August 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 Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [1].

Drymoreomys[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since I last nominated a rice rat at FAC. This one was only described this year, even though it occurs close to the two largest cities of Brazil. Understandably, little is known about its ecology, but we know that some aspects of its morphology are unusual for a rice rat, and it is apparently related to a species from far away in Peru. The article was GA-reviewed by Rcej. Thanks for your comments. Ucucha (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

No issues were found by Copyscape searches. Graham Colm (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Looks good as always. I have not done a source review due to a lack of access. Below are my comments.

Otherwise, aside from the missing page number Nikkimaria pointed out, everything looks good. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick review. Ucucha (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm still working on trying to obtain a photo, but no luck at this point. If you could send the email addresses of the other authors, I could try them as well. Otherwise, great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:52, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice looking article. [from J Milburn]

Generally looking very nice; it'd be great to get a picture, and there do seem to be a few online, so good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. What do you think of the issue about the conservation status that VH brought up? Ucucha (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend removing it from the taxobox. I think the nature of a taxobox/infobox is that it is for hard data- any complications need to be covered in the prose. In addition, of course, plenty of species out there don't have ratings, so it's not like the taxobox is massively lacking without it. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I've removed it. Ucucha (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy collapsed commentary from User:Atomician moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I found this article lucid and fascinating. This is FA quality. A minor criticism is that I don't like "Several traits of the genitals". I know what this means, but it sounds odd. Could we say something like "the male's penis has...? Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 20:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose I could say "The penis has several traits that..." (females don't have a penis, so "male's" is redundant), but that does not sound much better to me than the current wording. What do you think? Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Despite my niggling issues, this was enthralling and very competently written, my commendations to Ucucha. Atomician (talk) 20:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, assuming there are no copyright problems. There are few sources, but there do not seem to be any more- the only way this article could really be improved is with the addition of a photograph- good luck to VisionHolder! J Milburn (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you too. Would you mind doing an explicit image check for the convenience of the delegates? All there is right now is one map, and I'm pretty sure I've used the same base map in other FAs, so it shouldn't be too hard. Ucucha (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only species, D. albimaculatus, is known only... — can one of the "onlys" be lost or replaced?
  • The first one is now single. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • animals' occurrence — I'd be inclined towards animal's (species rather than collection of individuals), but no big deal if you stick with as is
  • Yes, singular makes more sense. Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • little appreciable geographic variation — lose appreciable?
  • three digits at the tip of the penis. — I can't visualise this, which may be just as well; are we talking long, finger-like projections?
  • Yes. Since you correctly understood what was meant, do you think a clarification is needed? Thanks for the review, Ucucha (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Although I understand the difficulty, I think the lack of a photograph of the rodent in the article is a serious weakness. Are there any pictures available on the web? If so they should be included with a comment in a External links section. Do the cited sources include a photograph? If they do then perhaps a comment noting this should be added at the end of the reference. Aa77zz (talk) 12:11, 28 August 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 Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [2].

Brunette Coleman[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Larkin looked like an accountant, though he rarely wrote like one. In his early years, as well as his poems he produced all kinds of other stuff; as an Oxford undergraduate he assumed the persona of a woman, "Brunette Coleman", to write risqué stories and verses about schoolgirls romping sexily about. None of this material was published in his lifetime; it surfaced among his papers after his death, and has divided critics. Some think of it as worthless Peeping Tom drivel, some think it provides important clues to the mature Larkin's poems. Others think it is merely funny, even charming. If you want to judge for yourselves properly, you'll need to get the Booth book (inter-library loans, get ready for the rush), otherwise this article may whet your appetite. The detailed peer review, with much helpful comment, is here. Brianboulton (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I took part in the peer review, and my few quibbles were dealt with there. Clearly meets FA criteria 1, 2 and 4, and from expert comments at PR, criterion 3 looks fine too. Tim riley (talk) 16:37, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I also took part in the peer review, and my concerns have been addressed. I believe the article meets all the FA criteria, and it's an enjoyable read. Finetooth (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I also took part in the peer review, and all the issues I raised there were addressed. Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being nosy at the moment, I believe I have rectified the Thwaite, Observer and the page range issues for Brian.[3] Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki and Jappa. The Rowe citations are dated 2000 to distinguish them from the 2001 Rowe article which is also cited. In ref 47 I had inadvertently omitted the url from the citation; this is now rectified. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I, too, have taken part in the peer review. My concerns were addressed and I believe this to be a well written, comprehensive text about a feminine pseudonym (and "her" works) used by Philip Larkin (I am confident Brian can easily address Nikkimaria's concerns above). The images are stored on the appropriate servers and are either licensed for "free" use or at least in the US public domain. Jappalang (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images: A source for File:Seniorprefect titlepage.jpg would be good- who scanned it? Other than that, very well documented images, all clearly free. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it was scanned by the uploader (who is no longer active on the WP project) from a copy of the book. I can't really say; the pre-1923 publication date seems to make the image PD in the US without question. Brianboulton (talk) 15:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lede
Interesting lede image. Is a more stereotypical schoolgirl a la St. Trinian's image available?
  • Well, as you know, anything later than 1923 would mean copyright issues. I've done the best I can. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean contemporary to the 1920s? You might want to tweak to make that clear.
  • I mean contemporary to the time that Larkin was writing his Coleman stories, i.e. 1940s. The style of schoolgirl fiction changed little in the first half of the 20th century; St Trinians in the 1950s (I'm amazed you've heard of it) was revolutionary. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I once played College Bowl at a decently high level, the US equivalent of University Challenge, I tried to educate myself about everything, and I have yet to call the junk-clearing service to clear out my mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" after the Coleman phase the following three years" I would say "the three years following the Coleman phase".
"was divided". Would not present tense be better?
  • Either works OK, but as we are talking here about reaction to the specific publication of the material, the past tense makes sense. I am not sure that there is sufficient current critical interest in the Coleman material to justify using the present tense. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins:
How does the title or subtitle of that short story imply pornography?
  • "Thoroughly unhealthy" might imply that it's a "dirty story". However, I've altered "pornographic" to "salacious" Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some indication of any reaction by Amis would be good. I saw a mention in the lede that he more or less ignored the refs to Coleman.
  • Can you clarify this point? What is the "mention in the lede" to which you refer? Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My own lack of comprehension, I'm afraid. Never mind.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Works
"separate from anything else" Maybe different or distinct? You might have to juggle synonyms here.
I admire your matter of fact recounting of such an outlandish plot.
" and the pair hit it off" Perhaps "become fast friends"?
"he can no longer be bothered to describe lesbian encounters in voyeuristic detail" Perhaps "bothered to" should get a slight rephrase.
" confined in" perhaps this is a matter where the language differs, but in the US we would say "confined to".
"has been loosely inserted into the typescript." I don't know what this means.
  • Imagine a typescript of several sheets, stapled together. Someone slips in an extra, unstapled sheet. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Inter alia " Hm. As a lawyer I have a taste for such phrases, but I think I would say "Among other things".
  • Critical reception
"bondage" Except if this falls under the undetailed confinement to the punishment room, no bondage has actually been mentioned.
  • Yes, there is a little bondage in the punishment room, but it doesn't really fall into the "women punishing women" category, so I've dropped the reference to it. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well done as usual. --Wehwalt (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this review and for your support. One point I don't understand, others I have made comments on. The rest, you can take it, have been dealt with per your suggestions. Brianboulton (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another comment, regarding accessability. You do not seem to have included any alt text for images, which would be helpful for people using screenreaders. Could you please add alt text per WP:ALT? If these have been addressed I will be happy to vote. Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, I do know about the harv template. I know it is the preferred method of some editors, though I'm not altogether persuaded of the benefits of its use, particularly in articles like this where the number of sources is relatively small. Wisely, WP does not insist on it, only that the method of referencing is consistent.
Following your suggestion I have included the information and reference re Somerville in the text. As to alt text, my view on the utility of this obviously differs from yours; I am dubious of its value and I have tended not to add it in any of my recent articles. However, I know some editors feel strongly about this issue, and when it is specifically requested I am prepared to add it. I have done so here; please feel free to amend or improve the alt text in any way you wish. Brianboulton (talk) 10:35, 26 August 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 Karanacs 15:31, 30 August 2011 [4].

Liverpool F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finally think that this article is ready to be a Featured article. It has had numerous nominations before and failed but the issues form those nominations have been cleared up and the article is probably in the best shape its ever been in. The article has had a copyedit by the GOCE which should have cleared up any prose issues. The article has also received a PR which sould have cleared any issues about the structure and referencing of the article. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - why is the "Home colours" image in the infobox different from the one in the "Colours" section? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The one in the infobox represents the kit that Liverpool are wearing this season as they change every few seasons. The one in the colours is just to represent the colours that Liverpool have worn since 1964. Persoanlly, I would like to change the kit in the colours section to the original kit that Liverpool wore in the 1890s, as I don't see the point in having two similar kits in the article. NapHit (talk) 15:06, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Malleus Fatuorum. This article suffers from a problem common in articles about sports teams: are they to be considered singular or plural? Looking just at the lead, for instance, we have "Liverpool was founded in 1892 ... They have played at their home ground, Anfield, since their formation", singular and plural in consecutive sentences. The best rule of thumb, in my opinion, is to consider "club" and "team" to be singular as in "Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club", but "Liverpool" on its own to be plural, as in "Liverpool have won five European Cups". But whichever convention is to be adopted here it needs to be applied consistently throughout the article. For example, the Support section starts off with "Liverpool are one of the best supported clubs in the world", whereas throughout most of the rest of the article "Liverpool" is treated as a singular entity, as in "For much of Liverpool's history, its home colours have been all red". I note that this very same point was raised during this article's last FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 16:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the copyeditor from the GOCE mentioned the singular/plural was a concern so he decided to refer to Liverpool in the singular throughout the article. The sentence ou mentioned in the support is my fault I recently added that sentence and I'll admit the singular/plural area is a weakness of mine so that's why it was there, I've amended it now. I think the rest of the article should be alright as the copyedit should have cleared the issue up. Would you be happy with the article if the club was referred to entirely in the singular or would you prefer the method you outlined? NapHit (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm perfectly happy for the club to be referred to entirely in the singular, but the article still isn't consistent. For instance, the lead still says "The club has played at their home ground ... since their formation". In the Support section it says "Liverpool were banned for an additional year, preventing them from participating in the 1990–91 European Cup, even though they won the League in 1990. I haven't checked the whole article, so there may well be other instances that need fixing as well. Malleus Fatuorum 19:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I've gone through the article and I fairly sure I have cleared up this issue now, the club should be referred to entirely in the singular. NapHit (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid it's still not fixed. From the Stadiums section: "It was originally used by Everton F.C. before they moved to Goodison Park". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After a few reads of the article I'm confident that this issue is now resolved. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've only dipped into the article so far, I'll read through the whole thing later. Malleus Fatuorum 22:16, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Colours and crest
  • "Liverpool's away colours is traditionally either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow". Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid that "Liverpool's away colours has traditionally been either white shirts and black shorts or all yellow" is by no stretch of the imagination an improvement. The problem is that the subject, "colours", is plural. The same problem also crops up in the lead, which says: "The team's home colours has been entirely red since 1964". I'll leave the question of whether "entirely red" is really a colour for now. Malleus Fatuorum 23:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've altered the text now so hopefully the singular and plural issue is dealt with. NapHit (talk) 11:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A third kit is designed for European away matches, though it would also be worn in domestic away matches on occasions when the current away kit clashes with a team's home kit." The switch in tense from "is" to "would be" makes no sense. Malleus Fatuorum 01:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed this, Giants raised the same point below NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rivalries
  • I know it's what the BBC's staff reporter quoted wrote, but you really can't justify "Liverpool was considered the world's pre-eminent port" on several counts, not least of which is that world doesn't and didn't have a single "pre-eminent port". And of course it begs the question "considered by whom?" Equally significantly London had become the UK's most important port by 1884, eight years before Liverpool F.C. was founded. After the Manchester Ship Canal was opened in 1894 Liverpool and Manchester competed as ports, but even their combined trade didn't match that of London. The story of the 19th-century rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester is rather a complicated one, as the history of the ship canal shows, and it can't be reduced to a simplistic "Liverpool was a great port and Manchester produced lots of textiles". Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky one, as I agree the rivalry is more complicated than the article states. As a start I've changed world's pre-eminent port to major port. It is a tough issue but unfortunately I'm not sure how much more detail I can go into, I think the detail would be better suited to the parent article. I'll have a look and see if I can add another sentence which would improve the history of the rivalry. NapHit (talk) 12:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a sentence about the ship canal, I think this is the best that can be done given the fact that it only warrants a small section in the article. NapHit (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still not right though. It wasn't the opening of the ship canal that led to rivalry between the two cities; conventional wisdom has it that Manchester's business community perceived the charges levied by the port of Liverpool and the railways that transported freight between Liverpool and Manchester to be excessive, and decided to build a canal to bypass Liverpool and the railways. Malleus Fatuorum 22:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this can be summarised in two sentences. Therefore, I've removed the sentences and just said the rivalry is a manifestation of their competition in industrial times. I think anymore is irrelevant and anyone wanting more can click on the link to the rivalry page. NapHit (talk) 23:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me; it's a complicated story. Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool football club in popular culture
  • It's inconsistent to have "stadia" as in "went on to campaign for safer stadia" and a full section entitled "Stadiums". Malleus Fatuorum 23:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... the plot revolved around a young boy, Francis Scully, who tried to gain a trial match with Liverpool". How do you "gain" a trial match? Malleus Fatuorum 01:53, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, there is not much information on this TV series unfortunately and the page for the shoe says the same thing. I think if I change to earn a trial then that might clear it up? NapHit (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Found one. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1999 corrected the error. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
removed serialised in and just got the times with st. john as author. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was but judging by your comment I assume its not considered one, so I've replaced the refs. NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed all your comments, cheers NapHit (talk) 14:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, leaning Support Generally looking sound from a football point of view, the latest peer review dealt with most of my concerns.

Ye, I can't find a reference to back this statment up so I've removed it. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removed them. NapHit (talk) 13:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to support, provided the prose people are satisfied. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Thanks for the review Giants, I've addressed all of your comments. NapHit (talk) 12:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Having seen the article during its last two FACs, I can say that this is in much better shape than it was back then. With the copy-editing that has taken place, and with these comments addressed, I think this meets all FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I've removed the two images and replaced them with ones that have no problems. The images are from [www.lfchistory.net] and the authors are not given on that site so I'm afraid I can't find this information. NapHit (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As Fenway apparently no longer own Liverpool F.C. I'm not sure of the relevance of File:John W Henry-Fenway.jpg? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Liverpool F.C. is obviously now a limited company, which it wasn't initially. Do you have any information on when it went public? What the flotation raised? Who bought the shares? Malleus Fatuorum 22:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did you hear that Fenway no longer own Liverpool? Aside from that this confirms that they are in charge and the breakdown of the Directors. The people who hold shares are not disclosed except for John Henry who is the only one who owns over 10%. The only person outside who has shares as far as I know is LeBron James I can add a sentence stating this if you like? NapHit (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's rather confusing, because the article clearly says that "Liverpool was sold to New England Sports Ventures on 15 October 2010 for £300M". Malleus Fatuorum 23:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see where the confusion is. NESV was the name of Fenway Sports Group when they bought Liverpool and afterwards they changed the name. I'll mention this in the ownership section. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. NapHit has worked hard to address my concerns, and I think this article now meets the FA criteria. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fascinating — Everton started at Anfield... Liverpool were Everton Athletic and wore blue... They looked pretty good against Bolton too. I have soft spot for the club, having lived in the city for a year — didn't get robbed either {: — I read this twice without finding any serious concerns, credit to you and Malleus for his input. Now, can we have Suarez? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an image review or a sourcing spotcheck for close paraphrasing, copyvio, or accurate represntation of sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 28 August 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 20:09, 28 August 2011 [5].

Calgary Stampede[edit]

Nominator(s): Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite simply, the Stampede is Calgary. It defines this city's identity and history and is one of Canada's largest and most important festivals, and a party perhaps without equal in this country. It has drawn politicians, actors, dignitaries and British Royalty... and it has drawn criticism by animal welfare groups for its rodeo and use of animals. I have been slowly working on the article over a period of about two years, but with the centennial Stampede coming next year, I used this year's event to drive the final push in the hopes that it will be featured in time for next year's celebration. I open the floor in the hopes that you will agree. Resolute 00:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to note that I am a current WikiCup participant, so this is potentially a Cup nomination. Resolute 15:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support - after seeing the progress made with my small comments, and others more significant ones.

Image review

Regarding the 1912 image, I have encountered this problem with Glenbow Museum images before. It appears they do not assign permanent URLs to their files, you have to perform your search each time. 117Avenue (talk) 12:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If you go to the search page and enter the ID number for the image (NA-604-1A) in the keyword field, it will come up. I have fixed the pancake breakfast caption to be consistent with the source. The Stampede Logo one I am not sure of - I uploaded it as Fair Use because I wasn't certain of the copyright status. Someone else changed it to PD-Text but left my FUR. I was going to remove my FUR and leave the source, description, etc. behind, but it occurred to me that while US copyright law would argue it is PD, I am not certain about Canadian copyright law. I believe it is, but am not completely certain. I am trying to find something in the copyright law that will answer one way or another. Thanks, Resolute 14:07, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Connormah transferred it to Commons and fixed the description. Resolute 23:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch. I was involved in an extensive peer review of the article and suggested some images for use here in that process. I have just re-read the article and find it meets the FA criteria. The article is very well done, cleanly written, and beautifully illustrated. I made one typo correction and found a missing word (assume this is not just an AM Eng vs Can Eng thing) Corporations and community groups hold lavish events throughout the city for their staff and clients,[139] while bars and pubs erect party tents, the largest of which draws [up] to 20,000 people per day.[140] Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that was definitely a missing word. Thank you for catching that, and I appreciate both the review and the support. Cheers! Resolute 04:11, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an algorithm for figuring out when in July it is? Has it always been thus?
For many Calgarians, the event results in reduced productivity as workplace and personal responsibilities are relaxed - ermm, what? The last five words have lost me....

Otherwise looking pretty good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the Stampede always starts on the Friday closest to, but before, the 10th. So it will always start between the 3rd and the 9th of July. Problem is, I don't have a way of sourcing that. I'll have to do some more digging. Also, will attempt to reword the second passage. Thanks, Resolute 14:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded that passage. I am leafing through old media guides to see if I can cite the formula for the dates the event runs. Resolute 23:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with further nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this strange:

The National Cutting Horse Association sanctions a World Series of cutting event,

The NCHA is US; the event is in Canada. Does that strike anyone else as strange? Should US be added before the NCHA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is US-based, but seems to have a growing world flair. In addition to the Calgary event, there is also one in France in 2011. That said, I think noting that it is an American organization coming to Canada would add to the uniqueness of the event, so I will make a note as you suggest. Additionally, in response to your question in this edit summary, it is capitalized as a proper name, i.e.: the "World Series of Cutting". Thanks for your review, and the promotion! Resolute 20:56, 28 August 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 Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [6].

Alister Murdoch[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This nom follows on directly from the recently successful FAC for Valston Hancock—similar subject matter, style and sourcing. From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force. They were Air Marshals McCauley, Scherger, Hancock, and Murdoch. The first three have been through FAC, and now it’s time for the last of the quartet, Murdoch, whose article has recently passed GA and MilHist A-Class reviews. Thanks in advance for any input! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 03:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images check out, captions are fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Just several minor ones...

Comments, most minor:

—Apterygial talk 05:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. All of my concerns were dealt with, or satisfactorily answered (save one, but I'm confident it will be solved). Apterygial talk 05:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, just had a go at that last one as discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - no significant issues noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 14 August 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 Ucucha 01:46, 26 August 2011 [7].

Murder of Julia Martha Thomas[edit]

Nominator(s): Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article; it has been well-received, and I aimed to write it to FA standard from the outset. I believe that it is a well-researched and well-written article that successfully documents its topic - a case that was notorious in its day but has since largely been forgotten about, though it sheds an interesting light on Victorian society. I would appreciate feedback on whether it meets the criteria for a featured article. Prioryman (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed.
  • I don't have page numbers for all the newspaper citations (due to the poor state of preservation of some of my sources). I've provided page numbers wherever I have them.
  • I've added a few more locations, but generally I have given the location only the first time the newspaper source is cited. Should I be giving locations every single time?
  • I'm not sure what you're getting at here, could you clarify?
  • Similar citations should use similar punctuation. For example, why does ref 5 have a period after the location while ref 9 has a comma? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. The reason was that some news sources used the cite news template, while others didn't. I've converted them all to use the template for consistency of formatting. Prioryman (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sven Manguard
  • There are no bylines or credits of any sort anywhere in the newspaper (which ceased publication in 1913). This is not really a surprise as it was not common practice to use bylines or credits in British newspapers until well into the 20th century. (The Economist still doesn't.) I suggest that the best way to resolve this would be to attribute the "anonymous" images to the newspaper, as they all seem to have been produced on a collective basis - no individual, not even the editor, is credited at any point. It was clearly not the newspaper's policy to identify the authors of individual stories or images and there would certainly be no way of identifying them now.
  • Regarding the lead image, it could probably be substituted for another one. However, I think you're mistaken about the source - it's given as "Arquivos Policia de Londres" or "Archives of the Police of London", i.e. the Metropolitan Police. The uploader's description "desconhecido" is given for the author, not the source. The image is a police mugshot taken (presumably) when Kate Webster was arrested. As such, it falls into the UK Government PD category of "a photograph created by the United Kingdom Government and taken prior to 1 June 1957". The authorship is not going to be recorded - it would have been some anonymous police photographer - but the source is clear enough. I'd already added a UK Gov PD template and I've translated the uploader's description as well. Prioryman (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright. I've struck the oppose. I also reinserted the Portuguese text into the image description page, alongside the English text. Please check the template I used, for future reference, as it is polite to use those when there are multiple languages in involved. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:34, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additionally, I checked the captions, as I was recently reminded that doing so probably fell under the image reviewer's responsibilities. Please make sure that you use punctuation in your captions in the future (I fixed it this time around). Sven Manguard Wha? 23:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Zanimum
Sarastro1

OpposeComments: While this is a very good piece of work, I'm afraid I have to oppose for now. While very interesting, it may be a little overdetailed. Some of the background could be cut and some facts seem to be included simply to include them; the information on David Attenborough is not really relevant and is probably meaningless to the majority of readers who will not be from the UK. Also, the use of quotations seems excessive and I'm sure some of them could be paraphrased; there are plenty which are possibly superfluous; the description after her flight for example. I'm also uncomfortable with the number of parentheses; they interrupt the flow of sentences and often do not really add to the article. If the facts are relevant, why not include them in the main sentence. If they are tangential, either cut them or include them in notes at the end. Also, there are a few parts which go a little over the top in terms of descriptive prose; this style is not really suitable for an encyclopaedia. Although my oppose is not set in stone, I would like to see these general issues addressed throughout the article. I have also left some more detailed points. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm surprised that you think the info on Attenborough's involvement is irrelevant, as it's a key part of the story. First and most obviously, it gives the case contemporary relevance. Second, the discovery of the skull was the direct result of Attenborough commissioning work on the site. Third, if you look at the media coverage of the case (see [8]), Attenborough's involvement was the hook - internationally, not just in the UK, as he's known worldwide - and it was the hook for the recent DYK as well. I've reduced the coverage of this a bit but considering that Attenborough was indirectly responsible for the skull's discovery we can hardly not mention it. I take your point about the other issues with the writing and will address them later today.
  • The three points above: I've rewritten and simplified this line.
  • It was originally - someone seems to have changed it since. I've changed it back.
  • I don't think anything in the article is unattributed. In the specific paragraph you mention, every sentence is cited; the citation covers everything in the sentence, including the quotes. Putting a citation after every quote would lead to a lot of duplication, for instance (every citation here goes to the same source):
She was said to have an "excitable temperament"[1] and the reputation of being "very much a tartar with her servants"[1]. She was regarded as "distinctly eccentric"[1] by her neighbours and frequently travelled, leaving her friends and relatives ignorant of her whereabouts for weeks or months at a time.[1]
  1. ^ a b c d O'Donnell 1925, p. 10
  • Is that really the way it needs to be done? I can do that if needed but it seems a bit messy.
  • Changed to "Not long after leaving prison she was arrested again for larceny", which hopefully works.
  • I think the address is necessary. Mayfield Cottages was a semi-detached house - number 2 was where the murder took place, number 1 was where the landlady, who played a crucial role later, lived. If you just say "Mayfield Cottages" then it becomes ambiguous as to where the activity took place - it could mean either of the properties.
  • Try this: "On 4 March, Webster travelled to Hammersmith to see her old neighbours the Porters, whom she had not seen for six years. Wearing Mrs. Thomas's silk dress and carrying a Gladstone bag which she had filled with some of Mrs. Thomas's remains, Webster introduced herself to the Porters as "Mrs. Thomas". She claimed that since her last meeting with the Porters she had married, had a child, had been widowed and had been left a house in Richmond by an aunt."
  • It's a pretty straight description of the man's own account. I've shortened it as follows: "After he dragged it up onto the river bank, he cut the cord encircling it and opened the box, finding inside a mass of flesh wrapped in brown paper."
  • In all honesty it's probably not necessary; I've removed it.
  • Sociology-speak, I'm afraid; I've replaced the entire sentence with the simpler line "Her crime was seen as both gruesome and scandalous."
  • The point here is that she posed as her victim for two weeks after the murder. She seems to have spent most of the two weeks at home, apart from the episode with the Porters, which was necessary to dispose of the body - she couldn't carry it all herself. I've added a bit more further up the article to state what she did during that time, i.e. posing as Mrs. Thomas.
  • Fair point. I've changed this to "but it had been deposited on top of a layer of Victorian tiles." Prioryman (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies: I am happy to strike the oppose as several issues have been death with and the article is starting to look good. However, I still believe there are over-detailing issues, which I will outline below. I have also found some issues with sourcing which concern me slightly, although not enough to oppose at the moment. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's fine, I've added that wording.
  • OK, I think I've pretty much resolved this now. I've removed a number of quotes and worked them into the text as paraphrases. Elsewhere I've attributed quotes in more detail.
  • Agreed, and changed accordingly.
  • Thanks, I've used the latter wording.
  • I've reduced it somewhat; the wanted notice and some of the longer quotes have been taken out. I think the background detail is necessary though, as it sets the scene and dramatis personae for the rest of the story.
  • Fair enough. I've reworded it: "He recovered the box and opened it, finding that it contained what looked like body parts wrapped in brown paper."
  • Fair point, I've removed the word "illegal". As for the condition of the body, I've simplified this to: "The doctor who examined the body parts attributed them to "a young person with very dark hair".
  • Now reworded as "until such time as a place could be found for him in an industrial school". Better?
  • Amended to add that missing word.
  • Nor can I, which is odd. I think I mixed it up with another source but I haven't been able to find which. Given the doubt about it, I've removed the sentence. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, leaning to support: Everything looks OK that you have done, and I think this is almost there. I will give it another read through in the next day or two before I support fully, and hopefully complete some more spot-checks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby2010

Support with comments

  • Sarastro1 raised the same point above; I'm awaiting clarification. :-) Prioryman (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added a citation now. Thanks. Prioryman (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it over when it was at DYK, and the superior quality still remains. Nice work on an interesting subject. Ruby2010 comment! 22:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mm40

Comment: None of the Harvnb links for D'Cruze work, and the single Gaute link (ref. 36) doesn't work either. Mm40 (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea why those aren't working - they don't seem to be any differently formatted from any of the working references. I'm afraid I don't know enough about the Harvnb format to be able to fix it myself. I'll ask around to see if someone can help. Prioryman (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed - if there's more than one author, they must all be in the ((harvnb)) and the biblio needs them listed as "first2", "last2" instead of "author2". If you don't want all authors in the short-form ref, it's possible using "CITEREF" - give me a shout, if needed.  Chzz  ►  09:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, noted for the future. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Chzz

Being as I'm here (see above!) I have some comments. I've also made a few bold edits, which I'm sure Prioryman can check over.

  • Probably not. Removed.
  • I suspect it probably is a requirement somewhere, but you're certainly right about it being a Good Thing™. I'll work on that tomorrow. Now done.
  • It's a rough paraphrase of comments by various commentators who allude to her infamy, not just at the time but for many years afterwards. I'll see if I can make this clearer by quoting more directly.
  • A couple of comments about this. First, virtually all of the sources I used referred to the victim as "Mrs. Thomas" (see e.g. [9]) Second, I did actually start writing the article referring to her as "Thomas" before realising that this introduced room for confusion - as it is a male first name it raises the question of "who is this Thomas person and what does he have to do with the story?" I presume this is why other writers have virtually all used "Mrs. Thomas".
  • It wasn't a wikilink until you turned it into one. :-) It was merely a pair of square brackets indicating a place where a tense has been changed - a standard typographical convention. For instance, the original text of the advertisement you quote above read: "comprises Twenty Handsome Pages".

Probably more later.  Chzz  ►  09:47, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dickie is his brother Richard, a lord, not David, a baronet. I think I would prefer to keep it; it's how he's customarily referred to, so we might as well stick with convention. Your suggestion for the link style is a good one so I've done that. Prioryman (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the above is fine; thanks. Sorry for introducing the [ing] thing; it's a cleanup-script that always goes awry on those [...] things; usually, I spot it before saving. And apologies for mixing up my dickies. I will try and find time to read it some more.  Chzz  ►  12:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1 again

Weak SupportComments: This is now looking very good. I've read through again and just found a few nit-picky things. Once these are addressed, I am happy to switch to full support. However, I have been unable to do the spot-checks I hoped on one of the books and it is unlikely I will now be able to do so any time soon. The only ones I managed were those outlined above. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to "Her desire to employ a live-in domestic servant probably had as much to do with status as with practicality."
  • Done.
  • Changed to "visited the local alehouse".
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Changed to "Leonard Reginald Gribble, a writer on criminology".
  • Done.
  • Reworded.
  • I've added an explanatory preface to Sleigh and linked Denman.
  • OK, I've reworded it accordingly.
  • It shouldn't be there at all. I suspect that's due to Chzz's script (see above). I've fixed it now.
  • It's attributed already (to D'Cruze) - she makes the point of highlighting Church's status as a person who had risen to lower middle-class status by "respectable" means, i.e. the work ethic that the Victorians so valued. I've reworded the piece accordingly.
  • Yes, much better - done.
  • I could only find two (and one was in a quotation, so I've left that alone). Were there others? Prioryman (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: While I'm sure there could be some further tightening in places, I think this article comfortably meets the criteria now and I am switching to full support. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amandajm

Comment: Finally, the fact that she was Irish was undoubtedly a factor in the widespread revulsion felt towards Webster in Great Britain.

There may be a lot of evidence to suggest that the her Irish nationality was a factor in the "revulsion" towards Webster, but this is an opinion, non-the-less. As an opinion, the author of the opinion needs to be cited directly, not merely with the title of the book in a footnote, as if you stating a "fact". There needs to be a statement that says:Such and such an author suggests that the fact that Webster was Irish contributed to.........

Amandajm (talk) 14:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've amended the article accordingly [10]. Prioryman (talk) 19:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm late into the review but a large quantity of problems have been pointed out and fixed. I see no glaring and outstanding issues with this article presently. It's a nice read and the lead pic is scary business. Brad (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs to be checked; I already fixed "19th century Britain", but I also notice "whom had been twice widowed", and you need to be consistent in using either spaced en or unspaced em dashes (WP:DASH). Ucucha (talk) 02:06, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I made a few edits, which the nominator might wish to check. There is what Fowler calls a "jingle" here: "Webster posed as Mrs. Thomas for two weeks but was exposed" but I can't find an easy fix. Overall this is a well written contribution. The prose reminds me of the writing style of Ludovic Kennedy. Thank you for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 13:54, 23 August 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 21:33, 23 August 2011 [11].

Paxillus involutus[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs), Sasata (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many moons ago as a child I read about this fungus (widely eaten in Eastern Europe) mysteriously killing people..now I am a doctor and we know why it does, and I find it even freakier. Anyway, Sasata and I have been buffing this and reckon it's ready to roll here. J Milburn's also had a look and offered some suggestions. Have at it. Will reply promptly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • These have been fixed, thanks Nikkimaria. Sasata (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Media review coming later, but first:

Sven Manguard Wha? 23:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Poisonous in the mycomorphbox indicates that consumption of the mushroom may cause sickness, or even death. The "allergic reaction" refers to the mechanism of poisoning, in that it is mediated by the immune system; there is no discrepancy between the two. I fixed the leftover citation issue. Sasata (talk) 00:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're the expert. I just brought it up because I noticed it. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media Review Yeah, so right off the bat, I'll say that everything is good form a copyright standpoint. However, I'm honestly not seeing why all three of File:Čechratka podvinutá 1.jpg, File:Paxillus involutus 20061015w.jpg, and File:Paxillus involutus 112885.jpg are needed. Of those three, the first two are basically the same thing. The third one really dosen't add anything to the toxicity section. I tried rearranging everything in a sandbox and I really don't have any good answers. I considered the idea of a distribution map, but in all honesty, it seems like "Everywhere" would be a good description on the distribution. At this point unless one of you has a better idea or some other photo options, I'm tempted to just say leave it as is, or just say cut File:Paxillus involutus 20061015w.jpg. Really its your choice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many organisms can be variable in appearance - in an ideal world, we'd have some different ones (i.e. someone cutting one in half for a cross section etc.) but we don't. I think what we have does highlight some different shades of brown and punctuates the slabs of text nicely. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:49, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

not sure exactly, but quite possibly - will look into it. yes, see how it is written here. Will clarify, but in am as I need to sleep now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - have added a bit on sanctioning. But still haven't re-found the reason why Fries chose Batsch and not Bulliard (I think I saw it before...will keep looking...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is still not clear to me: if sanctioning is not necessary, why is the earlier name not used? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
now linked at first instance x 2 - oversight on our part. Will clarify location The latter is from europe and north america and greenland - enough to have the info on its own page? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention the range of other species there, I'd prefer to have it for filamentosus too. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The taxa were described in 1999 by Hahn, and it is unclear how widely the names have been taken up. They are still poorly known so my guess is that it is unclear what parts of other populations are actually other species Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This makes me a bit uneasy—if the taxonomy is such a mess, are you sure this article is describing the same species everywhere? Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - this is probably an issue for many widespread fungal species. A lag time as study X reports what look like cryptospecies but doesn't have enough information to describe some officially, and research that has to be undertaken before there is general uptake elsewhere. What I've tried to do is clarify the current status of what is by consensus called Paxillus involutus (sensu lato). It might be several more years before more material is published to make a formal split. Do you think it is clear enough in the lead? (NB: fungal knowledge is alot more meagre than birds or flowering plants...) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delinked now Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is proving elusive - have been searching to see if it occurs in Mexico but the status of fungal knowledge of Mexico is meagre at best! I have never seen any more exacting information than the adejctive "northern" ..... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit odd. I see it's also mentioned as being in California, which is hardly northern North America. Ucucha (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The gist is abundant across northern north america really. Will see if we can pinpoint southernmost. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 12:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments A couple of nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yup. looks fine to me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. thought about it, and figured the original way doesn't make sense as it wasn't previously a complex when it was thought only one species, hence grammar changed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nope - changed Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, changed to support, even though I'm a bit concerned about the mushroom soup I had for lunch! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

how about a comma after "stipes"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's nothing leading up to "and caps with more inrolled...". The part before the first comma doesn't match well with it. Try picturing it without the stuff in the middle and you get "tended to caps...". Still think the original solution I proposed is the best, but I'm sure there are other ways of doing it. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:10, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, have done it the way you suggested - does feel a little lopsided somehow but can't think of a better way currently. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fullstops x 2 in photo captions added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
duly dropped Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
definite article added Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs)

Support. I gave the article a review shortly before this nomination here, and my concerns were dealt with. The article is still looking good, and nothing of concern that I missed has been raised in this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

both are max measures, 2nd "up" added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right - these are the facts - the mushroom was widely consumed for years and was known to require cooking before being eaten (due to gastric upsets when eaten raw). It was anecdotally associated with isolated cases of severe illness, even deatn in 1944, but oddly many people seemed to eat it for years with no problems. Then as time went on, from the 1980s it was established that it could cause a potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis -which can happen out of the blue at any time (i.e. not exposure- or dose dependent). This knowledge was slow in uptake by guidebooks, some of which listed it as edible until the 1990s. The "a" here referred to a single type of haemolysis, not single episode. You're not retarded - I think we need to tweak it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one idea: "It had been known to cause gastric upsets when eaten raw, but was more recently found to cause potentially fatal autoimmune hemolysis, even in those who had consumed the mushroom for years without any other ill effects." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:34, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll pay that - so you concede that "recently" though not ideal is maybe best fit for the gradual sinking in of the mushroom's dangerousness in mycophagous communities? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
IAR FTW! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
added Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there is some discussion about overhauling the images here that are used on Template:Mycomorphbox. I agree the pink face is...erm...could be better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
reworded Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
nice commas added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hyphens added Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ok. "Revealed" I didn't mind too much as the mushrooms all look very similar, hence the molecular work reveals hidden relationships within, but I get your point. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took groups --> populations, wondered if clusters was too specific a meaning... Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"anastomosed" means the gills join up. naughty adverb removed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
duly splitted Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rejigged to clarify. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
crystalline structures seen under the microscope. The reference is a very brief key and doesn't elaborate. I haven't used microscopes with mushrooms yet and can't access some of the earlier journals cited by the key. Using microscopes on the mycelium is really specialised....I'll take another look tonight when I get some time. Sasata (who added this bit) may be able to elaborate also.Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like bagels. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please check all redirects: I expect to see at least brown roll rim, common roll-rim, common roll rim, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which is correct? The article mentions Northern Hemisphere, we have Northern Hemisphere, but it mentions northern hemisphere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...that's a very good question actually, WRT caps or not..I will prusue that as I'm seeing both on google and WP on first look. Might have to nut this out on the geography pages. I'll ask Tony...Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on this source, NH should be capitalized. Our article on the same is rather inconsistent. Sasata (talk) 20:03, 24 August 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 21:33, 23 August 2011 [12].

Corn Crake[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once common, and the cause of many sleepless nights, this rail has now declined over much of its range due to changes in haymaking techniques. There is a bucketful of information out there, but much is repetitive or concerned with local conservation projects. If I've omitted anything important, let me know Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I started with the template, but it wouldn't display properly, so ditched. I don't think it's mandatory to use the template, I've used text in many other FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template is not a "Requirement" however it is the closest thing to a gold standard that we have for the logical and orderly display of the information, so it's a "strongly recommended" in my book. I'll look into the display issues for you. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that the description in the copyright box was adequate, but translation added now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, the egg actually had a caption, but it didn't show because it wasn't a thumbnail Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually show a predator or parasite, it's appropriate in this section and hasn't been queried before. I assume that "mow" was a common enough word not to need a link, but maybe a different term is used for grass cutting in North America. Now linked in caption and first occurrence in text. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for review. All above fixed. I couldn't see any other editor inconsistencies apart from the Kees/Koffijberg slip, let me know if I've missed something. Ref 22 tweaked and isbn fixed. Series name removed, abbreviations spelt out. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There were a few typos such as "...a loud nocturnal call that sometimes leadto disturbed sleep for rural dwellers, the Corn Crake..." under the In Culture section. Also, in the Status section, the phrase "In much of the west of its range," was at first a bit confusing. It might be beneficial to change it to something such as "In much of the western half of its range," A ctrl+F search showed that in the Distribution and Habitat section, "Corncrake" appeared twice. In the Status section, "Corncrake" appears three times, one of which is lacking capitalization. I am unsure if this is necessary, but you might consider adding a source stating that its name was derived from the krek krek call of the male. Hopefully my comments are of use, even if they are a bit "nitpicky". Micromann (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for comments. Typos fixed, also name — I'm afraid I still think of it as one word. "Status" tweaked as suggested. With regard to the call, if you mean in the Lead section, having references there is now discouraged. The derivation and the call are referenced under "Taxonomy" and "Voice" respectively. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:17, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Sorry, I did not know that was discouraged. Thanks for the speedy response. Micromann (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lit review Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm not sure if the comprehensive criterion is yet met. There's a lot of published scientific literature... here's a small sampling of publications from 2009–2011 that, judging by their titles, look interesting and possibly suitable for inclusion. I can prepare a more comprehensive list if you like. Sasata (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thanks for lit review. I said in the nom above that there is a huge amount of literature, and I've had to be selective. I get no clear sense from the list of what you think has been inadequately covered. I've deliberately avoided articles like the Yorkshire one — there are lots of similar regional items, mostly in the UK, and I thought it more important to paint the overall picture for Europe, rather than have an endless parochial list of local declines. Similarly, of those articles I've seen, I can't see what the Irish, Transyvanian or Egyptian articles add in terms of new content, as opposed to local detail. I've used several of Rhys Green's studies, but I couldn't see that the one you quote was adding a great deal that was new. I have used the Graham source now, which I overlooked despite having a hard copy. It's a captive study, but since it suggests only that only the male builds the nest, whereas the prestigious BWP, and all other sources which give an opinion (Taylor doesn't), say only the female, that's clearly worth mentioning. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right, in retrospect most are local reports. I'll move this list to the archive talk page; I'm away for about a week, and will give a full review then. Sasata (talk) 06:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Consider all my comments below dealt with; I believe the article meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Occasional small frog or mammal" 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It says Clay on the title page
  • There's something seriously wrong with the version you have linked. Pages jump from 384 to 805, and recipes from 817 to 1778. The land rail recipe is 1033, as listed in the index, but of course doesn't appear at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

  • Since the Faroes are self-governing, I treated the archipelago as a country. Linked now to be on the safe side Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't finished reading yet. Ucucha 03:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • No it doesn't make sense. Although it's what the book source says, it's clearly inconsistent with the rock-solid data from the BTO and the Rhys Green paper. Rephrased as "some individuals may live for 5–7 years."
Thanks for review and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes. Ucucha 13:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support as all comments have been addressed (long ago, in fact). The article still looks good. Ucucha (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Philcha:

  • Most bird articles start with Taxonomy, so we can define what we are talking about. Since I want this to end up in a featured topic, I'm reluctant to change the order, although I agree with with making it more readable. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much of it is basic stuff - common names, who named it, relatives etc. But more importantly, many many bird and other FAs have taxonomy as section number 1 - this allows "description" to be section number 2 and have images in that section not abut the taxobox. Hence we'd then have inconsistent formatting across bird FAs. We can examine order of all articles in an RfC.Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re location of "Taxonomy", OK (sigh!). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was added by another editor. Now "The earlier use of crex gives it priority over Bechstein's specific name pratensis, and leads to the current name of Crex crex, which reads better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll think again about "thick vegetation", after seeing section "Distribution and habitat" para 2. Would "moderate vegetation" do the job? --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for review so far, there was an edit conflict half way through editing here, please check that nothings been lost or altered Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Jimfbleak. AFAIK None of my comments were lost. Might be good to check with Casliber. --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll check out your responses, and then work through the rest (?later). --Philcha (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As suggested, although I've kept the habitat bits for breeding and wintering as separate paras; although similar, they're not identical. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The large-scale structure is better, thanks. I've comments about individual paras, see below. --Philcha (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • now "Although it has been lost from much of its historic range, this bird was once found in suitable habitat in Eurasia everywhere between latitudes 41°N and 62°N.". Is that clearer? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still have "in golf courses" - is there a reason for "in". I suggested "around" as I couldn't imagine the birds feeding in putting greens or bunkers or even the fairway - but I could be wrong. PS I've w-linked golf courses. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think section "Distribution and habitat" is now fine. --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Confiding" is actually often used in bird books, but I take the point, changed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, but avoided repetition by saying "poultry feed"
  • Is there a reason for not moving "If flushed by a dog, ... crouch on landing"? --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked the sequence a bit, but it's unclear when the male builds the nest since it's only just been discovered that he does so Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bleeding edge of zoology ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it better to re-structure these sentences, e.g.: first nest in a scrape among grassland, etc.; 2nd nest higher from the ground, as the grass is then longer. This is a quite tentative suggestion, as each of the sources seems to give only some pieces of the jigsaw puzzle. But if it is possible, it would avoid contradiction. --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tried in the original text to convey that the nest was still on the ground "higher altitude than the first... later-developing grasses further up a hill" I've obviously failed, but I can't see how to make it clearer Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "further up a hill" makes all the difference! --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many birds, like pheasants and other game birds and rails, have little or no involvement in rearing the brood after copulation. Except in very cold or wet weather, the female comes off the eggs at intervals to feed herself. It's probably not possible to source this for individual species because it's normal behaviour Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I can only spell "ornithology" on good days :-( --Philcha (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added, but after first sentence, since the omnivority(?) and general nature of its invertebrate diet is the same everywhere Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have thought an area covering most of Eurasia could reasonably be described as "huge". "Large" seems like understatement. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't "from Ireland all the way to central Siberia" just before "estimated at 12,400,000 km2" be concise and resolve the vagueness of "huge". --Philcha (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just removed "huge" — numbers in millions of square miles speak for themselves Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit of fun for those who last the course - editors, reviewers and readers :-D --Philcha (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed dead Rothschild and ABC urls, these are real publications, so a weblink is a bonus anyway. Removed non-essential Arkive EL. I can't see any web-only refs without an access date, and web versions of real publications don't need them. Have I missed something? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from J Milburn Intended to get to reviewing this one, but forgot about it, sorry!

  • I'm not sure what you are getting at, the Bechstein ref immediately follows that name Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant the authority, the author- (Linnaeus, 1758) and all that. J Milburn (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose that I could put "(Bechstein, 1803)", but since I've just said that it was created by Bechstein in 1803, that seems a bit redundant. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was meaning specifically in the taxobox- it just looks a little lonely without it. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC
  • The convention is that just the lowest rank gets the authority, so Linnaeus here, Bechstein on the Crex page Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough- as you can see on (for instance) Leotia lubrica, on fungal articles we typically list the authorities for the synonyms as well as for the accepted binomial. If that's not how it's done with bird articles, so be it. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added Bewick image, as you suggest. I can't fit the other image in description because of the map, but moved to habitat instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally put refs at the end of all the text to which they refer, I don't like repeating the same ref in continuous prose Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not read every word, but it's looking great. It's great to have the poetry- that really adds something. J Milburn (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kaldari:

  • Well, the image is tiny anyway, so I'm reluctant to make it even smaller. At least it confirms the ID Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

  • Unfortunately not. It's the nature of this species to hide in the grass., I've heard, but never seen one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, poop. If any decent images do pop up, I'm sure you'll make good use of them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • now although individuals from the east of the breeding range tend to be slightly paler than their western counterparts Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's actually very common usage in bird publications, because it perfectly describes the colour of many birds, thanks for link Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "skulking" is often used for birds that hide in dense vegetation, but now changed to "elusive" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I would have liked to have read more about the campylobacter problem, but that's because sadly I am more interested in bacteria than birds :-) Thanks for an engaging contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a double image in the "Status" section which is not ... ???? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hmmm, after manually loading the image, now it's there (in my cache), so I don't know what caused that problem ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 23 August 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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [13].

Brazilian battleship São Paulo[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting article for y'all. São Paulo's construction contributed to a rather expensive South American naval arms race, and the first year of her career was marked by a major mutiny. With rapid advances in naval technology (read: the introduction of super-dreadnoughts) and financial issues in Brazil, she quickly fell into disrepair and total obscurity. After repairs and a modernization in the United States, however, she participated in three more mutinies/revolutions. To top it off, the ship quite literally disappeared in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean while being towed to Europe for scrapping.

This article has taken a long time to get here. I originally got it to GA in April 2009 (link). It then sat around until March/April 2011, when I rewrote the whole thing with much better sources and got it through a Milhist A-class review (link). After adding a little more information from the Brazilian Navy's official histories – which only A through Gish were online in 2009 – I think it's just about ready for FA. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lecen, you already know how much I appreciate your reviews. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that helps. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice read, I've made a couple of tweaks but it is pretty close to standard. Couple of fly by comments - I'm backpacking for another week so may not be returning to this for a while.

"The rebels, believing an attack was imminent, sailed their ships out of Guanabara Bay and spent the night of 23–24 November there, only returning during daylight." Should "there" be "at sea"?.
The hexagonal formation of turrets is compared to a German design that has no superfiring turrets, but there is a later reference to superfiring turrets. Was the arrangement two for and aft and two amidships? (a diagram showing their layout would be nice if possible).
Nice photo of a US battleship, but not sure of the relevance as the Sao Paulo is not in shot.
Info on numbers of mutineers who stayed in Montevideo would be cool if it can be sourced.

Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 13:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"At sea" -- definitely, nice catch. @turrets, that was for an earlier (non-dreadnought) design. Is this not clear enough in the text? If so, that's not good and I'll have to rewrite it a bit. :-) @US battleship, it's more there to break up the text, and I don't have any images that are more relevant. @number of mutineers, I'm pretty sure I have a total number in one of my sources. I'll hunt it down tomorrow. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for those changes, but a little of the detail on the earlier designs might be worth keeping - if only to emphasise why the two dreadnoughts were so much more powerful than the three ships they cancelled. ϢereSpielChequers 14:17, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent article, but:

That's all that I have to say. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since when having red links is considered bad to a featured article? --Lecen (talk) 03:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red links - see WP:REDLINK. Style - see WP:NCSHIP. Career - that's not normal practice in ship articles, and I prefer top-level headings over many third-level headers. Alternatively combining it all into one isn't helpful for the reader; there's a reason we have sectioning. Legacy - this isn't normal practice either unless the ship(s) were unusually famous. A good example of this can be seen in the Yamato-class battleship article. São Paulo, however, does not have this status, and none of my sources have anything that could contribute to such a section. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Ed on all points, except that I don't take any position on general questions about linking. There are reviewers who have been irked at one time or another about lots of red links, because without any information, they didn't have a way to verify notability. OTOH, any featured article on a Brazilian ship is necessarily going to touch on a lot of articles that haven't been written in the English Wikipedia yet, since most of the sources are in Portuguese. - Dank (push to talk) 14:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed redlinks are important, and we shouldn't discriminate against potential FAs that are in areas of the pedia that still have unwritten articles. If anything I prefer an article about a Brazilian subject rather than one of more familiar topics. ϢereSpielChequers 14:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer, having reviewed the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. - Dank (push to talk) 18:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dank for all you and continue to do. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any time, Ed. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a lovely article. I need more clarity and detail about the design of the ship, as built. Was it not completed on the hexagonal turret plan? If not, what was the layout? On a lighter note, I saw some suggestions about the ship's eventual fate which were interesting. --John (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! The ship was not completed with the hexagonal turret plan (see File:Minas Geraes-class battleships.jpg). Should I just remove the information from this article and include it only in the class article, where most of the design information traditionally goes?
Yeah, I've seen that webpage before. Something about 'aliens needed a WWI battleship for a museum, but couldn't be seen while taking it, so they took Sao Paulo in the middle of a storm'. It's absolutely ridiculous, but the webpage did have scans of a 50s magazine article by Alan Villiers on the disappearance... which reminds me that I've always meant to buy the book that article was taken from (Posted Missing). Hopefully Amazon's seller will have that to me in a few days. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:07, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. I read that book once years ago as I realized with some delight when I started to edit this article. I suggest adding something brief to the article to clarify its final layout. Unfortunately the book I was hoping to use to reference this article, Peter Padfield's Battleship, can't be found so I am relying on the (perfectly adequate but unverifiable to me) existing sources. --John (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping it will allow me to flesh out the disappearance paragraph, as the only major sources right now are the newspapers emailed to me by User:Bellhalla way back during the 2009 GAN. Padfield is a pretty good author; I bought his Maritime Dominion a few months back and greatly enjoyed it. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am pissed off because I don't recall lending it to anybody and I can't find it. So, either it is in storage or I lent it to somebody then forgot about it. The joys of growing old. Nice edits, I think I now support. --John (talk) 20:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've lost quite a few books through lending; the only one I remember is The Original Shannara Trilogy omnibus to my Dad. The problem is six years after I let him borrow the book, he still hasn't read it. Thanks for the support – and as an fyi, I'm planning on adding a bit back on the original design, but hopefully not so detailed that it becomes confusing. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

All of these should be fixed (the first one thanks to John). I sourced the infobox instead of providing a description, but I think we've had discussions before on that topic. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed we have, you evil man who doesn't love the technical side of these ships.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In all seriousness, I don't love that side. ;-) That's not the reason I don't include them in the individual ship articles, though. I just feel that it duplicates what's in the class article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd source review - no offence Nikkimaria, but I felt you missed something.

I had a quick look at the few sources that I could access without paying (EN 31, 32, 42, 53, 54 and 56), and they all verified the text in the article. No issues with copyvio or close paraphrasing. --Eisfbnore • talk 19:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No templates are used, afaik.
The one state is fixed.
Martins was a copy/paste error, I think; thanks!
It's not impossible to tell. Authormasks tell you that the same person authored all the works.
The title is fixed – that was a good catch.
Now linked, as is The New York Times.
Fixed dup. refs.
There is no newspaper that is behind a paywall, as far as I know. All of the NYT sources are pre-1923 and are therefore free to view. You may have to register an account, though. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, Ed; please have a look at EN 55, which uses a ((cite news)) template. Also, I know that authormasks can be used to avoid repetion; however, you must write out the author's full name on the first occurrence before you start using the masks. At present, you use authormasks on every occurrence, which makes it impossible to tell who really authored the works. Eisfbnore • talk 22:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've been bold and added Scheina, Robert L. to his first listed work in the biblio (I found his name through GBOOKS). Eisfbnore • talk 08:06, 23 August 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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [18].

John Treloar (museum administrator)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though John Treloar seems to have never fired a shot in anger, he was one of the most important figures in Australia's military history. He headed the military's record-keeping units during both world wars, was the director of the Australian War Memorial for most of the period between 1920 and his death in 1950 and moonlighted as the secretary of a government department during the first years of World War II. Throughout it all, he was a workaholic and literally lived next to his office in the years before his early death.

I've been working on this article for about two years, and think that it now meets the FA criteria. The article passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in March and has since been improved. Thanks in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. Nick, please check the changes since the A-class review for typos. I got everything down to Establishing the War Memorial, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 02:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done - thanks for your fixes, I've made a few more Nick-D (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment - Excellent to see such a good article about a museum figure. One query that struck me; the Department of Information is redlinked in the lead, and while its role and government status is outlined in the World War II section, it might be worth a slight qualifier in the lead ('...the Australian government's Department of Information' for instance) just for clarity. IxK85 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that comment - I've just made this change. Nick-D (talk) 07:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a very readable article, but would like a bit more clarity about the renaming from Museum to Memorial; when did the change take place? Was it in December 1927 when the staff were made permanent? And which government department was responsible for the organisation after that change? IxK85 (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point - it assumed its current name in 1925. The Memorial has always been for all intents and purposes an independent organisation overseen by its own board, and doesn't directly come under any department. It's been responsible to various ministers over time, but I don't think that this is really relevant as they've almost never intervened in its management and don't seem to have affected Treloar at all. I've just added details on the date the Memorial changed name and its management structure in Treloar's time to the article. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- I've gone through the changes to this article since I supported it at its MilHist A-Class Review, and after making a couple of very minor tweaks to prose I see no reason not to support it here; well done again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar Nazi Review:

  • Paragraph 2, sentence 7: "He attempted to intervene in the management of the AWM during his absence, however, to the increasing frustration of its acting director." However should only begin or end a sentence; it should never be used in the middle of one.
    • Thanks for this review; I just saw it, after making my changes. On this point: see Chicago 5.207. - Dank (push to talk)
      • That's perfectly common Australian usage, and (from memory) is recommended by the Australian style manual. The Chicago Style Manual is not normally used by Australians; we use Australian and British style guides. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • True, but I've been copyediting per Chicago for a long time, and seldom get complaints from non-Americans ... and it's the only style guide, American or otherwise, that I've found to even approach universality ... mostly because that's what they've aimed for, they've been highly influential in Canada for over 100 years. So ... please do let me know (as you've done below) if anything I say doesn't sound right, so that over time, we can figure out which guidance works. - Dank (push to talk) 11:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh and ... right, most of the time, I don't specifically mention Chicago unless it's AmEng or CanEng ... but this copyeditor is Canadian and seems to be trying to follow Canadian usage rather than Australian, so the comments were more directed at him. - Dank (push to talk) 11:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm just going to chime in here to agree with Nick. Use of "however" mid-sentence is not uncommon in British English and so I presume it would have similar use among the descendants of British convicts. ;) That's not to say that it's correct, though—I copy-edit by my own comprehension of English rather than by guides, and I certainly don't know every rule. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Paragraph 4, sentence 2: "At this time the Section comprised himself and four enlisted soldiers, and was located in London." Reflexive pronouns should only be used when the object of a sentence is the same as its subject, or to emphasize the subject of the sentence. This does neither.
Comma removed Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not what I had meant. The reflexive pronoun is himself. For the sentence to be correct, you must change it to him or say "At this time the Section comprised Treloar himself...". Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed 'himself' as the previous sentence already says that Treloar was the commander of the unit. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 6, sentence 4: "While Bean was impressed by Treloar's achievements, he believed that the young man pushed himself too hard and was at risk of a breakdown." First Treloar pushed himself too hard, and then Bean believed it. Hence, the past perfect tense of "pushed" should be used: "had pushed".
    • Or, "was pushing". - Dank (push to talk)
      • Changed. This sentence is about Bean's views of Treloar only. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 5, sentence 1: "Treloar typically worked for six days each week, and normally stayed until late at night." The action is habitual and in the past; therefore, the verbs should be conditional: "Treloar would typically work..."
  • Sentence 3: "Treloar also placed an emphasis on safeguarding the collection, and in 1933 personally investigated the theft of the German cruiser Emden's bell from the Memorial in Sydney when the New South Wales Police gave up; with his assistance it was recovered later that year." This is a rather long sentence, and give up is rather informal. In addition, first the police abandoned the search, and then Treloar began his investigation. The past perfect tense should be used: "...when the New South Wales Police had given up..."
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Shortly before the outbreak of World War II Treloar wrote to the members of the AWM's board to propose that if another major war occurred the Memorial should suspend most of its activities and reorient its focus to become a memorial to all the wars in which Australia had taken part, rather than just World War I." This is a clear run-on sentence. It should be split.
  • Sentence 3: "He further suggested that the Memorial building be used as a store and for government offices during the war and that its staff could establish a war records section similar to the AWRS." A comma should be used after war, and could is not necessary.
  • Paragraph 2, sentence 2: "In September 1939 he was appointed the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information (DOI) by his close friend Henry Gullett, who at the time was the Minister for Information." Add as after appointed. Also, the active voice may sound more natural: "In September 1939 his close friend Henry Gullet, who at the time was the Minister for Information, appointed him as the inaugural secretary of the Department of Information."
    • Disagree with 'as' (this reads awkwardly and doesn't add anything, and runs against the common usage for how Australian departmental secretary positions are described), but I've tweaked the sentence to the active voice Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 4: "Treloar ran the department in line with traditional Australian Public Service procedures, which included implementing tight internal controls over the department's procedures and information dissemination functions as well as taking steps to stop its work from being politicised." "Prevent its work's politicisation" avoids any unnecessary use of present participles or prepositions.
    • I disagree - 'Prevent its work's politicisation' reads awkwardly. I've tweaked the sentence a bit though. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will "prevent the politicisation of its work" be alright? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The change to this sentence left it with similar wording to what you suggest. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 5: "He remained the departmental secretary after Gullett was moved to a different ministry in March 1940, but lost status when Keith Murdoch was appointed to the new position of Director-General of Information in June that year." Again, as is needed after remained. The necessary possessive pronoun "his" is missing before status, and of is required after June.
  • I disagree with those suggestions - they would add complexity to the sentence and make it read awkwardly. Adding 'his' as suggested also changes the meaning of the sentence (Treloar's status was reduced, not destroyed). Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: "Treloar was troubled by the use of the DOI's photographers to manufacture publicity photographs instead of taking images with historical value." There is a tense agreement issue between manufacture and taking.
  • Sentence 8: "Treloar regained full control of the DOI in December 1940 when Murdoch resigned, though the Department's photographers continued to mainly be tasked with taking publicity photos." To mainly be is a split infinitive and should not be used.
    • Chicago has given up on recommending against short split infinitives, but I did rewrite this. - Dank (push to talk)
  • Paragraph 3, sentence 6: "General Thomas Blamey, the commander of the AIF, later redesignated the War Records Section the Military History and Information Section (MHIS) as he felt that the original name did not adequately describe the unit's role." Again, the past perfect tense of feel should be used, because General Blamey had felt that way before he renamed the War Records Section.
    • But the feeling continued through the time of the renaming. - Dank (push to talk)
      • Changed to 'on the grounds that' Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 7: "In contrast to the DOI's propaganda activities, the MHIS was focused on collecting records, images and items that would be useful to historians." As one part of the sentence contains its own commas, the first comma must be a semicolon.
The second half of the sentence contains its own comma in the list. When independent parts of the sentence have their own commas, a semicolon must be used to create a second level of divider. The first comma creates a comma splice. It should be a semicolon. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that I agree with that - the sentence seems to read OK and I can't see how a semi-colon would help. What wording do you suggest? Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4, sentence 1 needs a comma or two.
  • Sentence 2: "While en-route to the Middle East he visited Malaya." The dash is not needed in en route.
  • Sentence 3: "Conditions in North Africa proved more challenging than those in World War I, however, as the combat was fast-moving and the Australian troops felt less motivation to collect artefacts than those of the First AIF." Again, however should not be in the middle of a sentence.
    • See above. - Dank (push to talk)
      • As above, this is a perfectly normal use of 'however' Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sentence 6: "During Treloar's absence from the AWM its main building was opened in November 1941 without him having had any input into the design of its galleries." Him comes before a present participle, so the sentence should read his having had.
  • Paragraph 6, sentence 4 uses however in the middle of a sentence.
  • Sentence 5: "This concerned Bean, who wrote an unanswered letter to Treloar in July 1943 offering to help organise for more items to be collected." Organise should be replaced with arrange; otherwise the sentence must be rephrased "...offering to help organise the collection of more items." Offering should also be replaced with and offered.
    • I didn't like "organise" either. "offering" is fine; it modifies "letter". - Dank (push to talk)
      • changed to 'offering to help organise the collection of more items', 'and offered' is incorrect as this is what was in Bean's letter, and not subsequent communication. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up is not needed in paragraph 7, sentence 5.
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 2: "At the time he believed he was suffering from bad health, but wanted to resume his work at the Memorial rather than enter hospital." Use the past perfect tense of believe.
    • See above; the believing continues through to the time of the next action, so don't use the past perfect. - Dank (push to talk)
      • The proposed change doesn't read well to me Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 2, sentence 1: "The main challenges for the Memorial in the post-war years were integrate the World War II collections with those from World War I and secure funding to expand its building." To is needed before integrate.
I concur. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 4, sentence 1: "Treloar's work patterns took a toll on his health, and the deterioration in his performance after 1946 may have been the result of exhaustion." May have been is not correct. The past tense of may is might.
It is perfectly correct. The past tense of may is might. You would never say something like can have been, but always could have been. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 15:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in DC this weekend and don't have my books with me ... I'll see if I can find something for you when I get home. Off the top of my head, the problem is that "might" is the subjunctive as well as the past tense of "may", and I think most readers will hear it as subjuctive, which is not what I want. Thanks for your review btw. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I shall change it myself. If anyone dislikes it he may revert it. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 19:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it back as I think that it was a bit awkward. I've also changed the statement that the police 'abandoned' their investigated back to 'broke off' as this wording as more dramatic than what the source says ('abandoned' makes it sound like the police considered the investigation a totally lost cause, when the reference says that they "gave up the hunt"). Thanks for your other changes though. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However awkward it may sound to you, it is correct. The past tense of may is might. The action happened in the past; therefore, might must be used. I do not perceive it as the subjunctive. Will some other people please share their opinions about may have been? Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Back home now, and Garner's agrees with me, on p. 529. (Garner's is an American usage guide, the one most often mentioned by American copy editors, but it does its best to stay true to its origin: Fowler's.) Quoting an example of bad usage in a newspaper headline: "Plane Might ([better is] "May") Have Stalled Before Crashing" ... (Might erroneously suggests the stall didn't happen; the probability is that it did.) - Dank (push to talk) 14:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the sentence so there's no need for may/might, and this whole discussion is now useless. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Paragraph 1, sentence 1: "Following his death Treloar was praised for the personal sacrifices he had made to establish the AWM as well as for the high quality of the Memorial." A comma is needed here.

This has been the review of a Grammar Nazi. Once all of these things are fixed, my vote will be Support! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 03:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Again, thanks, we need more grammar nazis, particularly Canadians. On the points I didn't respond to, I'm fine with your suggestions. - Dank (push to talk) 03:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually ... after seeing Nick's replies, I went too far with saying "I'm fine", I should have said "On the ones I didn't reply to: no comment". - Dank (push to talk) 11:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Media Review - Everything looks good, however all but one of the images have watermarks from the museum, they ought to be removed. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Carcharoth (talk)

I have a book on the Australian Historical Mission (Gallipoli Revisited - In the Footsteps of Charles Bean and the Australian Historical Mission, Janda Gooding, 2009). The author is from the AWM, so I'm assuming it is a reliable source. Treloar wasn't on this mission, but there are some brief mentions of Treloar listed in the index and a biographical note. Though the biographical note says that Treloar enlisted 27 August 1914, rather than 16 August 1914. Not sure why those dates are different. Also in this note is the service dates in Gallipoli from 25 April 1915 to 4 September 1915, the latter being a more specific departure date (the Wikipedia article is silent on this). The other mentions in this book that might be of interest (i.e. not already covered in the current version of this article) are:

His Army file states that he enlisted in the AIF on 16 August 1914. What page number is the date he was evacuated Gallipoli on? Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That date is from the biographical note, note 24 to chapter 1, given in the chapter endnotes at the back of the book. This particular note is on page 224. The exact wording is "served on Gallipoli with 1st AIF Division Head Quarters 25 April to 4 September 1915". But Gooding doesn't say where she gets that information from (there are various biographical bits throughout the notes of people mentioned in the book, but no sources for these biographical bits). Carcharoth (talk) 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, added. His official army file states that he was hospitalised on 29 August and evacuated to Egypt on 4 September. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a quick look at that official file - you mean that imposing 137 page scan? Which of those pages did you find the hospitalisation dates on? There is some nice additional stuff there, but it is too primary to really use without interpretation by secondary sources (the latter being what you've done for what has been included). It was interesting to see the official issue stamps relating to the Victory Medal and other standard-issue medals from WWI. Hopefully some of those additional details will be teased out in any future biography of Treloar. Carcharoth (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Page 131. The page numbers seem to be dynamic though as more has been added to the online record over the period in which this article has been developed, so I've used the name of the relevant document within the file as the reference per the normal way primary sources are referenced by historians. As you note, the only use I'm made of the file have been to add extra detail on topics covered in secondary sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's all the comments I have for now. Carcharoth (talk) 01:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply] Additional comments by Carcharoth (talk)

Some more comments, after taking a closer look at the sources used and looking around to see what else maybe should be included. I started from the war artist I mentioned above (Lambert) and looked around to see what had been said about him and Treloar, and came across an excellent article all about Trelaor and war art commissioning, with examples of several of the war artists he worked with. It is already used in the Wikipedia article, but not for much. I've given details below.

If that biography is eventually completed and published, it should help immensely with the rewrite and extension of Wikipedia's article on Treloar that will almost certainly be needed at that point. I've said in the past that if new biographies are planned or pending, then going for FA status can be seem a bit pointless. I realise that FAs can only ever be as comprehensive as the sources available at the time, but if this article attains FA status I hope there will be a commitment to carry out a future rewrite when needed. Carcharoth (talk) 02:51, 18 August 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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [19].

Thurisind[edit]

Nominator(s): Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This biographical article is related with an article I brought here some time ago, Alboin, as the latter was Thurisind's son in arms; the topic, I'm afraid, may be considered quite esoteric as 6th-century barbarian kings don't seem to be all that popular, except with me. The good news is that differently from the Alboin article I've obtained lots of useful input during the peer reviews; in particular, following advice I had during the Alboin FAC and again during the peer review of this article, I inserted this time a section on the analysis of the relevant primary sources. Another thanks for the good people at the Guild of Copy Editors and also for the MILHIST A-class reviewers, who helped me see a number of slips hidden in the article. Aldux (talk) 00:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've detected the inconsistencies you were speaking of. As for what is CISAM, it's an acronym that stands for Centro Italiano di Studi sull'Alto Medioevo (roughly translated "Italian Centre for Early Mediaeval Studies"). It's an academic foundation.Aldux (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Thurisind#First war with the Lombards. I commented on this one at the A-class review. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk)

Sorry for the late answer: hope the rewording makes clearer what I mean with "a rank that made him close to his heir apparent". Regarding Thorisin, I agree that it's not all that important, so you did fine by removing it.Aldux (talk) 22:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem ... what does "close to the king's heir apparent" mean? Physically close? - Dank (push to talk) 22:19, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It just means that Thurisind by appointing his son Turismod governor of Sirmium placed him in a position that made Turismod heir to his father's throne. In other words, first in line of succession. I'll try to rewrite it.Aldux (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that works. - Dank (push to talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments -- I always enjoy these, although (or perhaps because) it's not my area of expertise. Following a few minor copyedits, happy with prose, structure, and detail, just need to come back to check refs and supporting materials when I get a chance.

First of all, sorry for the late answer but I've only now reached my computer. As for Boná, I believe there is a misunderstanding here: I used two works of his, of which the most used in the article is Boná's A l'aube du Moyen Age: Gépides et Lombards dans le bassin des Carpates, printed in 1976, (in the footnotes this is "Boná 1976", used for citations 13, 21, 30, 35, 50, 58, 59, 60), and this one isn't available online; the second instead is the online book printed in 2001, that is "Boná 2001", used for citations 16, 32, 39, 55. The page numbers in the webpage are really really tiny so it's very easy to miss them; anyways, here are the relevant webpages: [20], [21], [22].Aldux (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've taken so long to respond to this, just busy. Heh, don't know how I missed the other Bona ref -- anyway, spotchecks fine based on what online refs there are, so happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Support on the prose, which flows well and makes for an interesting read. ceranthor 03:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with minor comments:

Overall, solid history writing. The only thing which may be worth considering is diagrams to help explain those wars; all those different armies can be quite hard to follow in text! Apterygial talk 11:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your careful reading of the article; I think I've now answered to the issues you've rised. Thanks again, Aldux (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, still without spotchecks and with further comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have answered the issues, even if I must admit I was a bit hard pressed on how to explain that in the early middle ages the successor even in the family was not necesarily the eldest king, as I was bit afraid to derail. I'm reluctant, I must admit, to speak of the early sources in the lead, as observing Mike Christie's Anglo-Saxon FAs (who are built with a similar early sources section) the sources are generally not discussed in the lead and I would personally prefer to leave it (the lead that is) to the historical narrative.Aldux (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has a spotcheck of the sources been done? Ucucha (talk) 18:03, 23 August 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 Ucucha 18:54, 23 August 2011 [24].

Thomas the Slav[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas the Slav's revolt is one of the most complex, controversial and fascinating stories of 9th-century Byzantium. After passing a thorough WPMILHIST ACR and a copyedit at the hands of Diannaa, I am confident that the article is ready to be considered for FA status. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both issues fixed. Constantine ✍ 15:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Have reread through it and it has greatly improved. The outstanding issues I had below have been rectified. (Sorry about the delay, Real Life has been kicking my butt lately...) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Not quite ready to support. Besides the issues I've raised below, I found the text somewhat chunky and full of redundant phrasing. Frankly, it read a lot like a late Victorian history to me (especially Bury's work on the later Roman Emprire or his other works) and would definitely benefit from some more copyediting to improve the flow of the text and to find places where the non-specialist (heck, the non-historian) would be confused. I'm a bit too familiar with the time frame to be able to comment on what would be confusing to someone who knows nothing about Byzantine history.

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, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thorough - as usual - review! I am beginning to address your issues one by one. I generally agree with your points, except perhaps for a couple. I'll enumerate the major issues as I go along:
  1. I've made some alterations in the background story section. I realized from your comments that it seemed as if Genesios and Th. Cont. presented a different story each, when in reality they both reported the same two versions. Both of them explicitly prefer the second, which is dismissed post Lemerle as imperial propaganda, against the first, which is nowadays considered closer to the actual events. I hope this issue has been clarified.
  2. I don't think an explanation on the Excubitors or the Foederati is required or even useful. It is stated that the first was an elite regiment and the latter an army division. An explanation of their names would take us back to late antiquity, and derail the article. In this case, if a reader is interested, he'll click the link. Otherwise he'll understand that it's about two military units, which is sufficient for this article. Constantine ✍ 09:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The link for the city walls in general covers the Theodosian land walls. Constantine ✍ 11:53, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've expanded on the "other reasons" for the Arab successes in the 820s. Treadgold is about the only one who treats the question in some detail, but his general thrust is reflected by others as well (Whittow for instance), although not in as many words. Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think the individual points you've raised have been dealt with, please check them and let me know if further clarification is needed. On the general copyedit, I'd be happy to accept the services of anyone willing to do so. Personally, I have nothing against "late Victorian" prose as long as its facts are accurate and there is no moralizing. I find Bury's style rather engaging, but these are matters of personal preference. I understand that clarity for the non-expert must be the focus, and I have re-submitted the article to GOCE. If you have time to go over it and make any changes or proposals that you see fit, that would also be great, for I am indeed too familiar with the subject to easily detect such flaws. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All checks out. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note to delegate: I can't speak to comprehensiveness, so this support is on the non-content-related criteria. I did some minor spot checks and found no problems but I have little access to the sources so there wasn't much I could check. Comments. I'll add comments here as I go through the article.

-- I checked a couple of citations to Bury online, and found no problems with close paraphrasing, but I don't have access to the other sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in great shape. I expect to support when the remaining minor points above are cleared up; the scale on the map isn't a prerequisite for support, though I do think it would help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review! On your specific points:

Any other suggestions? Constantine ✍ 10:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck some points and will strike more or respond, as necessary, but I wonder if you'd mind placing any further responses in line after my points above? I'm going a bit cross-eyed going back and forth between your list and mine trying to figure out which reply is to what. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the way I replied, but usually when I respond after each individual point the process becomes a total mess thereafter and oversight is completely lost. Anyhow, I've added the adoption for Anastasius. On the obstacle, since the object (the walls of Constantinople) is a plural, isn't "were" correct? I'll probably finish the map over the weekend, but I probably won't have time to post it or anything else over the next two to three days. Make any changes you see fit, I'll check them on Monday or Tuesday. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 19:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re was/were: if you make it "obstacles" it would be "were", but if you have "obstacle" it should be "was". "Obstacles" seems slightly more natural because then the number agrees with "walls", as you say, but I think you could get away with it as a singular "obstacle" with "walls" if you want -- the array of possible obstacles you are conjuring in the reader's mind is "poor fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "walls of Constantinople" -- making "obstacles" plural in the sentence you have implies the list is more like "fleet performance", "Bulgarian offensive", "wall 1 of Constantinople", "wall 2 of Constantinople", "wall 3 of Constantinople", etc. Or you could recast the sentence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "obstacle were the walls" to "obstacles were the walls". - Dank (push to talk) 22:57, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think it was close enough anyway, but your edit reminded me to switch to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 14:13, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the copyedits! I'll answer your points one by one:

Looking forward to the complete review. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:50, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, that's as much as I had time for, and there was a recent conversation at WT:FAC where reviewers suggested I shouldn't say "support for half" any more at FAC (although I sometimes do at A-class review). Hopefully the work I've done will make it easier for someone else to finish up. - Dank (push to talk) 20:15, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support I reviewed this article quite thoroughly during the MILHIST ACR so there isn't much I can add, but first of all I must disclose that I currently have myself an article up to FAC and that I'm here also because solicited by Constantine, that rightly feared this article may fail for insufficient input. As further disclaimer, I must add that I'm not solid enough in the English language to jude of the "brilliant prose", criterion, even if I can say that it seems to go down fine with me. What I can best judge is the adherence to the sources and the balance, and I must say that those few issues I previously had have already been put in order. I'll just add that I tend to agree concerning his second point in answer to Ealdgyth: dealing with these sort of articles I have to agree that it's problematic to well explain the nature of specific administrative of military entities without losing sight of the article.Aldux (talk) 02:56, 19 August 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 13:05, 23 August 2011 [25].

Ferugliotheriidae[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When the dinosaurs were around, mammals weren't just little insect-eating critters in the shadow of the big guys. Sudamericids already evolved the high-crowned teeth characteristic of herbivores, and the subject of this article is a poorly known group that has been key to figuring out the affinities of the sudamericids. I have written GAs about all the members of this group and about several of the sudamericids as part of an effort to document this early and interesting group of mammals. Thanks to Visionholder for conducting the GA review on this article and thanks in advance to anyone reviewing at FAC. Ucucha 04:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with nitpicks and the caveat that I know nothing about the topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - One minor niggle. What are "transverse crests" and "transverse furrows"? Also, why is cusp linked in the article, but not in the lead? The article does a great job of making technical terms more accessible, in addition to being well-written and as far as I can discern, comprehensive. ceranthor 22:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I've linked cusp. Transverse means from side to side; the cusps on the sides of the tooth are linked by these crests, and furrows separate the cusps and crests from the cusps and crests before and behind them. What do you think is needed as explanation? I could perhaps add a link to wikt:transverse. Ucucha 22:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, no, I meant the crests and furrows, not transverse. Perhaps it could be useful to include an explanation or link in the article, but it's certainly not a deal breaker. ceranthor 22:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They coexisted with mammals such as dryolestoid and a variety of other animals. - dryolestoid looks weird here in adjectival form. Did you mean "dryolestoids"? Also links to redirect to Dryolestoidea rather than directly there
Fixed the plural issue; there's nothing wrong with linking to a redirect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
".. a variety of other animals - well, er, yeah. I think that can be said of just about any ecosystem anywhere. I understand removing it makes the sentence really stubby but it is nebulous as is. Is there any material to further define it?
Dinosaurs... I've added a few words to that effect. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good otherwise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, and apologies for the long delay in responding; I must have totally forgotten about them. Ucucha (talk) 17:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Typical high standard; minor quibbles below. Sasata (talk) 03:45, 23 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [26].

Final Fantasy XIII[edit]

Nominator(s): Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC), PresN 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it is currently a good article. This article has failed an FA nomination once, but I am doing this again with PresN because we feel that this article is in top condition for FA status. Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nom here! In the last FAC a few months ago, we got some good supports and kind words, but the thing was scuppered as we weren't using the Ultimania books for the game as sources, which contained Japanese interviews relating to the development. Since then, I've spent dozens and dozens of hours semi-manually ocr-ing and translating the text, and they're now extensively used as sources, expanding the development section in size. Everything else should be in roughly the same shape as the previous FAC (I did a manual check on that), and we should be good to go for take 2! --PresN 20:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC) Oh right, I'm also in the Wikicup, if you care. --PresN 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done, no comment on source comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ref has been removed; all Final Fantasy articles just got reverted to just list Square Enix in the infobox, rather than the specific team. --PresN 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --PresN 22:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Famitsu doesn't list authors for reader polls, and I can't get the page number as the links to the scans of that issue have died. --PresN 20:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Videogamer.com - Owned by Pro-G Media. Provides content for Virgin Media.[27] Full-time staff includes industry veterans.[28][29] Wesley Yin-Poole, the author of that piece, is a full-time writer for the site and has previously written for the RS Eurogamer.
  • Square Enix Music Online - Provides dozens and dozens of interviews with game composers, as well has hundreds of album reviews. Their news reports have been picked up by various reliable sources (Kotaku 1, Kotaku 2, Joystiq, Edge).
  • OnlineWelten and Mundogamers- replaced with VG247 - Listed as the 3rd best gaming blog by CNET, who praised them saying "the writing is excellent, and it covers all the important news with a twist of humour."[30] The site won the Game Media Awards 2009's Best Blog Award [31] and was nominated once again in the category in 2010.[32] The site was co-founded by Patrick Garett and Eurogamer (which is a reliable source). Patrick Garett won at the Games Media Awards 2009, Best Specialist Writer, Online and Games Media Legend.[33] In addition he had previously worked with Eurogamer, GamesIndustry.biz, CVG, Xbox World and others as a journalist, editor and publisher. [34] Other site staff include Stephany Nunneley who was a former Gaming Today (on FileFront) writer and 1UP.com contributor,[35] As well as Nathan Grayson who has written articles for Maximum PC and The Escapist. [36]
  • Siliconera - used as a source by 1UP.com1 1UP.com2 1UP.com3, Kotaku, Shack News1 Shack News2, Eurogamer, Arstechnica. I had something else written down about them, but I can't find it right now.
  • --PresN 21:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an image on the official site that has the battle UI better displayed. I also upgraded the rationale while I was at it. --PresN 22:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good choice, that image is much better than the one that we started with. I resized the new image and slapped a furd template on it (which will call an admin to clean out the old versions in 7 days). Go team. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What ho, I'm an administrator! Consider the old versions deleted. --PresN 03:18, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
  • Changed "epilogue chapter" to "short story epilogue". --PresN 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • By story I assume you don't mean the plot, but mean the linearity? While the reception section is long, that was the main criticism, so in effect I'd be spliting the reception section into two subsection- praise and criticism. Everything else is a paragraph or less. That's fine, but I've never seen any other VG articles do it, so I want to make sure that's what you meant- add a subsection split for the last three paragraphs before "Legacy". --PresN 18:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yea, but the criticism is so concentrated and got a detailed response from the developers. Also most other VG reception tends to be either decidedly pro, anti or unclear enough that one single aspect doesn't get so much detailed criticism or praise or its too short to split out. I know VG articles tend not to have subsections for reviews, but given the length and the way its handled already it would be beneficial; after all its not like there are any FA VG articles that had such specific criticisms and responses (defense) by the developers.陣内Jinnai 00:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, done. --PresN 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not played the game (in fact, any of FF games), so this review will be your "general reader". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for reviewing! As a courtesy to the delegates, not responding inline. Assume everything is "done", except for: the Ultimania's weren't guide books, these were art and development information books, that article is wrong; May 2010 is the latest sales figures we have; I had not added Jinnai's section break when you wrote this. --PresN 18:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support / Comments.

  • Well, we italicize albums but not singles/songs, which I figure should take precedent over italicizing foreign words (which I also find strange, anyways). --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to leave it; given that it's the term for both the world/game universe and for the surface of the world, trying to explain that Cocoon ignores one of the definitions of the word in-game is way too technical, I think. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this was more a "nice to have" if someone could see a better phrasing, but it's acceptable as is. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dropped the stuff about the Maker, it's not that important- it's in the Ultimania, but (one of my annoyances with the game) it's never explicitly mentioned in the game itself- there's this obliquely referenced backstory about a god or gods who got fed up with the fal'Cie/humans and left after one of them created Cocoon, but it's all reading between the lines of made up myths/poems. The Ultimania just covers the mechanical/crystal thing in that sentence, which isn't important. If FF13-2 actually explicitly states anything, I guess it can be readded. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A mucky translation, yes, but he was trying to say that they were written as having goals and beliefs about the world rather than just as "evil". --PresN 21:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It reads better now. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, very nicely done, so support as noted above. SnowFire (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Done, replied inline to a few of them to clarify. --PresN 21:36, 19 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [37].

Richard Nixon[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Happyme22 (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because... We believe it meets the criteria. Richard Nixon. What else do we have to say?Wehwalt (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*"Nixon is the only President to resign the office." That sentence reads strangely to me. —Designate (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better? Thank you for your comment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's more natural. —Designate (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me make one thing perfectly clear. That would be the practical result, as I would have no excuse for not inserting another 150 cite templates. Alternatively, I can remove the cite book template from the twenty-odd books I've used as sources, but I'm not certain that will be an improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could amend the hand-formatted citations to exactly match the templated ones, but then whenever the template is updated you'd have to do it again. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the main issue are the papers from The Richard Nixon Companion. These were presented as papers last week, but the book has been out for months, so I didn't want to do a cite conference. Do you have an idea on what cite template I should use if I wanted to put them into a cite template? I think we can manage five or six more templates.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The only problem I see in this is that I don't add a period after the title of the article, given that it ends with a question mark. Is that the concern?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, there seems to be a stray "|" where the period would be. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to 172, 173, and 175? Those are not newspaper articles, they are pages about Watergate put up by the Post, which is the publisher.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the Post is the publisher, it shouldn't be italicized and the full company name should be given. What about FN 240? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Working on these.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see no doubled periods other than ellipses. Any small inconsistencies I see, I shall assuredly deal with.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aitken biblio entry, Nixon 1985. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, artifacts of the cite templates. That explains why it did not show up on the search I did.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've caught everything except as questioned above. However, it is a long article and I'm human.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've rephrased it. Does that help?--Wehwalt (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks. To be honest, that was the only problem I saw on a quick skim read. I'll try and have a more detailed read in the next few days. Jenks24 (talk) 23:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time. Unavoidably it is a long article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

There seems to be a problem on how to specifically identify images you find through a Digital Copies ARC search at the Archives. If necessary, I'll change it to the search instructions.
No, and that is actually my fault. I have sent a new request out to Yorba Linda.
It was in the author field, but I've made it more explicit.
I'm going to guess these are in the navboxes or something. It's a bit outside my field, but I'll see what I can do.
With the exception of the actual photographer for the baseball picture (it's still early out West) all these things are fixed. Thank you for going through 35 images in such detail.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the photographer has been added per the advice of the A/V people at the Nixon Library. All done, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - subject to the resolution of any source or images issues. I have a history with this article; three years ago I failed its first GA nomination. It has failed other GAs since then, but has recently been transformed by the work primarily of Wehwalt. I made my detailed comments during the recent, very detailed peer review, which is linked here.

I am still uneasy about one issue, which I raised at peer review, namely the depiction of Nixon as one of the chief builders of the "modern Republican Party". It is not apparent that the character and orientation of the present-day Republican Party owes much to Nixon, particularly as we read that Nixon' role was to "steer the Republican party along a middle course, somewhere between the competitive impulses of the Rockefellers, the Goldwaters, and the Reagans". I am not a expert on American politics, but as an avid reader it seems to me that the attempts to steer the party along a middle course ended with Nixon and Ford, and that Reagan subsequently began an ideological transformation which was carried much further in the mid-1990s in the Gingrich era, and further still by today's "Tea Party" movement. Would Nixon even recognise today's Republican Party as his own? As I have said, I am not a political analyst, but I offer these as thoughts on which to ponder, and wonder if the current wording is the most appropriate? Brianboulton (talk) 16:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I've taken it out. This is obviously something about which reasonable people could differ. And I agree, if Nixon were around today, he would be clobbered by the Tea Party for daring to compromise with Democrats.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments. I am no judge of my own writing and can't tell when it has turned out badly, so it is good to hear from competent authorities--Wehwalt (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support and the comments. While I agree with Clinton's comment in his eulogy of Nixon that we cannot judge one aspect of Nixon't life in isolation, I think we do have to explain, albeit in a summary fashion, what Watergate is in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle, with some minor issues listed below. What a creative use of images to headline major sections. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem here. Both of them are the girls' parents; only one of them is Eisenhower's running mate. Yes, I could change it to Richard alone, but I think that dilutes the point Pat Nixon may have taken second place politically, but as a parent that isn't true.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand; I don't have an issue with Pat Nixon's presence in the caption. My concern is that Richard and Pat are introduced as a collective "they", making the pronoun "his" seem out of place. Another thing I just noticed is that you'll either need another comma at the end of Eisenhower or use no comma at all. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked the caption so it was (more) grammatically correct, though it's a little awkward now, imo. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took a shot at it myself. It's a bit awkward, but both parents look like they are showing Eisenhower the daughters and I don't want to leave Pat out.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work through these later on today. Thank you for the support and the comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am getting conflicting advice on image captions. I just took out a lot of periods in captions like "Nixon shows his taping equipment to Ehrlichman, Haldeman and Dean". Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's conflicting. Nikkimaria said the same thing I did. The example you just mentioned is a complete sentence, so it should have an ending period. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've played with that caption again, and I have added periods as I felt was appropriate, if you see anything you feel I screwed up on, by all means change it. Thanks again for taking the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the full-width images are absolutely brilliant. For the rest, though, would there be any way to have a few more left-aligned images? The best look is usually to alternate the images left-to-right but I know that's not always possible with the text. —Designate (talk) 06:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the praise. Tony1 put the first two in full width, but I can claim credit for making it a theme. I've changed several to left aligned. Not a pure alternations, but pretty close.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, we have four supports (one is from my conom) and all checks seem to be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS photo and comments

Well, I'm sorry you don't like the use of images. I thought I had done it well, and some of the reviewers seemed to like them. I'm open, as always to suggestions but am reluctant to cut too many unless a number of reviewers agree with your views. And given the article length is the second longest I've brought here, I think there is text enough to constitute an article. Thoughts?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting aside the full-width images, which I like, the side images are a little heavy (although many recent politicians have a similar amount). There are 28 left/right-aligned images, not counting the infobox. I'm sure you could cut out 4-5 of them and maybe reduce the overall impression of crowding. The last section particularly is chewed up on my monitor. —Designate (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I did that. Is that good for you, Brad101?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 03:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, of course, the VP candidate is voted upon by the convention, and there were contested ballots as late as 1968. In fact, Eisenhower, when asked for his choice for VP, said words to the effect, "Isn't that up to the convention?". Thank you for the work. Do you have a suggestion for that phrase? I don't want to delete it; Happyme22 wanted it in the lede and I tried to do it in a way that sounded nontrivial.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:09, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know Agnew was contested ... in that case, it really is a nomination. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Agnew got about 91 percent of the vote, most of the remainder went to Romney ... sour grapes by someone I expect.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no missile gap, your version implies it was real. Longer answer later am on iPhone.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edits. Let me take a shot at the missile gap matter and I saw something a little funny further down. Excellent work.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any time. Best of luck! Some day, we'll have enough copyeditors to cover all of everything, I'm working on it. - Dank (push to talk) 23:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read missile gap and see what you think is needed. The only other thing I changed was some phrasing about the RFK assassination.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I took part in the peer review, was wholly satisfied then, and the article has been made even stronger since. An impressive tightrope walk by the nominators. Bravo! Tim riley (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC) Many thanks for the support.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. After two peer reviews and an FAC I don't expect any major changes. Any further tweaks can be discussed later. It meets all the criteria easily and it's main-page-ready. Props to the nominator for jumping through so many hoops for an important article. —Designate (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support, and for the helpful comments through the course of this FAC. Main page for this I hope will be January 9, 2013, Nixon Centennial Day. He's tanned, rested, and ready, Nixon in FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:29, 16 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [38].

Maple syrup[edit]

Nominator(s): Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introducing the syrup of Sunday mornings, the sweet topping on everything from waffles to ice cream, and the best thing to combine with snow in spring! The article has had a successful GAN and a PR, and I hope to make this one of the very few Food and Drink FAs. Looking forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Minimal spotchecks reveal no problems. All sources look good quality, reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These things are done, thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
of sugar maple, red maple or black maple trees - I wonder if writing " of sugar-, red- or black maple trees" would be better. flows better for me.
although it can also be made from other maple species such as the Bigleaf Maple. - does this mean there are still other maples it can be made from? If not, may be better to tack this onto previous sentence - of sugar-, red-, black- or (less commonly) bigleaf maple trees" or somesuch
There are others. Theoretically it can be made from any species of maple, but later on we mention silver and Manitoba maple specifically. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Capitalisation of species inconsistent here. Choose one and go with it - vogue is lower case for all non-avian organisms.
... used by First Nations and Native Americans - why not just "indigenous people of North America?"
The practice of maple syrup production was adopted by European settlers, who gradually improved production methods- "production" repeated. I think we can lose "of maple syrup production" as no meaning is lost.
Sinzibuckwud - language?
home-made wooden spouts - given this is pre-industrial revolution, the "home-made" descriptor possibly redundant?
the sugarbush to the evaporator - what's a sugarbush?
link propane
Maples are usually tapped beginning between 30 and 40 years of age - ungainly, why not "Maple trees are usually tapped from between 30 and 40 years of age"
I've tweaked this, but am not quite sold on that wording. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's not fantastic I admit. Might need a bit of a play with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any well known brands? Ok, that's better, although I think I'd be happier with a little more embellishing. If there is any notability to any (such as a high-profile brand that had been around 200 years, or one which is consistently seen as the market leader or most highly rated taste-wise etc. then I think this is worth adding. If there are no stand-out points like this, I think we can let it slide and is good as is.
Also, something more on how it's used (any historical information on the change of its usage over the years?) We'd not use it on savoury things like bacon like I've seen in the US. One slim para on Uses seems a bit small...

Interesting article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly done, will check on the last two points. Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made these edits. Please check. You may want to change the second and third "Acer" (sic) to "A."
  • I agree with Cas re formatting the list of maples in the lead
  • any syrup not made almost entirely from maple sap cannot be labelled as "maple". — yuk, a syrup must be made almost entirely from maple sap to be labelled as "maple"
  • alters the taste of the sap, making it unpalatable — Do we know why?
  • The trouble with using conversion templates is that you get nonsense like 4.1 °C (7.38 °F) where the conversion is ten times more accurate than the original data.
  • more than 9,418,680 litres (2,488,150 US g — so that's between 9,418,680 litres and 9,418,690 litres. Unless that is what you mean, better as more than 9,400,000 litres (or 9.4 million litres) — similarly with conversion
  • a source of manganese, with 13.33 grams (0.470 oz) — why on earth 13.33 g rather than 10 or 100?
  • in the section starting Maple syrup is similar to sugar with respect to calorie content, but is containing about 0.44 milligrams (1.6×10−5 oz)... I'd omit the US conversions. In my own FACs, I routinely do this for small quantities, since the point of the conversion is to help the poor benighted yanks, and figures like 10-5 oz don't help anyone.

Good luck

All done, thanks for your comments. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No further queries, supporting now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A neat and concise article. Though maple syrup's not the most interesting topic, I found this highly readable. Well done. ceranthor 22:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not that interesting, but definitely delicious :-). Thanks for the review! Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment This is a really sweet article (couldn't help myself), and I am going to support it now that I have tweaked some wording a little, and you have addressed my comment. but I do have one question/comment. This source, which is cited by this article in several places, says that the early European settlers switched from the grove cutting method of tapping used by the Native Americans to using augurs to bore holes, because that method did less damage to the tree. This seems like it might be worth mentioning unless some other source I am not aware of disagrees. Otherwise the change from cutting grooves to boring holes is not expained. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC) Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a couple of inconsistencies with the sourses that need some quick fixing: the newspaper sources lack publishing and location. While the latter is often omitted, I think the publisher is important. Also, ref 44 is missing the date (dates are listed on the page), as is ref 26. Ref 30 gives the date on the first page. Please check the page title and date for ref 33. Some refs, like ref 58 don't give a date, but list a "last modified" date, which may be used. I'm not sure that the ref set up for a couple of sources are accessible (i.e. easy to find). For example, for ref #2, you have eleven specific points that are all referenced to 2 very broad page ranges (a range of 17 pages: 37–43 and 103–113 from the same book) without saying where a particular point comes from (does the "a" point come from page 37-43 and 103-113, or just 105) etc. Why isn't it set up like the Ellison or Eagleson et al references? A quick google of some of your sources like ref 22, produced a date (missing in your ref), and more complete bibliographic info (fact sheet #). Love the article, though. Concise and well-organized, and with clean prose. Orane (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly fixed. The problem with ref 33 was that a new document had been uploaded at the same URL, but it offered updated stats, so I used that instead of trying to find an archive. I'm going to opt not to include publisher or location in newspaper refs - just a personal preference. Thanks for reviewing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a go at reorganizing it, see what you think. Is there anything in particular you feel should be expanded or added? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the short choppy paragraphs just made things worse. I think you need to bring more material up from the body of the article. Particularly from the commerce section. I think I will take a stab at it. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - I agree with earlier comments stating that maple syrup is not the most interesting topic to read about; the article is well written and well sourced, however.

  • Third paragraph of lead
  • First paragraph of Production
  • Third paragraph of Grades (two instances)
  • First paragraph of Food and nutrition (two instances)
  • Fifth paragraph of Food and nutrition
  • First paragraph of Imitation syrups

Regretably, I do not have the time to do a more thorough review just now. I intend to in the near future. Micromann (talk) 06:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for your comments! In order:
  • All corrected to Canadian spelling
  • 2011 season (spring), now clarified
  • Another term for Fancy, amended
  • By dead links I assume you mean redlinks? Those are actually allowed - they're meant to indicate topics about which articles have not been written, but where articles are conceivable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:14, 17 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [39].

Iranian Embassy siege[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For my third FAC nomination, I've departed from my comfort zone to write something that isn't a biography! The Iranian Embassy siege took place over six days in April/May 1980 and was ended when the SAS—now one of the most famous military units in the world, but then largely unknown to those outside of military circles—stormed the building. The assembled press captured and the images of men dressed entirely in black and armed to the teeth abseiling down the front of the building and broadcast them on live television during prime time on a bank holiday Monday, making the end of the siege a defining moment in British history and for Margaret Thatcher's government. Just 17 minutes later, five of the six terrorists were dead and all but one of their hostages freed and the SAS became a household name and the regiment for any ambitious British Army officer to serve with.

At a little over 5,000 words, this is the longest article I've written so far and, after six weeks of work and a MilHist A-class review, I think it meets the FA criteria. However, all comments—pro or con—are most welcome. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Siege or Siege!? Otherwise, sources check out, though I didn't do spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:24, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks, as ever! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a few picky things:

Lede
  • re-occupied. I would avoid this term and variations on it, as it might be deemed political.
  • I don't see the harm, but I don't see the harm in changing it either so I have. --HJ
Background
  • after a trade. Perhaps "land exchange"? You trade baseball players. "Swap" would work and is often used under similar circumstances.
  • Perhaps a map showing the province?
  • Will see what I can do. Open Street Maps was suggested in the ACR, but I lack the software (and the skill) to annotate it. I'll see if I can find someone who can. --HJ
  • suppressed its people and ended its independence. Surely POV? Simply say "ended its autonomy" or synonym. Autonomy is not independence.
  • I don't think it's POV. There's no doubt that the Iranian government of the day were pretty brutal in the way they dealt with internal unrest, and the people would certainly have considered themselves "suppressed" given that they had gone from autonomy to being subject to Tehran's laws pretty much on a whim. If "suppressed" is too loaded, though, I'm open to suggestions for less-loaded alternatives. --HJ
  • "crushed " Perhaps the rebellion was crushed, but it's too strong a term to use on the people. And I don't think you should say that the people rebelled. Perhaps say "Khūzestānis rebelled after World War II, but the revolt was crushed ..." Honestly, I think defeated is better.
  • Defeated could mean that they were asked nicely to surrender and did so. "Crushed" is the word used in the source. --HJ
  • the group's leader. What group?
  • Fixed. --HJ
  • a plan inspired . I think it has to be "also inspired".
  • I think it was inspired by the events in Tehran, but motivated by those in Al Muhammara. --HJ
  • Using Iraqi passports. It would be interesting to know what sort of visa they had or were given (tourist, etc.)
  • I've no idea. It's not in any of the sources, but a lot of details like that are unknown, beyond the fact that they had a lot of help from Saddam. --HJ
  • " were allegedly" If the sources will support it, suggest "he said". Allegedly is a bit of a red flag. That way, if the sources will support it, "they said" later on.
  • Hmm, not sure I agree 100% on the rationale, but done. --HJ
  • "in Africa". Perhaps use these words as a pipe to a suitable portion of the North African campaign?
  • I can't find an appropriate article or section that has anything to say about the SAS, and I think it would be a bit of an Easter egg, anyway. --HJ
  • "could prove". "could sometimes prove".
  • Agreed, and done. --HJ
  • The sentence about the Munich massacre tries to do too much in my view, and has an awfully long wait between its noun and its verb. Suggest recasting it.
  • Ditto. --HJ
  • "in a counter-revolutionary role" Isn't this more an "anti-terrorist" or "anti-hijacking" role? Also, the word counter-revolutionary carries a lot of baggage on it thanks to Lenin.
  • Re-phrased to avoid that term (quite why they named the unit "Counter Revolutionary" I don't know. I guess political correctness wasn't such a big deal in the '70s). --HJ
Siege
  • "journalists established " I would insert "soon".
  • Re-worded. --HJ
  • "Ali Aghar Tabatabal, who was collecting a map for use in a presentation he had been asked to give" Business? School?
  • Facepalm Facepalm Added. --HJ
  • Why were the BBCers trying to go to Iran?
  • Ditto. --HJ
  • Perhaps list the journalists together.
  • Good point done. --HJ
  • "The first police officers were at the scene very quickly " Perhaps "Police arrived at the scene quickly after the attack". That way you reestablish what was going on after digressing for the hostages..
  • Ditto. --HJ
  • You need to more clearly establish days of the week.
  • Could you clarify? --HJ
Yes, you make a major point that the siege ended on Bank Holiday Monday, but that is the only time I see that you mention days of the week. When you mentioned the nursery school, the first thing I thought of was "was it a weekday? were kids present?" but I had to dig to find out the first one. The second one is not mentioned in the article. I would mention, possibly twice, that the takeover took place on a Wednesday
I've added that it began on a Wednesday, and that COBR deliberations carried on into Thursday. Does that make it clearer? I only mention that it was a bank holiday, because if they'd done it in the dead of night on a normal weekday, I very much doubt it would have become such a milestone in British history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • " if it was not done" I would change "done" to "met".
  • Re-worded. --HJ
  • "therefore determined that British law " "Therefore" implies reasons why British law should apply, I don't see any.
  • According to the Vienna Convention, the embassy building is Iranian sovereign territory, so sending British soldiers into it is not exactly the done thing! --HJ
I do understand that. My point was perhaps unclear, the article does not state why Thatcher acted as she did.
Ah, I see. I've clarified why Thatcher made the decision, and the implications of the Vienna Convention. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • " The ensuing negotiations " between ...
  • Fixed. --HJ
  • You should probably mention the cutting of the phone lines after talking about the Day 2 phone conversation.
  • Done. --HJ
  • " that was easily met," Well, it wouldn't actually be hard to reconnect the telex, it just wasn't a good idea per the police or army. Suggest rephrase.
  • I imagine the severing of the telex was ordered from 'higher up', so not easily reversed, but do you have a suggestion? --HJ
Perhaps "that they could agree to meet" or similar.
I went with something similar. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • Presumably the Iranian government had a few things to say and do while all this was going on. I would give them some mention. Were they cooperative?
  • Not really. They more-or-less washed their hands of it after they dismissed it as an American conspiracy. There was one bit of nuisance-making from the foreign minister, I'll dig that up. --HJ
I imagine that is why they had to get the carekeeper rather than getting info from the Iranian Foreign Affairs Ministry.
Possibly, though they might have just wanted someone with first-hand knowledge. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • "potential assault" I would say "possible assault" or perhaps just "assault"
Why is "possible" better than "potential"? --HJ
Neither is very good. I would just say "assault". The reader knows that it was still up in the air.
  • It is informal, but it's how he was almost universally referred to—by Thatcher, the sources, and various other things I've read that aren't connected to the siege. Even his article says so. --HJ
I don't remember that during the Falklands war, but I was young and perhaps US papers were more formal.
  • I don't think even they knew at that point, beyond putting him on the phone with Oan. --HJ
  • Indeed. Done. --HJ
  • Trimmed. --HJ
SAS assault
  • It wasn't adding anything, so I just took it out. --HJ
  • Done. --HJ
  • Added in earlier. I would surmise they weren't looking for it, since the British bobby is famous for being unarmed, but still, not much of a pat down... --HJ
Utterly amazing. You may want to add even more, say about what Lock did with the bloody thing during the siege. And as for the famous British bobby, my first trip to England, in 1986, I was shocked to see armed police with automatic weapons patrolling the terminals of Heathrow. You never would have seen that in the US. Then.
I'll see what I can add—I know he kept his full uniform (which in those days was not as practical as it is today) on throughout. Funnily enough, I was surprised that I didn't see police with automatic weapons on my first trip to the US last year. But outside of central London and LHR, you could go your whole life without seeing an armed policeman in the UK. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • Agreed. Re-worded. --HJ
  • I'm not sure how that's an improvement. --HJ
It may be a Britishism, but "hostages killed" will puzzle your American readers, of which there will be some.
With the greatest respect to them, "killed hostages" doesn't sound sound like very good grammar to a Brit, or at least not to this one. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • Done. --HJ
  • By ITN. Added. --HJ
By today's standards, I think the police and SAS were very tolerant of the media.
Oh definitely. There'd be no sneaking round the back these days, but then, somebody would inevitably film it on their mobile phone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts?
  • Re-worded. --HJ
  • Agreed. Done. --HJ
Long term impact
  • "enjoyed" perhaps "preferred"?
  • I think enjoyed is the right word—they enjoyed being able to fly out to some remote part of the world, do whatever it is that they do, and fly home again without anybody being any the wiser. --HJ
  • "Margaret Thatcher's personal credibility." "Thatcher" should be sufficient.
  • Agreed and done. --HJ
  • "It was " Two consecutive sentence in the penultimate paragraph start this way.
  • Fixed. --HJ
  • If the SAS had an outstanding role in the Falklands War, perhaps a sentence could be added about that.
  • Not sure that's relevant really. The Falklands was much more "conventional" warfare rather than something that would involve the SAS in its CRW role. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is true. I saw it as a way to beef up the aftermath section, however it will be fine wihtout it.

Very nice job, looking forward to positively assessing after changes made.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few, you say? ;) Thanks a lot for the review. Apart from a handful, I think I've addressed everything you've mentioned. Much obliged, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comment. So far so good on prose per standard disclaimer, down to where I stopped, Iranian_Embassy_siege#Day two: 1 May. These are my edits.

Support Seems to meet the criteria. Well done on a topic perhaps obscure today.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I suppose it is a little obscure, probably because it was overshadowed by other things—Iran and Iraq went to war with each other and Britain sent nearly the entire Royal Navy to an obscure group of rocks in the South Atlantic! Still, it deserves a decent article, and I appreciate your help . HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I very much like this article and I think it well meets the FA criteria. I remember watching the SAS storming the embassy on TV; it made every red-blooded male under the age of sixteen want to sign up for some of that straight away. Nice work. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malleus, you've been a great help. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Sorry, I'm still here. :-) Curious how you managed to submit this for both A and FAC review concurrently...

Socrates2008 (Talk) 10:54, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HJ, standard drill, please let us know if someone has done sourcing spotchecks on a previous FAC of yours, otherwise, has anyone spotchecked here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, just got to the bottom of the page and found your latest :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support Clear prose, well laid out, logical article. All the main fronts covered, I haven't checked sources though. Good supporting materials. Well done. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I watched these events unfolding and this is an excellent synopsis. The prose is as engaging as superglue and recaptures the drama. I have a few – minor – stylistic criticisms:

Thank you for, imho, an important and well-prepared contribution. Graham Colm (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions and for supporting. Glad you enjoyed it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support and one query An excellent article, but I query the macrons in Khūzestān and Rezā Shāh. There are no macrons in BE, and foreign words lose their diacritical marks when written in English, eg "Galápagos" in Spanish, "Galapagos" in English Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most do, but diacritics tend to be retained for proper nouns. I also think it's poor form to pipe a link to display Khuzestan when the article is at Khūzestān. Thanks for the support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Excellent article and to my eye meets all of the featured criteria. I have nothing to add at all. Coolug (talk) 08:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nothing of significance noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 14 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [40].

Far Eastern Party[edit]

Nominator(s): Apterygial talk 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most Australians (and many others) will know at least the vague outline of this story: how Douglas Mawson was forced to eat his dogs to survive almost two months in the Antarctic, how the livers of those dogs poisoned his companion, Xavier Mertz. It's an incredible story, an epic of survival, and I hope I’ve done it justice. I’m grateful to Malleus for his copyedit and Brian for his peer review. Dog lovers beware. Apterygial talk 04:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done.

Otherwise, sources check out, though I can't speak to comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've removed that cite, as it wasn't needed anyway. Apterygial talk 00:50, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My "nitpick" was in fact a complete peer review, found here. I have one suggestion to make, which relates to a point I raised at that review. I feel that the wider scope of the AAE needs to be indicated in the lead, and I think you should extend the opening sentence thus: "...which investigated the previously unexplored coastal regions of Antarctica west of Cape Adare". Use your own phrasing by all means, but the information needs to be there. Otherwise, this is in all respects a welcome addition to Wikipedia's Antarctic canon, and I look forward to seeing it promoted. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your help is much appreciated. I've added your suggestion to the lead. Apterygial talk 23:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was invited to look this article over before its peer review, and all the changes I suggested were made. Malleus Fatuorum 00:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Apterygial talk 14:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I think it's important to emphasize the one single primary source of the entire article/journey, Mawson's famous account The Home of the Blizzard (1915). Everything we know is from Mawson's account, 80% of the article is simply a re-telling of what Mawson said in his book. When citing, if the information is equally available in both a primary and secondary source, you should cite the primary source (that's what I was taught years ago with my BA History degree). Another way to emphasize is create two sources sections, one for primary source and the other for secondary sources, in place of the current "Sources" section header. It would also be useful to link to the collection at Internet Archive so readers can browse the book online, including any illustrations. (Recommend the linked link since IA adds new editions all the time). Finally, given how central Mawson's book is to this article, it probably needs a Wikipedia article of its own before this article goes FA, including critical reception which is a big part of the post-journey perspective that is missing from the article. For example the book is included in National Geographic's list of 100 all time most important exploration literature, which is an important list in the field of exploration literature, but there is almost no mention of the book in the article - it should be mentioned in the lead section and probably a paragraph devoted to it in the aftermath section. Green Cardamom (talk) 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as possible, I've avoided citing Blizzard; there are just three cites to it in the entire article, and none of them are controversial. When using Blizzard, it's important to remember its background; when it was written, Mawson was heavily in debt, and the publishing of a book about the expedition was seen as an important was to recoup funds. Hence, he had to make it appealing to readers, and the book as a result glorifies the journey. For this reason, I don't think it stands terribly well as a reliable source. I agree that it should be mentioned in detail somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't think this article is the place; since the book concerns the expedition as a whole it is better suited to the AAE's article. Where his word is the only perspective, instead of using Blizzard I've quoted extensively from Mawson's diary; it offers a more unvarnished story than Blizzard does (this section is nowhere near 80% of the article. Only Death of Mertz and Alone really rely on Mawson's story; for the rest Ninnis and Mertz's diaries share the telling, and for Background and Aftermath there are innumerable other primary sources). I agree that Blizzard should be linked from the article, so I've added your link from the External links section. I don't agree the book needs a comprehensive article for Far Eastern Party to become an FA; it does not require an understanding of the book to understand the article. Apterygial talk 08:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't this be discussed in the article? Your downplaying Mawson's book but it's still the main reason the journey is so well known, the book is famous, it's a central and notable part of the history. It would be like writing an article on Scott and neglecting discussion of his Diaries because they were written to glorify the journey (which they do). What you just wrote here is important, a discussion about the sources. As you can tell I think Mawson's book is very important because it is so well known as exploration literature, and without a Wikipedia presence in some form or another, this FA would be incomplete. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that the book is important in itself, and that it deserves a place on Wikipedia, but I don't think this is the place. Rest assured that when I get around to working on Australasian Antarctic Expedition it will be included there; as it stands the Aftermath section section is big enough. You are welcome to create the article on the book, however, and I'll happily link to it from this article. Apterygial talk 11:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I may actually do that. But in terms of this FA candidate, can we at least add one or two sentences about the book? The book isn't mentioned at all in the article (outside as a reference), yet the book is the most famous work of literature about the expedition! Remember that Wikipedia articles are stand-alone, they are meant to be read as individual pieces and not rely on other articles to be complete. This is because we have no idea how end-users will use content, for example someone may create a CD with only FA's and nothing else and distribute it to poor villages with no Internet connection. Or they may be printed and bound in books. We don't assume that content is being read via the Media Wiki interface. Green Cardamom (talk) 20:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've discussed with Green Cardamom separately on some wording to incorporate a mention of The Home of the Blizzard into the text, and have added it in. Apterygial talk 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine, licensing checks out. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:48, 3 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [41].

Manhattan Project[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top level article on the Manhattan Project. Attempts to cover the project as a single coherent article, while at the same time acting as a gateway to the hundreds of sub articles. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC) Note: The nominator has another article at FAC at this time. A delegate granted special permission for this. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye, can you please identify the new sources that have been added so that they can be checked quickly? also, have there been any new images added since the check was done? Karanacs (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Detailed review was going on here. My support still holds, of course. Nageh (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still support. I've been engaged with the thing for quite a while and kept up with the changes. My support remains. Carcaroth, you came in late and some of the changes have been related to your suggestions. Would think you could pretty easily see what's been added. If you want to hold out over parks and a FL, fine. But on just assessing the article, this should not be that hard for you given how insightful your initial review was and how you've assessed the changes.

I would have no problem with this if it were a client report in the work world or an academic review. And I'm easily capable of watching and endorsing evolution, and pretty used to it happening. I'm actually very cheered that there has been major wrangling and work on the content, rather than some of the MOS-prose only reviews I see on other articles. (I also like that we pushed the Canoe River thing on substance as well.) Manhattan Project is an outstanding piece of work, full of juicy goodness, and Wiki should be proud and star it.TCO (reviews needed) 18:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support (I guess I didn't say that explicitly before). Hawkeye has done a nice job with an inherently difficult article, both before the nomination and during this FAC process.
However, my support doesn't prevent me from continuing to seek improvement. I'm glad to see the additions to the map of sites in the U.S. and Canada, but I'm still a bit puzzled by the "Sylacauga" entry in Alabama, since most sources I've seen (including the linked Wikipedia article) say that the heavy water plant was at Childersburg. Some sources and the MP article text say the plant was "near Sylacauga" which I suppose is an indication that no one is expected to have heard of Childersburg. However, Sylacauga has about 13,000 people versus about 5,000 in Childersburg, so it's not obvious that Sylacauga is much less obscure than Childersburg. IMHO, the map should label "Childersburg" rather than "Sylacauga", the text should give both place names (for example, say it was "near Sylacauga at Childersburg"). --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New sources

New Images


Media Review - captions not checked

Sven Manguard Wha? 20:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On first, partial appraisal, the writing looks very good. In copyediting the lede, I made one substantive alteration, which merits discussion.

While the lede stated that the Trinity Test took place at Alamogordo, N.M., I noticed that the lede to our topical article Trinity (nuclear test) states that it took place near Socorro, N.M., and does not mention Alamogordo. In Working on the Bomb, S. L. Sanger summarizes the issue:

Usually, the test is linked with Alamogordo, New Mexico, probably because the Manhattan Project borrowed the site from the Army's Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, now the Army's White Sands Missile Range. The town itself is 60 miles south. The closest towns of any size are Socorro and Carrizozo, 30–35 miles away.

Convention seems to call for Alamogordo to be used in a context such as our summary lede, while an interest in accuracy suggests that it is preferable to name the bombing range, rather than the town. I have made that change. (I will also add the name of the range to the lede of the Trinity Test article.)

  • Just bringing myself up to speed. By the time Trinity was conducted, the site was no longer officially designated the Alamogordo Gunnery and Bombing Range, but was the White Sands Proving Ground, which incorporated the Alamogordo Range along with ORDCIT (the name of another, smaller range) and portions of the Fort Bliss Artillery Range. It is White Sands that needs to be named in the lede, which I have done; I will leave it to the primary contributors to determine if and how "Alamogordo" should also be included in the lede. (The most obvious way would be "...conducted at the White Sands Proving Ground near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." If that change is desired, then we will want to modify the lede to the Trinity article in complementary fashion.) In any event, White Sands definitely needs to be named in the main text in the Trinity subsection.

In the lede, I find two other issues, related to each other, that need to be dealt with:

(1) It is fine to title the infobox with a name that is different from that used for the article title, if the name used in the infobox is more official or complete, so long as the relationship to the featured name is clear. It is not currently clear in this case. In part, that is because the infobox title—"Manhattan Engineer District (MED)"—does not appear in the lede, whereas the implicitly official "Manhattan District" does. Given point 2, below, the infobox title should probably be changed to either "Manhattan Project" or "Manhattan District". If the primary contributors strongly favor "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)" for the infobox, then that term must appear in the text of the lede.

(2) The following statement in the lede is not supported by the main text:

The Army component of the project was designated the Manhattan District, but "Manhattan" gradually superseded the official codename, "Development of Substitute Materials", for the entire project.

When we turn to the main text, we do not find this supposed distinction--that "Development of Substitute Materials" officially defined the entire project, while "Manhattan District" officially defined only its Army component.

The main text tells us, "Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project 'Development of Substitute Materials.'" I note that all three men were Army officers.

The main text then tells us, "Since [Army] engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District." Nowhere between the first statement I have quoted and the second is there the slightest suggestion that one name was designating the entire project while the other was designating merely a portion of it.

We then learn that "Manhattan District" was made the official name and "Informally, it was known as the Manhattan Engineer District, or MED."

If the main text is correct and, for relevant purposes, complete, then the lede is currently incorrect and must be edited to agree with the main text. Of course, it is possible that the lede is correct, in which case the main text here must be corrected and/or expanded.

Assuming the main text is correct, here is the status of each name in summary fashion:

Again, I believe this suggests that either "Manhattan District" or "Manhattan Project" is a better title for the infobox than "Manhattan Engineer District (MED)". It also raises a third issue:

(3) It would be helpful to readers—though it is not absolutely necessary—if the article stated when and where the phrase "Manhattan Project" was first verifiably used.

I look forward to reading the rest of the article.—DCGeist (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. the term "White Sands Missile Range" is anachronistic. It was the Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range in 1941, and became the White Sands Proving Ground in 1945. I prefer "Alamagordo" in the lead, but linked to White Sands.
  2. Both the lead and main text are correct. The lead simply summarizes the main text. I have changed the infobox title to "Manhattan District". "Manhattan Project" and "Manhattan District" are not the same thing. The infobox refers to the Manhattan District.
  3. I am uncertain as to when "Manhattan Project" was first used. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while you state "the term 'White Sands Missile Range' is anachronistic", neither I nor the source I adduced advocated using that term for events in 1945. I explicitly favored the version of the name pertinent at the time, the White Sands Proving Ground.

(1) At any rate, while a reasonable case can be made for either "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range" or "White Sands Proving Ground" on the grounds of accuracy, your preference here for the former is problematic in two ways:

I've now looked at multiple high-quality sources, and I can see that the case on accuracy for "White Sands Proving Ground" may be even weaker than that for "Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range". Most particularly, in White Sands Missile Range (2009), credited to Darren Court and the White Sands Missile Range Museum, the Trinity test site is explicitly placed "80 miles north of the White Sands Proving Ground" in a location "that had also been part of the Alamogordo Bombing Range". (The location is now apparently part of the White Sands Missile Range.) I'm ready to say that the current solution is acceptable, though others may well fell that the exclusion of "White Sands" from the lede and/or the EGG-ishness of the solution and/or the questionable accuracy of the phrasing are objectionable. However, I will say this: Given the irresolvable diversity of authoritative descriptions of the official designation of the military range encompassing the site, I would go with this: "...conducted in the Jornada del Muerto desert basin near Alamogordo, New Mexico..." No, not conventional, but irrefutable.—DCGeist (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(2) In your response, you emphasize that "'Manhattan Project' and 'Manhattan District' are not the same thing." Indeed. But that should have drawn your attention to another problem in the lede paragraph. According to our Manual of Style, it is alternative names for the article title name that are conventionally bolded in the lede. As the Manhattan District represents only a portion of the Manhattan Project, per your emphatic reminder, it is not a true alternative name—though its bolding in the lede is certainly defensible and I agree with it. Development of Substitute Materials, on the other hand, is a true alternative name for the Manhattan Project. It thus should probably be bolded in any event; as the less synonymous Manhattan District is bolded, Development of Substitute Materials really must be as well here. I have made that edit.

(3) Attention is now brought to another issue. Development of Substitute Materials is referred to as a "codename" in the lede, but simply as a "name" in the main text. Well, a codename is a special, unusual sort of name. If "codename" is correct (i.e., WP:Verifiable), then that lede characterization needs to be supported and should also appear in the main text. Also, if "codename" is correct, that arguably justifies the ubiquitous use of quote marks around DSM. But if it's just a name like Manhattan District, then in most grammatical constructions under your prevailing style it should have no quotes around it, just like Manhattan District. (And that would be OK, because just as with Manhattan District those proper noun capitals already mark it out and render quote marks unnecessary much of the time.)

(4) You declare that "both the lead and main text are correct," but fail to acknowledge the problem that I clearly identified and detailed—that the lede's claim that the Army part of the project was designated the "Manhattan District" while the official designation for the entire project was "Development of Substitute Materials" was not well supported. I see you did edit the relevant main text passage to make it more clear and supportive of the lede, though you, oddly, did not see fit to mention that in this thread. The edit was helpful, but insufficient. Let me try to draw your attention to the crux of the problem. It has been in this passage:

Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to instead name it the Manhattan District.

Given the phrase "instead name it", any sensible reading must conclude that "it" is "the project" given a different name in the preceding sentence—implicitly, the project as a whole.

I have changed the passage to the following, which is clearer and conforms with your (I believe proper) assertion that the lede is correct:

Reybold, Somervell and Styer decided to call the project "Development of Substitute Materials", but Groves felt that this would draw attention. Since engineer districts normally carried the name of the city where they were located, Marshall and Groves agreed to name the Army's component of the project the Manhattan District.

If that can be improved on, great, but what we can't do is have it as it was.—DCGeist (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call this...

(5) In the process of making a simple style-related copyedit to the Cost section, I checked a source and discovered a significant problem in the text. The text claimed:

By comparison, the total price [of the Manhattan Project] by the end of 1945 was about 60% of the total cost spent on all other bombs, mines, and grenades produced [by the US]

According to the source cited, the total cost of the Manhattan Project by the end of 1945 in constant 1996 dollars was $21.57 billion. And according to the source cited, the total cost of "All bombs, mines and grenades" for that period in like currency was $31.5 billion.

So, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does not include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 68% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. On the other hand, if source's "All bombs, mines and grenades" does include the four Manhattan Project bombs, then the cost of the latter was 217% of the cost of all other bombs, mines, and grenades. The source cited does not make clear whether "All bombs, mines and grenades" does or does not include the Manhattan bombs. In either case, the percentage given was significantly off. For the moment, I have deleted the unverified and inaccurate claim. Another source must be adduced if some version of it is to be restored.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's call this...

(6) There were issues with both insignia images in the infobox. I was able to correct one: The source for the unofficial Manhattan Project emblem was a Google Books link that led to a page that neither illustrated nor discussed the emblem. I have substituted a link that, it is to be hoped, will lead everyone to the proper page. The nominator might want to add the hardcopy cite as well to the image page, as Google Books links are fairly fickle (which is why I never use them myself). The other is entirely up to the nominator to correct: The Commons image page for the Manhattan District shoulder patch provides no support whatsoever for the claim that the image content originally came from a United States Armed Forces badge or logo. Personally, I have no doubt that it did, but the image page, of course, must give us some means, however cursory, to verify that.—DCGeist (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That patch has been described to me, by proud veterans of the project (the few survivors of whom are now very elderly), as the patch of the Army Corps' Special Engineer Detachment (article is Special Engineering Detachment, lame as that article is). Thus, it is not a patch for the entire project, but only for some of the military personnel assigned to it. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The third page of the online document at [42] (a copy of a published memoir) has a black and white photo of the patch with a caption that indicates that the patch was issued after the Hiroshima bombing. Thus, not only was it specific to the SEDs, but it was essentially a souvenir. (I think I've heard that before.) --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nichols, The Road to Trinity, pp. 226-227 tells the story of the patch. It was actually designed by the WAC detachment. Nichols tells how he went through all the hoops to have it officially approved by General Somervell, Secretary Patterson, the Quartermater General and the Adjutant General. See this photograph Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also: have a close look at this photograph, which is in the article itself. General Groves is wearing the patch. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three citations to the file page; in sum, they should address any questions.—DCGeist (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have. I was waiting to find time to read the whole thing top to bottom to make my support explicit, but I have no outstanding concerns.—DCGeist (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ad apostrophe s: I reverted in the sense of WP:BRD but I'm open to any outcome, i.e., feel free to put it back in. Nageh (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All these changes are fine.

  1. A lot of editors wanted a cost figure in the lead. I am very aware of the drawbacks of CPI, having been involved with MEIs for some years. I was most concerned that it would not seem very much to a modern reader in comparison with, say the International Space Station or the Joint Strike Fighter Program.
  2. AmEng seems to be moving away from hyphens.
  3. The text is accurate. To me, there is a subtle different between the two: Roosevelt's initial reluctance.
  4. My AusEng style guide requires the additional s where the subject is singular.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support—This is an excellent article on an important topic and I think it satisfies the FAC criteria. My primary concerns were addressed. There are a couple of unaddressed concerns, but I can live with those. Thanks for your revisions. Regards, RJH (talk) 19:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Overall excellent, but there are a few areas that I think need to be refined:

That seems incorrect. According to Lewis' biography, he took over in September, 1946—a year after ZEEP went critical. I'm also curious to know why the article is covering the Canadian nuclear reactors. Did they make some contribution to the Manhattan Project? RJH (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thank you. Regards, RJH (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the Physics WikiProject on this FAC well before the restart; can anyone confirm whether anyone from WP Physics has been by? If not, they had their notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked user pages of folks who have weighed in after the restart; no one is obviously a member of PHYSICS, though Orlady has personal knowledge of Oak Ridge, and RJHall is a member of the Astronomy project. - Dank (push to talk) 19:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In References, Hewlett and Hansen are wikilinked twice. 188.169.22.145 (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have all concerns been addressed? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest adding a link to the annotated bibliography for the Manhattan Project from the ALSOS Digital Library for Nuclear Issues (http://alsos.wlu.edu/qsearch.aspx?browse=warhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Edit_summaryfare/Manhattan_Project)- Frank Settle fsettle@wlu.edu

Added. You guys do a great job. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:30, 10 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [43].

Rova of Antananarivo[edit]

Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rova of Antananarivo is the palace complex of the kings and queens of Madagascar. It was established in 1610 on a traditional model dating back to the 1400s or earlier. Just prior to the site's anticipated inscription on the World Heritage list it was destroyed by a fire in 1995. It is currently being rebuilt. I'm nominating this article for FAC because it is thoroughly researched and has gone through peer reviews, copy edits and lots of hard work. If awarded, it will become the second FA on Wikipedia related to the culture/history of Madagascar. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You need to spend some time revisiting and tidying up the prose. A few examples from the lead:

Malleus Fatuorum 03:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've also gone through the text again and given it a copy-edit myself. Let me know if you still see problems. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC) - I appreciate the work you've put into this article on an under-represented topic, but unfortunately I feel that it doesn't currently meet the FA criteria. Some specific concerns:

  • The issues above are minor and fixable (already done) and it has already been copy-edited once. I believe what it needs now is review at your high level, and renominating it later is only going to clog up the FA pipeline even worse. Let's identify issues of concern and I will address them promptly. If something major comes up I will be happy to withdraw it to work on the article further. If you could give me a better sense of the issues related to prose I can address them. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please provide an example? Citations are all in templates. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I think I understand what you were seeing. I've now moved all books to the Reference section (everything else is still in the Notes section) and cleaned up details like double periods etc. Let me know if this doesn't fix the issue. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That site archives Malagasy newspaper articles. I am quoting from an archived article in L'Express, a major national paper. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm going to strike my oppose for now, and will do a complete source review probably tomorrow or the next day. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just completed a review of all sources and everything should be in order for spot check. Thank you for all your hard work on Wikipedia. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is the same source that was a little confusing last time. The formatting for the two examples of edited books is actually the same, as far as I can tell, except that one author has four words in his name (Jacob Festus Ade Ajayi) which makes it look like two editors with names formatted First Last rather than Last, First.Lemurbaby (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image comments - i'll leave a detailed image review to the experts, however some comments:

  • This is already the case. The Malagasy words are almost all names of buildings. The main exceptions are kianja and vatomasina, and a good English-language equivalent doesn't come to mind. If a good equivalent term occurs to you, please share it here so we can decide whether it can be used as a substitute. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed gallery and incorporated select photos into body of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • What variety of English? — "favourite", but "metres"
  • I believe these are both British English. The person who started the original stub article used British English and dates so I tried to preserve that. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • one dozen — 12?
  • it would have been inscribed — was due to be inscribed
  • most well constructed — Best?
  • I think probably not in this case... This is really about the construction, particularly in terms of material used. "Best" is a bit less descriptive and not necessarily accurate depending on the evaluative criteria considered. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Tambourissa parrifolia), (Weinmannia rutenbergii). — I'm not sure there's anything to be gained by linking to stubs that don't even contain the species. Either red link the full species name or don't link at all
  • Personally, I found it helpful to be able to click the link and see something about what the plants might look like. Maybe we should ask for a second opinion on this point. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article was created for one of the two plants and it has now been linked. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You assume that all readers have as good a vocabulary as you. The following are word used without links or explanation parquet, ossification, Creole, deforestation, desecration, archaeological. Cosmology — this isn't an exhaustive list, just examples. You could go through and see how you could help your readers.
  • Similarly, we are being presented with Malagasy terms which are explained once and then used exclusively thereafter. It makes it difficult to keep track of what words mean. I appreciate that some may have no exact equivalent, but I can see instantly what "tomb house" means, rather than track back to the definition of Trano masina
  • Naïve art frescoes — why cap?
  • The French Development Agency also pledged tens of thousands of dollars — isn't "francs" more appropriate
  • The source stated dollars... I don't think I can go out on a limb and estimate the amount in francs (maybe hundreds of thousands depending on the exchange rate and exact dollar amount, which wasn't provided in the source). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Ruhrfisch - I am leaning towards support and was involved in a very extensive peer review of this article. I agree with Jimfbleak's comments and have a few more I'd like to see addressed before moving to full support.

  • I've replaced the old map with a more detailed one. "Structures" is a vague word... Here I'm referring to the gate and buildings, not the foundations of something never built, but if the term is too imprecise let me know and I'll reword it. Lemurbaby (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've italicized all Malagasy words on the first instance (but did not italicize proper names, such as the names of buildings). Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, unfortunately that's because the sources provided the amounts in different currencies. There doesn't seem to be an approved way to convert. I had previously provided converted amounts using a website that provides historic exchange rates, but citing the website was considered a form of advertisement. Is there a way around this? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know some newspapers publish exchange rates, so could the exchange rate be cited to something like that? I have access to the New York Times archives if needed. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is over all very well done, but would like to see these issues addressed before supporting. Thanks for an interesting article, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed - now states 11 structures instead of 12. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (points adressed, support see below) by GermanJoe - some more points to work on, though i haven't checked the whole text.

How about "formerly"? Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only the houses are built in the strictly traditional style. Placing a comma there implies all the structures are built in the traditional style. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. If this is still unclear, let me know. Lemurbaby (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support as well, but prose needs some polishing. Consider rereading the whole text, the article should be accessible for readers without specific Malagasy or architecture/history knowledge. As mentioned, check if the handling of Malagasy terms can be improved. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Made some changes - how does it look now? Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all your comments, GermanJoe. I appreciate the time you took to review this article. Lemurbaby (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Just to note, I reviewed this article when it was a GAN. It has definitely improved further. Below are my comments.

  • Added (except where the name is wikilinked... I wasn't sure if that would screw up the link). Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tip—If you want to do those, do something like this: [[Radama I|Radama&nbsp;I]] – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know... I don't have any plans to write that article anytime soon. :) But if I ever did, I'd come back and put the link in. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question is not whether you will write it, but a question of whether the topic is noteworthy and merits being written about. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I agree, although when it's such a highly specialized topic that it's highly unlikely anyone else is going to write about it, it's likely to stay a red link for a very long time. Is that a problem? I'll go ahead and link it, and will probably do at least a short stub article on it sometime soon to get it going. Lemurbaby (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are not the end of the world. In theory, it encourages new potential editors. There are several red links in some of the developed lemur articles that have been like that for more than a year and are unlikely to change any time soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:50, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, it all looks good.... particularly if Nikkimaria is happy with the sources. Excellent job! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Switch to British English throughout is complete. I ran it through a British English spellchecker. Lemurbaby (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: The most important changes have been made (with one minor lingering comment), and I feel the article meets FA requirements. Good job! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support after a complete read-through and a check of the images and the English online sources, minor remaining point:

  • I reworded some more. I agree it would be preferable to have more information to offer about the official version of events, but to my knowledge nothing more is available. I've never seen an official explanation of how the fire started in any French, English or Malagasy source report. I would think if there were more information available it would have been published somewhere. Instead what inundates the sources is how quickly the investigation concluded, how it was simply declared an accident without further inquiry, and the practically universal belief that an arson was covered up. So in that regard, this section does accurately reflect the availability of information in the sources. Most books and academic journals either state it was an arson or refer to the common belief that arson was the cause of the fire. They almost never refer to it as an accident except when stating that this was the officially announced cause. I've added a line about how the belief in arson persists and is widespread and offered several sources that speak to popular opinion as well as a recent source characterizing it as arson (illustrative of several others). It's hard to get the facts, especially if a government cover-up really is involved. What are your thoughts? Lemurbaby (talk) 11:23, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When this is all information available, no worries. I think, your tweaks improved the description in it's context. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 11:35, 9 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [44].

Gerard (archbishop of York)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... its not an Archbishop of Canterbury, it's one of their medieval archrivals - the Archbishops of York! And besides, this guy was a witch! Or, well, he was accused of sorcery. Well, actually, he owned a book of astrology and he studied Hebrew ... but these actions were so disturbing to his clergy that they refused to have his body inside York Minster, and it was only later that his body was moved inside the cathedral. Gerard had a bit of a temper - he once kicked over an Archbishop of Canterbury's chair in a fit of anger. He's had a peer review earlier this year, and I managed to finagle Malleus into copyediting on the strength of the "witch" connection. I promise a non-archbishop next... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Added Douglas. He actually uses "Mediæval" but I compromised on "mediaeval" .. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem IS ... I don't speak French enough for that. I wasn't aware that an English language description was part of the FA requirement for images, honestly. A proper license, yes, even a "proper" way of displaying that license I can see.. but Commons is a multi-lingual project, it doesn't require English descriptions, and quite honestly neither should we. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. Though it's not required, I've added a translation, feel free to tweak. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said "really should" and not "must". There is a set of templates which allow multiple languages to share space in the description, ((en|1= text in English )) being the template for English, ((fr|1= text in French )) for French, etc. The point is not to replace everything with English, the point is to have English available as one of the options for images used on English Wikipedia. I'm stunned that other language projects don't do more of this. I say "really should" because as an FA, this becomes one of the more exposed, and at least for one day, one of the more read articles. The images, as extentions of the articles, should be accessible to the readers. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Err.. Lord Chancellor is linked in the first sentence. Delinked the second Whitsun, also caught an 'avarice' which had snuck in. Man and the Isles is the diocese of the Isle of Man as well as the northern Scottish isles - Orkney's, Hebrides, etc. Thanks for the review, and sorry for the delay, RL has been kicking my butt very unexpectedly this week. (partly it's the heat we've been having... which doesn't seem to be ending!) Ealdgyth - Talk 15:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No real issues I could see. Very comprehensive and makes the (complicated) issues of the time very easy to understand. Just a few minor points, and feel free to argue. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:40, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've dealt with the prose stuff (points 1, 2, 4, 6, 7), but I'll leave Ealdgyth to deal with the stuff that requires some brain power. Malleus Fatuorum 23:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've already linked Lord Chancellor in the lead, the article is pretty heavy on links already, I'd prefer to not double link. On the settlement of the Investiture Crisis - I've added a bit more. It was more moral support than anything, but it helped. Unfortunatly, nothing more about the accusations of magic. I've added in that Firmicus was a late Roman astrologer. I'm not seeing it with note 5, I suspect browser issue. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed that link in the lead and it's fine as it is. Everything else cleared up. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments: The article has had a good going-over, but I have found a few issues to mizzle about:-

Brianboulton (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to these this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1. linked to that. 2. clarified. 3. Went with "Although not yet ordained,..." 4. Added "...three days later at Winchester, close by the New Forest." 5. Now reads "...because Ranulf had defected to Henry's elder brother Robert Curthose, who also claimed the English throne." 6. Done. 7. Done. 8. Now reads "From 1105 onwards Gerard slowly began to embrace the papal position on investiture of bishops, which opposed laymen investing bishops with the symbols of episcopal authority. As part of his change of position, Gerard withdrew from court to care for his diocese." 9. Done. 10. Now reads "In this correspondence, Gerard complained that some of the York canons... " as it happened in the letters to Anselm mentioned in the previous sentence. 11. Fixed. 12. Seems to have been magically fixed (Malleus?) somewhere along the line. Thanks for the review! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guilty as charged. Malleus Fatuorum 19:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All fine & dandy now. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, except for my Opposition to... the name of the article/title of the man. He was Gerard, Archbishop of York, was he not? "Archbishop of York" is the man's title, not simple a job description. If you need to distinguish between John Brown (clergyman), John Brown (cricketer) and John Brown (servant), then you put the job description into brackets. It is not a title. But in the case of a bishop, or an archbishop, then his job description is also a title. He is Gerard, Archbishop of York in the same way as HRH Prince Andrew is Andrew, Duke of York. The use of brackets and a lower-case "a" for archbishop is taking some inappropriate blanket-rule of Wiki MOS altogether too far. I can't support the article while it has such a ridiculous name. Amandajm (talk) 13:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

YOu need to take the title issue up with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), as this article conforms with that convention. When I started working on the article, it was Gerard, Archbishop of York, but it got moved to conform with the titling convention. I cannot move it elsewhere without not adhering to the MOS as well as getting into an edit war. I'm afraid I can't do anything about your opposition. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:15, 18 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [45].

Tropical Storm Carrie (1972)[edit]

Nominator(s): Juliancolton (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Call me Julian. Some days ago—never mind how long precisely—having little or no activity in my contribution history, and nothing particular to interest me on FAC, I thought I would browse about a little and see the watery part of the project. It is a way I have of driving off the boredom, and regulating the keyboard. Whenever I find myself growing grim about the fingers; whenever it is a blank, empty page on my computer screen; whenever I find myself involuntarily pausing before articles for deletion, and bringing up the rear of every stub-class article I meet; and especially whenever my typos get such an upper hand of me, that it requires a strong moral principle to prevent me from deliberately misspelling words, and methodically opposing people's nominations—then, I account it high time to expand an article as soon as I can. Juliancolton (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I try. :) Juliancolton (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComment, leaning to support: Professionally done, but I have a few quibbles:

Brianboulton (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian, thank you for the review, as always. I've addressed your specific concerns, and while I can't immediately pick out any more instances of overly complicated sentences, I hope my fixes are to your satisfaction. Juliancolton (talk) 01:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy with what you've done and have switched to support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support I had some minor quibbles that I relayed to the nominator offsite, but nothing considerably detrimental to the FA status this article very much deserves. Excellent work! ★ Auree talk 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support! Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed comments; I've either attempted to fix all your points, or left comments where I don't necessarily agree. Juliancolton (talk) 00:23, 31 July 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [46].

Super Science Stories[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a companion to Astonishing Stories, which recently went through FAC: Super Science Stories and Astonishing Stories were sister magazines for much of their existence. Both were fairly minor magazines in the overall history of science fiction, but they had their moments and I hope I've managed to highlight them.

There are two possibly controversial points I would like to raise for reviewers' consideration. First, the issue grids, which I've been using in one form or another on many of these magazine articles, have drawn several comments -- they are not very compliant with WP:ACCESS, though in their defence they are intended as visual aids, and do not present information that is unavailable in the article text. I built a sandbox with a table version and a gif version; Malleus spent a good deal of time improving the table version -- see User:Mike Christie/Sandbox4 for the current version. There are still some problems with that version; the sandbox talk page has some discussion, as does the Astonishing FAC linked above. Hence I am still using a graphical version, though it is now svg instead of gif to avoid resizing problems.

The other point is that there is a substantial amount of text in this article that was taken directly from the Astonishing Stories article; I'd guess about 30-40%. It's been edited to try to give it a little different feel; Malleus also did a copyedit of the whole article and that will have changed the flavour some more. However, reviewers should be aware that this is in some ways not entirely original work. I raised this point at WT:FAC before nominating either magazine at FAC; the response there convinced me it was OK to proceed with the nominations, but I want to make sure reviewers are aware of the situation.

Is this the longest FAC nom statement ever? I'm sure it's the longest I've ever written. Thanks to Malleus for the copyedit; I hope you enjoy this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:56, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source nitpicking - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The first and third issues are fixed -- I was only able to find one instance of each so please let me know if you see more. I couldn't see any inconsistencies in the volume punctuation; can you point me at an example? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources with volumes use colons in References, but in Footnotes one does and the other does not - was that a conscious choice? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it was worse than that once you pointed me at the problem; in one case there was no volume given at all. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Ruhrfisch - I just read this interesting and very well-written article and find it meets all the FA criteria. My only quibble is that there is no mention of the Canadian and British reprint editions in the lead. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 11:49, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point -- I normally don't mention reprints in the lead as they usually contain no new fiction, but in this case the Canadian first reprint has some independent interest. I added a note about it and also mentioned the reprints of the later run, for completeness. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck my quibble. I forgot to mention that I am fine with adding one fair use image of the cover art / magazine cover to any FA on sf magazines that currently lacks such an image. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:55, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A fascinating and well-written article. The detail with which it's told convinces me it must be comprehensive -- it is a magazine from the 1940s, after all! ceranthor 16:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but only on two conditions: please shorten the first paragraph, and include more images than those boring charts. Otherwise, a very well-done, comprehensive article! Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've broken the first paragraph in two; you're right that it was too long. For the images, we do have one fair use cover but I don't see how I can justify another. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Informative to those unfamiliar with the topic. All criteria appears in order and as needed. Brad (talk) 14:27, 17 August 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 Ucucha 03:12, 23 August 2011 [47].

Gobrecht dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria. I had previously nominated this article, but it was pointed out that it had more flaws than I first believed. Now, Wehwalt and myself have (hopefully) improved the article enough to meet the standards of the FAC process. The Gobrecht dollar, minted from 1836 to 1839, was the first dollar coin minted in any quantity since the denomination was unofficially discontinued in 1804 and officially in 1806. The coin, though known as the Gobrecht dollar, might be more accurately referred to as the "flying eagle dollar", as its namesake was involved only in the engraving of the dies and slight modification of the designs. The basis for the design was a seated Liberty figure created by great early American artists Thomas Sully and a soaring eagle created by another prominent artist, Titian Peale, son of Rembrandt Peale, an artist responsible for the creation of many portraits of the American Founding Fathers. The Gobrecht dollar was minted as a test to determine whether or not a circulating silver dollar would prove favorable with the American public. Evidently, it did, as the denomination continued steady production until 1873. These coins continued to utilize Sully's seated Liberty, but the soaring eagle was rejected for a more heraldic creation after 1840. Peale's design was not forgotten, however, as it too continued to live on, albeit briefly, on the Flying Eagle cent, minted from 1856 to 1858. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.-RHM22 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry about those two! I believe Wehwalt inserted the Lange reference, and I think he probably meant to write Taxay. I'll check with him and make sure though before I change it. The other problem has been tended to, but I'm not sure how well. I don't know which publisher compiled these laws, so I can't put that in there. I did put the page number that contains the relevant information, but it looks a little odd without a publisher, since it was almost certainly part of a large bound volume.-RHM22 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, the Lange thing is also fixed now.-RHM22 (talk) 14:17, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've fixed that. The second "Sully" was supposed to be "Peale". Nice catch!-RHM22 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review

I agree that the quality is low for this image. I don't have any others copies available currently, though, so do you think I should remove it and replace it with a different image? I have images of other people that were important in the history of the coin, so there won't be a problem finding a replacement for the Patterson image.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If they are of equal importance to Patterson, then yes I would. Maybe it's just because I'm an image gnome, but I kept getting drawn back to that image while I was trying to concentrate on other things on that page, and I wasn't getting drawn back for the right reasons. I felt like a [Rubbernecking|rubbernecker]. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'll see if I can find an archive link.-RHM22 (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's fixed. Turns out it was just an old URL, so I didn't need to use the Archive. Thanks for the image review!-RHM22 (talk) 15:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the crucial date is 1923, unless I am missing something here?--Wehwalt (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright being the monster that it is, a photograph of an object is copyrighted separately from the object itself. In further consideration, however, I would have to say this is a non-issue, as the photograph does not meet any reasonable threshold of originality/creativity, which the U.S. requires for copyright. If my reading of the laws is correct, we could still get hit with a cease and desist notice, although the odds of that are incredibly low, however that notice could be defeated by an inebriated first year associate. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added fresh images of a Gobrecht dollar. How is that? I should add that I am currently doing research at the ANA library and I carefully went through the stacks looking for auction catalogs that were US-published before 1978 with color plates and no copyright notice. I found three. The images were from one of them. --Wehwalt (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well I called my lawyer and she said that I was in fact correct about the threshold or originality thing, however since it was in a larger document, she would have to see the document itself in order to give a definitive answer. However if you've gotten around the problem by getting another version, then it's all good anyways. Lemme take a quick look at the new stuff. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. As with the wire rim from the Indian Head dollar, iff there really isn't a notice, we're all good here. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There was no notice. I went through a fair number of auction catalogs and similar material, as soon as I saw an copyright marking I put it back on the shelves. I've done this at several archives and know what I am doing. The books are at the ANA library, anyone free to check or to call the librarian there.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't interpret my comments as questioning my integrity, I intended no such thing, sorry if it came across that way. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:15, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I seem to have taken a little-used loophole on Wiki and run with it, as has RHM22. Actually, the more times this is discussed and upheld the easier for everyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commments:

I removed a few that seemed mostly unnecessary, but most of the references are still cited multiple times. I'll fix this by referencing a book that Wehwalt has provided me access to a little later today.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a little bit of over-citing, particularly in the last paragraph of the "Design" section (#9 & 10) and in the "Restrikes" (#21) section. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cited the mass in the article and reworked it a little in the infobox, but I removed the diameter entirely, because it seems to fluctuate based on the source, so I can't find an exact number.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where you put the mass, I don't think you need to link "grams", and the second mass should have units (g) behind it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The 1804 dollars weren't really exported to the Orient (even though they were given as gifts there!), but rather the standard issue silver dollars. I have reworded to clear that up.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since no 1804 dollars had been struck since 1804 (they were dated 1803, but they didn't know that), they chose to use that date on the coins struck in 1835. It's not known why that was done, but certain numismatists have theorized that Mint officials didn't want to create only a few coins with a certain date because collectors would want them, and very few would be struck. I guess they were not successful with that, because the 1804 dollar is one of the most valuable and famous of all coins!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They did get the date right in restriking the $10 piece, also not struck since 1804, but 1804-dated pieces had been struck at the time. However, they got the way the number 4 lookednwrong, see Turban Head eagle#1804 issues, creating an even greater rarity than the 1804 dollar.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess what I'm getting hung up on here is that I'm not familiar with the 1804 dollar and the Draped Bust dollars, and I keep thinking your leading into something on the Gobrecht dollar... Can you see it that way? If not, I'll try reading it again tomorrow to see if I'm just being a bit slower than normal. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a sort of test run. That's why they were minted in such small numbers. Should I try to expand on that in the article?-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think you should be more clear about this. I'm not a big coin collector, particularly of coins this old, so I come into this article thinking this was a common circulating coin, but gradually learn that it was more of a test-run for a future coin. I think it needs to be stated a little more explicitly, particularly in the lead and somewhere near the top of the article. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about this. I'll look into it a little later and see what else I can add.-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into it, and as expected, those pieces were patterns. There were several different types of patterns produced throughout the tenure of the Gobrecht dollar, and there would be too many to list each type individually. I could certainly add something about them if you think it would be a good idea, though.-RHM22 (talk) 22:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of comprehensiveness, yes, I would at least discuss them. When I write about lemurs or any other species, I often have to go into gory detail about coloration patters (which can vary widely) for the same reasons. Although you don't need to outline every pattern, you should at least document that they exist and give a general overview. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References: I checked the Adams & Woodin online source, verifying the facts and that no plagiarism has occurred. I could not check the offline sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Sorry for my delay in responding. I had some business to take care of, and it took longer than expected. Anyway, I have attempted to fix all of the issues you've raised excepting a couple, which I have elaborated on above. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still looking into the patterns, but I'll add something about them as soon as I can find some good sources for that information.-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Thanks for the comments, and again, I apologize for my delay. I fixed all of the points you brought up except for the bit about sourcing. The reason that the last sentence of the design section is unsourced is because I removed some of the over-citing. If you think it necessary, I can certainly restore the reference to that sentence. Thanks again!-RHM22 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If ref 11 is what is intended to source that bit, you could just move the last citation of the section back a sentence. That would sufficiently cover both sentences, if it indeed is the source. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with comments-

Thanks for the comments! I've fixed everything here except your first and second points. On the first, I combined the sentences, but I didn't remove "officially", because the denomination was unofficially halted in 1804 before it was done officially in 1806. I did reword the sentence to make it a little clearer. As for the second point, I think I fixed it, but I'm not really sure what active voice is.-RHM22 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean is that "No action was taken until the summer of 1834..." should read "[Someone] took no action until the summer of 1834..." Passive voice leaves the reader in doubt over the identity of that someone who took no action. I get what you're saying about "officially", so I struck that comment. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits; please see the edit summaries. A few spots that don't read as smoothly as they could, maybe someone will have a suggestion what to do. - Dank (push to talk)

Thanks, Dank, for the copyedit and support. Everything looks great except for bit about medal alignment, as that means that both images face upward when rotated. This always proves difficult, because I can't find a good way to explain it. To demonstrate, assume that this is the obverse of the coins: /\ normally, when U.S. coins are rotated this way: > or this way: < , the other side (reverse) looks like this: \/ . This is commonly called 'coin alignment'. The opposite of that, when both sides are the same (/\ and /\) is known as 'medal alignment', because most medals created in the United States use that orientation. It's extremely hard to explain without a photograph or something that demonstrates it.-RHM22 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if I had too few words, you had too many. Can you do something shorter? - Dank (push to talk) 21:43, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, I can't think of any good way to word it. I'd remove that information entirely if it wasn't so important to the article. I'll try to rework it to make it a little more concise.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose At the moment i would have to oppose, though it can be ammended to lead me to support. The article as it currently stands leads the reader to assume that there were 600 coins struck dated as 1838. This simply isnt so. The only coins dated as 1838 were a few pattern pieces and restrikes of those patterns. The 600 coins that the article refers to were the same type as the 1838 patterns, yet were struck dated as 1839. The article also fails to mention the important fact that the original 1836 issue of dollars was the only American coin issue to be issued as a proof into general circulation, no other american coin has been issued for general circulation as a proof. See [[48]] and any current red book issue for more details.XavierGreen (talk) 16:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the 1838 issue. I believe I had the correct date in there, but it was changed while I was reworking the article. At any rate, it's fixed now. As for the other issue, I was aware of it, but I decided not to include it because it didn't seem particularly relevant. Also, the "for" or "not for circulation" issue has long been contentious among numismatics. Many still consider the Gobrecht dollar to be a pattern, even though it's well documented that it was meant as a trial run. Still, I would be hesitant to include any information about it being the only regular issue proof coin, because some might argue that the 1856 Flying Eagle cent and the various gold stellas were also regular issues, even though I would personally disagree.-RHM22 (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah but there is a distinct difference between issues like the 56cent/stellas and the gobrecht dollars. The stellas and 56 cents were never released directly into general circulation, they were patterns with large mintages that were disseminated into public hands in an irregular form (given to congressmen/sold to collectors at higher than face value). The first issue of Gobrecht dollars was released into circulation as any other circulating coin would be, they were disperesed through banks and saw circulation as regular coins. The stellas and 56 cents were never intended to circulate as money (though a few 56 cents seem to have circulated anyway when spent by people ignorant of their rarity) while the 1836 issue of dollars were specifically made to circulate as money.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I came across this while looking at my own FAC, and I couldn't believe how much info you had for a coin that lasted four years over 150 years ago. However, I have some issues before this passes.

It is a little surprising, but I have read others who do write-ups on obscure 15th century medals that are pages long! I have no idea how much effort it must take to find so much information on things like that.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is something that came up a little while ago while Trade dollar (United States coin) was on the main page. On there, it was changed to "Eastern Asia", so I did the same here.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This I don't know. The source I used doesn't really go into any more detail, and I haven't found any online sources for that information either.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I was just curious. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have the first use of that word linked.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some from the quote about the reverse eagle, but I don't think it a good idea to remove any from the obverse quote, since everything he is saying is important; the Gobrecht dollar was the first federal United States coin to depict a seated figure, and I believe that the quote shows the designing process.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I more meant converting the quote into prose. It's great seeing quotes, but if they are merely describing something, one can just describe that as well in their own words. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that is because I was asked above to remove some sourcing. I can certainly replace it if you think it necessary, though.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, every single sentence in the article should be sourced (using the standard sourcing method, meaning that no section should end without a citation). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the infobox coin is an 1838 Gobrecht dollar, which was minted in very small numbers and is generally considered a pattern. The name would normally have been situated below the Liberty figure, but that was not done during the small 1838 production.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded a 1836 now, here, please feel free to substitute.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would love if that was in, given that it has the "Gobrecht" on it. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That referred to the Flying Eagle Cent mentioned earlier. I have reworded that section.-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the thoughtful review! I have fixed all of the points you've raised, except for the few that I have commented on above. As for the referencing, Wehwalt has been kind enough to supply me with some extra material, and I'll introduce some of that information into the article. I would have done it earlier, but I'm moving slow as molasses!-RHM22 (talk) 23:01, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I gave some responses and struck out the ones I was satisfied with. Be sure to let me know when you add some more sourcing. I understand about moving slowly though. I have my own FAC I'm dealing with! (any reviews there would be great) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a comment, the author William H. Woodin, cited with the pattern books, should receive a link in the references, he is unquestionably notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason for the switch to oppose? There is already one oppose, the delegate will not pass it without the issues being addressed. I do not think RHM22 is wilfully ignoring you; I'm actually a bit worried about it. Opposes are good to let noms know to get on the ball, but he simply appears not to be on Wikipedia. If the weekend passes, I will email him. I got some pretty good images of Gobrecht dollars, including a couple struck in copper, at the ANA convention in Chicago, that might spice up the aritcle, if it is a help for you.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, the fact that he isn't on Wikipedia is the main reason for my switch. It appears there is no one running the ship here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's why Sandy isn't archiving this. She's giving him a chance to come back. If this is still open middle of next week, I will do my best, but right now my FAC attention is fully on my own article and I am reluctant to take on other commitments until that clears. The thing is, I only have one "book" (images of a book I photographed last month and sent to RHM22) with me. Gobrecht dollars are not my field, but I'll do my best. Let's see what happens between now and then. I take it if the matters you have mentioned are cleared up, you'd reconsider?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, of course :) ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the long absence. I've been working in a place where I have no internet access. I believe that I've addressed all of your issues except the sourcing, which I will fix as soon as I have the chance. Thanks to Wehwalt for all your help and to Hink for understanding.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, there's a problem with ref#7. Check the bottom of the refs section. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nitpicks. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've fixed all your concerns.-RHM22 (talk) 16:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (a deeper source check was not done). GermanJoe (talk) 08:20, 19 August 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 Ucucha 00:51, 23 August 2011 [49].

Harmon Killebrew[edit]

Nominator(s): Wizardman 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I promised that I would bring a more notable person here after my last FAC, and I have done just that, nominating a member of the Baseball Hall of Fame. This is an article that has a rather unique history. Back in 2008, this became part of a WikiProject Baseball article improvement drive, as we saw a few Hall of Famers who had rather poor articles. It became a GA easily, and for the moment that was all.

In December 2010, I saw him back in the news again due to his cancer diagnosis, and restarted work on it to try and bring it here. I realized that the prose wasn't really all that good, and over the past several months have essentially rewritten the entire article. He unfortunately died last month, and further modifications were again done to the article. The article was made tougher to modify because he was known as a nice, quiet guy; it's a lot easier to write about someone if they are (at least a little bit) verbose or controversial, as there's more to sink your teeth into.

In any event, I don't think I'll be able to improve this more than I already have, and I do believe it finally meets FAC criteria. It's a WikiCup nom, though I'm more concerned with it being another notable figure whose article the baseball project and wikipedia can be proud of. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:43, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the legacy section seems a little repetitive to some of the rest of the article. And I know it's a product of this type of article but the career sections are kind of a dry this and then that sort of thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Dincher (talk) 22:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source-checking – Articles that I can effectively spot-check for sourcing issues don't come around that often, but this is one of them. I went through around 20 cites and came up with the following concerns:

Images: File:TwinsRetired3.png has improper licensing; If it was a symbol used by the team, then the uploader does not own the rights to release. File:MOA Killebrew Drive 080705.JPG could do with a cleanup. Other than that, it checks out. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed first and cleaned up second. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've had a look to the end of the 1961-65 section, and intend to look at the rest. This article does look like it has been the work of several editors as the prose is slightly uneven, and the further into the article you look, the more awkward some parts become. I've copy-edited as I've gone along, but there are some parts that I cannot clear up myself and I have listed them below. I don't think the prose is up to scratch at the moment, but it fairly straightforward to fix and certainly it is not worth an oppose. It tends to lapse into sports-speak but it just needs a polish. If Wizardman has no objections (and I haven't mangled the article with what I've done so far) I'll try to copy-edit the rest as well. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments: Done up to 1970-74, still copy-editing as I go. Sorry this is taking so long. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments, inclined to support: Sorry this has taken so long! The article looks very good and I will be delighted to support once these final concerns are addressed. --Sarastro1 (talk) 19:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep meaning to review, but haven't found time. But I read the lead and spent a lot of time trying to untangle the sentence about the longest home run, going through several steps. At first, I was going to ask you to review for "as of" dates, because of his longest home run at Metropolitan Stadium, but then I realized that the article never mentions that record stands for eternity since that stadium is no more, and then I realized that we mention the longest home run:

During the 1967 season, Killebrew showed his ability to hit long home runs when, on June 3, 1967, he struck the longest home run recorded at Metropolitan Stadium, a shot that landed in the second deck of the bleachers.[54]

early in the article, including the lead, but don't state how long it was until later:

On June 3, 1967, Killebrew hit a 520-foot (160 m) home run, the longest measured home run ever hit at Metropolitan Stadium and the longest in Twins history.

This all needs to be disentangled somehow, and it reminds me that you may need to check for as of dates. An as of date isn't needed here because Metropolitan Stadium is no more, but the article should clarify that early on, and state how long the home run was earlier in the article, on first mention perhaps. I will try to read more later. The "longest in Twins history" does require an "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the distance for both home runs in the lead; if I should add it in the body in 1967 as well I can do that. I added an as of for the Twins record itself, Thome almost broke it a few days ago so that's probably good to have. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any other comments for me to address? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good! from Cryptic C62 · Talk:

During his 22-year baseball career, he played for the Washington Senators.. - the mention of the team renders the "baseball" redundant as it is implied. I think we can remove the adjective which is a tad repetitive...?
In 1965, he reached the World Series... - hmmm, I'll pay "The team reached." or "He played in...", but "He reached ..." sounds a little odd to my aussie ears...
The Kansas City Royals section seems a bit slim - is there any other info? Was everyone surprised he signed with the Royals? Was his old team annoyed? Did he have any interesting encounters that year palying his old team?
While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew converted to Mormonism, joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and never smoked or drank - why the need to mention his conversion twice? Why not just " While still an active major leaguer, Killebrew became a Mormon, and never smoked or drank"?

Otherwise looks good on prose grounds. Very keen on semicolons...Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that all helps. No other deal-breaker prose guffs remain so I am happy to green-light on prose grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - link check. No broken external links, no DAB-links. Earwig's tool shows no results (source check already done - see above). GermanJoe (talk) 08:15, 19 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [50].

Messiah (Handel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk), Gerda Arendt (talk), Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Handel's Messiah is among the most frequently performed and best-loved works in all choral music. People who know hardly a note of classical music are still likely to recognise the opening notes of the "Hallelujah" chorus. For much of its 270 years Messiah (not "The Messiah", please note) has been performed in versions that Handel would scarcely have recognised as his own music; he wrote it for a small orchestra and a chamber choir, whereas after his death adaptations using vast choral and instrumental forces became the norm. Recently there had been a greater respect for authenticity, and you are more likely now to hear something approaching Handel's original intentions. This article has been a team effort, with Tim riley, Gerda Arendt and myself all contributing to what we hope is a worthy article. Enjoy the soundfiles, if nothing else. Brianboulton (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Had my say at the peer review, it hasn't gotten worse since. Well done all.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and peer review comments. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excellent article, and on a well-known topic, too! I have already fixed my only problem with the article. Interchangeable|talk to me|what I've changed 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The prose is stellar; the topic is covered comprehensively as far as I can see. I have one, very minor comment:

Ucucha 01:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the support. On the footnote issue, the problem is that there is already a citation after the catalogue reference. It would be untidy and awkward if the article began: "Messiah[n 1] (HWV 56)[1] is..." I think the footnote is best deferred into a less conspicuous place. Brianboulton (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. Looks pretty good, but I have a few comments.
  • "In the years after his death the work was adapted for performance on a much larger scale, with giant orchestras and choirs." (lead) - Shouldn't that be has been?
  • The plain past tense is used here to indicate that the adaptations were made in that period; such an adaptation, which the use of the past imperfect tense would imply, would be most unexpected nowadays. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, first paragraph: Would box-office receipts be used to describe ticket sales in this period? Seems a little awkward to me.
  • The Oxford English Dictionary cites 18th century use of the term, so I think it's appropriate. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, second paragraph: "Even as its future prospects in London declined in the 1730s, Handel remained committed to Italian opera, though to add variety to his theatre programmes he began to introduce oratorios, sung in English, as occasional alternatives to his staged works." seems a little wordy. Perhaps "Although future prospects for Italian operas in London declined during the 1730s, Handel remained committed to the genre; however, he began to introduce English-language oratorios as occasional alternatives to his staged works." or something of the like.
  • I think that would be better: conom thoughts? Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background, third paragraph: "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed, though less successfully, by a further oratorio, Israel in Egypt, which may also have come from Jennens." - perhaps "The work opened at the King's Theatre in January 1739 to a warm reception, and was quickly followed by the less successful oratorio, Israel in Egypt (which may also have come from Jennens)". I don't think the Jennens bit of information is 100% relevant to the topic, so if needed at all could be included as an aside.
  • Synopsis, third paragraph: "Resurrection of the dead" - Should it be "resurrection of the dead" or "Resurrection of the Dead"?
  • We need to revisit capitalisation of terms with specific doctrinal significance: we have two "resurrections" and four "Resurrections". Not my area of expertise, and I invite conoms to look at this. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think as a term, consistently using "Resurrection of the Dead" is not wrong. Will do if we reach consensus. - Looking closer: it occurs only once, the WP article is "Resurrection of the dead", Jennen's calls it "general Resurrection", as opposed to the Resurrection (of Jesus), which is mentioned the other occurances, and probably should be capital as a specific one, not a general term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one occurance left, I think we should either use Jennens' term "general Resurrection" as a quote (no "of the dead" there), or just say "resurrection of the dead", without "general", perhaps best combined: "general Resurrection". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As there were no objections I take it to the article. Now I wonder if we should mark "final victory over sin and death" also as Jennens' idea, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leave it; it's not an issue. Brianboulton (talk) 08:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition, second paragraph: "The effort of writing so much music in so short a time is remarkable, but not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries" - Remarkable by today's standards, but if not unusual at the time I doubt we should say it is remarkable. Perhaps something like "Although it seems remarkable today, the effort of writing so much music in so short a time was not unusual for Handel and his contemporaries"
  • Brian, I think you drafted this: your call. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like "today" which is inspecific, but I've made a similar alteration. Brianboulton (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • London, fourth paragraph: "The year 1750 also saw the institution of the annual charity performances of Messiah at London's Foundling Hospital, which continued until Handel's death and beyond." - Any chance on finding out when it stopped?
  • It certainly seems to have stopped by the 1785, when The Times was first published. Messiah performances are mentioned in its advertisement columns, but nothing resembling an annual Foundlings benefit. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only relevant information I can find is in Luckett, who says that the Foundling Hospital performances were saved in 1773 "for a few more years" by the singing of the Linley sisters. Personally I don't think it is necessary to extend the txt on this point. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought, though I don't regard this as important: it could say "and for a few decades beyond." -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 18th century, first paragraph: Why is New York not wikilinked? The other cities are all wikilinked and New York is not mentioned before this.
  • The Manual of Style (WP:OVERLINK) enjoins us not to link capitals and other large cities that everybody has head of. I think New York is one such. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will link Baltimore. Thanks for spotting that. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 20th century, third paragraph: "At the Handel Festival held in 1922 at Handel's native town, Halle, his choral works were given by a choir of 163 and an orchestra of 64" - shouldn't that be "in Handel's native town", or is at a town standard British English?
  • In UK usage either "at" or "in" is correct. The usage here followed that in the cited source ("The Handel Festival at Halle") but "in" would avoid the repetition of "at", and I have changed it. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I should strongly prefer to keep this image: rail notwithstanding it illustrates very clearly how different a staged performance of Messiah is from a normal concert-hall one. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That will do me, if everyone prefers it. Tim riley (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have made the change. If people don't like it we can always revert. Brianboulton (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Peer Reviewer tool shows a couple external links may be dead. It also notes that some references may be inside punctuation, although I did not see any while reading.
  • I've re-checked all the external links, and they are all fine. (The tool sometimes boggles at subscription sites, but these are clearly indicated). I've also re-checked the 205 references within the text, and none are within punctuation. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seems pretty good. I will be happy to support after my comments are addressed. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for these points. I have acted on some and left others to conoms to address, as indicated above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some comments. I am still pondering on the Resurrection of the Dead issue, and will add a comment shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. My comments have been addressed quite quickly and to my satisfaction. As I will be out of town for a few days, I will assume good faith about the one outstanding comment. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review and your support. On the "Resurrection" issue, I think in traditional usage the term is capitalised when referring specifically to Christ; likewise "Passion", "Crucifixion", "Ascension" etc. The "general resurrection of the dead" need not be capitalised, though it sometimes is. I don't believe that there is a clear right or wrong way, but to achieve consistency I have been through the article and standardised capitalisation in accordance with these convetntions. Brianboulton (talk) 7:26 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps that might be pointed out, because in general I try to avoid that POV site, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towe's article is essentially the same as that printed in Blyth's 1991 book; we could cite that instead if there is still unease about the present ref; other things being equal I prefer to cite an online reference as it makes things more accessible for our readers. Tim riley (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More to come on the outstanding queries above. Tim riley (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC) Now done, to the best of my knowledge and belief. Thank you to Nikkimaria for the eagle-eyed review. Tim riley (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media No real problems, but if I'm being picky-

Nothing here is essential- all the licensing and sourcing checks out. J Milburn (talk) 10:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for this review. I have dealt with some of the superfluous licences and have added the ((information)) formats as requested. As to the Commons tranfers I'd rather someone else did these as I usually end up making a mess of such things. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No great hurry, as long as we're all happy that it'll happen eventually. Media looks good. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, however:

  • I will look at this aspect, but in my view the semicolon is often more potent than the comma-conjuction. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brian and Tim, I also feel that, in general, you both overuse semicolons. As an alternative to comma and conjunction, you can simply break the sentence into two sentences, unless each clause is quite short. Readers know that two consecutive sentences are related. In my view, semicolons should be used sparingly. Of course, this is a very nitpicky point, but I hope you will consider it. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps English prose writers are more comfortable with the use of semicolons than Americans? However, in he interests of transatlantic harmony I will try to zap a few.
Hmm. Not too many, I hope. Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There's more than one way to the woods. On close stylistic calls like these, I'd defer to the main contributor(s). Finetooth (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the citation to Luckett at the end of the paragraph covers the information relating to the Sheldonian performances. It is not necessary to repeat citations at the end of every sentence. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take GFHandel's point, though, that "triumphant" performances are a bit idiomatic, and it would strike me as odd as a reader so that I would wonder whether the phrase is from the source or a quirk of the writer of the entry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I must agree that "giant" orchestra sounds strange, at least to my American ear. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of citations for use of large orchestras and choirs. See, for example, the first paragraph of the "18th century" section, and elsewhere in the performance history. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really; abandonment can be the final stage in a gradual process of neglect. But I'm happy to accept your preference here. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No! Why is this information "nebulous", i.e. indefinite or vague? In my view intrusive brackets such as you suggest kill rather than improve the flow. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" is biographical to Jennens and does not deepen the understanding of the point of the sentence (that Handel received a text for Saul in 1735). Is "country squire" really needed in an article about Messiah? Additionally: running "...Charles Jennens" into "a country squire..." (as is currently the case in the article) would not be my preference. While I'm in the neighbourhood "new oratorio" also seems like tautology (could Handel have received a text for an oratorio he'd already written?). GFHandel ♬  00:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it to other reviewers to decide if these and similar points warrant any action. My view is that they do not. Your "preferences" are not of themselves reasons for altering the text. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Brian that the MOS prefers commas to brackets in parenthetical clauses, however, I also find "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" to be overkill. How about just "a patron of the arts", as it says in his bio? -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • In view of the importance of Jennens's part in the creation of Messiah it doesn't seem unreasonable to me that the article should include a little information about him. I don't think that the few descriptive words can really be described as overkill, more a brief thumbnail characterisation. Brianboulton (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Brian. Fair enough, and this is my last comment on this small point, but I dont think the phrase "a country squire with musical and literary tastes" conveys anything like what you intend to convey, at least to American readers. We don't exactly know what the word "squire" means - American readers might think that you are describing his mode of dress, or that he had to travel far to get to London, or something like that. And "musical tastes" doesn't seem to add anything - why would you ask someone to set a libretto unless you were interested in a musical piece? What is important here, I think, is the idea that he had money and was an enthusiastic amateur, rather than a respected librettist. Is that what you are trying to convey? In any case, I urge you to consider this one more time and see if you can clarify for all readers what you are trying to describe about him that is relevant to Messiah. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have amended the text to "wealthy landowner with musical and literary interests". I would point out that none of the three main peer reviewers, all Americans, expressed any confusion with my original wording. However, in the interests of ending discussion on this very marginal issue I have compromised. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems better to me. Congratulations on another super article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the phrase "all three oratorios resulted in triumphant performances" actually makes sense. Maybe my own effort wasn't much good either, so I have found an alternative wording. Brianboulton (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that "received ... performances" is a particularly British phrase, and since this article is using British English, I simply take it as a colorful formulation. So I agree with Brian. None of the above affects my comments below, as I think these are all excellent stylistic points to think about, but all are quite minor. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made an attempt to address some of these in the first two sections ([51] and [52]), however my first change was quickly reverted as being "stylistic preferences, not improvements". I'm not trying to be difficult, and am only trying to help. I'm happy to take the time to look at further sections—but only if they are not quickly reverted (and of course if others feel it's worthwhile that I do so). Failing that, good luck with the FAC!
GFHandel ♬  23:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Brian was right in that revert. To me, the prose as it is now seems elegant and engaging; your change made it drier. Tautologies are sometimes appropriate for emphasis, and brackets within a sentence do not often make for well-flowing prose. Ucucha 23:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I disagree with your view about brackets because they can subconsciously help the reader to recognise the start and end of text that is subordinate to the theme of the sentence (as is the case with Jennens). So you are fine with "giant" and with the unreferenced claims about "triumphant performances" and facts such as "1733"? It's been a while since I looked at the FAC process, but it's obvious that things have changed since I did. Oh well, I'll move on. (I'm at a loss as to how we can be sure the performances were triumphant?) GFHandel ♬  23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you conclude from one comment by me that "things have changed", you are giving me too much influence. I am not a nominator of this article, and was merely commenting on some aspects that stood out to me. "Giant" sounds fine to me; the OED gives "Of extraordinary size, extent, or force; gigantic, huge, monstrous." as one of the meanings of that word. That the citation does not immediately follow the sentence does not mean that there is none; I would assume this fact is referenced to the next citation, which is to p. 30 of Luckett's book. I can't check that book (which, incidentally, appears to have an incorrect ISBN), but I see no reason to assume the fact is not in there. Ucucha 00:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FAs have so many footnotes that adding a <ref name="???" /> after another sentence where we claim multiple facts isn't a problem. You give one meaning of "giant", however I giggle at the implication of another meaning of the word (and I believe that the sentence can be changed to avoid that meaning). Don't get me wrong, I'm immensely impressed and appreciative of the large amount of work that has gone into lifting the quality of the article by all those involved. I'm just a little surprised at what is now permitted at FAC. I'll have to watch a few more go through to adjust to the standard. GFHandel ♬  00:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish The BFG to be in the orchestra, feel free to interpret it that way. I don't think standards at FAC have changed in the way you think they have; it has never been required to have a reference after every sentence. Ucucha 00:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Luckett, p. 30, contains all the information relating to the Sheldonian performances, including its year of 1733, and I have removed the unnecessary citation tag. The isbn was out by one digit - well spotted indeed! I have fixed this. Brianboulton (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rather late to the table, I too thank GFHandel for support and for seeking to polish the prose. I agree with my co-nom Brianboulton that it would help us at this stage if reviewers make suggestions for redrafing here rather than making major changes first, otherwise we are playing catch-up all the time (particularly tricky as there are, unusually, three co-nominators who need to keep abreast of textual changes.) But please do not imagine, GFH, that your help is not valued. I agree with Ucucha about FA standards, by the bye: the bar is being raised all the time, and some older FAs are being demoted. Tim riley (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I did some copy editing during the peer review, and it has improved since then. I believe that it is a well-written, comprehensive discussion of Messiah, well researched and referenced, appropriately illustrated and representative of the best work on Wikipedia. I support its promotion. Thanks, to the nominators, for another excellent article about the arts. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - wonderfully done article. All of my concerns were met in the peer review. In the interest of full-disclosure, I suggested this article be improved to Brian (thanks to everyone for their work on it), found one of the images on Flickr (originally for the article on the English National Opera) and found a few of the sources used for minor points in the course of the peer review. Thanks, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 10:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I, too, peer-reviewed the article, which is excellent. Happy to support. Finetooth (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review and support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citation consistency in page no. convention (pls review all):

versus:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another:

Please check throughout; it appears that the article most consistently uses the last two digits, not three, and a thorough check is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All now standardised at last two digits. Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In sources, according to the default sort and his article, Robbins Landon should be alphabetical at Robbins, not Landon-- please check sources for consistency. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct: he is generally referred to as "Robbins Landon", rather than just "Landon", and so comes between Luckett and Sackville-West in the list. See obituaries in The Times, and Daily Telegraph. (Nb, however, that the house style of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography will certainly have him as "Landon, H. C. Robbins" if and when he gets an article, but that is an exception.) Tim riley (talk) 09:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much-- BB and you have a new co-contributor, and I presume you're as involved as typical, so a paraphrasing check is not called for ?? I pooped out last night and will continue through FAC today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [53].

Franklin half dollar[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. As often seemed to happen, there was some controversy over the design of the Franklin half dollar, which shows the Liberty Bell on its reverse (tails side). The Commission of Fine Arts disapproved the design as they felt showing the crack in the Liberty Bell would lead to jokes. The Treasury was sensible enough to ignore the disapproval and issue the coin. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are fine; spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do on the medals and will go see what is up with Bobby, I'm worried now.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have left him a note. I hope he returns. He's a pro and a good guy. Thank both of you for your reviews; I know the work you do is often not appreciated, but it is here.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actual photos of the medals introduced. --Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The new image works well and I trust Wehwalt on the copyright of it. I also checked the captions since I recently was reminded that it's part of the image review, and they're also good, as best as I can tell.
The one thing that I'm going to mention is that the Nellie Tayloe Ross mint medal is crooked. I tried to rotate it, but I couldn't fix it without creating a bunch of white space in the corners, so I left it alone. Considering how much of a fuss I've made over mint medals lately, I'm not even going to ask him to do anything, that's up to him, and I'd rather him not see my signature and trigger disgust/anger/annoyance. I just wanted to mention that I noticed it. The medals do look much better as photographs though, the detail comes out much better. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are right and I'll fix that.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hate me. :D Sven Manguard Wha? 20:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. We are all doing this to improve the project, if we cannot give each other constructive criticism without resentment, we might as well go home now. Oh, wait ... Thanks, I've rephotographed Nellie. I'm not a good photographer, but I do my best.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it's straight now. I'm guessing that the wooden curved thing that the coins are on is there to prevent the oils of your fingers from damaging the coins, or something along that vein? Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's the arm of an outdoor teak chair.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Lead
Background and selection
Collecting

Will re-review later.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 16:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the capitalization errors... I figured it would have required more typing to bring them to Wehwalt's attention than to simply fix them myself. Juliancolton (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm uncertain what the objection is to the two other things. Liberty Bell is always capitalized. I have to say the Mint recut the master die because I know of no record of which engraver did the actual work. Most likely Gasparro or Roberts.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Re-reviewed and nothing found. Regards.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 20:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much to the reviewers.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Thanks for the comments, I'm knocking off for the night and will get to these tomorrow. I don't see anything troublesome.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Those things are done, though sometimes slightly differently than suggested.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Thanks to this series I have a near-expert knowledge of American coinage history. I only wish I knew someone I could impress with it. One tiny, tiny nitpick: "close-up" as a noun requires a hyphen (in one of the picture captions). I thought the Stalin story hilarious. It also seems that designing for the Mint is a perilous business; Sinnock dies, as I remember from earlier articles did at least one of his predecessors. Nice work. Brianboulton (talk) 16:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make that change. Sinnock's successor, Gilroy Roberts was the first Mint engraver, I believe, not to die in office, in 170 years that the office had existed. I don't believe retirement planning was big in the Engraver's Department at the Mint.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was a youth employment policy. Mrs Ross was born when Grant was still president. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And survived into the Carter years ... imagine if she were treated like the Engravers and hadn't been tossed out by Eisenhower!--Wehwalt (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead looks good according to Cryptic C62 · Talk:

Thanks for the comments. I have no objection to any of the changes. I have added to the article the number struck. Yes, it is a legal tender, of course the silver or collector value far exceeds fifty cents. By the Coinage Act of 1965, all coin minted under the authority of the United States is legal tender for an unlimited amount. I don't know whether it is necessary to add that, but certainly it can be done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the addition regarding the number struck? My comments were specific to the lead section; I haven't read the article in its entirety. Regarding the present-day value, I do think that this would be an interesting and useful addition to the lead. Perhaps something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, a mint condition specimen may be worth as much as ${insert number here}." Whaddya think? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would not want to do that, as people consult people for information and they may assume that the five beat up common Franklin halves they just found in cleaning out Granny's attic are worth much more than they are. I added it further down in the body of the article. I could leave that, and say "Almost half a billion Franklin half dollars were struck in its sixteen years." in the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A fair concern. Perhaps instead of putting a specific monetary value on it, we could add something like "While the coin is still recognized as a fifty-cent piece, mint condition specimens are often sought after as collector's pieces." I have no idea what the typical phrasing for something like this would be, but I'm sure you get the idea. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Basically any Franklin is worth having, though for quite a few, just worth having long enough to take down to the local coin shop and sell it to a dealer at melt.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool beans, thanks for that. I'm happy with the lead as is. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:58, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [54].

Operation Kita[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the dramatic voyage of two Japanese battleships and their escorts from Singapore to Japan in February 1945. By this stage of World War II the Allies were close to cutting off Japan's shipping routes, and the warships (which were loaded with supplies of raw materials) evaded attacks by 26 submarines and over 88 aircraft. Remarkably, they did not sustain any damage and all reached Japan.

The article passed a GA assessment in April and a Military History Wikiproject A class review in May. It has since been further expanded and improved (special thanks to Derfel73 (talk · contribs) for the map), and I think that it may now meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- performed minor copyedit but little here to fault; referencing, detail, structure and supporting materials all look good -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Ian Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—My concern was addressed and I think the article satisfies the FA criteria. Regards, RJH (talk) 14:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—Overall it looks good, but I think the lead is not quite ready. It makes no mention of the vital role played by code breaking, nor the planned effort by the Allies to sink the ships. This made it all seem like a reactive response until I read the body. The lead also does not cover the important elements of the Aftermath section. I think that is worth a couple of sentences. Regards, RJH (talk) 15:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits and comments. I've just expanded the lead per your suggestion. Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 31 July 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [55].

Small-toothed sportive lemur[edit]

Nominator(s): – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: I'm sorry if I've missed it, but are there any natural predators? Either way, is this worth mentioning? Cheers, Ben (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Little is known about the ecology of this species (and many other lemur species). I did manage to find a scrap of information and have added it to the article. Thanks for bringing it up. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry I missed that when I reviewed it last night. Fixed now. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only reference that lists a publisher is a template that affects multiple articles. (This issue is similar to the problems created by using ((cite doi)) and related templates. Basically, Wikipedia needs a global/standard citation style if we're going to start holding people to any sort of standard.) I guess I can start using the location tag on all my book references... but first I need two questions answered. 1) Am I correct in assuming that we use only the first location if multiple are given? 2) What do we do if we can find the location information for all but one or two book references?
  • My bad... I had them in reverse order. It's supposed to go: last1 -> year (oldest first) -> last2 -> etc. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images are perfect. Great work on getting those releases. J Milburn (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good.

Well written, very engaging. J Milburn (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and kind comments. Thanks also to Ucucha for the help in addressing the issues. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If you have any lingering thoughts, or something comes to you later, just let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback and review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ucucha:

Thanks. I misread the part about the premolars, and have removed the material from the article. Does it sound better now? – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved it around. I guess I didn't intend for that paragraph to focus on identification, but rather the similarities it shares with other sportive lemurs. Either way, I've moved it to the next paragraph. Hopefully it doesn't sound awkward. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only information exclusively from Forbes involves the diagnostic tooth size (from which it got its name) and the mention of the bony palate. Everything else was duplicated in the other source that's cited with it. Do you want me to remove the mention of the palate? As for the tooth size, since no one has challenged it, I'm assuming that fact is still supported (and implied in the name). Your thoughts? Otherwise, thanks for the thorough review. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
can be found in Ranomafana National Park and Andringitra National Park. - strikes me as a tad repetitive. Would "can be found in Ranomafana and Andringitra National Parks." be okay?
Fixed. Thanks for the review, suggestion, and support! – VisionHolder « talk » 18:10, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [56].

Richard Dannatt, Baron Dannatt[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This follows on from Mike Jackson, my first ever FA (this will be my second, all being well). An officer decorated for gallantry early in his career, Dannatt is the most recent British Chief of the General Staff to retire at the time of writing, and the article will hopefully be the second on a CGS to attain featured status.

After an A-class review at MilHist (which is pending closure), I'm confident this meets the criteria, but look forward to all comments, pro or con. Thank you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I mentioned gender-neutral language during the A-class review, but it's not enough to withhold support over. Far be it from me to lecture on British punctuation, but isn't it "St Lawrence College" in BritEng, usually? That's also the punctuation the school uses. - Dank (push to talk) 20:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Image Check - It looks good. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The lead section of the article is rather long. WP:LEAD only specifies the number of paragraphs – but in this article the paragraphs are substantial. Only the main points need to be mentioned. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We really need more people reviewing Milhist articles, so thanks. There are 3 or 4 reviewers who occasionally give us specific goals for the lead, so rather than respond immediately, I'd like to see what other reviewers say ... hopefully everyone will go home happy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:49, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the lead section could be improved, shorter would be better. I am reviewing the article in the next few days. I like it so far. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 11:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed about some of the detail from the lead, and I look forward to any comments you have. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, excellent article. I have one last recommendation, a list of titles and honours (including the title of Baron Dannatt) in the end of the article could help readers. Examples: David Petraeus and General Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of Alamein. Regards, Paulista01 (talk) 22:29, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. I generally avoid titles and honours sections because the honours are all mentioned in the prose (and the important ones are in the infobox). I don't see much encyclopaedic value in listing them in their own section, and in fact tend to remove those sections if they're present in articles I'm working on. It's worth noting that Mike Jackson, the only other FA (so far) on a British CGS doesn't have such a section. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree HJ, I do the same. Aside from being redundant, when inclusive of (gasp) the award ribbon images, such sections make the article look to me like a page from a children's book... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't even get that with British articles—Crown Copyright! Makes it bloody difficult to find free images for biographies! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I also think this is an excellent article, well written with all the key facts. Dormskirk (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment -- reviewed and copyedited at MilHist ACR and supported then. Having been through the relatively minor changes in the article since, I'm ready to support here pending spotchecks, which I can't do myself at present. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well if anybody fancies doing a spotcheck, I can promise it won't take long—I've dotted my "I"s and crossed my "T"s. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to offer full support following below exchange -- well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks of 7 sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nikki. Both of those were in the citation at the end of the sentence/paragraph, but I admit that was unclear with another ref in the middle of the sentence. I've sorted both. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:30, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Replaced the comma with an emdash for clarity (I dislike using colons in prose for some reason, but if you feel it's better, I'll use a colon). Thanks for the feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the notes: I pooped out last night and will continue today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 3 August 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [57].

Star Trek V: The Final Frontier[edit]

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second try, first archived for lack of supports. The article was substantially overhauled prose-wise, and I believe the other sourcing concerns were sorted out as well. Learn about the worst Star Trek film, if you dare. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments, inclined to support: I supported before and most of my comments are in the earlier review. I will be delighted do so again once these fairly minor prose issues are cleared up that I noticed on another read-through. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I'm more than happy to support this; a really informative, interesting article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media checks out. File:Etech05 Bran1.jpg needs a Flickr review, but the bot'll get to it very soon. J Milburn (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ruby2010

I looked the article over in the peer review, and was pleased then with its quality. Just make the suggested changes above and I'll be happy to add my support. Thanks, Ruby2010 comment! 23:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC) Article now looks great. Excellent job of mixing print and web sources! Ruby2010 comment! 03:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Comments from Jappalang

Lede

Story

Cast

Development

Filming

Effects

Themes

Release

Just these for the moment. Jappalang (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all these. For the release comment, I say "1988 was" when prefacing it as the biggest year in Hollywood history... shouldn't that make it clear it's no longer the case? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I still am not certain over the way 1988 is introduced; we are looking from a 2011 perspective. In those intervening years (1988–2011), if there were more than one year that was "bigger" than 1988, then the comparison seems clouded to me (1988 was the biggest year until 1990... then 1992... then 1996 and so forth). Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to indicate that the view was from the 1989 perspective? Jappalang (talk) 03:38, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would adding "At the time" to the beginning of the sentence help? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dave, I was going to check the source to think up a possible suggestion; the earliest reference for this statement would be Farhi's "Hollywood's Hit Formula", which is at the end of the next sentence "The Final Frontier was expected to be one of the summer's biggest movies and a sure hit". I read Farhi's article on ProQuest and it does not state anything about 1988 or a $88 million gross. I think you have left out a citation... Jappalang (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The proper citation is the USA Today one, it got a bit separated from the initial claim. The relevant quote is "Hollywood enters the summer $ 88 million ahead of May 1988, reports Daily Variety. Last year was the biggest summer ($ 1.68 billion) and biggest year ($ 4.4 billion) at the movies". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 04:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How is that? Feel free to tweak. I am moving to support since that was the last item. This is a comprehensive article about the worst (indeed) film in the old generation ST franchise (Thankfully, there is ST VI that lets us send off the old cast on a good note). For full disclosure, I was involved in the peer review for this article. Jappalang (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tis a bit wordy, but if you're happy, I'm happy :) Thanks for the reviews, Jappa. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:48, 12 July 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 20:13, 4 August 2011 [58].

Robin Friday[edit]

Nominator(s): —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it was in the middle of an FAC I felt was progressing quite well but was closed last week when I went away on holiday; to remove some of the clutter on the FAC page, I presume, because although there had been quite a few useful comments there were not yet any supports or opposes. I'm back and ready to work on it again, though, so I'm reopening the candidacy. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 12:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the circumstances, I'll let this FAC run, but in the future, if you want an exemption from the rule about two weeks between nominations, pls ask beforehand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of such a rule. Thanks for letting this one slide, I appreciate it. —Cliftonianthe orangey bit 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Rodw

Support. Comments. This is a fine, well-written article, which I expect to support once a couple of minor issues are addressed. Switched to support.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC

I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should Crystal Palace's school of excellence - be capitalised?
Friday became physically stronger and fitter - I suspect you could take "physically" out and it wouldn't change the meaning....

Otherwise...barring a few semicolons here and there that could just as easily be full stops...I think we are over the white line with a Support from me (the above are minor quibbles) - entertaining read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have spotchecks for accurate representation of sources and copyvio/parphrasing been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LIZA FRIDAY: His mother gave me a small silver football boot and insisted I wore it, which I did, around my waist.

ROD LEWINGTON: At his wedding he invited everybody he could possibly think of. There must have been two hundred people there. It was on a Sunday and Robin turned up in a brown velvet suit, a tigerskin sort of shirt, open at the neck, and snakeskin boots. Southern TV cameras were there and Robin sat on the steps of the church and rolled a joint in front of them. Everyone was smoking. The bride showed up. We went into the church and the whole congregation was laughing because of the smoke. The vicar was laughing because he thought, 'What a happy congregation.' But they were all out of their brains. Then we went to the reception in Watlington Street, the grounds of a big old house there. And Robin was rolling these joints and handing them out to the relations, all these elderly aunts and uncles. By half past one that afternoon there wasn't a sober person there. They were either pissed or completely out of it. All these old women had their skirts tucked into their knickers and were jumping around the lawn and I just don't know what the vicar thought. I have been to a few weddings but never one like that.
Reading Evening Post, 8 August 1976
It's been quite a week of contract signing for Reading soccer star Robin Friday. After signing a new contract with the Elm Park club, Robin entered into a quite different one one with Liza Deimel on Saturday. Robin and Liza, both 24, were married in a church as his colleagues beat Charlton in a pre-season friendly. Liza was given away by her father, Mr Whithold Deimel, wearing a full-length cream dress with a small silver football boot hanging from her waist. She carried orchids. The Reading venue was kept secret but the road outside the church was still packed with people. Robin will shortly be starting his third season with Reading. The couple had a short honeymoon in Amsterdam and Robin was back at Elm Park today to continue training. The couple will be setting up home in Tilehurst Road.

LIZA FRIDAY: The wedding was the most hilarious thing ever. They came in their droves from London, they nicked all their wedding presents, they started beating each other up. Everybody was sitting around smoking dope, anything that had wedding paper on it went. By the time the whole thing was over we'd been stripped. My mother was going, 'I don't believe this.' We went to Amsterdam for our honeymoon and someone had given Robin a big lump of dope for a wedding present. I think loads of people did, because I was saying, 'These people haven't given us a present,' and he had pockets full of dope. When we got to Amsterdam airport he was speeding and he was paranoid. So he put all the dope in his mouth because he thought we were going to be searched – but he was also chewing gum. We spent the night – my wedding night – trying to separate the dope from the chewing gum and the more he tried to separate it the more it got on his fingers and the more aggravated he got. Some honeymoon. The next day we went on one of those canal boats and he was off looking for drugs within five minutes.

— The Greatest Footballer You Never Saw, pp. 140–141


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More