January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [1].

Nikolai Kulikovsky[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short article on a minor figure: the cavalry officer second husband of Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia, who escaped revolutionary Russia and lived in exile in Denmark and Canada. DrKiernan (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - 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. (Earwig's tool showed a possible violation at http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Nikolai_Kulikovsky but I'm pretty sure I've run across this as a scraper site before, but it wouldn't load at all for me when I tried to check this) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wikipedia mirror. See Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks/Abc#Absolute Astronomy. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you been unable to find an image of the subject? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did searches at the Library of Congress, Library and Archives Canada and National Portrait Gallery; I couldn't find any. The ones available from websites or scanned from books are not provably free, and most likely are not. DrKiernan (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The simple act of copying them is not grounds for copyright, if the original image was taken published before 1923, then they should be okay to use Fasach Nua (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Published before 1923. J Milburn (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a fair use image would do? Eisfbnore talk 19:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: A very thorough article which does not seem to miss out too much. One or two little niggles.

  • Thanks, I've made some changes [2]. The rumor among the "peasants", according to Olga, was that Nicholas OK'd the annulment because Oldenburg was a German name. I haven't added that yet, as I'd like to check it further. I'm going to check the death sentences passed by the Crimean Soviets too, but IIRC there was a turf war between them and neither would accept the authority of the other. DrKiernan (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rumor is the only thing I've found on the annulment. Nicholas doesn't seem to have recorded the detail of why he changed his mind. I've changed the death sentence bit to something hopefully clearer [3]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on this article, a very interesting read. Switched to support now. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Maxim(talk) 02:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copy edit. On your specific points:
  • It's Julian. This is in the article as a hidden comment.
  • I was unable to find proof that the photographs were published before 1923.
  • I've amended the ugly footnotes.
  • Those changes are great, thanks. I'll get to Sarastro1's other comments later today or tomorrow.
  • There are some Russian sources listed at the Russian wikipedia article on his son, but I didn't think they provided any relevant new information for this article, on Kulikovsky senior. DrKiernan (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good. A well-written, engaging article. Maxim(talk) 01:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — the following three sentences at the end of the third paragraph of the Marriage and revolution section are unreferenced: On 12 August 1917, Olga and Kulikovsky's first child and son, Tikhon, was born in the Crimea. He was named after one of the Grand Duchess's favorite saints, Tikhon of Zadonsk. Although the grandson of an emperor and the nephew of another, Tikhon received no titles because his father was a commoner. Maybe the son's naming doesn't need a citation, according to WP:BLUE, but the first line with the birth date and the third with the title allegation certainly do. Eisfbnore talk 19:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a reference that covers the first and second sentences, since the second sentence says "favorite saint" which ought to have a citation. DrKiernan (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Support now. Eisfbnore talk 21:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. DrKiernan (talk) 10:25, 26 January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [4].

Ian Dougald McLachlan[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating this for featured article because it's about time I got back back into things following months away due to travel commitments -- we'll see if I still have the knack... ;-) Aside from his accomplishments as a leader of men, this chap seems to have had a penchant for foreseeing unpalatable events -- at least on two occasions, which I'll let people new to the article discover for themselves... This is currently GA, and A-Class in MilHist and Aviation projects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources and citations look OK, copyvio spotchecking fine. Just one small query re Ref 5: Why not use this url to go directly to McLaclan's service record? Brianboulton (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. The 2 nla.gov.au links are redirecting. --PresN 19:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. I copyedited this recently; my notes are on the article's talk page. I didn't mention the single quotes when I copyedited, because I avoid arguments about what is and isn't good British English (or MOS-compliant British English). - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Support No comments other than I enjoyed the interesting read and prose. References, images and especially research look good as well. This would make a great FA.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:22, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well-written, well-cited, and comprehensive. This is an excellent small biography and a good read that appears to meet all of the FA creteria. --Coemgenus 18:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, Norty, Coemgenus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:28, 28 January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [5].

M-6 (Michigan highway)[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A freeway that was 32 years in the making, it is almost cat-like in how many times the project had been resurrected. Of course, I think the article meets the criteria. Imzadi 1979 → 00:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the Brit reader, it might be worth linking "township" to Township (United States) (assuming that's the correct definition) - we don't use the word here.
  • The highway ran from US 41 at Phoenix to north to Eagle River. - is there a mistake in this sentence - I can't understand what it means.
  • What does "Phase III section" refer to in "Earlier designation"? Which freeway would have been left discontinuous - I696 or M-6? There's also a distinction between "completion of the segment" and "Phase III completion" which I don't understand - what is the segment? The whole paragraph leaves me confused as to what happened.
  • The idea dates back to the 1960s - can this be expanded on? It would be nice to know when exactly and whose idea, if the info is available.
  • A second citizens group - second to which group? Which other groups were they supplementing?
  • MDOT hired a new consultant - is the name of this new consultant public? Just seems odd to mention BKI by name but be vague over this one.
Entertaining story about bureaucratic nightmares! Article looked good on initial readthrough, so hopefully this can get to FA. Thanks, Trebor (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is the correct term, and since I guess it wouldn't be too general of a term after all, I'm happy to link it. The only problem with linking "township" is that all of the uses are either in proper names, next to linked names, or 3/4 of the way down the article. I'm open to any thoughts on how to fix this without inserting awkward text just to provide a link location.
  • Fixed.
  • I edited that paragraph to remove all references to the phase numbers.
  • No specific years for or originators of the freeway concept are given in the sources.
  • The first group formed is the "South Belt Local Advisory Board". This second group is the South Belt Citizens Committee. That should be clarified now.
  • I can double check the older newspaper articles, but I do not recall them having the name, or I would have listed it already. Only one of the articles in only one place mentioned it, but it's been added to the article now.
Hopefully this addresses your concerns. Imzadi 1979 → 03:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good (disclaimer: I can't check the sources and I can't comment on comprehensiveness). Trebor (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - 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 16:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I have reviewed this article several times now, and do not see an issue with promoting the article to Featured Article status. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good article that meets the criteria otherwise. --Rschen7754 20:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All should be fixed now. Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Continuing east, the beltline curves to the southeast and into the cloverleaf interchange complex at US 131.[3][4][5] This "mammoth" interchange stretches over a mile (1.6 km), encompassing 27 bridges and 18 retaining walls. This makes it the largest freeway interchange in Western Michigan.[6]"
This reads fine... but the way that this measurement is taken is not very clear. Generally interchanges are measured by the area they occupy. This appears to be a measurement of the linear lane-mileage throughout the area of the interchange. The scale I'm gathering from the picture certainly doesn't seem to indicate that 'over a mile' of M-6 passes through the cloverleaf interchange either. Could you clarify exactly what is being measured? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The interchange is being measured by freeway lane miles in the newspaper article. (No area measurement is given.) In looking at the aerial photo (File:US 131, M-6, 68th St interchange.jpg), the M-6 freeway and the C-D lanes cross over Clyde Park Avenue on the west and the C-D lanes don't merge back into the M-6 mainline on the east until Division Avenue off the right of the photo. Clyde Park and Division are a mile apart. in the north–south direction, the C-D lanes split off US 131 south of 68th Street (the overpass at the bottom of the photo) and merge back to US 131 to become the exit lane for the 54th Street interchange at the top of the photo. 68th Street and 54th Street are also a mile apart. (In Kent County, there are eight east–west streets to the mile, and the major north-south streets are also a mile apart.) I hope this clears that up. Shall we insert a footnote or parenthetical explanatory note? Imzadi 1979 → 21:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dug out the source, and tweaked that sentence with a explanatory footnote. Imzadi 1979 → 21:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works well. I'll be back with more comments and my vote once I've finished combing through everything. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 21:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Images check out per user below and myself. Permissions cited and clear; OTRS images verified.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


In this sentence: "MDOT hosted an public open house along the unopened section of M-6 between Kalamazoo and Byron Center avenues." Isn't an open house public anyway? Also, "a" seems more appropriate than "an" in the sentence as it is now. Regarding the 2011 inflation numbers, I used a CPI inflation calculator for Grand Coulee Dam in which a FAC reviewer, Fifelfoo, informed me that CPI was not a good measure for a national GDP expenditure. Given M-6 is a state expenditure, I thought I'd ask or point you in Fifeloo's direction if you want to double-check the numbers anyway. Their explanation about it (a little above my economic knowledge) is in the beginning of the Grand Coulee Dam FAC. Other than that, the article was a great read and I support its promotion. I remember reviewing its DYK nom back in September.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:35, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's kill two birds with one stone and drop the errant "public" from that sentence (which restores the "an" next to "open house"). :-) As for the inflationary stuff, I'll just comment it all out for now. When the economics gurus fix the template or create a new one, the article can be changed. Thanks for the review and good luck with your article! Imzadi 1979 → 10:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, good luck to you as well!--NortyNort (Holla) 10:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion may open a can of worms as to how accurate those inflation calculators need to be. First, it would be both impossible and futile to come up with a truly accurate figure, given that construction methodologies change. It would be difficult to impossible to try to price obsolete methods and materials. I was under the impression that inflation adjusted figures were intended to give context to the reader when they see a price that would otherwise seem absurdly high or low, not give an accurate estimate of how much it would cost to build an identical structure today. This is similar to a currency conversion figure for a single mention of yen or yuan in an article otherwise using US dollars. As there are several examples of common items that are expensive in one country, but cheap in another, it's common sense that a currency conversion is an "average" and that an accurate figure is impossible. For the record, in my articles, I started out using an inflation calculator on the US Dept. of Labor's website, until I learned that someone had created an in-line template for inflation based on the CPI. Dave (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Dave, but until the economic gurus figure out a fix, it is better to comment out the inflationary conversions for the moment and restore them to the article at a later date when the situation is resolved. Using the comments at the Grand Coolee Dam FAC, the different methods give quite different results. Converting $163 million in 1932 is either $2.536 billion (CPI, method used by the template), $2.560 billion (Measured Worth), or $39.200 billion (GDP relative share). The first two are close enough for me, but the third figure is quite different. I've put in a request on the template's talk page to resolve the issue. I'm hoping that we can update the template so that the calculation method can be specified. If so, I'll update the article and remove the tags that are hiding the numbers. Imzadi 1979 → 21:59, 24 January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [6].

Psilocybe semilanceata[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe semilanceata is, according to the world's foremost authority on psychedelic mushrooms, the most common psilocybin-containing mushroom, so I figured Wikipedia should have a decent page about the species. I have tweaked the article to the point of diminishing returns, and think it's ready for FAC. Sasata (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oh, look. I return to FAC source checks and there is a mushroom! I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! I need to get you to do more reviews so you'll quite catching up to me...

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 17:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Ealdgyth. The cybertruffle site times out for me sometimes during the day, but I usually don't have problems when I connect at night. I promise to submit to FAC this year an article that's not about a mushroom! Sasata (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess: a yeast? Ucucha 20:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A mycologist! J Milburn (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so one-dimensional in real life (no, really). It'll be something completely different, I swear! Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a chess player if we ever get off our lazy asses... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Try a battleship. You won't regret it, I promise. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • There isn't anything specific to this species that couldn't also be added to the 200-ish other psychedelic mushrooms, so I decided not to put anything more about that than the See also links. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my knowledge, there haven't been any good molecular studies that have focussed specifically on defining the phylogenetic relationships within Psilocybe. A couple of publications have used P. semilanceata as a canonical Psilocybe in the context of a large-scale analysis to clarify familial or ordinal relationships within Agaricales/Agaricomycetes. The only other real candidate is a pub from 2004 PMID 15036436 that got ambiguous results, and wasn't even really about phylogeny (more about finding a way to use PCR for rapid detection of hallucinogenic mushrooms). So I didn't include it. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is good, and the article appears pretty comprehensive—as usual. I'll have a look through the long list of Web of Science results. Ucucha 20:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much Ucucha. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Yes! I was looking forward to this coming here, it's definitely a species worthy of a featured article in terms of importance. Taking a read through.

Pretty fantastic article. Brilliant research. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) 01:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a detailed review JM! Sasata (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Willing to trust your judgement where our opinions differ. Happy to support. Lovely and important article, definitely worthy of FA status. J Milburn (talk) 11:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SmartSE (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can't see any more problems, so I will support for the first time ever. SmartSE (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your comments and support, J Milburn and SmartSE (and glad to have broken your "support virginity", SmartSE); I have taken the liberty of moving the resolved comments to the archive talk, as collapsible boxes should be avoided at FAC (see under "Supporting and opposing" in the instructions). Sasata (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Hey mate! Happy to see that you're still churning out mushroom articles. I intend to do a prose review to try to perfect the readability of the article (what is a "destabilizing name change"?), and perhaps a literature search to make more work for you :P. One quick structural comment: Regarding the phrase "The legal status of psilocybin mushrooms varies worldwide.", it seems odd to me that the section only gives two examples of national legal statuses. Surely there are other countries worth mentioning, no? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some revenge reviewing? I look forward to it! I'll see what I can do about the legality section... on the one hand I don't want to expand this too much, as it's best left to the main article, but now that you point it out, yeah its Anglo-centric the way it is now. Will fix soon. Sasata (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A quick check with Google Scholar shows several publications about P. semilanceata that aren't used by this article. They seem to be coming from chromatography journals, so here are the results for "psilocybe semilanceata chromatography". I am happy to believe that some of these contain information that is already covered in the intro paragraph for Psychoactive use, though I find it curious that the sentence "Several studies since then support the idea that the variability of psilocybin content in P. semilanceata is low, regardless of country of origin." is followed by a single reference.
That brings me to my next point: I find it somewhat disconcerting that the reference Magic Mushrooms Around the World was published by Knockabout Comics. Have you seen their website? This does not seem like the type of company that would be able to put together a rigorous scientific book. While such a publication might be useful for verifying the impact of the mushroom on popular culture, I don't think it should be used for purely scientific claims. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the one hand, the author of a book is more responsible for its content than the publisher. On the other hand, if this guy is a real scientist, why didn't he work with a real publisher? Regardless, I'm satisfied with your courses of action. I have begun a prose review located here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I dug into this a bit more, and discovered I had the publisher wrong. I got the publisher info from Amazon (which I usually check so I can copy the isbn before pasting it into diberri's citation template tool), but they have the publisher incorrect ... it's "LIS publications" in Los Angeles, not Knockabout comics in London. Should have just looked in the front cover. Turns out the book is a translation of a 1993 German publication. Sasata (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, fancy that. Feel free to revert the changes you made under the assumption that the book was published by Knockabout. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:06, 20 January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [7].

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail[edit]

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The smaller of two rail trails created from the defunct Wallkill Valley Railroad's corridor, the Walden – Wallkill Rail Trail stretches between two counties in upstate New York. While not as widely known as the larger, northern trail, it nonetheless sports a peaceful and scenic route, all its own. The trail was finally paved less than two years ago, much to the chagrin of the region's horseback riders. Gyrobo (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – Spot-checked a good number of the online sources for verification and close paraphrasing, and everything turned up fine. Did find a couple little formatting issues, though:

Source reliability also looks okay. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Gyrobo (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images - I would like an WP:OTRS for File:P_train.svg, and the works it is derived from Fasach Nua (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a portal image, so this really isn't the right place to discuss that. A more appropriate venue would be the related Wikiproject. The SVG version of the file appears to be a complete recreation based only on the general shape of the original (there are many design differences), and I see no reason to do anything about the original PNG; both images are purportedly original works placed on Wikipedia by their authors and I don't think OTRS extends that far.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on FA Criterion 3. Images used in this article that are licensed as free cannot be verified to be in the public domain, 18:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Which images are you talking about?
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:P_train.svg Fasach Nua (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I can't act on your comments. The image isn't part of the article, it's in a portal. I have no idea how to change the image the portal uses, nor would I want to. Both the raster and vector versions of that image were created for Wikipedia, and were placed under free licenses by their original authors.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Utter fail Nothing to action on this oppose. If you can't accept File:P train.svg as a good faith upload, it says more about the reviewer than it does the licensing of the image. Having the uploader send an email to OTRS saying "Yes, I actually made this image", makes no difference whatsoever. 87.114.237.192 (talk) 01:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The oppose is clearly actionable, the addition of this content was an editorial decision made by the author's of this article, and it's inclusion is an integral part of the FA assessment, as for the "utter failure" comment, the requirement of FAC is that all content will pass verifiability and the licensing of this image fails that component of the FA criteria and as such the article falls short of the requirements of FA. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
File:LogoOV.png was placed into the public domain by its original author, and File:P train.svg was placed under a free license by its original author. If you have evidence that either image is non-free, please present it; P train.svg is being used on every train-related talk page, and every other page that links to Portal:Trains. You are completely misrepresenting the purpose of WP:V, and your cryptic comments on this FAC are bordering on disruptive.
--Gyrobo (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to assume bad faith on Commons uploads, then how would an OTRS email placate you? That could just as easily be bad faith. Heck, maybe Gyrobo's lying and he's actually stolen File:Wallkill trailhead.jpg. Take this to commons. - hahnchen 00:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This conversation about the portal image continues in great detail here. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support The prose reads well, and the article's references are very tidy (and many ;)). --Eisfbnore talk 20:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, four minutes after you edited the article, you edited a smiley template, and one minute after that you added it to this FAC. Please see the instructions at WP:FAC regarding templates-- they cause the FAC archives to pass template limits. How much time did you spend reviewing the article-- tidy references are a minor part of the criteria. Since your account is less than a month old, I thought it helpful to point you to the criteria. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you trying to say that my vote was "wrong", since I used a smiley template?! Also, didn't you read my comment on the prose? Why do you erect such straw men? And just for the record, my account was established in October 2009... --Eisfbnore talk 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what the fault is, but I've eliminated the spaces before and after the en dash (range issue?). I'm not aware of any areas where it doesn't meet the FA criteria; that's why I've nominated it. --Gyrobo (talk) 21:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The brochures available at kiosks at both trailheads have "Walden - Wallkill (vertical text) Rail Trail (horizontal text)" plastered on the cover page, but I agree with your concerns over the trail's name. It was paved out to Walden less than two years ago, and you can see a series of page moves I made while trying to discern its common name. Scans of the brochure (without the cover) are here, where it's only referred to as "The Rail Trail". But "Jesse McHugh Rail Trail" referred only to the portion in the town of Shawangunk; the current trail includes that but continues much farther. I can't think of a better name than "Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail".
    --Gyrobo (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1) "By October 2003, Walden, Shawangunk and Montgomery had acquired a $600,000 grant." perhaps could be changed to "In October 2003, Walden, Shawangunk and Montgomery acquired the $600,000 grant needed to begin paving the trail." or similar.
2) "The outgoing 109th Congress did not approve a 2006 budget bill which would have provided $200,000 to pave the trail." to "However, further financial support failed to materialize when the outgoing 109th Congress did not approve a 2006 budget bill which would have provided $200,000 to pave the trail."
3) "In February 2008, Congressman Maurice Hinchey announced the appropriation of $351,000 to complete the project" to "On the other hand, in February 2008, Congresman Maurice..."
4) "Construction began on September 22, 2008" to "Construction at last began on..."
5) Lastly, I believe the two last paragraphs in the History section (the one that begins with "By October 2003, Walden" and the other that starts with "The outgoing 109th Congress") should be put together as one paragraph only. With the changes I suggested, it would be like this:
"In October 2003, Walden, Shawangunk and Montgomery acquired the $600,000 grant needed to begin paving the trail. Two months later, Bob and Doris Kimball, a couple in Montgomery, donated 20 acres (8.1 ha) of their land to create a park by the trail near Lake Osiris Road. The park is expected to be developed once funds are available to do so. However, further financial support failed to materialize when the outgoing 109th Congress did not approve a 2006 budget bill which would have provided $200,000 to pave the trail. On the other hand, in February 2008, Congressman Maurice Hinchey announced the appropriation of $351,000 to complete the project. Construction at last began on September 22, 2008, and the paved 3.22-mile (5.18 km) trail opened on May 2, 2009."
The way it is now, looks like separate pieces of text that were put together. Just suggestions. P.S.: Don't mind with the image copyright discussion. It's not the first time something similar occurs. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 26 January 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 Laser brain 03:55, 31 January 2011 [8].

Action of 1 January 1800[edit]

Nominator(s): XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has passed a milhist a-class review, is complete in its scope and i believe it meets all the critera for a Featured article.XavierGreen (talk) 23:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Support Looks like a good article. I have just a few quibbles:

--Coemgenus 13:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Sources comment: All sources look good, though no verification checks possible. One slight nitpick: for consistency, publisher locations should be given in all or no cases, not in some while not others. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikilinking in lead could probably include Bight, Leogane, schooner (all of which I had to look up), but possibly not United States naval (partly because I don't think it's necessary, but it also avoids the confusion of 3 successive wikilinks; alternatively it could be rephrased).
  • jumped into the sea and hid in the hold - change to "or" (I assume they didn't do both)?
Other than that, it looks good (although I can't comment on sources or comprehensiveness). Trebor (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made the changes you requested and your edits look good to me, thanks for your review!XavierGreen (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support, mostly on prose - an interesting if short article. I'm not yet supporting fully because, while I find few grammatical errors, the prose still seems a bit awkward, particularly in "Background" but more generally throughout the article. Other concerns:

This looks good, but I haven't been through it thoroughly. A few things at the top.

  1. Double-adjective hyphen required: "present-day Haitian island". What is present-day about it? Did the island rise in a volcanic event recently? Was it part of another jurisdiction in 1800? Bit unclear. The double item occurs at least once below, too. What happens if you just remove it?
    Well Haiti didnt exist in 1800, there was a different polity in the area named Saint-Domingue. Since most people wont know what that is ive rewritten the sentence to help fix the issue.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Caption in infobox pic: did you do the sketch? If not, could you supply just scant details, like the year, etc.?
    I've added the author and year.XavierGreen (talk)
  3. Consider an optional comma before "they still ...". It's quite a long sentence.
    Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. WP:MOSDASH: 400–500 unspaced.
    Done.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "Only once Rigaud was forced out of power by the forces of Toussaint L'Ouverture did the picaroon attacks cease." The marked theme (grammatically) is effective here, as the final breath of the lead.
    Id be glad to try and fix this, but i dont know exactly what a marked theme is.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. "the new administrators were extremely fractious"—you might consider removing the attitudinal epithet ("extremely"). Does it do much?
    I removed it.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. amongST is rather old-fashioned nowadays. Like whilST.
    I dont think its as old fashioned as whilst, i use amongst regularly in writing for everyday use. But im fine with either one so i changed it.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What's the deal with external links to books on the Google books site, which has links to its chosen on-sellers, but no peekies inside the book? Might readers be irritated to learn that this external link doesn't verify, but others go to URLs that contain whole texts? (I've been out of FAC circulation for a while.) Ref 3.
    They work for me, but ive heard people having problems with google books links in the past. I think whether or not they can be seen by an individual depends on what country they are in and the associated publication rights.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Underuse of commas, in my view. Like "As for armament the Haitian craft were each equipped with ...". This kind of "announced theme", here an adverbial group, is often followed by a comma to avoid the juddering of two noun goups. Normally marked off in speech, too. And previous sentence, "40 to 50 men each in".
    I fixed the example you pointed out.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "becalmed in the bight"—I googled it. James Cooper wrote this word-string to describe the same scenario. I see also that other authors have used the word-string. How long and distinctive can a word-string be before it is plagiarism? I'm unsure of the answer; it may be ok. Tony (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your review! Like you said many authors have used the term when talking about this battle and also in different situations, for example there are several books that pop up when doing a google search of the term that mention a vessel being becalmed in the bight of benin. Anyone can become becalmed in a bight, all they need is for the wind to stop blowing while they are sailing through one.XavierGreen (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support per standard disclaimer. My one remaining question above concerns "in a piratical manner". - Dank (push to talk) 22:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport

Your text: The action would prove controversial in the United States as several officers' reports suggested that Lieutenant Maley had shown cowardice during the engagement. Lieutenant Porter stated that Maley was insistent on surrendering to the picaroons immediately upon their arrival. It was alleged that Maley thought the situation was hopeless due to the sheer number of forces the pro-French Haitians threw against the convoy. The officers' reports also commended Porter, stating that had he not acted on his own initiative and urged the crew to fight on and ignore Maley's convictions, that Experiment and her whole convoy would have been lost - Soley doesn't really support what you said here because it doesn't tell us which desperate encounter it was - maybe a different biography of Porter has a better account of this action? Kirk (talk) 14:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ive added an addition source to back up my text, since this is the only naval battle Maley ever fought there is no doubt as to what Soley is refering to. I also added some text reffering to the fact that not all of the american officals agreed with porter.XavierGreen (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could probably use Allen 146/147 in addition or instead of Soley (its the only citation for that source) but that addresses my concern, thanks. Kirk (talk) 20:07, 24 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [9].

C. R. M. F. Cruttwell[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor, unfortunate Crutters! A respected academic historian, fine war record, dean of an Oxford college at 33 – what could go wrong? Well, in 1922 he had the misfortune to meet, and fall out with, the young Evelyn Waugh, a resourceful and unforgiving enemy. For the next 17 years the name "Cruttwell" was introduced repeatedly into Waugh's novels and stories, always as a nasty or ridiculous character – a burglar, a homicidal maniac, a toady, a dishonest cubmaster. Followers of Waugh scanned each new novel to see how Cruttwell would be represented, as did Cruttwell himself. His various academic publications and achievements are almost entirely forgotten, and the man behind them has quite disappeared; he is only remembered as a comic literary footnote. The poor fellow eventually went mad. This sad and cautionary little tale (don't make war on Waughs!) has been well peer-reviewed, and I hope it will be read and enjoyed here. I believe that in this case, use of the non-free image of Cruttwell (the only photo of him that has ever been published, it seems) is justified. Brianboulton (talk) 15:37, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support all of my comments were addressed, where appropriate at the PR. I have nothing new to add. Well deserving of promotion. Very quirky, but a nice fun article.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General

Lede

Early life and career

Hertford College

Later years

Reputation

wackywace 17:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images Why is an Image from 90 years ago, published in the UK used under a non-free license rather than Template:PD-UK? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have switched the license to PD-UK per your comment. I assumed because it was published after 1923, it was still copyrighted in the US (where Wikipedia's servers are located). Thanks for the clarification. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rationale yet that the image is free in the U.S., which is the foremost concern here. I believe one can certainly say the image will be PD in the U.S. by 2020 (95 years after being published, extended until the end of the year), but it could be free already under certain other conditions we can't glean from the image page (like the original 1924 publication lacking U.S. formalities, see foreign work parts of [10] and [11]). Perhaps reinstate the non-free use rationale to be sure? Hekerui (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it seems to me the photo is either free or not, I have added back the Fair Use rationale to the image page per your suggestion, with a note that this is to cover its probable copyright status in the US. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something is either free in the U.S. or not and something is either free in the UK or not. You made that distinction by leaving the PD-UK template on the image page. Good. Hekerui (talk) 16:24, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read this article several times and can't find anything wrong with it. Very well written and comprehensive. Spot checks from online sources are all good. Just a couple of queries:

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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [12].

Carousel (musical)[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), JeanColumbia (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria (it's passed GA and been worked over extensively by someone other than the conoms). Carousel may be the most beautiful musical ever written; we will not disagree with Time magazine, naming it the best of the century. We're talking about a musical which had such songs in it as "If I Loved You", "June is Bustin' Out All Over", and the R&H song which has perhaps had the greatest single impact, "You'll Never Walk Alone". Enjoy. Curtain up. Wehwalt (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the basis for the claim "The image cannot be replaced by a free image, since all cover art for all of the musical's albums are copyrighted." on File:Carousel_1945_Bdwy.jpg Fasach Nua (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they are, aren't they? Certainly the main productions.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The R&H organization has not let any copyrights on the show lapse, as far as I know; they license the show, and all album art, poster art, programme covers, promotional photos, etc. will continue to be copyrighted for many more years. So, there are no free equivalents. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, even in their lifetimes, R&H were very good at making sure they got both sides of a dime, and their heirs seem to have kept that up very well indeed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. File:Carousel 1945 Bdwy.jpg Resolution is too high (300x300 recommended). Please format the rationale into ((Album cover fur)) or ((Non-free use rationale)) to ensure all elements of WP:NFCC are addressed.
  2. File:Shankly Gates.jpg - the author is listed as "Andy Nugent", but the file was uploaded by someone else at Commons, who gave it a "self" license. A Flickr source is given for the photo which contains a non-commercial license. Please straighten out licensing issues (you might have to get an admin to look at the original deleted file).I'll fix this myself. Kelly hi! 20:32, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has reduced the size of the image.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A classy article about a classy musical. I raised numerous points in sandbox discussions with the first-named nominator, and these were all satisfactorily resolved. As I come from Liverpool, I am familiar with at least one of the songs, though it was generally sung there as a repetitive chant: "Walk on, walk on, with hope in your hearts, and you'll never walk alone, you'll NE....VER... walk alooooone..." ad infinitum. Brianboulton (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Out of curiosity, do people in Liverpool know where it came from, or do they simply think it was invented by the football club (I was at Anfield once, but don't remember whether or not they sang it, I was sitting in the opposing section so it could have been drowned out).--Wehwalt (talk) 18:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the fans certainly treat it as a football chant, with no words other than those given above, but I've not discussed the issue with them. The film of Carousel has of course been shown in Liverpool many times, so I reckon most people are aware the song wasn't composed by Bill Shankly. (I left Liverpool a long time ago) Brianboulton (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Declaration of interest: I reviewed and promoted the article to GA a few weeks ago. It seemed to me FA quality then, and seems so still more now. I express no view on the images, about which I defer to the specialists, but on all other FAC criteria the article seems to me to qualify fully. It is well-balanced, well-referenced, and a pleasure to read, even to one like me who rather dislikes the show. (On the point in the immediately preceding entry, even my diehard and genetically-programmed adherence to Everton F.C. cannot overcome my admiration for this article, and I believe that "You'll Never Walk Alone" was taken up by that shower from the other side of Stanley Park almost by accident – there was, if I recall aright, a whole series of hits by Gerry Marsden of Gerry and the Pacemakers, performed at Anfield in the 1960s, but it was YNWA that somehow stuck. Enough!) Tim riley (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Disclaimer - I have reviewed this article many times and copy-edited it twice; I have also made numerous editorial suggestions and various other edits. I think the nominators have done an excellent job of researching, expanding and improving this article, and they have responded thoroughly to my many comments, questions and suggestions. I believe that the article satisfies the FA criteria and support its promotion. I would also note that Carousel is the most important musical nominated to date for FA consideration - arguably one of the most important musicals ever written, and I thank the nominators for taking the initiative to expand, improve and ultimately bring it up for FAC. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

This is an update to the explanation I gave in response to the same question at the Noel Coward FAC:
John Kenrick, its author and curator, is a well-known, well-published theatre historian. He founded the site in 1996 and built it gradually over the next dozen years. At the WP musical theatre project, we cite to this extensive and excellent website frequently. Hundreds of libraries, universities and arts sites link to musicals101. Kenrick teaches musical theatre history at New York University's Steinhardt School. BroadwayWorld/com calls him an "Internationally recognized musical theatre and film authority" and mentions his "acclaimed" York Theatre Company lecture series here. His publications include the books The Complete Idiot's Guide to Amateur Theatricals (2006), and Musical Theatre: A History (2008). His article "Theatre in New York: A Brief History" appears in the textbook Theatre Law: Cases and Materials (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2004). Here is a NY Daily News article citing Kenrick as an authority. Kenrick has appeared in several documentaries about musicals. See also his rather extensive bio at Amazon.com, which states that musicals101.com received (in 2007, at the time Amazon published that bio) 15,000 visits per month. Kenrick is also lecturing on musical theatre, including R&H, at Philadelphia University of the Arts, Brind School. See also these reactions to the site. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise sources all look good. Limited spotchecking reveals no problems. Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I know people differ on this one, my feeling is that references that are only use minimally do not need to be in the bibliography. I've shifted the Easton book there, as the reference is used five times, but as the others are used only once (in one case twice, but in consecutive sentences), I feel they do not need to be in the bibiliography, as they are being relied on minimally, and putting them in the biblio might be deceiving the reader, who might expect a lot of info about Carousel in there if they were to obtain the book. Regarding Ref 91, the reviewer is very well known, but I have asked Ssilvers, who is more familiar with it, to reply, if not, I'll speak more to the issue. All others are done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that Ssilver's kind answer satisfied Brian, I see three supports and no opposes, with all checks done. "Walk on, walk on ..."--Wehwalt (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You can still have hope in your heart. Brianboulton (talk) 09:53, 21 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [13].

William Warelwast[edit]

Nominator(s): Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC), Malleus Fatuorum[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it's time for a different bishop! But we're dealing with a different diocese this time... Bishop of Exeter! This little diocese isn't exactly the richest of the various medieval English sees, in fact, it ranks well down the list on revenues. Warelwast worked hard for his not-so-rich-plum - he served two kings before the second king finally rewarded him with a bishopric. To get there, he had to be pretty nasty to a future Doctor of the Church, as well as doing a lot of other traveling and diplomatic work for two of William the Conqueror's sons, who just happen to be two of the more ruthless English kings ever. Warelwast eventually went blind before his death, and a medieval chronicler claimed that this was punishment from God for Warelwast's behaviour. Yet another bad-boy bishop, although he was mostly a bad-boy before becoming a bishop. As usual, it's had a very nice peer review, as well as a thorough copy-edit by Malleus - who should be credited as a co-nom. (Who I hopefully correctly added as a co-nom, if I screwed it up, can someone fix it please?) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through-

Generally looking good. Well written and appears to be well researched. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Linked.
  2. No article for Blake.
  3. Augustinian and canon are linked in the sentence before, and Augustian is linked to what Augustinian canon would link to.
  4. Will double check on this, but pretty sure it isn't given in the source (I could be wrong!)
  5. Don't think my source names them, quite honestly, but will double check.
  6. I've added in "elder" in the last sentence, to make it clear that we're talking about the article subject. There just isn't much ON either Warelwast, so that's pretty much the consensus on him, "the ultimate royal servant", pretty much. I could add a few more quotes, perhaps, but they'd basically be repeating themselves. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On #4 - yes, my source doesn't say. However, on #5, it does name the churches, so will add that in. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "William Warelwast (or William de Warelwast[1]) (died 1137)" - can we lose the back-to-back brackets somehow?
  • Bohemond's "crusade" should perhaps be in parentheses, or "so-called", since it was only ever intended to be against the Byzantines, which even in 1107 was seen as a bit much.
  • Things one might usefully spell out: Whatever his exact DOB, WW was one of the first generation of Normans to grow up after the Conquest. The Exeter diocese then included Cornwall.
  • "to the see of Winchester, Roger of Salisbury to the see of Salisbury, Reynelm to the see of Hereford, and Urban to the see of Llandaff.[26]" - pipe 'em!
  • some links missing: Rouen, Troyes, last rites, Exeter, ?Cornwall, Devonshire, maybe to the "death" section of William II.
  • In the absence of a pic of WW, one might add one of one of the kings. File:Worcester.dream.jpg has some bishops & clergy in it & is contemporary-ish and somewhat relevant.
1. Fixed.
2. Changed to "...attempting to secure support for [[Bohemond I of Antioch|Bohemond of Antioch]]'s proposed [[Bohemond I of Antioch#Wars between Antioch and the Byzantine Empire|campaign]] against [[Byzantium]]." which should be better.
3. Unfortunately, neither of my main sources for his life (ODNB and the Blake article) speculate on his being part of the first Norman generation, so I'm not comfortable with speculating that he was indeed part of this generation. Any suggestions on where to include the information that Cornwall was part of Exeter?
He died 71 years after the conquest, and had a significant job 20 or whatever years after it, so it seems more like arithmetic than speculation to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not comfortable doing that. We aren't sure he grew up in England, or Normandy... I'm afraid that'd leave things too open to charges of original research. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Err... they are linked, what are you wanting piped?
"see of"s in a row looks clumsy to me. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
changed them all to "so-and-so to place-name", is that what you had in mind? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I wasn't clearer. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. LInked most of these - the death section of William II is just atrocious and I don't think it adds anything as it stands.
ok. Johnbod (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Unfortunately, the link for the source information on that pic is dead, so it wouldn't pass FAC muster.
I've updated the image file with the ms details. I can never see, for something that is only ever photographed by the owner every 20 years, that the precise blog the image was taken from matters at all. See [14]
PIc added. I don't make the image rules... I just have to deal with them. I tend to agree where obviously medieval manuscripts are concerned, it's pretty silly, but... Ealdgyth - Talk 17:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly for the comments! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 18:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport: A well written and comprehensive article. Just a few queries.

If Malleus doesn't get to the rest of these, I will tonight or tomorrow. I'm kinda under a RL crunch, so busy with that for a while more. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:02, 22 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [15].

Painted turtle[edit]

Nominator(s): NYMFan69-86 (talk) and TCO (talk) 07:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The painted turtle is the most widespread, numerous, turtle of North America. The "cardinal" of state reptiles, our turtle is also beloved in British Columbia, but, there, down to its last few thousands. Rated high importance by the Wikiherps, "Painted turtle" draws 500 daily views. To reward the knowledge-seeking hordes, we've noted special features of the animal's biology (e.g. supercooled blood that resists winter freezes) and mentioned the controversies in taxonomy and commercial harvesting. Come pin the star on the turtle!TCO (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Images - I would prefer File:Turtle_crossing_sign_JPG.jpeg was tagged as freedom of panorama in Canada, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the Canadian FOP situation summary on Commons, agree it pertains and covers us, so have added the template to the file page.TCO (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Belay my last. I think we might have an issue as it is a two-dimensional image. I'm actually researching the 1985 law now, and may need to cut the image. Update coming.TCO (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update. Unless I learn differently, I'm going to cut the image in 24 hours (and remove the FOP tag and probably even get it culled from Commons); which is a shame as it is pretty and hits two different themes from the article, BC concerns AND road death). Let me leave it up for a day and see if I get any more input at Commons from experts there. I've read the Canadian statute on FOP and doubt it applies as this is not a structure. Wiki Commons policy talks about 2-D images being verboten, but I don't actually see that addressed one way or another in the Canadian statute. To me, this screams "fair use" as the idea that individuals taking a Polaroid of a traffic sign and sticking it in their sock drawer, or even newspapers publishing photos of traffic signs, are violating the law seems unlikely. That said, I think we may need to cut it to be wiki-compliant.
Let me know if you have any other advice to save the image. Finding the municipality and getting them to sign off might be an option—for the NH FG photos, I did write to NH. Hiring a lawyer for Canadian comon law review is probably too much expense for me, though. Also, if this is too much in depth discussion on the review page, not sure the protocol, we can take offline. TCO (talk) 17:30, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me the image is 3D it includes the pole and environment as well as the sign, however this may be an incorrect interpretation! It won't stand up under our fair use policy for inclusion. I shall seek advice elsewhere. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your efforts. I think it's a strong image as it was obtained from a wildlife biologist in BC, CA, and actually is designed to protect painted turtles (not some other turtles) and it is a break from all the wildlife shots (could do something hokey like a turtle on the road, or even a dead turtle, but I think the sign is more artful) and hits two points (BC issues and efforts to save pt, as well as road kill methods), plus it looks sweet. To me, seems fair use as I'm not setting up in the road sign business. Would think a newspaper would not be afraid to run the image in a story on painted turtles. But IANAL. And I realize we need to be pretty "Caeser's wife" with copyright at Wiki, especially with front page features.TCO (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just read Wikipedia:Fair use. I think I can actually make a pretty good case for the fair usage. I read the 10 pillars and think I meet them. We have permission for the photo itself, just the only issue is the design itself on the physcial sign, so the comments about "could you go get a picture yourself" don't really apply. If I make a snap will still have same problem. It's being used to illustrate a point. It's NOT competing commercially with the original use of the media. I'm not making signs myself! It's in an article, etc., etc. My inclination is to try to save the image (follow the fair use procedure and add the No Gallery and all). But let me know what you think. I will definitely cut it, and article will just be a little less "brilliant", if it risks the star.TCO (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the information you are trying to convey that cannot be conveyed using text? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not needed in the sense of a schematic diagram. I think for someone who has never seen such a sign, like me before I had, it is useful to add to the experience, to bring something home more than just words do. That it is helpful for people to process information both visually and textually. But it's definitely not critical in the sense of a schematic for a complicated machine or something. If you think we should cut it, we will.TCO (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, I don't consider "useful" to meet this Fasach Nua (talk) 21:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll just wait rest of today (had an inquiry at Commons) and see if anything comes out about the FoP or otherwise, and then if not, I'll cut the image and get it removed from Commons.TCO (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this turns out to be be free but ... Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a nice images that adds to the article but, if it has to be cut than so be it (would really like it to stay though).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks wing-man. And Fasach. I appreciate your hopes, but of course if we have to cut it, we definitely will do the right thing. I think that is how it will go down, with us cutting it. Have an inquiry in with the Canadian roads project, now, to get their experience and advice also. Let me just leave it up a sleep cycle before getting the Commons guys to scrap it. Well...at least I learned about FoP!TCO (talk) 21:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image cut, AFDed at Commons, quotebox up in place. Onwards!TCO (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various preliminary thoughts:

You are correct, I fixed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was a mistake, likely mine, based on not knowing the rule. No Wikiherp herecy. Thank you...and now I undertand where the italicizing stops. TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We've covered all the turtles that used to be in the same genera: the abstract here is basically what we talk about. As for who first called these four subspecies one species and genus, we kind of dance around it, but I'll look it up and make sure. Great comment!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% clear what the comment is saying. We cover the recent taxonomic dispute. If you think it needs more prominence, we can discuss that. But I don't think we tried to hide it. We even pushed to add two more references on the topic (one is late breaking). Essentially Shaeffer and Starkey advocate collapsing the subspecies into one, except dorsalis which they would elevate. Nothing much happened after their 2003 paper, but the 2010 turtle taxonomy committee reported on the subject with a two paragraph review of the pro and con arguments (and the comittee contains Shaeffer) and said that you could use either method (essentially "open mind"). The rest of the field is still using the classical method and that 2010 paper came out a coupla weeks ago. But, for instance protections done by Canada and Oregon are based on classical "four subspecies" breakout. All the fish and game limits in the US tend to break out by subspecies, etc. I really don't know if Shaeffer will win. And we actually only had a half a sentence on him before. But we grew that part a bit. I definitely don't think we should hide anything. But not adjuticate or try to help him "win". I've even read some of the primary literature and it's not as simple as the classicalists are fuddy duddies and Shaeffer got in and did microbiology. For one thing the chromosomal DNA tells a different story than the mitochondrial. And then the southern species does intergrade very readily. And Starkey and Shaeffer admit that it comes down to "what your species concept is". So I think we are being fair and should continue to be fair. I would very much disagree against rewriting the taxonomy within wiki though, given the majority of the field has still not changed and even the 2010 paper was only a "you can do either", not a clear verdict for Shaeffer.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One idea might be to have some sort of "featurey" boxed section for the Shaeffer 2 versus 4 debate: "The controversy rages!". That sort of thing. I'm not sure how this is done on Wiki, but it's the sort of thing you would see in a magazine article. and it allows us to give the matter a little more prominence visually, while not making us take a stance, or develop more content (I really think we have about enough, but we could add a sentence or two also, that's not biggie. Going more than a single para sounds like undue weight, though.TCO (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if that's best for an encyclopedia though (and I've personally never seen it done on wiki). I think basically what we have (maybe a little more) is just fine: we explain that even the experts haven't nailed it down 100 percent yet.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Well I think how we have it then, discussing the "4 story" in a para and then the Starkey 2 in the next para (even with a transition showing the connection!), is sweet. On the individuals who discovered and classified, let's huddle and dig into the content and see if we can make something good come from that. You know better than me.TCO (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I left a note on the talk page to get us started.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we did a set-aside like that (welcome anyone's thoughts on if this is ever done, how to do it mechanically), then we could also add the glacial theory for the subspecies. As is now, when we just have it in the section, we deliberately had that concept before the Starkey comments. Probably both could be separated and put together into a box as some sort of "point, counterpoint" thingie. What do you all think?TCO (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the individual who discovered it, thought we hit it, but we can look at that more and make that better.TCO (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. We have researched and added a new paragraph discussing the initial discoverers. Placed right before the etymology discussion as it is more related to human issues than the turtle itself. Also, easier to do it after the subspecies themselves as animals are discussed (than before).TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will rename it Ecology to match the other articles on Wiki. FYI: The initial choice was deliberate as a more precise word. "Ecology" can mean more than "what it eats and who eats it" (it is a whole subject that encompasses more than just the food chain, plus it has other connotations, plus it is a fancier word than needed. I would have called it "Predator and prey", but the danged thing is an omnivore. We had Ecology header before and changed it. That said, I think reader will be fine with Ecology and it will better match other Wikipedia articles.TCO (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with changing it too, but if we do, we would have to include all of food chain, behavior, and reproduction. Perhaps it could be called Ecology and behavior, like over at Bog turtle.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Ecology it is. the "who versus whom" concern. Better to eat than be eaten! TCO (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to merge Reproduction with "what it eats and who eats it". There is enough content for each to stand on their own as a sections. Also the behaviors are pretty different. Particularly, within "who eats it" we're not even talking about the same animal directing the action. I'm open to a discussion of why you think a different org is better, but please explain. I care a lot about the structure and huge skullsweat went into making it what I thought would be best for the reader. I don't want to change just because of "will strong oppose otherwise". What about not merging makes it a bad experience for the reader? TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current method is deliberate. We are grouping ideas into a logical thought heirarchy, a pyramid structure. If I have text before the lower level section breaks, then it needs to explain a higher level idea that encompasses the lower level ones. I could write a cheesy topic sentencey-paragraph that encompasses all the lower ideas, but I think it is low value add. Just taking a place where we had a 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 (at same level of heirarcy) and breaking the 2.1 division just so you can see running text at the 2 level is not proper organization. For instance withing distribution, they are different aspects of the idea distribition (geographic overall (range), micro-geo or stream versus forest) (habitatat), and intra-population of age and sex (pop features). So sex distribution is not a lower level explanation of geo-range, it's a part of the general idea of "Distribution". Again, let's have a dialog as I am open to learning. TCO (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing we could do is merge all the behavior-ish stuff (Repro, Ecology, Behavior) into one meta-behavior section (I could rename Behavior to be Thermo-regulation and spin off Movement to a higher level). I thought it was nicer for the reader to navigate to the separate 2 equal signs breaks, as now, and added low value to group those ideas and just make another layer. But do you think it enhances the experience? (it would just be structural, there would be no discussion of the interactions of one with the other). Another option could also be to group all the Humint typ stuff (Conserv, Use, Culture) into a meta-section. What do you think?TCO (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(added later) Not meant as any sort of argument. Just to share, since we are both structure-lovers and want things top notch. But I has a teensy discussion on this issue of empty section headers, over at MOS. Really, I think there are plusses and minuses of each approach, and just sharing this if you find it relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_118#What_is_guidance_.28or_just_opinion.29_on_details_of_section_structuring.3F
I support moving fossils into Taxonomy and renaming it "Taxonomy and evolution". Give me a sec, as I need to rewrite sentences so clear when reader has not learned about range yet.TCO (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done Moved it. I think it fits better in the context of taxonomy and evolution. Was kinda sand under my carapace. Feel good it is with other things. There was a little bit of a "geo" concept before, but I don't think it was strong enough to have it under distribution. TCO (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer to leave it Taxonomy and evolution, not Phylogeny and evolution (tiny thing). Tax is realier more precise here, as some beautiful story of branching evolution is just not understood. So Tax is more precise to the content. Also, it's an easier word for the general reader.TCO (talk)
Totally agree. And I like that fossils was move up, it fits better, as mentioned.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:48, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Little more to be done. This section has grown some, with addition of fossils and discoverers. And I'm concerned the structure is no longer strong. Going to be a sweet section, soon, but need to do some rearranging to make the reason for why one para is before the other more logical.TCO (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Rewritten section all integrated and flowin with the new discoverer content and moved fossil info.TCO (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By god, it's perfect!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circéus (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great thoughts! In the past there has been some fumbling of names for sections and subsections, maybe they need further altering. We discuss evolution in the taxonomy section (it was originally a separate section), and which parts of 'Food chain' belong in 'reproduction?' Just so I'm clear.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We also used to have an ecology section that incorporated much of the latter half of the article. It, however, proved to be much to big and finding information in the article was incredibly difficult.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 circular redirect (Chrysemys); 1 bad link- this is 403 forbidden. --PresN 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain where Chrysemys is used in the article? Its apparent usage seems to be a toolserve software error. Updated the forbidden bad link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the navbox. --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ah! Thanks! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, your welcome. Thanks for fixing that.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References check:: first 40 footnotes and bibliography. Generalised errors needing correction identified. Will pass citation consistency with corrections!: Generally, web citations need to be strongly checked for works contained in larger works, collective authors, and publication dates.

"Taxonomic Information". Western Connecticut State University. and "Species Identification". Western Connecticut State University. are a subsections of a larger document "PAINTED TURTLE (Chrysemys picta)" which is a subsection of "Herpetology Species Page" which is authored by Theodora Pinou and collective authors "Herpetology course Spring of 2000 at Yale University, and Spring of 2006 & 2010 at Western Connecticut State University." Neither document is published by WCSU.
Interesting, based on this table, should authorship be attributed to "Aliya Ercelawn?"--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct, the work is Aliya Ercelawn "Painted Turtle Chrysemys picta" in Herpetology Species Page eds. Theodora Pinou et.al. . The work appears to be published by Pinou. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I changed them.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Beltz, Ellin. "Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America – Explained" has a copyright date (2006) which ought to be noted.
Included.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Painted Turtle (Chrysemys picta)". Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. has a collective author "Herpetology Program"
Changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Reptiles: Turtle & Tortoise". San Diego Zoo. is part of a larger work "Animal Bytes" a web periodical.
Fixed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally the citations of sentences in web documents (while consistent and thus meeting FAC requirements) is a bit difficult to understand, try using the phrase "Found at sentence starting: "...""?
There are multiple independent citations of "Species Identification" WCSU which need to be collapsed together.
Condensed, thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Citation of multiple authors inconsistent? Ernst/Barbour vs Foo; Bar; Bok; Baz.?
I changed 'Ernst/Barbour' to 'Ernst and Barbour'. I know they're still not the same, but do the citations and bibliography items have to be consistent in this regard (just a question, I really don't know)?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I find that ";" and "and" are much more closely related than "/" and "and". I'd be happy with this! Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inconsistent presentation of format of web documents ie "(pdf)." versus Wikipedia automatically identifying and no indication of file format in text in brackets. Consider removing (pdf)s?
Generally the bibliography and citation quality is high. Web sources need double checking for noted bibliographic elements above. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All format=pdf and work=pdf manual adding has been removed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome input. We will churn on this and brush up everything and reply one by one. Thanks for the attaboy and we want to make it even better. May be back for questions on a few where don't understand your comment, but will try to fix before troubling you!TCO (talk) 00:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Citation quality issues can be hard to resolve, identify, and can be frustrating. Feel free to ping if I have been unclear. When walking through web sources to produce a citation, remember that you can go up the directory hierarchy "http://foo.edu/store/Johnson/Turtles/painted.html" or even the left-hand / top menus and you may find the page you cited is actually contained in a larger work with an author / editor / date / specific publisher (in Universities, often a department, programme, or individual). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably more an issue of me learning it for the first time, then of remembering it.TCO (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Will you please explain a little more on what is best to list as the publisher? I've just been picking an institution. But I want to learn how to do this right next time. Didn't understand the stuff about directories and home pages and the like. TCO (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. The publisher is the person or institution responsible for issuing a work. In the case of a book it is in the bibliographic page (you've done well, listing both publisher and both locations for some books). In the case of the Journals, for example Labour History the publisher isn't JStor, but "Australian Society for the Study of Labour History, Inc.". In the case of websites, it is more difficult. It isn't the host, Facebook isn't responsible for publishing "Jo Bloggs", Jo is. You have to look closer and see who or what organisation is responsible for editorial control, the decision to publish, and ensuring the content is up. In general with websites, the hosting domain is like a printer. Often (wikipedia.org) the host is also the publisher, but not universally. Does that help? Fifelfoo (talk) 03:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think so. So obviously a journal is a journal. I don't know if we messed up listing JSTOR, but I get that, it's just a library, really, Elsevier would be the publisher, and we really should use cite journal with a url, rather than cite web anyhow. For a government website, I assume it would normally be the department of fish and game (or whatever). So we are probably fine there. With the Zoo, we missed that it was a journal (actually I sorta headscratched at the time, should have looked into it more), so it needs to be cited with cite journal anyhow. Where we were messing up was with universities as we were not really taking stuff off of the registrar's page or something official, but just using a lab group's page, in essence (or some small publication running out of a professor or group of professors). Is that about it? Just want to nail it so I learn.TCO (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep! With Journals, publishers usually aren't cited, but the publisher is usually the Society for Publishing the Journal, and not Elsevier: Elsevier is a service that journal publishers (ie: the societies) make use of, and if Elsevier tanked, they'd still publish. With university websites, you're dead on. If it is a Lab / Department page, then the Lab / Department is responsible. If it is an individual staff member's page "/biology/jbloggs/turtles/index.html" then the publisher is the individual (usually). You've got it nailed. I think you should be able to check refs 41-153. :) Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool. So we will leave it as a to-do to run every check listed above on the remaining refs and then put a bolded "done" or whatever when we have every check done.TCO (talk) 03:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And we will try to leave publisher off when doing "cite journal" anyhow. Not sure if we had some of that creeping in. I'm just used to it being the physical publisher for a book. And then for a website, it's like what we talked about.TCO (talk) 04:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Not ready for FA. 'Painted Turtle' reads in places like a casual magazine article and in other places like a "scientific" paper, making for an uneven read. Too many disruptive bulleted lists that incoporate bolding, once again making for an uneven read. Is it necessary to both bullet and bold a few short passages? There are other ways to manage this. The article should be given a sentence by sentence, section by section review by an experienced and talented editor familiar with "scientific" style and then delivered to PR for further scrutiny. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things. Those bulleted lists follow MoS, we only go into deep detail where issues are not yet resolved by the experts (i.e. taxonomy), and this article follows the same basic style as Bog turtle, an article dragged through FAC only about seven months ago. This article has already been through a peer review and a GA review.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be but those bulleted and bolded passages are so short that they can be rendered in a single prose paragraph. As they stand, they make for a bumpy, awkward read. It is immaterial whether this article "follows" another article or not. Each article is unique. My greatest concern is the style. As I said, the article should be turned over to an expert in "scientific" style. As it stands, it has an amateurish flow about it that a good editor could correct. Withdraw the article and seek an editor who can give the style an overhaul and bring the article up to a professional level. What's the rush in getting it to FA? Give the article another 6 months' work. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Various people have already discussed the bulleted lists found in the article, see relevant conversations here: 1, 2, and 3. It was deemed the most effective way to convey the information. Also, see this. And the only reason I brought up Bog turtle was because you said you had a problem with this article's "style," I was just proving that an article of similar style made it through FAC. Thank you, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation of readability: The writing is a pretty deliberate effort to be more accessible while still conveying information. Obviously, we know the literature to the extent that we are pretty good on this creature and we have tried to convey the really fascinating aspects (like the supercooled). We have a LOT of technical content (sex distribution for instance), but that's all the more reason to be as clear and write for a general readership as possible. I have a Ph.D. so it's not like I can't handle the technical terms. And I've written a lot of technical papers (and always tried to eschew wordiness and communicate in a Katzoff--like manner). I just think saying "spermatogenesis" when you can say "making sperm" is slowing the reader down. It's almost because we have so much confidence in our understanding of the topic that we can make it read like a magazine article (not a bad thing at all by the way...people who write for a living for magazines are something I respect very much and a joy of life...if WP was all written to professional mag standards we'd be a lot more "brilliant-bristling"). I want to convey more information than other pica articles on the net do, and do it with more enjoyment.
I really think this is taking to heart the wiki guidance on writing technical articles, Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, AND not just wiki guidance, but everything I've learned as a technical writer, what books on effective technical writing say, etc. At this point I've read every picta article on the net (there are a lot, it is popular to write a feature on it) and think we are the best. Have the most information (not just technical, although we are the strongest popular article there, too) and often are more accessible. That said, I may be barking up a tree and "doing things differently". And it might just not be acceptable. Or maybe I'm just not even right on the substance. (I still think I'm right, though, now.) But if you would like it to "read more technical sounding", then obviously it can be changed. I'm very sensitive to not hurting my young collaborators or having them go down, because of me trying to drive a standard. Probably what I would like to do here is "force the issue", have the editor in charge make her decision, and then just see if we can pass with the current article which was honestly meant to be a joy to readers and a boon to wiki. I understand that arguments are read by the editor and considered. It is not just a matter of a vote or doing whatever the reviewers say. I would like to play it out, just for the benefit of all. If it gets closed as a failure, then my colleages can "re-carapace" the thing. I will help with the grunt work, but probably not ask to be listed as nom or "get a star" given the difference in judgment. Sound fair? At least an interesting experiment.
On the bullets: The intention of the bullets is to take what would be pretty listy type of information and really separate it out for the reader. This is approved per this MOS guide: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (embedded lists). And it's not just some odd-ball MOS guide. It's how I would try to write most effectively off-wiki, and how I've been trained. There's reasons for why the bulleted lists help the reader. They help the reader guickly navigate. Every time he sees the darned bullets he knows they're being used for the same thing, with the same structure. In prose, he would have to slog through. He sees an implicit (non-line using) section break, can grab a species that interests him, can decide to blow it off subspecies if he just wants picta general level info, can easily do compare/contrast, etc. (And using the bulleted small paras is not a result of some Powerpoint influence, or not being able to write structure paragraphs. We do that fine in Reproduction with even a narrative flow, and in other areas with clear transitions and the like. It's an honest effort to convey more technical detail with LESS reader pain, as the Wiki guide on writing technical articles advises.) But maybe this is another test case.
I hope the rebuttal is not too loquacious or argumentative. And I do genuinely respect that you are trying to make all starred articles meet a high standard AND that you've reviewed a lot of them. Nevertheless, respectfully, would like to disagree and at least chew it over. I do think these issues of language and improving the prose in wiki are important and just kind of fun and interesting intrinsically. Plus we busted our asses on that article, so the methods are not inadvertant flaws (if flawed) and I think it's important to really grapple with this issue. Heck, maybe I learn something that changes my writing to make it less magazine-sounding (I can be wordy, pretty readily). TCO (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The user account User:56tyvfg88yju was created less than three weeks ago (December 19th), his (or her) contributions consists merely of creating his (or her) user page and talk page, and opposing the promotion of four FA candidates, one of them being Painted turtle. Just throwing that out there.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the delegates, User:56tyvfg88yju is an alternate account of disruptive user Piano non troppo. Keeping that aside, NYMFan69, although his is an unjustifiable oppose, I think some of these points are indeed valid regarding the bulleting list, and as a reader sometimes I found myself getting distracted. Would you mind considering them? — Legolas (talk2me) 03:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a few editors have already discussed it, but we'll reexamine and try to come up with something better. Thank yo so much Legolas2186.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—Seems somewhat unpolished to my eyes. Here's a list of suggestions based on the lead and first section. I haven't assessed content/consulted the literature yet. Sasata (talk) 07:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—Ok, I think my work is done here. I'm ready to support. I did a literature check, but the search term "Chrysemys picta" yields over 2000 hits in the Web of Knowledge, so I'm happy with the high-quality secondary sources used in the article. Coverage seems complete. Prose is fine, and I've picked over it a few times so I think it's MOS-compliant. I still think it would be good to add citations/links to the original publications as in my comment below, but I may just do that myself. Good job guys. Sasata (talk) 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's slick addition. We just lost track of the task.TCO (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might be in the Mann thesis or perhaps Bishop's paper. Think it is slick to add, although not vital. Just have to go research it.TCO (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to locate it. I also agree that it would be nice to have. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done.TCO (talk) 07:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did the same for distribution, but I don't feel to strongly about the way it looks.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The last one (formerly under habitat) has been condensed into one paragraph. Please let me know if these three parts are better/worse than before.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there was one more, did the same: two paragraphs.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—excellent work. Some random observations:

thanks for attaboy and upgrades.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change improves us. The issue was wanting to link the concept as it is pretty important in the story (although perhaps since it is a common word, just linking thermoregulation would be good enough. Wiki has no article on basking, but has a redirect to ectotherm so we kinda stumbled here. But calling out the concept is better.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we chopped all those snake's heads. One must have regrew. Subfamily is a noun so should be OK, no?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
we use serial comma everywhere else so should add here.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not disagreeing, just don't understand what links you mean, and the situation and all.TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tony means the links on the references for example ref#11 reads "Scientific and Common Names of the Reptiles and Amphibians of North America – Explained" matching the original, but "Scientific and common names of the reptiles and amphibians of North America – explained" would be better. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 03:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I'm fine with sentence case. Was not aware the options. Just went and Googled some stuff: two opposing views, [16] and [17]. Here's a good one discussing the options: [18], although not in the context of citations, still interesting the options. Plus there were some links talking about commercial programs like Endnote and the like, where you can actually set the citation style, or even have it "as source uses". Guess it is just one of those things. When we get Wikipedia to adopt one citation style (really don't see the reason for not just picking one, huge effort spent becuase of the difference even when intention is consistency as the tools end up with differences and people don't well understand what the "tool" style really comes from), we could set the sentence case as well.TCO (talk) 04:40, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Standardized all sentence case for external links whether websites or pdfs. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 05:07, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We set a limit of 3 in a row and started grouping after that. We could start taking ones that are 3 and bundling those also. Other thing is sometimes we've had 5 or more in a sentence as some were within the sentence and then some at the end, so we started bundling (some of) those. We could try to do more of that. Other option is to be a little less nitanoid about putting stuff inside sentences like a jab in the eye (ha! we sourced that! and that!), or perhaps it was defensive. Anyhow, maybe if we moved more to the end of the sentences, it would go smoother, and reader can just look at the sources (titles usually given) to tell which one he needs for what fact. Thoughts?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Was it the small ones being small that bothered you or the big ones being big? I am a fan of larger images. It seems conventional web design to have larger images, than what we are usually running on wiki. And a real distraction to make the reader have to leave the webpage or open a new window to see details (and we have a few where the turtles are small like on the trap). We had some even larger than 240 before, but they were pushed smaller in review. Thoughts?TCO (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have made all stand alone images of 240px width as recommended above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking preference: MOS guidance is not to link common geographic terms. Understand one reviewer feels different, but I don't think this is make or break. Overlinking makes articles harder to read and given the material is technical, do not want common things labeled. States and provinces would forces us into have blue terms next to each other also. Want to keep links for things like "supercooled" that I WANT to send reader to (as its cool) or things that really can't be explained parenthetically, like mitochondrial DNA. Preference is also not to "define by blue link" if a quick parenthetical will handle it. I feel this is a bad trait of some of the technical articles here, and reduces readability and enjoyment. Also there is some discussion of not doing this in guidance. This is a totally cool topic, which we could totally get into discussing the philosophy of. But would also add that a very clear process was taken and a lot of thought put into the decisions on linking. Can direct to specific talk page discussions in the article and referring further to MOS and all that. Of course it is judgment, but our reasons are spelled out there. Basically we have enough speed bumps to comprehension with sex distribition and the like. No reason for low value links.TCO (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to close and promote. We've responded to all reviewer comments and made several upgrades: especially in reference format (which despite our thinking we had been careful, was subpar), but also reorganized fossils and taxonomy and added two paras of new content. Also added methods of age determination, that should be intrinsically cool for the reader, and helps justify a claim we made on long-livedness. This is an important article, based on its hit count and because it will be looked at by both scientists and the general public. But I think we have managed to satisfy both. And we have combined some aspects of human interaction with the biological more effectively than any other summary around, so we really are providing an encyclopedic reference benefit. Think this is great stuff to run on the front page. Request the up-down vote and our "gold star" sticker!TCO (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles are generally not promoted without at least three supports - many articles have between four and eight, and there have been recent ones with over a dozen. Above, I can only see one support vote. I would suggest pinging the editors who have commented but not made a support/oppose declaration, asking them to revisit their comments (don't ask them to support, that's canvassing!). Another thing would be to ask if any of them feel comfortable moving their finished commentary to the talk page - this review page is getting really long and that can sometimes be off-putting to other potential reviewers. Hope this helps, Dana boomer (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Dana for your advice. I whole-heartedly agree with what you're saying: the opinions of those who left commentary and never returned should be sought out and this cluttered review page has a sort of repulsion effect on supports. A couple more weeks of FAC are in order for this article. Again, thank you.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See the fixes going in, thanks.TCO (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The painted turtle (Chrysemys picta) is the only species of Chrysemys, a genus of Emydidae: the pond turtle family. - why a colon? Surely that'd be used if there were going to be a list after it. I'd go with a comma or unspaced mdash or spaced ndash.
It's actually appropriate usage (and not just a rule, but properly applied). The colon can be used to call attention to an explanation, not just a series. Page 169, Harbrace College Handbook, rule 17.d (1) with examples. But it won't REALLY won't kill me to have an appositive comma in there, either. Just sharing since this FAC page has stuff about how the review process is supposed to be useful for discussion of writing. There was a colon Malleus had put in another section too, properly used, that someone sniffed at and clipped.  :-) TCO (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Aha - interesting. I must remember that Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
the conventional view has further held that the subspecies evolved in response... - strikes me as a tad wordy, do we really lose anything by changing to something like "the subspecies was thought to have evolved in response..."
You're right. I was trying to show transition, but sometimes I overdo it. (The whole experience is like a writing lab.) Feel free to tighten that bad boy up. Will be out of pocket the next coupla days, but my colleague will take care of inquiries...and I'm very much a fellow believer in clean prose. We're simpatico. TCO (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
done and dusted. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To nobody in particular: Circéus was generous enough to leave us some commentary. We addressed it all (or at least we think), but the editor has not yet returned to see if the concerns were fixed to his/her liking. I left a comment on the person's talk page a few days ago, awaiting a reply...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Earlier I suggested the article be withdrawn. I'm still finding the style awkward. The article needs about six months more work under a skilled editor.

A professional editor ought to be able to turn around a work this size in a day or two, even if it needed a total re-write (which it doesn't). In six months, I can literally research and write a book. Also, we have not had any ongoing interaction with you the last two weeks. This is feeling more like "timed RFA oppose" than a real effort to engage the work product.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's normal usage. I'm not saying the turtle is a sharp dresser in a tux, but that he has stripes on the head that distinguish him from other turtles.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With turtles, the head is oftentimes the best way to distinguish between species. I think this sentence is fine. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That part has always been a litle tricky and I understand finding issue with it. Was grouping a coupla facts that are not really distinctive features (are similar to some of its close relatives, but I guess which we wanted to note as interesting). We could either leave it as is, or stick the webbed feet in with the rest of the body discussion and just deep six the chromosome factoid, or go research and develop a whole paragraph on the microbiology of the creature which would house the chromosome factoid. What do others think?TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number of chromosomes close to fifty if not dead on fifty and webbed feet are two characteristics of all emydids. Because of this and the way we carefully worded the sentence, I think it's okay as is. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, cut.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A qualitative measurement of the difference in length between the male's claws and female's claws is nowhere in any literature I've seen and isn't encyclopedic. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is helpful, worth the extra word, to show the thought flow. Before, we have a state by state discussion and we are actually bundling that country list as a phrase within a sentence talking about another state.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this concern. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it reads fine as is. You have not shown your version.TCO (talk) 13:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This particular passage is a tad wordy, we'll take a look at it. Certainly don't agree that the whole article is like this. NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with the article for me is the number of editors working on it. I count three. A consistent style has not been established. It seems to me the editors are more concerned with points of grammar than style. Explaining to an experienced editor why they're using a colon instead of an em dash, exhibits a kind of immaturity and hubris. This is not good. The article needs a consistent, mature style. I sense the editors are young and used to a casual style in their life and work and the maturity I expect is understandably foreign to them. They're pressing the article to be passed before its time, and this in itself is evident of immaturity. I point out something that could be improved and I'm rebutted with a lengthy explanation of why it is the way it is. If I'm confused, then others will be too. This is not good. This immaturity is evident not only in the article but in their responses on the talk page and their user pages. Again, I reaffirm my opposition to promotion and my belief that the article could be vastly improved by a mature, experienced editor. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is immature about our approach? The word "casual" or "informal" may describe some of conversations, but never our style of writing in the article. I'm 18 years old, I mention that on my userpage. I'm still learning the ins and outs of grammar and style. The other two main contributers are, at least to the best of my knowledge, older than me, although I wouldn't venture to guess a number. I don't really see what your problem is with this article. The prose has been reviewed by about a half dozen people, none of which pointed out problems like yours (most of which I don't even recognize as problems).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the contributors is retired. Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia project and an oppose because three editors are working on an article is bizarre. I trust the FAC closure will give such comments no weight and the the editor in question will quickly strike such comments. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposing because the style is inconsistent as a result of so many editors. There's a sort of editorial immaturity in the many one or two sentence paragraphs such as "Although the subspecies may hybridize (intergrade), especially at range boundaries, they are distinct within the hearts of their ranges." The two blue quote boxes appear to to be substitutes for illustrations. The liberal sprinkling of commas and other forms of punctuation make reading the article a chore. The goal is clarity not obfuscation. I stopped dead in my tracks when I first read this: "To thrive, painted turtles need fresh waters". What's wrong with something direct and simple like "Painted turtles thrive in fresh waters."? Here's another: "Along water bottoms, the painted turtle hunts." How about "Painted turtles hunt along water bottoms."? And this: "Large prey it holds in its mouth and tears up with its forefeet." How about "Large prey is held in the mouth and torn with the forefeet."? There's a consistent awkwardness in the writing. In References, there's a note with seven citations. A mature, experienced editor would manage all of this differently. 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The type of grammar "issues" you're pointing out above are present in every Featured Article. They're commonly used English grammar conventions. This article went through a peer review, a GA review, and a copy-edit sweep by a member of the copy-editor's guild. I don't know what more we could have done to make sure the prose of this article is as good as possible.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I looked this up in Harbrace. I cut the comma from along the water bottoms per their instructions on inverted sentences. I think the comma is needed after to thrive. "Along the water bottoms" is the only Time Magazine style ("backwards the sentences reeled" per the New Yorker parody) sentence I have. I think it's OK in a discussion of hunting, and the article has enough dry spots. We should use what we can that is more narrative. Also Harbrace says to use it occasionally and not overuse and I did it once. But if you want to drain all the life out of the clip, oh well.
I think we are varying sentence construction between direct constructions and ones that have a phrase at the beginning pretty normally. All direct would be wrong. All phrase at beginning would be as well. I think you are dwelling on a matter of "ear" that is very subjective. Important sure, but one where we are aware and follow a middle course. Think the piece is normal writing with sound organization and grammar and content. I think that dwelling on this sort of issue of ear is not likely to drive best work product or even the proper place to direct people's attention in "how to write". That good writing is some mystical almost musical matter. There are so many bigger issues of logic and organization involved in good writing. These are the places for attention.
I enjoy a discussion of sound writing and sound content. If anything I might have some sympathy for some of your comments about the lack of paid editors and designated reviewers and closed review and the like. So far, I'm not being blown away by your own works though and I might even be coming to more of an appreciation of the current wiki volunteers system.  ;-)
I'm not interested in hurting anyone's feelings (I've done that enough on the Internet), but I'm also not interested in being political (I thought some comments about "getting votes" were very interesting, I might have had a view that this was more of the way things are done at a journal with a head editor). At the end of the day, what matters is if this is front page material or not. Not how sweet we are. As far as maturity, it is what it is. I'm formerly perma-banned so this is more gentle, less flippant than how I like to roll. Hopefully we learn something even if the experience is a fiasco. Right now it's not penetrating my noggin!  :-) TCO (talk) 03:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we using Brit spelling here "behaviour" and American spelling here "labors"? 56tyvfg88yju (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. The intention is all American.TCO (talk) 12:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Malleus for the thorough copy-edit you've done on this article (not just today and yesterday). You are of course right, there is no such thing as the perfect article, we can only make them as good as possible with what we have. And yes, doubling in size, I've reworded. Thank you again.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:08, 23 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [19].

C. D. Howe[edit]

Nominator(s):Bzuk (talk), Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. C. D. Howe virtually ran the Canadian economy for over a decade after the Second World War. Described as "a Fascist—but a nice Fascist", he had little use for Parliamentary review of his actions, and that led to his personal downfall and that of the Liberal government that had ruled Canada for over two decades. Today, I think, he is better remembered for his accomplishments, including the founding of Air Canada and the CBC. The third in my series on postwar Canadian politics, and I should add that the nomination comes on the 50th anniversary of Howe's death. Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. Verification spotchecks on the few online sources produced only the query raised above. Brianboulton (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those things are fixed. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Have read first couple of sections; thoughts:
  • Howe was born - and raised?
  • He passed, and attended the school - majoring in?
  • Howe accepted, although the young engineer felt that he should leave the Boston area to begin his career - bit confusing: do you mean he took it in spite of thinking he should leave Boston? Or he took it but planned for it not to be long-term?
  • There is a common tale - I don't love this phrase, bit weaselly. Anything more available?
  • Barker stated he had always intended a career in business, and in fact went on to become chairman of Sears, Roebuck & Co - is this relevant to the article?
  • In any event - unsuitable tone for an encyclopaedia. The last four sentences of that paragraph seem to lose their way a bit.
  • casual equality - odd-sounding phrase; are these your words or copied from the source? The sentence this phrase appears in has too many commas, it's not fluent. The following sentence has a similar problem, and is hard to follow because of it.
I'm not 100% sure that I understand what it's supposed to mean. If it is straight from the source, I think quote marks and a direct citation would be better, although I could probably be convinced otherwise. Trebor (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it and rephrased that sentence, and I think it has lost little.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it seems like it could do with another copyedit to tighten things up a bit. Trebor (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I will seek a copyeditor. Please feel free to leave additional comments. I will see that your specific comments are addressed.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few little prose issues. Apologies if I'm on the wrong track with any of them. Prose is not my strong point, but I was interested in the article so I read it and thought to pick up anything I noticed:
  • "he was often a target for accusations by the Opposition". Accusations of what? A very brief explanation might help.
  • "Beginning in 1954, Howe began to plan for pipelines to take Alberta's natural gas to market". Repetition.
  • "Professor Howe took his students". Surely Professor is unnecessary here, read with previous sentences.
  • "His student Denis Stairs, who would go on to lead a major Montreal engineering company, said of Howe that by the time the camp ended, they had great respect for Howe, and student C. J. Mackenzie, who Howe would later appoint to the National Research Council presidency, stated that Howe was not a brilliant lecturer, but that his presentations were always extremely clear." This sentence was a bit long for me and there is a clear point where it could be split without losing any flow.
  • "he applied for citizenship". The reader has to assume it is Canadian citizenship. It could be made explicit.
  • "Clarence and Alice Howe decided to entirely separate their roles, with Alice Howe having entire responsibility for their domestic lives" Repetition of "entire".
  • "Norman Platt Lambert, a Liberal Party official and friend of Howe brought him to a meeting". Seems to be missing a comma after Howe.
  • I don't think the caption to the Pearkes and Howe picture should have a full stop.
  • "one of C.D. Howe's "dollar-a-year club" as president". Why C. D. here?
  • "Howe had an excellent reputation, even in the Soviet Union for his conversion of the Canadian economy," Seems to be missing a comma?
  • "Howe found that saddles and harness had been stored". Should be harnesses?
  • "Mackenzie King fell ill with pneumonia and, after recovering spent a month on vacation in the United States," Seems to be a missing comma?
  • "accusing him of both being power mad and of selling off". The "of"s don't seem to work with the "both".
  • The capitalisation of governor general seems inconsistent when referring to specific office-holders (eg Viscount Alexander). But I'm not so good on my Proper Nouns, so just raising this for attention.
  • "this time in Korea—On the train" capitalisation.
  • "Howe, unenthusiastic about the war, saw it as the wrong war in the wrong place. Errant quotation mark or should there be a quote?
  • "an old age pension for Canadians to receive at age 70". As Canadians would receive it after age 70 as well, might "to which Canadians would become entitled at…" be better?
  • "development had proven time consuming". Development of what? The context doesn't make it clear.
  • "The Liberals lost 20 seats from their 1949 high water mark, but still elected almost two-thirds of the House of Commons". The party doesn't elect.
  • "the Opposition met the statement with jeers and Opposition cries". Unnecessary duplication of Opposition.
  • closure is wikilinked to cloture in the body of the article but not in the lead. I didn't know what it meant when I read the lead.
  • C.D. Howe Memorial Foundation and Award: there are no spaces after C. which causes an inconsistency.
  • The "named for the former minister" and "named after him" are a bit ugly in consecutive sentences. I think the two sentences could be easily combined and some of the unnecessary details dropped.
  • "It describes itself as "the gold standard for public-policy research". This sentence adds nothing to the article. I think it should go.
  • Is there anything to balance Harbron's fawning statement? It doesn't come off well to me - a neutral article that suddenly drops in a lavish eulogy at the end. The article wouldn't lose anything if the quote was to go.
Overall, it was a great read. It doesn't jump around at all, and the lengthy article manages to retain the reader's interest with humorous events (the little aside about the smoking ban is a gem.). It's certainly comprehensive and I take it that all relevant literature has been consulted. There's been a lot of activity on the talk page and I want to wade through that which I don't have the time to do right now. But it certainly has FA written all over it.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the praise, I will make those changes tomorrow. One thing, though, on the citizenship thing, you caught me fair and square. At the time, Canada had no separate citizenship, Howe was actually applying to become a British subject. I was fudging it because I thought explaining that would be tedious. Thoughts on how this should be handled?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, without knowing anything about the subject, could section 2 of the Immigration Act 1901 help?[20] Could it be that "Canadian citizen" and "British subject" were for a time not considered to be mutually exclusive statuses? If I'm on the wrong path here, how about "naturalised by Canada as a British subject"? --Mkativerata (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will review the source and see how far I can stretch it.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On further review section 2 is just a deeming provision for the purposes of that one Act, so "citizen" is just a term of convenience not a conferred legal status. The Naturalization Act, on the other hand, speaks only of naturalisation of aliens as British subjects, making no mention of citizenship. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:47, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You see my problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... "naturalised by Canada" would be short and, so far as I can tell, accurate. It could be accompanied by an explanatory footnote explaining he was naturalised as a British subject and would have assumed Canadian citizenship in 1947. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. All your comments will be done tomorrow. I don't have my sources in front of me right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done all of Mkativerata's comments. I like the new ending very much.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new ending too, and I like the way you've dealt with the British subject issue. My only remaining quibble, and it is so pedantic, is the "receive beginning at age 70". Assuming there are means tests and it's not a mandatory pension, some would start receiving the pension at a later age - perhaps something like "which Canadians could receive" might cover that.

Thanks, I appreciate it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Disclosure - I have done some significant copyediting, and have also negotiated a number of changes to the article via sandbox discussion with User:Wehwalt. It looks to me to meet all criteria now, so I am happy to add my support. A solid piece to add to the Canada politics stable. Brianboulton (talk) 12:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I peer-reviewed this fine article on December 23. I thought the article was nearly ready for FAC then, and it has since been improved. My concerns have been addressed, but I notice two new problems (or things I missed earlier).

No, there hasn't which is why I haven't posted my usual "x supports, this done, that doen" post like I tend to do. Can someone oblige on images? I have taken care of the credits that Finetooth commented on, I don't know what to do about the other, it may be a browser issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the template you wanted, Finetooth. Does that clear it up for you?--Wehwalt (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Looks fine. I thank you. Finetooth (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image Review All but two of the images are clearly free for use on Wikipedia, but I am not sure about these:

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 17:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are now gone. The Duncan Cameron images sparked a major battle at Commons about a year ago. I did not realize it was by him. The consensus at Commons was that his images are not PD With those gone, I don't see any barrier to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All images are now free for use on Wikipedia. Sorry about losing the Cameron portrait of him as it was a very nice image, but with all the free images of him available, it was not suitable for Fair Use. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 18:19, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the infobox one is much gentler. Howe looks like a real SOB in the one I deleted. Three supports, no opposes, image check done, everybody very happy.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:26, 18 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [21].

1955 MacArthur Airport United Airlines crash[edit]

Nominator(s): wackywace 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the story of an aviation accident that made me think a lot about humans and flight. This was an aviation accident that involved several technical "features" of the Douglas DC-6 which seemed to "gang up" on the flight crew. Ultimately, while I have tried to detail all the technical details of this accident, this is one that has interested and surprised me a good deal. It is short, yes, and has a small number of sources—but I am satisfied this describes one of the most interesting and strangely upsetting events in the history of aviation. I hope you find it interesting, and would like to thank all those who take the opportunity to review it in advance. wackywace 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources concerns adequately addressed Brianboulton (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - concerns adequately addressed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • It is, I believe, a pilot who works for the airline. Although Job refers to the two pilots as "line pilots" in the book, a search for line pilot shows almost nothing. I've removed the word line, since it is indeed redundant. I would image the lead pilot was more senior and "line pilot" is used in the book to imply they have a lesser rank. wackywace 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rephrased
  • Thanks!

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Readability Comments - I did a read-through to determine ease of readability for the average non-technical user, seeing as how I am not a pilot myself, and would like to note a few points that (I believe) are confusing.

Also a general comment -- there are a number of instances that, I believe, violate MOS:OPED. Examples: "an alarming rate", "fall violently", "dramatically increased". Please feel free to disagree with me on this point; it's just that the Accident section seems particularly rife with them.

Cheers -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû (blah?) 14:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments.

Overall a good, technical article which I'll be glad to support when the minor issues above are addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 18:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! wackywace 18:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've switched to support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 19:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! wackywace 19:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see no major issues, and would support the article being granted FA status. Mjroots (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! wackywace 19:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might ask Mjroots to bold that support; the delegates look for bolded supports, preferably on the left. It's not that they don't read the whole discussion, it's just when they're quickly assessing the level of support to determine if it's time to consider closing. Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Mjroots (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, wackywace 19:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments - Very nice work! There's a few quibbles I have with the article, which I'll address here:

Lede:
History:
Investigation:
Aftermath:

Overall though, this is excellent work, and as you said a good example of how the gremlins can gang up on a flight crew in a hurry. As Ernest K. Gann said, fate is indeed the hunter... - The Bushranger One ping only 18:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice and fast work! I'm happy to Support this article for FA. My only remaining niggle would be the "operated by a Boeing 767" in the second-to-last paragraph; technically accurate but looks awkward, but that's just nitpicking. Excellent work! - The Bushranger One ping only 21:58, 23 January 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 Laser brain 02:56, 24 January 2011 [22].

Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies[edit]

Nominator(s): Lecen (talk) and • Astynax talk 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC) [reply]


We are nominating this for featured article because we both believe it has acchieved the high standards required. The article is about an Italian princess who married the second Brazilian Emperor, Dom Pedro II. I confess it was quite hard to write it due to the lack of sources. Since she had no participation at all in politics nor ever did any kind of extraordinary deed, almost all information regarding her is always taken from books written about her husband, where she is, at best, a blank supporting character. In structure, style, presentation, etc., the article itself is very similar to Pedro II of Brazil. Whoever read the latter, will notice that. Lastly, but certainly not least important, I would like to request constructive comments and criticisms. Please, avoid unnecessary trouble. Regards to all and thank you very much, Lecen (talk) 12:38, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Changed for another better version. I hope it's fine now. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is derived from the File:Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_the_Two_Sicilies_1738.gif, and thus has the same source issues Fasach Nua (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the box since it's not that necessary. --Lecen (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since inclusion of every single renowned politican and military would prove problematic, I had to use a certain criteria for each case. In Military, I added the Duke of Caxias because he was the Commander-in-Chief of the Brazilian forces in the Platine War and in the War of the Triple Alliance. Count of Porto Alegre was the Commander-in-Chief of the victorious Brazilian army in the Platine War (you have to read the article to understand). Marquis of Erval was the Commander-in-Chief in the Uruguayan War. Count of Eu was the successor of Caxias as the commander-in-chief in the War of the Triple Alliance. Tamandaré was added because he was the commander-in-chief of the Brazilian navy in both Uruguayan War and in the War of the Triple Alliance. In other words, their names were not picked based on "whose favorite each one is". Instead, as useful and easy tool for readers who want to understand the Brazilian military history from the perspective of the military officers themselves. Thus, I chose the ones who commanded the army or navy in each war. I could have added the name of privates who left memories of the wars, but that would be highly arbitrary.
In the case of statesmen, I opted for the names of the politicians who are widely regarded as the Brazilian statesmen of the era. Bonifácio was one of the leaders of the Brazilian independence and is regarded in Brazil as a Founding Father. Paraná and Rio Branco were involved in every single major event that occurred in their lifetime. Were there other politicians who were renowned or had a major role in Brazilian history? Yes, there were. A name that can come to the mind of anyone who read those articles is Aureliano Coutinho, the Viscount of Sepetiba and leader of the Courtier Faction. He is certainly a major character, but is not regarded by historians as statesman. Paraná's colleagues and successors as leaders of the Conservative Party (the first Viscount of Uruguay, the Viscount of Itaboraí, etc...) are regarded as great politicians, but not as statesmen. The box is nothing more than an easy navigation tool for anyone who does not know Brazilian history. If someone wants to know more about the history of Pedro II's reign (1831-89) through the eyes of the Emperor, he/she should click on his article. But if a reader want to learn about the same period from the eyes of politicians, he/she should click on Paraná (for the period between 1831-56) and Rio Branco (1840 to 1880). This is why Teresa Cristina, which is right now a Featured article nominee, does not have her name in that infobox. I hope I was clear. If have you more doubts, feel free to ask. --Lecen (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links., 1 url redirect which I fixed. --PresN 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of the sources state what exactly did she do. If you look carefuly in the references' section, you'll notice that none of the books is a biograph of Teresa Cristina. She is always a supporting character in the biographies written about her husband and not much information is given about her. Since she had no important role in Brazilian political history, she is quite often neglected. --Lecen (talk) 14:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: As only 3 of the 17 sources are in English, and none are online, there are obvious limitations to this review. I can only say that the sources look scholarly in nature and I have no reason to doubt they are. That leaves with just a couple of tiny nitpicks:-

Otherwise all looks OK as far as sources are concerned. Brianboulton (talk) 19:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed those, thank you very much.
The article itself is almost completely build upon three English-written sources, easily available not only in any U.S. library, but also in the internet. They are: "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: the Brazilian princess who freed the slaves" (here: [23]), "Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825-1891" (here: [24]) and "Princess Isabel of Brazil: gender and power in the nineteenth century" (here: [25]; although I used the Portuguese-translated edition that can be found here: [26]).
Nonetheless, I believe that almost all Portuguese-written books used as sources can be found in Google books. Some examples: "Machado de Assis e a crítica internacional" (here: [27]), "Vultos do Brasil: biografias, história e geografia" (here: [28]) and "Italianos no Brasil" (here: [29])
"Almanak Administrativo, Mercantil e Industrial (Almanaque Laemmert)", a 19th century book that was published every year is the one I use in my articles on aything related to titles, membership in chivalry orders, etc... All editions, from 1844 to 1889, can be found here: [30].
"As Barbas do Imperador: D. Pedro II, um monarca nos trópicos" has no online edition (here: [31]), although it has an English translated edition called "The Emperor's Beard" (here: [32]). A hope that helped. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  1. Is her name really "Teresa Christine" in English? Theresa Christina or Teresa Christina or Theresa Christine seems just as English. I think a translation is unnecessary.
  2. Drop the full name from the lead: it's given in the infobox and if absolutely necessary can be given in the "Birth" section.
  3. Surely either King or Don but not both, at least for non-Iberians? I'd use either Francis or Francesco rather than add one in parentheses.
  4. "the throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" would be easier to read as "the Neapolitan throne"
  5. In the lead numerals over ten are given as numbers, but in the "Marriage" section as words. I'd use numerals throughout.
  6. "had been allowed to become increasingly undermined" seems unnecessarily complex, can "had become increasingly undermined" suffice?
  7. The picture of Naples in the birth section is from 1748; I'd be inclined to either remove it or replace it with a picture from nearer her birth. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply
  1. The spellings of her name vary considerably in English and European sources. The article goes with Barman and other more recent references which simply give the Portuguese spelling, though the other spellings are still occasionally used, including in other Wikipedia articles.
  2. I agree that the full name doesn't need to be in the lead, as the lead is supposed to summarize information from the body of the article. I've removed it and moved its citation to the infobox.
  3. There is a difference between "King" (title) and "Don" (Spanish and Italian honorific which can be added to titles), but your point is taken and "Don" has been removed.
  4. I agree that "throne of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" is awkward, but "Two Sicilies" is the name of the Kingdom. I've attempted to simplify to "who later became King Francis I of the Two Sicilies".
  5. I have changed the numbers to numerals.
  6. It wasn't that it had "become increasing undermined", but that it was actively "allowed to become increasingly undermined". It is a point that is taken up in other articles on the Empire during this period. I'll see if I can find a link so that readers who are puzzled by the statement can read more about this.
  7. Naples was a backwater, and I doubt much changed, but I'll alert Lecen to see if there is a usable picture nearer to 1800.
Thank you for taking the time to go over the article, for your corrections and for your suggestions. • Astynax talk 19:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, DrKiernan, thank you very much for taking your time to take a look at the article. I'll answer to the points related to the subject, while anything related to spelling and grammar I'll leave it to Astynax. i've seen that Astynax has answered before me and I'd like to say that I do not agree with some of the changes.
The name used is "Teresa Cristina", not "Theresa Christina", that is, the Portuguese-spelling of the name. I could perhaps change "Teresa Christine" to "Theresa Christina".
The full name used in the lead follows the same standard as in Pedro II of Brazil, another featured article. Is there a rule in Wikipedia that does not allow it in the lead or is that merely your personal taste?
Don is not the same as King. The Italian monarchy of Bourbon-Two Sicilies was a branch of the Spanish Bourbon Royal Family and had the same practices and traditions. Pedro II was known as Emperor Dom Pedro II. Juan Carlos of Spain is known as King Don Juan Carlos. The name is in its original version as Francesco because other characters have their original names (Pedro, not Peter; Teresa Cristina, not Theresa Christina).
Regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never at any point complained about the name Teresa Cristina.
I don't think lengthy and unnecessary digressions as the second sentence of the lead meet the spirit of criteria 1a or 2a.
If you insist on Pedro Augusto rather than Pedro of Saxe-Coburg, then I think you should use Augusto Leopoldo rather than Augusto, since calling one brother Pedro Augusto and the other Augusto looks odd to people like me who are unfamiliar with the brothers. DrKiernan (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernan, the name given to Pedro II's eldest grandchildren in history books are "D. Pedro Augusto" and "D. Augusto". About the painting, unfortunately, it was the oly one I was able to find at Commons that had a source, author and date. There are others, is true, but they lack more information. However, if you have a picture that could suit better, feel free to add. The other points raised by you were already resolved by Astynax. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The closest in date is probably File:SCHEDR LunNoch.jpg. I appreciate that the source is a dead link, but the original picture is in the Tretyakov Gallery [33]. This could be added to the image file in addition to the dead link to prove the source and information. I agree the town, people, boats and beach do not appear to have changed significantly in the 80 years separating the two pictures. It is up to you which you prefer. DrKiernan (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The painting you suggested portrayed Naples at night and was quite hard to see anything at it. I added another painting, from the same author that I believe it is better. Anything else? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I'm still concerned by the first paragraph of the lead. The inclusion of a parenthetical explanation of what "Dom" means in the first sentence of the article is an intrusive interruption. I know the difference between Emperor and Dom, and I have not complained about using "Emperor Dom Pedro I". I really think you should take out the explanation. Besides, there is a link for anyone who does not know what it means. The first paragraph as a whole should define the subject of the article and provide context, but it currently contains a digression about styles and titles which is not directly relevant to the topic of the article and is relatively trivial to feature in such a prominent place. I think the explanation of titles ought to be moved to the "Birth" section. I also still think that "King Don Francesco I (Francis I)" is unnecessarily complicated when he is never again referred to as "Francesco" at any point in the article, and something much simpler imparts essentially the same information:

Dona Teresa Cristina (English: Theresa Christina; 14 March 1822 – 28 December 1889), nicknamed "Mother of the Brazilians",[1] was the Empress consort of Emperor Dom Pedro II of Brazil, who reigned from 1831 to 1889. Born a Princess of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies (also known as the Kingdom of Naples) in present-day southern Italy, she was the daughter of King Francis I of the Italian branch of the House of Bourbon, called Bourbon-Two Sicilies or Bourbon-Naples, and Infanta Doña Maria Isabella of Spain.

Also, google book and google scholar searches come up essentially blank when I search for versions of "King Don Francis I", "King Don Francesco", or "Don Francis I", etc. I don't believe the form "King Don Francesco/Francis" is used in scholarly English sources. It's rather like using "Prof Dr Herr Schmidt" instead of "Prof Schmidt", which is done in English regardless of German practice.

I see that Barman uses "D. Pedro Augusto" and "D. Augusto" but Mary Wilhelmine Williams uses "Pedro Augusto" and "Augusto Leopoldo" in her Dom Pedro: the Magnanimous, second Emperor of Brazil, and through a google search I see that these forms are used in Revista do Instituto Histórico e Geográfico Brasileiro. So, I'm still inclined to prefer the longer forms for the sake of clarity. Particularly as Augusto is only mentioned once, so it is not very onerous to change it. DrKiernan (talk) 11:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here goes the answers:
Augusto or Augusto Leopoldo: They were called, in their lifetime, respectively, "Pedro Augusto" and "Augusto". The reason to why he was called "Pedro Augusto" was to differentiate him from his younger cousin, Pedro, the Prince of Grand Pará (eldest son of Isabel). Not only that, every single source used in the articles related to Imperial Brazil which I wrote calls them exactly like that. From Barman to Carvalho (2007), Lyra (1977), to Besouchet, to Calmon, etc... However, this is not a matter of life and death for me. You may change Augusto to "Augusto Leopoldo". I made only one small correction to your edits: Pedro Augusto was called "Pedro Augusto" in one place and in another, "Pedro of Saxe Coburg Kohary", and readers would have no idea that both are the same.
Dom meaning: At first, I thought that simply having a wikilink to "Dom" would be enough, but from personal experience in here, at Wikipedia, I learned that it wouldn't. A good editor called Hchc2009 who helped me at at Empire of Brazil believed that Isabel, the Princess Imperial's first name was actually "Dona". Having the article itself explain that Dom is similar to Don and Lord does not harm it. That is done immediately after the title appears for the first time and its use has the sole purpose of clarifying it, that it's not the name of a person, but an actual title. Augustus, a featured article about the first emperor of Rome, has the following sentence in its lead: "In 27 BC the Senate awarded him the honorific Augustus ('the revered one')". There is a wikilink to Augustus (the title), but even so the article tells the reader its meaning anyway.
Don Francesco I: Why the Brazilian and Spanish royals can be called "Dom" or "Don" but the Sicilian ones can not? Pedro II is called Emperor Dom Pedro II but Francesco I of the Two Sicilies can not be themed "King Don Francesco I"? You're being a little too picky, don't you think so? The monarchy of the Two Sicilies was a direct offshoot of the Spanish monarchy and it retained the latter's traditions. Teresa Cristina was called "Donna Teresa Cristina" in her younger years and in Brazil, "Dona Teresa Cristina". You can see that in here [34] ("S.A.R. Don Francesco di Borbone, Principe delle Due Sicilie") and here [35] ("Re don Francesco II di Borbone"), for example.
Removal of the full name from the lead: I did not agre with this change of yours, if you allow me to be sincere. Frederick III, German Emperor and Pedro II of Brazil have both the full name in bold and a translation to English of it. And both articles are featured.
DrKiernan, I know that you wrote wonderful articles about the British royalty and that you successfully nominated them to featured status. Also, I know that you followed one standard that suited you the most in those articles (but it is not the one used in Imperial Brazil-related articles). And I'm certainly very happy to see that you took your time to review this article. However, simply pleasing you by the sake of having your "support" vote wouldn't be correct. I tried to appease you in many points you raised, but I can't do it in every single one. I hope you can understand it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You ask "Pedro II is called Emperor Dom Pedro II but Francesco I of the Two Sicilies can not be themed "King Don Francesco I"?" That is my preference, yes, since "Emperor Dom Pedro II" is used in scholarly English sources, while "King Don Francesco I" is not. I think it's fine to use foreign-language terms when no English equivalent exists or when they are in use in English, but I'm concerned that translating straight from Portuguese introduces novel terms that can be better understood by native English speakers when translated into traditional English forms. Personally, I would not include honorifics but MOS:HONORIFIC does not cover Continental European nobility, and so it is largely a matter of personal preference.
Frederick only has 4 names; Teresa Cristina has 22. Frederick's names I can accept, but when the number of names goes past a certain point it, in my personal opinion, becomes cumbersome and distracting.
I'm sorry, but I doubt whether I will revisit this page or make a declaration because I do not feel confident enough as to whether the article meets the criteria or not. There are subtleties around translation of foreign sources that I'm uncomfortable with, and I do not believe I have sufficient knowledge of the subject area to determine whether the article meets the criteria. However, I would say that
Support: the article is another very strong one from an evidently knowledgable team. I am confident that my review has helped improve the article, and the nominators have responded to suggestions good-naturedly and reasonably. DrKiernan (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad, since your knowledge and opinion are taken in high regard. And you certainly helped a lot. Nonetheless, I'd like to tell you that I'm very grateful for all your help and interest here. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That seems to be a good solution. I will try to implement it a bit later. Regarding "King Don Francesco I", I think that it is better to remove "Don" as Dr.Kiernan suggested. "Don" is a given name in English, and as this article doesn't go into much detail about him it is less confusing to just leave out the honorifics for non-Brazilian royalty. "Dom" and "Dona"/"Donna" are also commonly used as names/shortened names in English (Dom DeLuise, Dom Dallessandro, etc.), so a note is in order. Putting those explanations in an endnote would keep the explanations available without interrupting the flow of text. • Astynax talk 21:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ed. "Alguém" means "someone". It came from the original text, in Roderick J. Barman's book. It was not I who added it. The Emperor called his wife "someone" when writing to the Countess of Barral. "Formely" is the same as "before". Pedro II always treated his wife with respect, and even steem. But he never lover her as a woman, did not treat her with caress. In other words, he treated her as a good friend, not a wife. Teresa Cristina, on the other hand, always did whatever her husband wanted. She never said "I want to do this" or "I don't want to do this". She got used to live under his shadow, doing what he wanted, not what she wanted. In other words, she was a typical middle 19th century woman. However, even when time passed, when she started asserting more to her, the Emperor kept treating her as he ever did: a friend with whom he was married, but who had to do what he wanted. --Lecen (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mention he always called her "someone"? (if you did, I missed it and I'm sorry!) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that. Now it's certainly more clear. Thanks for taking notice of that! --Lecen (talk) 10:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your imput, PMAnderson. The article is primarily built upon two sources:
  • Barman, Roderick J. (1999). Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804735107. (English)
  • Longo, James McMurtry (2008). Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.. ISBN 978-0-7864-3201-1. (English)
Both are in English, not Portuguese. I believe that around 85% of the text was written using English-written sources. The incorrect translation of "exaltado" was a small mistake. I changed it for "extremist". Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it could also be extreme, passionate, or doctrinaire - if it has the same range as in French; extreme might be best. But we should not be making these decisions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with your position. It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to continue writing high-quality articles on foreign topics without using foreign sources, and I believe there is precedent for using many foreign-language sources in FAs. There is always variability in possible phrasing of translations; people have complained about such things as far back as the original translation of the Bible. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOENG, which I am attempting to follow. When English sources of comparable value exist, they should be cited; when published English translations of foreign quotes exist, they should be used. I believe, given the prominence of this subject (and her husband), the necessary English sources and translations do exist; they must merely be found. Whether it is enough that most of the article is so sourced is up to the closer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I wrote before? Again:
"The article is primarily built upon two sources:"
  • Barman, Roderick J. (1999). Citizen Emperor: Pedro II and the Making of Brazil, 1825–1891. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ISBN 0804735107. (English)
  • Longo, James McMurtry (2008). Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc.. ISBN 978-0-7864-3201-1. (English)
"Both are in English, not Portuguese. I believe that around 85% of the text was written using English-written sources." --Lecen (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I am taking your word for it that most of the article is so sourced; that's why I said most. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:23, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [36].

Section 116 of the Australian Constitution[edit]

Nominator(s): Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is coming back for another shot after I withdrew an FAC a few months ago. The article is about a provision of the Australian Constitution that sets boundaries beyond which the federal government isn't allowed to interfere with religion. The provision has an interesting history, although it has barely been litigated. As the article says, the courts have interpreted it narrowly and no law has ever been struck down under the provision. The article is not particularly long, largely as a consequence of the provision's limited history and commentary. But all major reliable sources are consulted and, where appropriate, used.

The article has been through a very helpful peer review since the last FAC. I hope the article has also benefited from some significant editing (including copyediting) that I've performed after a few months of "strategic distance" from it. Mkativerata (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

" colonial Constitutional Conventions," Perhaps a better adjective would be "intercolonial" or "pre-Federation", using Federation as an excuse to link any article we may have on the 1901 merger of the colonies.
Done.
You may be downplaying "state aid" as an issue. Certainly it was a major issue in the 1960s and may have kept the Coalition in power an extra decade. Anything the High Court might have said on Section 116 at the time would not have been trivial. Some mention of this in the article would be a plus, though I won't press you on it.
The High Court didn't consider section 116 at all during that long period of Coalition government. None of the secondary sources mention any cases and my own case database searches don't reveal any. I suspect lawyers laid off section 116 as it would have been a very expensive and speculative punt after the Jehovah's Witnesses case and under the Latham, Dixon and Barwick courts. Pannam wrote in 1963 that the section was considered a useless historical oddity, perhaps capturing the mood of the profession at the time.

Some comments

  • Text
"Constitution". I agree on the capitalisation when you are talking about a specific document. But when you are talking about the states' documents, that should probably be lower case. In addition, I think that when you are not formally speaking of the "States of Australia", you should make "states" lower case. I notice that sometimes you do speak of the "six states" of Australia. Perhaps you have a capitalisation rationale I'm not seeing. I should add that "Constitutional Conventions", in the next section, surely should be lower case.
Done. Please let me know if I've erred here.
"referendums" I personally have no objection to the word, but some nitpicker's gonna nail you on "referenda". Just saying.
I tossed and turned on this one!
  • Origins
Surely there are articles on the individual conventions to link to?
The wikilink is tricky. There are no individual articles, only our general article on Federation of Australia. There's no clear section of that article to link to for the conventions generally: the article categorises them into the "early" and "late" conventions. I could make a specific section link to the 1891 convention but not the more important 1897 and 1898 conventions, so I'm thinking it would be best not to. Federation of Australia is now wiki-linked in the lead where the conventions are first mentioned. I'd be grateful for any other suggestions.
Structurally, I'm not happy with this section. There are times when you can begin with a statement, and "flash back" to show how you get there, but you've got to wrap it up in the same paragraph. Starting from 1.1.1901, you go back into the past, but you take two paragraphs to get back to 1901. I would eliminate or move the first sentence.
I've re-arranged the section to (hopefully) give it a strict chronological sequence.
  • Judicial consideration
"A difficult task faced by courts is to determine whether a belief is a "religion" and therefore protected by Section 116." This sentence tries to do to much. Perhaps "An initial test considered by courts applying Section 116 is whether a belief seeking constitutional protection is a "religion". In application, this test can be difficult to apply."
I've just dropped the "difficult" part. On reflection, it could raise questions. Surely some judges don't find it difficult :) I can't express it well without venturing too far from the source. I've amended the first sentence along the lines you suggested although used "threshold" rather than "initial".
Aren't members of the High Court "justices"? See Lionel Murphy for an example. I would not call them "judges". This occurs in several sections.
Done.
In Church of the New Faith, if any of the individual judgments is considered to be binding authority (as we would say here in the States), that is, precedent entitled to stare decisis, it might be wise to say so. It is hard to discern whose opinion carried the day.
Unfortunately there is usually no discernible ratio in any of the cases on any of the relevant points of law. For example, the majority in Church of the New Faith was split on what constitutes a religion. I understand Australian judges are much more prepared than US judges to write their own judgements, even when in the majority, which makes it difficult for ratios to form.
The whole "showed signs of softening thing bugs me a bit. As far as I can see, only one justice ever showed signs of softening. The 1943 case seems entirely consistent with the earlier one.
Done. On reflection, I agree. A number of the sources actually ignore Higgins' 1929 comments altogether and jump straight from Krygger to 1943.
  • Commentary
"the Commonwealth would not in any case have the power under" perhaps instead, "the Commonwealth had not been given the legislative power under". It at least gives some sense of what Section 51 is to those who do not care to click.
Done. Thanks, that's much better.
"About 60 years later, " This sounds sloppy. I'd mention a year.
Done.
"Arthur Glass claim". Avoid word claim, which carries implicit disbelief.
Done. I've changed "claim" to "say" if I may be permitted to use such a simple word. ;)
  • Referendums
I would mention that it was referred to as the "Fourteen Powers" referendum. Was there any connection between the 1943 High Court decision and the 1944 proposal?
Done There are a few places it could be put, so let me know if you have any alternative suggestions. I haven't seen any source that draws a connection between 1943 and 1944: the 1943 case had nothing to do with what the 1944 referendum proposed.
"as part of one of four questions" Maybe rephrase.
Done.

Will look at it again when this is done.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for these comments. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support No further objections. Good luck! Hope you do Section 57 next, that would be fun.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I've actually been thinking of sections 53-56, which I'm very familiar with, but section 57 would be a much more interesting read. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Disclosure: I carried out a detailed peer review, during which my comments and suggestions were dealt with constructively. One point I made led to the removal of an irrelevant image; it would in my view be permissable to add a generic image of the Australian parliament building to set off the lead. This is however only a suggestion. I am satisfied that as it stands the article satisfies the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Brianboulton. I'll have a tool around in my sandbox over the next few days/weeks to see if I can come up with something that will make the lead prettier. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [37].

Pennatomys[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 08:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A snowy winged mouse... This is one of the victims of a "forgotten mass extinction", which killed off the entire diverse (but mostly undescribed) oryzomyine rodent fauna of the Lesser Antilles. This article was improved by a GA review by J Milburn, and I'm looking forward to the reviews here. Ucucha 08:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Map of the northern Lesser Antilles indicating the three islands where Pennatomys has been found" ... is this meant to be visible to the reader? Fasach Nua (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, and I'll try to make a better one. Ucucha 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've now uploaded a better map. Ucucha 11:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig/External Link check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 2c: good but needs one page number no DOI/PMIDs, no DOI/PMID issues. Short cites: "Musser and Carleton, 2005" lacks a page number and it is a 500-600 page work. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are no specific pages to refer to; the citation (particularly for the distribution) is to pretty much the entirety of the work (which lists the distributions of all cricetid rodents). None of the facts in that sentence are particularly controversial, and I could perhaps even claim they are common knowledge that does not require a citation, but I prefer to cite a work that does indeed contain the facts claimed (if not in easily citable form). Ucucha 09:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. "Found continuously and passing throughout."? Or passim. if you're into the old school. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addedp assim. Ucucha 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support—all comments resolved, looks like an FAC to me. As an aside, I think you could probably find a good April Fool's DYK hook for the currently red-linked Sugar Factory and Coconut Walk! Sasata (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead as is does not give a date of fossil remains. I think it would benefit with a succinct sentence stating the age of most recent remains (i.e. "known from remains up till x years ago")
Added date range in lead.
I'd maybe link "cony" to a wiktionary term (?)
I think the footnote explains all that needs to be explained, so don't see much of a need for additional linking.
Unambiguous historical records.. - I know what you mean, I guess I am looking for a more definitive adjective...much like "Definitive", "Confirmed", or something. Not a dealbreaker this, just musing really...
I'm not wedded to "unambiguous", but I think it's actually a good fit: the point is that while there are records, they are ambiguous, as they might as well refer to other animals.
ok, I'll pay that :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking clinical in its execution and clearly FA worthy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 00:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Comments: As always, the article looks good. Here are the few issues that I feel needs to be addressed:

For the record, I cannot comment on more than the grammar in the "Description" section. This is where a review by Turvey would be helpful. Otherwise, everything else looks good to me! Great job! – VisionHolder « talk » 14:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Ucucha 02:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [38].

Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945)[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article on United States and British air raids on Singapore during 1944 and 1945 passed a Military History Wikiproject A class review in September and has since been improved further. There is only a limited literature on these raids (which largely focuses on the experiences of the US bomber units) and Toh Boon Kwan's journal article states that no-one has ever written a comprehensive account of them and that the Japanese destroyed many of their records of Singapore in this period at the end of the war. As a result, I think that this article provides as detailed an account of the raids as is possible (particularly given the need to not unduly emphasise the experiences of American air crew) and may now meet the FA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: All sources look good, citation formats correct, verification spotchecls OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:07, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Comments – Just some quickies from an otherwise fine-looking article.

Support -- I supported in its MilHist A-Class Review and the article's only improved since then. Copyedited but generaly prose, structure, referencing, coverage, and supporting materials look fine -- well done. Couple of things:

FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Comments, leaning support. I'll add comments here as I go through the article. I've finished my pass through.

Overall this looks thorough and concise and the prose seems fairly clean. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [39].

Adenanthos obovatus[edit]

Nominator(s): Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC), Hesperian (talk · contribs)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the Southwestern Australian floristic region (which has more flowering plants than Europe and Asia put together) deserves more recognition..this is a co-nom with Hesperian (talk · contribs) on a nice plant from his neck of the woods with a photo by Cygnis insignis (talk · contribs). PS: Its short and I'll answer promptly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


good point. done Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any mention of which language it comes from, sadly. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR comment the source would have to be the Noongar language though which variant, theres are a couple of Dictionaries available one by the WA Museum Athroplogy dept and one by Rose Whitehurst both are available at the state library of WA, though less likely given its from the Albany region it maybe also covered in George Fletcher Moores work. Will see what I can dig up Gnangarra 04:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That'd be wonderful :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This info comes from Nelson (1978) where it is cited as Sanderson pers. comm., so it is unlikely more details will be forthcoming. Hesperian 08:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked the map to show the Narrogin distribution (shown on source), hte other is described as possible and is not demarkated on source map (no it's not that other dot at the northern end of the range). Sorry about delay Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fixes! But that suggests the question: what is the other dot at the northern end? Ucucha 18:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify, the species definitely occurs at "the other" location but this is probably not a disjunction because the nearest other populations aren't all that far away. So it needn't be shown as a disjunction on this map. I'm not sure what to do about the northern dot, as this matches the florabase map, yet our sources don't mention a disjunction up there. Do we merge it on the grounds that our sources suggest it isn't disjunct, or follow the source map by keeping it separate? Hesperian 00:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is pretty close to the more continuous more coastal distribution immediately to the west of it. The Florabase map is made up of actual discrete herbarium records, and hence there are gaps where plants are known to grow but are not backed up by an official collection. Thus the separateness of the dot may mean that it occurs in between but nobody's sent material to the herbarium, or it isn't that far from others or something. As it is not discussed as disjunct, I am inclined to think it is not significantly so. We've done what we can based on the sources provided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was thinking; which suggests that we could fairly merge the dot into the main range in our range map. Hesperian 08:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources generally look first class. Just a few nitpicks:-

noted Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
having trouble with this one..googling keeps winding up with wrong copy of book Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hesperian 08:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cas, there's an ISBN finder in the userbox on my userpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Goody, I pinched it now. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:06, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verification checks limited to online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs, 1 dead external link- this one is doa. --PresN 22:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fixed now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrigley and Fagg also spell out the inverse egg shape in their book. have tweaked the inline ref Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know you struck this already, but I found a source that explicitly says what you're saying—that he simply named it for its obovate leaves—so I've made that primary, and given the etymology of obovatus as a secondary matter. Hesperian 02:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perfect. Thanks for persisting. Melburnian (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
clarified --> "The new species was rejected in 1924" Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and find one. Agree it'd be good to get one in the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

heh, done.. :)
Added a couple of lines.
oops - was barbigera not barbiger. clarified now Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:54, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are more species of flowering plants in the SW corner of WA than in Europe and Asia combined - the diversity is amazing, and 20 hybrid specimens is a significant number (often isolated). Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, looks good. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response. I added an OCLC for the Newbey book (Worldcat can be your best friend), they had several volumes/publishing dates/publishers, so please check to make sure I found the correct one. Everything looks good, so adding my support. Dana boomer (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes (and I'd appreciate reviewers checking for this in the future): "Adenanthos obovatus, commonly known as basket flower or jugflower ... " but there is not a correct redirect or dab page for jugflower. I am not sure why the italics here: "Common names for this species include basket flower, glandflower, jugflower and stick-in-the-jug. " Also, why no redirects? What is sandplain sand? Good per WP:SEASON that winter is defined, but why not summer for consistency? "Adenanthos obovatus has been recorded as a source of nectar for the Honey Possum (Tarsipes rostratus) in winter and spring (June to September), from field studies in the Scott National Park, replaced by A. meisneri in the summer." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [40].

SMS Rheinland[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SMS Rheinland was the third German dreadnought-type battleship built for the Imperial Navy. This article went through GA and Milhist A-class reviews in June–August, and in that time also became part of a five-article Good Topic (which will become a Featured Topic if this article passes FAC). I feel the article is at or close to FA standards, and I look forward to working with reviewers in ensuring the article exceeds the FA criteria. Thanks in advance to all those who take the time to review this article. Parsecboy (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further sources comment: Publisher location needed for Hough, Richard (2003). Otherwise all sources and citations look good. Brianboulton (talk) 15:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise a very sound article. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. Not much to fix; I made the changes. - Dank (push to talk) 04:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: WP:NBSP work needed throughout, and why are Portals always in the wrong place on ship articles? Portals belong in See also, if there is none, the first appendix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep an eye on portal placement in the future. - Dank (push to talk) 02:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [41].

Battle of Sio[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... A small article on a minor battle, one of a series that I hope to one day assemble into a featured topic on the New Guinea campaign. If you wanted to understand that campaign, reading this article might be a good start. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:Fortification_Point.PNG is quite large and may cause problems on slow internet connections, however WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. As I couldn't reach the pdfs I have not carried out any spotchecks. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. "Because of the extremely rough seas—the most difficult that the 532nd EBSR had ever encountered—most supply missions were by night" sounds odd to me. Why would people respond to rough seas with nighttime operations? Please would recheck your sources on that.
  2. I'm struggling a little with the geography, and thought there are maps I'm not greatly helped by them. Ideally I would like this to have a map that puts the battle zone into some context - as it is I'm not sure whether we are talking about the north east coat or the eastern end of Papua New Guinea.
  3. I'm assuming that we are somewhat lacking on articles about locations and even rivers in that part of the world as there are few links and I couldn't find one river I tried to link to. ϢereSpielChequers 00:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Not quite ready to support, there are some prose glitches and concerns about comprehensibility that need addressing.

Comments –

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Support Comments -- Looks very good but a few minor queries/comments:


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:38, 22 January 2011 [42].

Almirante Latorre-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Say hello to another article in my South American battleship series! This one tells the tortured tale of two Chilean ships ordered during the South American dreadnought arms race of 1907–1914. However, when World War I broke out in 1914, they were taken over by the British. One (Almirante Latorre, or HMS Canada) was completed in 1915 and served in the war, while the other (Almirante Cochrane, or HMS Eagle) was mostly converted to an aircraft carrier, almost converted back to a battleship, then completed as an aircraft carrier. The former was sold back to Chile in 1920 and served into the 50s, instigating a major rebellion in 1931 along the way, while the carrier was kept by the British and eventually sunk in the Second World War. The article has passed a Milhist A-class review. I hope you enjoy the article; any and all comments on it are welcome. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technical comments:
Infobox info. A number of the details don't correspond with what I can find in Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers of the World. Specifically Breyer gives design displacement 28,000 and 28,600 tons - this accords with the figure quoted in the text. The number of 6-in guns is also incorrect in the infobox (12; text, and Breyer, say 16). Finally Breyer gives the complement as 1167 or 1175 (depending on which ship).
The length figure in the infobox is the figure for waterline length (though this isn't made clear), while the text gives overall.
It should probably be mentioned that the secondary armament was in barbettes.
Style comments:
I think it needs to be clearer why the "Argentinian-Chilean boundary dispute" section is relevant to the ships. This material is fairly relevant, but the reader might be surprised to see the first sentence of the body of the article being about Patagonia in the 1840s. We don't start (say) HMS Dreadnought (1906) by talking about Trafalgar. Alternatively condense that history to a couple of sentences and start the story of these ships in 1904.
The prose is marginal for FA standards. I have gone through part rewriting a few clunky sentences. Will see if I can find tomorrow to do a little more.
There is a bit of US point of view in the 'Bidding and Construction' section as the US side of the story is quite heavily illustrated while the Chilean, British and German sides of the story aren't. Appreciate the sources are probably selective here but this still needs to be addressed a bit.
Look forward to supporting when these concerns are addressed The Land (talk) 20:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the review!
That's odd. I didn't actually check the infobox when I copied it in. I'll fix it in my next online session. Complements always vary from book to book, no matter what ship is in question -- I'll just remove it.
In a previous version of the article, I started the Background section with "The genesis of the Almirante Latorre class ..." Would that help in making the section's relevance more clear?
I'm sure it would, but the more I look at the article the more I'm sure that a lengthy discussion of the history is out of place here. A shorter summary would probably be better. The Land (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The history of naval arms races between the two countries had a major impact on the Chilean decision to order dreadnoughts, and I don't have the resources to write a full-fledged article I could link too. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Livermore extensively covered the American interactions with the South American countries, but I don't have much on the other POVs (though I'm not sure the Germans ever made a serious offer). I'll see if I can alleviate this a bit with Scheina. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's 4am here, so the infobox is gonna have to wait for tomorrow after I get off work. I checked Schenia, and even he focuses on the futile American attempts to land the contract. I think he chose to focus on the US because that is where the story is – according to him, the contracts were already certainly going to the UK due to its extensive and long-lasting relationship with Chile. Scheina comments that "Favor such as Great Britain showed Chile found no parallel in the world's other important navies", while also remarking on the "strong ties" since 1839 (which were recently made stronger due to a 1911 British naval mission) and calling it a "special relationship." (Naval History, 138). I think I'll add something to that effect tomorrow, as I don't think I've been completely clear in communicating this idea in the article. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough - but then the article needs to talk a bit more about the long-lasting relationship with Great Britain in this context, and perhaps be adorned with a few fewer quotes from Americans. Also any idea which British armoured cruisers were sent, or if there is anything to justify something about why the armoured cruisers were very unimpressive at the time? The Land (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do these edits satisfy our concerns? I don't think the article implies anything negative about the armored cruiser squadron, and the names of the ships in the squadron were not given, unfortunately. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They're an improvement. I've made a further tweak - can you check it doesn't misrepresent the source. Would still prefer less detail on the history, but that's no bar to it being an FA in my oppintion.
  • Sorry for the delay, I've been back-and-forth between WikiCup needs and real life (I'm currently in San Francisco). In order:
  • I've been including the translation just in case readers would find that interesting – it doesn't serve much of a purpose, but I don't think it detracts from the article.
  • I think it should be taken out then, particularly given that this is the English-language Wikipedia. It's likely to cause confusion among some readers without any off setting benefits. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because it appears in the location that readers expect to see foreign language translations of the name of the article's topic per WP:UEIA, so some readers might think that this class of battleships were called acorazados in Spanish-speaking countries. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1c/2c is good fine, a few clean ups JSTOR links are fine. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Fifelfoo (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the detailed review! As you can tell, I'm amazed by the history here too. :-) I believe I have addressed all of your concerns. I'm not sure if dearming was the norm, but I have seen pictures (with unclear copyright status, unfortunately) that showed Latorre being towed to Japan with armament intact. I'd assume this is because there would be no ammunition on board to fire from the guns? I think disarming is the norm today, however. Regarding the funnel article, it never occurred to me to look for an old article, I just used the redirect. I think that stub should be restored. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored the stub.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I made all the following edits (if there were edits to make); feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Oppose

Kleopatra's comments

Moved for editing on adaptive device. --Kleopatra (talk) 20:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See footnote 2 for links to the men the ships were named after.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want a footnoted link. I want to read this in the article. This is a general encyclopedia, and who the ship is named after, and who the ship-class is named after are major general information, not a footnote. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:03, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are criticized much more often for duplicating information in the class article that people would reasonably expect to find in the ship articles; we don't have the option of providing duplicate information in class articles every time someone asks for it. In general, if you want to know information about a thing in Wikipedia, look in the article about that thing. - Dank (push to talk) 18:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is the name of the class. This is also English wikipedia, not Spanish wikipedia. If I wnat to read about the Almirante Latorre class in Spanish, I know where to find that information, but not a single mention of the name, that is the title of the article, and what it means? Show me where that rule is, to exclude the translation and background of the title from FAs or from all articles, and I will work to get that policy changed. The article is incomplete without the information that this class is named after the admiral. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The class is named after the ship, not after the admiral. The ship is named after the admiral. - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's still the title of the article, and I'll concede the point about the other ship; but for the article, I want to know why the article's title is in Spanish, what it means, and who the class is named after. I hate reading FAs that make me click on 5 links to find out what the title means. And, go to a Spanish/English dictionary for a number of readers. Okay, it's an article about a class of ships, named for something Spanish. I'm gone at that point, unless I'm specifically interested in ships. Ship articles are fun, a lot of general readers could read them with a little courtesy on the part of the editors. --Kleopatra (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ed17, I browsed the FAs at WP:SHIPS, and roughly 25% of the class articles that include a foreign word in the title make a quick mention (such as "named after important cities") of the meaning in the first paragraph. So we should have enough support to get this through FAC either with or without, in case you want to add something like "both named after famous admirals" and link both ships. - Dank (push to talk) 20:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's exactly what I was going to do when I read the oppose before your comment. It would corespond to what I did in Rivadavia-class battleship. Thanks Dank. I'm not sure what translation you want, Kleo. I have a translation of "battleships" (acorazados) in the article already. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almirante? Seems like the obvious one to translate.... --Kleopatra (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I give up requesting that international wikipedia translate things into English. It seems there is a drive to prove we're multilingual here at en.wikipedia, which is turning into proof we don't care that our audience speaks English.[43] I care. I speak other languages, and I would never be so discourteous on wikipedia to demand that English language readers of articles I edit speak all those other languages. It's rude and it should not be any part of a FA.--Kleopatra (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replying to your comment on the talk page of this FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is generally well organized and well written, although the prose is stilted in a few places. I will add some specifics. I would like sentences to begin more clearly, rather than as asides to their own prose. This is minor. A few areas need linked to specifics. When initially discussing internal Argentine conflicts, do you mean Araucanization and Conquest of the Desert? Were these ships a response to Chile claiming the Straits of Magellan? The timing, early 20th century, is about the time these two combatants started upping the ante with other armaments in response to these late 19th c. treaties and grabs? --Kleopatra (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"asides to their own prose"? I don't understand what you mean. Any concrete examples I can examine? I added a link to Conquest of the Desert. Scheina wasn't very specific (his being a naval history, not a general history), and I didn't know that "conqueored the desert" would be close to the name of our Wikipedia article. Thanks very much for pointing me at it.[44] From sources, it looks like the ships were the direct result of Argentina acquiring the two Rivadavia-class battleships – was this not made clear enough in the article? Thank you very much for the review, and I'm looking forward to your response! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment I like the article and I certainly enjoyed the historical background. If the entire article was simply composed of the ship's specifications it would be quite boring. I'd like, however, to make a few comments about some pieces of the text that I believe could be improved.

1) Is there a need to all those Spanish-translated names? Ex.: acorazados, Guerra del Pacífico, crucero acorazado, etc...
This FAC may be closed soon so I'll jump in ... no opinion on this one. - Dank (push to talk)
2) "Chile often instigated or was drawn into naval competition with Argentina". Could it be a little more expanded to add "Chile often instigated or was drawn into naval competition with Argentina due to boundary dispute."?
I don't think that was the only source of disputes. - Dank (push to talk)
3) Could there be somekind of information telling that all three countries are located in South America? Perhaps in "When Argentina responded to Brazil's order for two dreadnoughts with two of its own, Chile felt that it also needed to respond". It could be added "When Argentina responded to neighbor Brazil's order for two dreadnoughts with two of its own, Chilefelt that it also needed to respond, leading to an arms race between the three nations of South America".
Most readers who care enough to read the article will know it, so I'd rather not put it in the lead section, but I did add "in southernmost South America" to the first sentence after the lead to deal with this point and your next point. I'm leaning opposed to changing, say, "to Brazil's order" in the lead to "to neighboring Brazil's order"; it just isn't something I often see in professional writing, although I understand that some people won't know it. I'm not sure how much more enlightened they'll be by "neighboring" if they didn't know it already. I could see linking to or adding a map. - Dank (push to talk)
4) "Conflicting Argentine and Chilean claims to Patagonia went back to the 1840s. In 1872 and again in 1878, Chilean warships seized merchant ships which had been licensed to operate in the disputed area by Argentina." What is Patagonia? Although I know what it is, most don't. Could you add something like ""Conflicting Argentine and Chilean claims to Patagonia—a geographic region containing the southernmost portion of South America—went back to the 1840s."
See above. - Dank (push to talk) 20:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5) "for a design drawn up by J.R. Perret, who had also designed Brazil's Rio de Janeiro". Why there is no wikilink to Rio de Janeiro? Perhaps it could more information could be added such as: "for a design drawn up by J.R. Perret, who had also designed Brazil's Rio de Janeiro—a dreadnought ordered in 1911 but sold to Turkey before completion and renamed Sultan Osman I". Since Rio de Janeiro was also part of this arms race, the extra bit of info perhaps would be welcome.
6) "Almirante Latorre was not forcibly seized like the Ottoman Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I" could become "not forcibly seized like the Ottoman Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I (former Rio de Janeiro)".

Please, do not feel obliged to make the changes I suggested solely for the sake of pleasing me. If you believe it's not a good idea, say it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed all but #2, Lecen (Dank is correct). They're all very valid thoughts, and I thank you for taking the time to read through the article. Dank, I'm not sure how professional it is, but I don't think a little extra context to ensure comprehension is a bad idea. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I was just talking about the words "neighbor" or "neighboring", they don't sound right in a history article somehow ... I'll ruminate on this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I really, really like this article. I's quite a shame that ed17 focus solely on the battleship articles. My suggestions had taken in acount that readers do not know everything. It's quite common among people who do not know South America that well to mistake Paraguay for Uruguay, etc... Congratulations you two. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:24, 19 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [45].

Ariel (moon)[edit]

Nominator(s): User:Ruslik0, Serendipodous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it has reached a level comparable to that of Oberon (moon), which is also featured. It has been scanned for grammar and spelling errors, contains no unfree images, is properly sourced to academic journals and contains no links to disambig pages or to dead external pages. It has been alt-texted, is reasonably clear to the lay reader, given the complexity of its subject, and forms part of the current WP:Solar System, which aims to make all the large objects in the Solar System featured articles. Serendipodous 21:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request: can I ask if you would expand on your nomination statement above? We can infer that you believe it meets the FA criteria by the simple fact you have brought it here. You nomination statement really ought to tell us why - the reasons this specific article meets those criteria. A quick look at this article suggests it is not a million miles from where it needs to be, although a few adjustments are certainly needed, but in my view a more properly reasoned nomination is needed to get the ball rolling. That doesn't need to be an essay - perhaps a hundred words highlighting the best parts of this article with reference to the FA criteria would be more than sufficient. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate it if you'd like more information, but that nomination statement is pretty standard. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, this form of nom statement has become increasingly outdated and can no longer be thought of as "standard". Something along the lines of that for the nom immediately above this one is much more helpful to prospective reviewers, and more likely to attract reviewer attention. I speak as one who (for my sins) spends much time trawling this page, and is grateful for any enlightenment that a nom statement can give. Not a deal-breaker, but something to bear in mind. Brianboulton (talk) 10:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I could expand it a little, I suppose, but I fail to see how the nom above is any better. The para makes a good case for the notability of the article, but not for its quality. Notability should be discussed at AfD, not FAC. Serendipodous 10:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the slightly delayed replay - I've been busy this last week. I agree with you - that nomination is not much better - I'm personally not interested in why the subject is inherently interesting but why it is FA worthy, a point you make yourself but your nom does not doe this. I'll have a detailed look through the article now although I can't claim specific knowledge of the Uranian moons. However, I am reluctant to actively support a nomination that lacks a proper nomination since there is no basis for that support. It seems to me we need to be much more scrupulous about demanding proper nomination statements if only to get rid of some of the more unlikely candidates (not that this one is unlikely) before they ever come here. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 06:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand what it is you want me to say, other than what I said in my expanded nom statement above. In my time on Wikipedia I have brought 26 articles to FA level. In none of those cases were any "specific" qualities raised. The criteria for bringing an article to FA are standard, as they should be. Serendipodous 11:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@ Quantunsilverfish: I would hope that the reason the article has been nominated is because the nominators think it meets the FL criteria. Whenever that isn't stated, it can usually be implied. If a nominator didn't believe an article met the criteria, I would hope it isn't nominated to start with. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 17:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Scarp); 1 dead external link- this is 404ing on me, though noaa.gov itself seems to be fine. --PresN 22:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry thought I got those. Fixed. Serendipodous 22:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all worked for me; some just took longer to load. Please tell me this won't become a regular thing. Serendipodous 00:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I could tell, they all were. Serendipodous 23:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can read the full article without going to a library. I also think the Herschel's story is beyond the scope of this article as Herschel claimed the discovery of satellites with orbital parameters very different to the actual interior satellites. Struve was actually quite dismissive of Herschel's claims.
I added two more references.
As for the William Shakespeare and/or Alexander Pope issue raised above, personally I feel the current wording is actually worse than the original. "And" implies they are characters named during some collaboration between the two, not that they are taken from different works from two individuals. A more extensive re-working would be needed to avoid ambiguity than a simple word substitution.
"And" implies only that characters are mentioned in the works of both authors. It is beyond the scope of this article to consider how Shakespeare and Pope wrote them in XVII century.
Rephrased.
"Its orbital period is around 2.5 Earth days, coincident with its rotational period". That should be synodic period: in the case of Ariel where its orbital period is so much shorter than Uranus the difference between the two is small, but still hugely significant, since the current wording contradicts the subsequent assertion that Ariel is tidally locked.
All orbital and rotational periods in this article are sidereal—relative to stars.
The assertion made of the Hussman et al reference from Icarus seems dubious to me. I've just got a copy of the paper and I immediately note it does not mention Ariel at all except in table entries, none of which at a glance support the assertion. I'll read through it properly today.
Which assertion do you mean?
"It is recommended to use as much magnification as allowed by the weather conditions." That is decidedly advisory per WP:NOTHOWTO and needs reworking to state that magnification will help with distinguishing it in a more factual manner.
It is was added in response to a reviewer request above. Generally for a faint object in the glare of a bright object, as much magnification as possible is good. I doubt any more factual description is possible. Ruslik_Zero 17:27, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. It was removed. Ruslik_Zero 19:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that I don't think this is a million miles from FA standard. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - while the article isn't perfect (none are), I am much happier with the prose now with the editors' quick work to my many complains. I feel it is the best source of info on the topic anywhere, so that passes my primary FA criterion. I guess I was hoping for more, but as Serendipodous pointed out it was only observed once. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped at "Albedo and color", since I feel there are too many issues for this to become an FA. I suggest you get another peer review. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the specific issues you raised, save the ones we commented on, have been resolved. Serendipodous 12:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still notice some subpar wording for an FAC.

More later. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A general note Hink. We're talking about a moon that has been photographed exactly once, by a decade-old camera, 25 years ago, with only 35% coverage. When that's all you have to go on, there will be uncertainty. It would be foolish to say otherwise. Serendipodous 20:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  1. There is a mixture of mdy and dmy dates; also check the references as there is only one mdy date, and all the others are YEAR-MO-DA.
  2. Shouldn't the first sentence read "27 known moons"?
  3. Shouldn't "particularly Alexander..." read "which features in Alexander..."?
  4. I still don't think the reason and origin of the name is clear. I had to read other articles to understand it. I suggest changing "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of both William Shakespeare and Alexander Pope." to "All Uranus's moons are named after characters from the works of William Shakespeare or Alexander Pope's The Rape of the Lock."
  5. Is there a preposition missing from the final sentence of the "Orbit" section, e.g. "resulting in tidal..."?
  6. In the "Origin and evolution" section, there is a strange mixture of specific statements, such as "195K was reached at the depth of about 31 km", and statements qualified by "probably", "may be" and "likely". Are the definite statements really definite? DrKiernan (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Issues mostly resolved. I added "models suggest" to the paragraph. Was one enough, or should it be added again? Serendipodous 19:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments addressed. I'd be inclined to say "reaching estimates of 30 MPa" or similar since "reaching up to" can be read as "possibly reaching" or "definitely reaching" depending on the reader. DrKiernan (talk) 11:21, 15 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [46].

Interstate 80 Business (West Wendover, Nevada – Wendover, Utah)[edit]

Nominator(s): Admrboltz (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel that this article meets the requirements. The highway has historical significance, and is the main street between the twinned cities on the Nevada–Utah border. The article has previously passed GAC and project ACR, and has been copy edited by the WP:GoCE. Admrboltz (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

oppose File:Interstate_80_Business_(NV-UT)_map.svg lacks context for readers who are unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA Fasach Nua (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An updated version has been uploaded under the same file name that incorporates File:Map of USA UT.svg, with both Utah and Nevada highlighted in red. Please let me know if this will help for readers unfamiliar with the subnational geography of the USA to understand the map. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are going in the right direction, however the caption needs updated to explain all elements of the image Fasach Nua (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|map_notes= has been updated in ((Infobox road)), and the description on File:Interstate 80 Business (NV-UT) map.svg has been updated as well. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FA Criteria 3 Met Fasach Nua (talk) 19:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Can a creation date for NV 224 be found?
    I emailed the public works officer of West Wendover, but have yet to receive a reply. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed the Nevada Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The creation date of SR 224 is likely to be July 1, 1976, which is the authorization date of most current Nevada highways and is coincident with the statewide renumbering of all of Nevada's highways. SR 224 was removed from state maintenance prior to publication of any of the state highway log files I have, so I cannot verify this with a source at present--I may be able to find a source for this with a trip to the UNR library in a few days. -- LJ ↗ 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can do that for me, that would be excellent. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have confirmed the "Approval Date" of July 1, 1976 for SR 224--see the thread on my talk page. -- LJ ↗ 05:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! --Admrboltz (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can a mention be made in the history that the route was signed sometime in the 1980s?
    Seems WP:ORish, I know that its signed now but I can't cite that there were signs up in the 80s, only that the application for the designation was deferred in the 80s, and its now signed. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any maps that you can find showing BL 80? Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The loop is too close to mainline I-80 to show on a state-wide map. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there any more localized maps from the 1980s that can be found to verify the creation of the route? Dough4872 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not that I am finding, but I will keep looking. W Wendover wasn't even a city till 91, so the chances are low of finding a detailed enough map for the area. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed the Nevada Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NDOT maps typically do not show city-level detail for most municipalities in Nevada. NDOT does publish some city-level detail maps on their website, but these maps tend to show the overlapping state route and not the business loop shields. NDOT's route logs do not reflect business loops in any fashion, so field signage is often the only way to verify that the business loops exist. -- LJ ↗ 09:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats what I was finding as well. The latest version NDOT put out was in 93 when 224 was still listed on the map. And yeah, I can't seem to find older SMs on the NDOT site. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The history section of the article seems a little disorganized. The second paragraph should be moved to the end of the history section as it deals with recent events.
    This has been mentioned earlier, and I have received conflicting suggestions. Some say to keep the US 40 stuff together, some say keep it chronological. Originally I had the Victory Highway stuff at the bottom, but was told to move it up to where it is now. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer for the history to read chronologically. Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Can the state line row in the Major intersections table be formatted similar to the one in U.S. Route 113? Dough4872 18:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer not to, as I need the notes column for the concurrency note. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Another viable option would be to format the table in a similar matter to the one in Pennsylvania Route 491. Dough4872 18:22, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I think that looks even more confusing / cluttered than what is in the article now. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The only concern I have with the current table is the blank entry for the junction column. Dough4872 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tweaked. --Admrboltz (talk) 18:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest not having the Nevada columus come down all the way for the state line row. In PA 491, the state line row is split between PA and DE. See that article for how it should appear here. Dough4872 18:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) made the change. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I also have two concerns with the sentence "Formerly BL-80 was the only connection to Wendover from Utah, but the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) completed a new partial diamond interchange at Aria Boulevard, which allows traffic from I-80 to exit going westbound and for traffic to enter I-80 eastbound." I do not think the Google Maps reference supports the statement. In addition, can an opening date for this interchange be found? Dough4872 18:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some details added. I use to have a document with an opening date, but UDOT has completely redesigned their website, and I cant find it right now. --Admrboltz (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Opening date added for Aria Blvd. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I emailed the Utah Department of Transportation this morning to see if they can assist with a more precise opening date / better source. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 06:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Although maps are widely used as sources in road articles, it is important that the facts cited to them are verifiable. I have had some difficulties in this respect, for example:-

I was unable to download the map in 17. The map in refs 22, 23 and 24 is one and the same, so perhaps these three refs could be combined. Brianboulton (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 17 is a linked image from commons. The file name is File:1926us.jpg. Refs 22-24 are in fact all Nevada Highway Maps, but if you look at the |year= field on ((cite map)) they are three different years: 1953, 1954, and 1978–1979. --Admrboltz (talk) 02:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have obviously moved to address my concerns. My problem is that I barely understand a word of your explanations. Is "pull the map" an Americanism for "enlarge the map"? Can you explain a little more clearly how you have addressed my concern re ref 4? What is a "dead tree reference"? Brianboulton (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I will attempt to be clearer. Pull the map - Yes, if you open the map and zoom in on it, you should see the small numbers next to the line that indicate the mileage.
"Traveling east along Wendover Boulevard, BL-80 passes by the Peppermill casino, the West Wendover Visitors Center" -- verified by ref 4 "...and Scobie Park." -- verified by the 1993 city map. "US 93 Alt turns south towards Ely, while BL-80 continues east until it reaches the Montego Bay Resort and Wendover Nugget casinos." -- verified by ref 4. "The casinos are connected via a sky bridge that allows pedestrian access between the hotels without crossing the highway." -- verified by the new book reference.
I hope this helps. --Admrboltz (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, things are a little clearer. If no other reviewer raises the points which I have left unstruck, you may consider them resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments I have a number of suggestions to improve how this article reads. –Fredddie™ 03:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  1. This is more of a personal preference than anything, but unless you're writing a letter, you should not use postal abbreviations.
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Is there any part of SR-58 that is not part of BL-80? If there is not, that is, if SR-58 and BL-80 are one and the same, a better word than concurrent is coterminous.
    There is not, wording changed. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The last sentence of the lead should read "Between July 1976 and 1993, BL-80 was concurrent with State Route 224 in Nevada."
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SR-58 is nearly always abbreviated while SR-224 never is.
    Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ((Jct)) uses a period in the abbreviation for alternate ( US 93 Alt.), while there are no such periods in the prose. These should be consistent.
    Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. What kind of line is painted across the street at the state line?
    See Flickr image. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. You mention Utah DOT's abbreviation, twice actually (you should use the abbreviation the second time), but never mention Nevada DOT's abbreviation.
    Corrected. --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The sentence where you mention where the highway is codified in Utah law seems tacked on after the fact.
    Well it kind of was. I couldn't really think of a better spot for it, and Imzadi1979 (talk · contribs) mentioned it should be mentioned in prose since it was in the infobox. Do you have a suggestion where I should put it, or should I just drop it? --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The second sentence in the history section should read "To welcome travelers to his station, he installed a light bulb at the top of a tall pole, which served as the only light in the desert.[15]"
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. "Wendover Boulevard was formerly numbered US 40..." seems redundant. Maybe remove formerly?
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Between 1932 and 1953,[22][23] the designation was US 50, and between 1954 and either 1978 and 1979,[24][25] the designation was US 50 Alt." Would it sound better if the designation was became it was designated?
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Wendover Boulevard between US 93 Alt and the state line was formerly designated..." Same as 10.
    done
  13. "Even though BL-80 is signed in both Nevada and Utah, the route was never officially designated a business loop..." and "No such request was ever submitted.[29]" Maybe change was (n)ever to has (n)ever been. The changes will make it sound like it could one day become an official business loop.
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "Formerly, BL-80 was the only connection to Wendover from Utah, but..." From here to the end of the section should be rewritten for clarity. I wouldn't use formerly in this instance. We know the interchange opened in 2007, so I would start it with "Prior to 2007, BL-80..."
    done --Admrboltz (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns have been addressed. –Fredddie™ 07:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Utah segment of BL-80 is codified into Utah law as Utah Code §72-4-111.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re the external link. This in invoked by the infobox template. It was a result of ambiguity in the state of Utah's copyright policy. For other states, such as California, the state laws have been uploaded to wikisource, and the infobox would include a transwiki link to the copy of state law on wikisource. However, in the case of Utah, the terms of use on the legislature's homepage are ambiguous about if the state law can be considered public domain, the website does state that Utah code is free for non-commercial use. However, wikipedia does not consider that to be free use. As such linking directly to the legislature's website was determined to be the best solution until we get clarification. Dave (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I was just informed that your comments were referring to a different EL which was removed before I read this. Dave (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has already been removed by another editor. --Admrboltz (talk) 06:46, 13 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [47].

Fantastic (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic was probably the only magazine launched as a result of the Korean War. The war caused Ziff-Davis to cancel a proposed relaunch of Amazing Stories, and the plans were reformulated a couple of years later to launch a quality fantasy magazine. It lasted for twenty-eight years, making it one of the more durable science fiction and fantasy magazines, and was instrumental in popularizing the sword and sorcery genre. Other FAs that may be interesting for comparison include Galaxy Science Fiction and If. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be unconvinced that the 1st, 3rd and 7th logos are simple generic fonts Fasach Nua (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the article talk page I noted the years that are copyrighted; they are Jun - Dec 54, all of 55, Feb 56, all of 68, and all of 72-78. The months shown in the logo image are Summer 1952, September–October 1953, January 1961, January 1964, June 1971, October 1978, and April 1979, so only the sixth image is still under copyright. Given that, do you see any problem with this image? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If this magazine was not a US publication, creative lettering could be of copyright concern. However, US law does not grant copyrights to typefaces as long as the intent is for text (if the letter has artwork within, then the art could be copyrighted and should be removed, leaving the outline of the letter). Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The file has now been updated by Jappalang to a logo-only version. I commented above that to someone familiar with the magazines this looks a little disembodied, and I think on balance I would prefer the original version. However, I propose to leave it as is and see if other commenters on this FAC express an opinion. I don't believe copyright is an issue here; it's just a question of presentation and benefit to the reader. Mike Christie (talk – library) 11:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Ensure that color is not the only way used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text unless its status is also indicated using another method such as italic emphasis or footnote labels. Otherwise, blind users or readers accessing Wikipedia through a printout or device without a color screen will not receive that information. WP:COLOUR

Appart from this it is a very good article, and I'm more then willing to support. (Note: I have not checked the sources). P. S. Burton (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. The only information provided by the colours in those charts is the date on which each editor took over; that information is repeated in a section at the end of the article, here. I hope that's sufficient -- it would be a pity to remove the colours from the images, as I think it's a concise visual representation of the editorships. I could add the information to the captions, but that would make them rather long, so I'd like to just leave it with the list at the end of the article. Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine by me, unless someone else disagrees. P. S. Burton (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: No problems with the sources or citations, except that the ISBN for Kyle (1977) should be given. According to Abebooks this is 0-600-38193-5. Verification spotchecks not possible. Brianboulton (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added; yes, that's the right ISBN. Thanks for the source review. Mike Christie (talk – library) 16:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks strong, as I'd expect. I haven't had the chance to read through it carefully (I look forward to doing so), but I do see that there's a problem with those beautifully designed issue data tables:

I would suggest moving the 1960 data to table 2, the 1970 data to table 3, and rewording the caption of table 3 to begin "Issues of Fantastic in the 1970s and 1980".—DCGeist (talk) 11:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right, of course, but the current tables have the advantage of almost even distribution of the year-data among the three tables, which helps maximize the font size for a given width of table. How about changing the captions instead, to say "Issues of Fantastic through 1960", "from 1961 to 1970", and "from 1971 to 1980" instead? Mike Christie (talk – library) 12:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that seems fine.—DCGeist (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 21:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

-- Jappalang (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the article does a good job in presenting a comprehensive history of this sci-fi magazine. There are a few spots of rough language in my view (my language skills suffer from its own flaws...), but overall, the article gets its points across to me quite clearly. Jappalang (talk) 09:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 14:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support with just a few quibbles

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 18:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. Mike Christie (talk – library) 01:34, 14 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [48].

Windsor Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because Windsor Castle is one of the best known castles in England, with a fascinating historical and architectural history. To me one of the most interesting elements of the castle is the way in which the architecture is rarely considered "perfect" at any point - numerous monarchs have changed aspects of the castle in attempts to improve it. Some have worked well... some less so. It is a fairly long article, but covers a number of centuries of events and history.Hchc2009 (talk) 16:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have only recently edited this article: were Malleus Fatuorum and Nev1 consulted about this nomination and do they agree it's ready? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so - link to the dialogue is here. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. This is my first article at FAC, so all advice/direction very gratefully received! Hchc2009 (talk) 17:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The edit count is deceptive, Hchc2009 usually works in user space and the bulk of what you see was moved into article space on 18 December. My own edits have been minor. Nev1 (talk) 18:38, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources look very comprehensive and reliable. A few mainly minor points on presentation:-

Citations
Bibliography

Oherwise, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 00:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response:
No. 1. I've expanded and given the details in Nicolson, but he doesn't give any more than this in terms of publication details (it was an internal report for the royal family and English Heritage, so may not have been formally published).
No. 5. Done.
No. 23. Sorted.
No. 27. Ditto.
No. 40. Ditto.
No. 41. Think I've caught all of these now.
No. 51. Sorted I think.
No. 115. Done.
Ref 127. Done.
No. 249. Sorted.
Biblio:
  • Done, second and third authors reversed throughout.
  • Done - Cruickshanks spelt properly now.
  • Hoak: changed, but worth checking I've corrected it the right way!
NB: whilst doing reference No. 127, I caught one duplicate reference, so references 127+ are now one lower than before (i.e. No. 249 above is now 248 in the article).
Hchc2009 (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Enthusiastic Support. Fascinating article, very interesting, well-written, and overwhelmingly beautifully illustrated (I can't comment on image copyright stuff). One quibble, though: Could it perhaps be mentioned that Henry VI, who was called Henry of Windsor for his birth there, resided there quite often, and was reburied in the chapel by Richard III in 1484 (it was then when his cult as a saint developed greatly). Edward IV also lies buried in the chapel which was built in a sense for that purpose, not only his grandson Henry VIII. I am also wondering what A. L. Rowse is doing with dates (years), I had to correct two quite strange examples in the 15th/16th century sections alone. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:00, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think the second one may have been the result of having the social unrest (as opposed to proper rebellion) of 1548 on the brain and getting the sentence phrasing wrong - my fault rather than Rowse. First one seems to be my typo.
I've added a bit on the movement of the body, using Miri Rubin as a reference. I've also added in a bit about Edward IV's burial place (I don't think he's in the same vault as the others, but his tomb is certainly in the chapel).
Hchc2009 (talk) 17:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added that "Henry of Windsor" was born there myself. (Edward IV's grave is directly opposite Henry VI's). Buchraeumer (talk) 17:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The castle's design reflects a feature common to almost all the periods of Windsor architecture; new building work has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles." - what is "a feature"? Maybe rephrase to plural.
  • No decent pic of the motte - one would fit here, or opposite the table of contents where there is a big white gap.
  • "The buildings in the Upper Ward are characterised by the use of small bits of flint in the mortar, a technique originally started at the castle in the 17th century to give stonework from disparate periods a similar appearance." There's a word for this & maybe a link. It may come to me, or anyone?
  • Generally, more dates needed for decorative schemes.
  • "Different rooms follow the Classical, Gothic and Rococo styles" - links needed. Do we mean Neoclassical and Gothic Revival? Rococo link just below shd be moved here.
  • "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle are 19th-century plasterwork and wood fakes, designed to blend with the original articles". Don't quite understand this. Is any of it genuine Rococo (pre say 1760) - surely not as far as the fixed elements go? "wood fakes" of what, & what "original articles"? Link Carlton House & maybe explain it.
  • "Wyatville's design retains three rooms originally built by Hugh May..." Date needed (others on campaigns of decoration earlier would also be good). How "innovative" was the Baroque fusion? In England maybe; should perhaps be restricted as old hat on the continent.
  • "The "beautifully vaulted" 14th-century Larderie passage runs alongside the Kitchen Courtyard is decorated with carved royal roses, marking its construction by Edward III" - grammar. OK, I added "and".
  • "Other cloisters originally built by Edward III sit alongside the Horseshoe, ..." a bit awkward, especially as a cloister is really supposed to be an enclosed rectangle (normally). No sign of any such on the map. "Ranges" might be better.
  • "in the fashion of Eugène Viollet-le-Duc's Carcassonne" - needs something inserting. As I'm sure you know Carcassonne is a medieval city given a heavy going over by VlD, especially the walls. This makes it sound like a new house or something. His "recreation of" maybe?
  • "John used the castle as his base before proceeding to sign the Magna Carta at nearby Runnymede in 1215" - italicized words a bit awkward. "in the negotiations that led to him signing.." perhaps.
  • "...nearby Eton College, under the previous instructions of Henry VI." Awkward.
  • "This flow of foreign visitors and vibrant court life was captured for the queen's entertainment in William Shakespeare's play, The Merry Wives of Windsor.[137" - rather dubious Rowseiana. I haven't seen the play for decades, but as I recall it (like the Verdi opera) covers bourgeois life in what could be any town, with little reference to court life.
  • "French court etiquette at the time required a substantial number of rooms in order to satisfy court protocol;" ideally work in Enfilade (architecture) which is what this is about.
  • "George I took little interest in Windsor Castle, preferring St James, Hampton Court, Kensington Palace and Richmond Palace". Links and phrasing. Hampton Court is a place, Hampton Court Palace the building, & so on. Why Kensington Palace but not the rest?
    • I disagree with Johnbod about this. Everyone calls the palace "Hampton Court" tout court. But pray be careful about the apostrophe s in "St James's" – indispensable. Tim riley (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No they don't, especially locally. But it should at least be given in full at the first mention, which isn't here. A phrasing like: "preferring his other palaces at St James, Hampton Court, Kensington and Richmond" with links for new mentions avoids all difficulties. But I see Richmond Palace was destroyed under the Commonwealth, so presumably should be removed. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wealthy visitors who could afford to pay the castle keeper could enter," - surely "wealth" not needed; these charges were pretty reasonable for the well-to-do?
  • " Indeed, it has been argued that Windsor reached social peak during the Victorian era, seeing the introduction of invitations to numerous prominent figures to "dine and sleep" at the castle at key events." - grammar, but "social peak" is a bit awkward. How or what were the "events" "key"? In fact too many "events" over the next sentences.
  • "becoming known as the "Widow of Windsor" after a famous poem by Rudyard Kipling" - what exactly does the reference say? It's hard to believe the phrase originated with RK frankly, as opposed to being picked up by him. Prince Albert had already been dead 5 years when he was born.
  • "George III's Diary rebuilt in a Renaissance style in 1859; " tee-hee
  • "spotlights being used in the work set fire to an altar curtain.." Is altar curtain the right term? These have been rare since the Middle Ages. Just a "hanging"?
  • Since the notes are quite long, they would be better at normal size. The refs would be better in 2 if not 3 columns.

In general a fine piece. I've made a number of minor edits, and added a little bit on the Royal Collection; more could be added here. Johnbod (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll work through these - cheers!
  • "feature" - I've tried a possible rewording.
Ok clearer, but why not just "For several centuries architecture at the castle has attempted to produce a contemporary reinterpretation of older fashions and traditions, repeatedly imitating outmoded or even antiquated styles" - one doubts this was much of a concern in the Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like the wording! I've gone for "since the 14th century", as the Edward III rebuild is the first to do this (immitating the late 13th century work of his grandfather, albeit with big windows added in!)Hchc2009 (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flint in the stonework" - "galletting". I've added a link.
Ah, I knew it was something to do with Breton food, but was thinking mussels! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links to architectural terms done.
Ok.
  • I've had a go at clarifying the fake Rococo pieces. What I'm trying to describe is that the lower half of some of the rooms' walls and carvings are original, 1760s, 18th century pieces from France, Carlton House (and before that France) etc. which were purchased and brought to install in the castle Above those original works though you get plaster work and wood fakes - the rooms at Windsor were too big to get originals to fit properly!
How about: "Investigations after the 1992 fire have shown though that many Rococo features of the modern castle, originally thought to have been 18th century fittings transferred from Carlton House or France, are in fact 19th-century imitations in plasterwork and wood, designed to blend with original elements" or something. One might specify boiseries etc, which is presumably what we're talking about. "Fakes" is rather harsh, imo! Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone with that wording. They're very good imitations, I must say! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Baroque fusion" - I'm not sure; there were clearly Baroque designs on the continent, I don't know if there were similar attempts to combine the three arts on the continent at that point though. I've added "English" - see if that works!
Ok, or "show a "baroque fusion", innovative for England, of the hitherto ..."
  • "cloisters" sorted as you suggested
  • "Carcassonne" sorted. You're right, it did have that "darling, I decided to do some DIY this morning, I remodelled the city of Carcassonne" tone to it!
  • John - changes made to try and sort the flow.
  • Eton college - changes made to clarify.
  • "wealthy" - I think the original source stressed that it was slightly expensive at the time. I've gone for "wealthier" to soften the language slightly.
  • Victoria - "dine and sleep" sorted.
  • "diary" sorted. Still, it was a very nice Georgian diary, with neoclassical pages and a marble cover! :)
  • "altar curtains". I'm not sure. I've seen a picture of them (before they caught fire!), and they came down on either side of the altar so as to allow it to be veiled from the rest of the room. They were very tall, 19ft tall in fact. The source refers to them as "the curtains in front of the altar", "the curtains in the altar", etc., though, not strictly speaking as an "altar curtain". Edward Blore designed it, so it might be that he had a medieval model in mind though. Either way, I've tweaked the text, keeping "curtain" in, but avoiding suggesting that these are identical to the medieval version.
Ok, that's an altar curtain alright. No need to adjust. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I'd still say "town life" rather than "court life" - or something. It is actually unusual among Shakespeare's non-Roman plays in having no scenes set in a court, as far as I recall. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed a bit - should work now.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still shows in single column to me. I don't understand those templates either. Johnbod (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bizarre. Looks like three columns on this system. Ditto! Hchc2009 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All ok if not commented on. Johnbod (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's all of them now, if you're happy with the last set of changes. Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bonus point: There are places where it could be clarified how much remains of particular decorative schems, especially the Charles II Baroque one. Is any of that left? Johnbod (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah. He did use both versions. The wiki page is under Wyattville with two "t"s though. I'll adjust so that the article is consistent with the version used on the main wiki page.
  • Beseiged fixed.
  • "Draughty" was what I had in mind!

Hchc2009 (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Image query File:Carved_unicorn212334.jpg is presumably taken under freedom of panorama, which is allowed if the subject is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public, can the permanence and location of this sculpture be verified? Fasach Nua (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I didn't take the photo itself, the carving is a permanent installation in St George's Hall, one of the parts of the castle open to the public. For a (non-free) picture of it in situ, Flickr has a picture here; it's the middle statue on the pillar. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can this be tagged onto the image page that it is freedom of panorama and that it is in public place on permanent exhibit, otherwise WP:FA Criteria 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it on. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FA Criterion 3 met Fasach Nua (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a nice article, but at 104 kb is rather long. I would consider breaking out the history section into a separate article. Note that this is just a comment, not an oppose. Warren Dew (talk) 02:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's 104kb of raw wikitext though, there's around 10,100 words of prose which sounds reasonable given the long and eventful history Windoer has. Nev1 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning support with nitpicks:

  • The very next sentence is "this was the largest amount spent by any English medieval monarch on a single building operation, and over one and a half times Edward's typical annual income of £30,000". Nev1 (talk) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to find a polite way of putting it and added it to the text. Basically they got horribly, horribly drunk together during the visit; pictures were drawn of them both in embarrassing, rather unseemly positions and printed off around Europe. An early "drunken pictures of crowned heads of Europe posted on Facebook" episode essentially! Hchc2009 (talk) 09:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Will run through these later today.Hchc2009 (talk) 09:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: has anyone done a WP:V, close paraphrasing check?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There's still a section heading "Today"-- any reason that can't be 21st century? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V

  • Cantor as a source is good for the sentence immediately preceding the citation, but I'll have to find an alternative for the couple of sentences before it (which I think came from earlier editors before my rewrite - they're definitely true, but will need their own references). Will sort first thing tomorrow.
  • I remember struggling with the "earliest mechanical, weight-driven clock" sentence originally, because the clock term is so specific. I'm happy to rephrase it as a direct quote if that would get us around the paraphrasing challenge?
  • Will double check the Gbook links! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've searched out some more references for the other preceeding sentences and added them.
  • I've gone for a direct quote on the clock.
  • I've clicked through on the GBooks links, and they're all looking okay to me. I'm probably missing something though! Which links do you think are miss-linking?
  • Hchc2009 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't like that quote. I suggest changing it to earliest weight-driven mechanical clock, which avoids the need for a comma, and uses a specific technical term that cannot be copyrighted or easily changed since other mechanical clocks are pendulum-driven or spring-driven. It's not so easy to use any other five words to describe that object, unless you use an unnecessary and cumbersome synonym like "timepiece". There's no infringement when there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing. DrKiernan (talk) 11:39, 16 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [49].

Maya stelae[edit]

Nominator(s): Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maya stelae are considered one of the key markers of Classic Period Maya culture. I created this article from scratch a few months ago, it recently passed GA and am now throwing it up for FA review to further improve it. Simon Burchell (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks - I find that when cites are placed at the end of paragraphs, the risk is that someone inserts unref'd material that is then wrongly attributed to that cite. However, I also understand that it does produce a certain amount of clutter - I'll remove the extra cites if you insist... Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No wories, I do the same when building so that when things are shifted about, I can track back to the source. But once its more or less there and the structure is stable there its prob best to trim down. No biggie though. Any issues if I trim them as I read through. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of my images have previously been published on webshots before I put them on Commons, hence the OTRS tickets for some of the images. I have put Xenophon's username by the author credit on the Commons image page. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in consecutive references (Borowitz and Clark) we have "Austin" and "Austin, Texas, USA". Also "University of Texas Press" and "University of Texas".
  • "London" and "New York", but "Paris, France"
  • some publisher locations are just countries, surely they must have a city?
  • "California" and "CA" both occur (abbreviating states is bad practice anyway).
  • "Oxford", but "Cambridge, UK"
  • I don't like the capitalised authors (How does this fit with MoS?), and it's not consistent. In the Fash ref, the chapter authors are capped, but not the book authors.
  • I think it's now preferred for non-English publication to use the "language = " template parameter rather than the "icon" style
  • I don't believe the language= parameter is preferred; in fact, I dislike it, as the icons make it easier to scan the citations to see how many non-English sources are used. I place them at the beginning of the citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to follow US states with "USA"
  • Wernecke is an online version of a real document, doesn't need retrieval date. Also Coggins, several others. Why is Morales marked as a PDF online publication, but not the other pdfs? All or none please
Why? If it's the on-line version of a real publication, it's not likely to change Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • in chapter of book type refs, the book authors are sometimes first name surname, sometimes surname, first name
  • Generally the first author is given as "Surname, First name" and all other authors are given as "first name surname". This is not only consistent, it is standard practice - dig out any reference book and the chances are this is how the authors will be listed. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've missed my point: Braswell, Geoffrey, but Vernon Scarborough
  • Stelae have become threatened in modern times by plundering for sale on the international art market — I can't see how a 38-year old source is appropriate. Need a much more up-to-date source for current situation
  • This seems to be the only in-depth treatment of the subject, and is relevant even if only for historical reasons. I looked at Google Scholar and one other general doc on archaeological looting did come up at HeinOnline, subscription only - I've just posted a resource request and will see what comes back. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are just a selection of problems, please go through and check each reference for consistency of formatting Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that - I've gone through the locations and edited them for consistency. Sometimes a web source does not give a physical location and may represent a network, however I've done the best I can. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck some, commented further on others, and left a couple unstruck so that those more knowledgeable about MoS than me can comment. If I can, I'll do a full review, but it may not be until after Christmas Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the time to look at this stuff (and for removing that "Oppose"!). Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think that we are sorted as far as possible with images and refs. I can't say I like having the country in location refs, but at least it's consistent. Only unstruck are the ones where I would welcome a second opinion. I suppose I'd better actually read the text next (: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • These stelae were erected while the king was still alive in an apparent effort to project his power. Although they were sometimes the focus of later ritual activity, their primary purpose was not a funerary one. I've quickly scanned your links and none of them seem to refer to Maya stelae in a funerary context - indeed, I would be very surprised if they did. They were not erected over royal tombs or to commemorate the dead, except to link a living king with a powerful ancestor, in which case the living king is the primary focus. Simon Burchell (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that doesn't do it either. The stela depicted in the article was raised by a living king to celebrate a ceremony he had performed, as is the case with most stelae. The fact that the looters were specifically pillaging tombs doesn't make any stela that they also looted a funerary monument - Maya stelae were not funerary monuments. The book you linked also makes no mention of stelae as funerary monuments. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have been looted from tombs; clearly they have been found in tombs, sorry but I cannot support your article. They are found in tombs; and you say the living kings erected them, and apparently they were in cases reset to accompany a tomb of a dead king, then they were looted from tombs and yet your article makes no mention of any of this...Modernist (talk) 18:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were not looted from tombs - please clearly reference any claim that they were. Stelae are found standing in plazas, or lying broken on plaza floors. I cannot think of a single instance where a stela was extracted from a tomb. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some deep thought I remembered an instance at Takalik Abaj where an early stela was associated with a royal tomb (i.e. erected nearby, it wasn't in the tomb). I've inserted a mention of this into the article - but I still do not feel that this instance is enough to label Maya stelae as funerary art. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard that they were commemorative gravestones. A casual glance at the great plaza of Tikal certainly gives the impression of a cemetary with stelae bearing a resemblance to tombstones, but the resemblance is superficial. Maya stelae were erected to celebrate the power and achievements of the living, not commemorate the dead. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So in other words the Great Pyramids of Egypt and their contents were erected after the pharoah died - because he wasn't monumentalizing his 'power and achievements in his own lifetime' - only the Mayan kings did that...Modernist (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, comparison with Egypt isn't particularly relevant, and I'm not in a position to comment upon it in any case. I can only stress that I have read very widely upon the subject and put in an accurate summary of current understanding of Maya stelae. If I had found any reliable reference that described Maya stelae as funerary in nature, I would have included it. I didn't and I haven't. None of the references you linked above mention that Maya stelae were funerary in nature. I have a hard copy of the book you linked, it is a very solid source and doesn't state that Maya stelae are funerary. If you have a clear source that states that they are, please supply it. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I am only seeing an online version and yet the caption on page 308 [55] reads in part: Siyaj Chan K'awiil II lies beneath Str 5D-33-2nd, and his Stela 31 was interred in the rear room of his buried building and more explanation here [56]...Modernist (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for that, this particular stela was already mentioned in the article, although not its placement over the tomb. I've now mentioned this placement in the text. It is important to note, however, that this was an accession monument, not a funerary one, even though it was later placed above his tomb. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 20:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point is that the stelae themselves embody and are the essence of the memorialization and commemoration of those that eventually died; not that they were created for or were used exclusively as objects to be entombed. But rather they clearly functioned as the record of the life of those that they memorialized (in some cases as the only record), and they were planted or re-planted near to or within or placed at the entrance to several tombs or rather certain tombs, functioning as funereal objects. However I will re-read the otherwise excellent article again...Modernist (talk) 21:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As co-author & FAC co-nom of Funerary art, I don't see a link to it as necessary, though I wouldn't object to one; we thought about including them there but did not for the reasons Simon gives - there may have been discussion on this, I forget. I shall be reviewing this article later. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not entirely sure why the title is plural, but I don't feel strongly on this.
  • The lead is too short, and one obvious lack is a longer generalized description and definition of what they are. One missing word and link is relief which is the basic art history term for such sculptures. Are any not reliefs? If so this should be said somewhere. Nearly all have at least one flat face that is carved, yes? "Many stelae are upright slabs of limestone sculpted on one or both faces" - many illustrated seem to have four faces, though one (Stela 5 somewhere) seems from the photo essentially round with one flat face. You need to summarize the iconography of the stelae briefly. Can it be said that all or most stelae of the Classic period relate to an individual ruler, or his wife, even if something else is also celebrated? That seems to be the case from the "Function" section, but it's all a bit wooly. Whatever "lowest common denominator" statements can safely be made need to be included. A very brief summary of the history section should also be included.
  • "low circular stones now labelled as altars" - maybe "low circular stones referred to as altars, although their actual function is uncertain".
  • Roughly how many survive? This belongs in the lead.
  • "Evidence of this has been found on the causeways themselves, where compaction rollers have been recovered" Don't understand what a "compaction roller" is.
  • Changed it to a simple "where rollers have been recovered" - the source gives "compaction rollers" but I can't find a satisfactory definition anywhere, seems to be the equivalent of just pushing it along on a bunch of logs, so "roller" should suffice. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hammerstones were fashioned from flint and basalt and were used for rounding of the softer rocks ..." (my italics), Generally all sides of a stela were sculpted with human figures and hieroglyphic text, with each side forming a part of a single composition.[48] "Undecorated stelae in the form of plain slabs or columns of stone are found throughout the Maya region.[5] These appear never to have been painted or to have been decorated overlaid stucco sculpture.[49]" This could well be in the lead - see my point above. But what "rounding"?
  • We have an article on Copán Altar Q. Was this associated with a stela, & should it be linked?
  • "It depicts the crowning of Siyaj Chan K'awiil II, with his father hovering above him as a supernatural and is executed in traditional Maya style." Something missing after "supernatural"?
  • The lead photo is the only one showing a high-relief standing figure Copan-type stela, but even though pretty large it is hard to read on the page. Commons has several clearer photos, including some of details. The caption should mention it is a particular type.
  • I've switched the lead photo for a more detailed photo, and moved the former lead pic down into the history section. I'm not entirely sure that the new photo is good for the lead - it doesn't give an immediate grasp of what a Maya stela is, so may swap around, moving the Quirigua/Copan double image from the Late Classic section up into the lead, and the new pic down into the Late Classic section. What do you think? Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about moving that detailed one to the end of the lead so it is opposite the TOC, where the width is useful? The Peabody image is a nice sharp overall view, especially if cropped of the shrubbery. It also faces into the page. Or File:Stele51CalakmulMuseum.JPG or File:Copan01.jpg. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Newsome says in her intro "Mayanists have now established a systematic understanding of what subjects, themes, and symbols appear in stela iconography, recognizing that they portray kings engaged in rituals that require blood sacrifice and result in visionary revelations of the otherworld." Is this like the bloodletting ritual on Yaxchilan Lintel 24? Anyway there is nothing much on this in the article - should there be?
  • Yes, this would be like the Yaxchilan lintels, although most stelae do not seem to depict this. The articles on stelae iconography only make passing mention of bloodletting, and mostly it seems to be described in the hieroglyphic texts rather than pictured. I've put in a sentence mentioning that such sacrifice is referred to in hieroglyphic texts on the stelae, I've also dropped a link to Yaxchilan Lintel 24 into the See also section. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Unesco ref on Quirigua says "Most of the monuments face north, allowing the early morning sun to highlight the relief of the carvings" Is this typical? Should it be mentioned? Johnbod (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is just chance. Many stelae at Tikal face south onto the plaza, others at Tikal face east and west. Looking through maps of Maya cities, stelae faced in just about any of the cardinal directions. Simon Burchell (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1. Why does the lede start "were monuments fashioned" rather than "are monuments which were fashioned"
2. The lede mentions that certain stelae were not painted, this is covered better later on, but I would have thought it would be more logical to say that some were originally decorated, or all but a certain type were originally painted
3. The lede says that "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed" and mentions a theory of it being preceded by woodcarving, but Maya_stelae#Preclassic_origins doesn't mention the woodcarving theory and instead attributes an Olmec influence.
  • OK that makes sense, but it isn't quite how I read the article. May I suggest shifting "The sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments." out of the lede and combining it with preclassic origins as "The Mayan sculptural tradition that produced the stelae emerged fully formed and had probably been preceded by sculpted wooden monuments. However the tradition of raising stelae had its origin elsewhere in Mesoamerica among the Olmecs of the Gulf Coast of Mexico." instead? ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weight and distance moved are only mentioned for one or two extreme examples, if available I'd appreciate more on this, in particular what was the size of typical stelae?
  • A table of dimensions of all stelae mentioned in the article (where available) are in the table at the bottom of the Manufacture section. Weights of monuments are not generally available, and I suspect those given are estimations based on the sheer quantity of stone - I doubt anyone has actually weighed these monuments. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it I doubt if many people have weighed a Moai, though somehow we do have lots of weights for them. If that isn't the tradition in Mayan archaeology then we must make do without, but thanks for the response. ϢereSpielChequers 17:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. A map would be nice, not essential. but it would help put the quarries, stele locations and Olmecs into some context.
6. If anyone has compared quality of workmanship of the stelae with other Mayan stonework, or estimated how much work a stelae represents then that would be nice to see in the article
  • Unfortunately the technical details of stela manufacture are vastly under-represented in the published sources, which are far more concerned with the translation of any surviving hieroglyphic texts. It was actually hard work getting as much on manufacture into the article as I have, and I have not found any source that mentions their production in any detail. Simon Burchell (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Looting is well covered but perhaps a little about the archaeological story would be nice. I'm assuming some or all of them were rediscovered in the last century?
Once again thanks for an interesting read. ϢereSpielChequers 21:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your comments - I think everything is dealt with - let me know if not. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is known that royal artisans were sometimes responsible.... (do we need the bit I bolded there?)
OK, it's gone. Simon Burchell (talk) 07:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
link Pomoná, and black slate or slate.
...65 tons - tons or tonnes? and should it have a conversion?

Please ping me when you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: we don't see this often, but the article is underlinked-- see WP:RED. Also, the page ranges in citations need to be corrected for WP:ENDASHes. See my edit summaries for other MOS issues. Also, some page numbers in the citations use p.x, others use p. x (with a space), which is it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the page numbers and was going to start adding spaces but all teh ones I saw were unspaced. I'll leave that to Simon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! The article is still underlinked, and needs a review for WP:RED as well (I found two in two sentences). Underrepresented topics on Wiki are where we should be trying to "build the web" by adding links to unwritten articles, and I found a written article unlinked as well. Another example: there's a link to Classic Period and Postclassic, but not Terminal Classic. Please spend some time reviewing all of the linking. When done, check the dabs-- there's a dab now t Richard Hansen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 13 January 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 00:24, 17 January 2011 [57].

Japanese aircraft carrier Hōshō[edit]

Nominator(s): Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66[reply]

We are nominating this article on the first aircraft carrier in the Imperial Japanese Navy for featured article because it has passed an A-class review from MILHIST and appears to be ready for FA consideration. Cla68 (talk) 11:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of quick comments:

Dave (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:-

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped reading here. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose on consistency and MoS issues, with some examples of issues:

Support per standard disclaimer. I've just reviewed the comments here and on the talk page, responded to some of them, and completed another copyedit. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Concerns addressed. wackywace 17:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC) Lede[reply]

Design and description

Service

After the war

wackywace 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Layperson confusion. The lead says:

but in looking for supporting text in the article, I find:

What is the difference between the two, and was the Hosho the first in Japan or the first in the world? I'm not getting the distinction with the Argus. Can the lead be clarified to first in Japan or first in the world? Or if it was the first in the world, can the distinction with other aircraft carriers be made more clear for a boat dummy?

I had to click out to another article to discover what "Jill" and "Judy" were.

If the Sino-Japanese war was between China and Japan, why isn't it an endash instead of a hyphen? Or is it exclusively used as a hyphenated prefix? Unclear on this.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 16 January 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 Laser brain 04:43, 13 January 2011 [58].

Royal Maundy[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because... I believe it meets the criteria. Royal Maundy is one of those quirky British ceremonies which fascinate everyone else. I believe it has survived as is because of the enthusiasm of the Queen, and something would be lost if her successors do not keep it up. In my opinion, this may well be the best resource on the ceremony out there, as the two books I'm aware of on the ceremony are a bit dated. Thanks to Malleus for looking over, and to Fasach Nua for giving a preliminary check on the images. Enjoy it. I think it is one of my more fun ones.Wehwalt (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK, of course. Please feel free to.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2010 (UTC) (...done. Tim riley (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the support, if it passes I am thinking about Maundy Thursday, April 21.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to supportSupport: The article is predictably well made. It was whipped away from PR in front of my very eyes, so these are my first comments on it. I will deal with sources issues separately.

To say the information on this is scanty is not an overstatement. I've now put in what I have, but will keep looking through the PD sources. I've also added a sentence to the lede.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:58, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wright, he "passed to the Lord", which Wright renders as a quote. Autopsy is not available, I'm afraid. The death of Oswald remains a mystery (hmmmm) but I've toned down the text.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion as to how to render it?--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Put in brackets the equivalents in today's monetary units. Thus 35 shillings (£1.75), 45 shillings (£2.25) etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, in the post-restoration section.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's done. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but the demand is not high. Yes, the Maundy money has gone from being the smallest part of the monetary gifts to by far the greatest in real value, thanks to inflation. And the silver content for a set is maybe a tenth of an ounce. so a pound.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of these I imagine can be easily fixed, and I look forward to supporting Brianboulton (talk) 19:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so, where the information is available. Please remember that today, every Maundy recipient gets eight sets of Maundy money, and some oddments. So that's 170 recipients times eight, we're already talking 1300 plus setsIf you add in the officiants, probably the clergy at the cathedral, the Lord High Almoner, the Maundy children, and people who prepare for the service, well, that gets you up there. And I said 1600 to 1900, the 2K plus was in 1909. There is demand for Maundy money by collectors, but it is not huge.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally happy with the changes per above. It may be better to say "various Christian denominations" than "various Christian faiths", since it can be argued that the basic Christian "faith", in the divinity of Christ, is common to all branches of Christianity. One further change I'd like to see is the insertion of the word "symbolic" before "alms" in the lead phrase "as alms to elderly recipients". Otherwise readers (especially non-Brit) might think that this is an actual charitable distribution rather than the maintenance of a tradition. Brianboulton (talk) 12:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've made all those changes you recommended.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:59, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now

Sources comment: No sources issues that I can see. Sample verification checks OK. Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 05:50, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and for the fix. Well, three supports, no opposes, the usual checks have been done.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gnashing my teeth slightly, I ordered a magazine with an article about Royal Maundy and it turns out to be completely useless. Anyway, happy to answer any further concerns.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the service, the British Monarch or her representative ceremoniously distributes..." if it is impersonal, should be "their representative", no?
  • OK
Not by several parasangs. This article is in English, and a singular verb requires a singular subject. Tim riley (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The default picture size has been 220px for some time. There should be a good reason to fix pix smaller than this but several her are fixed at 200px for no evident reason. Personally I'd fix at 250-270 or leave unfixed. I've changed a couple; the lead pic is still too small to read on my screen at the 250 I've set it to - 300 would be better.
  • "According to the British Monarchy's web page concerning the Maundy service, ..." not an authoritative enough source to quote in text, in fact ideally a better one, like the OED, should be used (it covers it fully). Which Gospels? bibleverse template/links should be used for direct biblical quotes, not refs to some book on coins, though these can supplement it. If we are going into mandatum, that is of course from the Latin Vulgate, which should be explained & linked if only in the ref (Biblegateway has the text).
OK
  • "The ceremony, known as the pedilavium, was performed daily in some monasteries; " referenced I know, but there is nothing about this in Cole (below), who only goes as far as weekly, or other sources. Mostly it is tied to particular occasions, whether Maundy Thursday or something else.
I don't know what to do about it. It is sourced. I imagine different monasteries differed in their level of observance.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article by Virginia Cole has stuff that should probably be added. I think this early section is somewhat over-reliant on Robinson, who one suspects is not a medievalist. Cole righly relates the practice to "Touching for The King's Evil" which had its own exonumia of Touch pieces. These need to be linked & briefly worked in. Some expansion on the intellectual context Cole outlines is needed. At the moment the article is too much of a plodding rehearsal of the facts, like so much British monarchical literature. This has stuff on the French ancien regime versions of both ceremonies. A bit of context & comparison with other European courts is needed I think. According to Foot washing the Kings of Spain & Austrian Emperors were still getting their hands wet into the 20th century.
Better, but the political purposes set out on pp 222, 233-234, 243 & elsewhere need mention. In modern times the ceremony is essentially a curiosity (such as we love at FAC) but in the middle ages it probably had more pointed messages, which need to be given at least equal weight to the modern curiosity and coins, since the article covers the whole subject. Personally I find the former much more interesting than the latter, but the article still rather reflects a bias in the opposite direction; a more equal weighting is still needed. On reflection, "Early history" might not be the best section header. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should also be added that the washing ritual continues to be performed by senior clergy today - I think both the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury regularly do it on Maundy Thursday, and rather oddly several very un-ritual-minded Protestant groups have practiced it. I see there is a bit later on, but this would be better up here with the rest of the "clergy" stuff. We have a big article on Foot washing, which should be linked (in both directions) & I don't think yet is.
  • Better, but "Church of England bishops still sometimes perform the pedilavium .." is a tad misleading, as it is much more widespread than that, and has I think become increasingly fashionable in various denominations in recent decades. Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As at that time, a Maundy recipient continued in that status for life, the surplus recipients were placed on waiting lists" - meaning it was the same people every year? That information should be made more prominent, and given earlier, I think, and if the period when that was the case is in the sources it should be added. Ok I see 1951 comes later. Maybe this should be slipped into the lead - it comes as rather a surprise as it is.
  • OK
  • "At that time [before 1731?], coins used for the Maundy money distribution were indistinguishable from those struck for circulation. It was not until 1752 that coins not struck for circulation were used for the Maundy distribution." is quickly followed by by: "In 1689, the Royal Mint began using a design for the reverse of the small silver pieces depicting a crowned numeral" - isn't there a contradiction here?
OK, I understand from below, but the article still seems a bit unclear. I think it's "the small silver pieces". "Coins" would be better, for a start. Johnbod (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about now?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that does it. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The design of the circulation threepence remained the same as that of the Maundy threepence until 1928, when a new design was introduced" - to the circulation ones, is that?
  • OK
Thank you for the thoughtful review. I will do what I can today, and a few quick answers. Robinson does discuss the touching for scrofula (the King's Evil) as well as other forms of royal charity, he devotes a chapter to this. Perhaps a quick sentence is in order, discussing other ancient royal charities. Please remember that this is not a general Maundy Thursday article but about the Royal Maundy service and its roots and artifacts and while there is room for expansion, I'd like to keep to that topic as much as possible. On your other questions: Yes, it was the same people every year, keeping in mind that you had to be pretty old to be getting Royal Maundy, and so mortality and the aging of the monarch caused some new recipients each year. They must have been scrambling in 1838, it was the first time there had been a big decrease since 1760, although there would have been some in 1820 and slightly in 1830 (probably normal mortality would have covered the decrease then). Regarding the coins: The sentences are not contradictory. One sentence deals with the design of all small silver coins (1,2,3,4 pence). It changed in 1689 from a design with hooked Cs in the number of pence the coin was to the crowned numeral. But these still weren't "Maundy pieces" in the usual sense, they were just circulation coins. A few of them were used for the Maundy service, and probably they made sure they were nice shiny ones. In 1752, the Mint stopped striking these designs except for use as Maundy pieces, because silver coin was being hoarded or exported. So Maundy pieces became different by default, as it were (the copper penny so familiar to us all was not struck until 1797). Does that make it clearer?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything. I did not see that Cole says anything more about the King's Touch than that than it was roughly contemporaneous with the development of the Maundy by the English court. Within a century or so, anyway. I am reluctant to put much about foreign maundy services (such as the French king) because I really feel it's too far afield. I did everything else, I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well at the moment you have nothing at all about foreign royal maundies, so giving the misleading impression by omission that such ceremonies are uniquely English, rather than, as Cole says, a feature of all major European royal houses in the middle ages. Cole does not say much about the King's Evil because, unlike the Maundy, that has been intensively covered by very heavyweight historians like Marc Bloch, Frank Barlow and Jacques Le Goff, as she mentions. That ceremony is more intensively political as it implies that the monarch's touch has a special magical/divine power, which the Maundy does not. But I certainly think the similarities between the two makes some mention, and links to the two articles necessary. Cole also mentions a number of other studies of the Maundy (notes on p. 224 and elsewhere). Would it be possible to access some of these on JSTOR? Johnbod (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is straying rather far off topic. I can rustle up any Jstor articles if needed (let me know), but I don't think they are. Tim riley (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why "far off topic"? Several of the articles cited are bang on topic from their titles, and as the nom says, the two main sources on the whole history are "a bit dated", and probably by non-specialists in medieval history (Cole does not seem to find it necessary to mention either that I could see). Johnbod (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They are dated in the sense that I had to scramble a bit for a few recent details on the Maundy, not in their coverage of the origins and history of the Maundy. Yes, there was an article on the details of Maundy under King John. We mention King John's Maundy (possibly Maundies), we do not have time for the details. This article has to cover 2,000 years of history, with attention to the details people will want, that is, all about it today and the uniqueness of the coins. I do not wish to lose the reader in the 13th century. I've got a couple more things to add, but I think we are approaching the limits of what can be done within the article as it stands without giving overemphasis to a period in history somewhat distant from now.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to me to be the crux of the matter. The article could ramify enjoyably in such directions as adumbrated above, but for its declared topic it seems to me, as now drawn, wholly and admirably to the point. Tim riley (talk) 01:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did look into the matter of the King's Touch. While they seem contemporary in origin with the Maundy, give or take a couple of centuries (Robinson mentions King Edward the Confessor as an eleventh century example, but that seemed to be Edward as holy man, rather than as king that people wanted his touch), there seems no real connection between the two. Yes, they both involved the distribution of money and there is a numismatic legacy (though centuries apart, as the article discusses, Maundy pieces did not come into their own until 1752, and Anne was the last monarch to touch for scrofula), but there were other examples of charity with a political purpose. Largesse would be the best example in my view, and both William I and Mary I, who were both unpopular, did very large largesse to try to build their popularity. Accordingly, I've put touchpiece as a see also in this article, but don't see any reason to mention the touching in this article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the supports. Yes, I know, the section title is a MOS violation, but as I have not come up with something that better expresses the purpose of the section, I'm content to IAR it unless something better comes along. The idea is, that is the section the public should go to if seeking info on the current Royal Maundy service, and I haven't been able to come up with a better one. Yours would make it seem too historical. Open to ideas though.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:43, 13 January 2011 [59].

Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway[edit]

Nominator(s):  – iridescent 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let the rather dull sounding title put you off, or give the impression that this is a dull piece about a formal ceremony. The opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway is right up there with Siege of Vienna and Storming of the Bastille as a true turning point in world history, and in terms of the history of engineering is as core a topic as Wright Flyer or Transistor. Before 15 September 1830 the nations of Europe were rural, quasi-feudal economies in which most people rarely travelled more than a few miles from their birthplace unless they happened to be pressed into the military or were persecuted into fleeing their country, and unless one happened to work for a few experimental collieries or textile mills, one would not only pass one's entire life without ever seeing a non-animal-powered machine, one would likely not even understand the concept of "engine". Within 20 years of the L&M's opening, Britain was a democratically-ruled industrial and military superpower, Manchester was the focal point of the world economy, and the rising nations of Prussia, Russia and the United States were coming to see the implications of being able to move large numbers of armed men at short notice to any point on their borders, and larger numbers of the land-hungry poor into the more empty parts of their lands.

All this is fairly well known—chronologically-arranged "history of the industrial revolution" displays usually begin in 1830, and Rocket is the first thing one sees on entering London's Science Museum's showpiece Making the Modern World gallery—but the actual events of the day are generally glossed over in histories. In reality, the opening of the L&M wasn't the triumphant unveiling it's generally presented as; it was a complete fiasco. Six and a half hours after they were due, four of the eight locomotives used in the unveiling limped back, after a day of death, rioting, mechanical failures and general incompetence, including the death of one of the guests of honour. The disasters of the day led to the event being far more widely reported than would normally have been the case for a corporate opening ceremony, and what stuck in the minds of newspaper readers around the world wasn't the chaotic lack of organisation or basic design flaws; it was that there were these new things called "machines" which were cheaper and faster than horses/peasants/slaves. A significant chunk of world history after that point can be traced directly back to the events of this one rainy autumn day in Lancashire.

This is a long article, with a long lead section. This is owing to its being effectively two full-length articles, Opening of the Liverpool and Manchester Railway and Death of William Huskisson. The two events are so intimately intertwined that it's impossible (and undesirable) to separate them. It also makes heavier use of contemporary quotations than is typical; this is intentional, as they illustrate so well the thoughts of the people who were there, trying to understand and to articulate something which was (at the time) entirely unique. – iridescent 22:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General comment: I am no fan of standard nom statements which begin "I am nominating this because...", but I feel that a 500-word essay is a step too far in the other direction. I'd hate to see this become the norm for noms here. I have completed a sources review, below. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Otherwise, all sources and citations look good. Verification checks limited to the few free online sources. Brianboulton (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the long nom statement, I agree with you; note that I've never done this kind of essay-nom before. This is an exceptional case, in my view; the title of the article doesn't convey the significance of the topic. I agree that it shouldn't become common practice, but it pre-empts a question which would otherwise almost certainly be raised, of "why is the article so long?"
  • Regarding the English Heritage references, this has come up before; I personally don't particularly like the format, but ((IoE)) is the "official" way to reference EH on Wikipedia.
  • Regarding the "Liverpool Mercury" source for Brandreth's letter, this can be changed to something else if you prefer; I used this one because it's online, and thus potentially more useful to readers. Brandreth's letter was widely quoted; it turns up in The Cornhill Magazine, for instance.
  • Ref 111 says "The sculpture is now located in a new housing development off Duke Street in the city centre", which is the fact it's referencing. The fact that he spent his last nights in Duke Street is already given further up, in the "Funeral" section. I've duplicated the reference for this down to the later section as well.
  • Ref 117 is the ((inflation)) template. Access dates are inappropriate, as the figures it references (and thus the "access") are constantly automatically updated to remain current. – iridescent 17:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. This is a truly massive article, with an equally massive nomination statement (which I didn't read). To give the article's prose the attention it deserves will take quite a bit of time. In addition to occasional copyediting, I'll be leaving individual prose comments on the talk page here. Please response to individual concerns there. My attempt at peer reviewing this article seems to have resulted in little more than the aggravation of the author and my time being wasted. Best of luck in all future endeavors. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Huskisson had been a highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire ..." does seem a little over the top. A more precise rephrase would be better. It's not strictly an FAC point, but this aspect of his career is not mentioned at the "main article", his biography, which also does not cover the material in note 2 to anything like the same depth. That note seems a little excessive for here & might be better transfered, or at any rate copied, to the bio. Likewise the bio should get a condensed version of the funeral & all the stuff on memorials should be copied there.
  • Ideally, I'd give a full explanation of Huskisson's career, but I was trying to avoid turning this into a parallel biography when we already have a William Huskisson article. It needs to have some detail on his career, to explain why he was there, why his death prompted such a reaction, and why he was so keen to talk to Wellington that he'd step in front of a train to do so, but I don't really want to go into detail on his early career. I don't think "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is overstating it; it was Huskisson and Canning who created the free-trade-between-colonies-high-tariffs-for-anyone-else system which knitted a bunch of scattered outposts in India, Australia, Africa and the West Indies into a single bloc. (The Tories were in one of their periodic Ourselves Alone phases at the time; Wellington only saw the colonies as strategic outposts against France.) – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't (apart from note 2 maybe) agree with other reviewers who feel there is just too much on Huskisson here, but I do think there is a problem when a "main article" link is used to an article which does not contain a high proportion of the material or detail here - mainstream biographical material, not on some specialized area of his career (I don't mean the events of the day itself). The solution is to expand the other article, which can easily be done with some copying and adjusting of the material here. As it is, "highly influential figure in the creation of the British Empire" is currently explained and justified by neither article, so a little of the material you evidently have should be added, probably to the bio. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think note 2 is necessary to provide at least a very brief explanation of what the bone of contention between Huskisson and Wellington was (and why Huskisson was popular in Liverpool and Manchester, places not known for their love of Tories in the wake of the Peterloo Massacre), without either clogging the body text with an explanation of the Unreformed House, or sending the reader off on a scavenger hunt. Regarding the "main article" issue, I agree that William Huskisson is in a very poor state, but it's unfair to criticise this article because of the poor condition of another article. It would actually be quite hard to expand Huskisson's article—as his DNB entry notes, he's the only significant 19th century British politician never to have been the subject of a modern biography (other than Garfield, which is explicitly about his role in the creation of the L&M rather than his whole career), so any expansion on him would end up being sourced from books on Canning and Wellington. Sub-articles that are in a better state than their parent articles aren't particularly unusual. – iridescent 13:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no changes are made to the articles as they are now, then the "main article" link to the Huskisson bio should be changed to "Further information" or "see also" as this article contains more information on the aspects of his career it covers than the "main" one. Johnbod (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The line at the end of the long Fanny Kemble quote would be better at the beginning + "wrote" etc. The quote is referenced to her memoirs from 48 years later, but reads as if written at the time - was it from a letter? It would be useful to say, if only in the reference.
  • In which case, it's best to put: "The actress, author and anti-slavery campaigner Fanny Kemble, who accompanied George Stephenson on a test of the L&M prior to its opening, wrote in a letter:" or similar before the quote, which is much too long (and fruity at the end) for the author only to be explained afterwards. It is also particularly important to make it clear from the start that she is not talking about the fateful day, which would otherwise naturally be assumed by the reader. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the images are on the right, even right-facing ones that should face into the page. They are also oddly-placed, with an unnecessary aversion to putting them at the top of sections. Even on the default size setting, several overrun into the next section on my screen, which is ugly. Several look too small on the default setting, but then I always feel that.
  • I dislike using left-aligned images, unless there's a really good reason to do so. "All the images down the right side" is a MOS-approved format, even when it means some people looking out of the page. Some illustrations (Huskisson's portrait, for instance) are at the correct point chronologically, rather than at the start of their respective sections. – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Correct point chronologically" in that the top of the picture coincides with the point of his career when the picture was painted? That's c. 1831, per the NPG, ie the portrait is posthumous, which should be added (and to the image file). On my screen his mouth is at 1821, his tummy at 1828-29, his hand at 1830 and everything lower in the next section. But this is just silly - he should be moved up a paragraph. So should the Northumbrian, the "open carriages" and the last three before the plaque. Or are there reasons for those placements too? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image of Northumbrian is at the point where the Duke boards it. Moving it further up would make it cascade with the map, which really needs to be at that particular spot. The illustrations near the end—Huskisson's memorials, the abandoned Crown Street terminus, and Rocket as it appears today, are placed where they are to keep them more-or-less evenly spaced while still in their appropriate sections, and to prevent cascading on wide monitors. – iridescent 13:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cabinetmaker James Edmondson" - are we sure he was not a coachbuilder, which would seem the obvious trade to use?
  • "A Railer" of Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine," - more "in" than "of" I imagine.
  • "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester" I was a bit confused by the mechanics here. Weren't they on different tracks? Or if on the same track, how did they get the carriage round the engine? Was there a siding here or something?
  • Yes, they were on different tracks—the carriage on the south track was tied to the locomotive on the north track, and pulled laterally. (Thanks to Huskisson's accident, railway tracks were never again built as close together as they were on the L&M; we're only talking about a gap of a few inches between the tracks.) – iridescent 19:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I see much of this is explained by the passage about the chain a bit above; I worked through the article in several tranches & probably had forgotten that bit. So was "Northumbrian on the southern track, returning from Manchester" reversing? If so best to add the word (or at whatever point it was reversing). I'm still trying to get my head round the sequence of the Duke's train. It sets off "divided into four carriages: the Duke's carriage, a bandwagon and two passenger carriages", but "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage". Then after the crash "Huskisson was loaded onto the bandwagon of the Duke's train, which had a flat floor.[74][75] The remaining carriages of the Duke's train were detached and the carriage, hauled by Northumbrian, set off for Manchester". But when Northumbrian returns from Manchester "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester". The initial description can't be in the actual sequence, and even so there seems to be a puzzle. Or is it just me? Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The order of the Ducal train was initially: Northumbrian; bandwagon; passenger car (with the Huskissons); the Duke's carriage; another passenger car. Following the accident, Northumbrian and the bandwagon set off for Manchester with Huskisson, leaving the two passenger cars and the Duke's car. These three are attached laterally to the locomotive on the other track. Northumbrian then returns from Manchester, and the lateral connection is severed and the three carriages re-attached to Northumbrian, which takes them on to Manchester. It's something of a beads-on-a-string puzzle, but I can't see any obvious way to clarify it further. – iridescent 13:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I can! The first snippet I quote on this above follows neither the actual order, nor the social "order of precedence". If you conflate the first two snippets giving the actual train layout as you've just explained it, & add the odd word elsewhere "The remaining three carriages of the Duke's train were detached ....", ""Wellington's carriage, now at the front, was then detached from the train ..." it all becomes much clearer. I'd still like it clarified if Northumbrian was pointing at Manchester through all these manoeuvres. Once you start describing physical events closely you have to follow through to a consistent level. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this change should make it clearer. I'm fairly certain Northumbrian was facing Manchester at this point (that is, it reversed from Manchester to Eccles); steam locomotives are just as happy running backwards as forwards and turning them is a slow process, and when Stephenson was fetching the doctors time would have been of the essence. However, I can't find anything that specifically says so. – iridescent 18:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not while the somewhat misleading initial sequence remains unchanged. I would suggest: "The Duke's train was drawn by Northumbrian, Stephenson's most advanced locomotive at the time with a 14 horsepower (10 kW) engine.[45][46]. Four carriages followed: a wagon carrying a band, a passenger carriage in which William and Emily Huskisson sat, the Duke's carriage, and finally another passenger carriage" Something like that anyway. Johnbod (talk) 23:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the confusion arises from the sentence "Wellington's carriage was then detached from the train and attached to Northumbrian, which set off at full speed for Manchester". I can follow things fine up until that point, but then I get confused. Does "detached from the train" mean that Wellington carriage was detached from both Phoenix and the other two passenger carriages, and that Northumbrian pulled only the Duke's carriage into Manchester? It could be interpreted that way, but I think what is meant by that sentence is that the three carriages left of the Duke's "train" (the bandwagon having been abandoned somewhere, presumably, or maybe it was still attached to Northumbrian) were reattached to Northumbrian and pulled on to Manchester. i.e. When Northumbrian arrived in Manchester the first time, it would have been pulling the bandwagon, but when it arrived the second time, it would have been pulling four carriages: the bandwagon, and the three passenger carriages. The impression that could be gained from the article as written at present is that the other carriages were all abandoned somewhere and only the ducal carriage was pulled post-haste to Manchester. Does that help explain why this is all a bit confusing? It might not be possible to state with precision where every carriage was at all times, but that is what people will be trying to mentally picture in their heads. Carcharoth (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does that work? You're right; I'd said "carriage" there rather than "carriages". – iridescent 2 17:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That solves one problem for me, but you still don't give the full sequence of the Duke's train correctly anywhere, and the changes above at the first mention still need to be made. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about that? I haven't gone with your proposed changes above, as those stemmed from a (corrected) slip of mine in saying "the Duke's carriage" rather than "the Duke's carriages". The passenger car-Duke's car-passenger car set wasn't split at any point; the only part of the train which was detached was the front section, of Northumbrian and the bandwagon. Regarding whether Northumbrian was reversing, I can't find anywhere where it's mentioned; as I say above, it's unlikely to have been turned at this point but that veers into OR. (When it comes to steam locomotives, 'reverse' is a bit misleading. Aside from a few streamlined models designed to work facing a particular direction, and very large locomotives where the body obstructs visibility from the driver's cab, steam locos don't have a "front" in the sense an automobile or a modern streamlined locomotive does. They were just as efficient running bunker-first as boiler-first; the reason they generally ran boiler-first was to keep the smokestack as far from the passenger cars as possible. The problems regarding turning the trains at Manchester stemmed from getting the locomotives from one end of the train to the other without sufficient passing loops, rather than the actual alignment of the locomotives. It's entirely possible that nobody involved thought to note which way the locomotives were facing—and remember, aside from the railway engineers nobody here had ever seen a train before, so no-one would have had any concept of 'facing the right way'.) – iridescent 2 18:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Please don't try to tell me where my misunderstandings arore. In fact if you reread the earlier version you will see that the "slip" of carriage/carriages did not cause a problem as it fitted with the wrong sequence of the train you were giving earlier) Well, it's an improvement as the order is now given correctly, though the wording seems rather clumsy, but it still leaves "William and Emily Huskisson travelled in the Ducal train, in a passenger carriage immediately in front of the Duke's carriage." rather pointlessly stranded four paragraphs later, in the middle of a paragraph about something else. It should now be "the passenger carriage" I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The passenger carriage" is what it already says. Where the Huskissons sat in the train relative to Wellington is important—being in different carriages meant Huskisson and Wellington hadn't had the chance to talk at leisure during the journey, while being on the same train gave them the opportunity at the stop at Parkside—but introducing it earlier gives the Huskissons undue weight at this point in the narrative, to my mind. It could be moved further down to the "Parkside" section, but I think it needs to be included. – iridescent 2 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "play the part of the juggernaut car" as the reference is precise, worth a link to Rath Yatra or Juggernaut.
  • The main point of note 11, that Huskisson was not the first railway death, should probably be worked in to the main text.

Support. I did the GA review and am happy to support for FA.--DavidCane (talk) 00:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also noticed that though several articles from The Times are referenced, one that I've just finished reading is not used, namely "The Times, Saturday, Sep 18, 1830; pg. 3; Issue 14335; col A" (Death Of Mr. Huskisson). That has some details that are not present in the other sources I have seen, and gives a much clearer account of the more gruesome details of the accident itself, including the alignment of the leg with the rail (the leg was crooked at an angle) and the number of wheels that passed over the leg (three). From what I can make out there, the sentence in the article "Huskisson fell onto the track in front of the locomotive" is misleading - it seems that, from his position on the door that swung out from the ducal carriage, and following the impact with The Rocket, he fell face-down into the gap between the two trains (this is explicitly stated here), but that the crooked knee of his leg fell across the adjacent rail and several wheels passed across the calf and thigh, leaving the knee unscathed. It would help to give the rail gauge/wheel width, as well as making clear that The Rocket stopped soon after the impact, so was presumably not moving that fast at the point of impact. However, that newspaper article gives accounts from several correspondents, so whether it is acceptable to use those accounts (arguably primary sources), rather than use the filter of a secondary source that has done the work of pulling together old newspaper reports, is another matter. In any case, it would be useful for the reader to be pointed to these accounts provided in The Times. Carcharoth (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2010 (UTC) One more point - is it clear or not which leg was crushed? Most accounts seem to say his left leg, but some say his right leg, for some reason. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no particular attachment to the word "bandwagon", other than as the shortest way to describe the car in question. As with almost everything here, the terminology of railways didn't yet exist—even such seemingly basic concepts as "goods carriage" and "return ticket" were artefacts of the L&M, and thus didn't yet exist. I've reworded it to "a flat bottomed wagon carrying the band", to avoid the need to use the term.
  • While I've used contemporary news reports for the planning of the opening ceremony, and for Huskisson's funeral, I've tried to avoid using news articles published by the London press in the immediate aftermath for details of the accident, as they're contradictory and based on garbled reports and speculation sent by pigeon or brought by riders racing down from Liverpool to London (the telegraph had yet to be invented, remember). The version of Huskisson's death I've given is that which was given at the inquest, and is also that given by both Simon Garfield's book on the accident and the National Railway Museum. His injuries weren't consistent with someone who'd been run over by multiple wheels—he had a single crush injury across one leg (consistent with being run over by a single, heavy wheel), not the multiple cuts and mangling one would expect from being run over by multiple wheels. (While medical treatment then was in its infancy, most of those present would have been veterans of the Napoleonic wars, and can be assumed to be fairly competent at assessing injuries.) – iridescent 19:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough (though I thought bandwagon came from the circus, rather than the trains? See the picture here - and the picture and quote here "Circus workers were skilled at attracting the public with the razzmatazz of a parade through town, complete with highly decorated bandwagons"). Do you think, though, that it is possible to get into the article a bit about how garbled some of the reports were? One of the Amazon blurbs on Garfield's book says: "There were a great many witnesses to the terrible accident which befell William Huskisson, but none could agree precisely what occurred. Some said his left leg fell on the track in one way, some quite another, and some said it was his thigh. A few observed a 'fiery fountain' of blood, but others saw only a trickle. Some claimed there was shrieking, but the rest believed he was rendered mute by the shock." That confusion doesn't come across at all in the article at present, but even a brief reading of the contemporary newspaper reports confirms the presence of conflicting contemporary accounts, something I think is worth mentioning in the article - do the inquest reports really not specify which leg was crushed? Carcharoth (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The etymology of "bandwagon" is exactly what it sounds like; a wagon carrying a band. (They've vanished from British life, but anyone who's seen an American parade will recognise the concept.) I've removed references to them.
    His injured leg was the right—I've made that clear. (You're right; it wasn't mentioned in the article.) I don't want to go too far down the "confusion" route; while a lot of people in the passing trains weren't clear what happened, and this led to garbled reports in the initial reports, what actually happened is clear enough in hindsight; lots of doctors were present, all making notes. This kind of "fog of war" reporting is common at accidents, even now, when people know that something has happened but aren't quite sure what. (Remember the garbled reporting on 9/11 or 7/7?) What is disputed is whether the doctors took the right course of action, or whether they should have attempted surgery even though it was almost certain to fail, on the grounds that something is better than nothing; I've covered that element of things. – iridescent 23:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see consolidating the first three sections into subheads within a "background" section (which I've done), but disagree that there's much fat to be trimmed from Huskisson's bio. His background as a major public figure needs to be made clear, as that's what makes him significant to the impact of the opening of the L&M. Had he been a normal backbench MP, the whole thing wouldn't have got the worldwide press coverage it did, and neither the industrialisation of England, nor the reform of Parliament, would have had the kick-start given by Huskisson's death. (I've mentioned that he lived at Eartham, but have intentionally avoided any variant of "...where he lived for the rest of his life". Pre-railways, the upper classes had both a country house and a town house, and while Eartham was formally his home he's likely to have spent most of his time in London.) – iridescent 00:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The important point is that he didn't live in or move to Liverpool and was based in and around London. I know that is normal for the times, but not all readers will take that fact in unless it is made explicit. It is a relatively minor point, though. On another minor point, the Emily Huskisson legacy sentence doesn't yet mention the memorial she had erected to Huskisson in Eartham church, as described here. I still think actual consolidation is possible, but won't press the point until or unless I can give an example of what I'd write as a background section here, though I have added to the lead that Huskisson was a former cabinet minister. Carcharoth (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the memorial in Eartham ought to be mentioned. The ones I've listed (Liverpool, Pimlico and Chichester, plus the Huskisson Memorial at Parkside itself) are full-scale large monuments, whereas the one at Eartham church is just a plain inscribed tablet—while we don't have a photo of it, you can see it poking out from behind the organ here. (The ornate memorial of which we have a picture is to Huskisson's great-nephew, also called William Huskisson, and not to the man himself.) It can certainly be added; I'll leave it to others as to whether it's warranted. – iridescent 13:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one at Eartham church may be just a plain inscribed tablet, but I'd like to know what it says, and it possibly could be a more personal and intimate memorial than the other ones. You might have both the Huskissons turning in their graves at the thought of this memorial not being mentioned. The other memorial, as you say, is to his great-nephew, which is why I didn't mention it here. I made both that point, and the one about the organ, here. Hopefully a picture will be forthcoming. I'm going to look at the whole article again this weekend, but there shouldn't be much more to comment on. Carcharoth (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - 1 dab (Bandwagon), no dead external links. --PresN 06:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with one quibble.


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:43, 13 January 2011 [60].

Hill 303 massacre[edit]

Nominator(s): —Ed!(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. The last FAC got sidetracked on a discussion about sources and hit the time cutoff without enough supports for a clear consensus. Trying again to get the necessary votes. —Ed!(talk) 23:11, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Questions relating to reliability were discussed at some length in the last FAC, and it seems that all such issues were resolved. The sources are the same now, with a few more citations added. All formats look tidy. Because of repeated internet access problems (blame the weather or inept providers) I have only carried out a very small verifying check, but all looks well there, too. Brianboulton (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support per my comments at the last FAC, with the caveat that I can't speak to comprehensiveness or source quality, and with the two minor nitpicks below.

Support for 1c/2c: Sourcing issues which were previously raised in the last FAC were resolved fully to my satisfaction by Ed! and the valuable contribution of a well written and encyclopaedic massacre article which displays high quality sourcing should make Wikipedians and Ed! in particular proud. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Believe I reviewed and supported this at its MilHist ACR but didn't get round to the previous FAC. Anyway I know sourcing was heavily covered in the last FAC; as far as I can see, from referencing, structure, prose, coverage, and supporting material perspectives this meets the criteria -- well done. One very minor suggestion:

Closing note, please do another WP:NBSP check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:43, 13 January 2011 [61].

Thistle, Utah[edit]

Nominator(s): Dave (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think this is a fascinating story that might make a good TFA someday (it would be a good fit for any day in the mid-April timeframe). This is the 2nd nomination for this article. The first nomination only received one prose review, which concluded the article needed copyediting. The checks for sourcing or images issues did not find any issues. Since that time, the article has been reviewed by a few editors. There are some content changes to the article since the last nomination. I found some new sources and slightly expanded the coverage of the Geology, Aftermath, and Economic Effects sections. I also added two self-taken photographs I recently discovered in my archive. Dave (talk) 07:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. In the lead, it may help to include a sentence about Thistle declining before the landslide occurred.
    • Good idea. Done.
  2. Citation needed for "The Spanish Fork River flows northwest from Thistle, towards the city of Spanish Fork, before reaching Utah Lake."
    • I'd like to discuss this one first. It's an easy thing to verify, virtually any area map would suffice. However, I don't believe it's a statement anybody would be likely to contest. As such, my take on WP:V is an inline citation is not necessarily required. If you still feel it needs a source, I can add one easily enough.
  3. It appears Thistle had inhabitants up until the 1983 landslide. Is there a reason why the Census figures stop at 1950?
    • Most likely the town was disincorporated, and as such stopped being counted by the census as a separate entity. However, I do not have a source for that. For whatever reason, 1950 is the most recent census figures available.
  4. The sentence "This line branched from the main at Thistle, proceeding to mines near Marysvale, following modern US-89." sounds choppy.
  5. The three sentences "Gradually the town shrank in population. The passenger depot was torn down in 1972. The post office closed in 1974." should be combined.
  6. "The maintenance crew didn't think much of the situation, however, and repaired the track as needed.", remove contraction.
  7. Combine the sentences "The landslide closed the main railroad for three months. U.S. Route 6 and US-89 were closed for seven months." In addition, use consistent abbreviations for US 6 and US 89.
  8. "The D&RGW estimated the slide cost them $80 million in lost revenue", $80 million needs an inflation conversion.
    • I intentionally did not include the inflation adjusted figure here. As this paragraph is full of figures using 1983 dollars, and the figures before and after this one are inflation adjusted, I assumed the inflation from 1983 is well conveyed. However, I could see how including the inflation adjusted figure here would add more value than the per day figure, which is rounded to one significant figure. Would you prefer I switch which figure is inflation adjusted? or are you requesting that all figures are inflation adjusted? (I checked but MOS:NUM isn't clear on the subject).
  9. "A 2002 study placed the cost of rebuilding the modified routing of the Marysvale branch line at $80 million." also needs an inflation conversion.
    • Nice catch, no other figure is in 2002 dollars. Done. Thanks.
  10. The sentence "The highway patrol requested the ceremony be canceled and the highway opened early, as they were unable to disperse the crowds, even though some tasks remained, such as painting stripes." sounds choppy.

See my responses in line. Thank you very much for the review. I have implimented most of your suggestions, except where I asked a follow-up question. Dave (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got everything. Some of the sentences you pointed out were re-worded by Malleus. Thanks for the review. Dave (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - My issues have been addressed. Dough4872 06:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments – Looked at the formatting of the references and did a few spot-checks.

Didn't find any other issues in the sources I checked, and the reliability of the sources seems fine. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded inline. I do have one followup question for you. Thank you for the review. Dave (talk) 04:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the copy-edits. Dave (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I agree with the change you are proposing. There is an issue, this image is used in about 200 articles on the english wikipedia and 100+ on several others. It's a fairly low risk change, still, it's probably wise to notify WP:UTAH, at a minimum, and allow some time for comment. Dave (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. It will be an improvement to those 300+ articles. GreenGlass(talk) 19:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I'm not an inkscape expert, so I hope I didn't mess anything up. Dave (talk) 06:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, discussion is ongoing at [62] regarding this issue. WP:UTAH is so far supportive of this change, but the graphics lab in Germany that made many of the location images is not. It's unlikely that any change to this image will be made soon.Dave (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One interim solution would be to upload the inset version to enwp under the same file name. Then enwp gets the new version, and the other projects (and the location of the objection) would be unaffected. Imzadi 1979 → 21:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. I could also upload the map with the inset to "Dave's Map 'o Utah.jpg" and manually override which image the infobox uses for the map. However, as this was just a suggestion for improvement, not a requirement to buy another vote, I'll stick with the long term approach. Unfortunately it's sounding more and more like that means to get the Americans and the Germans at the table for talks. Should somebody later say, no, this is a requirement, I'll implement one of the short term fixes. =-) Dave (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For those still following this thread, after bouncing around several venues, the effort to add an inset map is focusing on implementation at the infobox level. That is good, as this means thousands of similar articles can have an inset map with no to minimal article changes. However, the bad side is we would be making a significant change to a highly visible template used on tens of thousands of articles, and this change would need to be thoroughly tested, especially given that my template coding abilities are modest. Discussion currently at Template talk:Location map Dave (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking. Dave (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - nice article, some nitpicks:

Thank you for the review. I have implemented your suggestions verbatim, except where noted above. Dave (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty good to me, although I've not gone through it properly. I'm keen to encourage editors of this type of article to exert a little influence on their colleagues WRT overlinking and a few other glitches, like hyphens for minus signs in coordinates and temperatures.

Thanks for the kind words. These were all easy fixes, please advise if you find additional issues. Dave (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: it's not clear to me if the image issue is resolved, and Wiki is glitching right now (not all images loading), so I'm trusting this will be worked out if still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 03:43, 13 January 2011 [63].

Monadnock Building[edit]

Nominator(s): Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most recognized of Chicago’s early skyscrapers, the Monadnock Building is historically interesting in several ways. The largest office building in the world when constructed and considered quite radical at the time, it later became the first in a movement to remodel old skyscrapers as a means to preserve them, and later still one of the most ambitious office building restoration projects ever undertaken. The building has a special place in the history of Chicago architecture and hopefully a place among the ranks of FAs. Many thanks to Ruhrfisch for the peer review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (no longer oppose based solely on glancing at the LEAD) A quick review of the WP:LEAD shows it is bloated with WP:POV terms such as "one of the most renowned architecture firms" and "some of the most seminal early Chicago skyscrapers" "badly deteriorated", "painstaking detail", etc. Please trim the LEAD down a bit. Will look further, but the LEAD is just too long, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can now Support this article. My concerns have been addressed sufficiently.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support and helpful suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tony. Is it better now? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but Mies should be linked, and historic as an adjective is sort of WP:PEACOCKy. I would just describe it as a skyscraper that has been listed on various landmark/historic building lists. I still have a problem with "painstaking detail".--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference to Mies. It was not important there. I removed historic. And I removed the painstaking detail verbiage. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, link Community areas of Chicago after Loop, like most FA and GA buildings in WP:CHICAGO.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've linked it.

Thanks Tony for your review and helpful suggestions. My replies are indented below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North half (1881–1891)
I'm not sure I follow. The Grannis Block is notable as Burnham & Root's first building. Owen Aldis is notable as the genesis of the office tower concept. Neither seems like a stretch to me. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the claim about Burnham & Root. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still see "one of the most renowned architecture firms of the 19th century" without a citation.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited to Miller, but I removed it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not converted any of the amounts to current dollars following this discussion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see one opponent, not any sort of consensus. I been involved in adding the template during FACs as an author (Fountain of Time as an example) and as a reviewer (Mariano Rivera and Jackie Robinson to name a few). Yes there are cross currency problems, and there are some issues within a currency. However, that conversion would aid the reader, which is what this is all about.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I read it, inflation conversions had been challenged in the past and Moni3 was asking for clarification. It is easy enough to add them, but if there is no consensus that they are WP:V, it seems better not to. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not been involved in an instance where they were challenged. Please add them. If challenged they can easily be removed. Let me know if you have any specific FACs where they have been removed by consensus.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you insisting on this? I don't see a consensus either for or against, but Fiflefoo and Johnbod make very good points about the problems with inflation conversions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a person with three degrees (in statistics, finance and economics), this is an important issue for me. I feel giving the reader a vague idea of the current equivalency is helpful. Regardless of whether it is precise or not, it is helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Took me a while to figure it all out, but I have added inflation templates for the amounts before 2007.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While reviewing Bobby Orr, the editor there has borrowed a slightly different syntax that uses the ((CURRENTYEAR)) template. Can you use the same syntax.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added a link.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that there was an architectural style link and you need to consider linking the first use of the term Egyptian.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no link to an Egyptian architectural style, as the style referred to really is ancient Egyptian. I did move the link to the lead. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When I look at Category:Architectural styles, I see an Egyptian revival. What is this? Does it suggest that there is an Egyptian style that is being revived?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Help me here. Is there something specific you think it should link to? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that I know of. I was just hoping for some explanation on the meaning of Egyptian in terms of architecture since we are not dealing with pyramids.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could a link to Egyptian Revival architecture be added? Piped as just "Egyptian". Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dug around a bit and there are, in fact, sources that refer to the north half as Egyptian Revival, so I think it does make sense to link to that style. I have taken Ruhrfisch's suggestion and piped it to "Egyptian" --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
South half and early history (1891–1938)
I believe it is. Do you have a different suggestion? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More grand sounds more proper to me, but I don't know.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Grander is a perfectly proper and common English word. There is no good reason to change it.—DCGeist (talk) 18:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not. I made it one word. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea. I have not seen one and lack the talent to create one. The buildings were each one quarter of the block, from north to south: Monadnock, Kearsage, Katahdin, and Wachusett. On a floorplan (like the one in the article), there is not much to see. The heavy walls at the quarter points are the only indication of any division. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can request some assistance at the WP:GL. I think it is worth having for an FA of this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it would add enough information to justify having someone go off and draw it. As described in the article, it was four merely legal entities in what was always a single structure. There is not much to visualize. If it would help to describe the arrangements of the legal entities more clearly, that could easily be done in the text. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
skipping ahead
The terms are all linked in the body. Do you want them linked in the caption, too? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. many readers read the Infobox, LEAD and skim the pictures. Each caption is separate in this regard with redundant linking appropriate as necessary to describe the caption unless the images are in one Template:Multiple image template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also link Lintels in caption below.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I added links to all the captions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration and after (1979–)
I reworded it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I broke it into two. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Architecture
I deleted the first sentence. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains a list of "Selected towers with 20 or more floors", what was the selection process and who conducted it? There is also a list of "Chicago Landmark skyscrapers" but the link goes to a template, so for the lay reader it is unclear what the term means. Fasach Nua (talk) 10:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question. Unfortunately, I do not know. The skyscraper templates were there when I started expanding the article and I do not know who created them. I edited the Chicago Landmark link you mention to point to List of Chicago Landmarks instead of to the template. Thanks for catching that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is a lack of clarity about the Chicago Skyscrapers template, I have deleted it until and if it can be confirmed as WP:V --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Spot checking the non-subscription online sources has revealed numerous queries:-

The material is actually found in Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks 1972, which is also by the City of Chicago, but is a different document. and it I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was cited incorrectly. It is found in Storch & Branegan 1979. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "The building, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., is 98.9% leased, according to real estate research firm CoStar Group Inc."and "A little-known West Coast real estate investment firm has a tentative agreement to buy the landmark Monadnock Building for roughly $48 million." I did delete the part about the deal not getting done. Although it didn't, and it seems odd to leave it hanging, the failure of the deal was apparently not newsworthy. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have. It says "The Monadnock, 53 W. Jackson Blvd., could fetch $45 million to $60 million, or about $150 per square foot, real estate experts figure." --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The cite should have been to Pitts 1976, which is the nomination, not the summary listing. I've corrected it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have substituted a tourist map, which shows more detail about the street names. The Blue Line stop is visible on Dearborn between Jackson and Van Buren. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only checked through about half the sources, but would like to have your response to the above before I carry on. Brianboulton (talk) 10:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding. I have done a bit more spotchecking, with no further alarms. I am a bit concerned, however, that a fairly high proportion of the refs I was able to check had things wrong with them. I suggest you run through the "fee required" sources, which I was not able to check, and ensure that the correct citations have been made. Brianboulton (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review. I share your concern about the errors, which were mostly the result of my own mistakes while moving text around in editing. I will take your suggestion and check the offline and fee required sources again to make sure I did not perpetrate more of the same. Thanks again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have reviewed all the sources again and corrected some inconsistencies in the references to the various NRHP/NHL nominations. I found no other errors. The references should be good to go now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was involved in an extensive peer review and almost all of my concerns were either addressed then, or have already been addressed in this FAC. I have just re-read the article (and made a few minor copyedits) and find it meets the FA criteria. My two quibbles are that: 1) the sourcing issues raised above be fully resolved (it appears that is the case for what has been raised so far); and 2) there seems to be an inconsistency in the number of floors. The article says that the older north half had 16 floors plus an attic. However, the newer south half, whose floors aligned with those of the the north half, is described as having 17 floors. My guess is that the attic is counted as a floor in the south half, but this needs to be clarified. Nicely done, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the support and the corrections to the copy. To answer your question: Both halves have the same number of stories, but the top floor on the north half is not usable as office space and that on the south half is. The north half is therefore sixteen floors with and attic, and the south a full seventeen floors. It is a good catch, and I clarified the point about the connection of floors to exclude the top one as well as the discussion of the attic in the original building. Please let me know if you think further clarification is required. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Please post here when the ref check is all complete and I will strike that too. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vertical circulation

Congratulations for the very nice article. I think that vertical circulation is a significant aspect of any "skyscraper" and particularly for one which was tallest and largest of its kind, however the article does not address this yet comprehensively. There is a passing mention of elevators and stairs in the South half section, than in the restoration section is mentioned that there were sixteen elevators. In the only sentance dedicated to the topic, in the architecture sections is stated "There are two central open stairs on the north half and a set of stairs behind the a bank of four elevators in each half of the building." This is unclear, as it reads as if there were 8 elevators, although previously 16 was stated. To add to the confusion, the floorplan only shows 12. I think a clearer and more upfront description of the vertical circulation would be beneficial. If there can be more info sourced about the types of elevators or the width of the the stairs (which look relatively narrow on the plans), or about any design considerations relating to evacuation in case of fire, would be useful. --Elekhh (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words and helpful comments. I agree that this aspect could be covered more fully. Briefly, however, you are correct that there were sixteen elevators and are now eight, plus four freight elevators for a total of twelve. The other four were abandoned and covered over before the restoration. The sources have great discussions of all of the points you raise, but I do not have those sources with me. I will expand the discussion of vertical circulation as you suggest, but beg your patience for a few days until I can lay hands on those books again. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the additional detail about the elevators and stairs now. I hope this makes it clearer. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of comprehensibility yes. Otherwise I am still not sure if enough weight is provided to the subject and whether it shouldn't appear more upfornt (in the construction history section). Nevertheless, is a very good article already which I wouldn't oppose to become FA. --Elekhh (talk) 19:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, 1 external link problem - this link is timing out; it appears to be the link you're using for ref 3. --PresN 22:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. The site you refer to is up and down a lot. It worked when I listed the article. If it continues to be unavailable, I will remove it, but hesitate to do so since it is the official site for the Chicago Landmark information. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 01:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since this link continues to be flaky, I have pointed to the archiveurl instead. That should do it. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 18:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments Excellent article, further improved by meticulous reviewers and thorough responses to them. Thanks for this piece!

Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. I added a brief description. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. In 1977, 80 percent was low relative to the loop average and to the occupancy post-restoration, which was in the 90s. But the main financial issue was the average rent, which, at $5/sq ft, was very low for Chicago but could not be raised without depressing occupancy further. The 1938 restyling was successful in attracting more tenants, and I added a line and source to that effect. I do not know if the later modernization was successful. I have not seen a source on that either way. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is. The source is an architectural analysis of restoration options and it uses strong language for the state of the facade and building in general. From the photos of the building at that time on Commons, you can why he might say that. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I recommend putting quote marks around it, even if it is just one or two words, to avoid the kind of query that i raised here. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have quoted the phrase. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a fascinating story and generally detailed article that I found interesting. hamiltonstone (talk) 04:12, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments and kind words. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Support Comments. I'll add comments below as I go through the article.

I included this claim before but it was pointed out that it was not in the source so I removed it. The building has not been sold, but that is my own OR. There is no source I can find no source that says so directly. I don't like to leave it open ended, but I am at a loss on this one. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since the article is not inaccurate. If I can find a source that says more I'll let you know. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is an odd technique, but very striking in its results. I added an explanatory footnote. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I asked; that's a remarkable technique. If you have a source it could be added to the note, but I'm striking the comment. Incidentally (and not relevant to FAC), are you familiar with the alternate method of separating notes from references that's used, for example, in Alexander of Lincoln? It has the advantage that it is self numbering, so you don't have to renumber all the notes when you add one, as I see you had to here. Or is there some other advantage to the method you're using? Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Done. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "within blocks". They are really very close to one another. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very good question. They are different claims. Upon completing, it was the tallest masonry building of any kind in Chicago, later surpassed by the Chicago Board of Trade Building. It remains the tallest commercial masonry building in the world, but far from the tallest masonry building, which is Mole Antonelliana in Turin. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK; I was confused because the statement in the body that matches up to the lead's claim is "its 215 feet (66 m) high load bearing walls were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world". (Am I right about that?) On rereading these claims I am happy to strike the comment, since I think this is accurate as written. If you can think of a way to rephrase anything to avoid an architectural ignoramus like myself from being confusing by the similarity of the claims, that would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I used the second suggestion.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I took your first suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably overkill. I corrected it.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section is usual and expected and some architecture reviewers seem to place a lot of weight on them, as the surrounding area provides the context for appreciating the whole. I included the library and university as the best known points of interest to ordinary readers. If they seem gratuitous, I am happy to remove them.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's OK; I'll trust your judgement of the acceptability of the material. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the ellipsis. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I incorporated your suggestion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very impressive article. I have made some copyedits; please see the edit summaries for a couple of dubious cases. The points above are mostly quite minor and I will be glad to strike the "weak" from my support above when they're addressed. -- Mike Christie (talk – library) 22:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC) :Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I was off the grid over the holidays but I will address these points in the next day or so. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I believe I have addressed the points you've raised above. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have switched to full support above. Mike Christie (talk – library) 00:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the support. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 03:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 18:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problem in the "Weese" citations, one link to full citation goes nowhere, think it needs the date?

94.^ Weese 1978, p. 89.
95.^ Randall 1999, p. 142.
96.^ Keohan 1989, p. 2.
97.^ a b Weese, p. 89.
98.^ Weese, p. 90.

And seems to be a missing named ref to p. 89. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date was indeed missing. I fixed it. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A number of the citation links aren't working, and there are duplicate citations that need to be consolidated (I don't understand the citation method here).
  2. I'm confused thoughout by WP:MOSNUM issues, for instance, within two paras of each other, we have ten-story, but 4-mile, and there are multiple instances of numbers spelled out that I don't understand, like thirteen-story building.
  3. Please remove curly quotes, they should be straight quotes, see WP:MOS#Quotation marks
  4. The lead says it's the tallest load-bearing ... ever constructed, but the text says ... were the tallest of any commercial structure in the world. Is it still or not? Needs as as of date (see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language and review throughout for similar.
  5. "The project was the most comprehensive skyscraper restoration ever attempted and took thirteen years to complete." According to whom, as of when, and based on only one source? I'm finding issues similar to those at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/School for Creative and Performing Arts/archive1, so I'm stopping here pending further review of similar issues. We need to take care with peacockery, and I see that TonyTheTiger also mentioned that above. What does the source say on this matter? Please provide quote, and review for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Replies to SandyGeorgia:

  1. Yes, the SFN template does not work correctly when the last= field is blank. Please see my reply to Laser Brain (and his reply) above. The system is WP:CITESHORT, using Template:Sfn. The template is supposed to automatically combine references with the same source and page number. Please let me know if you find any errors. I don't see them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thought I had. I ran through again. How do those always sneak in there?--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I cleaned that stuff up now. Thanks. MOS is not my strong suit. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. It was and is the tallest commercial masonry building in the world. I deleted one mention in the text I thought was confusing and added an explanatory footnote. As discussed above, it is not the tallest masonry building in the world, and the article does not claim it is. There are non-commercial buildings that are taller, but what they are seems beyond the scope of this piece.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The claim in question is by the highly regarded Chicago historian Donald Miller (also author of ref 5), who wrote an extended piece on the restoration for Chicago Magazine, quoted here. I clarified that it is his claim. That it refers to the time of the work is implied, but I made it explicit . I do not see why more than one source would be necessary here. The article is in my possession but not in my hand. I will post the quote for you shortly. You had quite a few issues with the School for Creative and Performing Arts article, actually, many of which have nothing to do with this one, so you will have to be more clear. I have addressed Tony's issues to his satisfaction. Please be equally specific about the issues that concern you and I will endeavor to address those as well.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you asked for is: "Donnell's is no conventional preservation project. It is a complete architectural restoration, 12 years in the works, the most comprehensive restoration ever attempted". Note: This was written in 1992, one year before the project was completed. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article says: "Immediately to the west on Jackson street is the Union League Club of Chicago. Founded in 1879 as a civic organization for "upright, law-abiding businessmen", the club was instrumental in bringing the World's Columbian Exposition to Chicago in 1893 and in establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions, including the Art Institute and the Field Museum." Nice words to say about the Club. The problem is that these sentences are sourced to the Club's own website, and the article uses both a similar sentence structure and much of the same nice words (eg "instrumental").
I have replaced the word "instrumental" with "played a role." Surely the claim is bland enough to fall within the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For an FA, I don't think so. It seems bold to me, not bland. In my view, "establishing many of the city's major cultural institutions" definitely needs independent verification.
I have deleted the claim. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "America's largest Roman Catholic University" is the kind of statement that shouldn't be sourced to the university's PR.[64]
While I would not myself characterize a profile in this source as PR, I have replaced it with a citation to the Chicago Tribune to avoid confusion. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. For me, "To learn more about a career at DePaul University visit us at..." at the bottom of the profile is the telling part. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weblink for Footnote 1 (NRHP website) doesn't take us anywhere useful.
Ruhrfisch has explained this below far more clearly than I could. I was unable to find an alternative. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Modern critics have called it a "classic”, a "triumph of unified design", and "one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage."". The source for this is a nomination form for the NHRP. The nomination form appears to have been completed by Pitts, an architectural historian. If Pitts were speaking on a genuinely independent basis, she may be a reliable source. But does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability? In any event, the second quote is not strictly supported by the source. The source says "Critics have called it a "classic"- the Monadnock is one of the most famous buildings of our national architectural heritage." The statement is therefore Pitts', not a statement of the critics.
Ruhfisch has also address Pitts' reliability below. I have replaced the second quote with another (from the same location) that is unambiguously a statement of the critics. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that as I have only reviewed a small sample of the sources against the article, and have the above concerns, I am very much inclined to oppose on the unless my concerns are shown to be wrong. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making those amendments. Going back through this FAC I don't think the amendments are doing much to allay my concerns. Brianboulton discovered some errors. I've discovered more: the errors are misinterpretation (NHRP) and use of self-published sources for self-serving statements. The problem I have is that most of the sources are offline or behind paywalls. So, in analysing an article to determine whether it has correctly interpreted and made proper use of sources, the best I can do is take a sample and apply the error rate to the whole article. My error/problem rate is about 25%, and that is after the corrections made at the behest of Brianboulton. Hope you can see where I'm coming from. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I am not sure that I do. Brianboulton discovered some clerical errors, all of which have been corrected to his satisfaction. I am happy to remove the one claims you have identified as too self-serving (pertaining to the Union League), but reasonable people could disagree about that. Other reviewers have sampled the offline sources (Laser Brain, for example) and found no issues. Of the well over 100 sources in this article, I see three that are self-published: the Union League, the Monandnock building, and the Chicago Transit Authority. I can only wonder at this point what this issues are. If you care to list the other errors you believe you have identified, I will address them. Otherwise, I am not sure what action I could take that would satisfy your concerns. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is - we're probably at an impasse. The issue is I've found a high rate of concern (high by FA standards) in the use of online sources, so I have little reason but to expect a similar rate of concern with offline sources. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If there is nothing I can do, I can't address this objection, I guess. I have to admit that that since you have offered only a few examples as as sample and the concerns you have identified have already been resolved, your reasoning confuses me. Should you choose to follow up on your inference, however, I would note that most of the book sources are available on Google Docs Books, as are some of the architectural journals. Should should choose to share any specific concerns, I will gladly address them. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Having explained that some sources are accessible through google books, I've expanded my sample. I looked at the first foursix books I could find that were accessible. The following two issues arise (two looked fine, and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong):
On the pages cited I see within two paragraphs, immediately following an 1892 comment from American Architect: "At sixteen stories high...", "a thick-walled brick tower", "contemporaries remarked ... the lack of external ornament", "giving the whole a shape suggestive of an Egyptian pylon." That the plan was announced in 1889 is verified in previous citations in this section (ref 16, for example). It seems citation overload to repeat it, but easily done if you disagree. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As the 1889 plan is the subject of the sentence and the purpose of the sentence is not to mention the features but to link the features to the plan, I think the plan and the link are the need citations.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a citation to Merwood-Salisbury, which verifies both the date of the plan and its features. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources tell us Aldis managed what he built and verify the 20% management claim (like this one). I selected the Douglas source to cite because it includes the 1 million square foot claim, which I thought added interest. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'd suggest using that source for the one-fifth claim, because it's a much clearer basis for the one-fifth claim.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a citation to Berger, which states the claim as follows: "By 1902, almost one-fifth of Chicago office space was Aldis-produced and -managed" (emphasis mine). --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The pagination on Google Docs Books does not match the hard copy. See "Notes to pages 117-26", note 48. On the link you pasted, it is page 490.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 15:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I assume it's 472 in the hardcopy then.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just going to have a think about whether to withdraw my objection I'll drop back in. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my objection now - I'm satisfied that there aren't any self-published source issues outstanding (there being no evidently self-published sources among those that are offline or behind paywalls). I'm also satisfied that the source issues above are representative of either clerical errors or decisions about placement of footnotes rather than misinterpretation of sources. There may very well be more such issues in the article -- it is a representative sample -- but I'm satisfied those issues wouldn't go to the verifiability or accuracy of the material in the article. But because of those issues I'm not entirely comfortable supporting either. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment mostly addressing the NRHP issues raised above.
  1. First, for ref 1, NRHP forms are not always online. The link is to the NRHP searchable website. If "Monadnock Block" is entered, it returns a listing (which cannot unfortunately be linked to directly). The listing has links to the PDF and photo(s) of the building submitted as the NRHP nomination form, but when you try to click on these you get the standard message that they have not yet been digitized (scanned). This is still the best link available for a document which is not otherwise available online (yet).
  2. Second, NRHP nomination forms have always been viewed as reliable sources for FAs in my experience; I think second guessing the motives of the form's author is not something we are in a position to do.
  3. Third, even if we do question her motives, Pitts was an employee of the National Park Service at the time, and not an employee of the Monadnock Building or whoever owned it. She cataloged the Monadnock and its nearby historic buildings in the form cited as part of her job for the NRHP and my guess is she wrote many similar forms. I know that Pennsylvania state employees wrote many NRHP nomination forms to help catalog the state's historic bridges, for example (after a decision was made higher up to do so).
  4. Fourth, the Monadnock Building was listed on the NRHP in 1970. The NRHP form written by Pitts and cited above was for the Printer's Row Historic District, which was added to the NRHP in 1975. When Pitts wrote that form (which Mkativerata sees as a possible COI), the building was already listed on the NRHP and the form cited was just to add it and some nearby buildings to a new historic district. I do not see how the question "does her statement being for the purposes of securing listing of the building affect her reliability?" applies here, when the building was already listed on the NRHP about five years before.
  5. Fifth, (and not about the NRHP) I thnk it would help to add a brief note on the various claimants to world's (or Chicago's) tallest masonry building (there is already most of the material presented here in the FAC). Hope this helps, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 15:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I think it addresses my third point and half of my fourth.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ruhrfisch for the clear explanation. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments. My replies are below. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." - To me the photo & elevation drawing below shows flaring at the base too. Later you mention "The gentle swelling at base and cornice.." and "the slight inward curve of the wall at the top of the first story" (ie going up).
I adjusted the wording to reflect the observation.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not too sure about the repeated use of forms of "abstract" to describe what is a very concrete and regularly formed building. Would "undecorated", "plain" or "austere" be better? Egyptian architecture is not normally described as "abstract" as far as I know.
"Abstract Egyptian" is the phrase most often used by Architectural critics to describe the north half. It is not the building that is abstract (as you point out), but rather the manner in which it adopts the Egyptian style. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that Ross Miller (p. 128) says: "A highly abstract Egyptian motif was the only detail to place the Monadnock in any other time than its own." but this seems to be talking specifically about "detail" of abstract decoration (not apparently in any pics on Commons) rather than the style of the mass of the building's facades. Except in post-Modernist architecture, I don't think a large building can be "abstract" any more than it can be its opposite of "representational". Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the same time, it is inaccurate to say that the style is "Egyptian". It resembles that style in certain features (the pylon-like profile, for example) but is not an Egyptian-styled building. Which is why I imagine Miller (and others) use "abstractly Egyptian" to describe it. If it seems misplaced to say that here, what would you suggest as a more apt descriptor of the style? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 14:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we only had the building as built, not the first design with more specifically Egyptian styling & ornament, Egyptian might be less often used to describe it. There are three uses of forms of "abstract":
  • 1) "The north half is a plain vertical mass of purple-brown brick, curving gently in at the base and flaring outward at the top, presenting an abstractly Egyptian profile." (curving in still needs fixing I see). Maybe: "The north half is an unornamented vertical mass of purple-brown brick, flaring gently out at the base and top, with vertically continuous bay windows projecting out." The facade actually is rather complicated compared to most tall buildings, but with the basic structural elements rather than any ornament creating the variety and interest.
  • 2) (caption) "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building in an abstracted Egyptian style" maybe: "1885 sketch of preliminary design showing a smaller, more ornate building with Egyptian-style detailing"
  • 3)"Early sketches show a 13-story building in an abstract Egyptian style, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif." maybe: "Early sketches show a 13-story building with Ancient Egyptian ornament and a slight flaring at the top, divided visually into five sections with a lotus-blossom decorative motif."

Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestions. Thanks. I have adopted them all, and kept the link to Egyptian revival, per earlier comments from other reviewers. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 21:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "walls of such thickness that they would have too greatly reduced the rentable space." - awkward - "reduced the rentable space too much/greatly" would be better. Just after "The final height, much dithered over by the owners, was forced to a decision when the city proposed ..." better as "The final height was much dithered over by the owners, but a decision was forced when the city proposed ..."
I adopted both suggestions. Thanks. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "terra cotta" (twice) - one word is normal today, no? Link fire clay.
It is. I changed both occurances. Thanks for the link, too. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "An oak-appointed tobacconist, a glass-cased pen store,.." reads a bit wierdly to an English person. Maybe "A tobacconist with oak fittings, a pen shop (ok store) with glass cases..."
I adopted both suggestions. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The building is undivided between floors,..." better as something like "The floor divisions are not marked on the exterior ..." I think. "the unbroken edifice interrupted only by a series of cantilevered windows bays separated by rows2 - needs something, if only "window bays" or "bay windows".
I reworded the sentence. I hope it is clearer now. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "entry ways" is one word, then two. There's nothing wrong with "entrances".
I made all occurrences consistent and replaced a few, just for variety. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The refs would be better in 2 or 3 columns.
They format in three columns in Firefox. Another reviewer set the colwidth to 20 em. Is there a better alternative? --Nasty Housecat (talk) 20:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using IE at the moment. I give up on these templates, which seem to be be getting more complicated and less functional.
All ok except "abstract" point above. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the support.--Nasty Housecat (talk) 02:53, 11 January 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 00:04, 6 January 2011 [65].

Suillus spraguei[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suillus spraguei is an attractive, edible mushroom of eastern North America and eastern Asia. It became a GA over a year ago and I recently decided to revisit and see what I could do to help it "go all the way". I think it's comparable in quality to the other mushroom FAs; compare Suillus brevipes for an example in the same genus. My typing hands await your suggestions and comments. Sasata (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good catch. I was using information from two sources (MycoBank vs. Palm and Stewart, 1986) with conflicting information on the original publication date for this name. Although I usually use MycoBank or Fungorum for synonymy data, in this case I think they got it wrong, and so have used synonymy as given by P&S, but have noted the other positions in a footnote. I'll contact MycoBank and let them know as well so they can update their database. Sasata (talk) 07:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ucucha 19:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added your suggested Mueller 2001 as a supplementary ref, but it's mostly the same info as the biogeography paper published the year before by the essentially the same authors (Wu 2000) that focussed more specifically on Suillus. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from me.
J Milburn (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)))[reply]

Comments from J Milburn-

|}

Support. Great as usual, I've no doubt you'll deal with my small concerns Dealt with. Researching that taxonomic history and rendering it comprehensible is an impressive feat by itself. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: All sources look OK, verification spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 23:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The ring is white in the lead and grey in the description.
  • tested with chemical tests — repeat of tested/tests
  • ammonium hydroxide — personally I'd prefer ammonia solution, because that's more accurate, but not a big deal
  • more brownish — "browner"?
  • Thanks Jim, I changed all but the last; I think there's a subtle distinction between browner and more brownish (my wife assures me it's true!) and didn't want to deviate from the intent of the source. Sasata (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 22:00, 3 January 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 00:04, 6 January 2011 [66].

Round Church, Preslav[edit]

Nominator(s): — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, Wikipedia is missing a featured article on a medieval church building. The two church FAs that we have, Stanford Memorial Church and St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao, are both 20th-century buildings with active congregations and well-recorded presence. That enabled the authors to focus much more profoundly on history and to rely on much more accurate data on architecture and decoration.

The Round Church in Preslav is not an active, modern church institution; in fact, it is not comparable even to roughly contemporaneous buildings like the Notre Dame de Paris or the Canterbury Cathedral in the sense that it is an archaeological site only rediscovered in the 1920s. Data about it comes solely from studying its ruins, and the only written reference to its existence in medieval sources, while popular, is not an entirely certain identification.

I dare say that while writing this article I did the most in-depth research I've ever devoted to a single Wikipedia piece, and medieval Bulgarian churches have been a major part of my recent Wikipedia activity. I consulted the most recent, relevant and reliable sources on the topic and, where opinions differed, presented all notable points of view. It is possible that this may be the most detailed study of the Round Church available in English; I certainly did not encounter a more thorough one in my research.

The article underwent a peer review, which was rather useful despite involving a single editor (thanks to Jappalang). It also received a copyedit (I'm not a native speaker of English), for which I'm grateful to Diannaa and Bobnorwal. — Toдor Boжinov — 18:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 00:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images - The freedom of panorama laws in Bulgaria are quite restrictive (and something I am not totally familiar with), on what basis do you believe the images of the subject to be free? Fasach Nua (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Freedom of panorama refers to the free use of photographs that depict copyrighted public three-dimensional art, be it sculptures or buildings. Indeed, in Bulgarian law freedom of panorama is permitted only for non-commercial purposes (article 24, paragraph 7), which does not suit Wikipedia. As the church and its decoration were finished in the 10th century, however, in terms of copyright it is a work in the public domain. According to the same law, copyright expires 70 years after the death of the author (article 27, paragraph 1). — Toдor Boжinov — 21:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Bulgarian, but I am prepared to assume good faith and accept WP:FA Criteria 3 has been met Fasach Nua (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review! Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Preponderence of Bulgarian language sources means a limited sources review. As far as I can see, all the sources look reliable. Here are a couple of minor issues:-

Brianboulton (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your suggestions! I have tried to use only reliable, scholarly sources for the description and history of the church. Most of the Bulgarian references are to publications by Bulgarian universities, the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences (a national institution), and by reputable printing houses.
I have removed Stamov because what he provides is a very brief overview, and there is no real need for citations to his work. I have also divided the sources into subsections: can you see if this is a good way to do it? Also, having done that, do you think I should remove the "|language=Bulgarian" from the Bulgarian sources listed in that subsection? I think I should leave them like that personally. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 12:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. With the subdivision in place the individual (in Bulgarian} messages can be removed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. It's great that you're filling this important gap in the featured articles. I have a few comments from a first run-through:

  • Hi and thanks for your comments! I revised the narthex part of the intro per your suggestions.
  • Can you please elaborate on your second point? The sentences are already long, so I'd like to keep them separate. In what way should I reorganize them in your opinion?
  • About the Bulgarian references: do you think I should be using Latin transliterations of the names in the footnotes (References section?). Should I transliterate everything (names of publications and publishers in Sources, for example) or just the authors? I think I should either leave everything in Cyrillic, as was done with the Chinese references in St. Michael's Cathedral, Qingdao (original characters + translation), or transliterate everything and leave no Cyrillic in the references (transliteration + translation), as I did with Simeon I of Bulgaria. Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 11:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I apologize for my delay in responding.
  • Something about the logic and the repetition in those sentences doesn't work for me. I'll try to clarify:
"Besides depictions of Christian figures and fauna, its interior features hundreds of drawings..." How are the "depictions" different from the "drawings"?
"Texts and images on the walls of the church range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek, through letters from the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets, to images of ships." The "ships" seems tacked on at the end.
If you don't want to combine, how about just having one sentence for the images and one for the inscriptions. I propose: "The Round Church stands apart from other churches in Preslav because of its rich interior decoration, which makes ample use of mosaics, ceramics and marble details. Its interior features hundreds of drawings, depicting ships, fauna, and Christian figures. Medieval inscriptions on the walls range from names of saints in Byzantine Greek to separate letters and short texts in the Glagolitic and Cyrillic alphabets."
  • On the last point, since this is meant for a general English-speaking audience, I would propose transliterating everything, but it's not a deal-breaker for me.
I hope this helps. Lesgles (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was very helpful, thanks very much! I have reworded the last paragraph of the intro per your suggestions, and I now see your point. I've also transliterated all Cyrillic in the references using the official system (the preferred method per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Bulgarian). — Toдor Boжinov — 15:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ed and thank you very much for your support and kind words! Indeed, the "language=Bulgarian" parameters were redundant for the sources listed under the "In Bulgarian" subheading. I have a concern about the titles in References: I think I should leave "language=Bulgarian" for these because, hypothetically, some of them could be in Russian or Serbian, for example :) Best, — Toдor Boжinov — 08:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh. Point taken. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Round Church (Bulgarian: Кръгла църква, Kragla tsarkva), also known as the Golden Church (Златна църква, Zlatna tsarkva) or the Church of St John - even though the vernacular name is the most common, I'd maybe rewrite as "The Church of St John, better known as the Round Church or Golden Church,...." ?
The church's alternative appellation... why not just "The church's alternative name..."?
The Round Church underwent partial conservation in the late 1990s and early 2000s - reconstruction?
Hello and thanks for your comments! I've fixed the appellation and conservation parts based on your remarks.
Actually reconstruction --> restoration (was original word I was thinking which eluded me) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the order of the names though: "Church of St John" is an extremely uncommon name which is never used without clarifying that the Round Church is meant. The "Church of St John" is only known through the inscirption of chartophylax Paul, and, as the church was never active in modern times, it has never been in actual scholarly or popular use. It seems to have been the formal name of the church in the Middle Ages and that's about it. Perhaps we can go with something along the lines of "The Round Church, also known as the Golden Church and, formerly while active, as the Church of St John..." so that the "saint name" fits in better.
Personally, I would prefer a solution similar to the wording I proposed above, with the name in the title remaining first. If you insist, however, I'll be okay with putting the "saint name" first.
Okay, that explanation is fine. I'll be reading and commenting more today. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and I hope you continue your prose review! — Toдor Boжinov — 15:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
However, no church from this age in the Slavic-populated parts of the Balkans was up-to-date with contemporary Byzantine architecture. - the "was up-to date with" sounds too...funny. I knwo exactly waht you mean and there is (I am sure) another way of saying it bu i am staring at the page and my mind has gone blank. I will ask a couple of copyediting folks to take a look. PS: See User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Copyeditors.27_block for a solution.
The design of the Round Church is unmatched in Bulgarian architecture of the time. - I am thinking "unique" is a better word here. I am unclear on what sense you mean by "unmatched" - just "unique" or superlative?
''As a whole, the epigraphy of the Round Church belongs to the 10th century - I think goes better in the first paragraph, anwhich I will do now.

otherwise looking good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the copyedit and the comments, that was very useful! I liked the change that Malleus Fatuorum suggested upon your query and I've implemented it. As for the meaning of "unmatched": while the superlative meaning would not be unjustified, the best alternative was "unique". — Toдor Boжinov — 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011 [67].

Sigi Schmid[edit]

Nominator(s): Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article underwent GA and a peer review several months ago. User:YellowMonkey rightly pointed out during the first FAC that some of the MLS seasons were not comprehensive enough. That has been adjusted, there has been some copyediting, and I waited until the end of the most recent season to get everything squared away. I feel that it now hits the criteria and is an in-depth review of the subject. I do not believe another peer review would significantly improve the article, but please feel free to point out any needed touch-ups if something was missed. Cptnono (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Done and done.Cptnono (talk) 20:18, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA Criteria 3 met 'however I would suggest that File:Sigi_Schmid_September_2010.jpg be moved to have the faces look into the text per WP:MOSIMAGES Fasach Nua (talk) 20:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For sure. Done.Cptnono (talk) 20:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with respect to FA 1a; at least I think it reads well. For disclosure, I've contributed a little to this article in the past and did a copyedit recently. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: Sources generally OK. Some spotchecks carried out:-

Other spotchecks proved OK Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Was in a later reference. Added it to the line.[68]
  • ref 9 fixed ref (characters in the template)
  • That was admittedly a paraphrase of various sources I saw. I'll poke around and see if they are already in the article or if I did not include them. Follow up: The ref for the record was later in the paragraph but I modified it and added a new one since it had more info. I also adjusted/toned down the line to read: "Schmid was criticized by fans...". This is based on the headline "Schmid Under Fire From Fans" and the line in the article "Irate fans are calling for Schmid's job..."). I recall seeing more and will try to pull them still if needed.[69]
Thank you.Cptnono (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Weak opposeComments: I think this article needs a copy-edit as sections of it do not flow and consist of strings of repetitive sentences (see below for some examples, but there are others throughout). However, I consider the article to be comprehensive and very thorough. Most of his major seasons are covered in detail and his coaching style is examined, as is the impact of his methods. It simply needs tidying up. If this is done, I would change to support, but at the moment the prose lets it down.

  • Ugh. Thanks for pointing that out.[82]
  • Hmmm... I wonder if I did not write the Columbus section or if I was having a better day. Done?[86]Cptnono (talk)
  • Clarified in lead and first instance in body per above.
  • Page 2 of the story.[88] I changed the link to that specific page.[89]
The in-depth review was appreciated. I think everything is straightened out now but let me know if the LA section was not cleaned up properly or if that US Soccer stuff still reads too much like a list after the tinkinering with the wording.Cptnono (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is much better now, and my non-prose concerns are all cleared up. The prose is now OK, but I think it could still be tighter. My suggestion would be to get someone (ideally someone who does not know much about Schmid) to have a look and copy-edit some more. There are one or two awkward parts such as "Between 1977 and 1979, he served as an assistant coach at UCLA. Head coach Steve Gay had decided to take a leave of absence from the role in 1980, and Schmid took over the position" (did he take over from Gay as assistant coach or become assistant and then take over from Gay as head coach. Maybe these sentences could be combined) or "He was successful developing players" (Why not "He developed players such as ... and ..." and link to the stat about his players going on to the national team?) or "He had a team that liked to attack in the 2001 season" (Did they dislike attacking in the other seasons? :) Maybe "His successful team of 2001 enjoyed attacking play/excelled in attack"?) There a few like this and I think it needs uninvolved eyes to spot them. If the nominator has no objections, I may have time in the next couple of days to have a look but even better if someone else could do so. However, I've struck my oppose after the work done so far. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet. I'll play around with your suggestions. If you get the chance it would be great but I will also see if I can grab someone else just to be on the safe side. Cptnono (talk) 22:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quick follow up: I made the changes you mentioned. I have made a request at the FOOTY project and asked a couple editors to take a look if they had the chance. One of them made two minor changes. I believe this is ready but would love to hear any other feedback if the prose can be improved further.Cptnono (talk) 06:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no external link problems. --PresN 22:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've copy-edited the UCLA and LA sections, but I feel they still need a bit of work from some fresh eyes as I think there may still be parts which don't quite make sense to the uninitiated. I think it's nearly there, but not quite. I've tried to remove some of the wordy parts and bits which were a little awkward. I'll keep looking and tweaking when I get a chance, but I still think another copy-editor would help to polish it up. It deserves it because the content is excellent. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You rock. Thanks for tweaking those sections. I'll ask around and see if I can get another copyedit before this closes out. Unfortunately, none of my off-Wikipedia buddies are any help with their familiarity with the subject and BAC.Cptnono (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Thank you for the recent copy edit.[90] This bit is fine to remove. I thought it was "cute" but if it comes across as trivial it is not a big deal.Cptnono (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I'm copyediting as I go and will note anything I'm not sure about:

Sweet! Here is too a great season, Skotywa. I also lean towards not using citations in the lead and don't recall why they are there. Maybe it was before I starting working on it or maybe it seemed appropriate at the time for some reason. I am OK with removing them if others want so whatever works best is fine.Cptnono (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case, I've gone ahead and moved them out of the lead section. In all cases, the reference was already being used somewhere in the body as well, so the change was pretty minor. I've stricken my nit-pick above and still fully support this article's promotion. Great work Cptnono. --SkotyWATC 22:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011 [92].

Governor of Kentucky[edit]

Nominator(s): Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A hopefully comprehensive overview of the office of chief executive of the U.S. state of Kentucky, complete with illustrative examples from past officeholders. I believe this would be the first FA about the office of governor of any U.S. state. I'll try to respond to comments quickly, but I ask for your patience, as I have a newborn at home. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 17:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAB/EL Check - no dabs, no broken external links (linkchecker said one was timing out but it worked for me), but this link, which you're using for ref 31 right now, says at the bottom that it pulls from wikipedia, making it a no-go unless you can show that on the date it was put up the information you're using it to cite wasn't in this or any WP article. --PresN 19:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I also recently took the Fletcher article to GA, I know the information was there prior to it being in the Wikipedia article. I'm reasonably sure that NGA just links to the Wikipedia article for many governors, but the biographies aren't actually cited to them, kind of like the "External links" or "Further reading" sections in many Wikipedia articles. All that said, I could probably cite this to another source if it's absolutely necessary. NGA was just handy. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

  • The first 1891 Constitution is the document as it was adopted in 1891 (noted by the words "as adopted" in the bibliography). The second is to the document as it presently reads due to amendments since 1891. Only reference 69 refers to the 1891 constitution as adopted (and again, this is noted by the "as adopted" qualifier.) It is necessary to reference both documents in order to verify the changes made to the chain of gubernatorial succession effected by a 1992 amendment.
  • The U.S. Constitution is in the references as "Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, section 7". It appears just below the two works by Thomas D. Clark.
  • I'm far from an expert on the National Register of Historic Places, but as I understand it, in order to have a property listed, it has to be nominated by someone and that nomination form is approved by someone in the federal government. I'm citing the forms per advice from User:Bedford, an editor much more experienced with NHRP articles than I. If there is a better source to verify the years that the mansions were listed, I'm not opposed to changing the source.
  • Eesh. Indeed. I thought I fixed this during the GA nom, but alas, it seems I never made it past the good intentions stage. Fixed now.

Otherwise sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the colorful table, I wasn't aware that practice had been scrapped. I'm not opposed to replacing it with an image; probable candidates include Isaac Shelby, the state's first governor; John Breathitt, the state's first Democratic governor; Thomas Metcalfe, first in a string of National Republican/Whig governors; Charles S. Morehead, the state's only Know-Nothing governor; William O. Bradley, the state's first Republican governor; Ernie Fletcher, the state's most recent Republican governor; and Steve Beshear, the state's present governor (although he also shows up in the infobox.) Still, the table is not without value, since it shows at a glance the long history of Democratic dominance in the office. If the colors need to be removed to make it more palatable, I'm not opposed to that. Let me know which seems best to you.
  • Regarding your copy-edit, I've implemented it. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 23:22, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, it's not that there's colors, it's that it can, in some cases, give a skewed view of reality. Let's say, hypothetically, that a state had 40 Republican governors when its terms were 1 year long; and then, more recently, raised term lengths to 4 years, and had 10 Democratic governors. A table like that would show a Republican dominance, when in reality they are equal. This could be bypassed by including the number of years served by each party, but I much rather prefer it being dealt with in prose. (Note that the current list template includes a counting of governors, but in conjunction with a small key and to explain how the official counting works) Though you are correct, in the case of Kentucky there was a heavy Democratic dominance, so there'd be much less chance for ambiguity, but I still think it can be handled better in prose than with a table that has only one column of real information. --Golbez (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not likely to be a problem with Kentucky specifically at this point, since terms have always been 4 years and very few have been eligible to serve consecutive terms. It does get somewhat complicated, however, in a case like John L. Helm, who served two non-consecutive terms, one as a Whig and one as a Democrat. I'm fine with nixing the table; which image do you think is most appropriate to replace it? Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:26, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
''The Democratically-controlled House of Representatives... - simpler to just say "The Democrat-controlled House of Representatives..." ?
I'm never entirely sure which is correct (or if both are acceptable) in this situation. "Democrat-controlled" sounds a little awkward to me, but that's hardly a substitute for a grammatical rule.
okay, I am not too fussed.
the officeholder has had to rely on empowering legislation enacted by the General Assembly - is this second "empowering" necessary? Is any meaning lost by its removal? (there are a few wordy setences around this bit making for heavy reading...)
I actually think it reads better if we change the first occurrence of "empower", which I have done.
This provision reflected the prominence of duelling in the South at the time - would "prevalence" be a better word here?
Indeed. Thanks.

Otherwise looking pretty good on prose and comprehensiveness grounds. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I look forward to the rest of your review, and hopefully, your eventual support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments:

  • Fair enough. Done.
  • I've rewritten this. See how it sounds now.
  • Your first question is quite observant considering that when Governor Fletcher was charged with violating the merit system, part of his defense early on was that the regulations imposed by the merit system were too vague and open to interpretation to be enforceable. Ultimately, his objection was not sustained, but it is apparent that at least some legal minds have made a similar observation to yours.
  • Regarding your second question, it's been a while since I was deep into this period of the governorship, but as best I remember, Governor Chandler's campaign was built upon the idea that the executive branch was all being controlled by former Governor Clements and that all appointments had to be vetted by him. The executive order was probably meant to show that he was serious about cracking down on cronyism. However, as I understand it, Chandler was probably just as guilty of cronyism and may have deliberately taken the action because of its political expediency, hoping to undo it later and hope no one would notice. Alternatively, he may not have had the votes in the General Assembly to enact a merit system statute and believed the executive order was better than nothing.
  • I suppose if there aren't any RS dealing with this than there's nothing you can do. It would be interesting for the article to go slightly more in depth on this, but maybe it's better for another article.
  • Most of the time, they actually did so, excepting the few Republican governors who had the difficult task of dealing with a heavily Democratic General Assembly. I've changed the wording here.
  • Better. Thanks.
  • I actually meant "national or international dignitaries visit", hence the ellipses, but the way you have it is better - less wordy, tighter prose.
  • This addresses Wetherby's observation in the quote immediately preceding it that a governor has only the first legislative session of his term in which to enact his agenda. Part of the argument for more frequent legislative sessions was that it gives the governor more chances for his proposals to become law.
  • Ah, I see. Guess I missed that :)
  • Unfortunately, no.
  • Darn. Oh well.
  • I don't believe all of the same requirements for governor (age, residency in the state, etc.) apply to the lower offices. (J. C. W. Beckham was not of legal age to be governor when he was elected lieutenant governor, for example.) Also, God forbid, some accident or attack had incapacitated multiple members of the executive branch (e.g. the secretary of state was in a coma from which he later recovered or something like that.) Regarding the "inability to qualify", this was the language used in one of the sources I consulted, although I forget which one it was at the moment. I'm open to changing it if you think it sounds better, though.
  • OK, what about "in the event of his inability to quality". Perhaps I'm just being to wordy, but "in his inability to quality" sounds like there's something missing between "in" and "his".
  • Works for me.
  • It was archaic and reflected a time (1891) when out-of-state governors could not easily be reached or return to the state (i.e. before cell phones and automobiles).
  • Makes sense. Guess that's not really something that needs to go into the article.
  • Done.

Overall it's a nice article. Most of the above issues are minor, and I look forward to supporting when they are resolved. Dana boomer (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above. I look forward to your eventual support. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 21:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support. The remaining couple of issues are minor style things that don't affect my support. Thanks for the quick replies. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no PD image of the newly-elected governor is available, I'd assume we'd just remove the incumbent image and leave the infobox without one. I plan to maintain this article inasmuch as I'm able, including the picture. The image should only need to be updated every 4-8 years. I don't see this as a big issue. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 13:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you don't find the writing up to FA standards. I've done the best I can, but finding help on copyediting and MOS issues for Kentucky governor articles has proven dang near impossible. Peer review seldom generates any comments and extends the time needed to get an article through FA review even more. (As you can see, this nom has been open for over a month, and will probably fail based on a lack of reviews and supports.)
Anyway, I've tried to address all of your concerns above, and I'll be happy to try and address any more you list here, but general comments like "doesn't conform to the MOS" aren't the kinds of things I can really do much about, since I won't really know what I'm looking for specifically. Sorry if I'm venting a little here; guess I should work on articles about battleships, hurricanes, or The Simpsons so I can generate enough interest to get sufficient reviews. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 14:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! Maybe. :) Well, it's close, so I wouldn't count it out yet. I'll plan to take another pass through it today, and see if it's ready. I'll check for any other MoS problems. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I paid particular attention to the prose, given Andy's comments above. I think it passes. It's not the most riveting article I've ever read but the topic is unavoidably dry and I think the nominator has done all that can be expected. I did a copyedit pass and found very little to fix. Per Andy's comments about MoS above: I'm not a MoS guru but I didn't spot anything objectionable. In addition to prose, the sources seem high quality, and it's comprehensive in terms of covering everything I would expect to see in such an article, though I don't know the sources and can't tell if anything has been omitted. I believe this article meets the FA criteria. Mike Christie (talk – library) 21:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why some of the PDFs listed in Notes but not References don't have access dates, and not sure you should be using those big quote marks on the quotes, per WP:MOS#QUOTES-- please review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:57, 4 January 2011 [93].

New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009[edit]

Nominator(s): Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who will be victorious in a battle royal between Jim Tedisco, the highest-ranking Republican in New York, and Scott Murphy, a political unknown? Will the last-minute blessing of a scorned Libertarian chairman prove a saving grace for Murphy in a race so close that the initial tally had each man at exactly 77,225 votes?! Read through this recently-reviewed, heavily-sourced and copyedited GA to find out!
Gyrobo (talk) 23:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png should ideally be free of trademarks, but if it isn't it should be tagged accordingly Fasach Nua (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the National Atlas owns elusive rights to its congressional maps, so it would be in the public domain as a government work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These maps are used universally when referring to a US congressional district. If you change one, that's precedent to change the rest, and that's a lot of unneeded work (especially since no infringement limitations are being broken since this is a US-Gov-PD work). upstateNYer 23:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Images are free [94] Fasach Nua (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - The image is trademarked, and it does needlessly restrict the freeness of the article as discussed in Wikipedia:SOSUMI and our ability to provide free content, all be it in a less restrictive manner than copyright. Fasach Nua (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suspect you'll be going through Commons to have every item created by the National Atlas deleted, then? Good luck with that. upstateNYer 21:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is only concerned with the candidate article and whether it matches up with WP:FA Criteria, although if someone was prepared to clean up those other images, it would would be a welcome side effect of this process Fasach Nua (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blanket opposition to all non-free images on the basis of some unofficial, ideological essay violates the spirit and letter of the WP:FAIRUSE guildeline. It's unproductive and completely misrepresents the pillar regarding non-free materials. And it's pointless in this case, because the copyright terms you linked to earlier clearly says that only the names "National Atlas of the United States" and "The National Atlas of the United States of America" are trademarked by the DOI. All images are in the public domain. I don't know how more free that can be.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify then: I disagree with your assessment of the situation. I should have made that clear. In addition to that, what is planned on being done about it if you believe it to be a problem? I agree with Gyrobo completely on this issue; your (Fasach Nua) suggestion is a solution looking for a problem. upstateNYer 05:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: no alt text. upstateNYer 02:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the dead link. I think the image does qualify as fair use, though. It's a copyrighted promotional image that is unrepeatable and illustrates the people in question.
--Gyrobo (talk) 12:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that the URL I initially found was an archived, mobile version. I found the full article on Roll Call's site, despite their apparently malfunctioning search.
--Gyrobo (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be doing a fairly detailed review over the next few days, time permitting. It strikes me, however, that there is a need for a short background section, first giving a brief discussion of the 20th district, and second giving the political background that presently appears in the lede, but is not repeated in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing, I've moved the paragraph about the the political climate to its own section, along with the information about the vacancy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. In my view, a lede should be 3-4 paragraphs, and so you might want to expand the lede again. Thanks for moving the stuff. I'm too tired to do effective work now, but will work tomorrow on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all too familiar with the feeling.
--Gyrobo (talk) 04:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to point out that the article contains fewer than 15,000 characters, so the lead only needs to be one or two paragraphs.
--Gyrobo (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I won't be reviewing the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Ucucha 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment. Looks good. A few minor issues:

  • I don't think it's misleading, because a conservative stronghold is not a Republican stronghold. Gillibrand is a Blue Dog, and could be described as a conservative or centrist on many positions – when she represented the district, at least. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair point about conservative vs. Republican, but I think it could be harmlessly clarified. The lead is not at all overlong , so it could also be expanded a little. This is just a suggestion, but how about "The 20th district had been a safe Republican seat until Gillibrand, a conservative Democrat, won it for the Democrats in 2006, and early polls showed Tedisco well ahead of Murphy, but in February 2009 both the Rothenberg Political Report and the Cook Political Report listed the race as a toss-up." I also just noticed that you don't reference these two political reports in the body of the article -- shouldn't they be mentioned in the Campaign or Polling sections? Mike Christie (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • 77,225 was the tally on election day, but the count did change frequently during the counting of absentee ballots, as the lead says. I can't really see the distinction. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per an election day article in the NYT, the tally was 77,344 to 77,279 with all precincts reporting. The 77,225 was an unofficial tally (possibly the first one of the series of them -- I can't tell) released on 4/3, the following Friday. I don't think the "on election day" phrasing is the best way to put this. Mike Christie (talk) 20:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I think I cleared this up. --Gyrobo (talk) 18:45, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the sources you're citing and I think you're drawing the county list from this statement: "The revised tally reflects the counting of several dozen additional absentee ballots today in Columbia, Delaware, Otsego and Warren counties". I don't think that says what you're making it say, though. If you compare the counts on the 14th with the 13th, it's true that those are the four counties which changed their totals that day, but they had already started counting. That source statement just means that those are the four counties which changed on that particular day -- there was no particular significance to the counties involved. If you really wanted to, you could use those PDFs and the other daily totals released by the NY Board of elections to tally the daily totals by candidate, but I think it would also be OK just to drop the statement about those counties. Mike Christie (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article has improved greatly since I looked at it earlier. I stepped aside because I would have had to oppose at that stage. Now let me give you some quibbles I have:

Background: "93,337 vote" surely there should be a hyphen in there to be consistent with other usages?
Just added the hyphen, it does read better that way. --Gyrobo (talk) 05:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates: Saratoga carried the most weight ... for both parties? Should be specified.
  • I kind of thought that saying he owned a house in the district accomplished that. I can't think of a way to add that little qualifier without making it sounds like, "He owns a house there – and that's good enough!" --Gyrobo (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a diner in Albany". A link to diner for those who do not live in the Northeast US would probably be in order.
  • In the Third Parties subsection, is it really necessary to have Scott Murphy's full name in consecutive sentences? And isn't the use of a blockquote for an accusatory statement a bit POV?
  • "Election day was set on February 23, 2009, when Governor Paterson issued a proclamation for a special election." This is a confusing sentence. I would say something along the lines of "On February 23, 2009, Governor Patterson issued a proclamation setting the date for the special election as March 31, 2009."
  • I do not like that image caption. It is unusual to be talking into news mics at a strategy session. Perhaps after the session (hint hint).
  • Why didn't Tidesco go to the second debate?
  • "Tedisco also called attention" This sentence is too long to be an "also".

That is about it. I think a reaction section, that is, reaction to the results, would be good. Not overlong, just a couple of paragraphs. Perhaps call it "Reactions and aftermath" and complete it by saying what happened in the district in the November election this year. Hope to support once a few changes are made.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of paragraphs about the aftermath of/reactions to the election, how does it look now? --Gyrobo (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The blog post linked to in the article is from the old blog. The new blog doesn't have the article publicly available. I don't know what kind of evidence you're looking for, but the new site looks nicer. --Gyrobo (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I removed the ref, as it was redundant.
  • If the blog post is published on the site of a newspaper, it's being published by the newspaper.

Other sources look OK. --Andy Walsh (talk) 03:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fixed URL. It's an official photo, in the public domain.
  • Official photographs are not necessarily in the public domain as stated. The official portrait of Supreme Court judge Anthony Edwards was located at http://www.supremecourthistory.org/02_history/subs_current/images_b/005.html (supplied by courtesy of the Supreme Court), but it was taken by Robin Reid, who is not a government employee;[96] the photograph has since been replaced by one that is taken by a federal employee. This is similar to the case for Scalia (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Antonin Scalia/archive1). Likewise, the first official portrait for John F. Kennedy was taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt, a LIFE photographer on assignment.[97] The copyright belongs to Eisentaedt and LIFE. Copyright belongs to the photographer unless it was transferred via formal agreement (contract). Unless he or she is a government employee whose job is to take photographs, the work does not automatically fall into public domain. scottmurphy.house.gov is the representative's personal site (hosted on house.gov), and nowhere does it state what copyright status does its contents enjoy. Where does it state the portrait is in the public domain or taken by a federal employee? Jappalang (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PD-USGov-Congress template explicitly applies to "official Congressional portrait[s]", and his site claims the photo is his official photo. There are no explicit licensing terms on Murphy's site, but I don't think it's within the realm of possibility that a member of Congress would release such a high-res photo on their official site, claim it as their official portrait, and not place it in the public domain.
  • I disagree with the assertion that the template is correct (and several copyright templates here and on Commons have been deleted for the wrong interpretations or assumptions); I would like to be proven wrong (by being shown evidence to back up the claim that any "official" Congressional portrait is in the public domain) but at the moment other similar cases ("official" Supreme Court and Presidential photographs) prove otherwise. Obtaining information about the author of the "official" photograph (or affirmation from Scott Murphy) would be a better mean to resolve this issue. Regardless, your photograph is a valid replacement and would resolve the issue for this article as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find the exact page, so I'm removing it from the article. But it was originally from his site.
  • Fixed.
  • I had this chart created; the graphic shows the same data as the table above it and all that data is sourced in the article. It might not be a bad idea for Gyrobo to add the table and sources to the image pages, but that's not an FAC requirement. upstateNYer 01:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it is, per WP:IUP and WP:V (more particularly the latter). This is not just an image. It is a chart, presenting data. Such information in an FAC, like if it was done in markup (Wiki-class table), would have to be verifiable per WP:V and WP:WIAFA 1(c). I see no reason to exempt this policy when presented in pictorial form. Thus, the sources should be present on the image page as well. Jappalang (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.
In regards to the concerns over File:New York District 20 109th US Congress.png above, as Fasach Nua stated, if there are trademarks, the image should be tagged with the template ((trademark)) like so. Wikipedia:SOSUMI is a bit new to me, but it is neither policy nor guideline. I would say opposition based on this is on moral grounds rather than on non-compliance with the project's rules. One can address this by removing the trademark (the National Atlas logo) from the image (which is certainly possible as it is a public domain material) and still retaining the main contents of the image, but I do not think the project has yet to demand adherence to this suggestion. Jappalang (talk) 07:05, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Images are verifiably in the public domain or appropriately licensed. Jappalang (talk) 07:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still no answer to my query above about the WP:LEAD; does it comply with LEAD and adequately summarize the article, and has a logical punctuation review been done? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Andy Walsh (talk) 05:39, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I set up the two dead links to archived urls while Daily News fixes whatever problem they've had in the last week. The lead has been updated since Sandy's initial comments, and I'll try to add more about the campaign, but I think right now it conveys the same amount of detail as the 23rd's lead; it's just that the 23rd's infobox is wider, it uses smaller paragraphs, and it contains a lot of detail that would be better left to the body text.
--Gyrobo (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the lead now touches on all major points of the article, and that its length is proper for an article of this size per WP:LEAD#Length. And regarding the comparison to the 23rd's lead, it has since been reduced (not by me). I don't see a way to add more to the lead of this article without bulking it up with filler from other sections.
--Gyrobo (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever issues the Daily News was having with its site, the links work now. --Gyrobo (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You'll need to update the link to Murphy's house website to an archived version since he'll be out of office in a matter of days. upstateNYer 19:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the External links section. The results link was used as a ref elsewhere, and the Tedisco and Murphy links were to their office sites, not their election sites, which have been gone for a year and aren't very useful or informative anyway.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone performed a sourcing spotcheck for WP:V and WP:COPYVIO? Also, I happened to notice this line:
  • Tedisco, who had been criticized by Murphy for opposing the package, used the outrage over the AIG bonuses to reframe the debate.
I know what the outrage over the AIG bonuses is, but do all of our readers? Is there no link? Please review that all terms and concepts are defined or linked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 checked for copyvios about two months ago. I've added the link to AIG bonus payments controversy.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, I now see Giants2008 post at the top of the FAC; I will review the rest of the linking myself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Things I don't understand:

  1. ...when the district's representative, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, was appointed as US senator from New York.
    The lead is still short and leaves the reader wondering too many things; for example, why not just say that she was appointed as US senator from New York to fill the vacancy left by Hillary Clinton? And ...
    ... Eric Sundawall, attended one of the four debates that were held in March 2009, but was removed from the ballot a few days before the election.
    why mention this in the lead without telling the reader why he was removed? The lead is still short; why skimp on details that leave the reader wondering?
    Personally, I don't even think he should be mentioned in the lead since he was such a small player in the election anyway... upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tedisco conceded the race the following day. The race was seen as a referendum on Obama's economy policy.
    Economy policy or economic policy?
    Fixed. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. By November 2008, the Republican Party held an enrollment advantage of 70,632 registered voters across the district, down from a 93,337-voter advantage when the district lines were drawn by the New York State Legislature in 2002.
    Why "by"? Was something from the previous sentence the cause of this? What brought the advantage down and why the use of "by", as if the trend was changing over time but the reader isn't told why.
    I don't see the big deal here, but I've changed it to "in". upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is a mess of confusing numbers here, changes in style, and breaches of WP:MOSNUM:
    Although Republican George W. Bush carried the district by an 8-point margin in the 2004 presidential election,[7] Democrat Barack Obama won the district in 2008 by a margin of 50.7% to 47.7%, or approximately 10,000 votes of over 330,000 cast.[8] Gillibrand was reelected in 2008 by twenty-four points, a fourfold increase over her 2006 margin.[4]
    Why a margin for Bush, but percentages for Obama? The switch in style makes it harder for the reader to digest the meaning. And why is 8 not spelled out, while twenty-four is, both opposite of MOSNUM? Should four-fold be hyphenated? Getting through this sentence was taxing. Also, in general, the article is very hyphen heavy, making it rough going.
    WP:MOSNUM issues fixed. The rest is personal style preference on your part and/or the author's part. I can see your point, but on the other hand, to keep things at least somewhat interesting, the different way of showing the number differences gives the reader a break from potentially annoying repetition. Changed the 50.7%-47.7% to "three-point margin". And yes, "four-fold", as it is used, is an adjective by itself, therefore it requires a hyphen. Sorry if it's hyphen-heavy, but I think people can still read with some dashes in the article, to be quite honest. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In January 2009, Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration. This created a vacancy in the district.[4]
    Choppy, why can't the two sentences be better blended to one?
    I agree, I've never been able to merge these sentences though. The final product always comes out crappy. Suggestion? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees.
    Why "in lieu of"; is weighted vote the norm there or was this a departure from the norm of primaries? If it was a departure, why aren't we told why? Actually, I can't decipher what this paragraph is trying to say.
    "In lieu of" tells the reader that primaries—the typical method of choosing a candidate—were not used. The source cited is probably the best, most direct source for the statement, however it does not explain why a primary was not used. General knowledge of the political system and this election (information about which can be garnered from this article anyway) would offer a presumption of 1) there wasn't enough time to hold a primary and 2) why waste the money on a primary anyway? However I've never seen that written out. That said, this system of the party chairs picking the nominees is not the norm and that needs to be made clear, hence the 'in lieu of'. We can't get blood from a stone, and after working on this article for as long as we have, if we had come across a source that explicitly stated it, we would have definitely run with. Until I become a newspaper reporter myself and print the stuff I want to see, I can't just make up the sources I need for this type of application. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. State Senator Betty Little and former state Assembly minority leader and 2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate John Faso had been in the running for the Republican nomination.[11] Richard Wager, a former aide to New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and State Senator Stephen Saland had also been mentioned.[12][13]
    And? Why "had been"? What happened to them? Why are they mentioned?
    And what? You know who was the eventual nominee, shall we just put "but they didn't get the nomination" after the statement and be completely redundant? I don't think we need to hold the reader's hand. However I guess you have to hold my hand, because I don't see the significance of the "had been" issues. These are names that were considered for the nomination, they didn't get the nomination, but their interest or possibility is completely relevant to the history of this election. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Why is this joined on to that paragraph? What is the relationship?
    Chairman Michael Steele of the Republican National Committee said the special election was the first of three elections that were "incredibly important" for the Republicans to win.[16]
    Moved to 'campaign' section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[17] Tedisco represents the 110th Assembly District, which includes a significant portion of Saratoga County.
    Switch in tense here is completely confusing, and recasting the paragraph might fix it. Why not, "winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009, to represent the 110th Assembly ... or something that doesn't have us switching from past to present.
    Agreed, the tense change is annoying, however we were never able to overcome this. Your interpretation of the meaning is incorrect; an interpretation is unnecessary because the statements are extremely clear, but admittedly are not qualified as "brilliant prose". He didn't win the nomination to represent the 110th Assembly District. 1) He won the nomination (to run for Congress)... and... 2) he represents the 110th Assembly (state legislature) district (currently, as in right now, and then). The importance of the second sentence is a connection to the third sentence, which points out that he doesn't actually live in the Congressional district (#20) he was hoping to represent, however much of his Assembly district (#110) overlaps with the Congressional district. This was a major issue in the campaign. Suggestion on phrasing? upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. On January 31, The Post-Star reported that the Democrats had narrowed the field of potential candidates from over two dozen applicants down to six. The Democratic chairpersons met with all six candidates at a diner in Albany on February 1, and selected Scott Murphy of Glens Falls,[20] president of the Upstate Venture Association of New York,[21] as their candidate.
    Again, left wondering... a story is not told here, rather random seemingly unconnected details are strung togehter. How did they narrow them? Based on what? Why do we care that they met in a "diner"; what is relevant about that factoid? Why/how did they select Scott Murphy?
    Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" More detail is offered here because more detail was reported about the Democrats. We report that 1) there were over two dozen applicants, something that is not explicitly stated in the Republican section, however we list some names, since that list was smaller, 2) they met in a diner to do interviews (interesting, no?) and 3) they chose a guy. What more or less do you want? As to how they chose him, please see the first two sentences of that section: "In lieu of party primaries, the party nominees were chosen by a weighted vote among the county committees. The weight of the vote depended on the population of registered party voters (Republican or Democrat) in a given county." That's about as clear as it gets, unless of course, you want us to be completely redundant and hold the reader's hand. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. But also, why is Sundawall mentioned in the lead if he's never mentioned in the article? For the third time, the WP:LEAD should be a summary of the article; it's still not. Not only do we not know why Sundawall was removed from the ballot; he's never mentioned again anywhere in the article!
    First off, there's only one 'a' in Sundwall. Second, you must have completely missed this section. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps I would have noticed that but not for the typo in the lead. I'm still very uncomfortable with the prose here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped here; I can't get through any part of the article without questions about prose, relevance, missing info, and I'm left wondering why an interesting tale isn't spun and why we are told the factoids we're told and why we're left to wonder all that we're not told. I think this article needs a thorough revisit; these are samples only, and I'm frustrated that I've asked three times for the lead to be corrected, and each time I look, I fiend more issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm probably just as frustrated with the fact that this FAC has been open for almost two months now with multiple supports by users that thoroughly read the article and offered up issues for fixing (myself, Mike Christie (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk · contribs)) as well as base-less supports from Jayjg (talk · contribs), Coemgenus (talk · contribs), and an IP that claimed it was familiar with the race. Sourcing was okayed both by Giants2008 (talk · contribs) and Laser brain (talk · contribs) (Andy Walsh) and the use of images in the article was completely massacred by Jappalang (talk · contribs). Then you've got a baseless weak oppose that has an issue with a set of images that are probably used on literally thousands of pages. You say it needs a thorough revisit, I say you've got some obvious consensus here. upstateNYer 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead expanded. upstateNYer 12:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your frustration about the timing, but please recall that you had outstanding sourcing issues on 8 December, no image review until 14 December, and my earlier request to look at the lead was unaddressed as of 21 December, so I think we're progressing as fast as we can here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like it in the record here that I agree completely with all of UpstateNYer's comments, and had I read this before he did I probably would have written exactly the same thing. I'd like to add that your "frustration" over your issues not being addressed is due to the fact that your previous feedback has been in the vein of, "it's not long enough! Expand it! And check sources!" You provided no concrete examples of problems that needed to be fixed, or of where the lead was not substantive enough. Throughout the two-month period this FAC has been open, I've responded immediately to feedback; if you had provided actionable criticism, your issues would already be resolved.
--Gyrobo (talk) 13:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I wouldn't normally comment on another editor's comments on an article I've supported, but as you're a delegate your comments are given additional attention by nominators, so I thought I would respond. After all, the goal is consensus, which can require discussion. I see that a couple of the points you made above have been addressed, but in points 6, 7 and 10 I think you're asking for more than the sources provide, or at least for inferences and explanations that are not explicitly in the sources. Re point 1, my feeling is the lead is adequate; it's four non-trivial paragraphs and contains all the key facts. I'm afraid I don't see a problem on these issues, and I am still comfortable with supporting this article for promotion. (No comment on the other points, several of which have been addressed.) Mike Christie (talk – library) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Gyrobo, I've provided 11 examples, which predominate the brief first sections of the article, including two three typos in the lead. I'm glad some of these issues have been addressed, but remain concerned about the others, and am reluctant to suggest the requested prose modifications myself, as you all have and know the sources better.
@UpstateNYer, re "Then why didn't you ask this question about the Republicans? You seem to be satisfied by the statement "Jim Tedisco was the eventual Republican nominee, winning the GOP nomination on January 27, 2009.[16]" not so, these were samples only, and your veiled insinuation is not helpful-- there are issues throughout, I picked only the most obvious. It is also unhelpful to state that one of FACs finest image reviewers "massacred" the article.
@Mike, thanks for the helpful feedback; perhaps one more pass by an uninvolved editor can bring this over the hump. In my entire history at FAC, I have promoted only one article that had concensus for promotion but that I felt was still lacking, and I have lived to regret that :) On the other hand, since Karanacs is offline for the time being, and Laser brain also reviewed this article, I will likely be obliged to eventually promote it even though I'm uncomfortable with the prose, so I would appreciate it if others could work to bring it over the hump before I must promote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that each time I dig further into the article, I find more issues: redundant prose, sentence starting with number, and MOS captions punctuation on a quick glance.
  • The campaigns agreed to hold four debates.[40] The first debate took place on March 2, between Tedisco and Murphy.[41][42] The second debate, sponsored by WMHT and the Times Union, took place on March 19 between Murphy and Libertarian candidate Eric Sundwall.[40][43][44]
Why do we need five sources to verify that two debates were held? If these articles are cited because they say something "about" the debates, why isn't that info included? If not, why the multiple cites to verify basic info? I continue to believe this article needs more review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WRT:
  • Redundant prose: I just wrote that (for you!), of course it needs review!
  • Number starting sentence: One example of this is not an FAC killer
  • Caption: I liked your edit summary when fixing this: "WP:MOS#Captions needs punctuation review", as if we have other images after your image reviewer went through the article. That is literally the only caption in the article. So that's an additional checkmark.
  • Please don't twist my meanings above. I'm not insulting your image reviewer in the slightest; massacre doesn't mean he/she did something terrible. Don't forget that I was the first person to propose removal of an image that I felt failed a copyright test. However I strongly disagree with removing a sitting Congressman's "official House photo" because we don't know who took the image. Getting a hold of a Congressman or his staff is hard enough. I'd have to get a hold of one that probably wants nothing more to do with Congress, therefore being even harder to get a hold of, all for an image that is taken in the Congressional photo studio. upstateNYer 18:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • UNY, I think you will find a positive, collaborative attitude towards reviews will yield better and faster results: I read and edit dozens of FACs at a time-- don't take it personally-- the goal is to get a well-deserved star, not to malign reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: a Google news search reveals some of the missing info that renders this article hard for me to follow, leading me to wonder if a thorough literature search has been done and whether the article is comprehensive. It seems burdened by factoids without telling a compelling story. Some examples:

But the record turnout that propelled Barack Obama to the presidency in 2008 -- and created coattails that Murphy was able to ride to victory in his March 2009 special election squeaker over Assemblyman Jim Tedisco, R-Schenectady -- did not repeat.

Our article doesn't explain why Democrats prevailed in 2009 over higher Republican voter registration in a traditionally conservative area. This is all we have:

Explanations for the Republicans' defeat ranged from accusations that Tedisco "dither[ed] on the stimulus bill", to intimations that Tedisco only became his party's nominee by manipulating the selection process.

That information isn't particularly comprehensive, and leaves many questions (which is the sense I get throughout the article).
That's great, and I'll make sure it's included, however please note that that article is from five days ago. It was not available when the prose of this article was being written. Also, this is the first time anybody has mentioned this. This is why specific requests (not just "lead needs to be longer!") is much more helpful than overly general demands. upstateNYer 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, lead needs to be longer is spelled out at WP:LEAD already, we have plenty of patience here, and these articles are only intended as samples of why I find the article so hard to follow-- I hope they help, but don't mean to say you must use them, only that they explain somewhat what I find missing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) @Sandy, you provided those 11 examples in the last day, but you expressed consternation over inaction during the previous two months, a period in which you provided no helpful insights into improving this article. I don't know what kind of compelling story you're looking for here, and I don't think it's fair to say the research was poorly done because the article lacks a source that was published just yesterday. The article included all information that was available two months ago.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it appears that my attempts to help bring this article over the final hump are only irritating you, so I'll unwatch for a while, hoping that the kinds of improvements and review I'm still seeking are at least somewhat clear now. I think you'll be much happier with your eventual star if it is based on rigorous review and feedback :) Best of luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The kind of improvements you're seeking are entirely unclear to me. You seem to want a "compelling story", but based on your earlier comments about Sundwall, I don't think you read the article in its entirety. Saying that your comments provide "rigorous review", and that the purpose of making this article a FA is to gain some bauble of validation is reductionist and incorrect; however, I will accept the emoticon olive branch you have extended.
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

e/c Listen, I have no problem improving the article and adding information to it when it's found. Just like you, this isn't my day job, and yes, there are sources I may miss, however the FAC process shown here jumps all over the place, with Nov 15: please fix this; Nov 29: please fix that; Dec 7: please fix something else; Dec 15: ehh, you might want to look at...; Dec 24-27: expand the lead!, errors here!, because you expanded the lead, now there's errors in the lead!, here's four articles written in the last four days that are appropriate to include!. It's not to say that we'd have just left the article to waste (like sooooo many FAs after promotion; they should all be protected! but that's for a different day) if this article was promoted a month ago. These articles are great additions, I agree, it's just that the process has very much frustrated me the last few times I've gone through FAC. upstateNYer 18:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So summarizing, Sandy's eleven comments seem to be the only outstanding ones, some of which have been addressed. A summary for each follows:

  1. Covered by newly written lead.
  2. Fixed.
  3. Changed to "in". Is that satisfactory?
  4. MOSNUM issues fixed; consistency in X-point margin introduced. Is that satisfactory?
  5. Changed two sentences to one: "A vacancy was created in January 2009 when Governor David Paterson appointed Gillibrand to the United States Senate to replace Hillary Clinton, who had resigned to become Secretary of State in the Obama administration.[4]"
  6. I still don't think there's any issue with this.
  7. I still don't think there's any issue with this either.
  8. Fixed.
  9. See my response above and let me know what you think. I'm not entirely sure how to deal with it.
  10. I think you're searching for a story that doesn't exist. These are just facts.
  11. Fixed.

Comment when ready. upstateNYer 18:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:35, 4 January 2011 [98].

Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis[edit]

Nominator(s): JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Self-nom. I am nominating this for featured article because I think that in its present form it represents the state of knowledge about this rare condition, is not too long for a rare topic, and relies exclusively on high-quality medical sources (apart from a single citation of historical interest). The condition is becoming more common in English-speaking countries and warrants a high-quality Wikipedia resource. JFW | T@lk 15:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Graham: There was no request for support on any editor's talk page that I can find. If there was, please supply the diff, or if not, please refactor your comment. The request alluded to by Sasata was made on the article talk page in the section immediately following Working towards FA, in a response to Wouterstomp's remark that "The current version looks good to me". Requesting that WS's opinion (made on the article talk page) be reflected in the FAC surely cannot be seen as improper?
Note to delegate: FAC is meant to be a collaborative process, and I am concerned at the combative attitude being expressed here. It is important that articles be thoroughly reviewed, but no nominator should have to "expect the Spanish Inquisition". --RexxS (talk) 08:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my mistake for which I sincerely apologise. I have withdrawn the comment. Graham Colm (talk) 09:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep returning to this defence ("all reviews of decent quality are already cited"; "all recent reviews make very similar points"), but I still maintain that over-reliance on a small subset of reviews will lead to important or interesting information being left out. So, let's try again: I hope we can agree that UpToDate is a reliable resource that produces scholarly reviews worthy of the WP:MEDRS qualification. Their review on TPP was updated on May 28, 2010, with the last literature review on Sept 2010. I carefully read through their article and compared it to the Wiki article, and found several things there that could be included here. Apologies in advance if I've included something in the list here that actually is in the article, due to my misunderstanding of the medical terminology:
  • "UpToDate is very comprehensive, but it places emphasis on single case reports and small studies, something I wish to avoid."
  • Of the 69 references cited in the review article used most frequently as a source for the Wiki article, about 75% of them are single case reports or case studies. Does this then render this review invalid as a reliable source?
  • "We are not attempting a full academic review of the subject in this article."
  • No, if we were, we wouldn't be limiting ourself to using reviews as sources. We are, however, attempting to "neglect no major facts or details" and we are also providing a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", according to the FA criteria.
  • "You are mentioning a number of things from UpToDate that are already mentioned (e.g. male predominance of 17-70 to one translates roughly to the figure you have given"
  • 17- to 70-fold is the same as 95%?
  • "… the role of testosterone is mentioned in the "mechanism" section, decrease in phosphate and magnesium)."
  • Ok. I was misled by the later statement in the Wiki article "It is unknown why males are predominantly affected".
  • "I am deliberately not mentioning a differential diagnosis, because that is the role of a medical textbook."
From WP:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)
"Diagnosis: Includes characteristic biopsy findings and differential diagnosis."
  • "The urine Ca/PO4 ratio is not important if hyperthyroidism is easily confirmed by biochemical analysis, it makes familial hypokalaemic paralysis less likely than TPP; I think the reviews still mention it out of academic interest."
  • Yes, several reviews mention it, but the wiki article does not.
  • "Different sources mention different ECG abnormalities; I have mentioned the ones mentioned in one source."

… and therefore missed abnormalities mentioned in other sources ("neglect no major facts or details")

  • I have applied editorial judgement in a number of situations, e.g. whether to delve into the urinary Ca/PO4 ratio or every single ECG abnormality described in people with TPP, which will make minimal contribution to the diagnosis or management. A large number of other facts could be added about the condition, which would turn the Wikipedia article into UpToDate. I grant you that Kung's article also uses case reports; I was referrring more generally to the approach taken by UpToDate. Again, which medical articles actually provide a differential diagnosis?
  • I'm not sure whether a prolonged discussion about our views here is going to be helpful, given that we have opposing perspectives on the level of detail required. JFW | T@lk 17:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the points raised so far, I've reviewed UpToDate in the area I'm most familiar with (Tourette's), and its summary had one issue that was lacking, and while it was written by a good TS researcher, it wasn't written by the best, so I understand the reluctance to rely on it too much. I also know that in medical articles, we have to use consensus about which reviews are best and most accurate, and sometimes that's a function of us knowing who the top people in the field are, and who is controversial or promoting their own research, so some judgment applies here. On the talk page request for support, it was on article talk as part of an FA drive, and I work with and know these guys, so it doesn't concern me too much. Still reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, and very digestible. I see a statement about prognosis in the Lead:

which is covered under treatment. I assume that means we don't have any additional information on prognosis to warrant a "Prognosis" section, per WP:MEDMOS, since treatment commonly resolves the condition? If that's not the case, the article would need a Prognosis section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 01:35, 4 January 2011 [99].

Salanoia durrelli[edit]

Nominator(s): Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This animal was described this year; it is a mongoose-like member of a family of carnivoran mammals unique to Madagascar. The article became a GA (thanks to reviewer Visionholder) and an ITN item on the Main Page before most news organizations even picked it up, and was read and commented on by many. As always, I'm looking forward to all reviews. Ucucha 16:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar is brilliant, as too is the image use in this article WP:FA Criteria 3 met in full Fasach Nua (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links, one redirect which I fixed. --PresN 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • After an animal was observed in 2004, .." Somewhat vague phrasing, though I can't think of a better word for "animal". Perhaps this would be better: "First observed in nature in 2004, ..."
  • It was certainly not first observed in nature in 2004; there had been rumors before that were based on people actually seeing the animal, and the locals would quite certainly have seen it from time to time. I'm open to other improved wordings, though. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is found only in the Lac Alaotra area." Why is the name of this lake given in French rather than in English?
  • "In two weighed specimens, body mass was 600 g and 675 g (21 and 24 oz)." Are these the only complete specimens that have been weighed? If so, I suggest specifying that information. If not, I suggest given the average weight, not just these.
  • "The Lac Alaotra area is a threatened habitat, and..." What does "threatened habitat" mean in this context? If it means the area suffers from habitat destruction and introduced species, then I don't understand why the second clause starts with "and".
  • "An individual Salanoia durrelli was observed swimming in 2004 during a survey of bamboo lemurs (Hapalemur) in the Lac Alaotra area, the largest wetlands of Madagascar, by the Durrell Wildlife Conservation Trust (DWCT)." Because of the length of this sentence, it is unclear if "by" means "next to" or that members of the organization observed the individual.
  • "the head and body length is 310 mm (12.2 in)" I think this would be a tad clearer if it included "combined" before "head and body", yes?
  • "S. durrelli has a more robust dentition than the mostly insectivorous..." The start of this sentence is redundant with the previous section. My attempt at a rewrite: "S. durrelli may use its robust dentition to feed on prey with hard parts, such as..."
  • "The animals were captured using traps baited with fish and meat." It is not clear how this is relevant to this section. I suggest either explaining the connection (if there is one) or moving this piece of information to the Taxonomy section.
  • Why, it suggests that that is what they eat. Durrell et al. (2010) also mention the fact in this context. I've put in an "indeed" to make it a little clearer. Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better, but now it is unclear what "the animals" refers to--it could be S. durrelli or it could be the brown-tailed mongoose. Perhaps "the animals" could be replaced by "the two specimens of S. durrelli". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "S. durrelli is similar in many respects to the larger mainland African marsh mongoose (Atilax paludinosa), a carnivorous wetland-dweller that also uses mats of vegetation." Uses mats of vegetation in what way?
*"over five years before 2001." Very odd phrasing. Why not just specify the date range? Perhaps something like "from 1995 to 2000".

Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:45, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review! Ucucha 20:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Sources and citations look OK. It should be noted that Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire is a French language source. No veification due to lack of non-subscription English language sources. Brianboulton (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; added the French bit. Ucucha 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a read through; I enjoy your articles.

It's well written and researched, but I worry that not enough is known about this species yet. There is a fair amount of speculation in the article; guesses about what it eats, for instance. Futher, there is limited research on the species at this time; the descriptions come from only two specimens. There is a mention of the fact the locals knew about the species; perhaps there's a story to tell there? Precisely where is it found? Reproduction is not mentioned- presumably because nothing is known. I guess I'm not criticising the article, I'm saying that perhaps there has not yet been enough research on the topic to justify a FA. Sorry. J Milburn (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point—I'd hardly want for something like Veratalpa to become an FA—but I don't think this one has insufficient information. (If consensus is otherwise, I'm fine with that.) Virtually all species are poorly known (more poorly than this one, quite likely). If more is published about S. durrelli in the future, it can (and will) be incorporated into the article. I've written several FAs on animals that we know less about, not only fossils like Ambondro mahabo, but also living species like Eremoryzomys. Ucucha 21:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, any short article is eligible for FA so long as the most basic questions about the subject can be answered and sourced. In the case of critters, those questions might be "What does it eat?" "Where does it live?" "What does it look like?" "Is it endangered?" "When was it discovered?", all of which have been answered. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, but it could be argued that those questions perhaps aren't answered. Its diet is only speculated, its habitat and range is not fully known (being judged from only a few collections), the same is true of the appearance. I would agree with what you're saying if you were talking about GAs; while a GA has to be "broad", a FAC has to be "comprehensive". There remain questions unanswered- reproduction? Lifespan? Behaviour? Relation to humans? And there remain questions that could be expanded upon, and perhaps will be with further research. I'm not opposing as such, I guess this FAC just raises questions about the nature of FAs. This seems to me to be a fantastic GA, but perhaps not a great FA. I believe I am right in saying that the GA project started out with just this issue in mind; articles can be excellent, but on subjects on which there is not enough material to warrant a featured article. J Milburn (talk) 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would interpret "comprehensive" as meaning "covering everything we know", not "covering everything we could know". The article on the marsh rice rat, for example, does not say how many genes the animal has, a fairly basic biological fact which is not known of this species (as of most others), and I hope you agree that it is comprehensive. Ucucha 21:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble with that definition would be that there are subjects on which very little is known- some historical figures, mythological figures, distant stars, obscure species (especially those which are extinct- you know more about that than me!) and so on. I expect we would not be promoting 2,500 byte articles on those subjects to FA status. The line needs be drawn somewhere. J Milburn (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Miniopterus zapfei? The line must needs be drawn somewhere, I agree, but I think we've recently promoted on subjects that we know about as little about, or perhaps less: Miniopterus aelleni, for example, and Eremoryzomys (which I mentioned already), Euryoryzomys emmonsae, Miss Meyers, Cryptoprocta spelea. Ucucha 23:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • gracile — an uncommon word, needs replacing or a wiktionary link
  • The grebe ref (17 at present) doesn't follow punctuation contra MoS. I'd add a comma or move the ref to the end of the sentence



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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [100].

Henry J. Wood[edit]

Nominator(s): Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Henry J. Wood (he always used the middle initial) was a major figure in British musical life in the first half of the last century, and his influence continues in London's annual series of The Proms which he conducted for nearly fifty years. He introduced modern classical music to Britain on a scale unparalleled before or since. This article has received a thorough peer review – my warmest thanks to all the contributors – and I believe it now meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley (talk) 13:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: The sourcing and citations are exemplary. I could only find one nitpick: Ref 119 requires "pp." not "p." - a grave error. Spotchecks for verification were of necessity limited, but I did what I was able and found no problems. More general review comment follows. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I gave this a lengthy peer review and raised numerous points there, all of which were answered or adopted. I have no further issues to raise; the article is excellent in all respects. My one observation is a mild concern about the bizarre figures which Measuringworth.com. continues to serve up. This is not a matter for this FAC, though. I am pleased to give my support and to express pleasure in the way that Tim's series on major British musical figures is developing. Brianboulton (talk) 18:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for these very kind words! Your support is greatly valued. Tim riley (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 06:03, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Disclaimer: I have proofread this article twice over the past few months and believe that the text, references and images comply with the FA guidelines. This is a very comprehensive and readable article about an important conductor and innovator in orchestral conducting, and a worthy addition to our growing list of classical music FAs. The piece is well illustrated, well written and well-structured. Tim riley's careful research and extensive knowledge of British music, musicians and recordings is evident. I heartily support this nomination. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greatly appreciated - thank you! Tim riley (talk) 15:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images Two thirds of these images originate in the UK, yet they are all tagged with US copyright tags, please tag the images with their copyright status in their country of origin Fasach Nua (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warmest thanks to Jack1956 both for the support and the very kind help with the copyright tagging. Tim riley (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to Hekerui for this; it really is invaluable to have this expert input on images. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very happy with the article title. OK, apparently he always used the "J.", but everybody who knows about him thinks of him as just Henry Wood. The Proms article refers to him almost throughout as Henry Wood, except for one link to the redirect Henry Joseph Wood. I'd much prefer Henry Wood (conductor) as a title, in the same vein as John Adams (composer), which replaced the unintuitive John Coolidge Adams. I see that there was a short discussion on the Talk page which resulted in a move to the current title, but not many editors were involved. --GuillaumeTell 22:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to GuillaumeTell for the support. I am wholly biddable about the title (and indeed rather inclined to Guillaume's view) and will happily go along with any consensus on the matter. Tim riley (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would support such a move if Tim riley wishes to make it, although it is not related to whether this article is promoted to FA-class. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is my view also, but I would wait until this FAC is resolved before making the change. Brianboulton (talk) 09:10, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lede:

Biography: Early:

Opera:

Early years of the Proms

Early twentieth century

BBC

Honours

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of excellent stuff in these points. I'll attend to them over the next day or two and report back. Meanwhile, thank you. Tim riley (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Later - I have incorporated all your suggestions with the exception of the first one under "Early twentieth century", above, for the reason I have given. I am indebted for some really good points, which have improved the article. Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the hyphen in "newly-built" for two reasons. First, adverbs clearly modify their verb, so there is no need of a hyphen to avoid ambiguity. Secondly it was inconsistent with the "newly rebuilt" earlier in the article. Malleus Fatuorum 14:36, 2 January 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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [101].

Peveril Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Peveril Castle isn't particularly well known, but standing over the Hope Valley it's an impressive site. It's just a little castle, and most of the history revolves around ownership, passing in and out of royal control. This article covers the history of Peveril, from its construction in the wake of the Norman Conquest to its decline from the 14th century onwards, to it featuring in Sir Walter Scott's novel Peveril of the Peak. There's not an awful lot on the architecture because not a lot remains of the castle; the keep is the best surviving part and even that is quite damaged. Thanks in advance to anyone who takes the trouble to review the article. Nev1 (talk) 18:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support

Cheers! Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've not gone into much detail, but I've added a note about the link between the forest and the castle. Do you think more is required? I've also tweaked the bit about the gatehouse. [102] Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments:

It is a little disconcerting to find problems with each of the article's online sources. I am not able to extend verification to the book sources as I don't have these. The sources all look reliable, and the citations are all properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the Bodiam Castle article as a model for describing the site as a Scheduled Monument and a listed building and went a bit overboard so that's why source 23 didn't make any sense. What is now source 23 is used to explain the significance of Grade I listed buildings, so where it now says "It is also a Grade I listed building,[22] and recognised as an internationally important structure.[23]" source 22 confirms the castle is listed, source 23 demonstrates that Grade I listed buildings, and therefore including Peveril Castle, are considered of international importance. I think when I added the pastscape source years ago it mentioned the castle's listed status and has since changed, but a new source stating the same has now been found [103]. Nev1 (talk) 22:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about Scott's book is now closer to the source. Nev1 (talk) 22:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. 1 external redirect, which I've fixed. --PresN 05:59, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support with a few tweaks: A good piece of work. I'm no expert on castles, but it seems as comprehensive as possible. It is easy to understand and well written. I have been unable to check most of the sources. A few comments:

  • Good point about the foundation date, so I've swapped the sentence round.
  • The closest I could get to a link for lordship was manorialism.
  • I've clarified in the lead who the three men were, ie: two watchmen and a porter. The thing about 20 knights is tricky. Garrisons were often provided by castle-guards, relying on feudal ties. While the king had 20 knights in the area in his service and had to pay them, the knights would have had their own soldiers and retinue, swelling the fighting force. However, these records were not of royal concern and unfortunately do not survive. It's an annoying situation.
  • Sorry about the missing word, I thought it worked without "it". Now sorted. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was meant to be for rather than form.
  • I've had a go at splitting the sentence. What do you think?
  • "Finally" was there in an attempt to round things off. I think readers are more interested in the history of castles rather than the layout and architecture, especially as not much survives of Peveril. As a result, the usual approach I take is to put the history section first and architecture last (when the layout or architecture is essential to the understanding of a site's history, as at the Tower of London, then it comes first). The problem is the natural point at which to wrap up the article is the end of this history section and the architecture just seems to leave things hanging slightly. I thought "finally" might help ease the end of the article, but it's not major.
  • The sources were milked as much as possible as far as Scott's novel is concerned, and to be honest I had to tone things down a little. I've been able to add a little more, but it seems that the castle wasn't really significant. I was surprised that the English Heritage guidebook didn't mention Scott's novel.
  • Again the problem with Peveril's architecture is that so little survives. There's only the keep, which is unusually small, and the curtain walls. The rest of the buildings survive as foundations. Nev1 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem on architecture, I thought there would be little to say (I've seen the castle!).
  • If you wish to keep the "finally", that's fine. It wasn't a big issue.
  • Everything else fine. --Sarastro1 (talk) 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sceptical if most readers actually realise you can access Google maps and so on by clicking on the co-ordinates, but they are now included at the top of the article. Nev1 (talk) 23:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That works, but an easier solution would be to upload it locally- here, the image needs only to be free in the US, so its copyright status in the UK is not important. You could upload it here with the same information as on Commons and tag it with ((PD-US-1923-abroad)); either way, I'm gonna nominate it for deletion at Commons. J Milburn (talk) 00:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image restored and moved, image page updated, image readded to the article, caption expanded to include the date of the map. I'm now happy with the copyright status of the images in the article. J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2010 (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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [104].

Bernard Bosanquet (cricketer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The inventor of the googly, Bernard Bosanquet was a fairly mediocre cricketer who just happened to discover a completely revolutionary style of bowling. Although he went to Eton, he was not a typical amateur cricketer and while trying to get an advantage in a table top ball game, discovered a way to throw a ball so that it spun in the opposite direction to normal without looking different. He began using it in cricket and was transformed from a very average batsman who bowled a bit into an international, match-winning all-rounder. He won two matches with his bowling before he lost his ability to bowl. Even at his best, he was always erratic and was in effect a very bad "good bowler" whose best delivery was unplayable to batsmen at the time. This article is a GA and has been peer reviewed by Brianboulton. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments

Done, I think, including editor. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the book sources I have seen do not give much detail about him and are fairly generic and based on what is already in the article. I will see what else is available but I'm not too confident! --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at David Frith's The Golden Age of Cricket, or one or other of the various Middlesex CCC histories (David Lemmon the most recent, but also from Anton Rippon and E M Wellings)? Perhaps the "character" writers (Cardus, Arlott, Robertson-Glasgow) may have had something interesting to say? Brianboulton (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in Cardus or Crusoe. I've put in a request at WP:Cric for anyone who might have access to anything. --Sarastro1 (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some info from Frith's book added, but not too enlightening. --Sarastro1 (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I peer-reviewed this, found it interesting and informative, and will add a more general review a little later. Brianboulton (talk) 23:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from --CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) |content=[reply]

It means that he played regularly in the county team. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not too sure what you mean here. What punctuation is missing? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure I agree, but added commas. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary. "That" can be omitted quite a lot of the time and the sentence flows better. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please clarify what is poorly written? --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In cricket at that time, there were several types of representative cricket: some involved fairly poor players and so was not "fully representative", i.e. the best players had not all been chosen. So a fully representative side is one containing the best available players. It is fairly common cricket terminology, but if it is a problem I can either switch to "representative" or add a note (although I'd prefer not to). To be honest, my prefered option is to leave it. --Sarastro1 (talk) 10:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linked. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Changed synonymns around to return to "method of bowling". --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe this oppose is in retaliation for my oppose here, based mainly on the similarity of comments here to those in the other FAC and also on these [105] [106] comments. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only covered about half the article so far, but it looks good. Thanks Secret account 17:26, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments, much appreciated. --Sarastro1 (talk) 20:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. cricinfo.com is now espncricinfo.com, but I fixed that. --PresN 05:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Sorry for the wait, but I wanted to see a lull in the copy-editing before dropping on by.

Leaning to supportSupport: I, too, have been waiting for the copyedits to abate before adding a few relatively minor points:-

I look forward to supporting after these are addressed. Brianboulton (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your responses and am now pleased to support. Fine article on an interesting cricketer. Brianboulton (talk) 10:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thank you for all your help with the article. --Sarastro1 (talk) 12:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A small point - surely his son is best described as a television "newsreader" rather than presenter. I am not sure he has any significant credits as a presenter.KD Tries Again (talk) 05:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)KD Tries Again[reply]
Done, thanks. --Sarastro1 (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left two inlines on jargon; resolve as you wish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 4 January 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 00:44, 4 January 2011 [107].

South Park (season 13)[edit]

Nominator(s): Hunter Kahn and Nergaal 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article was recently nominated for FA, but failed due to opposition to the use of the DVD cover as an infobox image (previous fair use rationale archived here). While I strongly disagree with that outcome, the image has since been removed, and since this was the only real problem voiced with the article, I've brought it back here. I have permission from the FA delegate to renominate the article so soon. As for South Park (season 13), this article has passed GA, gone through PR, and is the anchor article for a GT, and I believe it's ready for FA. — Hunter Kahn 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]



  • The image has been re-added again 28th December
  • Speedy close it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux, this is the fifth time in twelve days this image has either been added or removed, it is impossible to have valid reviews when the current state of the article may not reflect the state of the article at the time the original review was written Fasach Nua (talk) 20:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I would suggest that it's perfectly simple to give those reviews, since the only thing that is in a "constant state of flux" is the image. Everything else in the article has been consistent for months and months; the only problem is, most people are focused on the image, not the content of the article, including yourself. (I mean no disrespect; I too am frustrated with that particular situation.) I have taken the advice of the FA delegate and asked multiple people to review the entire FA content of this article, rather than just the image. I'd appreciate it very much if you, Fasach, would consider doing the same. — Hunter Kahn 20:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note, Fasach Nua, your vote (as below, I use that term advisedly) will be ignored, since it's not an FA review, it's an idiosyncratic, irrelevant, and (frankly) disruptive dispute about image copyright, and is irrelevant for the purposes of this FAC. And I must say, its rather disingenuous to claim "it is impossible to review this article while the content is in a constant state of flux". The only thing in "flux" is one image, and that's pretty much your doing; everything else is completely stable. Also, you haven't attempted to "review this article", you've just voted on what you believe to be the copyright status of one image. Please strike your vote, and take your issue to the appropriate forum. Jayjg (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dab/EL check - no dabs or dead external links. --PresN 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd also like to point out the bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create. My understanding of a DVD, film or TV show is harmed without seeing the cover art. If cover art isn't acceptable in this instance (to illustrate the characters and the show being critically discussed), when is it ever acceptable fair use?
    --Gyrobo (talk) 17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is acceptable fair use when it meets in full the requirements of WP:NFCC, it should be noted that this in not an article about the show, it is about the 13th season of the show, if you want to read about the show there is an article dedicated to South Park which does include non-free content showing characters and drawing styles. (I wouldn't worry too much about precedent the default case is to use only free content, however we sometimes use non-free content in exceptional circumstances and this usage is considered on a case by case basis). Fasach Nua (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: I gave the OK to sources on the previous nomination and I don't think anything has changed. However, it is not usual to find an article renominated here only a couple of days after its archiving. Was some special dispensation given by delegates? Brianboulton (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dispensation here Fasach Nua (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Thanks for edit conflicting me, Masem. :P SilverserenC 18:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from User talk:Gyrobo#South Park (season 13)

Hi Gyrobo, it's Hunter Kahn, co-nominator of the South Park (season 13) FAC. I understand why you readded the image, but please do not do it again, as doing so will only fuel arguments at the FAC discussion that the stability of the article is a problem. The last FAC failed specifically because of the presence of that image, so it should be discussed further at the second FAC before it is simply readded. Also, I understand why you are concerned the image could get deleted if it remains off the page, but I have archived the fair use rationale on my talk page, so if there is a decision to readd it in the future, we can easily do so and use the rationale. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. I understand the frustration because I too feel the image should be used, but a lot of people have worked hard on this article, and I'd hate to see the FAC sink solely because of the image and stability problems. — Hunter Kahn 21:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the desire to have hard work validated in some way, but without that image, it would really be a Pyrrhic victory. The article would be significantly less informative, lacking the cover art that culturally identifies the show and season. There's no textual substitute for that, and if it became an FA that way, you'd probably feel that you failed to make the article as good as you possibly could. As pointed out in the FAC, blanket opposition to non-free images (in this particular case) violates WP:NFCI. The quasi-edit war over the image is a direct result of the FAC, and has no bearing on the stability of the article; the dispute is over a policy, not the content.
--Gyrobo (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd strongly encourage your comments about the lack of an image being detrimental to reader understanding, the lack of a textual substitute, etc. etc. over to the FAC discussion. There have been many comments there about the image, but few are focusing on the original fair use rationale language, which is at the heart of what you are saying. (Also, it would probably be best not to split these discussions, as I did respond to your oppose vote over at the FAC page.) However, I can assure you that if edit wars continue over the image, editors will vote against the FAC over stability. — Hunter Kahn 01:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The voice actors aren't a visual part of the show, and aren't promoted in any artwork for the show. --Gyrobo (talk) 14:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Furthermore, there is an image of the show's creators/voice actors in the "Crew" section right now. However, I don't believe it's appropriate for the infobox because, unlike the previous image, it's not representative of the season as a whole. — Hunter Kahn 15:33, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is in very strong shape overall. I read through and copyedited, encountering few major difficulties along the way. Sourcing is good and a quotation/paraphrase spot-check revealed no problems. I have only three substantive queries:

Without the image of the DVD cover, this is not representative of our best work. It is an essential identifier and mnemonic for the article's specific subject, and its absence detracts significantly from the article's quality. The image's inclusion--and the fair use rationale that supports it--meets the spirit, the letter, and the community standards established for the execution of our NFC policy. Let's look at the three pillars of that policy:

(1) Supporting production of perpetually free content: Given its particular encyclopedic purpose, the image is not replaceable by fair content nor by any content with a reasonable likelihood of being made free. I can imagine other non-free content that might serve a comparable purpose—such as, for instance, a screenshot of a scene described by critics as the season's most important—but the fact is that for purposes of consistency and conceptual reproduction, widespread consensus has developed that a DVD cover, when available, is the most appropriate primary identifier and mnemonic for an article devoted to an individual season of a television series. Turning to our NFC guideline examples, this sort of usage is clearly covered by Acceptable use—images and is clearly not covered by Unacceptable use—images.

(2) Minimizing legal exposure: There is obviously no legal problem here. Indeed, the copyright holder would almost certainly be happy to have the image appear here, because it makes the item they derive profit from easier to identify and more memorable.

(3) Facilitating judicious use of non-free content: It is clear that in the community's wisdom this sort of usage is considered judicious, well within the parameters of our policy, and vital, even necessary, for our best work.

It is distressing to read through this FAC and the previous one and encounter specious claims of "stability" problems and "forum shopping" regarding this matter. In the last FAC, as well, the blatantly false claim was made that "no-one here is arguing that the inclusion of this image meets policy." I hope there will be no such prevarications in this FAC. In my analysis, the image does meet policy, and by a considerable margin.

The section goes on to detail their collaborative writing process. Yet we see in Episodes that Parker received exclusive writing credit for every episode. I should think it would be possible to track down some commentary somewhere on why Parker received sole credit. If that proves impossible, you'll need to figure out some way of acknowledging the disagreement between your description of the writing process and the official credits.

Find and identify? As in these were famous aliens who viewers were required to identify, like E.T., Chewbacca and the like? If that, or something similar, is the case, you need to describe the game in a bit more detail. If not, obviously, you can just cut "and identify".—DCGeist (talk) 21:19, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there are a few users who are completely and absolutely against the use of the dvd cover image and have voted Oppose for that reason. This is turning out to be the same as the previous FAC and it is really sad that this article is being failed for such a ridiculous reason as a single image. SilverserenC 21:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With regard to your last sentence, I couldn't possibly agree more. :D If you choose not to support due to my position on the image, I understand completely. But if you wouldn't mind striking your comments above when you feel they are specifically addressed, I'd appreciate it. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 15:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the people that opposed because the image isn't in the article anymore. This whole thing is so stupid. >_> SilverserenC 19:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FA articles are not required to have specific images to meet FA requirements. Any statements that oppose on that basis are also moot. Jayjg (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:FA Criteria mandate images "where appropriate". I can't think of a situation where an image would be more appropriate than cover art used to culturally identify a work.
--Gyrobo (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cover art for a set of DVDs? Interesting, but hardly necessary. As has already been explained to you both here and in the previous FAC, "WP:WIAFA has specifically rejected the argument that articles require images". Morever, the work in question here is the season of television show, not a specific set of DVDs used to sell them, or the covers used for that set of DVDs. And DVD season covers are hardly iconic, as opposed to, say, those of many 1960s-80s record albums: we're not talking about Abbey Road or Horses here. Your unique views on this subject are obviously strongly felt, but, I'm sorry to say hardly enough to support taking seriously an oppose on that basis. On the contrary, it's completely inappropriate to oppose an entire FA article on a television show season based on your desire to see the non-notable cover of a specific set of DVDs that they were sold under. Jayjg (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your viewpoint is interesting, but claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen. And on the matter of opposition not being taken seriously, I think we're straying from the cause of this discussion: that an editor has made a claim, debunked by official policy, that cover art in an article that critically discusses the subject does not constitute fair use. Dismissing my objection over the article's promotion sans image tacitly accepts this flawed argument and jeopardizes other articles.
--Gyrobo (talk) 02:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather odd that you would state that "claiming the cover art of a television season is not as notable as the cover art of record albums is quite subjective and doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen". Your entire argument here is based on a claim that "doesn't seem to be supported by any official policies I've seen", that DVD cover art is required in order to meet FA requirements for an article on TV show season. And the claim that this particular DVD cover is notable or important in the same way as iconic album covers like Abbey Road or Horses is, quite frankly, just silly; here, for example, is a multi-page study of the Abbey Road album cover, and there are dozens of books that discuss the Robert Mapplethorpe image of Patti Smith on the Horses album cover; "The picture of Smith in an androgynous outfit is widely regarded as the peak of Mapplethorpe's early career". Jayjg (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) And on a personal level, I want to say I resent your assumption that I'm basing my opposition on a desire to see that particular image used in that particular article. I have not made a single edit to the article or participated in the related Wikiprojects. I have no emotional attachment to the article. My interest is purely in the implications this FAC has on articles with similar non-free content. Xeworlebi listed a slew of featured DVD season articles that contain box cover art and could conceivably be taken to FAR to remove them based on the outcome of this discussion. That is what I find "inappropriate".
--Gyrobo (talk) 03:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't implied anything of the sort. On the contrary, it's quite obvious you care nothing whatsoever about this article; otherwise you wouldn't be derailing its FAC with an irrelevant fight with Fasach Nua regarding image copyright. Rather than thumbing your nose at all the hard work that has gone into this article, over some irrelevant political battle you wish to fight about images, please work it out on the relevant policy pages, and strike out your opposition to this specific FA, about which you clearly don't care at all. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And as Masem continues to point out (see below), DVD box art is currently acceptable under the current policy. --Gyrobo (talk) 03:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here was never whether or not DVD box art is "acceptable", but rather whether or not it is required to meet FA status. And it's clearly not, neither by the FA requirements nor by consensus. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Again, I've explained that NFCI#1 is current consensus though certainly that consensus can be challenged - at WT:NFC, not at an FA candidate; this is the wrong venue to take that stand. Change is possible, but please work it at the right places. --MASEM (t) 03:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that's not relevant here, is it? The questions isn't whether or not the image is permitted, but rather whether or not it is required for FA status. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem I'm seeing. Every other FA requirement is moving the status of an article above and beyond what the minimum requirements are for WP - that is, we're looking for outstanding prose, broad use of appropriate sources, all T's crossed, all i's dotted, etc. Images are the exception because they start from the reverse side of the equation; as opposed to making sure it reflects our best work, image review at FAC is more commonly to exclude media content. Now, I'm all fine and dandy that FAC should evaluate the rationales for non-free images used as much as possible to assure that NFCC is met (particular NFCC#8, etc.) But we also have NFCI#1, which predates and has been used side-by-side with the NFCC to allow for cover images. I can argue with those that don't want the image here that it doesn't belong per NFCC#8, but it has been a consistent factor that cover images are acceptable per NFCI#1. Within the next few days, I wil likely start an RFC at WT:NFC to review this situation, but this article's promotion should not suffer because of it. Passing this article with the image is consistent with past FAC for TV seasons, and with NFCI#1. The RFC will show out two results, either validating the NFCI#1, or we will remove or strength NFCI#1's requirement for commentary on the cover image, meaning that every other FA article dealing with a book, album, TV show, movie, TV season, etc. where a cover image is used, will need to be reviewed. That's a daunting task but one that would be approprate if the NFCI#1 case was strengthened. But that would also come back and affect this article too, removing the cover image most likely. Either way we end up with consistency with concensus on NFC. By not having the image because some don't recognize NFCI#1's allowance, we create an inconsistency that should not be in the FAC process. --MASEM (t) 21:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, is it fair to penalize the authors of this FA because of a fight about image copyright between Fasach Nua and Gyrobo and DCGeist? It's obvious to any rational individual that an article on a TV show season does not meet or fail FA requirements based solely on whether or not an image of the DVD cover is included. Yet, for reasons I cannot fathom, these individuals are claiming just that. Solve your image and FA questions elsewhere; FAC votes (and I use that term advisedly) that an article passes/fails candidacy based solely on this criteria are irrelevant to this FAC and should be ignored. Jayjg (talk) 05:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement for images for FAC rests solely on NFCC appropriateness - compared to all other FAC which start at the various guidelines and MOS and expect more. It is not fair to try to override NFC consensus at a single FAC nominee; again, this leads to a small niche community trying to dictate actions for the rest of the work, the problem that started the date delinking issues. --MASEM (t) 06:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Masem is quite right. It appears we've seen an attempt in this FAC and the last to alter or simply override the current community understanding of a policy whose proper venue for consideration and reconsideration is elsewhere.
Despite your odd claim, Jayjg, Gyrobo hardly holds "unique views on this subject". Gyrobo's view reflects the consensus view. Far from unique, that perspective is common and, at present, determinative.
If this image, whose inclusion is well within our policy and best practices and necessary for the article to be representative of our best work, is excluded due to an argument that defies our existing policy—the case at the moment—I will certainly oppose on that basis.—DCGeist (talk) 04:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, but rather whether or not it is required in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and Gyrobo, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. Jayjg (talk) 18:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current consensus appears to be that it is in line with the current consensus and that the requirements do require it.
--Gyrobo (talk) 18:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repeating the claim that it's consensus won't make it true; only you and DCGeist appear to support this view. Jayjg (talk) 18:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Masem did a fairly good job of explaining the state of the current consensus, and several other editors in this FAC and the last have expressed support for the image using the same reasoning. Could you please point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint?
--Gyrobo (talk) 19:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You keep discussing an irrelevant issue; that many editors support having the image in the article in not in question. I have no objection to it myself. However, the issue is not whether or not the image is permissible, or even desirable, but rather whether or not DVD cover art is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. And it is the latter view, apparently held by you and DCGeist alone, that is clearly not in line with consensus nor actual FA requirements. And since it is you who is opposing the FAC on this ground, it is you who must "point to an official policy that supports your viewpoint". So far you have not. Jayjg (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:FA Criteria, "[Featured articles have] images and other media where appropriate, with ... acceptable copyright status". If the licensing of the image is appropriate, and its use in the article is appropriate, the FA criteria mandate its inclusion.
--Gyrobo (talk) 05:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you've mentioned that before, but it really didn't make much sense, since
a) it's rather obvious that not every image that could be used in an FA must be used in an FA - otherwise some FAs might be absurdly forced to have dozens of pictures in them, and
b) this article already has lots of images where appropriate.
Nope, you still haven't pointed to any policy that states DVD cover art in particular is required in an article about a TV show season in order to meet FA standards. That's actually just yours (and DCGeist's) personal opinion, and irrelevant to whether or not this article meets FA standards, since it's not about this FAC at all, but rather some disruptive sideshow about fair use policy. Jayjg (talk) 05:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose then it would then be better to take the oppose from Fasach Nua than the two from you guys. This is so silly. :/ SilverserenC 04:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you believe should be done, Silver seren?—DCGeist (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've been arguing since the beginning that the image should be included in the article. However, I do not believe that the presence or not of the image should change my decision of support for this wonderfully well-written and formulated article. SilverserenC 06:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I respect that position, and I effectively share your opinion of the article's literary quality. I do not share your position, however, and seen within the broader context of the FAC process, I do not regard this matter as silly at all. Regrettable, yes. Silly, no. And I don't believe you should either.
I believe that anyone who takes seriously (a) our FA criterion 3, (b) the three pillars of our NFC policy, and (c) our mission in this process to identify that which "exemplifies our very best work" should resist this attempt—given the venue, it is fair to call it a backdoor attempt—to subvert our policy, guideline, and norms concerning the use of basic identifying media. Gyrobo observed the "bad precedent the exclusion of this image would create." That's a very important concern, and I'd ask you to keep it in mind. Let's strive to continue to make the precedents we set here good ones.—DCGeist (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Title cards can vary by episode, or remain consistent throughout the run of a show. Box art is meant to be representative of the season as a standalone work, and networks like Netflix use DVD box art to allow customers to visually identify seasons.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I implied that my statement was anything other than a personal opinion, I apologize. Nobody brought up the point you did, and I was attempting to show specifically where I stand on it.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I happen to be a proactive FAC reviewer. When I see prose problems, I tend to copyedit. When I discover misquoted quotations, I tend to correct them. I trust that, having identified an image problem that I can readily rectify, no one will have a problem with the fact that I am now rectifying it.—DCGeist (talk) 09:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree that support over inclusion/exclusion of the image is inactionable; a FAC is the ideal venue to discuss whether an image is so necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter that it qualifies as one of the media items the FA criteria say should be included. If the current consensus is that the original non-free rationale was valid, then I think that it should be added back to the article, that it's necessary for readers' understanding of the subject matter for the reasons described in the rationale: it would be the only image in the article to show the characters of the show, and it's an image used to publicly identify that particular season. The action I would like taken is for the delegates to weigh in on whether they believe DVD box art is vital to a television season article's completeness. If this action is taken, I will withdraw my objection.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 14:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comment. I'm leaning toward support, but I have a few prose and style concerns, as follows:

Strings like 3.41 million households and 12 a.m. would be better held together with no-break codes to keep the elements from separating awkwardly on line-break. The article includes many such strings. WP:NBSP is the relevant guideline.
I think a better place for the Wikinews link in the "Development" section is in "External links". I see the Wikinews link as parallel to the Wikiquotes link in this article and to the Commons link in many other articles. After readers finish the article, they can watch streaming episodes if they like.
My understanding of the WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines is that fancy quotes are generally to be avoided in Wikipedia articles. Pull quotes are a rare exception, but the box in the "Critics" section is not a pull quote; it's an add-on quote in the same typeface as the main text. I recommend ((quote box)).
In plot summary 10, link redneck?
Fix the date formatting in citations 97 and 99.
Cultural references
"The Ring" featured parodies of not only the pop rock boy band Jonas Brothers... - Too many strung-out modifiers. Maybe "Jonas Brothers, a pop-rock boy band,"? Also, link boy band and Jonas Brothers?
  • Reworded and added wikilink to boy band. I didn't add the link to the Jonas Bros. because they are already linked in the plot summary for "The Ring", but if you think it should be in both let me know and I'll add it. — Hunter Kahn 15:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"to disguise its primary profit motive" - Delete "primary" because it implies other (secondary, tertiary) profit motives.
Music
""Gay Fish" satirizes the rapper's tendency to rely on Auto-Tune–style pitch audio processing." - Unclear. Would this be better as "the rapper's tendency to rely on audio processing to correct his mistakes in pitch"?
"Several fake Jonas Brothers songs were written for "The Ring", many of whose lyrics refer to the band members' physically attractiveness." - Awkward. A song is a "which", not a "who", and "physically" is a typo, I think. How about "Several fake Jonas Brothers songs, with lyrics about the band members' physical attractiveness, were written for 'The Ring' "?
In the episode "Whale Wars", Cartman plays the video game Rock Band and performs a rendition of the Lady Gaga song "Poker Face", which was praised by critics. - Does this mean that "Poker Face" was praised or that the rendition was praised? If the latter, move "praised by critics" to appear just after "rendition"; i.e., "rendition, praised by critics, of the... ".
In "W.T.F.", during the audition the boys set up to seek participants for their professional wrestling league, one of those trying out sings a Broadway-style number about why he wants to be a wrestler that parodies the song "Nothing" from A Chorus Line. - Same problem in this sentence. Does the wrestler parody the song or does the number? If the latter, move the modifying phrase snug against the noun modified.
Critics
"Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, with some critics declaring it one of the best episodes of the season." - "With" doesn't make a good conjunction. Maybe, "Fishsticks" particularly attracted media attention, and some critics declared it one of the best episodes of the season."
"A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke, but can not admit that he doesn't get it because he considers himself a genius, a reference to West's perceived ego problem." - A bit too complex. Maybe, "A fictionalized version of rapper Kanye West fails to understand the joke. He cannot admit that he doesn't does not get it because, in reference to a perceived ego problem on the part of the real West, he considers himself a genius."
"Although some LGBT activists... " - Link LGBT?
Celebrity reactions
"The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... " - Tighten to "The blog post drew a significant amount of media attention... ". Finetooth (talk) 19:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. Thanks for fixing these so quickly. I agree with you about the Jonas Brothers link. I performed slight further tweaks in two places (W.T.F. audition and Kanye West), and I'm striking everything except the nbsps. Finetooth (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of my concerns have been satisfied. I believe the article meets all of the criteria. Finetooth (talk) 17:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query:

Odd to describe Kenny's manner of death in two instances, but not the third. Please add a description of his death in "Pee".—DCGeist (talk) 19:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed it. I don't believe Kenny's death happens onscreen in that episode, it's just implied that he died, since he doesn't show up again after the flooding of the park. SilverserenC 19:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, while the death occurs off-screen, his corpse floats by the other boys shortly after the typhoon, showing that he drowned and prompting them to shout "Oh my God, they killed Kenny!", so it's more than implied. But Silverseren's added description is accurate. — Hunter Kahn 16:16, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My take:

--Gyrobo (talk) 21:05, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • All my points have been addressed, and those that haven't been changed are minor personal preferences (or misreading on my part) that I don't feel strongly about. I find no fault with the prose of this article, and support its promotion.
    --Gyrobo (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why thirteenth, fourteenth, etc are spelled out, instead of 13th, 14th, etc per WP:MOSNUM, but not a big deal. The better part of this FAC was spent debating an image, in an issue that extends beyond FAC. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the promotion of this FAC is not the be-all, end-all answer to whatever image issues are occurring beyond FAC, and use or not in this article isn't a determining factor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 4 January 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.
More