April 2011[edit]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [1].

Nixon in China (opera)[edit]

Nominator(s):Wehwalt (talk), Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

President Richard M. Nixon was probably the most unlikely of operatic heroes (or villains), at least until Jerry Springer 20 years later. John Adams's score is a curiosity: part 1980s minimalism à la Philip Glass, part Stravinskian neoclassicism, part 19th century Romantic, part big band and pop. The work's early performances rather baffled critics and public, resulting in praise and damnation in equal measures. Slowly, however, it established itself at least in the English-language operatic repertoire, and is now considered one of the most significant works in American opera. Peer reviewed here, now ready (we think) for FAC appraisal. Your comments welcomed. Wehwalt (talk) and Brianboulton (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I copyedited this article and commented at the PR, and I believe it to be thoroughly well written and informative.-RHM22 (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like RHM22 I took part in the peer review. My few queries were thoroughly dealt with and I warmly support the article's promotion to FA. I make no judgment on the images (lacking expertise in that specialism) but in all other regards the article seems to me to meet the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 17:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both of you, for the support and particularly for your PR contributions which greatly helped the article'spreparation. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image and deadlink review
Article makes good use of seven images, all of which are properly licensed and list working source links work where applicable. No deadlinks in the article.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Brianboulton (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem--NortyNort (Holla) 01:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Period within/after a quote is an MOS issue, and I believe we do it correctly. Even though I went over the parts of the article Brian wrote to ensure it was American English, obviously I missed one. I do not see the word "theatre" used in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are three "theatres", which one of them should be changed (in the "Inception" section, first sentence).
Ah hah. Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an unneeded ref. The "surreal" quote is not from the same reference as the "deeply affecting" quote, you can't remove it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence was unclear because of punctuation, I've cleared that up I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it seems like the comma isn't on the right position:
Do you mean: "In this final "surreal" act,[42] the concluding thoughts of Chou En-lai are described by Tommasini as "deeply affecting".[24]"
or: "In this final, the "surreal" act,[42] the concluding thoughts of Chou En-lai, are described by Tommasini as "deeply affecting".[24]" --♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 13:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Act 3 is the only surreal act, if that answers your question.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually meant the clause position, as I don't think this sentence does make any sense. Besides this, a support from me is doubtless applicable.

I red the article fast, so I might overlooked something.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 11:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work. I think I've taken care of everything, with the quibbles above, excepting one reference, #22, from Tempo to which I do not have a subscription and so cannot add the accessdate field. My colleague will do that once he looks in.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added an access date for Ref 22. Brianboulton (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od)Support - OK, then I will Support this excellent article. I did a second run, but I haven't found any mistakes.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 17:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the work. I think I've cleaned up that sentence, feel free to tinker on your own.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Thank you, I will look these over. On the Zest, that was the Chronicle's very Eighties name for what we might call a Living section. If you think I can do it in a less awkward way, help is always gratefully accepted.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Brian and I have done all of these now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, and for your help with this. Brianboulton (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [2].

Thomas Beecham[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article on Beecham, one of Britain's most celebrated executant musicians, has been thoroughly overhauled and refined since being promoted to GA in 2008. Information from major new sources has been incorporated. The revised article has recently received a tremendously thorough peer review, and I am most grateful to the editors who contributed to that review. After taking on the many helpful suggestions, I believe the article now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Thank you for this. I'll comb through carefully and report back here. Tim riley (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Later: now done (as described above) subject to any further suggestion. Many thanks to Nikkimaria for this acute scrutiny. Tim riley (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, captions look fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have watched this article over several years (I passed it for GA when I was a mere lad in 2008) and have long believed that it was a FA-in-waiting. Tim has done the work, and we have here a most impressive article. My detailed comments were answered at the recent peer review, which was an unusually thorough exercise in final polishing and primping. I have just one more request: could the caption for the New York Met photograph mention that this is the "old" Met, before its current incarnation in the Lincoln Center? Nit-picking, I know...Otherwise I concur with everything Ssilvers has said, above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grateful thanks to Ssilvers, Brianboulton and Malleus Fatuorum for the encouraging comments, above. Their encouragement, advice and emendation in getting the article to FAC have been tremendous. I've dealt with the "old Met" caption. Tim riley (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this support - and for your earlier help - greatly appreciated. Tim riley (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [3].

Unknown (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pulp magazine launched in 1939, Unknown was one of the most influential fantasy magazines ever published. It was a companion to Astounding Science Fiction during the Golden Age of Science Fiction, and introduced the rigour of good science fiction plotting to the world of fantasy. Historian Mike Ashley believes that the modern genre of fantasy was founded by Unknown, which is remarkable because it only lasted for four years. It was one of the few pulp magazines aimed at a mature and intelligent readership, and the memoirs of long time science fiction fans and authors are full of laments for its passing in 1943, a victim of wartime paper shortages. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review; I think everything is fixed now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: Another interesting magazine history. I have a few mainly minor issues:-

Subject to resolution of the above I will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have all been addressed and I'm happy to support - registered above. Brianboulton (talk) 16:10, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've fixed the last item, but I'm not sure what to do about the others. The first one wasn't uploaded by me -- I have a copy of that magazine, though I think it's in worse condition that that, so I could upload another copy and put author info in. I rather suspect it's grabbed from here, but can't prove it. What should I put in in this case? For your second point, I'm not sure what you're asking; can you clarify? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you can't contact the uploader I'd honestly just parse the description into the appropriate fields and be done with it. Don't worry about the second point, I just misread something. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've parsed the info into the various fields; innotata (below) says it's unnecessary, but it was easy to do and seems harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the first file, source information wouldn't be needed, but it is very difficult to confirm that copyright was not renewed. You need to look at records from the year 28 years after publication and the previous and following years, in entries for periodicals, and likely other categories; Project Gutenberg has many transcription errors and is not complete. —innotata 18:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this page, which is what I refer to to check copyright, there's no other source than Project Gutenberg if you want to check something that's not a book and was published before 1950. Is that correct? I did check several different spellings and options -- I don't remember everything I searched for but it wouldn't have been restricted by date, because I'd have done it with a file text search. Is there a better way to search? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - an interesting read that meets the FA criteria. I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my support.

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support.
Glad to review - I did not see any other refs out of order. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The sort of high-quality work we've come to expect from M.C. I've done a copyedit—only light work required. If there are questions about any of my edits, I'm happy to discuss them here.—DCGeist (talk) 07:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedit looks more than fine to me; thank you; and thanks also for the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [4].

Villa Park[edit]

Nominator(s): Woody (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FA in a while. This article is on an association football stadium in Birmingham England. Villa Park is one of the oldest stadiums in England with an intriguing history. The hallowed turf started off life as a kitchen garden for a stately home before becoming an aquarium which soon became part of the main stand. Sadly, that old main stand was demolished but there are a couple of nice stands left. This article was promoted to GA in 2007 but the article has changed significantly since then. It has had a couple of PRs, the most recent in November 2010. It has just had a copyedit to tighten up the prose and I think it is now ready for this FAC. Thanks for your time. Woody (talk) 10:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point on the Duran Duran image, I've removed it now. I've linked hooligan firms to Football hooliganism so that should explain it. Houses were compulsory purchased as part of council plans, added that in. Citation added. Thanks for the review (and your edits!) Woody (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC) Oppose mostly on sourcing at this time, although I'm open to revisiting once some of the below has been addressed[reply]

  • I've sourced all that you have asked for above. I've expanded FA Cup on first usage and used the full usage in refs. I think the reference formatting has been sorted, with my thanks to Graham for that. I removed Cox et al. as it wasn't used. I admit Larkin may have seemed a bit random but it was their originally with good reason. Larkin referenced Villa Park in MCMXIV (Those long uneven lines Standing as patiently As if they were stretched outside The Oval or Villa Park,) and that used to be in the article but I couldn't find a place for it and "In culture" sections annoy me. So, in short, Larkin now gone from refs. Thanks for your review. Woody (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the issue with the 440 yards quote. I have amended the one instance of "The Trinity." The two tiered refers to the stand, it has two tiers. The three storey refers to a structure in the corner, essentially a building. Hence why there are two different words used in the text, they are referring to two different architectural features. Woody (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last isn't tier vs storey so much as hyphen vs dash - why does one use a hyphen and the other a dash? It's an example of WP:MOS inconsistencies. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have used changed to hyphens for consistency now though every time I seem to read WP:MOSDASH it is the subject of an edit war so I never really know where to stand round here. Can you point out any other MOS issues that you can see? I thought I had covered them all, but there is usually the odd small thing can slip through. Woody (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. "%" should be spelled out in article text. Don't repeat wikilinks, especially to commoner terms like First World War. Be consistent in whether you provide locations for print publishers. See here for broken links. I'm also still seeing scattered typos - for example, "Its was announced". Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
MOSNUM states that "Where a whole number in a percentage is spelled out, the percent sign is not used" The only % sign in the article is 10% so it is line with MOSNUM as far as I can see. First World War is only linked once but in any case I've always subscribed to only linking twice if the links are miles apart in the article. The great thing about Wikipedia is the ability to link and provide more information. That being said, I don't think the article is overlinked. Have you got any examples of what you think is overlinked in the article? In terms of the deadlinks, I was aware of them but the webarchive has no copies and they were the only supplier of the information and the quote so I don't see what else I can do. Woody (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - please allow me to apologise up front for repeating things that may have been brought up at PR or GAN or similar...

  • You could add "association" in front of the first use of "football" so our American, Canadian, Gaelic, rugby etc friends aren't utterly bemused by the code of the game being played here.
  • "Villa previously played at Aston.." confusing, potentially. Perhaps "The team previously..." just to not confuse newcomers early doors with too many Villas...
  • "The 55 Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup) semi-finals hosted at Villa Park is a number unequalled by any other stadium." I get it. But it's awkwardly phrased. Can we reword?
  • Do "foreign" readers know what an "amusement arcade" is? A genuine question, not a criticism by the way...
  • Probably not, linked now
  • Possibly think of linking planning permission as well. Is that a UK-centric thing? I'm not sure...
  • Last lead para possibly needs integration into the first lead para because, as it stands, it's a little odd looking!
  • Last two paras of lead are not referenced at all while first two have four... Is there a reason?
  • No refs in lead now, too much clutter, all referenced in the main body. Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aston Villa FC or Aston Villa F.C. -> consistency.
  • Now consistent
  • Do you need two infobox references for capacity?
  • No, removed sky one
  • " home,[9] The Lower Grounds " is that "The" really capitalised?
  • Not anymore
  • "Sir Thomas Holte" would be tempted to pipelink the whole of the name including the Sir.
  • "record-breaking average crowd " is that cited by ref [9]?
  • Added new ref.
  • Is it "aquarium" or "Aquarium"?
  • aquarium
  • If you put comma separators into spectator numbers, do it for money too, i.e. £2,000.
  • "a new large two-tiered" new, I get, large, how do you quantify that?
  • You can't without doing an analysis of all grounds at the time so I have removed the "large"
  • "bowling greens" now then, our US friends won't get this at all without a link...!
  • "The outbreak of the First World War severely hampered design and construction efforts." did they really hamper "design" efforts? Perhaps so. Can't imagine architects of football grounds heading off to war, but I guess they probably did back in the day.
  • Back in the day, yes, the majority of men volunteered or were called up. It also affected design efforts due to the lack of materials etc as they were all used for the War effort so they had to come up with alternatives. Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Construction began in April 1922 with the stand partially opened in August 1922" consider replacing one of the 1922's with "that year" to avoid three-peating 1922...
  • "He commented that it was "a ground so finely equipped in every way—and devoted to football—existed."" I know it's a quote, but I don't understand it (grammatically)...
  • Fixed the quote. It is meant to be prefixed with George "had no idea that a ground..." Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Sunday Times reporter" ST is a work so it should be in italics (and probably linked for our non-UK readers).
  • Ditto Saint Pancras (i.e. link it) otherwise no-one outside of those in-the-know will get the significance of this comparison.
  • " Rinder dusted it off and looked" doesn't read encyclopedically.
  • Changed to "Rinder resurrected it and looked to" Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somehow, Villa soon acquired..." a bit mystical...
  • Rephrased to "Unusually, given the austerity measures in place at the time," Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to relink Simon Inglis.
  • "in 1907; The ground " - caption. No need for capital T and "clearly" is up to the viewer, not up to you!
  • " friendly match against Heart of Midlothian." link friendly and note that Hearts are Scottish (for our non-experts).
  • "Holte End, constructed in 1994." no full stop needed.
  • "that all grounds in top divisions convert" a little unclear what this meant. What is "top divisions"?
  • Changed to "top stadia"
  • I think there's a useful link somewhere to all-seater.
  • "The North Stand saw the addition of 2,900 seats to the lower tier of the North Stand ..." poor repeat of North Stand.
  • Removed
  • "make way for boxes" - would a non-expert know what a box is in this context?
  • Inglis repeated (first name too) with links...
  • "A diagram showing the alignment of stands at Villa Park." no need for the full stop.
  • Don't think you need a cedille in facade. The word has been anglicised enough to go English on it.
  • I have removed them now (sorry Graham) I couldn't see anything in the MOS that mandates them. Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • TV->television.
  • "half way line" surely some hyphenation here?
  • "the south west corner" hyphenate south-west.
  • "When completed, the capacity of Villa Park increase to around 50,000. " grammar fail.
  • "Other uses" section repeats Villa Park too frequently in the first couple of paras. Use "the ground" or "the stadium" or similar.
  • turn out -> turn-out.
  • "a venue for popstars, rockstars and evangelical preachers." a little cliched and tabloid. Would consider replacing "popstars, rockstars" with something more neutral.
  • Rephrased to "a venue for musicians from multiple genres as well as evangelical preachers." Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • World War II or Second World War. I prefer the latter but be consistent.
Used Second World War as that is British English (and I prefer it as well)

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your review and all the time spent on it TRM. I have done all of the above. I haven't added interspersed "Dones" in between your comments as I think the length of the page might give Sandy a heart attack! (Sorry Sandy ;). Where things needed rephrasing etc I have added in my rephrasing beneath your comment. Thanks again, Woody (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your comments TRM, I don't mind about the length, they were certainly thorough. Woody (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Done all of those, thanks for the review. Woody (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments When the go-to author for stadium sources is a Villan, passing my "Inglis test" was never in doubt :) A couple of minor comments:

Yes, I think it might just about meet the Inglis test! ;) I've sorted the records links, used Premier League for Premiership and I have removed the North Stand sentence altogether. Lerner certainly has the North Stand in his sights as part of his Big Plan. The form of the development in terms of the corners are not so concrete. As part of the World Cup bid this image was used (according to the NOTW). However, the General has stated "The one thing I can tell you is that we will NOT have a 'circular stadium'...nice and filled in and looking like some of the modern 'bowls' that are found in sports today. NO WAY!! That is not the Villa...that is not the English football tradition. We are not interested in looking like the Emirates or anything resembling that. We are the Villa...we are the 'home' of English football...not of the NFL." So, sounds like the corners are up in the air, so until anything concrete emerges in the next few years, safer to just remove speculation. Thanks for the review, Woody (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Woody (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Done and added a link to a non-subscription version of the image as well as a reference for the photographer. Woody (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest I just did it from memory though I've added a link to a source for reference now. Woody (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent question. I've asked the author of the image. In terms of the captions I have given them a spruce where appropriate. I think they are all consistent now. Thanks for the reviews. Woody (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [5].

Mike Jackson[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have a whisky-drinking, cigar-smoking outspoken general! If this passes, I believe it will be only the second FA on a British general and the first on a British Chief of the General Staff. To a limited extent, I've followed parts of Hastings Ismay, 1st Baron Ismay (the only current FA on a British general). I've had a GAN, a PR and a recently closed MilHist A-class review, all of which have gone well, so I'm bringing it here. Obviously, I wouldn't nominate it if I didn't think it met the criteria, but this is my first FAC so, while I'm looking forward to feedback, please be gentle! Thanks in advance to reviewers for their time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is very well-written, with good prose. There does need to be a bit of clarification regarding his second wife. The article says "Amanda is the mother of four", but it doesn't say whether the children are all by Mike Jackson.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Amanda is his daughter, so her four children are Jackson's grandchildren. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please forgive me, I misread it. I thought Amanda was his wife-sorry about that. It's an informative article about an interesting person that merits FA status. I especially like how you described his harrowing experienes in the aftermath of the Warrenpoint attacks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Source review

Sources are of good quality, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Here's a link to the A-class review.

Comments I am very impressed. It is hard to source articles about modern officers. I have some comments to let you know I did read it:

Thanks for your support, Nikki. For the record, you reviewed the article at its peer review a month ago. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:08, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [6].

Cyclone Waka[edit]

Nominator(s): Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating Cyclone Waka after previously failed FAC attempt. There were no outstanding comments from the previous nomination to address so no changes have been made. As always, all thoughts and comments are welcome and encouraged. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought alt text is no longer part of the FA criteria? Juliancolton (talk) 10:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA Criteria page doesn't mention alt text: "Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly." Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely alt text ought to be part of the criteria. Rjwilmsi 10:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That discussion belongs at WT:FAC or WT:WIAFA; for the moment it's not part of the criteria, so the nominator is not required to add it in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I ask this is because the caption for the second track map is far from satisfactory. Why is it in there? If it is just to show how close the storm got to a particular island, then say so. If it is just to describe how it meandered between islands, that can be done via alt text. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are unproblematic, although you might consider briefly indicating in the caption what the colours refer to in the storm paths. Also, can you give the names of the images on this site, to make them easier to find? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment. In the General references, I don't think that the Tonga Ministry of Agriculture can properly be described as the report's "author". As te government agency responsible for the report it is effectively the publisher, rather than "Government Printer". If you were to delete the author field and make the ministry the publisher, this would be consistent with the other two general references. Brianboulton (talk) 15:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a number of URLs for the NZ Herald stories, so added them in. There was also one archive link that I moved to |archiveurl=, and gave the original |url= as that's the standard way to do it. I couldn't find the BBC story on their website, maybe they deleted it or the title is not exact; I wonder whether it should be |work=BBC News rather than |publisher=BBC? Rjwilmsi 10:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool, thanks a lot for finding those links Rj; I got all of the non-url information through LexisNexis which doesn't provide stable urls. I've also changed the publisher to BBC news for that one ref. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TC Sustainability.Jason Rees (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review Sasata, I believe I've gotten to the remaining comments (Thanks JR for helping me out with them). Cyclonebiskit (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [7].

Egyptian temple[edit]

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Egyptian temples were houses for gods, models of the cosmos, hugely important employers and landholders, storage spaces for the knowledge of Egyptian society, and centers of worship for people who were forbidden to enter their most sacred areas. Now they are world-famous tourist attractions. But we didn't have an article on them, as a group, until January. To write this, I looked at every English-language source I could find on the subject from the past 50 years, and I believe I have covered the varied aspects of the topic thoroughly and with reasonable clarity. The article has also been peer reviewed by User:The Land. A. Parrot (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments All the sources look first-class. Minor matters:-

I'll format it however you want, but I'm not sure what proper formatting is for a website. A. Parrot (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I included the section title and arranged the other elements based on the "cite web" template (which I used in fuller form in "Works cited"). A. Parrot (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The studies that I have cited from that text were originally written in English. A. Parrot (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No other issus, though no spotchecking carried out since I don't possess these texts. Brianboulton (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I find this article extraordinarily impressive. The prose is fine, the proportions judicious and the referencing formidable. I think the nominator is to be congratulated. I have quite a few books about ancient Egypt on my shelves, but this article is as impressive as any of them. I make no comment on the images, a subject on which I am far from expert, but all other FA criteria seem to me to be met in spades. (In passing, if you want a convenient way of formatting web references, as mentioned above, you can use WP:cite web. I find it a bit inflexible, but it does its job.) Tim riley (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

That verges on subject-specific common knowledge, but I added a ref anyway. A. Parrot (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what sources the creator used, but the reconstruction matches the plan in Wilkinson (2000). A. Parrot (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was also looking at the references, and I was very impressed at the number of sources from university presses, exactly what would be required here. I did have a couple of questions about some of the sources, though, mainly the ones that I didn't recognise:

It's Brill Publishers under a slightly different name. Bleeker was an Egyptologist and for many years the editor of Numen.
I'd have thought other sources could be used, too, but I couldn't find anybody who said what I though everybody knew! I can only assume that it draws its economic information from other branches of the Egyptian government. The "information service" of a dictatorial government is not the best source for everything, but I see no reason for deception in this case. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is written to interest the public, but Fagan notes in the preface that on its first publication (in 1975) it was the only book to survey the subject, and that his Egyptological colleagues have called it a "venerable classic" of Egyptology. The version I cite was updated (for accuracy and more thorough coverage) in 2004. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They may well be the same company; that's how the publisher name was listed in the Library of Congress. (I forgot to note some of the publication details for some of these books before they went back to the library, so I looked up those details on the LOC website.) The book, though, is a real academic tome, and Kemp is as respected an Egyptologist as any of the others I cited. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it is the publisher (Library of Congress again). It's definitely an academic publication, and Janssen and Goedicke are Egyptologists (except for Fagan and the SIS, I didn't cite anyone who isn't).
It is Shire Books, listed slightly differently. Their Egyptological books aren't nearly as thorough as Thames & Hudson's, but the advantage of a brief book is that it often puts basic information conveniently in one place. That's what I used it for. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the publisher, but trust me, it's the kind of academic book that's so dry, you almost choke on the dust. It examines all the Egyptian words used to refer to a temple or a part of a temple in exhaustive detail. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are the same. KMT has only been around for twenty years, but its writers are all qualified Egyptologists, and I've seen other Egyptological works refer to their articles. I think they're trying to be a middle ground between more popular magazines and the stuffy inaccessibility of traditional scholarly journals. A. Parrot (talk) 06:19, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with using reliable non-academic publications (a broad range of sources is good), but given that there is such an impressive list of academic publications here, I wanted to be certain that the other publications are to the same standards. The article overall is well-written, and I do like the way you round off and end the article. Brings it to a definite conclusion. I will try and read through it again at some point, and add further comments. Carcharoth (talk) 03:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answers on those sources. I'm triply-impressed now by the sources used, particularly the point you make about nearly all of the authors being Egyptologists. The Duckworth book was probably produced under their 'Duckworth Academic' imprint. Shire Books, if they are the booklets I'm thinking about, I'm still a little bit wary of. Is Snape an Egyptologist, the one at Liverpool? Yes he is. OK, no concerns left here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a very interesting article to read, only some minor prose quibbles.

Support The article is comprehensive, well structured and as far as i can tell factually accurate. As sources and images have already been checked, i support that fine article for FA. GermanJoe (talk) 11:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "...the Egyptians performed a variety of rituals believed to have real effects through the principles of Egyptian magic." - "magic" is a tad pejorative here.
  • "In Egyptian creation myths, the first temple originated as a shelter for a god, which stood on the mound of land where the process of creation began. Each temple in Egypt, therefore, was equated with this original temple and with the site of creation itself. As the primordial home of the god and the mythological location of the city's founding, the temple was seen as the hub of the region, from which the city's patron god ruled over it.[13" - a bit confusing as to number here. Is there just one first temple and god, & if so which god? Or several of each? If the latter, an "each" near the start would help
  • "most non-ceremonial buildings in temple complexes remained brick-built throughout Egyptian history..." rather conflicts with "Many temples were now built entirely of stone,...." higher up. What about roofs and floors?
  • "The blocks were usually large and irregularly shaped.[69][Note 5] They were usually laid without mortar; each stone was dressed to fit with its neighbors... Once the temple structure was complete, the rough sides of the stones were dressed to create a smooth surface, then decorated with reliefs and paint.[65]" Needs clarifying. The stones used in building don't seem very "irregularly shaped" (unlike say Inca ones). Do you need to distinguish more clearly between large blocks coming from the quarry and smaller shaped ones put into place in a wall? If the stones were only dressed after placing, then the sides will obviously be rougher, and without mortar, gaps visible, which I don't think is typical. No doubt the visible faces (not "sides") of stones were more finely dressed, before or after placing in position. Was there not a plastering stage before paint was applied? Were negative (sunken) reliefs always painted, and all over? The picture here suggests not. Were most surfaces painted? Do you need to distinguish between interior and exterior surfaces?
  • "living rock" - a common phrase I know, but liable to puzzle many; "solid" would do. Were these always built into a cliff or hill, or were some underground structures on flattish land? "enclosed their inner areas within caverns rather than buildings" - slightly awkward - "used excavated chambers rather than buildings for their inner spaces" or something.
  • Barque (a three-masted vessel) is not the link you want I think, & in this context just a fancy word for boat, no? I see there is a section on Egyptian barques - the link should go there.
  • "The shadowy halls, whose columns were often shaped to imitate plants such as lotus or papyrus,..." - the capitals, not the columns, surely? The column shafts may represent the stalk of the plant, but are not exactly "shaped" to reflect this.
  • "In late temples these walls frequently had alternating convex and concave panels,..." a picture would help here. "panels" is probably not the right word. Did the whole height of the wall go in or out at the same time? What scale were these undulations on, inches or yards?
  • "The temple building was elaborately decorated with reliefs and free-standing sculpture ..." and "and in late temples, walls, ceilings, columns, and beams were all decorated,.." it would be helpful to specify the usual focal locations of decoration, and mention paintings. I don't think the whole complex was decorated. The whole "decoration" section could be expanded somewhat. If it were me doing it, I'd add some one line mini-galleries to the most visual sections, but I always say that.
  • There are references to the priesthood being "professionalized" but this is not really explained. Does it mean they became full-time career priests?
  • Does Abu Simbel temples have a link? A second one in the last section could be added anyway. Generally there aren't many mentions of and links to articles on individual temples that we have as examples of features. Luxor Temple is mentioned at points but I can't see a link. Part of the function of an article like this is as a gateway to individual articles, although sadly very few approach this quality at the moment.
I'm copying these comments to the talk page and replying to them there. A. Parrot (talk) 23:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm getting concerned about the linking - the 3rd line (whatever the term used) should link to heka, and our pretty good article on Ancient Egyptian religion doesn't appear to be linked at all, nor our very bad one on Art of Ancient Egypt, or Amarna art (I will have to improve those two). Please look at relevant categories & go right through seeing the article if links should be added. We have 26 articles, plus over 20 in subcats, in Category:Egyptian temples, but despite the request above, not many are linked. I can't believe the others don't provide more useful examples of things mentioned.
  • Further to the first set of points, & the responses on the talk pages, I've looked at the Grove Dictionary of Art online, which answers many questions the existing sources apparently didn't, and has many additional points that might well be mentioned - for example how the foundations & build quality were often pretty poor. If you have access I would urge a reading of this very concise source. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: To add some of the information to the article that Johnbod requested, I added another source: Egyptian Painting and Relief by Gay Robins, who is also an Egyptologist. A. Parrot (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Though I think there is still more scope for links. The Land (talk) 09:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [8].

Fiji Parrotfinch[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A beautiful little bird and a Fiji endemic. I thought it deserved more that the previous stub, so I've been working it up. As with many of Fij's birds, there's not a lot of data, but all that seemed relevant is here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Fixed two missed p/pp spaces, added p for swinnerton pdf, location for Clements, thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The qfs is only to confirm what is implied by the other source, that it's sometimes kept in captivity. I think it's OK for that simple fact. Thanks for review Jimfbleak - talk to me?
  • All the red birds (lorikeet too) seem to often be called kula or kulakula but I've added qiqikula. I'll see if I can source the spelling change, but I'm not sure where to start. Thanks for comments and image Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments — Hi Jim, did you know about these sources? Normally I wouldn't worry about foreign language journals, but there's not a lot written about this species, and we want to make sure the article is comprehensive. Sasata (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that, I certainly wasn't aware of all these, I'll see what I can track down. Before I put too much effort into it, do you think that Gefiederte Welt is acceptable as RS? There are lots of breeders' web pages I haven't used, and I'm not sure if this publication is OK as a source. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the Birds wikiproject could answer that more definitively, but the fact that its abstracted by the Zoological Record is certainly a mark in its favour. Sasata (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Ucucha for a link to the Notornis article (I've incorporated material now) and Maias for an Emu article, also used. Still no comments on notability of Gefiederte Welt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sasata, I'm not having much joy with these, apart from the one Ucucha found. The 1837 monograph had a few cites, but the only one that is relevant I've already used (Diamond). I've contacted the breeders' magazine Gefiederte Welt (Feathered World) but no reply. For most of the rest, the top Google search is this page! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are reefs. What's the best way to caption? Just to put the blue lines are reefs seems a bit odd. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added details to the image description on commons and a first attempt at an infobox caption. "resident year-round" should probably be sized at 90%, but I can not find the html 4 mark-up code at the present time. There is plenty of room in the sea for the full name of the islands, and the map would probably look better if there was an arrow to the Mam islands from the name written in full, so that the explanatory caption is not needed. Snowman (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for description change, I've recaptioned the map now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw your changes on Commons. I meant enough room in the sea under Kadavu island for the the words "Mamanluca group" with an arrow to the islands. Snowman (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but I thought it was neater to just add the name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is no longer an FAC criterion, but I've added anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:25, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for doing that. As I understand it, Alt text for images is part of the style guidelines (last bullet at MOS:IMAGES), and those guidelines are part of the FA criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent article. Here are my comments:

  • done
  • Actually, it looks like you adjusted something in the first paragraph, not the second. I was referring to the sentence starting, "Parrotfinches may be predated..." – VisionHolder « talk » 14:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't count to two, duh. Restored para 1 and split first sentence of PARA 2 now (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • done
  • done
  • Done
  • linked through to ear (botany) Need to keep the word to make it clear that seeds are taken from the plant, rather than harvested grain
  • probably not (except Guinea), lc now
  • In a lot of discussions at WikiProject Animals etc., people have opined that one case should be used, though I'm not sure there's any agreement, and the names here look like they're all birds or plants(and the plant names look like they all could be generic ones). —innotata 20:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looking good. I'm eager to add my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:03, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 17:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Kadavu map error is due to my misreading, now corrected. Watling describes the presence on Mamanuca and Yasawa as "somewhat curious", if he doesn't know why they are there, I surely don't. I suppose it's the usual thing, that even if birds reach small islands they can easily die out through lack of or loss of habitat, predation by rats, or cyclone damage (The Red-headed Parrotfinch, on Samoa, was badly affected by cyclones). As to habitat, it's not a specialist like Pink-billed Parrotfinch, it was easy in hotel gardens (OR). As long as there are some decent trees, it can breed, and it's diet enables it to use open habitats for feeding Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the caption since it's obvious what we are seeing, and moved its text and ref to "Status" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review and comments, the article contains everything RS I could find Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably, I've added because of their liking for the croton bush
  • removed
  • changed
  • done
  • now The pair fly on a strongly oscillating path with one bird ascending while the other is descending, both calling constantly
  • thanks again, I was thinking of doing the other Fijian parrotfinch next, since Polynesian birds are poorly represnted on Wikipedia, but perhaps I should find something with more meat Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to support above: looks like there are no major issues that would stop this from being promoted, and the minor ones I can find resolved. —innotata 18:55, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many thanks for review and support

Lead is balanced. Every section of the article is summarized by the lead, and every sentence in the lead is supported by a sentence in the article.

  • Split, moved to after "breeding" sentence, now It readily forms small flocks of up to six birds after the breeding season. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • added "normally"
  • done
  • now "feeds on"

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • That's tricky, Peale and Hartlaub both named it as a distinct species from the date of their descriptions, but as with other closely related forms, you pay your money and take your choice. Of the two main sources, Watling splits and Clements lumps, so it's not resolved now. There's a general trend towards splitting, but short of listing splitters and lumpers, it's difficult to give more clarity. I've added "again" to the last sentence of the taxonomy section to reflect that they were initially described as full species, but the "usually" and "frequently" reflect the fashion element in this - the Victorians split everything, earlier this century, there was more consolidation, and now better knowledge and DNA are fueling resplitting

Ucucha 13:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why indeed, since this mammal has single-handedly wiped out several species, and predates ground feeding birds. added and switched link to speciesJimfbleak - talk to me? 16:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments Only minor nitpicks: Sasata (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • tweaked to remove ambiguity
  • done
  • removed unneeded second "ready"
  • done
  • eek - done now
  • think I've found and removed them all
  • never occurred to me, I've always given months for monthlies and not otherwise, all gone now
  • Done, except that I've left the legislation capped, which is normal practice, and I think that "Vogel" is OK because it's translating Peale's Birds of..., and being German should probably be capped anyway
  • done
  • Yes, I seemed to have put his name and address instead of his company and its offices

Images

Images themselves are unproblematic. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not totally sure what you are getting at here, but, as far as I can see, the only bit of the caption that isn't supported by the text in "Distribution and habitat" and "Behaviour" (para 2) is the fact that gardens can specifically include hotel gardens, so I've removed "hotel" (I accept that the fact I regularly saw them in that garden is OR) Let me know if I've misunderstood, and thanks for image check, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the article text supports that the bird has adapted to man-made habitats and is found in gardens, but the caption specifically attributes its successful adaptation to the use of carpet grass for lawns (or at least that's how I read it). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you now, I've changed "enabled" to "helped" in the caption, so that it's not implying a single cause. I think that reflects the article text. Depending how you read the source it may well be the main reason for gardens, but that's not explicit, and it's obviously not true for agricultural land Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [9].

CSI effect[edit]

Nominator(s): Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first FAC was very productive, but the eventual consensus was that the article would benefit from an independent prose review. Casliber and Ruhrfisch both helped to tighten up the prose; Llywrch looked the article over as well. I like bagels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - one image, PD, no problems that I can see. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review, mostly for formatting at the moment.

In general, reference formatting could use a bit of tidying for consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sellwood pages specified. Toobin titled. Name order consistent-ified. Pineda-Volk cleaned up. Multi-author format consistent-ified. Accessdates added. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems, from the way the article is written, that the CSI effect refers to an effect to Americans. The following quotes may exhibit this:

Therefore, I think it should be made clear right from the lead that this is an American effect.

While it is certainly true that most of the literature is written by/about/for Americans (unsurprising since CSI is an American franchise), it is also true that the effect is felt in other countries. Australia, the UK, Germany, Switzerland, and Canada are all mentioned in the article; to state that this is an exclusively an American effect would therefore be incorrect. I suppose that it would be appropriate to insert a statement along the lines of "While the CSI effect is discussed primarily in the context of the United States, it has also affected several other countries, including blah, blah, blah, and blah." Do you (and anyone else who is interested) think this would help? If so, where do you think would be a good spot for it in the lead? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It should therefore be made clear, on a more local basis, that it is the US discussed. For example, in the sentence "Real murder cases often involve a perpetrator and a victim who are both young black males, a situation which is rarely portrayed on television." really ought to have "in the case of the US" somewhere, because I expect that in Switzerland, or some other non-US country, real murder cases don't often involve two young black males. Randomblue (talk) 04:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem that often arises is that the original source doesn't explicitly state what area(s) a given fact pertains to. Consider the example you've highlighted, which comes from this source. Should we limit the statement's relevance to those cities in which Zahn has visited crime scenes? Or can we generalize it to the entire United States? Or perhaps we should avoid making it area-specific at all by changing "young black male" to "young minority"? Can we do any of these things without committing WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH? It's a tricky situation, and one which I would want to get more input on before committing to a plan of action. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor point:

Comments – Only a handful of nit-picks to report...

Dashed, comma'd, decapitalized, de-essed, and... I can't think of a snappy verb that means "removed two letters", but I did that too. Thanks for the feedback! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did an informal review and light copyedit on this per Cryptic C62's request, and have re-read it just now. I find it meets the FA criteria and am happy to support. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - there is one image in the article and it is freely licensed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 02:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with your idea of including Brickell's bad lawyer excuse and Stephens's proposed remedies. I hadn't come across these articles in my own research, but I'll be sure to look through them tonight. Unless I'm mistaken, the other ideas you mention are already incorporated in the article. Expert testimony is mentioned in the second paragraph of Trials and the Perry Mason syndrome is linked at the end of Background. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some material from Stephens into Academia and material from Brickell into Trials. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which first aired in 2000, and was in its 11th season in 2010–2011." Nitpicky, but at the moment this season is ongoing, so this should probably read "is"
Changed to "and entered its 11th season in 2010."
  • "Tammy Klein, the lead investigator on the case, said that the killings she investigates are committed by people "who for the most part are pretty stupid." The lead investigator on what case?
Clarified: the McKinney case, which was covered in the previous paragraph. At one point that discussion and this sentence were adjacent, but some extra material was evidently inserted somewhere along the way.
Thanks for the feedback! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:42, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 02:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [10].

True at First Light[edit]

Nominator(s): Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In 1953 Ernest Hemingway went on safari to Africa where, in January 1954, he was in two plane crashes in two days. He went home to write about the trip, but left the manuscript unfinished. In the 1990s, his son Patrick Hemingway edited the manuscript and it was published in 1999 to a literary controversy about rewriting an author's unfinished work. This is another in my quest to bring Hemingway related pages to FA standards. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Sources seem high-quality and reliable, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nikkimaria:
  • Added Burwell to end of para
  • Fixed spelling for Gadjusek
  • Don't know what ISO is ?? Yes I do. Fixed.
  • del Gizzo now used; Oliver gone
  • del Gizzo, Jenks, Lynn, Maryles, Steinberg are in html format and don't have page ranges. Will dig around to see what I can find. I've removed page numbers from the other journals for consistency.
  • Lynn punctuation fixed.
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! One small remaining issue: "del Gizzo" or "delGizzo"? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
del Gizzo - missing space added. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I don't know anything about the subject matter and little about the author, so my comments are on the prose (which is generally very good): Sasata (talk) 19:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sasata for the keen eyes.
  • I've read and re-read the section about the passing airliner and have rewritten the sentence many times. Apparently that is what happened - perhaps it was flying low? The biographers all say that the airliner saw no survivors and sent the news that Hemingway had died. Very strange, I think.
  • In a few places I have four dot ellipsis to indicate I've skipped a period to the next sentence.
  • The sentence about Africa should be 'future' though 'furore' is what apparently he saw coming in the future.
  • I've added clarification about the shotgun but am considering a full note for clarification
  • Everything else, I've fixed
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to read and review, and for the support! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:53, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the image review. I'd forgotten the JFK Library updated its website and all the links have been changed; I've added the new link to File:Ernest Hemingway Kenya safari 1954.png.
  • Regarding infoboxes: generally I agree with WP:DISINFOBOX and tend not to use them, as they are not required. In the case of this book the information is convoluted: the manuscript written by Ernest Hemingway in the 1950s but not published until 1999; the book rewritten by his son; the same manuscript used to publish a second book a few years later. Furthermore, the page looks cleaner without the infobox; when it was added the box spilled down into the 'Background' section and caused text squeeze with the image. Other Hemingway book articles have them, but only because I added them, and added them incorrectly as a series, which the books are not. I suspect as I work through these pages, I may be deleting some of them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, the JFK Library attributes copyright when known - see this image from the African safari by Theisen for Look magazine here. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch. This looks pretty good and I am leaning towards support, but found some mostly nit-picky issues that I would like to see addressed first, which I list below.

Looks good, and hope my suggestions help. Thanks for an interesting read, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the good review. Will have to research the dates of the Look magazine article, or what happened with that. It's a very good question. Btw - Theisen was the Look photographer, and I've changed to make that clear. The book itself is set during a vaguely four weekish period (it's all very vague) while they were in Kenya. I think most of the safari was in Kenya, which me makes wonder if the mention of Tanganyika needs to be changed. I had deleted the quote about Under Kilimanjaro, wanting to focus on this book and thinking I'd use it in the Under Kilimanjaro page, but have re-added. Prefer not to mention Tanganyika > Tanzania as it's not in the source. The buffalo image needs research - we have some on here that are Theisen images and under copyright - apparently not the one of Ernest and Mary, though. Would very much appreciate having the duplicate removed. Also thanks so much for finding the image of the boys. I'll upload that one and add someplace. Will be back with the Look info. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Buffalo image okay and added; boys' image questionable and not added, but used the one we have (though I haven't cropped it). Clarified Tanganyika > Tanzania (sorry, was confused at the first read through); added Look mag info. I think I've done everything - all good suggestions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are very welcome, thanks for the quick changes. I have switched to support and struck the points addressed. There are two minor points left, but do not detract from my support (and both are your call). Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replied re those points. Thanks for reading and for the support. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's some repetition in the second paragraph of the lead that sort of bored me: "writer... writing.... writer... writing".
  • Any reason why the dates are in European format, with the day before the month? Just curious, as Hemingway's bio uses American date formatting.
  • A couple of the sections, mainly "Genre and themes" and "Reception and publication controversy", are rather stuffed. From personal experience, shorter sections are less intimidating and easier to read. Maybe subsections would help cut down on the visual strain/scariness?

I'm supporting either way, so I don't feel these points are too necessary in order for the article to pass. Really, I had to stretch to find constructive things to say! Great work. (Wow, it's been a while since I've reviewed an FAC. Anyone have an oil can? I feel kind of rusty.) María (habla conmigo) 13:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the suggestions. I've tried to weed out repetition from the lead. The "Genre and themes" has been split to "Genre" and "Theme" and the same for "Reception and controversy" - and in my view a very good change. I don't know why the dates were like that - probably formatted for consistency or something, but according to WP:STRONGNAT, they should be month/day/year, so I've changed them. Thanks for taking the time to read and for the support, and welcome back to reviewing! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [11].

Agaricus deserticola[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agaricus deserticola is a mushroom related to the common button mushroom, but adapted for growth in dry habitats. As usual, I've exhausted my sources and have tweaked the prose and formatting to the best of my ability. Looking forward to your comments. Sasata (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Added. Forgot to re-ref when I split paragraphs. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to CAB International, it's linked in a prior ref. Sasata (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts-

  • Shifted lead paragraphs so the more lay-friendly stuff is at the front. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a standard phrase in taxonomy, but I catch your drift. Removed by rewording. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought it was obvious from the context ("The apex of the stem extends into the gleba to form a columella"), but I've now italicized columella in the "word as word" spirit ... is that sufficient? Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adjectival, sure—done. 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Generally great, no real qualms. Very nicely written, curious species. The desert adaptations section was interesting- it felt like science lessons at school :P J Milburn (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, JM. Sasata (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • in dry, semi-arid habitats. — "dry" is redundant, can't be wet semi-arid
  • changed comma to "or" (dry is a general term, semi-arid has a specific meaning, and is used in the sources, so I'd like to keep both). Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other similar mushrooms with which A. deserticola might be confused — "similar" is redundant, can't be confused with dissimilar
  • Why does texense become texensis?
  • I think it has to do with declension of masculine/feminine/neuter words in Latin, because the specific epithet has to agree with the genus name, but sources don't say specifically. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • apical is unlinked and unexplained
  • iodine — I'd link this
  • Agaricus deserticola has a positive Schaeffer's reaction — I think it would read better if the first sentence of the paragraph was moved to end
  • puffball — no link or explanation
  • after a rain — sounds odd, perhaps "after rain" or "after rainfall"?
  • Changed to the latter. Thanks Jim. Sasata (talk) 16:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Another well-written article on a fungus. Good job! Out of curiosity, have you considered writing an article on the anatomy of mushrooms? I know there's a lot of variation, but given how many technical terms there are for each part, it might be nice to have a general article that fully illustrates each trait. Anyway, just an unrelated thought... – VisionHolder « talk » 04:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks VH. Glossary of mycology terms is article cooking on the backburner, but I have no idea how long it will take for it to see the light of day :) Sasata (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • I had noticed, but thought the striking statuesque appearance of the fruit bodies against the deep blue sky and tiny houses in the distance was compelling. This is a possible replacement, but the cigarette butt is ugly and distracting. I suppose I could move the current pics around so that the second image in the Description section is the lead... but is the lead pic really so bad? Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it's certainly bad enough that I would make a point of bringing it up! :P I'm not going to push the issue since I may be alone here, but I trust that you'll change the image if anyone else seems to think it looks weird. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now mentioned the edibility in the lead (and split into three paragraphs). Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Good idea, I've cited both of those now. Removed the part about them not being in IF or MycoBank. Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agaricus decipiens was used previously (1788), and later sanctioned by Persoon, so is unavailable. Agaricus strobilaceus Cooke was used in 1891 (now is Amanita strobilacea (Cooke) McAlpine). Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, that's odd, it works for me. Could you try again? Sasata (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 13:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [18].

John A. Macdonald[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. John A. Macdonald. First Prime Minister of Canada and PM for almost nineteen years. Yet a very flawed character; he was notorious for his drinking spells (though if I knew what brand of whisky he drank, I'd send some to Stephen Harper) and very much joined in the bribery of the day, falling for five years from office over the Pacific Scandal. I've been working on this article, on and off, for six months and it's had a peer review. Enjoy. I am traveling so responses may be slow. Wehwalt (talk) 07:07, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • Pope 1894 is now in Bibliography, but you're citing Pope 1921. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:16, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting on ref 111, 141 is now all italicized
Those things are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thanks, I'll work on these probably later today. Somebody added a lot of books some time ago and I didn't have the heart to cull them. I guess I'll have to now. Regarding the signature, I will look at it and possibly consult with Connormah who was kind enough to upload it, and check how I did it in my other Canadian bios, Diefenbaker and Howe. The reason there are two Gwyn, p. 8 is that I am emphasising that the information in the note is cited, and saying where it is cited to. If I hadn't put the second Gwyn p. 8 in there, I think a reviewer might have raised a question. Thanks for the work.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have caught everything except as noted either previously or here. I'm not certain what inconsistency you see with footnote 138, please advise. No doubt I am staring right at it. I did cut back considerably on further reading and external links. I have added an additional tag to the John A. signature, and have asked Connormah, who uploaded it, to weigh in. Keep in mind that it is undoubtedly PD, we're just discussing how we get there from here. No doubt I screwed up one or two attempts at being consistent, or overlooked something, apologies in advance for same. Many thanks for the good work you've done here.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Macdonald's signature is undoubtedly PD-Old or PD-US-1923 (is that it?), as he died in 1891. I'll look. Connormah (talk) 21:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CrowzRSA
See the response to me above about your first Gwyn question, and years are included for authors who've written more than one source on the reference list (so years are needed for disambiguation). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not a quote. It is an explanatory note, which as it coincides with a citation, I felt better to include with the citation. I'll look at the periods issue, but probably won't get to it tonight. No problem straightening it out, just need to do a run through it and then check with eyes close to the screen! Glad to get all these comments so quick.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Every ref, to the limits of my aging eyes, now ends with a period. I think I'm caught up to date, unless there is still some question about the signature or ref 138, if so, please let me know.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic ref is 140 as of this revision, and it still has a formatting issue. Also, take a look at that block of web citations in general - half of them have a comma after the title, half a period. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fixed now. The only remaining comma is in 139, but I don't know what to do about that one as it is the product of a template. I would prefer not to change all other web- based refs to commas.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the template used for 139 - it probably should have been a period in the template anyway. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 19:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then I think I'm up to date on this one. I think the reviewers for their hard work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have so far only read part of this absorbing article and will complete it over the next day or two. Meanwhile I have some (mainly) prose issues from the early sections:-

More soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments. I will work on these tomorrow sometime, and await your further comments with interest. All of your concerns are quite valid, and I will implement them. Yes, articling has given me some grief over the years ... Ironically, my home state has that as an option, though we call it "reading law". Few states do anymore.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, those are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And here are the rest:-

He had. He unretired.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. It allowed both major parties to claim that their concerns were being put first.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My query wasn't on the accuracy of the description but on its origin. Did a source describe the phrase as "conveniently elastic", or is it your own description. I am not pressing this, however. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this should read "and on 22 May" unless what you have is standard North American usage. On that matter, I noticed some British spellings, e.g. "favour". What is the chosen language form? Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. you are right, it is a typo. Canada uses most British spellings but many US usages, I do the best I can and hope that Canadian editors will catch my mistakes.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
$1.5 million, but the HBC got to retain one-twentieth of the best farmland and its best trading post. A good deal for both sides.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not mention the money? It is of interest. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Happy to support when these are cleared. Brianboulton (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll switch back and forth to work on these, except as noted above. I'll add a bit on the deal with the HBC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I have left a few queries, above, but they are not a basis for withholding support. This is a first-class article in every respect, and it filled in various gaps in my sketchy knowledge about how the Canadian nation was formed. A must for TFA next Canada Day. Brianboulton (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had put in a mention the money, though I did it a little earlier in the article, and will take care of the other matters later on today. The "conveniently elastic" is a paraphrase from the source, I will go to a direct quotation.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Any comments I had were ably addressed during the peer review stage. The excellent suggestions here have made the article even better. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've answered all of Nikimaria's concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. I got down to Colonial leader, 1857–1864. - Dank (push to talk)

The first involves things that happened to Macdonald in the early days of his career, and leads to the conclusion of one of his biographers that they raised him in the public eye, which foreshadows his political career. The second is necessary political background which the reader needs to understand the situation when Macdonald entered politics, as well as the terminology. This seems like routine exposition to me. I do not see the problem with Macdonald's oratory. He got ahead by being a parliamentary gnome, rather than giving five hour speeches (although he later gave those!) what's wrong with that? I have restored the causation on the drinking, but attributed it inline.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the attribution helps. I was hoping to spend more time on the prose here, but I'm not going to have time to get through it all. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 11:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your helpful comments and edits.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's good. I know how helpless a feeling that can be.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not specific, but who got to tax and fee what, especially imports, seems to have been the gist of it. If it matters, I'll dig through Creighton and get the lowdown on it.
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike the word "all". Exceptions seem to have been made into the 20th century, actually, as we later see Macdonald was elected for western ridings he had never seen. But they put a stop to the election being a traveling festival, with the voters well bribed and lubricated. More than usual, that is.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why, but I'm not going to argue about it. I'll look at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because nouns are only proper nouns if they're the exact name (or sometimes, one of the exact names) in use. AFAIK, the proper noun is "the Confederation", not "confederation" ... that is, you wouldn't write "Ontario joined Confederation". I don't have an objection to "entered confederation", although it would benefit from a link at first occurrence, since I don't see any hits to the phrase outside Canadian contexts. - Dank (push to talk) 15:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed a couple more to the way you suggest, and I will wait to see what other commenters say, but I'll probably just leave it as is. I think I've gotten your other suggestions. Thanks for your continued work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well Is it better now that I've divided the paragraph in question?
As for Macdonald and delay, he did not care what kind of delay, he just wanted time to pass and memories to soften. It did not work immediately, but obviously did by 1878.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to look at it; I always continue to polish my articles even after FA. Thank you for your hard work under difficult circumstances.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, my pleasure, I enjoy copyediting, and my current plan to keep on copyediting everything that comes to FAC tagged by a history-related wikiproject ... which will probably include all of your articles. So, if it feels like I'm getting up in your grill (as the kids say), please let me know right away. For my part, it's really helpful if editors look at the diffs of my work on their FAs, ask questions if they disagree, and do as much of their own copyediting as they can. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try to copyedit as much as I can myself, but there are limits to what one can do on one's own work. I've got a few coin articles coming down the river next, don't know if you are up for those. Having a regular copyeditor does help writing as naturally the writer avoids pet peeves.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for it. If you want to ping me just before you submit it, and you prefer for me to do my work before FAC, I can do that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to look at Peace dollar (a little cheap advertising on my part, I fear). I'll ping you before submission, which should be within a week.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Support. I did a little copy-editing, but feel free to revert if I've done something wrong.

Response I have the same problem with Safari, but I figure the worst case scenario, there's a map of how Canada was in 1867, so it is no-lose. They can click on it and do the animation. I've spiced up the active voice and made it a bit clearer what was going on. There was no actual smoking gun in terms of spelling out a quid pro quo, but if the charter wasn't going to be given to them, they wouldn't be giving in this way. I have changed it to "hanged". As for US vs. U.S. I am not myself Canadian, but several Canadians have looked at this, as well as other articles on Canada that I've done with US, and no one has said anything (C. D. Howe for example). I think that's everything, if you're happy with the Pacific Scandal stuff.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Changed to support. Good luck! --Coemgenus 00:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we have four supports. I think the sources and images have been looked at. If someone has further concerns with the article, I will gladly look at them.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [19].

Flowing Hair dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. Though the article is short, I believe that it accurately and thoroughly details the Flowing Hair dollar. A coin minted for only two years, it was the first dollar coin produced officially by the United States. The press used to strike the coins was intended to strike nothing larger than a half dollar, yet the fledgling United States Mint produced what it could. Production was not without its controversies, however, as a silver standard contrary to the Coinage Act of 1792 was put into practice. Anyone who deposited silver to be coined into dollars was "short changed", literally and figuratively. Thanks in advance to the reviewers of this article! Without your dedication to the process, we would not have what great articles we do.-RHM22 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments - might have more to add later

Thanks! All of those are now fixed. Sorry about the state abbreviations. I was going to do that before (it came up last FAC) but I forgot to.-RHM22 (talk) 19:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the text and the picture of Hamilton between those two headers? Maybe it's not showing up to you for some reason.-RHM22 (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The blank space is between the "Background" body text and the next section, is it just me? Connormah (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see a gap there, but it's caused by a combination of a short preceding paragraph and the "main article" tag. Are you talking about the blank space directly to the left of the "Establishment of the Mint" section?-RHM22 (talk) 04:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The coinage act ref is incorrectly formatted since it's a web reproduction of a real document, not a web only source. I don't think this was published initially by the website, also don't need retrieval date Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Preston has a spam link to a google book page which does not show any relevant text. Google books should be avoided unless out of copyright full text, since access may be restricted geographically or by page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why don't you put the Statesman's manual in bibliography to avoid two separate refs? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments! I fixed the other two things, but I don't really think that the Preston book is a spam link. When I click it, I'm taken to a page that gives the entire text of the book, which is PD. Does it show something else for you?-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The coinage act isn't fixed, it was published by the US govt, not nesara.org. The google book link just goes to a page with links to Amazon and other retailers (I'm not US-based). I don't think that links should be given to except to full text available to all editors. I never link to abstracts or Google books in my own FACs. invitations to buy an article or book are just spam Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I have to disagree on both counts. I understand that there are different ways to cite sources, but I don't believe that mine is wrong. I removed the retrieval date for the Coinage Act, but I don't think it proper to remove the website and leave a bare link. As for the Google Books link, I think it's alright to show the link. In the Wikipedia help article about citing sources, it recommends giving a link to an electronic version of the book, even if it's not completely free to view (Amazon books, for example, which show previews only). I don't understand why you can't see the book, but I really would rather not remove it unless a lot of people have the same complaint.-RHM22 (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RHM22. Google books is a delight and a heartbreak due to international copyrights. However, I do not think we need be so egalitarian as to help no one rather than help some. I'd say, leave it in. Everyone has different ways of doing things where there is no prescription in the MOS, and RHM22's seems fine with me.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That list seems accurate. To my knowledge, a world coin (meaning non-US) only recently broke the million dollar mark for the first time. Since that list only goes to two million dollars, it makes sense that no non-US coins would be on there. Thanks for the suggestion, and it seems like a good idea! I'll look for some reliable information on that and add it in there.-RHM22 (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I added a section about collecting that includes the information about the record-setting sale. That was a good suggestion!-RHM22 (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for adding that. Calathan (talk) 02:05, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, sources look OK. No spotchecking possible due to lack of online sourcs. Brianboulton (talk) 19:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I fixed them, except for two which I wanted to ask a little more about. First, should I make the publisher United States Congress? I don't want to make it a bare link with no author. As for the NY thing, I added that to keep consistent with the bibliography section, in which all the cities have the state listed as well. If it's ok to leave remove NY and still be consistent, that'd be fine with me.-RHM22 (talk) 21:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly bothered with "New York, New York", except that it sounds like a song - and is there any place else in the world called "New York"? Acts of Congress are presumably published by Congress or by a publishing body which acts on its behalf, like in the UK we have Her Majesty's Stationery Office. So give either Congress or the authorized body as the publisher. All else OK, except that the isbn formats are still not consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few other New Yorks. I think there a few in Europe somewhere and I know there's on in Texas, which is known for its famous cities (including Paris). I'll add Congress as the publisher. Here, we have the U.S. Government Printing Office, but I don't know if they printed that particular copy of the Coinage Act. I'll look into the ISBN thing and see what I can fix. Thanks again, and my apologies to Jim for not fixing the publisher earlier. I thought he meant for me to remove the publisher alltogether and leave a plain link, but now I understand that it should be Congress.-RHM22 (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, all have been fixed now except for New York. Sorry about the ISBN thing. I added the correct hyphen to the Yeoman book, but I overlooked Bowers.-RHM22 (talk) 14:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

"Draped Bust" is the correct capitalization. That was a good find!-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that one.-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that's right. I went through the article and fixed all the misused endashes, but I missed that one! Thanks for pointing it out and for the other comments as well.-RHM22 (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Thanks for the image review! I'm not sure why you couldn't see the Mint photo. It showed up as a red X for me, but I was able to see it again after a few minutes. I suppose it is a problem with Commons or something. Anyway, I fixed everything else except for the reale coin. I'm not really sure which PD tag to use. It's a work of the Spanish government, but I didn't see any copyright tags on the list for Spanish works. Could I just use a US copyright tag, since it's in the public domain?-RHM22 (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, some images of Spanish coins on Commons seem to use US tags, so unless anyone has a better idea go ahead. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks!-RHM22 (talk) 20:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I did a lot of editing to this article at an earlier stage, as RHM22 is a colleague in the ongoing (and rapidly moving!) informal project to improve the coverage of numismatics on the wiki. I have no further concerns. --Wehwalt (talk) 15:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with yet more comments[reply]

Thanks for the comments! I've addressed all of them.-RHM22 (talk) 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Support. I've made a few copyedits, but it otherwise reads well.

Thanks for the comments and the copyedit! I've fixed the sentence you metioned.-RHM22 (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I read it again and it looks all good to me. Changed to support. --Coemgenus 21:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Thanks for the copyedits and suggestion! I have worked the conditions under which the coin was struck into the article.-RHM22 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [20].

Cloud (video game)[edit]

Nominator(s): PresN 07:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having gotten Flower (video game) and Flow (video game) through FAC, I now take one more step backwards through the history of Thatgamecompany with the first successful game that Jenova Chen ever made. Cloud is even more indie and obscure that Flow- a short, free student game that never saw a commercial release of any kind; it still managed to get downloaded by over 600,000 people in its first 9 months. As an artsy student game it got little attention from the mainstream review press, but I think I've managed to pull everything together into a sweet little article. It's been copyedited by user:JimmyBlackwing, the images have alt text, the urls have been archived, and it's ready to be torn apart! Thanks for reviewing! --PresN 07:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Source are of good quality overall, spotchecks found no concerning close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added (more specific) page numbers- what's the minimum requirement on that? One's a 9 page pdf, and the other is a 13 page with huge fonts. Can't find scans of the GI article again, and the ones I found originally must not have had them, so I don't have the page numbers. --PresN 17:55, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read.

  • Reworked. --PresN 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Whilst is a bit poncy. Our own article says that it's "a form considered archaic outside the United Kingdom" - and I wrote this in US English.
  • It's only us who use "whilst"? I didn't realise that... J Milburn (talk) 10:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Artistic achievement", apparently. Dunno why they don't just call it that. --PresN 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Didn't have any refs that touched on it more than the quotes in the reception section. Trust me- I've written more on Wikipedia about game music than anyone else; if it was there I would have squeezed it in. --PresN 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to clear that up- master's program, and it wasn't for any specific class; the university just gave them money to develop it. --PresN 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this helps. J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replied inline. --PresN 06:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments moved to the talk page. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made some copy edits here and there. Here are the remaining issues that stood out to me.

  • That's fine. --PresN 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched the order of sentences so that it has more context, and played with the sentence before. --PresN 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded the FURs; shrinking the images will have to wait until later today. --PresN 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game Tunnel is run and edited by a video game industry member, Russell Carroll (Reflexive Entertainment); GameSetWatch and Gamasutra consider both the site and its indie game awards to be notable enough to refer to and sometimes run a column by him. William Usher, the author of this specific piece, is currently an assistant editor at Cinema Blend. --PresN 20:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the article looks pretty good. Short, but good. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:37, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The changes look good. Though I think the image descriptions should be expanded further because the reader may click on the image for more information. The description should be at least as descriptive as a caption; more so really because we're not as restricted on space like in an article. For example, I would write out the text on the back of the box in the file description.
Quick follow up question, is Cinema Blend reliable? Other than that, the article looks good. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Shrank the images down to 400px on the longest side and expanded the descriptions some more. Cinema Blend, per that article, has been cited by The Times and the New York Times, and is syndicated in a few websites/newspapers. --PresN 01:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything is looking good to me. The article is well-written, well-sourced, short but comprehensive, and makes good use of the media. My only question left is why does the lead call Cloud a puzzle game, but the infobox calls it an action game? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Changed; it kind of defies genres, but puzzle is closer than action. Or should I go with Zen? --PresN 16:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: All my concerns have been addressed. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Support. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Leaning support with a few more comments and the caveat that I haven't a clue whether this is comprehensive or not, or what the standards are for video games. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll never understand all the hate for a little personification. Changed to video games industry. --PresN 19:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was changed from 2 to 3 by a reviewer above. They are at least short paragraphs. --PresN 19:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Made up, which I think is clear since they said it was the "first" game in the genre. --PresN 19:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed

Taking a second read. I'd definitely like to support this- sorry if it feels like I'm running you around. I've made a few fixes myself- let me know if you're not happy with them.

  • The second one. Tried to clarify a bit. --PresN 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd lose the word "avatar" altogether; there must be a better way of saying that. J Milburn (talk) 10:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tried to clarify as well. --PresN 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is short, but I think that that is probably appropriate for the subject matter. There doesn't seem to be any glaring ommissions, though I do feel I would like to know a little more about the music. J Milburn (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too, but everyone always asks him about Flower in interviews instead. Thanks for the review! --PresN 18:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - File:Cloudbox.jpg and File:Cloud_screenshot.jpg - seems obvious, but should explicitly say who holds copyright on these images. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --PresN 05:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [21].

White Stork[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was an epic WikiProject Birds collaboration which alot of people (Snowmanradio, Shyamal, MeegsC, Jomfbleak, Focus) helped out along the way (and any are welcome to officially add their name as a co-nominator). I wasn't that interested to start with, but got more interested the more I read...and I got to get some psychology/psychiatry material in it too :) It got an extremely thorough working over at GA (thanks Thompsma!), and I have tidied it up some and done a little buffing since. Anyway, have at it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

According to the file's description: "Base map modified, cropped from File:WorldMap.svg"
According to this obituary, he was still alive in 1943, (when an egg collection was left "in his hands"), so this may need to be removed. MeegsC | Talk 23:54, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any more information on this? If he was alive in 1943, PD-old does not apply. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I suspect some 19th century old book will have an illustration somewhere. It doesn't add a huge amount to the article anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's public domain in the United States (see ((PD-US-1923-abroad))), so it can be on Wikipedia, but not on Commons, where I've nominated it for deletion. It appears to be the only image of a white stork egg we have, but doesn't add much as Casliber pointed out, and similar ones should be very easy to find. —innotata 18:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—Currently working with the nominator to make the source formatting is consistent. Will report back here when finished. Sasata (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think we've covered everything but for a couple of page numbers from books that I wasn't the one who added. I'll chase them to see what I can do. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made an additional number of minor tweaks, and am now satisfied with the source formatting. I think the sources are appropriately scholarly and reliable. Sasata (talk) 03:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments moved to to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs: effort to link to PDFs impressive. I went through and added some missing DOIs, an ISBN; it would be good to double check that there are none still missing. Ref 110 (W Post) needs an accessdate? All PDF links probably need |format=PDF for consistency, not all do at the moment. Maybe add OCLC for refs 119, 123, 128 (usual practice for pre-ISBN books)? Maybe link to wikisource for Jung? ISBNs: mixture of hyphenated and unhyphentated, a little inconsistent - I have a script that can do hyphenation on all of them, if desired. Rjwilmsi 12:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be thankful for hyphenating the isbns, and see waht else to add. I'll be on and off today. wikisource for jung is a good idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead balancing: I do not see any material in the lead that summarizes Parasites and diseases. The lead should mention which animals (if any) prey upon the White Stork. Also, is there a typo or missing word in "(north to Estonia)"? I can't figure out what it's supposed to mean. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

errr, it's pretty well an apex predator I would have thought, but I will see what I can find. Will think of what/how to summarise something from Parasites and diseases section. added more pests to lead Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still have no idea what "breed in the warmer parts of Europe (north to Estonia)" means. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 11:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
dunno, maybe I was just thinking of summer. Can't really call Poland or Estonia a "warmer part of Europe", though Spain is. I have removed it as it is an overgeneralisation and not useful. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I wasn't clear: I don't understand what "north to Estonia" means. Is it a typo of "north of Estonia"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent article on a commonly identified species! Here are my comments:

linked to Anatomical_terms_of_location#Proximal_and_distal. A bit wordy, did muse on linking to wiktionary definition (if there was one) for a more precise link Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added " (principally the draining of wetlands and conversion of meadows to crops such as maize)" after it. Other issues that are more modern are mentioned at the end of the para. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
linked to Global warming Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence has driven me nuts in trying to figure out what to do. It doesn't sit well in either paragraph. I could place it in the description section but if I leave it as a single sentence it looks odd too... Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, when I read the description section the first time, I almost expected to read something about this. So maybe the description section is the best place for it. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Slots in nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, rejigged caption. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new caption reads "A man-made platform in Poland built for stork nesting as a conservation measure". I wrote the original caption after reading the reference on platforms and it seems that the primary motivation for providing storks with platforms is to protect electric power lines and the power supply rather than conservation, so I think that the new caption has the wrong emphasis. The article explains the rationale for building platforms. Is there any evidence for building platforms as a conservation measure? Also, the new caption does not mention the juvenile storks at all, which are well worth mention being the only images of young storks in the article. Most of the article including the captions were carefully considered for the GA review and I think that quick amendments could introduce regressions. Snowman (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources I read detailed how White Storks get electrocuted on power lines, which was another reason for elevating and making nest sites away from them. I realise now that the photo has nice examples of immature plumage in it and is worth mentioning in the caption. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:12, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, an excellent, detailed article. Well done!

Support: Minus that one tweak which I'm sure you'll remedy, I think this article more than merits FA status. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dabs & links: One disambig link ("Chernobyl") that needs to be fixed. Three of the links redirect to different domains and one reports as "timed out", but I opened it just fine. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments - First of all, congratulations on such an easy-to-read nice page. I've really enjoyed reading through it. I have a few comments:

2nd "showed" --> "revealed" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to rejig the two segments in the "Breeding and lifespan" section. I was fascinated by the folklore, but it seems the writer was unaware that this was a real phenomenon. Unfortunately there is no source combining the two. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it might be difficult, but what you've rejigged is much better. The folklore is fascinating - one of the reasons I know of storks. Also, I once lived in an apartment that had a window facing a nest - I think they're wonderful. Anyway thanks - looks good. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done. I think they were split by mistake. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok, done those Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, really well-done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Well-written article. Here's some suggestions: Sasata (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

all linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
all linked. No place to link scapular so will look on wikt or make something. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Nothing on wikt - hmm...Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
aha! took me a while to figure that one out Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--> is required Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can live with the two hyphens in consecutive word pairs...I think it is the simplest way of conveying. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the change. clarified now though a teeny bit repetitive :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
sounds good. these done Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
aah, the stork. clarified now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
split with semicolon and trimmed Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changed to "Storks have little fear of humans if not disturbed" - could make it "If not disturbed, storks have little fear of humans..." if you think that makes it less ambiguous. Hard to make it more unambiguous yet not clunky... Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the next page in the url link. No further information is available, although I added " In the 19th century..." Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added odd 1831 moral education book and URL Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [22].

Broad Ripple Park Carousel[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... It's not a horse OR a bishop! Instead, it's a century old carousel that's been restored. Seriously, after a good bit of research, and lots of copyediting by Malleus, I believe this is as good as I can make it. It's a all in house affair - I've taken the pictures as well as the research and writing here. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure of the image issues, so I'll leave those to a more experienced image reviewer. Everything seems fine, so I've switched to support. Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source were also checked in my initial review. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 20:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Overall, as I said above, the main body of the article is fine, but I think the lead needs quite a bit of polishing and copyediting. I've written more than I thought I would, so I'll move the bulk of this to the talk page after I save it. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note - some more eyes on the discussion on the talk page might help, as there are some points of disagreement. Carcharoth (talk) 03:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your support and your very helpful review. As a general note, I'm always looking for new information on any of my FACs, and generally keep them updated as new information comes forth Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is balanced. It adequately summarizes all of the article's contents. After skimming through the article, I think the most interesting fact is definitely the odd assortment of animals on the carousel—particularly the giraffes. This should be incorporated into the lead. Perhaps the sentence "As restored, the carousel is 42 feet (13 meters) wide and has a total of 42 animals." would be a good home for these critters? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded to "As restored, the carousel is 42 feet (13 meters) wide and has a total of 42 animals, including - besides the usual horses - goats, giraffes, deer, and a lion, and a tiger." which is hopefully better? Ealdgyth - Talk 02:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The uses of the inflation template are cited to the inflation footnote template thingie. ((Inflation-fn)) so they are cited (at the end of the sentence, to avoid breaking up the sentence unneccessarily) Ealdgyth - Talk 20:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay ... I still suggest you read the conversations, a bunch of guys who know something about economics are talking, and they make a compelling case that an inflation measure that applies to bread and milk isn't the one you should use to give a present value of buildings. - Dank (push to talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not giving the present value of the building but an idea of the present-day value of what it cost to buy in 1945, and in this case CPI probably is appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 20:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a Mangel-Illions mechanism? An explanation might make a good note or child article.
  • None of my sources explicitly state what the "mechanism" is. I assume that it's the gearing and motors that move the various animals. Mangels-Illions is the company that made it, I presume. Unfortunately, I can't say that in the article! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bit about the previous ride on the site is unclear to me; the article states that there "are indications", but the note that follows is much less uncertain.
  • Clarified the note to read "If the previous carousel has been correctly identified, it then went to Virginia..." Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under the acquisition section, the article mentions that two horses were missing. Later, the article states that only one horse remained missing and had to be replaced with another animal. When/how was one of the missing horses found?
  • The great missing missing horse mystery. No one is quite sure, except that it was found. If we ever figure it out, it'll be added to the article (the museum is still trying to find a published source that states where it was found, my understanding is that they don't have it in their own internal files... but I could be wrong too... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the first paragraph of Restoration, it's not clear what was restored and rebuilt by 1976 -- the organ alone?
  • When the National Historic Landmarks Program calls the ride's condition "satisfactory", is this on a scale from poor to excellent, or is it a comment alone?
  • I'm not sure, honestly. They don't state it's a scale, but I would hesitate to declare its just a plain comment also. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's about it. I have to say that I rode this carousel constantly in the early 1990s, and it absolutely shocked me to see it appear here in FAC. Thanks for doing the hard work to bring this up to featured status. It was a pleasure to read. JKBrooks85 (talk) 21:16, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the review, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading it. I enjoyed writing it, but I think I'm sticking to bishops and live (or once living) horses for a while after this... I had the strongest desire to start collecting antique Dentzel horses after doing this article, and the dang things cost more than my real horses do! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, you did a great job with it, and the way the museum accommodated you sounds fantastic. One question occurred to me, given the museum's involvement: Are any photographs of the carousel's restoration or installation available? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did ask, and they couldn't find any easily. They are still looking, but they'd have to be donated/etc etc so the paperwork would be somewhat daunting, thus the reason I took pictures myself and have them in here for now. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [23].

Sherman Minton[edit]

Nominator(s): —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With my winter hiatus at an end, I've returned to regular editing and picking up where I left off.

Sherman Minton is an intriguing character who played an interesting role during a turbulent period. The article is extremely well referenced, painstakingly researched, in compliance with all policy and guidelines, and well wrote (having been through several copy edits in its previous GA and FA reviews), and I believe it is now time to give Mr Minton's article the star. I look forward to your comments, and will work diligently to resolve any issue that may be found. :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed it last time and I'll be doing it again. Preliminarily, I will say it looks much better than last time. One question, if the image labeled "Senator Sherman Minton" was taken during the time on the court, as it is sourced to the Supreme Court, how come he is labeled as a Senator in the caption? Please allow several days for a full review, I am hopelessly backed up both with aritcle and review work.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure which one you mean? The one in the lead says "Supreme Court" Minton, and the one in the article "Senator Sherman Minton", both are true to the caption. Maybe you are referring to one I've overlooked though? :) —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 16:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great article! All Supreme Court Justices should be so well-chronicled. That said, I have a few comments:

Brief comment

Source review

  • In general such information is available through an Internet search. However, formatting inconsistencies can usually be addressed without further info - it just involves rearranging/repunctuating what is already present. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but to correct some of the needed differences, such as page range issues, volume, and edition information, one would need to have access to the source directly, otherwise we would be reduced to guessing at the information, which I have already partially done. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I know FA nominators hate to hear these words, but the prose needs work and I recommend a copyedit, preferably by someone reasonably knowledgeable in the law. That being said, it has improved from last times. The article is improved from last time, but reading through I found a large number of prose glitches. I have itemized the ones in the lede, below. Once more work has been done, I will be very happy to go through again, I think the work can be done within the course of this FAC.

Lede
  • Is the comma in the opening sentence really necessary?
  • " He attended Indiana University, Yale and the Sorbonne; he was the most educated justice during his time on the Supreme Court. " I think these ideas are two different to be joined by a semicolon. Suggest reversing, i.e. "The most educated justice during his time on the Supreme Court, Minton was educated ..."
  • "infamous" Since the average reader will not know of that speech, I think you need to say at least briefly why it was infamous or else tone down the word considerably.
  • court packing plans" Surely there is an article or at least a section of Franklin's article that can be linked to?
  • "as a federal judge to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit." This reads oddly. How about "as a judge of the United ..." federal is redundant in my view.
The second sentence of the third paragraph needs splitting, it just tries to do too much.
" regular supporter of the majority opinions". I've never seen that phrasing before and suspect it will sound a false note to other lawyers who read it. How about "regularly joined the Court's majority opinions.
  • " altered the Bench's composition." Really, what you mean is "the Court", "the Bench" refers to the body of all judges, or perhaps all federal judges. As Eisenhower is deemed a moderate conservative, it might be useful to the reader if you noted that his appointees actually made the court more activist (and that's not my POV). A pipe to Warren Court might help. And I'm raising my eyebrows a bit, really the change in nine that saved time was Warren's appointment to replace Vinson. No one else had really made much of an impact by the time Minton retired.
  • the final paragraph of the lede gets much too bogged down in argument to suit my taste, but others may differ. I would also check the MOS on capitalization of terms like Senator and Justice when used in isolation like that. I agree with you, Court should be capitalized whenever referring to the Supreme Court as an institution.

Please ping me when you want me to take a second look, I do not watchlist articles I review. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 14:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed up these specific instances, except a couple I think I don't follow.

Thanks for the review! —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:04, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Np. I admire your dedication to this article. I've struck the oppose and will look it over in detail to see if i feel like supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Don't agree with everything here, but that's not a FA standard, which in my opinion this article does meet.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:24, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. I don't have much background in Supreme Court justices, but I do have a copy of David Atkinson's Leaving the Bench, so I checked that to see how his comments on Minton match up with the article. I've no strong opinion about his reliability as a source, and of course you may already have read this and discarded this information, but here's what I found.

I think at least some of this might be useful in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:52, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind review. I hope I have addressed your concerns. Please let me know if you have further comments. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it wasn't really a review; I haven't read through the whole article, and may not get to it. I was just wondering if the extra source would be useful. If you like, I can email you a scan of the relevant pages and you can decide if any of it is usable -- just email me via the link on my user page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just emailed you the relevant pages -- let me know if you don't receive them. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINKing abounds, I only got some of it, but there's more ... strangely, underlinking as well. Anyone who speaks English is likely to know what WWI and WWII are, but are non-US English-speakers familiar with Democratic party and Republican party, which are not linked on first occurrence? A thorough linking review is needed. Is all of that "See also" necessary? Indiana is linked over and over, and there's an external jump in the text-- that's a no-no that shouldn't have gotten by.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I had all that fixed at one point. I have tried to clean it all up again. I see Indiana linked six times, once in the lead, once in the body, and the rest in various infoboxes. I have always thought that links in infoboxes were exempt from the overlinking guidelines, I would gladly remove the links though if you think they are inappropriate. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 12:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments: I made all the following edits, unless I asked a question or made a request. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry about some of your fixing getting undone, I was delinking while you were copying editing and looks like we had an edit conflict at one point. Thank you for you comments, I've responded specifically to a few, I will try to address the remainder. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 15:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My fault, I forgot to start off with a FAC comment so that you'd know I was working. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to oppose Hi Charles Edward. Hope you don't mind - I picked your article to ease back into reviewing because I've always enjoyed the topics you cover. I liked this one too, but see a few areas of improvement:

Note that I did not check images. Karanacs (talk) 20:35, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks your review, and I appreciate your kind comments. I have tried to address the specific issues you raised. I've also tried to cut back in places on content. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 00:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead review:

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind review, let me know if you have any other comments —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:20, 16 April 2011 [26].

Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil[edit]

Nominator(s): • Astynax talk

We are nominating this for featured article not only because it's very well written and sourced, but also due to its interesting subject. Although a minor historical character in both Brazil and Portugal, the Princess had a far more important role (even if in death) in Mexico, a country she never saw. The article follows the same standard already seen in other Brazilian history-related Featured Articles such as Pedro II of Brazil and Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. Regards, -- Lecen (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • A well-written and interesting article about a lesser known figure. I made a few minor corrections to it, but feel free to revert them back if you disagree with them. Just curious, but why did the Brazilian government refuse to recognize Maria Amélia and her mother as members of the royal family? Was it a financial issue? Anyways, keep up the good work you two! Ruby2010 talk 20:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because she was born in France, not Brazil. Do you believe we should add it to the article? --Lecen (talk) 20:14, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, by all means, keep it in the article. I think it's really interesting. But perhaps you could make it a little more clear that the Brazilian government's reasoning was because they were born (and lived) in France, and thus were not really Brazilian. Thanks, Ruby2010 talk 21:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Although born in France, she was not French. She was a Brazilian citizen. The Brazilian Constitution allowed someone to be declared a Brazilian citizen even if born in a foreign country as long as his/her parent was a Brazilian. That's why her father asked for witnesses (including the Brazilian diplomatic envoy to Paris) to see her birth. I might have missed the point, but are you giving your support to the article? --Lecen (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was a Brazilian, and thus spoke Portuguese, which spells the word as "Dona". "Doña" is Spanish. There is even a note which explains that in the article. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's how is written. I know, it's confusing, since it's not clear from the start that that "he" is Maximilian. I added his name to make it easier. I hope it helps. --Lecen (talk) 13:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A very well-written and highly readable article. Nice job, Lecen.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources and citations look OK, but as they are nearly all in Portuguese I can't do much more than check the formats. A few concerns:-

Not able to do any spotchecking beyond the single page of Barman that I found online. Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's the only biography ever written about her. I tried to use other sources too as you can see. The lack of balance could be something to take in account if subject had somekind of true importance in history, that somehow could cause controversy between historians. In the case of the Princess, who did nothing of notable in her life, I can see no reason that the few sources used could be an issue. The genealogy issue is simple: if Pedro I was the father of both Pedro II and Maria Amélia, his ancestors are the same for both children. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I added an English-written source. You should take a look in it, there is a link to it online version. Read pages 106-107, its practically a summary of the entire article. And again: it's in English, so you can be sure that at least historians agree in what happened. --Lecen (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making too much of the Almeida issue, as long as you have ensured that other sources, such as they are, have been consulted and are reflected in the article. The online version of the Barman book contains only extracts, and these do not at present include pp. 106–07, or any of the pages you cite apart from p. 8 (that's not your fault, obviously). As regards endnote B, the genealogies of half-siblings are not identical. I recommend that the note be changed to something like: "The information confirms the genealogy of Maria Amelia's father, King Pedro I". Brianboulton (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about Barman's books. But James McMurtry Longo's Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves (ISBN 978-0-7864-3201-1). I asked you to look on pages 106-107 of Longo's book, not Barman's. --Lecen (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much. They were close and very friendly to each other. Maria II suffered a lot the death of her younger sister, but she would die just a few months after Maria Amélia. --Lecen (talk) 03:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment Half the images have forced image sizes, and the rest I would recommend where 'upright'. Right now, the layout looks rather messy because of this. Forcing images without good reason can create accessibility problems, per WP:IMGSIZE (which is policy). Arsenikk (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at this picture? It has a source in it: [27]. --Lecen (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to File:Maximiliaan van Oostenrijk.png, which does not have a source. It says it is a cleaned up version of itself. This is still not fixed. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This picture that you're talking about is not being used in this article. This is the one being used and it has a proper source and all the other information necessary. --Lecen (talk) 12:09, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sorry for the confusion. Stifle (talk) 16:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Apterygial

Comments. A very good article about a subject I know little about. Some minor points:

  • The lead seems quite long for an article of this size; since much of the final paragraph does not directly concern her, is it necessary to have in the lead?
  • "Only when Pedro II was declared of age in 1840, was she was officially recognized as a Brazilian princess." The comma is redundant.
  • "She was the only daughter of Dom Pedro, the Duke of Braganza, and his second wife Amélie of Leuchtenberg (known in Brazil as Dona Amélia)." (needs the comma after "the Duke of Braganza").
  • Would "Y[our]. I[mperial]. M[ajesty]" flow better as "Y.I.M. [Your Imperial Majesty]"?
  • Can the reason for the Brazilian government's refusal to recognise Maria Amélia as a Brazilian princess be added to the article when it is mentioned at the bottom of Brazilian princess?
  • "...paid a visit to Amélie and Maria Amélia." Perhaps "visited Amélie and Maria Amélia."
  • "Archduke Maximilian never forgot his deceased fiancée." This seems slightly forced; why would he forget her? The quote below says enough about his feelings. Perhaps combine with the next sentence to read something like "In 1859, already married to Charlotte of Belgium, Archduke Maximilian made a pilgrimage to locations that were somehow connected to Maria Amélia."
  • The "somehow" here is redundant.
  • Endnote I needs a reference for the final sentence.

I'll be happy to support once they are addressed. Apterygial 04:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I've condensed the lead somewhat, and implemented most of your suggestions. I have asked Lecen to comment on whether a source gives a reason that the government refused to recognize her as part of the ruling house—I suspect that it had to do with the influence that would give her mother (stepmother to the Brazilian emperor and heirs-apparent) but don't have a reference for that at hand. • Astynax talk 09:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few more points (some of which resulted from the changes made due to my above comments):

  • The use of "premature death" concerns me slightly; it seems like an opinion and raises the question of when a death can be deemed "mature".
  • "She was not officially recognized as a Brazilian princess until after Pedro II was declared of age in 1840. Even so, she never traveled to Brazil during her lifetime." The second part here worked better before, suggest removing the "Even so" and connected the sentences with a semi-colon: "...declared of age in 1840; she never traveled..."
  • "Archduke Maximilian was haunted by memories of his fiancée." This really shouldn't be here unless it is a direct quote from your source. Otherwise, Maximilian's quote below it alone is evidence enough for his obsession.
  • "The death of Maria Amélia created the need to relieve his "troubled soul" that resulted in Maximilian's tour of places associated with the princess." This would perhaps flow better as "The death of Maria Amélia created the need to relieve his "troubled soul", resulting in his tour of places associated with the princess."
  • Sources in English do not need the "language=" parameter. Apterygial 23:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: A bit of additional explanation of the government's reason for denying membership in Brazil's Imperial Family has been added, with thanks to Lecen for tracking down the reference. I've removed the use of "premature" with reference to Maria Amélia's father, though it was unexpected. However, for Maria Amélia the term seems appropriate, as her death was both at a young age and unexpected (due to the rapidity of her decline). The word "haunted" is used to describe Maximilian in the source, and poor Carlota was painfully aware of it. I've attempted to accomodate the other points in your comments. • Astynax talk 10:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If "haunted" is in the source (which I believe is in English) then it should be in quotation marks. I also made a minor correction for flow. Apterygial 23:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. Here's the original text taken from Haslip, Joan. The Crown of Mexico: Maximilian and His Empress Carlota. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1971 (531 pages). ISBN: 0030865727:
"The mild climate of Madeira from which the girl's mother had hoped so much had proved detrimental to her health. Galloping consumption had set in and Maria Amalia [Maria Amélia] was dead within weeks of her arrival. Her young lover was heartbroken. In some strange fashion, this twenty-year-old girl he had known for little more than a week was to haunt him all his life. Fragile and unattainable, she remained present in his dreams. Seven years later, when revisiting Madeira with a young and pretty wife, we find Maximilian paying a solitary visit to Maria Amalia's grave, 'lingering in grief and sadness by the house from which this lovely angel winged her flight to Heaven'." (pp.54-55)
Also:
"From Gibraltar, the Elizabeth proceeded to Madeira and Maximilian had no sooner sighted the island than he realized it was a mistake to revisit a place where he had been so happy in the past. 'It was with a feeling of sadness that I again beheld the valley of Machico and lovely Santa Cruz, where we spent such happy hours seven years ago. On board our large ship, so filled with people, I was the solitary pilgrim of former days... Since those times, seven years full of pain and joy, full of fortune's storms with a few of its blessings, have passed over my head, and a sadness comes over me when I compare that time with the present.' Where was Charlotte when he wrote those lines? Where was Charlotte when he went off with his physician to visit the hospital built by the widowed Empress of Brazil? A slab of black marble inscribed in gold lettering, recorded that the hospital was dedicated to the memory of the Empress's only daughter, Maria Amalia, who died of consumption on the house next door, where Maximilian now went in pilgrimage, 'to linger in grief and sadness in the shade of an Indian fig tree and pick a bunch of flowers to place on her grave'. A loving and devoted wife, in all the bloom of her nineteen years, had not succeeded in making him forget the blonde and fragile Braganza Princess he had courted under a summer moon seven years before." (pp.128-129) --Lecen (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. But I think the sentence would be better if you could quote "haunt" in some way, rather than using the conjugation "haunted" (which you can't quote). As I've said above, Maximilian's quote below it alone is evidence enough for his obsession. However, I've struck my comment. Apterygial 00:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC) *Weak oppose - sorry to put a damper on this FAC, but I think the article is in need of serious copy-editing for clarity, tone and flow.[reply]

Reply: I'm sorry you feel you must oppose, but thank you for the comments. The 1847 edition of Laemmert should have been changed when it was changed in the text. Periods are added by the cite template and the extras have been removed. Both references to Olympio now refer to "José Olympio" (though it can be abbreviated). The brothers Laemmert were pioneers in Brazilian publishing, and their almanac is considered Brazil's first. According to the Portuguese wiki article on the almanac, it is considered a "fundamental source for understanding daily Brazilian life during the last century". A simple search of Google Books and Google Scholar should provide you with evidence that Laemmert almanacs are widely utilized and cited by historians. • Astynax talk 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, most of the citation issues have been dealt with (I'm still not entirely comfortable with the use of Laemmert, but I'll accept your explanation). Prose, however, is still not high enough in quality for me to support at this time. Would it be possible for you to get a third party to copy-edit the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's the problem about the Laemmert almanak? Edward Laemmet was a Knight of the Brazilian Order of the Rose and of the Portuguese Order of Christ (Portugal) as well as a member of the Brazilian Historic and Geographic Institute (See here). All editions of the almanak can be found online at Center for Research Libraries. --Lecen (talk) 14:18, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some examples of issues with prose:

These are examples from a quick glance; please thoroughly go over the text to fix other instances of these problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important: I have requested several times, through the user talk page and FAC nomination talk page, for Nikkimaria to clarify what exactly is wrong in the text but the editor has declined to compel. Thus, the nominators warn that they have done their best to satisfy the reviewer and were unnable to change her opinion about the article due to the lack of better explaining. --Lecen (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First off, just letting you know that I am in fact female and would prefer to be addressed as such. Second, I moved to neutral due to improvements made in the article, but still feel that the prose could be further improved, as I mentioned on the FAC talk you refer to. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ask forgiveness for the gender confusion. However, after you changed your vote for neutral, I requested you to point out where the prose could be corrected but you opted to ignore my remarks. Thus, I felt obliged to explain in here that I tried all I could to improve the article and change your vote for "support" but was unnable to. --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Gyrobo

Copyedit

  • "However, Pedro I's unanticipated death from tuberculosis occurred only months after the victory." could be rephrased as "However, Pedro I unexpectedly died from tuberculosis only months after the victory." Does the "however" even serve a purpose here? This sentence seems like it would be better connected to the following paragraph, and you may want to link tuberculosis.
  • "...the construction of an hospital..." should be "a" hospital.
  • "She was christened..." maybe link to Infant baptism?
  • "Maria II had succeeded him as Queen of Portugal..." implies that he was Queen of Portugal. Perhaps "succeeded him as monarch by becoming" or something similar.
  • "...one of the leading figures during Brazil's independence and who was then serving..." doesn't need "and".
  • Godparent could use a link.
  • "...and sent a letter dated 4 December to his other children..." you may want to put "4 December" in quotes.
  • "...telling the news..." might read better as "with the message".
  • "...I never saw him [Pedro] so happy and pleased..." if you're adding Pedro to the quote, you can leave out the "him".
  • "...and later, in the Royal Palace of Queluz—located near Lisbon" does this really need a dash here? It seems like it could be condensed to "in the Royal Palace of Queluz near Lisbon".
  • "...feared rival centers of influence and that Amélie, in combination with other political factions, might undercut their own power." Might read better as "...feared rival centers of influence. They also feared that Amélie—in collusion with other political factions—might undercut their own power."
  • "...both her mother and herself..." would read better as "both her and her mother".
  • "then-minister of Foreign Affairs" should use and en dash if it's a compound. If this is a proper title, it also needs to be capitalized: "then–Minister of Foreign Affairs".

--Gyrobo (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More copyediting

  • tuberculosis is linked twice in the lead.
  • "...she did not recover and was affected by an insistent cough—the start of a tuberculosis." could be rephrased as "she did not recover, and was plagued by a chromic cough—the onset of tuberculosis."
  • "The whole town turned out to greet her with joy..." could be rephrased as "The whole town greeted her joyfully..."
  • "...deeply touched those people that were close to her." should be "who", not "that".
  • "Emperor Pedro II, had never met his younger sister in person, but he had developed..." could be rephrased as "Emperor Pedro II had never met his younger sister in person, but had developed..."
  • "In her honor, Amélie financed the construction of an hospital..." could be rephrased "Amélie financed the construction of a hospital in her daughter's honor".
  • "He visited three Brazilians provinces during his visit." should be "Brazilian", singular.
  • "...newly founded, and doomed, Mexican Empire." is it really appropriate to mention here that the Mexican Empire was doomed? The rest of the paragraph leads into that, and you don't want to go out of chronological order.
  • "On 19 June 1867, Maximilian was executed, after being captured by Mexican republicans." is there an article for this republican faction?

--Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Thanks for taking a look at the article. I have implemented some of your suggestions, and have offered alternative wording for some others. Regarding the Mexican republicans who captured Maximilian, I haven't found an article on the nationalist Liberal/Republican faction that captured Maximilian. There are articles on its leaders (Benito Juárez, Porfirio Díaz and Ignacio Zaragoza Seguín, and and article for French intervention in Mexico, but none of these does a good job of explaining the faction (members of the Liberal party who opposed the French-backed Conservatives and Emperor, which widened to a nationalist/republican cause once alienated Conservatives began defecting). I have instead wikilinked the word captured to a section describing the capture. I'm not opposed to using a better link, instead. • Astynax talk 07:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

  • "Maria Amélia was born and spent her first years in France" doesn't clarify she was born there, just that she was born. Perhaps "Maria Amélia was born in, and spent her first years in, France,"
  • "Amélie bequeathed to Archduke Maximilian, "whom I would feel happy having as a son-in-law, had God conserved my beloved daughter Maria Amélia", her properties in Bavaria." could be rephrased as "Amélie bequeathed her properties in Bavaria to Archduke Maximilian, "whom [she] would [have felt] happy having as a son-in-law, had God conserved [her] beloved daughter Maria Amélia"."
  • "...by what he had seen of the flourishing Brazilian Empire ruled by the elder brother of his deceased fiancée," could be rephrased as "by seeing Brazil flourish under the rule of his deceased fiancée's elder brother," "...while touring the Brazilian Empire..." should be "Empire of Brazil", based on your comments during the last FAC.
  • "Thus in death, the Brazilian princess, whose in life had little impact upon events in either Brazil or Portugal, had an inadvertent and indirect consequence upon the history of Mexico." "Thus, a Brazilian princess, whose life had little impact upon either Brazilian or Portuguese events, indirectly in death had significant repercussions on the history of Mexico." is still awkward and could be rephrased "Thus in death, the Brazilian princess whose life had had little impact upon events in either Brazil or Portugal, had become a significant, if indirect, figure in Mexican history." or something similar.

--Gyrobo (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sentence in the lead currently reads: "Maria Amélia was born, and spent her first years, in France after Pedro I abdicated the Brazilian throne." which is clear that she 1) was born in France, and 2) spent her first years in France, without repeating the use of "in".
  • I agree that the final sentence: "Thus, a Brazilian princess, whose life had little impact upon either Brazilian or Portuguese events, indirectly in death had significant repercussions on the history of Mexico" is still awkward. The suggested wording may be better, but is also difficult to read (especially aloud). I have reworded to "While Maria Amélia's life had little impact upon events in either Brazil or Portugual, her death had significant, if indirect, repercussions on the history of Mexico". If that does not address the problem, feel free to change it. If you do edit it, please note that she currently occupies a position that is more a significant and interesting "footnote" to Mexico's history than a significant "figure". Thanks for taking the time to hash through this. • Astynax talk 18:40, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I've gone through and added commas where appropriate. My issues have been addressed, and I can no longer find any faults with the prose. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot

The prose seems good to me, too, except one confusing portion in the "Birth" section. It says that Pedro I "abdicated both crowns", which makes it sound like he gave them both up at the same time. Then it describes the dispute over his succession in Portugal and says that in response he "abdicated the Brazilian throne in April 1831 and departed for Europe." If he gave up the Portuguese throne first, as seems to be the case, perhaps say "By such-and-such year, he had abdicated the Portuguese throne" and then talk about Maria II and the succession problem. A. Parrot (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at the article. I really appreciate it. I removed the sentence "He abdicated both crowns" since it won't hurt the text. I also added a couple of words. Perhaps it's better now. If not, feel free to change to the way you believe it will be better. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one more question. There isn't much information about Maria Amélia's personality or interests outside of her relationships; that material is mostly restricted to one paragraph in "Ill-fated engagement". Am I correct in assuming that this is all you could find on the subject? I encourage you to add more if you can, but if that isn't possible, I can't that see any further improvements are needed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there isn't it. To this day, only one biograph was ever made of her (which is used in this article). And half of it is expended on Maximilian's life, not her's, and a third on her mother's life. The greatest issue about Maria Amélia is that she never had an important role herself and since she lived far alway from Brazil there was never much interest in historiograph on her. Biographies about Maximilian do not help much either since the most they talk is about how the Archuduke felt about her, but not on the Princess herself. In other words: I had to squeeze a lot of oranges to make a single cup of orange juice. --Lecen (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to make sure of that. In that case…

Ellipses should have spaces, need review (WP:MOS#Ellipses). Why is there hidden text in Ancestors? Why are English language words in WP:ITALICS? (English: Mary Emily Augusta Eugenia Josephine Louise Theodelinda Eli Francis Xavier of Paula Gabriella Raphaella Gonzaga). And why are collapsed templates used in this FAC? Please try to get a MOS review before Laser goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have gone through the ellipses, and have removed the hidden fragment of html from the end of the Ancestors template. The italics used for the English version of Maria Amélia's names are produced by the ((lang-en)) template (I have deleted the use of the template for the names). The collapsed templates in the at the bottom of the article are navboxes containing links to related topics. I was under the impression that it is OK for navboxes to be collapsed. • Astynax talk 06:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Astynax, "Her Highness" should be in italics. At least, this is how it is in all other FA around. --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the category and added another one. Sorry about the painting, it was not I the one who uploaded it. The person who painted it was in fact Friedrich Dürck (1809-1884). In the official website of the Imperial Museum of Brazil (Here: [28]) in virtual sightseeing you can see the correct atribution. To see it, click on the picture where you can read "Tour virtual". You'll see a map on the museum. Click on the room called "Gabinete de trabalho" (at the center top left) and you'll see a reproduction of the painting. --Lecen (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have a few queries/comments/suggestions:
  1. Is it true that her full name excludes a surname?
  2. The English translation of her name adds nothing, and is essentially a repetition.
  3. "Queenship" in modern idiom, at least in my circles, is used dismissively or with sarcasm. I would change Eager to restore Maria II to her queenship, Pedro abdicated the Brazilian throne in April 1831 and departed for Europe.<Almeida, p. 38.> Maria Amélia's mother was pregnant with her during this time.<Almeida, p. 41.> to something along the lines of Eager to restore Maria II, Pedro abdicated the Brazilian throne in April 1831 and departed for Europe with his wife, who was pregnant with Maria Amélia.<Almeida, pp. 38-41.>
  4. If the quote from Sousa could not hold the tears is your own translation, I would change it to could not hold her tears.
  5. said of her, that the "Princess has... is better as said of her, "[the] Princess has... or said that she "has...
  6. tells the following about her feelings is easier as tells about her feelings
  7. The infobox and lead say she died on 4 February but the text in the death section implies she died after midnight in the following morning, which would have been 5 February. a little past midnight on 4 February should be clarified as in the very early hours of 4 February or a little after midnight in the early hours of 4 February.
  8. He visited three Brazilian provinces during his visit, is a little repetitive.
  9. In the titles and honors section she is "Highness" but her half-sisters are "Imperial and Royal Highnesses". Is this correct?
  10. Why are the Brazilian honors "Grand cross" but the foreign ones "Grand Cross"?
  11. I do think you need to add why she was not recognised at first. It would only require the addition of a couple of clauses, e.g. "because she was foreign-born" or "because she was born after her father's abdication", or whatever the reason was.
I'm satisfied that the article meets criteria 1c, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3, but have concerns over criteria 1a, 1b and 4, which are detailed above and are easily fixable. DrKiernan (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC), amended 07:27, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll answer some of your remarks:
  1. Yes. None of the Brazilian royals had a surname (like "Braganza" or "Habsburg"). You can see an example in this contemporary book: [29]
  2. Neither Pedro II nor his sisters were Portuguese royals and thus, they were not styled "Royal Highness". This (here: [30]) 19th century book explains why they were not regarded as part of the Portuguese Royal House. Maria II was officially excluded from the Brazilian Imperial House in 1834. --Lecen (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. When I said I would answer some of your remarks I didn't mean that I wouldn't adress your other complains. It's because I didn't have the time to do it yesterday. Sorry if I might have looked like I had no desire to cooperate. I made all corrections as you suggested, feel free to look in the history log to check them out. Perhaps having the translated name might be considered a repetition. But I did that because the other articles about Brazilian royals do that and I'm trying to follow a standard. And unlike the majority of articles about royalty in English Wikipedia which has the name of royals translated to English (Nicholas II of Russia, not Nikolay II, for example), the ones about Brazilian royals maintain their names in Portuguese (Pedro II of Brazil, not Peter II). To avoid confusion and make clear that we are using the names in the original form, we add a translation to English. It might be repetitive, but I believe it does not cause any harm either. --Lecen (talk) 11:05, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but "Amélia" is not "Amelia". It certainly does not have the same pronunciation. I can get you any dictionary that translates "Maria" to "Mary" and "Amélia" to "Emily". Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, for example, would have her name translated to "Elizabeth". In Brazil and in Portugal, Elizabeth I of England is known as Isabel. It's quite sad to see you remove you support because of this, but it's your decision and I believe you considered well before doing it. --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realised that about the pronunciation. (If you do remove the translation, perhaps replace it with a pronunciation guide?) Dictionaries translate Juan Carlos to John Charles and Giuseppi Verdi to Joseph Green, but I don't think we should do so on that basis. English sources call Teresa Cristina "Theresa Christina" and Pedro II "Peter II", so I have no problem with including these English translations in the respective articles, since the lead is supposed to include commonly-used alternative forms of the names. So, as I've seen Isabel as Isabella but not as Elizabeth, I would support "Isabella" being offered as an alternative name but not Elizabeth. There are reliable sources in Portuguese calling Elizabeth Tudor "Isabel I", so I have no problem with the Portuguese wikipedia using the term.
By the way, I'm not bothered personally about whether the English translation is italicized, but Sandy was concerned about it, and removing the translations (there's one in the lead as well as the body) gives you a way of addressing her concern as well. DrKiernan (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you're asking me to ignore my own language (Portuguese). See Mary (given name)#Variants, including short forms and diminutives and Emily (given name)#Name variants. Mary I of England is known as "Maria". As I told you before: most articles about royals in this Wikipedia translate their names to English. However, since American and British historians opted to call Portuguese and Brazilian royals in their original Portuguese names, we use "Pedro II", "Miguel I", "Maria Amélia", "Isabel", etc... To avoid confusion we chose to place a translation to English of the Portuguese name so that readers will understand that we are using the original Portuguese names. See yourself, for example. You're a highly experienced editor who did not know that the pronunciation of the Portuguese "Maria Amélia" is highly different of its English version "Maria Amelia" (or Maria Amalia, or Mary Emily, etc...).
If Sandy does not like that (as so many other things about whatever I do in here), she might simply remove it and her trouble will be all over. But I won't do that. Not because I'm stubborn or arrogant but simply because I know it's wrong. It will be a matter of time until someone appears asking "Why is the name Amélia and not Amelia?" or something similar because he won't know that we are using the Portuguese name.
I'll give you another similar problem: the use of the title "Dom" (or its female "Dona"). Take any book about Portugal or Brazil's history. You'll see names such as "Dom João VI", "Dom Pedro II", etc... (or their variants such as "D. Pedro II"). Try to find one single book that explains what means "Dom". You won't find it (with the exception of Roderick J. Barman's biograph of Pedro II that gives an easily unnoticiable note at the end of the book). Many are the ones who believe that "Dom" is actually part of Pedro II's name. In the Empire of Brazil FAC nomination, for example, an editor corrected "Dona Isabel" to "Donna Isabel" believing that "Dona" was the given name "Donna". That is why I add these titles (Dom and Dona) into the articles and give their (rough) translation into English (Lord and Lady, or even Dom and Dame). If I simply remove any reference to either Dom or Dona someone will apear in the talk page asking: "Hey, I read a book about Dom Pedro II, why Dom doesn't appear in here?".
As you can see, I must keep track of all these minor details since I know that 99.9% of the people out there does not know Brazilian history as I do. If either you or Sandy or even both oppose all I said... well... it's your call. But I believe you are both wrong for the reasons I gave above. I try to cooperate every single time I believe I'm mistaken or that the article can be improved (see this FAC for example, for all I did because of other editors suggestions or complains). On this case, however, I can not yield. Giving the English translation of a Portuguese name will not harm the article, on the contrary, if this will prevent any possible confusion. --Lecen (talk) 13:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
English names are very flexible. In translation into English, Maria can be Mary, Marie, or Maria, with at least three different pronunciations of Maria possible. Amélia can be Amelia, Amalia, Emilie, Amelie, Emily, or Emilia. I think we should use a translation that is in actual use rather than one of our own. The announcement of her death in The Times newspaper calls her "Princess Maria, sister of the Emperor of Brazil" and Charles Edwards Lester calls her "Marie-Amelie-Auguste-Eugenie" in his The Napoleon Dynasty of 1852. So, we could use "Marie Amelie" for the lead and then "Marie Amelie Auguste Eugenie Theodolinde" in the body. You could even keep the italicization by saying that that was her name in French, which would be a very reasonable thing to include given that she was born and christened there. DrKiernan (talk) 15:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow all of your response. I'm not asking you to use the English name for the article title or in the body: I'm asking you to remove "Mary Emily" from the lead and "Mary Emily Augusta Eugenia etc." from the first paragraph or replace it with an actual translation or the French version. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was not christened with a French name, but with a Portuguese name. Her father was Portuguese born and her mother was German born. She was a Brazilian citizen, not Portuguese, not German and certainly not French. I'm seeing that at the end, this entire discussion is simply over a matter of taste. You like "Maria Amelie" and you want that one to prevail. Then change it. I'm quite tired and I don't even work on any articles in here anymore. All waiste of time. I'm only in this FAC because I don't like leaving unfinished business behind. If you want to change the name for the one you and Sandy personally prefer, do it. If you both do not want the article to pass, then simply remove this nomination. This huge discussion because of a name? Of how some people prefer one translation over another? I see articles with far worse quality than the ones I write and with even fewer supports pass quickly while everytime I nominate an article it is left to rot. The level of hostility in the FAC towards me does not pay the hard work I had. If it has no fun for me anymore, I have no reason to be in here. Please, feel free to do whatever you want. I really mean it. --Lecen (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Important: Reverted DrKiernan's edits since they had no explanation in any of them. If I meet Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom in Brazil, I should adress her as "Vossa Majestade"(Your Majesty) and after that simply as "Senhora"(Ma'am). You don't even need to be an expert on British protocol to know that. Just the pick the film "The Queen" released a few years ago and watch it with Portuguese subtitles. Or you may simply pick a Portuguese-English dictionary:
"ma'am s. senhora" (p.469)
Source: Houaiss, Antônio. Dicionário Inglês-Português. 1st ed. São Paulo: Record, 1982
Or simply take a look at an online dictionary. I can not write something if in my language it is translated to English as revealed above. I tried my best to deal with all issues raised by the reviewer but I won't create something out of nowhere only to please someone's personal taste. P.S.: For what is the correct translation to English of the Portuguese name "Maria Amélia" see Mary (given name) and Emily (given name). --Lecen (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits, unless I asked a question or made a request. Feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck oppose, let's keep on moving. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you haven't noticed, but I removed the translated name of Maria Amélia (See here: [32]). That means that the "cause" of the entire discussion is gone. So, as you said yourself, "I don't understand what the problem is". --Lecen (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed ... fantastic, striking my oppose. Next issue: as you mentioned, many English speakers confuse "Dom" and "Dona" with a name, so a translation at some point is advisable. Does anyone have a suggestion for what and where that translation should be? - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lecen said on my talk page that this is probably a settled issue, and I'm fine with the way it's currently handled in the article, but I want to ask just to make sure everyone is on board. I've also asked over at WT:ROYALTY about the translation in the "Royal styles" infobox. Does anyone know of any other open issues in this FAC? - Dank (push to talk) 19:30, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know about Portuguese, but in Spanish, doña and don are not titles reserved for royalty, they are commonly used for everyone-- in Spanish, I am a doña, so I'm not sure that can be resolved by the ROYALTY WP. I don't know the exact translation, but it's simply a title of respect in Spanish, slightly above Señora. Whether it has an equivalent English translation for royalty, I don't know ... it's possible that it's used commonly in Spanish just as you would commonly refer to someone as a "princess" or "queen" if you want to show respect, emotion, whatever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. This is the last issue that DrKiernan and I are aware of in this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dom (or Don) and Dona (or Doña) are reserved only to the nobility. However, as time passed, it has become common to call any woman, usually a mature woman by "Dona" as a synonym of "Senhora" (or Señora or Ma'am) as a sign of respect. "Senhora Cardoso, como está?" (or "Dona Cardoso, como está?" or "Madam Cardoso, how are you?". Miguel de Cervantes already joked about this in his masterpiece Don Quixote. "Perguntou-lhe ele o nome; ao que ela lhe respondeu que se chamava a Moleira, e que era filha de um honrado moleiro de Antequera. A esta também Dom Quixote pediu que usasse 'dom'[5], e se chamasse Dona Moleira, oferecendo-lhe novos serviçoes e mercês." (He asked her name, to which she replied to him that she was called Miller, and that she was the daughter of an honored miller of Antequera. To her Dom Quixote asked to be used 'dom'[5], and that she would be called Dona Miller, offering her new services and honors.) There is a footnote at the end of the page: "5. Ridiculariza aqui Cervantes o uso indevido do 'dom', na época" (5. Here Cervantes mocks the inappropriate use of 'dom', at the time.) Source: Cervantes, Miguel de. O engenhoso fidalgo Dom Quixote de la Mancha. São Paulo: Abril, 1978, p.39
And we're talking about a book published in the 17th century. In Brazil and Portugal, as well as in Spanish speaking countries such as Spain, Argentina, Mexico, etc. I may call a woman "Senhora Maria", or "Dona Maria" (or Senhorita, which means "miss", if she is not married). If translated to English, it means "Ma'am" or "Mrs.". This when "Dona" is used in the day to day basis, not as the nobility title which originally came from. If used as in the latter case, the translation is "Lady". "Minha senhora, juro servir a ti." (My Lady, I swear to serve thy."
The word "Dom" comes from "Dominus", as in A.D. (Year of Our Lord), for example. Dominion, another example that can be given, means "Domínio" in Portuguese, but it can also be translated as "Lordship". --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 April 2011 [33].

Akodon spegazzinii[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I started writing about this Argentinean rodent because we had articles about several different species that recently turned out to be the same as this one, and I felt that our article should make clear why all those supposed species are invalid. I then decided to take the article a step further and make it as comprehensive as I could. Dana boomer has provided a useful GA review and I hope it will now be found worthy to be a featured article. Ucucha 15:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Dabs and deads

  • It is related to Akodon boliviensis — another, plural, subject has intervened since species last mentioned
  • But the last sentence ends with "a single, widespread and variable species", which the "It" appropriately refers to. I'm open to a rewording, though.
  • what about the swap Akodon spegazzinii is related to Akodon boliviensis and other members of the A. boliviensis species group. It reproduces...? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that's better. Ucucha 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eyes are surrounded by a yellow ring — Of what? Fur, bare skin?
  • Fur; clarified.
  • spegazzinii has 40 chromosomes. — better placed after the physical data
  • Done.
  • Oldfield Thomas from Salta Province — Not a big deal, but adding something like "British zoologist" before the main players gives a little more info without following the link
  • I think we discussed this a few times in various FACs, but I generally prefer to omit this information. The article mentions a lot of scientists, and adding "Argentinean zoologist" and "American zoologist" etcetera to all of them would add much information that is of no real relevance of Akodon spegazzinii, the subject of this article. Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • more reddish — redder?
  • I slightly prefer the current wording, because they are reddish brown, not actually red. Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporal and lambdoid crests — These are red links, so can we be told where they are, or shown on a diagram?
  • I think the context already makes that clear: they're crests on the braincase. Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all we know is that they are crests on the braincase, there is no point naming them. I can guess that temporal is on the temple, but no idea about lamboid. If there is no location, retaining the names is jargon for jargon's sake. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We still should name the specific structures, just as we name the specific people involved in the taxonomy. It's not jargon, but what the things are called: they have no non-jargon names. Ucucha 13:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • continue to grow in adulthood — Indefinitely, or is there a maximum size or age?
  • We don't know. Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • <www.iucnredlist.org > — what's the point of the strange formatting?
  • It's how the IUCN asks for its list to be cited. Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • we are not bound by that, I've never used that format for iucn docs. It lacks consistency with all the other references in your excellent article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, none of the other references are web-only sources, so there's a little to be inconsistent with.

:*.Spanish language sources should be indicated as such

  • Done. Thanks for the review! Ucucha 22:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've changed to support, since no real problems. I've left two items unstruck, since I'd be interested to see if anyone else has views on those Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: This one's easy. One range map, easily checks out fine. I will be doing a full article review shortly. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Excellent as always. Here are my nitpicks:

Other than that, I'm looking forward to supporting soon. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 02:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 03:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns have been addressed. I'm glad to add my support. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 April 2011 [34].

Queen Victoria[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Victoria of the United Kingdom/archive1
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Victoria of the United Kingdom/archive1

This is a former featured article that was demoted, now re-written. DrKiernan (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FFA, has been on mainpage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments by Johnbod

Resolved commentary moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call some resolved at all, but I'm supporting despite them. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please move back to here anything that you consider important enough for me to hold up promotion over. Sorry if I goofed! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's ok thanks. They are done with anyway. Johnbod (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Thank you for such a careful analysis. Unsourced material removed; citations amended.[35] DrKiernan (talk) 21:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Lecen Why there are so many sentences without sources? --Lecen (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because with 212 inline references I would prefer to have one reference at the end of a paragraph or section if the material is all from the same source rather than duplicate references, or not provide one for uncontentious facts (like the date of her birth or the outcome of a general election). DrKiernan (talk) 00:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from GoodDay The article isn't ready for FA. Its title should be moved back to Victoria of the United Kingdom. Queen, is not her first name, see King Clancy, Queen Latifah. -- GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what? You should know that there was a long dicussion and voting in favor of the present name. After all, you voted there. This is certainly not the place to argue about this. --Lecen (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The title is wrong. Therefore I don't endorse this article's FA candidacy. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. The nominator has no power to force the other editors who supported the present title to change their opinions. Again: this is not the place to discuss this. --Lecen (talk) 01:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose the FA candidacy for this article. The nominator is free to ignore my objections. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition would be more worthwhile if it made reference to the featured article criteria. Just sayin'. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not used to these FA candidacy things. I've withdrawn my oppostion here, but haven't changed my mind on the article title. GoodDay (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley An enjoyable article. A few points about the prose:

22:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Sorry - forgot to add my tildes.) Tim riley (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review; changes made[36]. Capitalization should follow WP:Job titles, but I don't find the guideline particularly clear. DrKiernan (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am conscious that experts in the subject are commenting on this page, but as a layman I am happy to support the article's elevation to FA. It is well shaped and well balanced; the prose suffices; the referencing is formidable; and the images are first class. I think the nominator has done remarkably well to boil the huge amount of information about Her late Majesty down to a digestible article. It would be all too easy to ramble, but this article doesn't. I can see no FA criterion that it fails to satisfy. Tim riley (talk) 14:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt
Resolved comments moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Excellent job, the good doctor is to be congratulated (and I'd tend to blame the lack of education as monarch on the Duchess of Kent and on Conroy, who were betting all on being able to control Victoria, and part of that was keeping her helpless.)--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just a passing comment here. Almost certainly too trivial to mention, but given that you mention the various assassination attempts, which undoubtedly made the police nervous, do your sources mention at all the case of Thomas Skaife, who invented a pistol-shaped camera (the pistolgraph) and apparently was surrounded by police when he aimed it at Queen Victoria during a procession (silly fool that he was for doing that): some sources? That story has always stuck in my mind! I also vaguely remember seeing some recent modern camera designs that you can hold and point like a gun. Seems the same mistakes keep getting made... Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've seen nothing on that before. Bizarre. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources questions - and a few questions on the sources. Looking at the bibliography, I see six works that are published books on Victoria alone. In chronological order, these are: Queen Victoria (Strachey, 1921); Victoria R.I. (Longford, 1964); The Life and Times of Queen Victoria (Marshall, 1972 work reprinted in 1992); Queen Victoria: Her Life and Times 1819–1861 (Woodham-Smith, 1972); Queen Victoria: A Portrait (St Aubyn, 1991); Queen Victoria: A Personal History (Hibbert, 2000). Some comments and questions:

A final point is that given that you take the time to say which biographies are outdated and which of the earlier ones are still admired, is there a reason you don't mention Hibbert and his biography in the article text? If Hibbert's work is now the authoritative work on Victoria, building on and improving on and expanding on, the earlier works, should the article not say this? You are also silent on the Marshall and St Aubyn works, though you do mention St Aubyn as one of her biographers. Is there a reason to mention the other biographers by name in the article but not Hibbert and Marshall? Carcharoth (talk) 05:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've used Hibbert for the most part because it is the most recent complete life by a notable scholar that I have access to. Walter Arnstein's Queen Victoria would be an alternative, but I don't have a copy. Longford's and Woodham-Smith's are easily the most admired; Woodham-Smith's death before the completion of her volume 2 (1861–1901) is often decried as a loss to biography.
There were biographies published during Victoria's life which are all either sycophantic or ill-informed. A book by Agnes Strickland had to be withdrawn. The Royal Archives has copies of "biographies" where Victoria has scribbled furiously in the margin "Rubbish!!" and "Not true!" and so on. I believe, the first "serious" biography was Sidney Lee's but it was published before any access to any primary documents. Lorne published a book in 1901, Victoria R.I., but I would probably call that a primary source rather than a biography. The first letters and journal entries (edited by Esher) were published in 1907 (letters) and 1912 (early journal), and so Strachey's was the first complete biography (apart from Lorne's) to have reasonable access to primary material. Personally, I would say the early part of Strachey is OK, which is understandable because it is constructed from primary sources published by Esher and Greville's memoirs, however it does contain some now obvious errors. The latter half of Strachey is now not comprehensive and rather thin in my opinion, but clearly very good for the time. The later letters and journal started to become available in the late 20s/early 30s, which I believe led to the first informed coverage of Victoria's political influence by a biographer (Frank Hardie) in 1935. Although, I'm not sure whether Ponsonby might have said something along those lines in the earlier 30s.
I do not know of any change in the way Victoria has been perceived by biographers since Longford. Longford, Woodham-Smith, Marshall, St Aubyn and Hibbert cover much the same material, which is why it is so easy to bundle references together. There is no need to say "this biographer says this, but so-and-so says otherwise" because they are agreed. The disagreements between biographies arise only when comparing the pre-primary material books with the post-primary ones, where I have obviously gone with the post-primary interpretation.
I would be quite happy to add some of the above into the article, and indeed probably am going to do just that in a while for the bits above that aren't my opinion, but to be quite honest there are so many books and so much material, something has to be left out. DrKiernan (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for such a detailed response. I agree that some things have to be left out, but it is reassuring to know that the history of the sources (even those not used) is known in such detail. I'll be interested to see how and whether it can be worked into the article. The bit about the pre-Strachey biographies and Queen Victoria's scribbling on some of the ones published in her lifetime was particularly amusing. One important point - do you think Walter Arnstein's Queen Victoria should be mentioned in some 'further reading' section for balance? Carcharoth (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not have an extra section. Ideally, we should stick in a single Arnstein footnote somewhere and that would give us an excuse to put it in the references! DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My view, when you have a topic that is: (a) too large to be written about in one article; and (b) where the sub-articles are not yet fully developed or don't exist, is that for an article to make any claim to be 'comprehensive', it must point the reader to further reading. Wikipedia articles are really only a starting point for the interested reader. Once they have grasped the essentials of a topic, they should be able to refer to a section that enables them to read more if they so wish. The trouble with pointing readers to the works cited in the references is that this provides no guidance. Some of the works will be more suitable than others for further reading. Also, when only part of a work is used to cite something, there is still the need to alert the reader to whether the rest of that work is suitable for further reading. And if you don't have a particular work, it should still be mentioned. Not mentioning it at all arguably skews the article, as knowing that this other biography exists, but not mentioning it, is favouring one biography over another. So I think you need to either get hold of a copy of this biography, or refer the reader to it for further reading. At the moment, people reading this article are more likely to go and buy the Hibbert book for further reading than the Arnstein book (and many will not even realise that you have omitted mention of a major biography). For others reading this, the book in question is this one, published in 2003 (Queen Victoria by Walter L. Arnstein). Carcharoth (talk) 08:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. DrKiernan (talk) 08:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you. As a reader (not just as an editor), I do appreciate extra touches like that. Having now found the time to read through the entire article (which is excellent), I have a few additional comments, which I will put in a new section below. Carcharoth (talk) 09:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Very well-written and well-cited, this article deserves to be returned to the FA ranks. I had no idea so many people tried to shoot her! The only thing that jumped out about it for me was that you used semi-colons a great deal. I tend to do the same, and I've found that sometimes breaking it into two separate sentences reads better. But that's purely a stylistic point, not an objection. Also, the part near the end about her once-disputed parentage seems out of place. Is there a better place for it? Or is it there as the result of some prior discussion or compromise? --Coemgenus 18:42, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support. The origin of the royal haemophilia surfaces occasionally on the talk page, e.g. Talk:Queen Victoria#Was queen Victoria a bastard?. I can't think of anywhere else it would naturally fit, unless all but the first sentence of that paragraph were moved to the Haemophilia in European royalty article. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • I don't know. I guess because it's so big. I've revealed it to see what people think.
  • Yes, I know. I was deliberately saving that spot for Von Angeli's 1875/6 portrait where Victoria stares rather starkly straight at the viewer. I wanted to use that particularly for the caption I had in mind: Von Angeli's 1875 portrait was admired by Victoria for its "honesty, total want of flattery, and appreciation of character".[1] The only place I've found to steal it from (in color) is the ODNB but there's a strongly worded copyright notice on it, which scared me off. So, I was trying to find another version. Anyhow, I've selected my reserve option of a Punch cartoon instead.
  • No, I didn't know that either, but I did check and it is celebrated (in certain towns only not over the whole of Scotland). If it was challenged I'd probably prefer to take the opportunity to cut it.
  • I've chopped the section. I've never liked them anyway. But I've justed shifted the Cultural depictions link because the biographies don't really examine how she is portrayed in popular culture.

Overall, as I said above, an excellent article. I enjoyed reading it, and am leaning towards support. Carcharoth (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, responses interspersed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Punch cartoon is nice. Happy to support, and hopefully some of the subsidiary articles can be done over the next few months and years. That might also address Johnbod's desire for a more thematic approach, as subsidiary articles could do more to summarise opinions on various aspects, that there is little room for in the top-level article that this is. Some examples I spotted were a Diamond Jubilee article to go with the Golden Jubilee one, a wedding article (Royal weddings articles are all the rage at the moment, for some reason), numerous items associated with Victoria that could still have articles (I liked the one on Dash the spaniel!), and I'm sure some of the more famous artworks could have articles of their own. We even have an example of an article on one of the books: The Queen's Knight (Downer). I also liked The Triumphs of Oriana (1899). Anyway, just a few ideas. Carcharoth (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Yes, I enjoyed writing the snippet on Dash; it's one of my favorites too. DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there hidden text and an image linked in the infobox? Infoboxes are irritating enough without that, but text should not be hidden anywhere in articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain what you mean. Which parameters should be disposed of? (Try to resist the temptation to say all of them!) DrKiernan (talk) 08:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a fan of infoboxes, so finding collapsible commentary there doesn't thrill me :) It's at "Queen of the United Kingdom (more...)" and "Issue more detail". No text should be hidden on FAs, not clear why that is hidden in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're links not hidden text. I've made an edit to amend [37]. DrKiernan (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better :) Terribly busy, but I'll get to this by the end of the day. I hope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 April 2011 [38].

Fantastic Adventures[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another science fiction pulp magazine started in 1939 -- there's at least one more to come after this. This one is a little different in that it mixed fantasy with science fiction, which was not common in those days. It lasted for over a hundred issues despite never really being a leader in the field. Artistic highlights include a galloping T. Rex and a phallic submarine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Looks good now, thanks! Good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support 'Comments -' (I haven't read all the way to the bottom but like what I see so far):

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:23, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ruhrfisch. Interesting and well-written article which meets the FA criteria. I have a few quibbles that do not detract from my supoort.

Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review There are four images in the article, all of which are freely licensed. Three are magazine covers whose copyrights have expired and were not renewed. The table is made by Mike Christie and freely licensed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and image review, and the support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: A little out of my expertise, but I'll give this a go.

That's all for now. Good work! – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 23:54, 3 April 2011 [39].

Shakespeare authorship question[edit]

Nominator(s): Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC) and Paul B (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC), Nishidani, Xover[reply]
I have added Nishidani and Xover based on the work they've done on this FAC; they may remove themselves if they disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past 14 months this article has received an extensive makeover that at one time involved probably half of Wikipedia's administrators (not really, but it sure seemed that way sometimes). It is probably the most accurate and balanced short treatment of the topic that can be found on the Internet. POV issues were wrung out of the article (often painfully) during an intensive editing process by many excellent editors over the past few months. Once the scene of many POV battles, the article and talk page have achieved a high degree of stability over the past several months and has been edited with a high degree of collegiality. All references used in the article are from scholarly and reliable sources, an achievement in itself given the nature of the topic. Thanks to a lot of extremely talented editors, this article can serve as a model for other related Wikipedia articles. My hope is that this group of editors continues to work on those pages. Tom Reedy (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom has put in a tremendous amount of effort over the past year, and there has recently been a nice collaboration going with several editors involved in the preparations for FAC. I am happy to certify this nomination. --Xover (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

72.234.212.189[edit]

Andy Walsh[edit]

  • I'll say once more: Off-topic discussion, continuation of previous disputes, and discussion of editors will not be tolerated on this page. I've just moved volumes of nonsense to the talk page—if this can't kept to concise statements directly actionable to WP:WIAFA, I will consider administrative actions for disruption applied to involved individuals. This is not the place to carry on your disputes and grind axes. --Andy Walsh (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Andy's comments here were originally posted in response to 72.234.212.189 in the section above, but as I think he intended them as general comments on the FAC I've added a subheading also for these. --Xover (talk) 20:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab / EL check[edit]

Image review[edit]

Source review[edit]

Sources comments: In view of the number of cited sources, the sources review may take a while, but it is under way. Brianboulton (talk) 11:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Later): The sources in general look excellent. There are a few general issues arising:-

I should be obliged if someone with the appropriate tool would do the copyvio checks. Brianboulton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All sources/citation issues raised by me have been resolved satisfactorily. The query about the reliability of "Ross" is someone else's. Brianboulton (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NuclearWarfare[edit]

"(e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process."
If you're referring to all the comments and complaints from authorship advocates that have been moved to the talk page, that will never cease, but as far as the page goes it's been stable for a while now, greatly facilitated by the a recent ArbCom case that put the entire topic (and this page in particular) under standard discretionary sanctions to enforce Wikipedia policy and halt POV edit warring. Tom Reedy (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I can understand the reaction, but let's stick to the actual wording of the criteria here. Wrad (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, one would hope that the ArbCom case helped. But I'm not entirely convinced of that—there was that edit war yesterday with BenJohnson, for example. NW (Talk) 19:09, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see this as a partial WP:IAR case - if the article has to have absolutely no edit wars (and is not protected), then those who espouse the finge theories only have to edit war to keep this from ever being a FA. If one takes a historical perspective, this is stable. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a judgment call. Please don't take this as my brushing the issue aside, but perhaps we can leave this to the FA coordinators to decide and in the meantime focus on content? I think I speak for many of the nominators when I say that such a focus would be welcome. Wrad (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an Arbcase, sanctions are in place, we don't use 1e to penalize FA candidates for disruptive edits. Contrast this FAC, for example, to the Catholic Church FACs, where an arbcase was rejected because it wasn't yet "ripe", but we repeatedly saw valid, actionable Opposes from long-standing and experienced FA writers and reviewers, whose Opposes were based solidly on WP:V and WP:WIAFA. That article failed 1e stability, and was subject to frequent edit wars and ownership, which had not been resolved by an arbcase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm[edit]

Support - with regard to Criterion 1a. This is an engaging and well-written (brilliantly in places) contribution. I have a few nit-picks, but these are for consideration only.

I didn't like "run-ins with the law". I think it spoiled the eloquence of the prose.
There is a possible fused participle here "leaving a signed will disposing of his large estate". I don't mind them if the meaning is clear, but others do.
Here, "The language of the will is mundane and unpoetic, and makes no mention of personal papers, books, poems, or the 18 plays that remained unpublished at the time of his death; it also omits shares...", the subject of the sentence is the language of the will, not the will. So what does "it" refer to? And how about "prosaic" instead of "unpoetic"?
Final nit-pick, how about "twelve" instead of "a dozen"?

Thank you for all the hard work on this article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would "brushes with the law" be better? I don't like the cacophony of "altercations", but that's just a personal preference.
RE "unpoetic" vs "prosaic", I think the first points out the contrast between the language of the will and what anti-Stratfordians imply the language should be in the will of a poet; it's the expectation vs the reality that is seen as some kind of evidence. Tom Reedy (talk) 19:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted 'run-ins' to 'brushes'.Nishidani (talk) 12:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Comments - I'm not going to support or oppose this article since I've done a bit of work on and related to it, but I have some comments/suggestions:

  • Addressed, with the possible exception of the two "death" subheadings. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a bit heavy in places, but much better, thanks! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Issues mostly addressed to my satisfaction; good luck! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch[edit]

Support I have read this carefully and read a few of the online refs to spot check that the article accurately reflected the sources. I feel this more than meets the FA criteria, and am glad to support. I have two suggestions to improve the article.

  1. Since it is difficult to decipher Shakespeare's surviving signatures, perhaps an explanatory note could be added giving the spellings he used. This might follow the sentence In his surviving signatures William Shakespeare did not spell his name as it appears on most Shakespeare title pages. in the "Shakespeare's name as a pseudonym" section.
  2. I am surprised that the "Alternative candidates" only discusses four of the "more than 70 authorship candidates [which] have been proposed". While I understand that the four main candidates are presented in the section, I wonder if an introductory paragraph (before the section on Bacon) might help. Looking at the List of Shakespeare authorship candidates, I think I would mention the more well known of the candidates in a sentence (Richard Burbage, Sir Francis Drake, the Jesuits, Sir Thomas More, Sir Walter Raleigh, the Rosicrucians, Edmund Spenser, Sir Phillip Sydney, and Cardinal Thomas Wolsey. I would also mention the royal candidates: Elizabeth I, James I, Mary Queen of Scots, then say something like However the four major candidates are ... (list them).

Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen[edit]

GuillaumeTell[edit]

Support. I've been following the progress of the article for many, many months and have been particularly impressed by the open-mindedness of the principal editors. Their ability to set out, using WP:RS, the positions of the proponents of the main authorship candidates from a WP:NPOV, and their openness to the many and varied suggestions for improvements to the article, despite a great deal of provocation from a number of quarters, and their attention to detail, has been exemplary. Minor disclosure: I've done a bit of copy-editing (some of which is still there!) on the article from time to time. --GuillaumeTell 00:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brianboulton[edit]

Comment, leaning Support: I only have one point to make, which is that I feel that the preamble to the "Case against Shakespeare's authorship" section is not written with the degree of non-partisanship required in a neutral encyclopedia article. There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for". This is the only significant issue to which I think that further attention is required in what is in nearly all respects an excellent article. Brianboulton (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jdkag[edit]

Oppose: The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question." The article does a poor job of portraying its subject, covering only a biased subset of the basic reasons for which the authorship question exists. Furthermore, the reasons that are given are covered in a superficial and disparaging manner, whereas most of the lengthy and unwieldy article tries to argue that the authorship question is not valid. Why did none of Shakespeare's contemporaries record meeting the man who was the writer (before the publication of the First Folio)? Why did no patrons leave records of patronage? What became of all the manuscripts? It's almost as if the authors of the article are afraid to publicize the real reasons why notable men and women over the years have raised the authorship question. References that could provide some insight into the authorship question have also been removed under the pretext that such references are not RS. See the discussion at: Talk:List_of_Shakespeare_authorship_candidates#Cite_RS. In short, this is far from being FAC material, IMHO. Jdkag (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(inserted): Permanent link to thread Jdkag refers to above: [43] --Xover (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link-- I'm not finding this actionable, but have converted the "actionable" list below to bullet points so I can try to sort out the responses. Xover, could you please add the corresponding numbers to your response section? Most of the "actionable" list provides no sources, or is opinion, or does not engage WP:WIAFA, but please number your responses so I can sort out what's what. Paul B, I haven't yet processed your response on the talk page, but numbering them may also be helpful (I'm getting there!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So do you have any specific actionable objections? Tom Reedy (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These "why" questions apply equally to most other writers of the time, whose lives are generally not well documented. Hardly any play manuscripts of the time survive. The point, as it happens, is made inthe article ("No letters or signed manuscripts written by Shakespeare survive."). Of course any references to meeting the writer Shakespeare would be and are interpreted by SAQ afficionados as part of the conspiracy or as the intentional use of the "real author"'s pen-name. It's an unfalsifiable system of argument. Our rules require that the balance of argument be given to the mainstream position, so Jdkag is asking that we suspend the rules in this case. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not cover the subject of "The Shakespeare Authorship Question' but rather the subject of "The Stratfordian Responses to the Shakespeare Authorship Question."

In layman's language, you are saying the article covers the SAQ theories in terms of what WP:RS say, and not in terms of what WP:Fringe books argue, and that what notable people like Charlie Chaplin or Mark Twain, or sundry lawyers and United States judges, have said should be given equal treatment with what Shakespearean scholars say on a question of Elizabethan history.Nishidani (talk) 08:44, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actionable items:

  1. article's first line opens with a negative term (argument) instead of a neutral term (theory, belief, etc)
  2. ”Shakespeare’s authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century” – according to whom? Other views? “Some scholars believe that…” would be more NPOV. (Also, the anomalous lack of records, which was noted by early biographers, is equally relevant to the subject.)
  3. no statement in lead as to why the four candidates are mentioned
  4. "Shakespeare’s authorship was not questioned during his lifetime" – Other views? How can this be a proven fact? Shouldn’t it be “As far as scholars have been able to determine… although authorship doubters believe…”
  5. lead ends with “They campaign for public acceptance of the authorship question as a legitimate field of academic inquiry and to promote one or another of the various authorship candidates”. This is an article about the theory. It’s not about the doubters themselves. This line does not belong in the lead.
  6. ”Anti-Stratfordians claim that this indicates a person very different from the author reflected in the works” – use of “claim” is not neutral. Suggest “believe” or “say”.
  7. Case Against Shakespeare section: There is an editorial voice present, which is effectively refuting the case while it is being presented. The "case against" should be summarised baldly, without comment; the refutation is part of the "case for".” I believe this especially applies to the first two sentences in the section, which serves as a set-up for the “case for”.
    No examples of this "editorial voice". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. History and particulars of the “group theory” are inadequate, both in the history section and the alternative candidates section. The various group theories have received much attention over the years. One would not know it from this article.
    No examples based on high-quality reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Baconian and Oxfordian theory sections are too long and detailed. They are not summaries and do not even follow the basic technique of Wikipedia Summary Style. Why is the unpublished George Frisbee given so much weight, for example? Major arguments surrounding the candidacies are also missing, such as Oxford’s bible, Bacon’s Tempest connections, etc. In short, expert opinions on the minority viewpoint are not represented accurately, if at all.
  10. The article is quite long, especially the history section, which has its own article. Again, summary style is not being followed. The "case for" section is also incredibly long and throws the weight of the article out of balance. Perhaps the section needs its own article?
  11. Process: The preface to the list for featured article criteria, states that these criteria are: "in addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles." Good behavior/process (e.g., adherence to WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:CIVILITY) is a fundamental WIKI requirement for all articles, one that is not met by the SAQ page. Given the assumptions of the current editors regarding editors of differing viewpoints and regarding how those differing viewpoints should be treated, it is not likely that the SAQ page will meet fundamental WIKI requirements in the near future.Jdkag (talk) 06:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not relevant, there was an Arb case, please focus on the text and reliable sources, not editor behavior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these issues have been discussed previously on the talk page. A key problem is finding a reliable source - what would you suggest as a RS for the Oxfordian or Group theory? Poujeaux (talk) 14:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The issues not only have been discussed, they have been resolved, although not to the satisfaction of a few anti-Stratfordian editors, so these are just a continuation of previous disputes, as Andy Walsh noted earlier. The article reflects the academic consensus, which is what Wikipedia requires, and which is the main objection from those editors. By bringing up such objections it appears to me that this FAC process is being looked at as an extension of the SAQ talk page. What Ruhrfisch noted about edit warring also applies to bringing up previous disputes: those who espouse the fringe theories only have to continue to do so for it to become a self-fulfilling prophecy and keep this from ever being a FA.Tom Reedy (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding to Jdkag's concerns:
  1. the term “argument” is no less neutral than “theory” or “belief”, and does not carry any inherent negative valuation. Theory would be inappropriate since it does not fulfill the scientific definition of that word, while belief, while quite possibly a more apt description, carries the connotation of religious belief and thus would in fact be less neutral.
  2. That Shakespeare's authorship was first questioned in the middle of the 19th century is supported by the citation at the end of the sentence (which is going an extra mile since the lede normally need not have cites) and if necessary we can add Schoenbaum and Shapiro. The lede summarises the article and so it would be inappropriate to add any new information here, and in fact the issue is addressed in more detail in the article. The lack of records issue, and that it isn't in fact “anomalous” at all, that you bring up is already covered in the article.
  3. The issue of why these four candidates are singled out has been addressed elsewhere on this page, but in any case is explained in the body of the article.
  4. Those reliable sources that do address the issue of whether any doubts were raised about Shakespeare's authorship during his lifetime do not support there being any alternative views of the issue (there were no doubts during his lifetime). That SAQ adherents argue that this is impossible to prove or allege that various cryptic clues are in fact examples of such doubt is addressed in general terms in the article, but are not dealt with specifically and in detail since the reliable sources does not support giving these two specific examples of their approach such prominence.
  5. The SAQ (vs. its supporters), in this sense, is more akin to a popular movement, and thus inseperable from its supporters; you cannot discuss the SAQ without also touching upon its adherents, as, in fact, all the reliable sources do.
  6. Your concern with whether SAQ supporters “claim” or “believe” that a lack of literary or educational evidence suggests a different type of person than the author of the plays has been addressed: it now uses the construction “taken to indicate”. Note that I dispute the alleged lack of neutrality in the word “claim” here; it was used precisely and appropriately.
  7. The alleged editorial voice present has been addressed elsewhere on this page (where Brian originally made it, and from where you appear to have copied this point verbatim).
  8. The group theories are covered proportionately to the attention they are given by reliable sources, and are in fact dealt with in several places in the article.
  9. In fact, the Bacon and Oxford sections exactly follow the recommendations of the summary style guideline, and each are 4-5 paragraphs long (which, you might even argue, is too short), and they summarize the relevant candidacies as well as is possible without first writing featured articles for all of them. The selection and weighting of the points included in the candidate sections are made, as best possible, based on what the reliable sources emphasize, rather than what arguments you personally consider to be the most persuasive. Oxford's bible, for example, is not particularly emphasized as an argument made by Oxfordians in the reliable sources, and in fact other Oxfordian editors here would (and have) vehemently challenge its merits. That said, specific suggestions for improvements accompanied by the reliable sources to back them up, are most welcome (these sections are challenging to write and source).
  10. The article, while certainly long, is far from the longest article, and not even among the top largest featured articles. And in fact (as you know, since that is where you appear to have copied this point from), this has been discussed extensively on the article's talk page and in the peer review, and the consensus was that the length was appropriate.
  11. Your concerns about process are not relevant for FAC and FAC is not the appropriate venue for those concerns. Given the recent ArbCom case, to which you were a party, that or ANI would probably be the appropriate venue to express such concerns.
This should address all the concerns you have listed as actionable points. I hope you will take the time to revise your Oppose in light of this. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BenJonson[edit]

You need to make your comments specific, and avoid personal criticism of editors. This has been explained to you before. Poujeaux (talk) 12:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see comments of Softlavender and Jdkag. I support their reasoning fully. I addition to the reasons cited regarding content -- lack of NPOV, failure to cite appropriate sources, sources cited that filter the claims of a particular position largely if not exclusively through the eyes of the contrary party, undocumented claims that amount to accusations since the POV of one side is characterized in a particular manner without allowing the well-known citations to the point at issue to be entered into record due to entirely bogus claims of the lack of RS, misuse of claims of "fringe," etc. -- there are the issues of process well described by Jdkag above: --68.55.45.214 (talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Commentary about editor behaviour moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 68.55.45.214 appears to be BenJonson who just forgot to sign in. --Xover (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The comments by Jdkag have been addressed, and since these are the only actionable items you provide (by reference), your concerns should have therefore been addressed as well. I hope you will take the time to revise your Oppose. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding any actionable examples based on reliable sources, and remind reviewers to refrain from personalizing issues already covered in the Arb Case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Proposed New Version of Oxford Subsection that Meets NPOV requirements by BenJonson moved to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question per my posts below. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC). [reply]

Surely BenJonson's post belongs on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question? I will move it there shortly, unless somebody proposes a good reason for keeping it here on FAC. As far as I can see, it bears no resemblance to a review. Bishonen | talk 17:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Do these bracketed numbers refer to actual sources? If so, what are they? Paul B (talk) 17:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, a version with actual footnotes is now on Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I do not know where this is supposed to go, since unlike some other editors here I'm not really a professional Wikipedian, and sometimes find the processes involved more Byzantine than I'm able to readily negotiate. However, here is the version with footnotes supplied, per Mr. Barlowe's request. If it needs to be moved, please be my guest. I don't know if a University of Massachusetts PhD dissertation can be considered RS according to the prevailing interpretations in this cosmopolitan location on the internet (especially by one whom, as Mr. Reedy so politely and sensitively avers, teaches at "one of the worst colleges in the country") but would venture to suggest that the other references at least ought to be considered so by anyone without a profoundly non-NPOV perspective. Got to go to my internet journalism class. Enjoy--BenJonson (talk) 21:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for supplying footnotes. I've moved the footnoted version to Talk:Shakespeare authorship question. Bishonen | talk 21:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I think he must have simply forgotten to copypaste from edit mode. OK, sorry, BJ, but I'm relocating your post. I'm not making this move to make things difficult for you. Your suggestion for a rewritten article section simply belongs on the article talk, not on FAC. Bishonen | talk 20:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
To avoid complications if the suggestions by BJ are relocated to the SAQ talkpage, I have posted some reflections there.Nishidani (talk) 17:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Historical Evidence": ".[68] In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of the poems and plays during his lifetime, " ... I believe this is a misleading statement. It sounds like his name appeared on the title page of ALL poems and plays. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Romeo_and_Juliet_Q2_Title_Page-2.jpg for one example. Knitwitted (talk) 18:22, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we know that it did not appear in early play publications, but increasingly did later. The phrase "the poems" means that it appeared on all the published poems (V&A; Lucrece; sonnets) "and plays" means it also appeared on plays. However, I've rephrased to remove any ambiguity. Paul B (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In addition to the name appearing on the title pages of poems and plays..." still sounds the same to me. Maybe it should be "In addition to the name appearing on some of the title pages of poems and plays..." Knitwitted (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same because "the" was the only issue. And it does not appear on "some" of the title pages of Shakespeare poems. It appears on all of them. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul, a little more candor and specificity would help here. The name appears on NO title pages of plays until 1598. After that, it appears on MOST of them. Also, it appears on several plays that no one now thinks were written by "Shakespeare." The article should reflect these facts, and allow both theories an opportunity to explain them. It should also probably point out as well that 1598 is the year in which Francis Meres floats his *Comparative Discourse*. I wonder what your explanation for this might be. Moreover, there is a second interesting year that is obviously pivotal in the history of the publication of play quartos: 1604. In that year the publication of new quartos fell of dramatically. Something around 16 (depending on exactly what you count) were published during the 13 or so years before that. After that, until the 1623 folio, only four new plays where published, one of the quarto of Othello in 1622 (after which the licenser George Buc was removed from his office for "senility"). How do you or "Nishidani" or Tom explain this? And don't you think that it should be represented in the article? After all, you guys like to make a big deal out of the fact that Oxford died in 1604, why not also admit that some other interesting and possibly relevant things happened in 1604? Or is that a problem because you can't explain it any more than your academic colleagues can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenJonson (talk • contribs)
Your conspiracy theories are not taken seriously by scholars of the period, so there is nothing for me or Nishidani to explain. It's not up to us. It's up to the consensus of scholarship. Your "points" are not actionable. I am happy to respond in more detail on the talk page, but the essential point is that this story you are telling, in so far as it is intelligible, is not AFAIK addressed by reliable sources. As has been stated repeatedly, we try to follow what they say. Paul B (talk) 11:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As per Paul. You appear to ask us to evaluate your personal theories, as published here, for inclusion into this article. Our job, as I'm sure you must know by now, is to read reliable academic works and report faithfully their contents. While almost all those registering an oppose vote here subscribe to the Oxfordian theory, the article cannot be allowed to dwell exclusively on the speculations concerning the Earl of Oxford. Two relevant pages at least in wikipedia, Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship and the Oxfordian Theory - Parallels with Shakespeare's Plays, by common agreement, require extensive revision for improvement to meet minimal levels of quality. Those who are disappointed with our method, which is that endorsed by the protocols governing FA artcles in wikipedia, and who believe strongly that these things can be done better, that WP:NPOV can be improved, have an ample, unconflicted opportunity there to show us how exactly these alternative proposals work out in concrete terms. Nishidani (talk) 18:28, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. You've proven my point about Wikipedia's zealous quest to provide misleading information. Shakespeare's name may appear on all the title pages for poems but certainly NOT for all the plays. Knitwitted (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just what I said. Hence the wording. Your preferred wording, "some of the title pages of poems" is factually incorrect. You wouldn't want that would you? However, discussions of minutiae such as this should be undertaken on the talk page of the article. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knitwitted[edit]

Oppose. Tom Reedy's assertion "Why don't you give the link to the 2003 article so people can read for themselves what was reported?" as proposed here was used to counter an argument. This implies that the journal Shakespeare Matters is a reliable source. Also, the Wikipedia article James Wilmot also cites Shakespeare Matters (footnote 6). The Wilmot article is part of Wikipedia's "Shakespeare authorship question" series. There are no cites in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question article to the journal Shakespeare Matters. Knitwitted (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod[edit]

Softlavender[edit]

NON-NEUTRAL:

Reads as if the title of the article should be "The Case for the Stratfordian Authorship of the Shakespeare Oeuvre." The overwhelming amount of weight is given to Shakespeare. Numerous important omissions in the case against Shakespeare, not to mention of course abundant critical omissions in the case(s) for an alternative candidate.

Non-neutral wording: Anti-Strafordians are accused of citing "conspiracy" against the true author (this is hardly and rarely the case). Non-neutral and indeed patronizing characterizations of anti-Stratfordian positions: "the lack of documentary proof is a staple of anti-Strafordian arguments"; "construed"; "claiming to find"; "exposing the romantic view of Oxford as Shakespeare"; "the case of Oxford relies on ..."

'Nowadays, Oxfordians tend to steer clear of such loaded terms as 'conspiracy' or cover-up', but it is impossible to avoid them when discussing the Prince Tudor theories.' (Brit ed.p.223)

Stratfordian sources are continuously used to typify anti-Stratfordian positions.

Section on "Lack of documentary evidence" is in particular missing some core anti-Stratfordian points.

Lack of important anti-Stratfordian interpretation of the cited "Swan of Avon" poem (Oxford had a home in Avon; etc.)

Sections on the alternative candidates extremely short and extremely biased. Absurd over-emphasis on ciphers in the Oxfordian section -- this has never been a lynchpin in the Oxfordian candidacy.

Per FA policies, opinions must be given weight according to their prominence. Since the Oxfordian candidacy is by far the most prominent alternative authorship these past 10 to 90 years, it should be given extensive weight in the article, rather than being be what to be appears to be a footnote, and a very misleading one at that.

Very partisan (and clever I might add) insertions of the conclusions of some 'turned Oxfordians', with no mention whatsoever of the thousands of 'turned Stratfordians'. Speaking of which, this includes the fact that the Supreme Court decision about Oxford was very notably overturned in 2009 [44]; this is glaringly omitted from the article, whilst the early now overrided ruling is given plenty of emphasis.

Mention of Wikipedia (twice) in the article. Can Wikipedia really be objective about itself? I think not; mention in the article of Wikipedia as a format for the authorship debate reads as objecting to mention that the debate exists; ergo, why does this article even exist?

I am not finding any actionable items here, based on high-quality sources (which are not supplied) that have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NON-STABLE:

My opinion is that the SAQ question is far too dynamic a subject for the article to become a set-in-stone Featured Article. It's one of the hottest topics in the humanities. There are well-researched new books or documentaries on the subject -- that is against the Stratfordian authorship -- coming out at least every year. This will only increase after the September 2011 Anonymous film starring Vanessa Redgrave and Rhys Ifans, and its companion documentary film. The SAQ is a discussion that will become more and more discussed by academics as the years go on. We've seen that happen exponentially even within the past 5 or 6 years.

One huge problem I foresee with the article is that after the Anonymous film -- and the concomitant documentary about Oxford which is now in production that is going to be released along with it -- is released in September 2011, there is going to be a lot more journalistic and academic discussion of not only Oxfordianism, but also the entire Shakespeare authorship question. This article certainly shouldn't be come a featured article until all that has occurred and cycled through and stabilized. In fact, I think the dynamic and continually debatable nature of the subject precludes an article of this sort from being a featured article, because it will continuously need to be updated, and there will always be debate about how to word the updates, and so forth. Softlavender (talk) 00:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding non-stable. If Barack Obama can be an FA, this can be an FA. If William Shakespeare can be an FA, this can be an FA. Things change, but that shouldn't cause us to fear that we won't be able to maintain quality in the future. Wrad (talk) 15:09, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, all of Softlavender's concerns have been addressed. I hope you will find the time to revise your Oppose. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Methinx[edit]

Note, the size of FAs generally becomes a concern at around 10,000 words of prose-- they are plenty of FAs longer than that. Stats as of this version are:

Other issues raised in this Oppose are (or will be) covered elsewhere on the FAC. Size concerns become actionable if reviewers show specific instances where summary style has not been adequately used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fotoguzzi[edit]

Answered to my satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Buchraeumer[edit]

Leaning to Support. My only query would be the following: In the section on Oxford, it says that the case for him is based on: "... biographical correspondences found in the works, ...". Being aware that these correspondences are in many cases extremely tenuous or tortuous deductions, I'd wonder if it would be in keeping with NPOV to describe them as "alleged biographical correspondences found in the works" or similar. My point is that a reader unfamiliar with these theories would probably read much more into this than is warranted by the Oxfordian "evidence".

Generally, I am very happy to see this article still further improved, even in recent months. It's an impressive, interesting, and immensely useful overview. (My 20-odd edits to this article were all minor MOS things, starting about 2 years ago when reading it through out of curiosity; I've never had the artcle watchlisted, and was unaware of the extreme contentiousness of the SAQ until a few months ago). Buchraeumer (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, and while examining this, 'biographical correspondences in the works' is not as exact as this standard would require. The meaning is of course:

alleged/putative correspondences with events in his life and plots in the plays'?

Suggestions all round on how we do this? Nishidani (talk) 14:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How about "the belief that the plots and characters in the plays derive from incidents in his life". Paul B (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be ideal, IMO. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Better, yes. But the finicky dickhead inside me, anticipating in paranoid fashion, possible challenges, murmurs querulously: 'can 'characters' be said to 'derive from' incidents? Tom? You chew through this stuff everyday for breakfast, don't you? Nishidani (talk) 15:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it, but varied the phrasing. Alter at will, grammarian. Paul B (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice, now. I do think the article's tone is neutral, and its organization is now excellent. Also very nicley illustrated. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PametPuma[edit]

This comment illustrates as well as any the Sisyphean task of trying to address the objections of anti-Stratfordian advocates. The term "belief" was changed from "theory" to address specific objections brought up by an earlier Oxfordian critic. These types of whip-saw conflicting interpretations are rife in the FAC comments from anti-Stratfordians, partly because of the dissension within their own ranks (more than 70 candidates have been put forth as the true author, all of whose advocates use the same arguments against Shakespeare's authorship), partly because they all consider the academic consensus to be a deliberate conspiracy against The Truth, and partly because they want to return to the days when the page was a promotional tool for Oxfordians, as almost every comment makes clear to outside observers. Tom Reedy (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion on this point moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warshy[edit]

Ssteinburg[edit]

Noting that Mr. Reedy is one of the most vocal and active partisans defending the orthodox viewpoint (a fact, not a criticism), the fact that he has maneuvered himself into a position as one of the principle editors of this ostensibly “neutral” article sets up an inherent violation of the expressed intent of Wikipedia policy for featured articles. This problem could only be overcome by a consensus among the opposing contributors that the article is, indeed, “neutral”. However, that will not be possible as the article now stands, nor is it, in the opinion of this contributor, an achievable goal. The article, at the moment, is biased, subtly and not so subtly, in favor of the orthodox viewpoint and cleverly attempts to discredit both the anti-Stratfordian viewpoint and those who hold it. The idea of “neutrality” is, in our opinion, a perfect fallacy. We suggest, as an alternative, that the article have two parts of equal length, each part presenting the opposing view, leaving each side to be as partisan as it desires to be. If the article is granted “featured” status in its current form it will be a clear victory for proponents of the orthodox viewpoint and will, ultimately, be an embarrassment to Wikipedia. --Ssteinburg (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is the first and only comment this username has ever made. Wrad (talk) 20:01, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThis would be a clear violation of our NPOV policy. Dougweller (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note this appears to be pure commentary, and neither review or support or oppose vote, and should probably be moved to talk. --Xover (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing actionable here; please do not continue posting personal commentary that does not enegage WP:WIAFA to the FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiguy[edit]

Support. Note that I've been an occasional contributor to this page, especially in the last few months. I believe this article walks an incredibly fine line, giving solid coverage to the various subtheories without giving undue weight, reflecting scholarly consensus without being POV - I never really thought this article could get to this point, and I'm glad Wikipedia is proving me wrong. Kaiguy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth[edit]

Comments Leaning support, but not quite there yet. Some concerns, some issues with writing and one sentence fragment (ouch!) keep me from being a support. Note that I was especially on the lookout for bias issues while keeping in mind this is or is close to a fringe theory.

In general, I don't find a great degree of egregious POV and problems with NPOV. I've pointed out spots where it jumped out at me, and I do think that culling back some of the non-necessary stuff in the Case for section would help with the feeling of too much extraneous stuff not related to the actual alternate theories. Finding a few other ways of wording "anti-stratfordians" would also help cut down on that slight feeling of pushing too hard against the other theories. It's certainly not badly skewed to my historian trained mind. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized I have FAs to my credit that are shorter than this review, sorry! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your review. I appreciate the disinterested perspective and am happy that you found no major POV issues. Some of your criticisms point out places where we knew what we wanted to say but didn't say it quite well enough for a naïve reader to grasp, and that is much appreciated. We'll go to work on those and the rest of the points directly. Tom Reedy (talk) 03:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In order to not make this page any longer, I have copied the above points and placed them on the article talk page so the editors can mark them off and discuss them. Tom Reedy (talk) 12:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Status note here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

Continued discussion on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tony1[edit]

Wassupwestcoast[edit]

Cryptic C62[edit]

Support. I have begun reading through the article for clarity, accessibility, and neutrality. In order to avoid cluttering up this already enormous page, I have left my comments on the FAC talk page. Please respond to individual concerns there. After an exhaustive, productive, and yet somehow light-hearted prose review, I am very happy with the article in terms of clarity, accessibility, and neutrality of phrasing. And, before I forget, I would like to offer my sincere thanks to the nominators for taking on what must surely have been a monumental effort to bring the article to where it is now. Regardless of whether it is promoted or not, take pride in knowing that you've made the encyclopedia better. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:43, 3 April 2011 [46].

Galápagos tortoise[edit]

Nominator(s): Minglex, User:TCO, User:DrKiernan, User:Mike Searson, User:NYMFan69-86 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the Galapagos tortoise is a large and interesting reptile: the largest living species of tortoise, and one of the most long-lived animals on the planet. The species also played a historical role in the development of the theory of evolution by natural selection. The article was listed as a Good Article in November last year. I believe that improvements made since, including those suggested by Peer Review, qualify it for consideration. The article receives between 10,000 and 20,000 hits per month. Minglex (talk) 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updating nominator list per significant contributions of others while this article was at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sources look impressively scholarly, no complaints there. A few formatting nitpicks, however:-

I have carried out only limited spotchecks, since the content is largely incomprehensible to me. No problems arising, but perhaps content reviewers will cover this aspect further if it is thought necessary. Brianboulton (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for swift feedback. 1) I have gone through the references, hopefully they are now consistently formatted. 2) The linking has now been standardised. 3) Is it the case that journal titles must be italicised? I have been italicising the article title in every reference of this article. Is it acceptable as it stands? 4) Site publisher names are now given rather than website names. Minglex (talk) 15:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirects which may lead to link rot; see it with the tool in the upper right corner of this page. (the arkiv.org link) --PresN 19:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The link which was previously redirected is now a direct link. Minglex (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why Galápagos tortoise? Surely the English would be Galapagos turtle per OED.
  • Perhaps the etymology of the specific name nigra could be explained a bit more? They aren't black! Such explanations are usually given in the description.
  • I'm wondering about the description of the species - did Quoy & Gaimard use fossils or a specimen collected? How did it end up being the extinct subspecies that was used as the type for the species? Perhaps this ties into the question above; if they used a fossil, how did they know the animal was black?
  • the structure of the article seems a little odd. Why is "Role in the inception of the theory of evolution" where it is? Perhaps it should be down near the bottom with conservation (as part of a generalised "relationshiop with humans") as a subsection of evolution. Also "Role in the inception of the theory of evolution" is quite a mouthful.
  • "Conservation" and "Historical threats", perhaps better renamed "Threats and conservation" and "Historical exploitation"?
Thanks for taking the time to read this article.
  • All the sources refer to the species as a tortoise. In classification terms, the tortoise family (Testudinidae) is a subset of the turtles (Testudines).
  • (From Pritchard 1996, p 21): "the juvenile that served as a holotype for both Testudo californiana and T. nigra (MNHNP9550, carapace length 26.8cm, Figs 6-8) was reported to have come from California, and to have been donated, as a living animal, to M. de Freycinet by M. Meek, captain of the American ship Boston Eagle (l'Aigle de Boston). The donation was made in Hawaii (ḯles Sandwich). The alleged California origin of the specimen may have been supposition based upon the superficial similarity of a young Galápagos tortoise to an adult of the California desert tortoise, Gopherus (Xerobates) agassizi, although it must be admitted that there is no evidence that Quoy and Gaimard were familiar with this species."
  • Pritchard 1996 p 42, writes that the descriptions of both californiana and nigra differed by only a few words. Only the Latin description for californiana is given: "Testudo toto corpore nigro; testa gibba; scutellis dorsalibus priori posteriorque elevatis; loricae cunctis margine striatis; lateribus subcarinatis". The first phrase translates as "tortoise with completely black body", which would account for the nigra designation. As for the attribution of the nominate subspecies to Floreana (Charles) Island, this is a taxnomical fudge. It was first proposed by Garman (1917), and accepted by Pritchard (1996) who suggested we "turn a deliberate blind eye to the weaknesses in Garman's arguments that this form was from Charles Island, and to accept that designation on the grounds that it at least cannot readily be disproven. The procedure would have the advantage of not affecting the nomenclature of any extant subspecies."
  • To summarise- Quoy and Gairmard did describe nigra from a specimen, but there is no evidence that they knew of its accurate providence within the Galápagos. Later, Pritchard deemed it was convenient to accept the linking of nigra with the extinct Floreana subspecies because this decision allowed minimal disruption to the already-confused nomenclature of the subspecies. Please advise as to whether this is appropriate to include in the article.
  • The reason I have included the 'Role in the inception of the theory of evolution' after the section on shell-shape is that the variety of shell shapes was essential to the development of this line of thought. I have now made this a subsection of the previous section and shortened the title.
  • Section titles were deliberately modelled on the FA Loggerhead sea turtle. I think that it is useful to distinguish the conservation issues in the modern day as compared to historically. I agree that 'exploitation' is a more accurate term than 'threat' for the historical situation and have changed this accordingly Minglex (talk) 23:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers for the prompt response. First off, I win the space cadet award of the day. I meant to say "Galápagos tortoise? Surely the English would be Galapagos tortoise per OED?" But apparently some bfield mice in my hollow head cavity trampled on my last remaining neuron. With regards to the story of taxonomic confusion and historical mistakes you relate, I think it actually quite a good thing to include in the article. You seem to have a good handle on the story (to have related it so quickly) and it would help make the section more interesting. With regards to the bit on the role of shells in evolution, now taht you've made it a subsection the flow makes more sense, so all good there. Some further points:
  • In mutualism "Some tortoises have been observed to insidiously exploit this mutualistic relationship" - insidiously? Also, the claim is extraordinary, and could use some further infomation. Is this behaviour widespread? Not killing your cleaners is like rule number one on reef cleaning stations.
  • The photo of the eggg and baby might be better up in the bare breeding section. A photo from Flickr of tourists and tortoises together [47](or even the breeding centre, like this one [48]could be used instead. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Phew, I'm glad the Oxford English Dictionary says Galapagos tortoise, I was beginning to think we should demote the OED to an unreliable source or even if you where misreading a different turtle the Galápagos green turtle. I guess it's now a question of diacritics. As a matter of interest what does the OED call the Galápagos_Islands? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:10, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is at Galapagos. Galápagos is given as an alternative. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've read WP:DIACRITICS and checked on Google books, references within this article and also at nytimes.com and each one is divided evenly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanded taxonomy section
  • Will look into mutualism exploitation further
  • Changes to article photos now done (including alt text). Minglex (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm positive I've seen this discussed elsewhere but I think the 'notable individuals' section should be merged into another section. It's just not enough material to stand as a separate section; it's interesting and can't really be expanded further, so I think it just needs to be moved. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On Geochelone nigra abingdoni perhaps? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Harriet (tortoise) is a different subspecies than Lonesome George I believe. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps they ould be mentioned in the sections on age (in reproduction) and conservation respectively? Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:21, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article edited in line with suggested changes.Minglex (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just a few minor comments. I think "in the modern day" can be removed since the same sentence also uses "still" to indicate modernity. Both "Galapágos Islands" and "Galapágos islands" are used. Personally, I would change Islands to islands in all cases. In the captive breeding section, there's "7 of the 8 endangered" and "four to five years". In that case, they should probably be consistently in numerals, although WP:ORDINAL does allow the current use. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the support. I have made the suggested alterations. Regarding the Islands/islands issue, both Wikipedia and the OED use the capitalised form, so for now I have changed all the instances in the article to conform to this. Minglex (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' ref 70 does not appear to be a quality reference and if it is the bare link to it wants upgrading to a cite. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TCO: Very positive on the article. Long review is just how I roll. Have not checked most recent NYM edits.

Very important article for Wikipedia. Kudos for putting your time on something with high readership. Article gets about 700 views per day and is important educational material. Also, I like that you have covered a lot of important science without losing the sense of fun in the topic or making the prose hard to read.

Moved detailed prose review to talk page. I have not checked sources.TCO (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit) Pending support: (edit: need to address image concerns.) Think it's progressed very well. I appreciate your taking action on so many of my readability comments...and my book of a review. I feel very comfortable now with the prose. Very fun topic and article. I put in a request for that map and will also try to help with some of the urls (when I feel like it, not soon). Both are a fair amount of work versus a small reward. And are totally optional type things. Would not hold up promotion over them. Again, kudos on the work, you ogre, you!TCO (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Nice job!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Working on the image review, now.
No source review has done been done yet. Need a turtle expert as a lot of the stuff is offline. I can ask Fandamlias, who has 20 years working experience in the field.
Sorry about the length. I could put mine into a section. Or add smiley templates.  ;-)TCO (talk)

TCO Image Review (caveat, IANFN)

1. Permission issues:

A. Following flickr files all say no commercial use: File:Lonseome george.jpg, File:Porteribathing.jpg, File:Galapagos Tortoise and finch symbiosis.jpg (base image for the cropped finch picture), File:Galapagos tortoise dominance display.jpg, File:BabyGalapagosTortoises.jpg. I know there can occasionally be issues with Flickr images having new (less permissive licenses edited in, but doubt there would be so many). Need to check these permissions, and prove usage OK or remove the images (and hopefully find replacements). [For clarification, Flickr searches in "advanced" with all 3 boxes checked for licences, will return images that are OK for wiki. We can't use any images that forbid commercial use, or that forbid derivatives. If they want attribtion or share alike, that is fine, though.]

Replacement images found for all those with issues except for the finch symbiosis one.Minglex (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. Map does not say where the underlying image came from in history. If the base is non-free we may need to redo it, although I know quite a good mapmaker already engaged, so that's doable. Just need an asnwer from author if the base is free (put in description also). FS says underlying map is free. Annotated now.

2. Not a holdup for FA, in terms of permissions or illustrative value, but would caution my friend Minglex on uploading new files that are different pics on top of each other. Better to upload the original from flickr as own file and then do a crop or flip or the like as new file. Also, there were a few cases where a whole different turtle was shown. Better to do new files (if old one was non free, put in an FFD).

Will do in future. Minglex (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Illustratative value:

A. all the major issues were illustrated, although we need to see what the situation is if we have to pull point 1 photos. Some of the images (man on tortoise, gallery of 3 shell types, finch, battling turtles) are very helpful for explanation, not just pretty pictures.

B. I wanted a map to show the Indian Ocean Islands versus the Galapagos which would just show the literal halfway around the world, that would be small and go in early taxonomy. Had Fallschirmjäger (who is my expert) try, but he said basically impossible to show this in a small view.

C (half a loaf) would like to have a cutaway of the island map to show the relation to South America. FS is working on, now. Otherwise, map is pretty good diagram. Added.

D. Captions, placement, sizing are good.

4. I usually try to see if I can find any quick free images on Flickr, Google, and Commons, but have not done so yet. Let's see what we are missing. Article was well illustrated before point 1, but may have some holes after.

TCO (talk) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not quite understanding the status of the above section. Are the items not stricken considered outstanding? What is the status of outstanding issues? --Andy Walsh (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold shows the areas where action was needed. There is still a major outstanding issue wrt several photographs.TCO (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Generally well put together. Many book sources I can't check. A few things: #Would recommend cropping off the bottom part of the Rothschild image as the wording can't be read and seems to add nothing that wouldn't be more suitable in a caption.

  1. 'provenence' is a spelling typo or an American/English thing?
  2. 'indian tortoise' => 'Indian tortoise'
  3. link phylogenetic?
  4. 'thus echoes the volcanic history' =>'thus echo the volcanic history'
  5. 'The legs are large and stumpy, with dry scaly skin and hard scales' => 'The legs are large, stumpy, with dry scaly skin and hard scales'
  6. 'ecto-parasites' => 'ectoparasites'
  7. 'archipelagoes' => 'archipelagos'
  8. David Porter declared that, "...Gallipagos tortoises..." => Galápagos tortoise. I know it's a quote, so unsure about this.
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, have changed all as suggested except the last point about Porter's comments. The words are verbatim, so I think it's accurate to keep it in. Minglex (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Good work. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: We are compliant now on the images. My major concern after all the images were culled was the lack of a saddleback, but we have that and other stuff now. Like I said, we are passing now, but to make it better, why not (1) crop the image of hatchling and egg (I can help), and (2) go back to Dr. Kiernan's replacement multiturtle wallowing image (I think he had already fixed the copyright problem).TCO (talk) 01:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have now cropped egg and hatchling image. I prefer this version of the wallowing, is there a particular need for the alternative one? Minglex (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine however you want to do it. What I liked about the other was illustrating a social aspect of the tortoises. I thought text talked about large numbers together.TCO (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - why is Geochelone nigra abingdoni abbreviated to C. n. abingdoni i.e. with a C at the start? Some of my revisions were undone, so i undid one of my others to make it consistent as C. n. abingdoni, but don't understand the reasoning for that abbreviation, Tom B (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The species naming Geochelone changed to Chelonoidis last year. It's covered in the last part of the taxonomy. The name Geochelone nigra abingdoni is out of date, I've renamed the article although it's contents still requires correction. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, yes the naming aspect isn't covered in the Chelonidis n abing article Tom B (talk) 12:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my support for now. I will reconsider when the change in citation formatting is complete, if someone lets me know when that's done. DrKiernan (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness. Needless to say, this FAC exemplifies why articles should be ready before coming to FAC. I'll let it ride a bit longer, but the page is seriously backlogged, and we shouldn't still be cleaning up an article six weeks later! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Sandy. I, however, feel like this article's one real flaw is/was the references. Taking a look now, they appear to be formatted very well (unless I am mistaken). Perhaps User:Sasata could have a look see?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better, but still not there. Here's a sample from the first column of refs. Please go through the second column and check for similar issues. If you can sort out the research-required tasks (finding page #'s, issue #'s, page ranges), I'll clean up any minor formatting issues on my next pass through and then I think we should be almost good to go. Sasata (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At this point I will finally throw in my support. This is a fine article and, now that the reference issues have more or less been taken care of, I think it deserves promotion. Great work by Minlgex, Sasata, Mike Searson, and various other editors.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Careful prose and MOS review still needed, and since when do we allow hidden "thingies" in the infobox? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sasata, you're the man!  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just one of many. I gave the article a once-over for prose/MoS. I could probably spend several further hours nitpicking, but life is short :) Sasata (talk) 21:35, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved commentary about reference formatting moved to talk. Sasata (talk) 06:11, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 04:43, 3 April 2011 [49].

La Stazione[edit]

Nomination permalink
Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most comprehensive aggregation of information about this former railroad station ever assembled. For information about the sources, please see New Paltz (village), New York#Newspapers. Some of the citations appear to be incomplete, but the newspapers referred to were originally only three pages per issue, and are now entirely on microfilm. Gyrobo (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PresN[edit]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 01:58, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eisfbnore[edit]

  • Fixed, I was thinking the same exact same thing. I tweaked the word order slightly, so it shouldn't be a problem.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review

  • SUNY New Paltz is the only college in that area. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, the newspapers being cited were only about three pages per issue, no individual authors were attributed, most of the articles were just small, untitled paragraphs, and the fact that the only way to access the material is via microfilm renders all info other than the newspaper name and date pretty much superfluous. I've included titles and authors where they did exist. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing any inconsistency. Fixed? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, missed your explanation above. However, that doesn't answer the question about volume/issue numbers, publishers, and locations - can you expand on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it, it's something that bears repeating. Basically, another editor asked the same thing, so I decided to try to find more data for the sources. The fact that the only copies of the New Paltz newspapers are on microfilm pretty much renders any volume/issue data useless, so I didn't bother including them where I didn't already have them. All of the papers except the modern Times were published in New Paltz, and I've already set the location for all of them. I've also set C.J. Ackert as publisher for the 19th century Times, just to help distinguish it from the modern version, but the paper name and the date are really all that's needed to verify the content; Mabee's 1995 book cites them that way. I could remove the existing volume/issue parameters to make the citations consistent?
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I removed volume/issue information from the few citations that had it. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle[edit]

Giants2008[edit]

  • My interpretation of WP:Section caps is that years are numbers and not words and don't count toward a section heading's capitalization. It's tricky because sentences aren't supposed to ever start with numbers, but "Fire in 1907" seems a little forced to me. I don't think the event ever had a proper or common name.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I replaced the wording to avoid starting with a year. It avoids inadvertently naming the event. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just added four images to the article. They've been waiting on OTRS (ticket #2010123010016233) for about six weeks, and the library has just sent me explicit approval to place the images (original uploads are TIFs, the images used in the article are JPG derivatives) under CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses. If someone here is an OTRS volunteer, could you please resolve the ticket and update the licenses?
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of, the ticket has been resolved. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dank[edit]

Comments. I do copyediting for several wikiprojects, including WP:MILHIST, and people usually prefer that I make the edits rather than asking them to do it ... but let me know please if you'd rather I comment and not edit. - Dank (push to talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • During the GA review, the reviewer was from the UK and apparently the terms are not interchangeable there. I thought it best to just define them and avoid confusion.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not usually how we handle it at FAC; if there's a way to make something intelligible to everyone (and there usually is, with a little creativity), we do that, and if not, then we go with the local lingo, American English in this case. But oxforddictionary.com says station and depot mean the same thing. I can't claim to understand nuances in BritEng, but if American definitions are right and the British definitions are at least close, then we don't need a note. Does anyone object to removing the note (which is just a definition)? We could ditch "depot" if that would be less confusing. - Dank (push to talk) 22:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think replacing all instances of "depot" with "station" throughout the article would make it very repetitive, and I have never had a strong opinion on the note either way.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source was pretty vague on this (all it said was that the railroad was required to be in New Paltz on that day), but given what the other ref says about construction starting that day, I assume that's what it means.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I made the edit because it wasn't clear ... but if I've changed it from something unclear to something that's clearly wrong, or not supported, correct it please. - Dank (push to talk) 15:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Given that the next ref says that construction was started that day, I think it's safe to assume that's what the source meant.
        --Gyrobo (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a paragraph about how the station had been visited by two former presidents. Should the sentence on the station's telegraph being used for election results be moved there? It places it slightly out of chronological order, but it doesn't seem to read as well where it is now.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although it doesn't have a lot to do with the paragraph it's in now, I like it better now because it's chronological. It didn't have a lot to do with the paragraph it was in before, so there's no downside. - Dank (push to talk) 18:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NortyNort[edit]

Comments from NortyNort

  • The source doesn't say when it initially burned down, just that it did at some point. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just another detail of the building, like the overhangs, or the bay windows. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get it that it is a detail and you covered the description but this bike rack is out of place. It's three feet, no big deal, and a lot of buildings have bike racks. It could be combined with the first sentence in the paragraph. I struck out the comment below; after an afterthought and your reasoning, I agree.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tried moving it up, but that breaks the paragraph up chronologically; the bike rack doesn't predate the creation of the trail. I keep rereading it, and I don't think it's very out of place at the end. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok well, then I'll leave it be. If no other editors pick up on it then fine with me.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's important to mention the part about the documentary, so that people aren't wondering whether this man just showed up for that one particular movie, or if he frequently does mob films/shows. And I think it's important to say whether the guy who owns the restaurant owns other restaurants; I can easily picture the following scenario: "Sammy Strawman signed a lease for a new restaurant in Kingston in January 2011. The restaurant was open by April, and by early October, was doing so well that staff at Strawman's other restaurant was cut by half. In February 2012, the faltering restaurant was sold to Oliver Overkill, who tore up the building's floorboards in search of a penny he had dropped at the station as a child, in 1935." --Gyrobo (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The comments, particular on the detail are from my own perspective and were of the few times I stopped when reading the article. Other readers may feel differently. Overall, the article flows well. I enjoyed the read, especially being from Westchester.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:33, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support My concerns have been addressed and one minor issue aside, I support this article for promotion.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Racepacket[edit]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

The lead is short and jarring. It jumps suddenly from what/where it is to "it was robbed". How about something about its design, and some paragraphs? Words like cigar, bike rack and gas tank are linked. "Throughout its history, the Springtown station was occupied by various tenants", throw-away sentence, says nothing. Why is a President's visit and a sewage line installation mentioned in the same paragraph (I understand some presidents may be compared to sewers, but ... ) "The original New Paltz station burned down on April 23, 1907. The fire damaged freight and killed the station agent's dog." What caused the fire? Why can't those sentences be joined somehow (choppy)? Open a bar three times in three sentences. I'd like to see a tighter prose review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I expanded the lead, but I don't think the station's design should be mentioned there, because there really isn't that much written about the architecture, there's no single "architecture" section in the article, and not that much was written about the original station's design.
  • I'm not sure what you're asking me to do about those linked terms.
  • If people live in a train station, I think that's important to mention.
  • The sewage line fits in there chronologically, albeit not thematically, but I think it's preferable to a single sentence paragraph.
  • None of the sources mentioned the cause of the fire.
  • Not sure what you mean by "Open a bar three times in three sentences."
--Gyrobo (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Wikiproject has a lot of long-time editors; can you leave them a note asking them to come look? I understand you're not getting Sandy's objections, and I wish I could help, but MILHIST is sucking up all my time. If you guys have a copyeditor who's willing to help out with a lot of your FACs and understands most of what Sandy is saying but needs help on the finer points, I'll be happy to walk them through it, but I'm not going to be able to copyedit your articles solo. You guys need a dedicated copy editor who knows something about the preferences of the wikiproject and of FAC reviewers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which editors would be willing to do that? None of the participants list copyediting in their skillset, and every time I've tried to get feedback on the project's talk page, there hasn't been a response. I think I'm a pretty good copyeditor, but I just need more feedback to get a better idea of what reviewers are looking for. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not disputing your writing or copyediting skills. But you didn't follow anything Sandy said; I guess I'm looking for someone who has a fair amount of experience at FAC and will be used to what people are asking for here. I sympathize; if the people won't come, they won't come. - Dank (push to talk) 19:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic C62[edit]

Comments from Cryptic C62. Some of these are my own comments, some are elaborations on the points that Sandy brought up:

  • Changed wording to avoid repetition. I thought she was referring to a broken template that had an extra bar in it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film is named in the text, but it doesn't have its own article, so I don't really think it would help readers by getting so specific in the lead. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The railroad was at that time proposed, but not built yet. The plans extended the hypothetical route. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, in that case, I think it would be helpful to employ the word "route" just as you've done here. How about "In February 1864, plans were underway to extend the route for the proposed Wallkill Valley Railroad" ? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources don't really give reasons for the increased cost, they just mention the western route being shorter. I personally assume the increased cost had something to do with the placement of the bridge over the Wallkill; if they'd crossed where the river was narrower to the south, it would have been shorter, and therefore cheaper. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that earlier, but just naming the article "La Stazione" triggered intimations that I was somehow promoting the restaurant. I changed the wording of the lead slightly to reflect the name and avoid historical anachronisms, how does it look? --Gyrobo (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88[edit]

'Leaning oppose' Neutral- just starting to have a look at this. First, please add non-breaking spaces where necessary per WP:MOS. I think the lead needs to be reorganized with the last sentence moved all the way up to become the second or so sentence so the reader knows immediately why the station is notable. Suggest some link work - currently states that two presidents used the train station but is linked to President of the United States with an image of Barack Obama. Put the names of the presidents in the lead. The link to mob film doesn't do much - go ahead and mention the names of the films in the lead. The second paragraph is choppy - it tells us the station was robbed and then that the station was used by many vacationers (including presidents) without any sort of transition between the sentences. "Late 19th century" needs a hyphen. Why did passenger service cease? A phrase or so would suffice in the lead - I'm presuming it's been explained in the body of the article. Will try to return. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, added &nbsp; entities throughout the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reworked the lead.
  • As I said in response to Cryptic, I think getting overly specific in the lead is undesirable. The movie has no article of its own, and its plot isn't described in the article. The fact that a movie was filmed there in the first place is what I'd consider important. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "19th century" only needs to be hyphenated "19th-century" when being used as an adjective. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added cause of discontinuation of passenger service (it was cars). --Gyrobo (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Per above, I'd hyphenate late-19th but leave it to you

These are only a few examples from the first section. I'd suggest an independent copyeditor work on the prose, and you work to integrate some of the choppiness. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source just says that it was a common belief. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added &nbsp; entities to the ellipses, but I think the addition of those entities throughout the entire article is really overkill. Having them in dates is advisory, not mandatory; for ellipses, non-creaking entities are recommended "only as needed". I think their inclusion here makes it harder to visually parse the source code, without really improving the article. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a really good point about location, I've added a map of the WVRR corridor. I'm kicking myself over not including it earlier, all the other WVRR-related articles have it and it provides a critical geographical context. Please let me know how the article reads now. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding a specific rail line, the article makes clear in both the lead and first paragraph that the rail line is the Wallkill Valley Railroad. Throughout the article, the cessation of passenger service, and the ultimate closure of the line, is mentioned. I just didn't want to bring that up in the lead, because this article is about the building, not the railroad. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trust me, I am more than familiar with developing web pages across multiple screen resolutions, and I completely see where you're coming from; it's just that I can easily see an IP coming by and adding a date to the article without even knowing about non-breaking characters, rendering the whole scheme inconsistent. It's kind of a no-win situation, but the non-breaking route is definitely the lesser of two evils. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper88 cont ... Here's a sample list of problems I see:

  • Neither the book nor any of the newspapers give more information than what is already in the article; an office fire in the 1880s destroyed many of the railroad's early documents, so the exact financial details of the station's construction may never be known. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:43, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added the fact that Gardiner is south of New Paltz, and that the railroad was the first in Ulster County. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • how does the fact that the lumber came from Pennsylvania tie in with the names of the contractor, carpenter and painter?
  • It ties in because it's part of the building's construction. It's a fact that can't really be elaborated any further on. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I understand that, but it should be integrated for flow
  • I just reread the paragraph in question. Apparently, another editor had changed the order of the wording a month ago and made it weaker; I believe the problem with flow is now fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • a sentence describes the inaugural run of the train and the next sentence tells us during that decade the telegraph was used for election returns - again, how do these tie together? Was the telegraph used for anything else?
  • No further uses are mentioned, I just included it there because that's where it occurs chronologically. There just happen to be small facts and occurrences that can't be elaborated on and give the illusion of choppiness, when really they represent completeness. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the telegraph be intergrated somehow? Something like "the new station included a telegraph that was used at such and such time for election returns"
  • If I did that, it wouldn't really work out chronologically. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The items you're suggesting are really off topic here. The robbery directly involved the station; rail travel in rural America is far beyond the scope of this article. The lead clearly describes where the station is located, and I've provided a route map for geographical context. And the reasons for constructing the station at its location are very clearly discussed. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's truly not clear to a person not from the area that it's in the Hudson Valley.
  • I don't think it's necessary for every article related to the Hudson Valley to explicitly say that the subject is in the Hudson Valley. The article doesn't currently say that the station is in the United States; it's just a level of scope. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed one of the sentences to indicate that it's a resort. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the sentence was already clear, but I've changed it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think President needs to be linked here - linking in to Arthur will tell us he was a president. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I've included only the information provided by the sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs a transition or something to make the jump from the building of the station to the tenants in 1911. Also, I'm assuming tenants are shops or something like that, correct? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've clarified that the tenants were residential, and moved that to the preceding paragraph. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*a few occurrences of "due to" should be replaced with "because of"

  • There are two instances of that, one of which is due to your earlier comments. I've changed one of those instances. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There doesn't need to be more research; the source clearly says that the rise in automobile use caused the railroad to fail. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
*I was thinking something along the lines of explaining that roads and cars supplanted rail travel in the area. Also, don't think automobile needs to be linked. Truthkeeper88 (talk)
  • That's already what the text says; I think automobile needs to be linked because the context of modes of transportation, and someone may want to learn more about the history of cars. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The automobile article doesn't do much to explain the change in modes of travel in the Hudson valley, but I'll strike anyway

*1977 freight services ended, but when did passenger service end? I may have missed it....

  • Passenger service ended in 1937, it is mentioned. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That happened after the station was no longer part of the rail line, so I didn't think it was important to mention because this article is about the station. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any problems with this wording. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this edit and reversion, if you don't like the repetition, perhaps combining the sentences would work. I still think it's a good idea for you to have an independent copyedit, will reiterate that below. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will look at this again, but think the sentence can be improved if you don't use 'permit' as the subject. Okay, looked at it again - in my mind the problem with the sentence is that trail is the last word - but it's probably the most important because it sets up for the bike rack later on . Somehow it needs to be recast so it's more active with less emphasis on permit, because otherwise the reader is confused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I rephrase this sentence to remove the permit as the subject, it becomes passive. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence reads, "...the restaurant was forced to remove a gas tank and gas line that were placed under the trail, or risk losing its certificate of occupancy." The part about the bike rack fits in at that point chronologically. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an issue of context - just needs some clarification, imo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Again, I'm trying to keep the text in chronological order while avoiding tiny paragraphs.
  • NortyNort asked the same thing, and I'll reply with the same text:
    I think it's important to mention the part about the documentary, so that people aren't wondering whether this man just showed up for that one particular movie, or if he frequently does mob films/shows. And I think it's important to say whether the guy who owns the restaurant owns other restaurants; I can easily picture the following scenario: "Sammy Strawman signed a lease for a new restaurant in Kingston in January 2011. The restaurant was open by April, and by early October, was doing so well that staff at Strawman's other restaurant was cut by half. In February 2012, the faltering restaurant was sold to Oliver Overkill, who tore up the building's floorboards in search of a penny he had dropped at the station as a child, in 1935."
    --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said that the film shouldn't be redlinked in the body, I just feel that it's title is immaterial for a concise summary, and I took issue with Cryptic's uncivil edit summary. I don't know how much more research you think should be done here, I've spent a great deal of time reading through literally all newspaper articles and books ever written on this station. There isn't any more I can add without original research. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding another comment: this statement: "The West Shore Railroad purchased the Wallkill Valley line in June 1881,[35] and placed an additional siding by the depot in 1887 to allow daily "special extra-fare trains ... for the Minnewaska and Mohonk visitors".[36]" should be integrated with the building of the sheds earlier, if the shed building was a result of the West Shore Railroad purchase - again, I'm confused. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the sheds explicitly says that they were built by the co-founder of the Mohonk Mountain House for his horses. The railroad was uninvolved. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not explicit to this reader that the railroad was not involved and there's a fair amount of purchasing going on in that para, but I've tweaked it a bit to clarify. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources do not say that the land was purchased from the railroad. As far as the sources are concerned, the sheds were adjacent to the depot, and unrelated to the railroad except for the fact that they were next to it. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is choppy because, in some cases, proper context has been left out. Only an independent copyeditor - an editor who has never read the article and brings fresh eyes to it - can identify the places where a reader is potentially confused. I have read over this article a couple of times but still am confused in places. Don't take it as a criticism of the prose so much as a suggestion to improve the page by adding context where it needs to be added for those readers, such as myself, who are stupid. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment: I agree with SilkTort's concern re the terminology. I am American and think of a rail station as a place where a train stops for passengers with a depot being a place for freight or for storage of rail cars, etc. The station should be called a station, but that brings up another issue - this station must have had a name. Trains stop at specifically named stations. Presumably it was the New Paltz station, but am not sure that's made clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources refer to it consistently as both a depot and a station, and at no point prior to it becoming La Stazione was any name given for the structure. I strongly believe the article should reflect the historic nature of the sources and subject, and that assigning it an arbitrary name not specified in any source would be original research. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This source calls it the old New Paltz station. Also explains that hikers stop there - which is not clear in our article. Anyway, train stations do have names - the conductor calls out the name of the stop, the stop is noted in rail maps, and so on, so it must have had a name before it became an Italian restaurant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That source makes it sound as if the restaurant operates out of a railroad station that just happens to be in New Paltz; it doesn't seem to use any official name other than the one it currently has. Absolutely none of the sources give a specific name for the depot, it's always just "the train station/depot in New Paltz", the "New Paltz station/depot", or just "the station/depot". And the article reflects this terminology. The atlas image from 1875 labels it "depot", while the railroad map from 1899 calls it "New Paltz". I see no official or common name. Regarding the hikers, I'm being told via edit summaries that including the fact that La Stazione's owner also owns two other restaurants is in itself seen by some as promotional; adding that info would probably bring on more assertions of promoting the place, and I don't think it's important to mention hikers in particular, as many kinds of people eat there. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but the point that I've been trying to make is that some of the apparent inconsistencies causes confusion for a reader who doesn't know the subject. At any rate, I think I've done all I can here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:52, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting this change, and I just wanted to explain why. The source says that both terms were interchangeable. If it's further mentioned that "depot" referred to smaller structures while "station" referred to larger ones, that just confuses readers about which term is more apt here. The sources use both "depot" and "station", without making any distinction. The change also excludes how freight affects the name of the structure, which would also increase confusion. --Gyrobo (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GrahamColm[edit]

Comments for the time being. This is from my Talk Page:

Thanks for reviewing this, I really think your changes addressed the issues other reviewers brought up. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry about my typo ("demolision"). I tried to correct it but had an edit conflict with you. I haven't read the others' reviews yet—I try not to—but my first impression is that the prose lacks flow. I offered my edits as "suggestions" because I don't know anything about the subject, but your responses to the changes that I offered might highlight parts of the text that need of clarification. I will copy this conversation to the FAC discussion so other reviewers are aware of it. I will offer a full review later. PS. I notice that you have included some of my humble suggestions. Best wishes. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will finish my review later, but my first impressions are that the article needs a little more polishing to maintain flow—it's a bit clunky at the moment— but the nominator is polite and accommodating. There is just a little more fine-tuning needed IMHO. Graham Colm (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issues brought up by the other reviewers, and that I think you're driving at, is that some of the text appears "choppy"; i.e., a sentence will appear that is unconnected thematically with the rest of a paragraph. The reason for these occurrences is, they fit in at that point chronologically, but the sources lacked enough information to expand them further. I felt my only choices in those instances were to leave the information out (not desirable, because it sacrifices comprehensiveness), or blending it with a nearby paragraph to avoid numerous one-sentence paragraphs. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ling.Nut[edit]

  • The closure section says that it stopped being used as a station in 1958, and was sold off the following year. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The part about the Gilded Otter gives context to who the person is. Wilro and Bialecki are about as relevant as the original contractor in 1870, I see no reason not to mention them; and the fact that Bialecki was the architect behind the renovation of another historic building is worth mentioning. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why provide context for the person if we don't really need to mention the person in the first place? ... I'm reading from the bottom up. If the original cast and crew of the construction of the station are all listed in detail... why should they be in the article? Are they notable?• Ling.Nut (talk) 02:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, but how can you tell if the article makes logical sense if you begin reading it at the end? And I fail to see why that information should not be included, it's part of the station's history and gives context to the people involved. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked two questions: First, I know it sounds strange. Any reviewers who may have come before me often get fatigued midway through an article; I occasionally find glaring errors in the later sections of longer articles. Moreover, although I'm not trying to see if it makes perfect sense when I read from top to bottom, it's actually true that they should "almost" make sense. If I hit a puzzling patch, I either mentally note it, or else I skip around the article to see if it is explained elsewhere. Finally, I do of course read top-to-bottom after I've read bottom-to-top. Second question: Not everyone who is involved is worth noting! Does the article on Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope have an exhaustive list of the make-up artists involved? You see my point... This article is shorter and thus has more leeway, but still, even in shorter articles there is a line between inclusiveness and WP:TRIVIA...• Ling.Nut (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that's a fair comparison. Listing people who were tangentially involved in making a film is not equivalent to mentioning that a train station was renovated by someone who had previously renovated another historic building in the same town, or that the building's owner had previously helped build an adjacent restaurant. There were likely dozens of individuals involved in the construction of the structure, but only a single contractor is mentioned. Removing all this information removes context and comprehensiveness, and would make it harder to see connections and locate relevant data when future articles about other buildings are written. WP:TRIVIA explicitly says that it's not a guideline on inclusion, only that trivia should be integrated into the prose when that's clearly beneficial. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was my practice to italicize it on its first mention. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All right, I've removed the instances where it is italicized. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork[edit]

  • I've re-added the note about "station" and "depot" being interchangeable in North America. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is such usage currently "interchangeable" or is depot slang usage? See [50] - note: "Usage: In the United States, a stopping place on a railway for passengers and freight is commonly called a depot: but to a considerable extent in official use, and in common speech, the more appropriate name, station, has been adopted. [1913 Webster]" When I look at current American dictionaries, such as Merriam-Webster, the primary use of depot is "storage facility" - [51]. If the primary use in both US and British usage is "storage facility", and that its use as "station" in the USA is considered inappropriate, while its use in the UK as regards railways can be misleading if someone doesn't immediately read the footnote, wouldn't it be more accommodating to readers in general to use station throughout? There are featured articles on stations which don't using depot. Some other items that have caught my attention: 1) What was the name of the place before it was called La Stazione? 2) Was it also a goods station because it says that passenger services stopped in 1937, though the station itself didn't close until 1958 - could that be made clearer. 3) Why is there a section on Springtown station? 4) And why is Springtown station not mentioned in the lead per WP:Lead? 5) There is a tendency toward short sentences which gives a choppy, awkward feel to the article. SilkTork *YES! 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the use of "depot" fits in with the historical context of the article, and prevents every sentence from being "The station..." The only FAs on railroad stations are on UK stations, so it's not really fair to compare this to those in terms of terminology. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The building had no name before it became La Stazione. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article mentions that freight service continued on the rail line until 1977. That's mentioned in the same section. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Springtown station is included because it's the only other station in New Paltz and its decline was caused by the first station. I can think of no other article where it would be appropriate. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really can't help the occasional choppiness, most of the sources were one-paragraph blurbs. --Gyrobo (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked by Gyrobo to come here to give support - or at least to clarify my views. I did not intend to either support or oppose this for FA as I am not taking on any reviews at the moment, as I don't have time for the level of reading and research required. I was on the FAC page for some other reason, saw the discussion about "depot" and "station", and gave some input on what depot means in the UK. I returned out of curiosity, and while glancing at the article had a couple of observations.

As regards the name - the postcard gives the place the name "Wallkill Valley R.R. Depot, New Paltz" - some sources refer to a New Paltz PO and railway station - but this may be the Springtown station. There is no mention of freight in the lead, which is where I read about the line closures. If I am being asked to give a view, I would incline to oppose as I feel the article doesn't provide enough information about the topic. It raises questions which it cannot answer, and when a reader starts looking elsewhere for information I would feel that the article needs more development. If I was doing a GA review on this I would want more information in order to comply with "broad coverage", and the FA requirements of "comprehensive" are even more demanding. And I would want the lead built up per WP:Lead, and the prose quality improved. As for not being able to deal with the choppy prose, there are others who will do a copyedit of you ask - try WP:COPYEDITORS. Good luck! SilkTork *YES! 22:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've mentioned this a few times, but in a nutshell, the information included in this article is all the information that was available. It contains references to all newspaper articles, all books, and all web pages related to this subject. None of the sources describe the kind of freight the station handled, nor did it have a single common or official name before it became a restaurant. In addition, I believe I may have come off as saying that I personally couldn't improve the article's prose. I think I should clarify this: some of the sources I found were one-sentence paragraphs that were completely unrelated to each other, but took place almost concurrently. Hence, you have a blurb about a sewage line in the same paragraph as summer vacationers. This may be odd, but there is no further information that would enable this content to be rendered in a more free-flowing manner. If the article raises questions it can't answer, that's because no published source can answer it. I'm sorry. Regarding the lead, I believe it to be an accurate, and concise, summary of the body content, that manages to avoid getting overly specific and retelling the entire article. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone over Listen to the Whistle, and only one station (at Forest Glen) was explicitly said to double as a post office. I think the sources at the link you have there are referring to the New Paltz rail station AND the New Paltz post office, as two separate entities. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This might help clarify. See page 25. Apparently they were telegraph offices according to Wiatroski, p. 152. Sorry, butting in again .... Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Station1[edit]

Moved from User talk:Station1#La Stazione

I undid the change you made to La Stazione, because I don't know if you saw the reason I gave for that content's inclusion on the FAC:

In short, this information adds context to the building as a restaurant, and to the restaurant's owner. --Gyrobo (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did see it - you mentioned it in your edit summary. I strongly disagree, though, that other restaurants should be named in the article just because they happen to be owned by the same person. This is extremely tangential to the topic and, more importantly, sounds like an ad - although I realize that's not your intention. You seem to be saying in your scenario that it's possible these other restaurants might somehow affect this one in the future, but that's pure conjecture, and it certainly isn't clear from reading the sentence in the article that that's even what you're trying to get at. It's clear you've done a lot of research, and overall this is a very nice article, but that paragraph should come out. Station1 (talk) 05:50, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to businesses, I've noticed a tendency among editors to err on the side of "it's probably advertising", but simply mentioning that these restaurants exist is not promotional. I could see it if this information was inserted into the articles for the involved towns, such as "New Paltz is a great town, and you can eat at this restaurant!" But it is appropriate in this context; the owner of La Stazione also owns two other restaurants. This is directly related to the subject, and I can't find anything in WP:SPAM to preclude the inclusion of this content. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We disagree. You're doing more than mentioning they exist; you're giving names and locations and type of food and dates of opening. The fact that the building's owner also happens to own other specifically named restaurants - one in another town and one that sounds like it might be a pizza parlor in a strip mall - tells me about the owner but absolutely nothing about the topic of the article, the building. If it's important to know that the owner "also owns two other restaurants", just insert ", who owns two other restaurants," after his name. But giving their names and locations is totally unnnecessary. As others have pointed out, the article's title and wording of the lead already give it a slightly promotional tinge. You've done a good job in not giving the restaurant undue weight in the body, but I think it's especially important in a case like this not to push it too close to the edge by writing anything that has the appearance of being promotional, especially when it's so unnecessary. And again, I don't doubt your good intentions, but more than one editor has questioned the promotional tone. Station1 (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not given the types of foods served. The name of the place is Rocco's Pizza. And mentioning the locations of these buildings is indeed relevant: we know the location of the first restaurant (the subject of the article), so wouldn't it be of interest if the owner opened another restaurant in the same town? I understand that you're not impugning me personally, but from my perspective you're proposing a solution in search of a problem – removing content that's written in a neutral manner, and related to the subject, purely because it may be viewed by some people as promotional. Also, should this whole conversation be moved to the FAC? --Gyrobo (talk) 18:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not purely because it sounds promotional, but coupled with the fact that I do think it's largely irrelevant. Even if town location were relevant, names wouldn't be, nor that it's near Stop and Shop. If you wish to move this to FAC, I have no objection; other's opinions might be helpful. Station1 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I already removed that part. --Gyrobo (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Butting in: as I brought this up at FAC, and Ling.Nut has as well, I think this conversation should take place there so we can all be on the same page - literally. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:25, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UpstateNYer[edit]

I'm making edits as I go through; hopefully that doesn't bother you. I do have a couple things you should look at.

  • The problem is that that name is just one of many ways the station was referred to. The name in the postcard was chosen by the printer, S. Deyo & Son. The sources call it the New Paltz station/depot, the station/depot in New Paltz, the railway depot/station, etc. There was never a single, common name for the place until it because a restaurant, and I think the article reflects this. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. The |ref=harv parameter wasn't set for Sylvester. I'll have to check that on other pages. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the only other station in New Paltz, and its decline as a destination was caused, at least in part, by the emphasis the rail line placed on the station in the village. And given the early contention over having the village station east of the river, it's probably of interest that the railroad indeed placed a station on the west bank. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources didn't make it seem as though it was an imminent threat, just a zoning violation or some other infraction that could potentially be a threat. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed both sentences, per WP:SNOW. I personally think it adds context to the restaurant's owner by letting readers know that he owns other restaurants, but at this point consensus clearly doesn't support that view. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more as I continue this review. Nice job though; a lot of info for a building that's not on the NRHP (PS, why isn't it? Maybe you should nominate it). upstateNYer 00:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC) Well done. I like the article and am still impressed you found so much info on a non NRHP-identified building (even if it is in a NHD). And great illustrations. Love the fact you could get a photo released by the library from 1988 and 2003. That's a big deal. upstateNYer 01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The library would have been more than willing to release their entire collection if noncommercial licenses were an option. I'm not sure what effect my request has had on their longstanding policies, but I'm hoping that it'll be easier to get more historic photos for articles in the future; New Paltz has one of the largest collections in Ulster County. The next time I'm at the library, I'm going to definitely ask about nominating this for the NRHP. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:20, 3 April 2011 [52].

1911 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it's a prime example of an article from this hurricane era. 2011 is its 100-year anniversary; whether or not I'll nominate it for TFA sometime this summer I'm unsure, but nonetheless I feel it's worth recognizing. Juliancolton (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should be good now, sorry about that. One thing, though. At the end of the timeline, "Tropical depression" gets cut off, so I simply abbreviated it to "TD". Is that OK? Juliancolton (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I've had to do that before for WPac season articles, for non-numbered systems. Otherwise, the full name takes up too much room. I'd suggest being consistent though...if it is TD in one place in the timeline, all TDs should have the same nomenclature. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • They're not strictly the same, and I believe it does serve a valid purpose. Juliancolton (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem appropriately scholarly, limited spotchecks found no issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Juliancolton (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support.

This is a nice, short article that generally meets the criteria. I peer-reviewed this article, and my concerns were addressed. I have four additional suggestions, as follows:
Season Summary
  • "Three weak tropical depressions developed and remained below tropical storm force; the first formed in February and the third existed in December." - Tighten by one word by deleting "existed"?
  • "Information on the remainder of the storms were amended and corrected readily." - Delete "readily"?
  • "Since tropical cyclones in the Atlantic Ocean were not given official names until 1950, storms in older seasons are referred to simply by their number in chronological order." - I think you need a source for this.
  • I made the statement broader, which makes it purely descriptive in nature and eliminates the need for a source IMO. Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tropical Storm One
  • "The first tropical cyclone of the 1911 season formed on August 4 over southern Alabama in the United States, identified by its lack of associated frontal boundaries and closed circulation center." - The words at the end are really meant to modify "cyclone" rather than "United States". Would this be better flipped to "Identified by its lack of associated frontal boundaries and closed circulation center, the first tropical cyclone of the 1911 season formed on August 4 over southern Alabama in the United States"? Finetooth (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, changed. Thanks for the review, both here and at PR! Juliancolton (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. Switching to support. Finetooth (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I don't see any issues with this article. Though not as substantial as other seasons, it'd make a nice 100-year anniversary TFA. Cyclonebiskit (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 1911 Atlantic hurricane season was the annual event in the cycle of tropical cyclone formation that ran through the summer and the fall of 1911.

How can a season be an annual event in a cycle? What does that mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's standard project wording, but I guess it is pretty confusing, so changed. Juliancolton (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurricane, relatively small in size, caused widespread damage between Savannah and Charleston, South Carolina, although the former location received only minor damage despite its close proximity to the storm's center.

If small in size, why did it cause widespread damage? Why "the former" instead of just "Savannah"? Why minor damage despite its close proximity when widespread damage occurred elsewhere? We need a non-storm person to go through here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finetooth is a "storm person"? A storm can be small in geographical size and still cause severe damage. A tornado is only half a mile wide, yet it can kill many people and destroy countless houses. Juliancolton (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks, Dank-- I'm going to be working a long time tonight, so pls update here if you get through by tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were six official tropical cyclones, and a couple more unofficial storms that may or may not have been TCs (including the February depression). Any suggestions on how to make this clearer? Juliancolton (talk) 01:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait ... "Three weak tropical depressions developed and remained below tropical storm force; the first formed in February and the third in December." So, was the storm in February definitely tropical or maybe tropical? - Dank (push to talk) 02:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, reading the timeline and the text, I went with "There were three suspected tropical depressions, including one that began the season in February and one that ended the season when it dissipated in December." Feel free to twiddle. - Dank (push to talk) 02:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing Sandy. I'll give it a shot Julian. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I get what you mean. Changed to "more powerful". Juliancolton (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay now I get what you're saying. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hard to tell, honestly. Three tropical depressions were identified unofficially by the official organization in the matter. I guess that makes them more official than unofficial, so I like the way you've worded it in the article. Juliancolton (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in that case, in one or two places I said "potential" or "suspected", you may want to delete or change those words. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. - Dank (push to talk) 12:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:20, 3 April 2011 [53].

Maya (M.I.A. album)[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second go-round for this article at FAC. Last time it got two supports and no opposes, but didn't quite manage to squeeze over the line, maybe that'll be different this time ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources were checked out at the last FAC. There have been a few changes since then, but nothing significant. My only query is that refs 107 and 108 appear to be identical, so why the double cite in the "Accolades" section? Otherwise sources and citations are all OK. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two refs actually go to different pages on the NME website but the pages have identical titles, hence why the cites look the same........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that now. Maybe add ("Born Free") and ("XXXO") to the respective titles to signigy the difference? Brianboulton (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Infobox

Comments

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I have no problems backing this as part of finest work. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good enough for an FA status. Novice7 (talk) 06:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support.Comments. Switched to weak support; the prose is not outstanding but I think it is good enough. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The experiment worked :) Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for those comments, I have to go out now but I will hopefully get to them later today or tomorrow. Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl.

In "Music and lyrics", paragraph 2, "Lovealot" is spelt with an "e" twice. Later in the article, there is no "e". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you would consider adding alternative text to the pictures? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:49, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of "Lovalot" corrected. I thought alt text was no longer a requirement for FAC, but will work on it later today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You may well be right about alt text not being required. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From "Promotion", paragraph 3: "In November 2010 she appeared on "Later...with Jools Holland" on British television, performing "It Takes a Muscle" with members of The Specials and "Born Free"." M.I.A. didn't perform with "Born Free". Did she perform "Born Free" with The Specials? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:22, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rectified -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ellipses should have spaces, and WP:NBSP work needed. Unclear why you use cite news for sources like BBC, and cite web for other online news sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:20, 3 April 2011 [54].

Rosendale trestle[edit]

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the highest span bridge in the United States, this 940-foot (290 m) trestle was sold in 1986 for one dollar to a man who dreamed of turning it into a bungee jumping platform. It has seen its fair share of weddings and ghost dogs, and is currently about to be renovated and turned into a public walkway. Gyrobo (talk) 22:24, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Fixed
  • Fixed with archiveurl
  • Hmmm...I just checked on a different computer, and this is a dead link (500 error). Interestingly, the link on R.R. Depot works on the second computer, but returns the same 500 error as the W.V.R.R. Bridge link on my laptop. Not sure what's going on with that. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed
  • I'd prefer not to, because an engineering report on the bridge should be coming out soon, and there may be enough information there to have separate sections on the bridge's structure and geology/hydrology.
  • Fixed
  • Clarified

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed, and I'll update it in other articles where I use this source. --Gyrobo (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from NortyNort

  • The librarian at the Rosendale Library scanned those images from the library's collection and told me they were in the public domain. I'm not sure which tags to use on them, since I'm not sure if PD material needs licensing attribution. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "It is located about 2 miles (3.2 km) south of the buildings now comprising the Binnewater Historic District." necessary in the "Repurposing" section?
  • Did the person trying to jump off the bridge without the cord have anything to do with its closure? If so, the word "also" can be added to better form the sentence into the paragraph.
  • The book only said that someone tried to jump without a cord. It didn't go into any detail, and I haven't heard any further about the incident. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead, I think private individual should be replaced with "businessman" to make it sound less vague.
  • "...exercise in conceptual art." I am guessing this means leaving the town's buildings behind?
  • "...so many people drowned that the area..." How many? If the number is uncertain, I would reword the sentence. "; due to numerous drownings"
  • I don't see how "numerous" is any better than "so many" here, and the source did make it seem like it was a fair amount of people, without giving specific numbers. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it is what it is, IMO at first read, "so many" came off a bit unfitting.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it just the "height of the bridge" that "evoked memories of collapses"? ... "Also height of the bridge helped evoked memories of collapses..."
  • This is the source that said the bridge was so high it could "scarcely be crossed for the first time without something like a feeling of terror". In the same paragraph it talks about the Tay Bridge disaster, and really only describes the bridge in terms of how its height is scary. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deadlinks
  • Coren indicated no copyright violations
  • References look good as well.

Great article on an impressive and historical bridge. Good luck with the FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:46, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Article is written well and has some great images. I see my concerns address and support this article as a FAC.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Fixed, added the word "former". --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note: though alt text is great to have, it's no longer part of the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads-up. It's been a while since I went through the FAC process myself; maybe it's time again. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The author didn't provide that much information, he just said someone made the attempt. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The trestle was very close to the depot, and since there are no other articles on rail traffic in Rosendale, I thought it would be relevant to have it here – much like how I put in a small section into La Stazione on New Paltz's second, less notable station. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you're right, but is there a way to express that connection, something like ... "The trestle was located within the city limits of Rosendale, which also boasted a train station ..." JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I changed the wording slightly, I think it's more in line with what you're talking about. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Albany City Hall FAC, I found out that you can't use the inflation template for capital goods, and I don't really know what kind of conversion needs to be done here. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wasn't sure about calculating for capital items either, and hoped you might know. In that case, is there a comparable trestle that you could state the cost of? I'm just looking for some kind of context to show whether that $250,000 price tag was exceptional, average, below-average, or something else. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be honest, I'm not really well-versed enough in economics to know which kind of conversion to use here. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source just says feet. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When the track reached the Kingston Union Station in November 1872, the ... By this time," I really don't know a better way to phrase this without repeating the date.
  • Let me clarify myself. It says that it was the first railroad in Kingston, yet "by this time," trains were already running regularly to Kingston. Does it mean something like "soon after the railroad arrived in Kingston, trains were running regularly to the town"? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are a little conflicted over the timeline, actually. Mabee says that by October, trains were running regularly to and from Kingston, and Best says that the rail line was completed in November. It's possible that trains were running to the city limits, while construction to the station was ongoing. I thought it best to leave the wording a little vague on this point. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand now, but you might want to state as much, since as it's written now, it prompts additional questions that aren't answered. If a source doesn't indicate, just state as much. The same thing could be said about the reinforcement and maintenance questions, but I leave that up to you. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source just says it was strengthened, and the source was published in 1885. So from the time it was built, to 1885, the bridge was strengthened. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. So there wasn't any inherent flaw with the design that required fixing? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that I'm aware of, it just says that it was strengthened at some unspecified point for some unspecified reason. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included a map showing the location of the trestle within New York. It's within Rosendale, so the map should cover that as well. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. A map of the county showing these towns you reference would be ideal, but that'll work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a map of the WVRR's original route. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome! That's exactly what I was hoping to see. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm hesitant to move it, because that paragraph currently groups all information about rail stations in Rosendale in one place.
  • It's probably easier for me to show you than tell you what I mean for this one, so I'm going to make an edit, and feel free to revert it if you disagree. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's actually a good place to put that information, because it's already talking about the area under the bridge (the canal). --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by this, but the bridge was rebuilt while the rail line was still active. Traffic wasn't stopped for reconstruction. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't go into a lot of detail here, but it was nearby. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a description of the station, I really don't see the harm in having it. And it does demonstrate the steepness of the slopes the trestle connects. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that information would be available in the engineering report that some of the sources said would out in January 2011. There just aren't any sources for this. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources don't include this information. This bridge, despite being regionally impressive, isn't very well-chronicled. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It describes public reaction to the bridge being converted to a bungee jumping platform, and doesn't harm readers understanding of the subject. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source doesn't say, and I'm not sure why that would be relevant. The King Bridge Company ref just says that it's the only railroad bridge from their catalogs still standing. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gotcha. It's a context thing for me. Because I don't know how many bridges were in the catalog, I don't know how important the fact that it's the only one still standing is. If there were only three, then it's not that impressive. If there were 50, that's a quite a bit more notable. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me. I know it's a lot to look at, but I'm not as familiar with the topic, and if you aren't sure why I'm asking something, just write a note, and I'll explain where I'm coming from. It's a pretty high-quality article as is, but I think some supplementary information (to be added when/if you answer the questions above) would make it more accessible and truly FA class. Keep up the good work, and drop me a line! JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments. Per this note on FAC talk, I have posted my comments to this FAC's talk page. This is an experiment to see if it makes the FAC easier to understand and navigate for the delegates, but if you don't like the effect, let me know and I'll move the comments back here. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easier for me than to have to read through reams of stuff to see what has been resolved, assuming you'll post back to here once resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All my issues have been address; switched to support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review? Have the image issues raised above been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward tense change in the lead: After it was seized by the county in 2009, the trestle is being renovated as a pedestrian walkway for the Wallkill Valley Rail Trail.
All these commas, there must be a less awkward way to write this: Conrail sold the bridge, along with 11.5 miles (18.5 km) of the Wallkill Valley rail corridor, in 1986 to a private businessman, John Rahl, for one dollar.
  • I don't think it's that bad, and there's not really a good way to remedy this; would en dashes before and after the part about the corridor improve it? --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see the point and overlooked the sentence in my review. Try this "For one dollar, Conrail sold the bridge and 11.5 miles (18.5 km) of the Wallkill Valley rail corridor in 1986 to private businessman John Rahl."--NortyNort (Holla) 02:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems a little like putting the cart before the horse; the important point, that should be mentioned first, is that the bridge was sold. Then, a mention as to who purchased the trestle, and finally, the astounding fact that the purchase price was only one dollar. Reordering it to eliminate the commas and pauses rushes the sentence and doesn't let the reader gracefully digest the content. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary quotes throughout where paraphrasing would seem to suffice or colloquial language (didn't pan out) is introduced. Rewriting in our own original words would be better. Another sample: Though the trestle was "tough" to build,[7] and originally quite "flimsy",[8] it was "exception[al]" for its time,[9] and can be considered the "most awesome part" of the Wallkill Valley rail line. Awesome? Can be considered (by one writer)? Due to its height, it could "scarcely be crossed for the first time without something like a feeling of terror". (for some maybe).
  • I don't think those quotes are unnecessary, or that paraphrasing them would improve the quality of the article. The goal of FAs is to include brilliant prose, and colloquialisms make articles interesting and approachable. Yes, one writer considered it "awesome" – just as another considered it "flimsy". If the sources are reliable, and accurate, and make the article interesting, I see no reason to alter the cited text so long as what's written is faithful to said sources. --Gyrobo (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see much in the way of prose problems, but I can see why that particular sentence raises eyebrows. I actually think the "most awesome part" is worth keeping -- it may feel colloquial, but it expresses the source's opinion clearly. The others seem easy to find synonyms for, though, which would avoid the clunky feel of multiple consecutive single-word quotes. How about "Though the trestle was difficult to build, and originally not very sturdy, it was remarkable for its time, and is considered by one commentator the "most awesome part" of the Wallkill Valley rail line"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleaned up with wording. I thought it would look pretty cool to have a sentence constructed from multiple quoted words, but this way is fine. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some prose tightening effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Board feet is volumetric-- you can't convert timber measurements from ft to meters without knowing what kind of feet are being measured. Isn't it logical that Route 213 would be higher than the creek? So how can the bridge be the same height above both? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image issues need to be resolved here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NortyNort did an image review quite a while ago and found no issues. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - Gyrobo asked me on my talk to revisit the images here. I'll preface the following by saying that I'm not an expert on US copyright law.

  • It's not subscription-based. I'm having no problem accessing that site from multiple computers; and like I said, this is one of about 72,000 public domain images uploaded to the commons by a bot. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attribution is not required, I only mentioned it as a courtesy. When I first asked the Rosendale Library for permission to upload these images, I asked if they were first published before 1923, or if anyone still held copyright on them. I was told that they were in the public domain. --Gyrobo (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll just mention that this explanation would not have satisfied Elcobbola (talk · contribs), but he's no longer editing, so I guess they'll slide by. Just don't try this again :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria says that the images are fine. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is still choppy and jumping all over the place: why is the Poughkeepsie bridge mentioned here, for example? "Following an engineering survey by Bergmann Associates[51] – the same firm that inspected the Poughkeepsie Bridge prior to its conversion to a walkway[52] – the bridge was closed to the public in June 2010 for repairs." The lead is short, but if reviewers are happy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 3 April 2011 [55].

Tom Driberg[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Driberg, mainly forgotten now, was a well-known political figure in Britain during the 1950s and 60s. Originally a gossip columnist, he became a left-wing Labour MP and rose to be chairman of the party. He was also a competent biographer of, among others, Lord Beaverbrook. He may have had a sideline going as an MI5 informant, and after his death he was accused of working part time for the KGB. As well as all this, he was an active homosexual who, in the graphic phrase of his biographer, enjoyed a lifetime of "lavatorial philanderings". Because of his bizarre lifestyle, no Labour leader ever offered him the ghost of a ministerial job, which is perhaps just as well. However, he kept the good opinions of many of his parliamentary colleagues, and spent the last months of his life as a peer of the realm. I wouldn't fancy his chances in public life these days, though. Link to a very thorough peer review is here

Ugh, nevermind, I just thought they were redundant. --Eisfbnore talk 07:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I took part in the peer review of this article, and the few points I raised there have been fully addressed. All the FA criteria seem to me to be fully met in this case. The article is well balanced, judiciously proportioned, impressively referenced, and a pleasure to read. (On the matter of the brackets in references mentioned above, "Bloggs (2000), p. 1" is my own preference and practice, and seems to me easier on the reader's eye than "Bloggs 2000, p. 1".) Tim riley (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support and for the helpful peer review suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Like Tim, I participated in the peer review and all my concerns were taken care of promptly. I take no position on Tim's concern on parens versus brackets. Whatever gets the job done.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's not actually Tim's concern; he takes the same position as me. I think we're all rather relaxed about this, and the important thing is to be consistent. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But there seems to be an inconsistency in the harv cites: Some include pub years, some not. For consistency reasons, oughtn't pub years to be included in all footnotes, not simpy on those which require 'disambiguation'? --Eisfbnore talk 07:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • The line to which Wheen (2010) refers had got accidentally deleted during an earlier edit. It's now restored. The others are fixed.
  • These are not shown on the online PDF version
  • Not provided in the online version
  • It's an independent journal

Comments

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I ran the article through Coren's tool and Earwig's tool and nothing showed up in regards to plagiarism with those tools. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I peer reviewed this and all of my concerns have been addressed since. Very nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review There is one Fair Use image - File:Tom Driberg 1930s.jpg - the use of which seems entirely justified. It is a scan and was at pretty high resolution (1,130 × 1,485 pixels) so I resized it to only 400 px wide. All the other images are freely licensed and all are properly sourced. No alt text (but that is not a FA requirement). Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support, the peer review and for your help with the non-free image. Much appreciated. Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just wondering what the name of the course was; I assume it was Greats (Literae Humaniores), and I was thinking you could link directly to it, rather than to classics in general. But it's a minor point. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 03:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, and all of my concerns have been addressed. An enjoyable read, beautifully done. Finetooth (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Brianboulton (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 3 April 2011 [56].

Conservation of slow lorises[edit]

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. Although I am not neutral on the topic, I have done my best to keep the article in line with WP:NPOV, and I have given preference to the most reliable sources, including academic journal articles, followed by news articles, and lastly by newsletters from conservation organizations directly involved in slow loris conservation. (Note: I just discovered a new source: 'Cute' umbrella video of slow loris threatens primate by Jeremy Hance. If the reviewers feel that this is a reliable source, I will add the new information.) As some or most of you might know, this is a very hot topic right now. A new pet slow loris video has just been released on YouTube, and viewing stats on the article have skyrocketed. However, editing activity has been negligible, and no edit wars have broken out—a trend that I hope speaks to the articles comprehensive and neutral nature. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Thank you for your opinion. However, I would like at least one more opinion on this matter before I put in the work of adding it—that way if other reviewers disagree, then I don't have to revert myself. The reason I ask about this source is because my only failed GAN had issues where people questioned the reliability of mongabay.com, claiming they were more like blogs. However, this interview was with the leading slow loris researcher (Anna Nekaris), and very likely to be accurate. If anyone reads this and has doubts about the interview, I can contact Nekaris and confirm the details. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The information from that source has now been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching those. They've been removed. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because most of the publications do not easily offer a publisher location, I have removed "location=" from the two refs that used it. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this, however, the Wiki community needs to settle on some standards here. Bots create citations with and without spaces, other editors do not, and even the spelling out of the first name is highly variable and hotly debated. I often get into edit wars with bots over this (and other things). Since this article uses ((cite doi)) and those refs are used on other article, I will standardize around what those templates use... assuming they they are consistent. Anyway, thanks for noticing. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources seem appropriately scholarly and reliable. Spotchecks not done, will do later. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review! – VisionHolder « talk » 01:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh (sharp intake of breath) the mongabay one is a toughie. The site's principal author Rhett Butler has had some stuff published in Peer Reviewed journals, which is promising, but the site is a bit bloggy in scope and nature. But, given we have this, and the article quotes the same person, Angelina Navarro-Montes, and the material clearly does not contradict or anything, I am leaning to accepting the source. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. In that case, I will work on adding the information. It may be tomorrow night before I get around to it. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information added, as stated above. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The lede could do with a sentence or so from the background. It took me a few paragraphs to get the idea that we were talking about a Southeast asian primate. Sorted.
    Done. Let me know if that's enough. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Estimates of population size and rate of change would be nice. But if they don't exist just confirmation that you've checked for that would be fine.
    Population ecology for slow lorises is poorly understood. I think the article mentioned the lack of information and the need for more studies. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No Problem. FA requires us to check if such is available, but not to go beyond current knowledge. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "In the case of long-lived primates, such as the slow lorises, populations replenish themselves slowly." How slowly?
    Unfortunately, I can't find any information on this. Generally, primates have long lifespans and reproduce slowly, giving birth to few offspring over the course of a couple years. If I see anything specific about it, I'll add it. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Again, FA requires us to check if such is available, but not to go beyond current knowledge. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The breeding program bit seems to only talk about southeast Asia and North America globalisation would be nice,
    Breeding programs are common among many zoos, but I was trying to hit upon on the major centers for this species. I'm worried that if I start working off of sources such as the one you pointed to, it might develop issues of WP:TRIVIA. I guess I could add a quick mention that breeding is being done in Europe, too... How does that sound? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could refer to international breeding programs and then use your US example - "for example in the US" ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I have cited ISIS and made some changes to give it a more international feel. Let me know what you think. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Nicely done. ϢereSpielChequers 10:17, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. They are variously described as "popular pets in Japan, the United States and Europe", and "very popular pets". Personally I'm not an authority on European pets, but here in the UK I'd be surprised if popular went much beyond dogs, cats, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, guinea pigs, carp, goldfish, stick insects, pigeons, budgies and ferrets. I doubt if Europe would be that different.
    I was going by the source, but I think it's a relative term. Dogs and cats number in the millions, but exotic pets are often comparatively rare because many of their wild populations aren't that high. Although the source doesn't say, I suspect that it means either they are more common than some other exotic species, or that they are simply in high demand compared to other exotic species. But without a source to say that, I'm not sure if there's anything I can work off of. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This could be awkward, but perhaps the phrase "popular exotic pet" would be best. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "Humans have been hunting mammals in Asia for at least 40,000 years,and until recently, the levels of extraction have been low enough to be sustainable." I'm assuming this needs reworking to separate lorises from other mammals - some of which have been hunted to extinction. I suggest "Humans have been hunting mammals in Asia for at least 40,000 years, but until recently, Slow lorises were only hunted at a sustainable level".
    Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. "males are territorial and mark their urine." surely "males are territorial and mark their territories with urine".
    Fixed. Thanks for catching this. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 20:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the copyedit and review! – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Thanks for writing this. ϢereSpielChequers 12:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to give this a proper review if I get the chance, but here are some initial thoughts:

I was afraid this might come up... I had a lengthy discussion about this on the IRC channel for Commons with several Commons admins not too long ago, and they actually suggested the opposite. In fact, there was a comparable graphic based on the original, but they read the licensing at the original website and concluded that it was a violation, so they deleted it. Instead, they told me to use this low-res version under fair use. If you want, I can try to track down the original file name from the user-made file and see if we can track down the responsible admins so that we can get their opinions on this discussion. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, seems reasonable. Data is not copyrightable, merely its presentation. So, unless I am missing something key, the data can be reused and presented in a different way without a copyright problem, and, as such, there is no way this can be used under the NFCC. It's entirely possible that the original user-made image was too close to the original, and so had to be deleted, but I am surprised someone recommended that you uploaded this under the NFCC- I can only assume that the admins you chatted to were not particularly familiar with our policies here. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did mention that the article was headed to FAC, but I can't say whether or not they've had experience with it. I figured that they would know the copyright laws the best. If you prefer, I could remove the image. However, I will note that the publishers of the original image want us to use it on Wikipedia, but because the "release" they emailed me was too ambiguous—referring to the release on their own website, which is very similar to CC-BY-SA—and they never responded to my repeated requests for clarification, we were forced to seek these problematic alternatives. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can appreciate that this may sound strange, but this is not a legal issue. I have little doubt that it would be fine to use here under the license on the website and/or under fair use (but, of course I don't know for sure) but, if it is not explicitly released freely (as defined by Wikipedia and/or Commons) it can be used only where such usage meets the NFCC; this one very clearly does not, as it could conceivably be replaced by a free graphic showing the same information. As such, yeah, it really needs to go. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The image is gone. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, because I have seen more than one Wiki article that was illustrated like an animal rights poster. However, these photos may be disturbing, but they're not that bad. They do their job by illustrating key points of the article, such as the conditions in which they are kept, their health problems, and the way they are treated. Others show the kinds of animal products and conditions you would see in an animal market in Indonesia. The photos were taken by academics and rehabilitation facility staff. And unlike undercover PETA photos, there is full, truthful disclosure about the source and locations of the photos. But in addition to these photos, there is a home-made pet photo, a "traditional" conservation photo (animal being held by a zoo keeper), and habitat destruction photos. I have only used the tooth cutting photo on two articles, this and Slow loris, although one of our collaboration members also used it on Sunda slow loris, which I thought was a little much but haven't challenged yet. Personally, I'm in favor of keeping them, especially given how much effort went into tracking them down and getting them released. After all, Wiki doesn't censor. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree. I was just sharing my thoughts, but, like you, I'm more on the animal rights side than most myself. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am not on the side of animal rights, but instead favor animal welfare. Unfortunately, the terms "animal rights" and "animal welfare" are popularly misunderstood, not only by the general public, but even by the experts in the animal fields. Animal rights, and particularly its founders and most vocal advocates, favor giving full human rights to animals, which (to the surprise of many, except those who read their books) includes prohibiting people from owning pets. Animals rights also pushes for vegetarianism or veganism and also opposes animals being kept in zoos. Their popular expression is: "Better off dead than in captivity." Animal welfare, on the other hand, is a view upheld by most veterinarians and zookeepers. It does not oppose the keeping of animals in captivity (particularly in zoos) or their use in the food industries, as long as it's done humanely and keeps any suffering to an absolute minimum. Animal welfare people generally oppose the keeping of exotic pets for conservation reasons. Of course, the distinction gets really blurry when we consider certain political advocacy groups that claim to be "animal welfare", but help craft laws that underhandedly set precedence for animal rights agendas. For example: requiring that all zoos offer elephants X-amount of space to free-range, and deliberately setting the value to be larger than the available land area of the best and largest zoos, including the San Diego Wild Animal Park. The goal, of course, being to make it impossible for zoos to keep certain main-attraction animals, and then use each success to push to ban more and more animals on similar grounds until all the main attractions are gone and zoos fail financially. This may sound like a paranoid delusion, but this is a battle that's been going on for nearly a decade in the state of California. (California has also seen similar battles involving farm-raised chickens and pet "ownership".) So, no, I'm not a supporter of animal rights, and that's not the point of this article. This article is written from the middle-ground of an animal welfare perspective. However, anyone who wishes to discuss the animal rights vs. animal welfare issues is welcome to do so on my talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One can support animal rights generally without being "in favor giving full human rights to animals". Perhaps we're looking at this from different perspectives- I was meaning "the rights of animals", not any particular "animal rights" movement. However, as you say, here is not the place to discuss the issue. J Milburn (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a template I recently proposed at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)‎, and then later created. I received a lot of encouragement at the proposal page. I posted back once the template was officially completed, but hardly anyone replied. I posted it somewhere else for comments—can't remember where—and did receive one criticism, but the argument was inconsistent and they never replied to my reply. I have since used it on my last FAC, Marojejy National Park, which just passed without comment in regards to this. The other option is to use at least 4 right-floating interWiki boxes that create a lot of extra white space. (Add one more if I add a link to Commons.) The template itself is based on a template for portals used on the French Wiki. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm honest, I do like them. I'm surprised you haven't made a slow loris navbox though. J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for catching that! I've added the loris navigational template used on all the other slow loris articles. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is the nature of ((cite doi)) and beyond my control. As far as I know, that template is not prohibited by any FAC criteria. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I'd like to give it a proper read through at some point, but can't promise. J Milburn (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd have time, I'd appreciate your review. If not, thanks for the image review and comments so far. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are hunted not only by expert hunters, but are so easy to catch that they are also caught opportunistically due to the easy financial reward they bring at the markets. — a bit clunky, repeat of "easy", and the "not only" suggests we are going to be told who else catches them, rather than just why they are caught
Please let me know if my changes fixed the problem. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not smooth, what about also easily caught by opportunist villagers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks again for the review! – VisionHolder « talk » 12:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 100 million rupiah (~US$10,000). — Why the conversion here and elsewhere to dollars, rather than euros, GBP or yen? Unless USD has a RS special status, best not to convert.
I didn't realize there were issues with this. I used US currency because of its common use and familiarity throughout many parts of the world. I would figure it would be helpful to provide a ballpark conversion for readers who are likely to be unfamiliar with foreign currencies. (Most English readers will generally understand the value of US currency, more-so than Indonesian rupiah.) The conversion is also in the text of the source. Anyway, per WP:CURRENCY: "In non-country-specific articles such as Wealth, use US dollars ($123), the dominant reserve currency of the world." I don't mind offering euro or GBP equivalents, but I'd need suggestions on how to source those estimates. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I'm a bit twitchy about US-centricity, but if there's a policy, I have no objections
  • potentially toxic bite — Is this right? I didn't think any mammals were venomous. Do you mean that the bites can lead to infection?
This is discussed on the parent article, Slow loris... or at least will be in better detail by later tonight. In short, they have a gland on their arm that they lick, and the mixture of its secretion and the animals saliva creates a toxin that it stores in its mouth. Opinions vary a little, but generally the bite is painful and people have been reported to die from it. If you want, I can add this type of material to the "Background" section later this evening when I address the comments from the other reviewers above. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added information about the toxic bite to the background section. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:07, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting
  • Nothing outstanding apart from the one minor tweak above, happy to change to support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: A new article about the latest YouTube videos and their effects has been published at The Independent, which can be read here. I have added this new information after 3 of the support votes above. Please let me know if this looks okay and whether or not it should be discussed more in the lead. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. My sister is a conservation scientist at ZSL, and at my request she got an outside opinion from an acquaintance. I have asked if I can forward his email, and will send it via your Wikipedia email link if so. The main comment was that slow loris captive breeding is in better shape than you indicate, with European and Asian zoos having had some successes. I have to head out to work now but will try to post more details this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for seeking the outside opinion. I'm still waiting for Dr. Nekaris to review the article, so this helps a lot. The breeding may be better than the article states, but I need sources more than opinions. Can they point me to published document that states otherwise? Otherwise, I have to go with my sources, and since the SD Zoo publication isn't online, I can forward a scanned PDF to confirm my source. Unfortunately, the ISIS database only gives numbers, not analysis. Also, not to criticize the expert who gave the opinion, we need to keep in mind that opinions of captive care and breeding programs can vary widely, even among researchers and the people in charge of them. I can give some humorous examples, but I don't want to upset anyone. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've emailed you the outside review and the contact information; I hope it's helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I will be in touch via email with both you and the outside reviewer. To summarize my thoughts on the email, I'm concerned that his sources will not state an assessment of the breeding programs or the explanation for the prevalence of the pygmy slow loris. For what is sounds like, I think he's referring to numbers similar to those found on ISIS. Unfortunately, I can't make inferences from numbers. I hope this is not the case. But for now, we're at a stand-still until this reviewer can point me to some sources. Anyway, look for my email shortly. Again, thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 23:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than a week, and unfortunately I still haven't heard a reply from outside reviewer. If at any point he can provide sources, he can send them to me and I will promptly update the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments— I made some minor corrections and changes, hope they are ok. Suggestions: Sasata (talk) 18:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Resolved commentary moved ]to archive talk.

Support. Disclosure: I'm a member of the collaboration working on slow loris articles, but think I've assessed this like I would any other article. I'm satisified with the fixes and think the article meets the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 04:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was awful (that's a compliment); I wish you had warned me not to read it. Could you please fix this in the lead?

I couldn't understand how they could be listed as two different things; the body of the article explains that different species are listed as either vulnerable or endangered, but the lead is confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 3 April 2011 [57].

U.S. Route 113[edit]

Nominator(s):  VC  17:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this article is one of the most broad and comprehensive treatments of one of the most important highways of the Delmarva Peninsula. This article passed GAN without a problem, was greatly improved through WP:USRD's A-Class Review, and had a history makeover and overall reorganization to make it even more comprehensive and reader friendly. A few outstanding issues with the article were resolved in the Peer Review process. I am confident this article is up to the task of passing the highest of reviews; I welcome any constructive criticism to resolve any remaining deficiencies.  VC  17:37, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

Good luck! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are dates bolded in citations? Bolding is for volume numbers? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I see those sources list dates as volumes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Repetitous prose, became ... become ... "The Berlin bypass became the first section of US 113 to become a divided highway in the mid-1950s." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hyphen on one use of US 113 and not the other? "... the final section of two-lane US–113 in that state was expanded in the mid-1990s. The Berlin bypass became the first section of US 113 to ..." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Known as Worcester Highway, the highway runs ... ", but there is no redirect at Worcester Highway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please address the issues above; I'd let this run longer pending more non-road editor review, but it's sat here for three weeks already with little review, so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 02:05, 3 April 2011 [58].

SMS Markgraf[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one of my German battleships, part of my nearly complete master plan. The ship saw heavy service during World War I, including the Battle of Jutland and Operation Albion. I feel the article is high quality and is at or close to FA standards. Any issues that may be found can be ironed out during the FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. I copyedited this for A-class, and I've checked the edits since then. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sources

As indicated during the A-Class review the ship was named after the house of Baden. If not added during A-Class review I would like to see it mentioned now at FAC review. MisterBee1966 (talk) 12:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I reviewed this for the A-review, another excellent article in the series. Kirk (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ St Aubyn, p. 335
More