good information, too, including the coordinates for every name. It looks a thorough and professional job. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Your books from Googlebooks. They should be treated just like usual books, with the original publisher. Google is just hosting them, they did none of the fact checking etc.
  • The sources list showed no mentions of Google books. I had forgotten to remove them from some of the in-line citations, but have now done so. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
    • It was the inline's I was referring to, but are now fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• What makes http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/buache.php a reliable source?
  • Looking for a source that gives Morrell's date of death, I chose this as likely the most reliable: a site run by archaeologists with the aim of exposing archaeological blunders. To cover myself, I have said in the text that Morrell "reportedly" died in 1839 rather than being too definite about it. None of the books are any help, and other websites that mention his death look less reliable than this one, though they all say 1839. It would not be the end of the world if the date was removed, but I'd like to keep it if I can. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

This one, like geonames, I'll leave out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comment. I reviewed this at peer review and was impressed; the article has improved since then. Just a couple of comments before I support.

• "searched for, but found no traces of land,": I think the first comma should go. The alternative would be to make it the first of a parenthetical pair: "searched for, but found no traces of, land," but that looks too fussy to me.
  • Comma deleted.
• The account you give of d'Urville is followed by a sentence that says Morrell's claims were ignored after d'Urville's failure to find land. Since these come from different sources, I thought I should check; is there any causal connection here, in that d'Urville's report caused general doubt about Morrell's claims? Or does Mills make no reference to d'Urville? If the latter is the case, then I think it would be better to avoid implying a connection.
  • I understand the point, and have reworded in a way which I hope clarifies no direct causal connection. Two separate reasons are given for doubting Morrell's claims: D'Urville finds no evidence of land, quite apart from which the error-ridden nature of Morrell's account caused geographers to doubt him. I hope that is clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

-- Mike Christie (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything now looks good. Switching to support. Mike Christie (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Many thanks Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support by Ruhrfisch. In the interest of full disclosure (and as noted above), I made the New South Greenland map in the article. I have a few minor quibbles (that do not detract from my support):

• "Wasp sailed south from New York on 22 June 1822." Should the link here be to New York City, which is the main seaport in New York state? Many Americans will refer to New York City as just "New York".
• Kilometers (for nine miles) should also be given here per the MOS At 2 pm next day, 15 March, as Wasp cruised north-east in the sea that would later bear Weddell's name, Morrell records: "land was seen from the masthead, bearing west, distance 3 leagues" (about nine miles).[14]
• Probably also want English and metric units for the fathoms in On 25 August a further sounding of 1,900 fathoms gave Shackleton additional evidence of the non-existence of New South Greenland.[26]

Overall another fine article and well deserving of FA, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• • I have fixed the New York City link, and added the requested conversions. With regard to Shackleton's fathoms, I had left this because of the conversion of a similar distance in the same paragraph, not wanting to clutter the prose, but strictly speaking I agree it ought to be there. Thanks for all your help. Brianboulton (talk) 09:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support Was very impressed by this at peer review and its has only improved since. Happy to offer my support.--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support I too am very impressed, particularly with prose, this is beautifully written. It was frustrating for me, a nit-picker, to find just one typo. Good grief Brian, just how many FAs have you written this year? Oh, it's 2009, I forgot; looks like one so far :-) Graham Colm ^Talk 19:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • None so far this year, perhaps this will be the first. Please continue to look for typos and other nitpicks, Graham, your persistence in this area is very much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009 [73].

---

Toa Payoh ritual murders

Nominator(s): Jappalang (talk)

I am nominating for Featured Article, one article that tells of sex, drugs, and rock and rollviolence. Paganistic elements were also involved as two children were killed, and their blood drained and offered to the IndianHindu goddess, Kali. All because the mastermind, one Adrian Lim, wanted revenge on the police for investigating him on a rape charge. A case that he felt could never have happened, because one could never rape a "(holy) wife", women whom he tricked (or in this case, drugged) to give him sex and money. Read about this 1981 murder case that stunned, horrified, and intrigued the entire island nation for years. The United States might have Charles Manson, but Singapore had its Adrian Lim. Jappalang (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Image review File:Sub Court crowd.jpg - I am on the fence about the "purpose" of this fair use rationale. It states "Although the scene can be described in words, the degree of activity cannot be fully conveyed in words to those unfamiliar with the surroundings. In this case, an extraordinary claim is made in regards to the case in question (the Toa Payoh Ritual Murders) that Singaporeans would crowd the courts just for a look of the accused." - To some degree I agree with this statement - crowds are not easy to describe and this picture helps convey the nature of this particular crowd. However, the article states that "Throngs of people constantly packed the grounds of the courts, hoping to catch a glimpse of Adrian Lim and to hear the revelations first-hand", which is a very good description of what is happening in the photo and I wonder how necessary the photo really is. Do we really need to use a fair use image in this case? Fair use images are supposed to "significantly increase the reader's understanding" of the topic under discussion (WP:NFCC #8). I am hoping other reviewers will weigh in on this point. (All other images have adequate fair use rationales, verifiable licenses, and sufficient descriptions.) Awadewit (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Support: I peer-reviewed this, and copyedited at an earlier stage. It does not make for pleasant reading, but the full ghastly story should be known: "Man's inhumanity to man..." etc. I have a small number of suggestions:
  • The phrase "a far cry from..." in the Singaporean society section sounds like editorializing, and should be replaced by the more neutral "in contrast to..."
  • I believe Lim's conversion to Catholoicism should be more specifically cited
  • It would help if the Singapore $ values were shown with equivalent US$. I regret to say it, but I don't know what a Singapre dollar is worth.
  • There is a repeated tendency to use the verb "stay" when I think you mean "live". In the "arrests" section, Lim informs Pereira that he is "staying" in the flat. In the Hoe section, she is sent to "stay" with her grandmother; later in the same paragraph she goes to "stay" with Lim, and at the end of the section she continues to "stay" with him. In all of the instances I think "stay" should be replaced by "live".

In general the prose is of a high and compelling standard. On Awadewit's fair use image point I have to agree that, under the strict interpretation of the fair use justification, the image in question does not significantly increase my understanding of the article. The vivid prose is plenty enough. Brianboulton (talk) 17:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I have replaced "a far cry from ..." and "live" with your suggestions. US$ equivalents of the Singapore dollar values have also been included. I am not certain by "more specifically cited" for the Catholic conversion, do you mean to cite it to a source or to expand in greater detail the statement? As for the picture, I am still of two minds whether to leave it in or to take it out (two nays so far... any body else?). I will be looking to see if I can find an image that is more appropriate to that section in the meantime. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The statement that Lim converted to Catholicism should have an in-line citation. No expansion of the statement necessary, just the citation. Brianboulton (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It was the same source at the end of the paragraph, but it is no fuss to cite it again if it was particularly contentious. Done. Jappalang (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Awful story, but very well told. One query "Early in the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into the South East Asian region, colonising the Straits Settlements including the island city of Singapore." I understand the South East Asian region as including Thailand and other areas not known for nineteenth century migrations. Would this be better as "Early in the nineteenth century, immigrants flooded into the Straits Settlements area including the island city of Singapore." Thanks for fixing that .ϢereSpielChequers 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your support. I have narrowed the region to Peninsula Malaysia, which was basically West Malaysia and Singapore. Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments Interesting in the worst way possible. I don't have time to go through the whole article tonight, but rest assured I will be back tomorrow.

• "Indian goddess, Kali" I think it would be more accurate to refer her as a Hindu goddess.

Agreed and changed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The 41-day trial was then the second longest to have been held in the courts of Singapore." For me, "then" interrupts the natural flow of the article, it doesn't serve any real purpose, chronological or otherwise.

Well, it was the second longest trial at the point of 1983 (the longest was a trial that involved an offshore prison riot). However, in 1990, Justice Chua would later preside over what would become the longest trial in Singapore (a 168-day drug-trafficking case), so the Toa Payoh ritual murders was the second longest up to that point. Is there a suggestion to write an accurate statement on this? Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe "At the time?" Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "The Toa Payoh ritual murders shocked the populace of Singapore who did not expect such an act to take place in the heartland of their society." More of a personal style preference more than anything, but could you perhaps sneak a comma after "Singapore"?

Done. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In addition, the rulings set by the courts became local case studies for diminished responsibility." In addition to what? One of those additive terms that doesn't really help here.

Connected this sentence with the previous, using the "and" conjunction. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In 1981, Singapore experienced a crime that shocked the nation." I hate to mess with a riveting story, but can we not be so bombastic?

Oh boy... I am running out of ideas to overcome this. The peer reviews have mentioned about the sensationalism of the various attempts to construct a connecting statement between this section and the next; each time, I have tried to tone it down. I sincerely (and gladly) welcome any suggestions. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Likely, I am too close to my writing to know its "atmosphere", but I tried to change the subject from "Singapore experienced ..." to "three Singaporeans committed ...". Would that be less sensationalistic, or is the problem with the "shocked a nation" part? Jappalang (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It is the "shocked the nation" part. Hmm... I will come back to this. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you reconsider? The phrase "shocked the <noun>" has been used in several encyclopaedias, such as World History, Louisville, and Britannica. Jappalang (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. If I come up with something better, I will post here, but it is a minor issue. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• "He also converted to Catholicism for his marriage." Did he do something else for his marriage?

Removed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "were among the spiritual entities he would call on"-->were among the spiritual entities he called on

Changed. Jappalang (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have no more technical comments for that section, but I must say it is quite disturbing. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jappalang, I haven't forgotten you, but I want to read this article in detail with no distractions, and I don't quite have the time for that now. Give me a couple hours and I will be back. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In late 1980 he suffered a setback: he was arrested and charged with rape." I understand the intent of "suffered a setback" to naturalize the flow, but when is being arrested and charged with a crime not a setback?
• "He also told them that Pragngan demanded that he have sex with their female victims." Second "that" can go.
• "who would 12 years later deliver judgment on serial murderer John Martin Scripps" A bit clunky, try "who would deliver judgment on serial murderer John Martin Scripps 12 years later"
• "Hoe, had to accept the court's offer of counsel," Delete the first comma.
• "Only an unsound mind would dump the bodies close to his home when his plan was to distract the police, said the doctor." In this form, this almost sounds like a quote. If it isn't, rephrase it like this: "He (also?) said that only an unsound mind would dump the bodies close to his home when his plan was to distract the police."
• "The defence also criticised Dr Chee for failing to recognise their clients' symptoms." "also" seems idle here, did they criticize him for something else?
• "On 25 May 1983 eager crowds massed outside the building, waiting for the outcome of the trial." I would do away with "eager"; not because of POV but because "massed outside the building" and "waiting" seem to imply the same thing.
• "Tan hired Francis Seow to appeal for her, while the court again assigned Isaac to Hoe." I think "while" should be and here, as the "the court again assigned Isaac to Hoe" is additive info.
• "Journalists deemed it as the most sensational trial"
• "Its 16-day run brought in only $130,000 (US$224,791)," Personal preference here, but "only" bothers me.
• Use a two-column reflist, as those with more columns will break on some browsers.

On the whole, an excellent article. I cannot access my account at the moment, which explains why I posted these comments as an anon editor Dabomb87 (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the article according to your suggestions. I had difficulty in trying to substitute "he suffered a setback". Deleting it, however, did not seem to affect the flow greatly, so that is what I did. Jappalang (talk) 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Support I peer reviewed this and found it close to FAC criteria and it has only been improved since. I looked carefully at the crowd photo and think it adds to the picture in ways that justify its fair use. It is hard to convey in just words the sheer size of the crowd, how they are packed into places where people would not normally stand or be, and the body language / expectation of the members of the crowd - how many of the people are straining and craning their heads to see - nothing yet. I really do think this is a picture that is worth a thousand words. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009 [74].

---

The Simpsons Hit & Run

Nominator(s): Gary King (talk), TheLeftorium

"Knock, knock. Who's there? This article!" Gary King (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) While Gary tried (and failed :D) to write a catchy nomination statement, I found some things in the prose that I missed in the GA review:

• "The game's five playable characters are Homer Simpson, Bart Simpson, Lisa Simpson, Marge Simpson, and Apu Nahasapeemapetilon." I am pretty sure that readers can count.
• "that litter the road," I don't like this wording, sounds like the cars were just indiscrimately dropped from the sky.
• "phone booth to select one of the available cars." So are there unavailable cars?
• "several acts of violence and destruction" Call me picky, but is destruction not a result of violence?
• "hit and run" I think that this instance should be hyphenated.
• "There are also collectibles that the player can locate"-->Players can locate (find?) collectibles...
• "with a scene showing" That annoying noun + -ing...
• "After a tractor beam abducts Bart from outside a stadium"
• "Instead, Radical wanted to take the franchise's video game series in a different direction" "take the"-->steer.
• "During the development of Hit & Run"-->During Hit & Run's development...
• "along with the writers, who Ramage called "the best there is"" This just might be a grammatical error by Ramage, but how can he say "best there is" when there are multiple writers?
• Despite positive reactions, the game also had some serious issues"

I see that while I was commenting, you were copy-editing. Feel free to disregard the comments that no longer apply. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All done. The cars did essentially drop from the sky; they are all over the place because the game made it so. Which particular instance of "hit and run" needs to be hyphenated? Yeah, a grammatical error by Ramage. Gary King (talk) 01:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Consider inserting [sic] after Ramage's grammar trip-up. I was talking about: "When completely full, several police cars chase the character for the duration of the hit and run." Dabomb87 (talk) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Added sic. With and without hyphen are interchangeable. Gary King (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, looks good. Will come back tomorrow for final assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments - sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

Lead

• When the Simpsons take matters into their own hands, they discover that aliens Kang and Kodos are filming a reality television series about the populace. - commas in between Kang and Kodos
• As of June 2004, over one million copies of the game were sold, and over three million as of June 2007. - why is it necessary to list how much it sold in 2004, if the most recent report was in 2007?--SRX 16:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No comma necessary; where would it go, anyways? Also, I removed the number of sales for June 2004, but only in the lead; I'm leaving it in the Reception section because it's a useful tool to gauge how well the game is selling after a certain period of time. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

They would go here (in bold) "When the Simpsons take matters into their own hands, they discover that aliens, Kang and Kodos, are filming a reality television series about the populace."--SRX 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I'm using the word "aliens" differently from what you think, then; it's like saying "They discover that John Smith", and then changed to "They discover that American John Smith". It's just describing them. Gary King (talk) 00:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Body

• As she investigates a crop circle that recently appeared in Cletus' crop field, Grampa tells Marge that the crop circle is an exact replica of the Buzz Cola logo. - the reader does not know who Cletus is, why not link and spell out his entire name? In addition, is there a link to Grampa?
• Official Xbox Magazine said that the game did the show justice,[12] and Play Magazine felt that it was "essentially the show in real time", summing up its review by calling the game a "a truly great cross-over product". - I don't think the first a (outside the quotation marks) is needed
• GameSpot had a lot of fun with the game, and found the gameplay to be very engaging. - this sounds like POV, is there a way to reword this so that it doesn't read like this is the writers opinion?
• Is there any other information available for the game, as seen in the Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare FA?--SRX 01:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, all done. Most of the available information out there is about Gameplay, Plot, and Reception, which this article doesn't need. Gary King (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

So there isn't anything about the game engine, soundtrack, etc.?--SRX 01:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing we could find on those particular aspects so far; it's always nice to have more development information when possible, but it's not always available unfortunately. Gary King (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - well set up and interesting article that meets WP:WIAFA.--SRX 22:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment -

• Even though I'm too lazy (xD) to go check, I believe that all full dates (i.e. with Day, Month, Year) must be internal links.

I just gave the article a quick read, I will properly edit the article when I have free time. So far looks good.

Sunsetsunrise (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, dates should be unlinked per the MOS. Gary King (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment Two other noms and starting a third? Leave some reviewers for everyone else, please! Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh, that's nothing compared to what he used to do at FLC ;) Dabomb87 (talk) 02:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've got seven more articles ready for FAC. Gary King (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. Always ready to help get worthy FACs passed. ^Tezkag₇₂ 04:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 - File:The Simpsons Hit and Run - screenshot.png - The layout of this game is very simple and the prose does an excellent job of describing it. I'm unconvinced by the need for the fair use image of the game itself. I'm not sure that the reader's understanding is signficantly increased by seeing the actual bubble (WP:NFCC #8). (Note: Can someone please obtain a new image of Matt Groening? I'm tired of seeing this one!) Awadewit (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the image from the article. —TheLeftorium 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the image. It illustrates the similarities between GTAIII, and quite frankly, the similarities are a notable aspect of the game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But that was not the argument made in the fair use rationale. If you want to write a new fair use rationale, I will gladly look at it. Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, here are some points that would be included in such a rationale:

1. Demonstrates its similarity to GTA
2. Demonstrates the similarity to The Simpsons' visual style
3. Gives people an idea of how the game looks.

Though, a better image may be warranted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Similarity to the Simpsons can be stated in words. We have enough fair use images of the Simpsons around to illustrate that style. The similarity to Grand Theft Auto is a good one. I see that the article says that Hit and Run satirizes Grand Theft Auto. Could we find a specific shot that would correspond to some commentary about the satire? That would be worth a fair use image, I think. Awadewit (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've added information comparing Hit & Run to GTA3 in the article, added an image showing both games side-by-side, and tweaked the fair use rationale. Gary King (talk) 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

This is much better than the initial rationale - it now meets WP:NFCC. Excellent work. Awadewit (talk) 04:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 00:30, 10 January 2009 [75].

---

Coenred of Mercia

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk)

I thought I'd try to get another Anglo-Saxon king in before the end of the year. I have another active nomination but there are no opposes and one support, so I hope it's OK to start another nomination. Coenred is not one of the better known kings, but there are a few things to say about him. A good comparison article might be Æthelred of Mercia, his uncle, and predecessor as king of Mercia. Thanks for all comments. Mike Christie (talk) 23:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments. Just a couple of small things, both from the final Abdication and succession section.

• "According to Bede, Coenred abdicated in favor of his cousin, Æthelred's son Ceolred after four years, went with the East Saxon king Offa to Rome, and was made a monk by Pope Constantine." I'm not sure I really understand that sentence. Could it be written more clearly? It's the "after four years" bit I'm struggling with.

  Aargh. It was editing debris from an earlier version; I can't believe I didn't see that (or the other problem) on final read-through. Removed. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• It's mentioned twice, in consecutive paragraphs, that Bede gives no date for Coenred's death in Rome. Is that really necessary?

  No; I cut the first mention, as the second para needs the bulk more; plus the direct cite to Bede is probably worth keeping. Thanks for the copyedit too, by the way. Mike Christie (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

--Malleus Fatuorum 00:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Seems fine to me now, I'm supporting. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, hoping to be able to convert this to neutral or support. Support All of my concerns adumbrated below have now been addressed, and I would be happy to see this fine little article promoted without further delay. Provided: 1) That the adjustment I have made a moment ago be respected (in which the exact deployment of commas and the order of words are crucial to keeping the sense clear; and 2) Cœnred (with the ligature œ) be replaced by Coenred, even though it appears in a quote. This ligature is, I believe, merely typographical and conventional; unlike the Æ and æ ligatures, which have phonological significance for Anglo-Saxon. I think that's the principle laid out in Hart's Rules, though I have not got my copy to hand; and see WP:MOS for the need to make harmless, merely typographical changes in quoted matter, without "sic" or any such annotation. Since the typographical form Coenred is a stylistic choice for this article, it should be used consistently (for purposes of searching, if nothing else).–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 02:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced "œ" with "oe" in the one location it occurs. Thanks for the comments, and for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead:

• Do we know Coenred's dates of birth and death? They should be given at least approximately – at the start, or at least somewhere.
• Wulfhere's brother, Æthelred, became king instead, but abdicated in favour of Coenred in 704 in order to become a monk. [Remove the first two commas, which suggest that Wulfhere had only one brother; end with in 704 to become a monk, or and became a monk. Fix spelling: favor is used later in the article; check all spelling for consistency of style.]
• The reigns of Coenred and his successor, Ceolred, marked... [The commas are unnecessary and best omitted.]
• ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been dominant... [The referent of which is momentarily uncertain, and dominant is not apt. Try a different adjective, perhaps powerful: ...the fortunes of Mercia, which had been powerful.... Only Mercia could be powerful, not its fortunes.]
• ...in the late seventh century... [A MOS issue: Wikipedia:Mos#Numbers_as_figures_or_words requires that centuries use figures, not words; fix this throughout].
• Coenred's reign is poorly documented but it is known he faced attacks from the Welsh,... [Best to have that in such a construction: it is known that he.
• ...by Æthelred's son, Ceolred. [Since it is not known that Ceolred was Æthelred's only son, the comma is improper.]

Mercia in the seventh century

• By the seventh-century,... [Make it By the 7th century,... (note the absence of a hyphen).]
• The earliest Mercian king about whom definite historical information has survived is Penda of Mercia, Coenred's grandfather. [Better: Penda of Mercia, Coenred's paternal grandfather, is the earliest Mercian king for whom there is definite historical information.]
• For Wessex and Kent, Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in each province,... [Province is not apt here. They are kingdoms. Better: Bede had informants who supplied him with details of the church's history in Wessex and Kent,....]

• ..., about which he is less well-informed. [Redundant. Omit it.]

• ...compiled at the end of the ninth century in Wessex. [For a reason that would be tedious to give, this is preferable: ...compiled in Wessex at the end of the 9th century.]

Overall, an efficient little article. Is it big and noteworthy enough for a featured article? I don't know. I may have more to say later, once the points I have already made are addressed.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Is "noteworthy" one of the featured article criteria? Or "big"? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, these are not formal criteria. I had thought that noteworthiness once was a formal criterion, but I may be mistaken. This is why I made the point as a question. I don't know! Could Cleko or Bulldog clip be made into featured articles? If you look at Bulldog clip and are inclined to answer No, the reasons might be that such clips are not noteworthy enough, and not enough could be said to make a substantial article. If you answer Yes, then a fortiori the present article can make the grade.

One more point of wording: He was the son of Wulfhere, but did not.... Once more, this strongly suggests that he was the only son, but this is not known. Prefer He was a son of Wulfhere, but did not..., or Wulfhere was his father, but he did not.... Such needless and heedless imprecision – or perhaps in the present case spurious precision – is insidious, but easy enough to root out. If this sort of imprecision proliferates in articles (especially historical articles), the cumulative result is that inferences based on premises drawn from our articles will be generally suspect.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 01:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

All points now addressed; some by Angusmclellan and the rest by me. The questions of noteworthiness and size have come up in FAC discussions before and there is not universal agreement about what the best answer is, but I think it is accurate to say that at the moment the FA criteria make no mention of either, and noteworthiness and size per se are not valid oppose reasons at FAC. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Done; no dabs found. Mike Christie (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Yorke, Barbara or Barbara Yorke? Current ref 1 is Yorke, Barbara and the second is Barbara Yorke, pick one. Or stick with "Yorke" to match the rest, and list it in the secondary sources.
• Current ref 19 (Womald) is to an article "The Age of Bede and Aethelbald"... but there isn't such an article listed in the secondary sources... do you mean the "Age of Offa and Alcuin" that is listed in the sources? Or do you mean for that Offa/Alcuin to be Bede/Aethelbald?
• I'd caution other reviewers to make sure that the primary source material (the charters stuff) isn't being interpreted when it's used as a source. It's not necessarily wrong, they just need to be used with caution.
• What makes http://www.anglo-saxons.net/hwaet/ a reliable source?

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

As regards the third and fourth points, Keynes, here, says that the charter database at anglo-saxons.net was designed by Dr Sean [M.] Miller, formerly of the Fitzwilliam, also responsible for the Fitzwilliam's EMC site, and a contributor to the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Keynes links to it, ASChart links to it, and the PASE links to it. The reason to prefer it over the PASE, Electronic Sawyer, Kemble, et al, is that anglo-saxons.net reproduces the text of the charters, and is the only resource which routinely does so, as well as the commonly available critical commentary. The primary sources, charters and all, seem to be being reported and not interpreted, so no problem there. If there's any concern over these aspects, I'd suggest rounding up a subject expert. I think that here would be the best place to find one. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Angus that anglo-saxons.net is reliable and I think he gives sufficient information to establish that. I've fixed the Yorke refs to be consistent; likewise with Wormald (he wrote two chapters for Campbell's The Anglo-Saxons, and I must have copied this ref in from a ref list in another article where I used the other one). Mike Christie (talk) 21:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll leave the anglosaxons.net ref out for other reviewers to decide for themselves. (I lean reliable but it's a very short lean. I'd rather see a print source too, as one thing about transcriptions of charters, there are times when they can be transcribed incorrectly, or that there is enough damage that the interpretation is subject to discussion.) I'd love to find the time to review this... but... family is coming, the cookies must be baked! (sung to the tune of "Christmas is coming, the goose is getting fat...) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to keep you from important things - mmm cookies! - but we should never be in the position where it matters whether the text of a charter - genuine, fake or somewhere in between - is transcribed correctly. If we're relying on Kirby's say-so, or Yorke's, or the compilers of the PASE, then that's what we're relying on. The link to one of the charter sites, whichever we choose and we could include multiple links easily enough, is solely there as a convenience for readers, just like those links to Google books we see on some articles. Drawing one's own conclusions from primary sources would be OR and simply not acceptable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Given that FA status is being suggested, I'd prefer the article to be larger and more exhaustive. There's certainly scope for this. E.g. instead of just saying it is known that he faced attacks by the Welsh between 705 and 709, say why it is known [from what source] and input comments on this. If the Life of St Guthlac claims this, then maybe quote the text or show that it has been used. I haven't learned from the wiki article why Coenred was thought to be fighting Britons in this period. Coverage certainly not exhaustive. Only mention of Wilfrid is that that Coenred appears in Wilfrid's vita. You might wanna read the ODNB article, which gives overview comments on his reign regarding religion. Again, something like that is possible (as ODNB makes it so), instead of just listing information. These aren't biggies, but if such a badly documented ruler's article is to become FA I would expect more exhaustive coverage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 04:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a note that Wilfrid is on my radar to improve, and he's probably going to be heading to GA/FAC soon, as soon as I find the time to tackle him, so don't worry about that supporting article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth. Deacon, I've incorporated what I think I need to from the ODNB article; would you take another look? I have a slight problem with the use of the Vita Guthlaci; the main citation I have for this is Stenton, who says, on p. 214 of Anglo-Saxon England, "serious raids such as those which occurred between 705 and 709" and adds in a footnote that the source is "Felix's Life of Saint Guthlac, ed. B. Colgrave, p. 109. See p. 212, n. 2 above, and F.M. Stenton, C.P., pp. 357–363." The footnote on p. 212 is not relevant; "C.P." refers to Stenton's collected papers, which I don't have access to. I don't have Colgrave's edition of Guthlac. I just ordered it online but that'll take a week or two to get here. I found another edition online and have cited it to what I assume is the right chapter; it's quoted in full in the article now. It is followed by an account of British demons annoying St Guthlac, but I think it has to be this section that Stenton is referring to; there's no other relevant reference to Coenred that I can find. When I get the Colgrave edition I'll check that the page number does refer to this chapter. There's a version of Colgrave partly visible online at Google Books, but page 109 is not visible and from what I can tell has different pagination anyway. So all I can say is that I am pretty sure that I have that reference right but will confirm when I get Colgrave in my hands. Mike Christie (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Scored the oppose. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Update. Thanks to Cavila, the reference to Colgrave has been made to reflect the footnote from Stenton, so I think everything is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 19:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on criterion 3 File:Aethelred family tree.gif - This image needs to list the source from which the information was taken (I'm afraid Aethelred's family tree is not common knowledge). Awadewit (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Mike Christie (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I've struck the oppose. Awadewit (talk) 23:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not thrilled with the prose. Tony (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Here are examples of problems at the top.

• Opening: but ... instead ... but ... Is there a way of making this sequence a slightly straighter line?

  I see why you want this changed, but the sequence is straight chronologically. The difficulty is that two unexpected things happen; first Coenred does not succeed when he might have done so, and then he does succeed when Æthelred unexpectedly abdicates. I think this warrants at least two of the three words. I cut "instead" as somewhat redundant with the first "but"; is that better? Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Can "relatively" be removed?

  I don't think it should be -- Mercia was still a powerful kingdom in these years; this period marked only a temporary and minor decline between two periods of great influence. In the middle of the ninth century Mercia began a much more serious decline that ended with the dissolution of the kingdom. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  What does "relatively" add?Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  It was intended to indicate that there were other low points that were worse. However, it does say "a low point", not "the low point", so I think it's OK without it. I've removed it. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• known known.

  Fixed. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Do texts remember?

  I've changed this, but see below for a similar comment of yours. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• "In 709 Coenred abdicated, and went with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, on pilgrimage to Rome, where he died"—I was expecting sex between Coenred and Offa. Try: "In 709 Coenred abdicated and went on pilgrimage to Rome with Offa, the king of the East Saxons, where he died the same year."

  My fault: now the last "he" is ambiguous.Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  Agreed. Since this was in the lead, I cut mention of Offa, as he's not critical to the information being transmitted here. That simplified the sentence and removed the ambiguity. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell from the map, but were all of those "neighbouring kingdoms" larger than Merica?

  No, they were of varying sizes. Only Northumbria was clearly larger than Mercia. The map shows no borders between the kingdoms because it's hard to be sure just where the borders were, and it's known they fluctuated over time. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  It wasn't a general-interest question: you've stated that they're all "larger neighbouring kingdoms".Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Oops; misunderstood you. (I thought you were so fascinated by the article that you were asking for more information.) It was intended to mean "Among the neighbouring kingdoms, the largest were" but I agree it could be read incorrectly. I've cut it to "Neighbouring kingdoms", which I think loses no information, given that I now list all the Anglo-Saxon neighbours. (I don't list the British to the west.) Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "this work also provides"—expunge "also", and audit the whole text for this word, which is usually redundant and weakens the flow. (The last "also" in the first section is, however, good.)

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• "Another charter of Æthelred's, dated between 693 and 704, shows him granting land to Waldhere, the bishop of London." Is he depicted in a drawing doing this? I'd have thought "provides evidence that he granted ...". Tony (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  I'd like to leave this in; the document is a grant of land, so saying that it merely provides evidence seems too weak -- it is the evidence. I went through one of the standard references, Stenton's Anglo-Saxon England, and he refers to charters mentioning and suggesting things. If you really feel it needs to be changed, I can rephrase, but I think it's unobjectionable. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

  It's odd as is. Why not as you suggest: "is evidence that he granted land to ...". Much more comfortable. Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  Done. I'd like to try to explain the intent of the idiom, in case that isn't clear. The interesting thing to a historian is the grant itself. The grant was recorded in a charter and, to the extent that legal phraseology can be applied to the eighth century, the charter is the grant, to the point that such charters were frequently forged later to provide evidence for ownership of land. Since the charter is the only possible surviving evidence of the charter, and is supposed to be a record of the grant, it is natural for historians to slip from "the charter is evidence of a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter is a grant of land to Waldhere" to "the charter shows a grant of land to Waldhere". You have a comment about jargon below; I suspect this falls under the same heading, and so should be cleaned up as you suggest, but it would not hurt the reader if they could be gently introduced to a form of expression they will meet with many times if they start to read the secondary sources. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not reading further yet. Tony (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Mike Christie (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• You need to get a good copy-editor onto the rest of it. Let's look at the next few cm:
  • "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records Coenred acceding to the throne twice"—this is the noun+ing urchin. Why not "The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records that Coenred acceded to the throne twice"?

    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Sorry to be fussy, but: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber, Mercia's northern boundary, it is difficult to interpret the two annals" is a problem in the probable misinterpretion by readers of the first comma, and their enforced disambiguation. This is what happened to me. Why not bring out what in your writing is the underused dash: "As "Southumbrians" refers to those who lived south of the Humber – Mercia's northern boundary – it is difficult to interpret the two annals"? PS Interesting conundrum – I wonder where the answer lies to the double enthronement.

    Done. Yes, it's an interesting question. My own idea, which of course I can't mention in the article, is that Coenred was made king of northern Mercia, which would have had the same northern boundary. There is a precedent for this division -- about fifty years earlier, the Northumbrian conquerors of Mercia had divided Mercia into a northern and southern half and given the southern half to a subking. This sort of thing is what's fun about Anglo-Saxon history -- there are so few clues you can ponder the few you have endlessly, rather than having vast amounts of source material to wade through. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "have some influence"—"some" makes me grind my teeth; can't it be removed? What does it really mean?

    You're right; removed. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Please remove comma from dates in the notes. pp. 108-9 should be pp. 108–09, or the full three digits closing if you must.

    Done. Interestingly, it appears that in the {{cite web}} template, the accessmonthday parameter does not supply a comma in the date, but the accessdaymonth parameter does. Anyway, I fixed the issues. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe it's the lingo in this field, but "A grant of land in Herefordshire to a nun named Feleburg has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's" is strange; the forged charters are fine, but is a grant a document? I first took it as the concept, then wondered whether the survival of the plot of land itself was at issue. Oh well.

    It is indeed the lingo; see my notes above, and also see an extra sentence added in the first section to explain what grants are. Does that help? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • "influence on London ... influence in Kent"

    The "Influence on London" part was scene-setting which I think served no purpose, so I have cut it, sidestepping the question of on vs. in. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• "which was evidently of some importance though no other reference to it has survived"—again, this troublesome "some". Why not "evidently important, although no other ..."?

  Done. Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not happy yet. Tony (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments.

• The type on both images is illegible, except at full resolution, which is two links away. Can you rework the family tree to make it legible on the article page? For the kingdoms of Britain you may want to ask User:Kmusser, who does great work on maps. Kablammo (talk) 03:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The family tree text is already about as large as it can be relative to the size of the image. I had it at 300px; I've changed that to 450px -- does that help? Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing, which means that both images would be at whatever thumbnail size each user has set -- the default is 100px, I believe. I've always taken this to mean that there is no expectation that images are comprehensible without clicking on them, since few images are useful at 100px. In practice a lot of FAC regulars put in pixel sizes to try to make the image useful. In this case I don't think it's really possible to get the images large enough to read, and perhaps it would be better to just take away the px sizes completely. I think the same is true of the map, though if you feel Kmusser can make a map that would be readable at a small size I'd be happy to ask him. Let me know what you think. Mike Christie (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe bold type would help, or at least make the image page legible and obviate the need to go another step to full resolution. It would not hurt to ask Kmusser-- he did good work for me on the image at Duluth Complex, and the maps shown on his page shows the quality of his work. Kablammo (talk) 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've left him a request. Thanks for the pointer -- I admit it would be nice to be able to read it without a click-through. Mike Christie (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Good. In response to your comment above (Technically I shouldn't have any px sizing), these two images are the types for which larger sizes may be specified, which include "Detailed maps, diagrams, or charts". Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images Kablammo (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• MC, can you clarify this:

In 709 Coenred abdicated in favour of his cousin Ceolred, son of Æthelred, in order to become a monk in Rome; Bede's story is cited by the medieval chronicler William of Malmesbury as the reason for his decision . . .

both the pronoun, and whether it was Bede's story or the underlying event which motivated Coenrad. Thanks. Kablammo (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

The source asserts that William cites the underlying event as having motivated Coenred. I made it "Coenred's decision"; does that solve the problem? Mike Christie (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Support. The article may be brief, but I have checked it carefully and believe it to be comprehensive. All the issues connected with the reign are addressed, using good-quality references. A very intriguing read. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• One oddity for me is the notion that the reigns of Coenred and Ceolred marked a low point for Mercia. Although you have a secondary source saying that, the article does not balance it with Bede's view that Coenred "ruled the kingdom of Mercia with great renown for some while". Bede seems to contrast Coenred's reign with that of his successor Ceolred, when things indeed did go wrong. I wonder if we are falling into the trap of believing that Mercia was only at a high point of "fortunes" so long as it was conquering and controlling the territories around it. From the sparse evidence, it seems to me that Coenred was doing a good job. Not only was he praised by his contemporary Bede but he seems to have exercised a peaceful overlordship over the East Saxons, London, and parts of Kent. That's pretty impressive. And he got on so well with one of his underkings that they went to Rome together. As far as I can tell, he didn't suffer any defeats, though clearly there were security problems on the Welsh frontiers (well, even mighty Offa had that trouble). Of course, we can guess that Bede liked Coenred because he was a good Christian. That's as good a criterion as any, though, I would say, particularly in an age when religion was so important. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  Wormald (the cited source) is fairly clear about the difference between Coenred/Ceolred and the kings that came before and after them, but my summary of that as a "low point" might be improved. Here's what he says, slightly snipped: "Cenred and Ceolred were effective overlords between the Humber and the Thames, but were challenged and even rivalled in the south by Wihtred of Kent, Caedwalla of Wessex and Ine. Aethelbald's power thus seems to represent a return to the clearer political pattern of the seventh century, after a period of some confusion." I agree that Bede's opinion is not to be sniffed at, but since it's a primary source, and Bede does have his biases, I don't feel comfortable citing him to balance Wormald. Wormald is echoing the Stenton quote in the article when he says "confusion"; Stenton's comment could be held to support the "low point" comment too. However, perhaps the problem is that "low point" is too simplistic -- I think it does represent what Wormald said, but is there a better way to paraphrase Wormald's point? Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Stenton is talking about confused issues of overlordship in parts of the south. What both he and, it seems, Wormald suggest is that the extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than under Penda/Wulfhere or Aethelbald/Offa. "Low point" to me suggests defeat, or succumbing to the overlordship of Northumbria or Wessex, and that was far from the case. In exercising authority over large parts of the south east, Coenred was still the most powerful king in Anglo-Saxon England. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm finding this difficult to rephrase concisely, and have just cut it instead. I did have "relatively low point" at one time, to indicate that this was only a minor decline in power, but I cut that in response to a comment of Tony's, and that was not precise enough anyway. Expanding your statement into "The extent of Mercian overlordship was less under Coenred and Ceolred than it had been under Wulfher or would be again under Æthelbald" makes it slighty unwieldy. I think the quote from Stenton does convey the "confusion" issue, and the extent of their overlordship is stated in the article as well as it is known, so I think cutting this from both the lead and the body is OK. Mike Christie (talk) 12:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

• has survived, as have forged charters of Coenred's. I presume someone else was forging the charters, but it might need clarifying. A date would be helpful, as forgeries become less interesting the later they are.

  The source (Kelly's article in the ODNB) provides no date, unfortunately. I've rephrased to clarify. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Fine. qp10qp (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the copyedit, and of course for the support. Mike Christie (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Support - a fascinating read about the king of my neck of the woods in the 7th century. The prose flows well. One quibble, I don't like the genealogy chart—it looks a bit untidy. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [76].

---

Stanley Goble

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk)

Nominating this for FA because, naturally enough, I think it mets the criteria. However, for those who prefer something beyond the usual dry nomination spiel... From its inception in 1921 until the end of World War II, the history of the RAAF was often the story of two great rivalries at its highest echelons, between Richard Williams and Stanley Goble from 1921 to 1939, and between George Jones and William Bostock from 1942 to 1945. The "winners" in those two conflicts, Williams and Jones, are already the subjects of FAs; I’d like now to get the "runners-up" to the same level, starting off with this FAC for Stanley Goble, which is currently GA, and A-Class on the MILHIST project. Since passing ACR I’ve added further material and addressed one or two points raised in that review re. victories scored in World War I and sourcing for same. Any and all comments welcome. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support. Don't see any big problems. ^Tezkag₇₂ 14:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments - sources look okay, couldn't check links as the toolserver's down. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Went back and checked links and http://www.airforce.gov.au/leaders/formerchiefs.htm deadlinks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, they love changing that site - should work again now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed this article for GA, and since then it's quality has improved even further. I can see no areas of concern and am satisified that it safely meets the FA criteria. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article which meets all the criteria. As a suggestion for further development, it may be worth expanding upon the factors which caused Goble to resign in 1940 - as it's fairly extraordinary that a senior officer would resign his command at the start of what was obviously going to be a long war, it would be interesting to flesh out his views on the EATS and his conflict with his deputy. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Tks Nick - I will look into that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
• Query Was the Caudron a Caudron G.4? ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Heh, annoyingly the source doesn't say - I reckon it had to be a G.4 because I believe that's the only twin-engined model that would've been around at the time but without anything definite I've had to leave it as is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

    Thought it might be something like that. If someone else has a source it would be nice to fix that, but probably not essential for the FA. ϢereSpielChequers 14:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support: An excellent, well-written and well-constructed article. I have a few small prose quibbles:-
  • "as had been his father", though grammatically correct, reads rather quaintly. Perhaps consider rephrasing
    • Came up with something different
  • Reference to the "new Royal Ar Force" (in the WW1 section) should be to the "newly-formed Royal Air Force".
    • Done
  • "Whilst" (in the Chief of Air Staff subsection) is, for reasons that escape me, a disapproved wikipedia word and should be replaced by "while".
    • Done
  • In the Circumnavigation section, "they encountered storms and disease". Storms I can understand, on a long flight, but disease? Does this simply mean that one or both were ill during the flight? Some brief clarification would help.
    • Modified
  • Quotations: the wiki line on quotes is that direct quotations within quote marks should be used for "unique phrases" or for comments of a controversial nature. By this standard I don't think that "conspicuous bravery and skill" or "curb Williams's independence" qualify as unique or controversial phrases, and since both are cited, the quote marks could go.
    • I would've thought that if we don't rephrase something we need to use quotes even if it isn't controversial, and I'd prefer to keep "conspicuous bravery and skill" since it's straight from the DSO citation. Re. "curb Williams's independence", in my own words it'd be keep Williams in check or limit Williams' automony, either of which I'd be happy to substitute.

High-quality stuff, well done. Brianboulton (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Tks Brian. Will see about those in the next day or so (just back home after New Year's Eve revels so not in quite the right state to reword things at the moment)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• See above, tks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with a few comments.
• 'Goble came to national attention in 1924 when he and fellow RAAF pilot Ivor McIntyre became the first men to circumnavigate Australia by air, journeying some 13,500 km in a single-engined floatplane. - Is it possible to get a conversion to miles?
  • Done
• Goble died in 1948, at the age of fifty-six, two years after his retirement from the military. - Remove the comma after "1948".
  • Done
• Although himself forced down on two occasions, he had avoided any injury during his active service. - This sentence is slightly confusing.
  • Modified
• Prime Minister Stanley Bruce called the expedition "one of the most wonderful accomplishments in the history of aviation", his government presenting Goble with a gift of ₤500, and ₤250 to McIntyre. - The comma after "aviation" should be a semicolon.
  • I'd agree with a semi-colon if it read "his government presented" but with "presenting" I think the comma is correct. Happy to change to "his government presented" with a semi-colon if you'd prefer.

–Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Many tks for your comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support with comment.
• Goble's wife and children are first mentioned in "Retirement and Legacy" section. I think this is OK but it would be better if that info was also found in the Lead and Reader was made aware of when he got married, maybe somewhere in the body of the article. A man's personal life is an important part of who he is and I don't think it is OK to leave that to a sentence in the last section. NancyHeise ^talk 03:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Tks Nancy. Actually, "He married Kathleen Wodehouse in London on Anzac Day, 1922" is already mentioned in the Chief of the Air Staff section, which I think should suffice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

It's OK there, I just think there should be something in the lead about the man's personal life but since this is a matter of personal taste, not an FA criteria, I still support the article for FA. It is very well done. NancyHeise ^talk 00:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• Support YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
• Image review: All images are taken from the Australian War Memorial and are in the public domain due to their creation more than 50 years ago as government owned photographs. All information has been properly filled and page links have been provided. Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your efforts tidying up some of those image files, Jappalong. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I also checked the images at the request of one user, they are all correct. On the source pages, the images copyright holder and copyright term is the following: "Copyright: Copyright expired - public domain, Copyright holder: Copyright Expired." User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

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:SandyGeorgia 04:27, 6 January 2009 [77].

---

USS Iowa turret explosion

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk)

I believe that this article about a tragic accident aboard a United States Navy battleship is ready for consideration for FA. The article passed an A-class review with WP:MILHIST. Self-nomination but several other editors provided significant and much appreciated help including Allanon (a.k.a. the_ed17), Joe N, Otto4711, Cool Hand Luke, Dual Freq, MBK004, and TomStar81. Cla68 (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support; I commented during the A-class review, and I believe that the article fulfills every requirement to become a featured article. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Support This is a great article and meets all the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 23:32, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

• Comments: I'm not keen on the link to "doctorate" near the name of Dr. Richard Schwoebel. The foreword to his book on this subject describes him as a physicist with "technical expertise in studies of surface physics, material properties and safety issues". Would this be better than a link to doctorate? Still looking at the article.

• I'm also not keen on left-aligned images at the bottom of a section. They jam the section headings over to the right; sometimes in a distracting manner. Still looking. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thompson, p. 358 calls him "Dr. Richard Schwoebel." It could be that Schwoebel is being self-effacing in his book, but I don't think it's a big deal. I removed the references to "Dr" and moved the image in question over to the right [78]. Cla68 (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments -

• Current ref 118 (IMDB..) needs a publisher and last access date outside the link title.

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:03, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I formatted the two references in question [79]. Cla68 (talk) 08:19, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Is it possible to re-arrange the images so that Master Chief Stephen Skelley (center, facing camera) is not looking off the page, per WP:MOS#Images? (I realize it's not always possible to comply.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• I moved Skelley's image to the right and checked the DAB [80]. I believe Matisse corrected the one outstanding DAB [81]. Cla68 (talk) 08:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Conditional Support I think this article is well done and meets FA criteria. However, it could be improved if some information were included about Moosally's retirement comments about the investigation. There are articles in both Washington Post and Boston Globe linked here [82]. NancyHeise ^talk 20:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)