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 GrahamColm 10:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

SMS Oldenburg[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another article on a WWI-era German battleship, part of this Good Topic. This article has been waiting in the queue for a while, and has passed GA and A-class reviews some time ago. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article meets the highest standards and exemplifies Wikipedia's best work. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 01:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I reviewed this article at MILHIST ACR, have checked the subsequent edits and consider it currently meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:22, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Support - I added the note about the burn rate to the article from the FA class article, looks good for promotion. Kirk (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. 1 issue:

Support I have reviewed at milhist A-class and have nothing to add now. MisterBee1966 (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

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 GrahamColm 10:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Isabeau of Bavaria[edit]

Nominator(s): Victoria (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting story about a medieval French queen. The first nomination was unfortunately withdrawn because of a real life scheduling conflict. Thanks to Ceoil for copyedits and a push to finish this. Thanks to Wehwalt for many useful suggestions, and to Tim riley for the peer review. Victoria (talk) 14:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – My comments at PR – all pretty minor – were addressed thoroughly. This article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. The prose is a pleasure to read, the article is well proportioned and thoroughly referenced, with a good range of sources. I commented at PR and repeat here that the skill with which the nominator has made clear the goings-on of a large and complicated cast of characters is very impressive indeed. – Tim riley (talk) 15:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim, for the support and kind words. Thanks, too, for your comments at PR. Victoria (talk) 19:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Comments: This is an attractive article on a subject of which I was previously more or less ignorant. I have a few issues from my reading of the earlier sections; perhaps you would consider these while I continue reading:

From the lead
Other points
  • Well, as the excellent Wehwalt says it's a matter for editorial discretion I'll say the same. Brianboulton (talk) 18:02, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's such second nature to me and I prefer it, but sometimes take it a bit far. Yomangani once kindly commented that perhaps Froissart doesn't require literary present tense. Anyway, I've tweaked again. Victoria (talk) 19:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment below to Brian in terms of deleting some of it so as to adhere to a more chronological order. I'll play around with it a bit today, but it's tricky because Charles' illness began when she was 22 and persisted until his death. I wanted to show that she was capable of taking on some of his duties and thus the backwards jump - but again not sure it's necessary. Victoria (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please let me know if you have completed your rearrangements of material; certainly the overall structure looks sounder now. I am happy to go along with Tim's view about the chronological issue but I'd like to complete my readthrough before declaring. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think I'm done. It seems better now, and did need a bit of sorting. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These are presentational points rather than major criticisms. I will read the rest of the article and if necessary post further comments. I will also do a sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brian, I think I got most of these, and some were good catches. I've resectioned - was never quite crazy about the sectioning anyway. I'm thinking about what to do in regards to the Visconti incident which is considered her earliest diplomatic foray. I've never been crazy about the placement either but couldn't see a way around. After reading your comments I considered taking it out altogether, thinking it wasn't terribly relevant, but on re-reading see that I have it here because to some extent it sets to the stage for the ensuing factionalism. That said, I'm still not convinced it's necessary. For now I'll leave as is, but if you think it would better without, I wouldn't mind trimming that paragraph. Victoria (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re structue: I've reordered a bit, changed the verb tenses a little. But I think that's the best I can do because these were long-lasting and overlapping events. Victoria (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look reliable and of appropriate high quality. A couple of minor points:

No other sources issues (spotchecks not possible) Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Tim it's very kind of you to offer. I've ordered a copy from the main branch of my library and will have it in hand in a few days. Victoria (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I rather misled you above. It is the Hedeman ebook that is fully paginated, link here, so the page no. for ref 18 should be easly found. The Seward ref has a chapter ref; page no. will have to await the library copy. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • My fault, I forgot about Hedeman. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Seward has arrived and page numbers added. I want to thank Brian for this catch, because although the text is the same as the g-book version, with the missing pages on g-books it's impossible to know where one is in the book and I was way off! Good book though. I'll enjoy reading it. Victoria (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. I had an informal peer review/copyedit. I think it's ready this time.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Wehwalt, and thanks again for reading and the comments. Victoria (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Images
All look good from a copyright perspective at a quick glance, but the metadata is patchy - I'll try and go through and clean up at least the BL ones (I may be able to get sharper scans for some). Two questions:
a) The first image in "Political factions" is not very clearly captioned. Almost all other images have a sense of when they're from; this probably needs an approximate date for completeness.
b) Starting with a nineteenth-century image seems a bad idea when we have some more contemporary images below. I know none of them are portraits proper, but an idealised one from six hundred years later isn't very representative! (Apart from anything else, medieval clothing is not my speciality, but her hat seems possibly anachronistic...) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the metadata - not anything I know how to do now and with a recent change in username am locked out of commons. File:Charles VI Bal des Ardents detail.jpg is an image of a woman wearing a hennin at Bal des Ardents, and here's another (the woman wearing a hennin standing with the king on the balcony on the left side is certainly Isabeau), so no I don't think it's that out-of-date. I like the lead image for the following reasons: per MoS it faces the page; it's a free image; and it shows that even in the 19th century she was the subject of art. In the body of the article I've tried to add a mix of artwork over the centuries showing depictions of her – it seems to me important to show that she was still the subject of art, even centuries later. See Murasaki Shikibu for a similar concept. All that said, I'll leave the lead image issue to consensus. If consensus is to change and we can find a good alternative, that's fine. As for the BnF image, the record description is sketchy, but will add that it's presumably a 19th century print. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 01:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look at the tags and replaced one image. I also tracked down File:Izabel Bavor.jpg and correctly identified the century in the caption. There are 18 images; 15 are four or five centuries old. The others are 18th and 19th century. Is metadata required for images? Victoria (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image update - I've checked all the source links, replaced a few so the permalinks are available, tweaked a few file descriptions on Commons, and fixed the captions in the article. Victoria (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for leaving a comment and vanishing - busy few days! The metadata isn't required but nice to have; I'd hoped we could find MS numbers for most of them for Commons, but it's proving very difficult (a lot are credited to the BL's Catalogue of Illuminated Manuscripts but aren't actually in there).
On the hats... the Bal des Ardents image is c. 1470, which is about eighty years after the event. Our article suggests that the "conical" hennin came in around the time of Isabeau's death, so it's not terribly anachronistic but is a little bit off. The best alternative I can find is probably commons:File:Christine de Pisan and Queen Isabeau detail.jpg - it's contemporary, and if not from life probably by someone who'd seen her, but she's unfortunately looking the wrong way. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a crop from this image, in the article and well-captioned. This image File:Michelle de Valois in 15th Century artwork.jpg is the only I couldn't identify, but last night was able to match it to a portrait in a Flemish triptych. Have sent a query re trying to identify the specific triptych and will then update that link as well. The British Library tends to vary the images available for view - but I've done the best I can. Will work on it a bit more today if you feel it's necessary to identify folios as well. Victoria (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: which have you found that aren't actually in the British Library? Victoria (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The one that really threw me was the coronation image, but it turns out this was a BNF image which had been later listed as coming from the BL for some reason - I've relabelled it. "Entrée d'Isabeau de Bavière dans Paris.jpeg" took me a while to track down but I've found it now (Harley 4379). I think that's them all at least linked to the holders.
I don't think it's needed to list folio numbers etc, but it's good to include if we can do it easily :-). Happy to support, with a caveat about preferring a contemporary lead image if we can find one. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Isabella of Valois muz otec.jpg now goes to a dead link. Record for it is here, [3], and description here. Anyway, thanks for tidying and for the support. Victoria (talk) 16:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The file description for File:Entrée d'Isabeau de Bavière dans Paris.jpeg (the entry) is at the British Library here and [4]. The Commons entry, [5] now goes to a dead link. Shall I correct those? Victoria (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One dead link fixed (it needs to be Royal MS xxxx rather than Royal xxxx, which I forgot about), and the other removed - for some reason Harley manuscripts aren't currently in the main catalogue. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:28, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and thanks again for the review, tidying and the support. Victoria (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

  • Thanks, couldn't find that. Fixed now. Victoria (talk) 19:00, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the support Dank. Except for the template, I think I've fixed them all. Re Charles and marriage: I've reworded slightly, but yes, per the source, he was excited, impatient, etc., and though he hadn't met Isabeau wanted her the moment he saw her. Much, of course, can be read into that. Victoria (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments (Brianboulton)

Note: the linked Orleans article gives the date as 23 November; is there any reason why that information can't be given here?
Because none of the sources I have at hand had the actual date, but I have found in an online source and added.
  • This is tricky and I think might be an Engvar issue. Chicago Manual of Style says to capitalize only if used in conjunction with the proper name, i.e. Queen Isabeau, and if in apposition - i.e, the queen named Isabeau - then to use lower case. Fowler, on the other hand, says if the title is used to substitute for the name to capitalize, i.e, the Queen. Personally I'd decap them all, but they keep being changed so have done the best I can here. The sources too are inconsistent and in direct quotes prefer to use the form already there.
  • I agree that in quotations you need to follow the form in your sources. In your own text the main thing is to be consistent. In the great majority of mentions you use "Dauphin" with the capital. In three cases (one in the lead, two in the main body) you use "dauphin". For consistency you need to bring these into line with the others. (NB this comment got lost in an edit conflict). Brianboulton (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize about the edit conflict. I've made these consistent, I believe. Turns out I may not be available tomorrow, so if I've not got all of them, please feel free to fix.
  • I don't know. The sources I have at hand only say it ended then, but will see if I can pin this down more. Presumably with the duke dead, the dauphin disinherited, the king incapacitated, not much impetus to continue the war was left, but that's my interpretation.
  • Gibbons spells out that it was disinheritance, so I've modified there.
  • Linked previously; thinking about this.

You will see that I have made a number of fairly minor edits to the prose. I think you have done a good job in largely disentangling a hugely complicated network of family alliances and feuds, made all the more exaspearating by the similarities in names, and have produced a readable narrative. The points I have listed still require attention, after which I will be happy to support. Brianboulton (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these Brian, many good catches here. Two I've commented about; the others I think now fixed. This is one I think I was faintly mad to take on when I realized how complicated it was, but thanks to Ceoil's encouragement stuck with it. I'm pleased with how it's shaping up and very thankful for all the help provided by the reviewers along the way. This is why I strongly believe in the review process. Victoria (talk) 19:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have inserted a couple of further observations into the list above. Also, I have picked up one more thing which I missed on my earlier readthrough: In the "Political factions" section we have "He took possession of Jean, the Dauphin, and returned him to Paris" . This is in 1405, so who was "Jean, the Dauphin"? Brianboulton (talk) 22:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: A sterling effort; further tweaks might bring about minor improvements, but not to an extent that justifies withholding of support. Brianboulton (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, with the exception of the lead picture. I think a 19th century representation of the subject is a poor choice, given the wealth of more contemporary works used elsewhere within the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HI, thanks for the support. It would be difficult to get a good crop of her from any these contemporary images facing the text: hunting, coronation, entry, one of the women at the dance, troyes. So I"ve decided to use, the funeral miniature that faces the text and is colorful. Hopefully that will solve the problem and I welcome feedback. Victoria (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks much nicer! Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Thanks again. Victoria (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support looks good to me...Modernist (talk) 10:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! Victoria (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [6].[reply]

South Pacific (musical)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ssilvers (talk · contribs), Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We are nominating this for featured article because… we believe it meets the criteria. South Pacific was a musical which was a cultural phenomenon in its time. It ran for years, and both was a reflection of its time and helped to change them, because it also made a strong, intentional point against racism. Perhaps Rodgers and Hammerstein, and the latter's co-writer, Joshua Logan, had more to say in this musical than they did at any other time. Its songs have become classic; the original cast album was the best-selling album to be released in the 1940s. Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that this article concerns one of the most important American musicals, and it continues the series of articles on Rodgers and Hammerstein musicals that Wehwalt and his collaborators have brought to FAC. If you want to compare the structure of the article to some of our other FAs, I would suggest The King and I, Carousel and Flower Drum Song. Looking forward to the comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support – I took part in the peer review, where my comments and questions were thoroughly dealt with. The text of this article meets all the FA criteria, in my view (I am not competent to comment on images). It is thorough but not overlong, the prose is pleasing to read, the structure is logical and well proportioned, and the referencing is comprehensive and from a good range of sources. It has been no hardship whatever to read the article a third time before commenting here – a pleasure, in fact. Congratulations to the nominators on a fine piece of work. – Tim riley (talk) 13:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work on this, and for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am also a traveller from the PR, where I found it difficult to find much wrong with the article as it stood then. My few concerns were all covered nicely and the reviews and edits that took place subsequently have only improved the article. An excellent and high-quality work: well done to all concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you also for your thoughtful comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review

Plainly it's not. There's a specific tag for that on Commons but this hasn't been moved over there yet. But I'm never been thrilled with that image because it is a bit out of character in my view so I've moved in another one of Hall from that programme. -- [Wehwalt]
Does Ssilvers have thoughts on that? Fair use justification is not my strong suit.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 asks if the image adds significantly to the reader's understanding. The concert DVD was significant in revitalizing the reputation of this score, and the image shows the three stars, Alec Baldwin, Reba McEntire and Brian Stokes Mitchell, a grouping that is unlikely ever to be repeated in any work of art, in any medium. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No other image queries. Sources issues:

Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant king. Anyhoo, replaced that one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
118, rather. Replaced with two sources, so that increases your numbers below by one.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The plague on these pages! New ones substituted.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with another hopefully longer-lived URL. I must learn how to webarchive.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Bloom and Vlastnik to "Further reading". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources look of appropriate quality and reliability. My general comments on the article will follow shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 21:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all. Thank you for your review and comments on this end of things, and in advance on the remainder.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these; looking forward to the general comments! -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was a significant contributor to the peer review, where my issues were discussed and resolved. I have just completed a full re-reading, and I can't see anything that I would change. I have never seen the stage show; I saw the 1958 film about 20 years after its first issue. Rogers and Hammerstein musicals always seemed to have a hard edge beneath the frolics, and South Pacific is no exception, though by the time I saw the film the presentation of the race theme no longer seemed controversial. I can imagine how different this situation was in the segregated forties. This article is top-notch stuff, and in giving it the thumbs up I look forward with hope to seeing Oklahoma! here before long. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful critique and for your excellent comments at PR! -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support looks good to me, congratulations...Modernist (talk) 16:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Delegates: I noticed the delegate passed this article by last time through. I'm not trying to rush a promotion, I genuinely don't care, but if you're looking for something we can supply, let us know and we'll do our darndest.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to me? I'm not looking for anything that you can supply; I assure you - I just issued my support for the article...Modernist (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, no. I was combining a thank you to you with a request to the delegates. I should have separated them, I guess. Sorry.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that now.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great play and a great article...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the first and appreciate it on the second.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 30 June 2013 (UTC) [7].[reply]

Japanese battleship Musashi[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Dank 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musashi, one of the largest and most powerful battleships ever built, had a short and undistinguished career of just over two years before she was sunk by American aircraft during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944. The article had a MilHist A-class review four years ago, but has been thoroughly overhauled by Dank and myself. Despite our best efforts I have no doubt that some further work needs to be done on the article and we look forward to working with reviewers on resolving any issues that might arise. This is a co-nom with Dank for the WikiCup.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:35, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Sources review: All sources and citation formats look good. No spotchecks done. Brianboulton (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support:

--Coemgenus (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport See my question in talk abut ENGVAR. --John (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replied over there.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to support; my issues have been addressed. --John (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
sailed for Lingga Island, near Singapore, via Okinawa, where they arrived on 17 July. At Lingga or Okinawa?
Clarified.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Captain Asakura was promoted to Rear Admiral should be "rear admiral"
Good catch.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
word reached Ugaki of American attacks on Saipan Is this air attacks or the invasion of Saipan?
The preparatory attacks before the actual invasion. Operation Forager, to be precise.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
in preparation for "Operation Sho-1", the counterattack planned against the American landings at Leyte Two days before the American landings occurred? Are you sure?
No, the ship sailed on 18 October, the day after the preliminary landings were made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what ships the second wave of attackers came from?
Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What was the impact of the loss of the ship?
Doesn't seem to be much. The group that she was assigned to continued on to fight the action off Samar. Nor were there any extraordinary precautions taken to hide the news of her loss, as was done after Midway and the magazine explosion aboard Mutsu.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

Overall looks pretty good, but some jargony spots and the lead is a bit short. Once these are cleaned up, I should have no difficulty supporting. 15:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
If you didn't mention what you consider to be jargony spots above, please do so. I'd like the article to be fully accessible to readers who aren't ship fanatics.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I got all the weird spots above. The sister ship might be better explained on first mention or you could state that the class was only two ships... that's probably the only really jargony
I added a note in the lede that explains the class thing. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Switched to support. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:50, 25 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [8].[reply]

Paul Kagame[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working on this over the past few months, and it recently passed the good article nomination at Talk:Paul Kagame/GA1 after some minor points were addressed there. The user who did the review there, User:Lemurbaby felt that it may already be good enough for FAC, hence I'm putting it up here and look forward to the feedback from that.

Incidentally, there is one slightly short subsection at the moment, "Presidency -> China" which I intend to fill out a bit in the next week, so please comment and review on the rest of it and I'll get that in shortly. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I am delighted to see that Amakuru has brought another Africa-related article to FAC. At his request, here are some comments on the article's prose. I reviewed the article's prose. The details of the review have been moved to the talk page to avoid clutter. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to Support. As the GA reviewer, I applied FA standards and Amakuru satisfied them. There are just two points I'd like to see addressed:

  • I see this point has been addressed nicely. Lemurbaby (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great work on this as well. My comments have been adequately addressed.

Great work bringing Rwandan topics to Wikipedia - thank you! Lemurbaby (talk) 04:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (OTRS, own work, Flickr, USGov), sources and authors provided. Just 1 minor point:

Comments. Just a few comments, not a complete review:

Comment - there are some minor bugs with broken harvard citations:

Ucucha's tool [HarvErrors] is a very useful script for Wiki editors to detect such problems. After installation it highlights all inconsistent harvard citations with a red error message. GermanJoe (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done OK thanks for the tip. The above three are now dealt with.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Overall this article seems deserving of FA to me, it's extremely comprehensive and well-researched. Just a few comments:

Bush war section: "Museveni disputed the result, so he and his followers withdrew from the new Ugandan government." seems like the two are seperate actions- suggest "Museveni disputed the result, and he and his followers withdrew from the new government in protest."
Done - I have changed it to use your wording.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, is there any wikilink to the 1985 Ugandan coup mentioned?
    Done It doesn't seem to have an article at present, but it clearly should, hence I have changed this to a redlink.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rwandan Genocide section:
Refugee crisis and insurgency:
And then just a few comments about the references:

All in all though, this doesn't seem to be missing much at all. Very good work. Importemps (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [9].[reply]

Walter Krueger[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the series on the commanders in the South West Pacific Area during World War II. This time it is the story of a German immigrant who became the first man to rise from private to four-star general in the United States Army. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Support Comments - just a couple of quick comments from me after reading the later life section:

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now read through the rest of the article and have a couple of further comments:

Or we can just go with what the article says:For his service in the war, he was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the citation is unnecessary, but greater context on the award could be given through snippets of it. For instance, the sentence could be changed to: "For his "superior zeal, loyal devotion to duty, soldierly character, and his dominant leadership" in France, Krueger was awarded the Distinguished Service Medal in 1919." It just presents a little information on why the US Government decided to decorate Krueger. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aisde from the above, this is an excellent article and an interesting read. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:11, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been now been addressed, so I have changed to support. Nice work, as usual. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question: then you are more fortunate that I and I would gladly trade with you -- should "that" be "than"? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Delegate comments

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (U.S. Navy and Army). Sources and authors provided.

Leaning to support Just a few things.

Lede
  • must the word general be mentioned twice in the lede paragraph? A general officer and a general are roughly equivalent, right? Perhaps "general officer" could be piped to an equivalent?
    • A four-star general is the highest rank of general. I need it in the first sentence per MOS:LEAD. However, it is notable that he rose from private to four-star general. (He is not quite the first; he shares that honour with Courtney Hodges, who was promoted to four-star rank the same day.) Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 1 July 1901, he was commissioned." Perhaps "as a second lieutenant"?
  • "In the Battle of Luzon, his largest, longest and last battle, he was finally able to maneuver his army as he had in 1941." Hm. Since most people won't have a clue what this specifically means, suggest that you mention the year and focus on his victory.
Early service
  • I would say specifically whether or not he saw combat in 1898. I gather not, but I would so say. It's also a little vague whether he did in the Philippines.
  • Consider omitting the "however". I think it stands OK on its own.
Interwar years
  • " These informed his lectures on the war, and he argued that much of the German Army's performance was attributable to its system of decentralized command. Krueger urged that American commanders in the field be given wider latitude in carrying out their orders." I gather he liked what they did, so perhaps instead of "performance", something like "successful battles"?
    • No, because they lost most of the battles. Changed to "effectiveness". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WWII
  • "Krueger resigned himself to being a trainer of troops." Too soon to use that term again, he just resigned himself to retiring as a colonel. Suggest a variation.
  • "skeleton staff" two uses in close association, ditto, ditto.
  • "coping with the climate in SWPA" perhaps add "tropical" or "torrid" in there.
  • "administrative entity, administration" see before. Can "administration" be changed to "it"?
  • It would be helpful if you tossed in a (today in Papua-New Guinea) when he initially gets there and a place name is used.
  • "where Japanese strength was unexpectedly strong" per above.
  • "with even more dire consequences" What were the dire consequences before? I gather that there was a bitter fight, but that's war for you. If there were unexpectedly heavy casualties or some such, you might want to say so.
  • "For the first time, Krueger was able to maneuver his army as he had done in Louisiana in 1941" You said that in the lede too. I still don't know what you mean. I'm guessing that he wasn't constantly invading small islands or working in the jungle so he's got room to work with.
  • Can something more be done at some point to discuss how Krueger is viewed by military historians? I saw the passage about the criticism of his generalship, but that didn't tell me that much. Perhaps expand that to a couple of paragraphs and put it someplace?
    • SWPA hasn't been a popular subject for American historians. I have added a couple of paragraphs at the end on his reputation. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've got. Happy to support once cleared up.Wehwalt (talk) 18:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [11].[reply]

Gospel of the Ebionites[edit]

Nominator(s): Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This GA article has recently been through a 2nd peer review to prepare it for FAC, and it is now ready for FA review. Ignocrates (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ColonelHenry

I haven't taken an in-depth view of the article (more to come, possibly), but on first glance, I am not quite taken with the different two different systems of notes/citations. From how I see it, this would run afoul of criterion 2c's call for "consistent citations"--and I think it a salient point considering notes, citations, sources and further reading takes up 60% of the article's spatial arrangement.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You raise an interesting point. In fact, I originally had the sfn citations outside of and immediately preceding the notes. I decided to embed them at the beginning of the notes for the following reasons: (1) it gives the main body a cleaner look, (2) the sfn citations are just as visible whether they are inside or outside the notes, and (3) there is no ambiguity about which sfn citations and notes belong together. Thanks for your comment. Ignocrates (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, (4) I used the reference format of the feature article George Harrison as a template for this article. Ignocrates (talk) 01:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Although the reference format chosen would not be my own preference, it seems to me wholly proper. Separating informative footnotes from verifiabilty citations is good practice (letting the reader know whether clicking on a ref will bring up a nugget of information or just a citation) and I don't think there is any conflict here with the "consistent citation" criterion. – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I peer reviewed this article. My few, not very substantial, queries were dealt with then. The text seems to me to be well-shaped, balanced in content, very readable and (so far as I am capable of judging) comprehensive. An additional image might enhance the look of the page, but perhaps there's nothing relevant to this very specialised topic. As I have mentioned, above, the referencing strikes me as fine, and is both full and varied in range of sources. In my opinion this article meets the criteria for FA. It is a credit to the nominator and to Wikipedia (I have done a spot of Googling and found nothing else on the web anything like as good on the subject). – Tim riley (talk) 10:56, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"East of the Jordan" is a place-name and a synonym for the Perea (region). As for the rest, please add more detail to your quick comments and I will attempt to address them. Ignocrates (talk) 00:21, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no sign it is capitalized in google books or JSTOR, even in things like this. I suppose we have West Bank so East Bank might be acceptable. I think there's enough detail to be getting on with frankly. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I changed East --> east. What else, specifically? Ignocrates (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to play that game. It says "Bible refs would be better linked via the templates we have". I suggest you read through the not-very-long article looking for the points mentioned above. Frankly it's not a subject I'm very interested in, probably not enough to read it through again correcting them, which would take less time than laying them all out here. If people can't be bothered to bring articles to a near-FA level of polish before FAC, not all reviewers are willing to do the basics. I've done the 2nd para, which may explain why I'm not going to do the lot. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing an example. Now I know what you are talking about. There was no need to get nasty. Ignocrates (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have added quite a few more links; hopefully, these improvements are satisfactory. Ignocrates (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything else? You mentioned something about repetition but I'm not seeing it. Please be specific. Ignocrates (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "Epiphanius mistakenly refers to the gospel used by the Ebionites as the "Hebrew" gospel and the Gospel of Matthew" comes up at least twice, also the differences with the Ebionites as described by earlier patristic writers - generally the article seems to circle round its target a bit, though I understand the topic is somewhat nebulous. Perhaps consider merging the last two sections (Relationships and Inferences) in higher up? I'm not opposing, but won't support, if only because I don't fancy a thorough read-through. It's certainly pretty near FA standard, & maybe at it. It isn't an easy read, but I'm sure that is inevitable. Johnbod (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take a look and see what I can do. Thanks for checking back. Ignocrates (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded the material in the body that was quoted to make it a bit clearer. However, it's normal to have some degree of overlap between the lead and the body, since the lead is summarizing the contents of the body. I personally would not combine sections as suggested because they are covering distinctly different aspects; "Relationships" is about texts and "Inferences" is about people. Ignocrates (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't suggesting you merge them together, but into the different places earlier in the text where the issues are touched on. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I reviewed this article at WP:GAN and commented there that this article appeared to have the potential of getting through WP:FAC. I'm willing and able to add more detailed comments here, but I can't start before 29th May (2013). Pyrotec (talk) 08:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by llywrch (talk)

First, I find this article fairly covers the subject in most aspects; you've done a brave job of pulling together a number of sources & presenting this in a unbiassed way. However, there are some matters I believe need attention to for this to be considered a Featured Article.

(1) ColonelHenry makes a good point about the notes/citation system being confusing. I think it could help if the citations were presented in the Harvard style -- e.g. (Paget 2010, 325–80) -- but this should not be considered an objection that would prevent this article from FAC status, just a suggestion.

(2) A minor point: the first block quotation in the section "Composition" is italicized. AFAIK, block quotes do not need to be italicized, unless there is a reason for it. (Which there is in another extended quotation below this.) Again, not critical but it offends my sensabilities. ;-)

(3) More important, yet still minor, is that sometimes this article makes a statement which in knowledgeable eyes is clearly a theory or opinion without stating who asserts it. This usually appears to be a style choice, so there is no reason to suspect bad faith. However, our factual knowledge of the "Gospel of the Ebionites" consists of seven excerpts, comprising less than a few hundred words, upon which a mountain of inference & speculation has been raised; it is easy for even experts to confuse fact with opinion in cases like this, so identifying & attributing theories & opinions is very important. A few cases I noticed were:

(3a) "Epiphanius is believed to have incorporated the text at a late stage in the composition of Panarion 30, primarily in chapters 13 and 14." (First sentence of the section "Composition") -- Who believes this? Or does Epiphanius state this somewhere?
(3b) "The baptismal scene of the gospel text (13.7) is a harmony of the Synoptic Gospels, but one in which the Holy Spirit is said to descend to Jesus in the form of a dove and enter into him." (First sentence of "Christology") Here you need to explain what is meant by a "harmony". (It is a blending of 2 or more gospels into a single narrative, the best known example being Tatian's Diatessaron.) Even better would be to explain how this is a blending of three gospels, as this passage quotes each of the Synoptic Gospels for the words allegedly heard at this event (Matt. 3:17, Mark 1:11, & Luke 3:23), as Bart Ehrman points out in Lost Christianities (2003, p. 102).
(3c) "Epiphanius mistakenly refers to the gospel in his possession as the Gospel of Matthew and the gospel "according to the Hebrews", perhaps relying upon and conflating the writings of the earlier Church Fathers Irenaeus and Eusebius, respectively." (First sentence of "Relationship to other texts) The phrase "mistakenly refers to" is obviously an opinion -- an expert opinion, to be sure, but still one needing a citation. I'd suggest that one way to solve this would be to discuss explicitly that at least two of the fragments show this work to be gospel harmony. One book you cite, James Edwards, The Hebrew Gospel and the Development of the Synoptic Tradition, makes this argument on pg. 67, & two other books I have consulted also state that it is a gospel harmony, thus suggesting this is the scholarly consensus. And a gospel harmony, by definition, obviously could not be either the Gospel of Matthew or some clear variant of it. But a citation never hurts.

(4) A major point that needs to be in this article is in discussing "Christology" there is no mention how one fragment of the Gospel indicates they have an Adoptionist interpretation of Christ's divinity. (Bart Ehrman makes this point in Lost Christianities, p. 101.) For this reason the Ebionites are commonly lumped with Judeo-Christians, who according to the latest theories, minimized Christ's divinity & saw more as a man who lived a perfect life (Ehrman, Lost Christianities, p. 101; Fred Lapham, An Introduction to the New Testament Apocrypha (T&T Clark International: 2003, p. 86), & was a major reason why Epiphanius considered them heretics.

(5) Another major point is explaining why this lost work is of importance to scholars. You seem to sense this need with the final section "Inferences about the Ebionites" which explains who the Ebionites were, but this material is not integrated with the rest of this article. (Okay, now I'll give you the answer. ;-) It is important as a possible primary source for the Jewish Christian branch of Early Christianity, but scholars disagree if its information truly reflects the ideas of that branch, or if it reflects beliefs that have changed, perhaps greatly, from that early group thus failing to help us any closer to those early Jewish Christians. (Think of the Ebionites as an evolutionary dead end of religious belief.) In any case, the Ebionites are a shadowy presence in the fragmentary picture of Early Christianity, & these fragments offer us one of our few glimpses into their world. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Llywrch, I numbered your bullet points in the interests of clarity so that I can respond to them by number below. Ignocrates (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I'm going to plead CITEVAR on this one for now, since I patterned the reference format after a recently promoted feature article. Point noted though, and I will tinker with the format after the FAC dust settles. Ignocrates (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the embedded citations to the Harvard style. That should make all the citations more readable and less confusing. Ignocrates (talk) 18:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider this an important issue, just throwing out my opinion, but checkY. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(2) I thought the italics gave the look more consistency, but I have removed them from the first block of quotations. I hope your sensibilities are now eased. Ignocrates (talk) 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I didn't consider this an important issue, but checkY. -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Regarding your comment about assuming good faith in identifying & attributing theories & opinions, I have thoroughly reviewed the relevant literature, and I am reporting what I understand to be the consensus position, unless I specifically cite an individual author. Of course, I could be mistaken, so don't hesitate to call me out on it if you disagree. Ignocrates (talk) 23:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3a) I have credited scholar Glenn Alan Koch with this insight. He continues to set the standard for elucidating the internal structure of Panarion 30. While numerous scholars have commented on his work, none have improved upon it. I will track down the relevant page numbers and include them in a citation. Ignocrates (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note and citation for Skarsaune (2007), who provides an independent summary based on the earlier work of Schmidtke (1911), as well as a note and citation of Koch's 1976 detailed academic analysis. I removed the credit solely to Koch, since he clarified and expanded on the earlier work of Lipsius and Schmidtke (standing on the shoulders of giants). I'm going to call this one done. Ignocrates (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3b) I did both. I have added a note explaining what a gospel harmony is to the first use of the term in "Composition", and I added a note and citation there for Ehrman. The definitive scholarly work on the subject is Klijn (1992), but I believe his gospel quotations are in the original Koine Greek. You are correct (3c) that this is a scholarly consensus. After Klijn's 1992 magnum opus, it is simply stated by many scholars as though it was an obvious fact. I'm going to color this one done, unless you think more clarification is needed. Ignocrates (talk) 18:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3c) I added another note and citation from Skarsaune (2007) explaining the reason Epiphanius' made an error, and I softened "mistakenly" --> "incorrectly" (which is how Cameron describes it). I think that covers the point adequately. Ignocrates (talk) 22:48, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(4) I reread Ehrman and Lapham, and I think we can do better. Both are problematic in that they are written to be brief overviews; consequently, they give an incomplete treatment of the subject. We need a comprehensive source that describes what Adoptionism is and why it matters, and how the Lukean baptismal theophany in 30.13.7 ties back to Psalm 2:7 as a fulfillment of prophecy. I will put my data-mining hat on tomorrow and review the literature. Ignocrates (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I simply provided cites to Ehrman & Lapham so you could use them to backup the assertion that Adoptionism is present in this work. If you can find better sources to use, please do so! -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went with Lapham after all. I think he made an important contribution to the field by grouping these Christian sects by geography, so I wanted his work to be represented. I tried to find the perfect source, but no luck; and as Voltaire said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. Hopefully, the additional content based on Lapham will suffice. Ignocrates (talk) 03:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(5) I will address the last point today. Please consider this to be a work in progress. Ignocrates (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added an intro to smooth the transition between a discussion of the gospel and who the Ebionites were as a group. You are correct that this paragraph is supposed to tie the preceding information together and summarize what can be learned about the Ebionite sect from the gospel fragments preserved by Epiphanius. I'm still working on a killer ending. Ignocrates (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I supplied a concluding summary to the Inferences section. It may not be a killer ending, but it's an ending nonetheless. I think this is the best I can do before FAC closes. Ignocrates (talk) 05:42, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will respond here rather than break up your comments. Thanks for all of your helpful insights (and making me work hard to address them). Ignocrates (talk) 01:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you need help researching the material, let me know & I'll see how I can help. (I do have access to a few books on the matter.) -- llywrch (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the generous offer to help out. I will speak up if I get stuck. Ignocrates (talk) 16:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three more points I noticed as I reviewed your changes:

(3d) "Epiphanius gives no indication of concern for vegetarianism in this part of the Gospel text, and it may instead be an allusion to the manna in the wilderness of Exodus 16:31 and Numbers 11:8, or to 1 Kings 19:6 where Elijah eats cakes in oil." (end of first paragraph of "Vegetarianism") I think it might be better to directly credit Koch in the text with the speculation this may be an allusion to manna, instead of in the footnote.

(6) Writing about the fragment quoted by Epiphanius at 13.2b-3, you state "Although twelve apostles are mentioned, only eight are named", yet I count 9 persons: "Simon, surnamed Peter" (where Jesus is said to speak), John & James the sons of Zebedee, Simon, Andrew, Thaddaeus, Simon Zelotes, Judas Iscariot, & Matthew (whom Jesus is speaking to). I can see how you arrived at 8, by either omitting Peter or Matthew, but you need to explicitly say "not counting" & add either Peter or Matthew.

(7) Just something I stumbled across, that you may want to add. Concerning the fifth fragment, where you write, "The fifth quotation (14.5) appears to be a harmony of Matthew 12:47–48 and its Synoptic parallels. However, Jesus' final proclamation shows a closer agreement to 2 Clement 9:11 than any of the Synoptics", I found Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg: Trinity Press, 1990), points out this same blending is not only found in 2 Clement & the Gospel of the Ebionites, but also in Clement of Alexandria (Eclogae ex scripturis propheticis 20.3). He concludes, "2 Clem. 9.11 thus presupposes a more widely known document or a tradition in which this saying already appeared in a harmonized version." (p. 351) -- llywrch (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to these three new points below:
(3d) I directly credited the insight about Elijah in 1 Kings to Glenn Alan Koch in the body of the article - that was his unique contribution - but not the others, since several scholars have pointed out the Exodus/Numbers connection to manna in the wilderness. Ignocrates (talk) 15:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(6) You counted Simon Peter twice, the first time when his house is mentioned and afterward associated with Andrew in the list of apostles. Kloppenborg, in a footnote in The Complete Gospels, p.438, confirms that only eight are named. I added a note and citation to make this clearer. Ignocrates (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! (I did pass grade school math! Honest!) checkY -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(7) I added a note and citation for Koester, per your suggestion. Ignocrates (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not needed, but thanks! checkY -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to new points as indicated. Ignocrates (talk) 23:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found a few more minor points. (Not trying to jerk you around, but thought I should mention them while I'm here.) But even if they aren't fixed, I'm going to say Support.

(3e) Section "Composition", last sentence of paragraph 5: "The appearance of a great light on the water may be an echo of St. Paul's conversion or an additional harmonization to the Gospel of the Hebrews." Any reason not to change the last six words to "to this work"? (My edit finger is itching to do just that.)

(3f) Last paragraph of this section, last sentence: "The immediate context suggests the possible attribution of the quotation to a Clementine source." According to the note, this is Skarsaune's interpretation; any reason not to rewrite that sentence as "Based on the immediate context, Skarsaune suggests that this passage may come from a Clementine source"?

(3g) Last paragraph of the article. The last sentence repeats information already present at the beginning of this section. I know you're trying for a recapitulation in order to signal the end of the article, but I'd delete it. IMHO, ending the article with the penultimate sentence works. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to these three new points below:
(3e) I clarified the wording to read "an additional harmonization of the Gospel of the Hebrews to this work.", since the reference explicitly mentions this possibility. I hope this change is sufficient to scratch your itchy edit finger. Ignocrates (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3f) Several scholars have made this observation; Skarsaune was just a convenient example to use as a reference. Crediting him makes it seem like his unique contribution, which it isn't, so I would propose to leave the sentence as it is currently worded. Ignocrates (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I extended the sentence a bit to indicate the relationship is uncertain, and I added another reference which makes that point. Although several scholars have noted the similarity, correlation does not equal causality. Ignocrates (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(3g) I did intentionally add the last sentence to recapitulate the beginning of the section. I hope you will grant me this wee bit of artistic license. Ignocrates (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
checkY --llywrch (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responses to new points as indicated. Ignocrates (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note on Pyrotec's page encouraging him to make further comments, but he hasn't responded. I think this nomination may now be in the hands of the delegates. Ignocrates (talk) 23:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a quotebox for the 7th fragment at 30.22.4 to keep the format consistent. Thanks for weighing in! Ignocrates (talk) 12:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is my first FAC. I could use a bit of hand-holding in terms of knowing what is expected, since the whole process is new to me. Ignocrates (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age). 1 image and a caption need improvement (tweaked some licenses to include US).

First image: This caption is one of the few bits of article content I didn't contribute. I shortened it to a single sentence. I removed the 'Against Heresies' factoid, since it is almost trivial (there are many heresiologies with this name); it is near-universally known as the 'Panarion'. Ignocrates (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Second image: I lifted this from the Matthew the Evangelist article assuming it was ok, perhaps naively. How do I find this source and author information? I could use some guidance here from the experts. Ignocrates (talk) 15:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did some checking and the image on the Wikimedia Commons is lacking the proper source and author information. The easy thing to do would be to replace this image with another one for purposes of this review. The right way would be to find the missing information and add it to the image on the Commons. How do we do that? Ignocrates (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest and faster way is to use another one of the Matthew images from Commons (see Commons:Category:Icons_of_Saint_Matthew, if you like one of those) or the Internet (a quick google search reveals many hits, though it would have to include valid source info). Mind you, i believe the present image is an old work, but missing reliable info it's not our "best work" in images. GermanJoe (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Expedience triumphs over virtue - I swapped images. That should take care of the attribution problems. Ignocrates (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done - all points addressed, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 17:57, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing this so quickly! Ignocrates (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Pisco Sour[edit]

Nominator(s): MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction suggestions from the first FAC review have been completed. Assuming no new points need to be addressed, this should be a much more simple FAC. I do, however, ask for a check (and improvement) to be made to the "ALT Text" I added to images. I have little experience with the ALT text and do not know if my descriptions are accurate.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the request to review alt text. Some of your alt text is probably unnecessarily verbose. The thinking on alt text has changed substantially since the WP:ALT guideline was first introduced. The major purpose of alt text is to prevent screenreaders inappropriately reading out the file name (this is the default if no alt parameter is specified). In the majority of cases a minimal "photo" or "painting" etc is all that is needed. Further description is appropriate if it is vital or helpful in understanding the article when the image is not present. But if the caption already says everything that is needed then more alt text is superfluous. To test whether you have good alt text, read the alt description immediately followed by the image caption (this is what a screenreader will do) without looking at the image and if it makes sense and doesn't repeat then it will do. SpinningSpark 12:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Spin. I appreciate the recommendation and background on the WP:ALT guideline development. The ALT text should now be fixed in the article.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:01, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Spinningspark. There has been some editing going on while I have been reviewing so some of this may now be fixed

Lede
Etymology
Background
Origin
Images
Links
Spread
Preparation
Popularity

You are to be congratulated on a well researched article. There is one major issue holding me back from supporting this for FA. In the dispute between Chile and Peru over the priority for the invention of the cocktail the article (probably quite rightly) comes down heavily in favour of Peru. However, sourcing for this is weak. [15] appears to be a site primarily intended to sell books and thus has reliabiltiy issues and [16] is a Peruvian news site so is suspect neutrality. A peer reviewed article would be preferable, if one could be found, for such a controversial issue. SpinningSpark 20:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC) to 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. Most of them should be fixed.
  • Not sure what to write instead of "western South American". The cocktail is typical of Peruvian, Chilean, and Bolivian cuisines. Writing all three countries in the sentence could be an alternative, but I prefer the current style. Then again, maybe the problem is with "western" (brings images of the wild west); is "west" better?
  • "Vinification" seems the most appropriate term to use in the current sentence structure.
  • The "old fashioned glass.svg" image comes with the infobox description. I do not know how to change the alt text on that particular image.
  • The link tool was acting strange yesterday. Today it shows all links as good. No dead links should be in the article now.
Thanks again for the improvements.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:49, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On vinification, I really don't see the need to force the reader to look up the meaning of an unfamiliar term when there is a perfectly servicable common English term, winemaking, available to use instead.
  • On western, my concern is the use of two -n adjectival endings in the same phrase (western and American). I don't know if there is a grammar rule against this but it reads "wrong" to me. SpinningSpark 08:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for putting a pointer to the image in the text, but "shown on the image to the left" is making an assumption about page rendering which may well be incorrect for many readers (see WP:MOSIM). SpinningSpark 09:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed several of the other points you mentioned (the article's history should show which of them in greater detail). To answer some of your comments:
  • Piscola is generally made with Coca-Cola (coming from a personal understanding), but I suppose any cola would do the trick.
  • Chile celebrates its holiday on February 8. Peru celebrates it on the first Saturday of February (which can be any date other than the 8th), and apparently this is also the "International Pisco Sour Holiday" mentioned by the Australian source. Peru changed its original holiday date (the 8th of February) after the Chilean Pisco industry took the same date for its celebrations.
  • Toro-Lira's website ("Wings of Cherubs") is valuable for its "articles" section (not the book-selling part). The website is essentially a personal "blog" of Toro-Lira, which would fall on the WP:SPS guideline. As far as reliability (to justify the quality and inclusion of the blog), I argue that he is the second most reliable source in the article (behind the University of Cuyo). The San Francisco Weekly has a good quick description of the man([13]). As must have been noticed, the article is filled with information from "wine and food experts" and "expert bartenders", all of which are weak sources under a regular analysis. However, not only are they the only sources I can work with (no truly notable historian is ever going to devote his life to studying cocktails; or at least none has done it up to this point), but they are also the kind of sources to be expected for the article subject. Therefore, in many ways, this FAC might set a precedent for future Food & Wine Wikipedia articles. We must decide if the sources in the article are reliable enough for the subject to justify an FA status, or if GA is the best it can ever possibly get at this time.
  • The Peruvian newspaper (El Comercio (Peru)) is the country's most reliable news source. Nonetheless, I understand the concern and can use other sources to source the Victor Morris account (here are a few from Google Books: [14], [15],[16]), but these are the "food and wine experts" I mentioned in the (likely WP:TLDR) paragraph above this one.
Sorry for the long response, but I hope it provides a better view of the situation.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I can accept that food and drink articles are going to have a lower quality of sources than, say, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. What I cannot accept is a Wikipedia article taking a strong POV in a controversial dispute between the two major nations relevant to this article on the basis of such sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a deal-breaker for me and I would have to oppose as it stands now. But I tell you what, if you can show that Toro-Lira meets the condition in WP:SPS, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" then I will accept him as a reliable source for the truth of the dispute even though his findings are self-published. SpinningSpark 15:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a fair deal. Prior to analyzing Toro-Lira's WP:SPS status, first we would need to know what other authors say about the dispute:

The main difference is that the information about Victor Morris is mostly a 21st century development. Prior to its discovery, people in Peru thought that the inventor of the drink was Peruvian bartender Mario Bruiget (I know this from personal experience, but the sources available don't say it now). Then the question is: What is Toro-Lira stating that is exceptional?

Therefore, the problem here is not that the controversy is not resolved, but rather that Chile and Peru are still fighting over it for the sake of the fight (which is not unusual for them). It probably also has to do with the fact that the Morris discovery is relatively recent (2006-2007). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a few hours of research focusing on Guillermo Toro-Lira, I found the following:
  • From the source Imbibe! I understand that Toro-Lira has some influence in the world of cocktails (see [18])
  • His account on Pisco Sour also appears on Peru's El Comercio ([19]). Other third-party publications also have it, but these are not as reliable as El Comercio.
So, that's all there is to him. I still see him as reliable. No author disputes Toro-Lira's findings, and his academic honesty is intact.
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:52, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really enough to get Toro-Lira past WP:SPS, the requirement is that he be previously published not just mentioned. I would also accept him as an expert source if he had a decent citation h-index, or some other academic metric, or met the conditions of WP:PROF. The issue here is not whether your analysis of the history is incorrect or that Toro-Lira should not be used as a source, but rather, whether the balance of the article is neutral. You seem to be saying that you are not relying on Toro-Lira to establish Morris' priority, so further discussion of Toro-Lira's reliability may, in fact, be a red herring. Do any reliable sources, besides the previously mentioned Plath, support the Chilean claim to priority? SpinningSpark 07:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am only relying on Toro-Lira for the Cuyo and Plath analysis. The Victor Morris and Pisco Sour account is supported by all the other sources as well, including the Chilean newspaper El Mercurio. All of these sources are in the 2000's, meaning that this consensus on Morris being the inventor (and Lima the city of invention) is relatively recent.
Aside from Plath, no other reliable source attributes the invention of the cocktail to Elliot Stubb. For instance, in Google Books (see [20]), only 7 mentions are made of "Pisco Sour" and "Elliot Stubb". The first source is a personal diary or story, so it is not a reliable source. The second book is using information from "1001cocktails.com", and that is also unreliable. The third source ([21]) does seem reliable, but it only has the Stubb story (in German) as a footnote, while placing the Morris account on the main text. The other two sources have snippet views, so I cannot assert their reliability, and the last source is from the University of Cuyo (which claims Elliott Stubb's newspaper story had him as inventor of the "Whiskey Sour"). A regular Google search does have more hits for the searched terms, but none of the websites seem reliable (or safe for browsing).
What sources do mention is the "Pisco war" between Peru and Chile. They include the Pisco Sour into it, but none really bother to explain why other than that Chile and Peru dispute its origin. This creates a strange situation where I can source that "Chile and Peru dispute the origin of the Pisco Sour", but where WP:WEIGHT gives more credibility to the Peruvian account, and where the Chilean account is even discredited by Toro-Lira and the University of Cuyo.
What do you recommend should be done in this kind of cases?--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:29, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I am now prepared to AGF your analysis of the sources and support promotion - provided you do something about that sentence which is still telling me that Pisco Sour consists of two words. SpinningSpark 14:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Spin. I removed the sentence that stated Pisco Sour consisted of two words. I think that is the best solution.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Cirt

(having stumbled here from my FAC)

  1. 3rd paragraph lede/intro sect - the "however" could be removed from the last sentence in this sect, without any detriment to the sentence or readability.
  2. Name sect - there is a quotation in the last sentence of this sect, but unclear which cite is being used to verify this. Maybe that particular cite could be moved earlier in the sentence to be located directly after the comma after that quote?
  3. Background sect, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence, "however" word can be removed here, while still maintaining understanding of the sentence.
  4. Origin sect, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence, "asserts" might sound better than "claims" here.
  5. Nationality dispute, 2nd paragraph, 1st sentence, "however" word can be deleted here, without harming comprehension of this sentence.
  6. Spread sect, dissonance in use of time tenses, present tense in 2nd paragraph, "Jimenez ... indicates..." and past tense in 3rd paragraph, "Claure... wrote ...". Might be a good idea to make this more uniform and fix standardization of the tenses throughout the article, just in case there are more discrepancies.
  7. Nationality dispute - could this be somehow moved into the History sect?
  8. Bibliography sect, no need for any columns here, not enough individual listings for this. Suggest just removing that formatting and having one single column list, normal text size.
  9. External links sect, missing a link to Wikimedia Commons for sister links. I see there is an existing category that can be added to link to in this sect for readers to view all the related images in one location.
  10. External links sect, only has one link. This appears to show favorites to that one website. Any way at least two or so other links could be added here?

Thank you for the quality improvement project on this most interesting topic. I shall have to make a point to try this drink sometime soon. — Cirt (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Cirt. Most of this should be fixed. I still need to check the standardization of the tenses.
The "nationality dispute" of the drink is an important part to its notability. Having a separate section is good for readers who want to know more about the nature of the dispute (rather than everything about the Pisco Sour). I think it also provides a fair amount of emphasis on the Chilean story and the English steward who made his bar in Iquique.
The bibliography section should now be a single line. Does the small text look good or do you think the normal is necessary?
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick responses. Okay keep us posted on the tense uniformity issue. The "Nationality dispute" is really part of the History of the topic and should be included in that subsection, though it can of course still be its own sub-sub-section. Readers will still easily be able to find it there. The Bibliography section should be normal font size, no need for small size for that number of entries. — Cirt (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cirt. The tense uniformity is now standard in present tense. The Bibliography is also now on normal font size. I am in the process of incorporating the "nationality dispute" into the history, but first would like to know Spin's view on how to approach the sources in the section. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finished incorporating the "Nationality dispute" section into the history.--MarshalN20 | Talk 21:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, beverage experts concur that both kinds of Pisco are completely distinct in both production and taste. - "completely" redundant here.
I'd put the first sentence of para 3 in the lead onto the end of para 2 as it talks about the development of the Peruvian drink. Looks weird starting a para which is about the Chilean drink...
I'd italicise words-as-words or foreign words in the Background section, such as pisco and aguardiente
Bruiget's recipe added the Angostura bitters and egg whites to the mix - link "Angostura bitters" at first mention here
In Chile, a local lore developed in the 1980s - hmm, I'd never say "A lore" - "A local anecdote" or "Local folklore" or something maybe....
This has caused an ongoing dispute between Chile and Peru over the national origin of Pisco Sour - "National" redundant here.
Nevertheless, researcher Toro-Lira argues the lore - as preceding..."the story"? "the tale"?
:In the Preparation and variants section, italicise foreign terms not used in English (the fruit?)
Is the drink classified in some group of drinks with similar recipes? (do they do this with cocktails??)

Otherwise an enjoyable read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions Casliber. I have fixed most of the points made.
I am having some difficult with the usage of italics in the text. I am somewhat at a loss of what may be a foreign term in formal English.
In response to your last question, the closest thing to a "family" for Pisco Sour are the Sour (cocktail).
Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 04:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serious concern: in the previous FAC, concern about Peruvian v. Chilean POV was expressed, and I mentioned a JSTOR journal article that should be consulted to correct that POV (Joelson). One minor sentence from the journal article has now been included-- that sentence does not address the concerns. On a general note, it would be optimal if reviewers declaring support would review previous FACs to assure that previous concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandy. Thank you for the comment.
The JSTOR information from Daniel Joelson concerns the dispute over Pisco, the brandy.
Only a paragraph in Page 8 of the source talks about Pisco Sour, the cocktail. The one paragraph has the following text:
"Though Peru and Chile are at odds over who owns pisco, both make Pisco Sour. The main difference is that Peruvians generally include egg whites, while Chileans do not. Sometimes a few drops of angostura bitters are added to the drink." (D. Joelson, "Pisco Wars")
Both are different items, although certainly related.
Also worth noting is that Joelson does have a certain pro-Chile POV, best explained by the description provided by Amazon.com ("Daniel Joelson has been navigating and probing Chile for the past five years in order to unearth its stories and hidden secrets. These discoveries have appeared in publications ranging from The San Francisco Chronicle to Latin Trade. A native of Arlington, Virginia, Joelson has been cooking since his youth and has worked as a food writer and critic. He makes his home in Santiago, Chile." [22]). He certainly is a reliable source, but not as NPOV as might be thought.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 02:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandy, I did read the previous review, but I don't think anyone should be obligated to take on objections of other editors in a prior review as their own. I did, however, probe the proposer quite carefully on this issue before supporting. Rather than lashing out at other reviewers, please provide some evidence that there is indeed POV and I might well change my recommendation, otherwise it stands as a support. SpinningSpark 02:26, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images check: File:Pisco sour 20100613b.JPG and File:Old Fashioned Glass.svg seem fine. File:Plaza Acho.jpg and File:2010-0109-Lima-HotelBolivar.jpg did not mention the FOP status, but I have fixed that (there is Freedom of Panorama in Peru). File:Morris-Bar-Pisco-Sour-South-Pacific-Mail-1924.JPG is not a PD-Art, it's a mere PD-Old (it's not a work of art, but a mere advertising); but it should be checked: 1924 is too soon for PD-old, and there has to be a tag for the copyright in the US. File:Pancho fierro el que trae aguardiente de Ica.jpg, on the other hand, should have a PD-Art besides the PD-old. File:Presidentes Cristina Fernandez y Alan Garcia brindan con pisco.jpg does not mention the exact location of the photo in the casa rosada page. I will see if I can help to clarify those details later, as well as making a review of the article itself. I haven't checked the internet for similar images yet, but there shouldn't be a problem, none of the "own work" images seem like an unlikely work on first sight. Cambalachero (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cambalachero, thank you for the image check. I have learned a few new things about Peruvian copyright law while working on another article. There were two prior to the current one, the first in the 1840s and the second in the 1960s. However, the advertisement image was published in a Chilean newspaper, and I have no idea what copyright terms are applied in that country.
Any and all reviews of the article are still welcome. I sincerely appreciate the group effort from all of you.
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All images checked. I have fixed the licenses that I pointed before, and located the exact link of the photo of Kirchner and García. I checked for similar images, but I found Plaza de Toros at a site that credited Wikimedia for the photo, and for the Hotel Bolivar I found similar images but none that is the same image. In short, all images check fine. Cambalachero (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article review: I have to note that my natve language in Spanish, not English. So, I can't provide a trustworthy review for prose. I will mention mistakes if I notice them, but I may commit mistakes in those issues.

(I will continue tomorrow) Cambalachero (talk) 03:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected nearly all of the points. The "shown in this section" part was recommended by SpinningSpark in this review (not in its exact state, of course). Perhaps a discussion about it is necessary? I am alright with either position.
I also do not plan to add more to the "name" section, but it can certainly be expanded if further information is provided by other contributors.
Thank you for teaching me about the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment. Interesting read.--MarshalN20 | Talk 03:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with the suggestion about the Morris' Bar advertisement. My original issue was that it was not clear this was the advert described in the text. As long as this remains clear it is good as far as I am concerned. A further issue was indicating it as "on the left" which is dependent on page rendering. See how the images are rendered in the Wikimedia mobile version of Pisco Sour for instance. Thinking about it, even "in this section" could be problematic, I am sure I have seen (older) mobile devices separate the images from the text altogether. SpinningSpark 09:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While I am here, the automatic redlinking of scholars is not correct. Redlinks indicate that the subject is notable enough to have an article. Not all scholars are going to be notable in the Wikipedia sense, or have enough information available to be able to create an article. Merely having published is not enough, see WP:PROF. Redlinking is therefore a matter of editorial judgement and an indication that the editor thinks the subject is notable. Do you think that? Are sources available? If not, the redlinks should be removed. SpinningSpark 09:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All should be fixed.--MarshalN20 | Talk 00:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(continued review)

By the way, I have invited the user Lester Foster, a Chilean who wrote several good articles, to join this FAC. Perhaps he can contribute with a higher insight on the topic than my own, as I don't really know anything about the Pisco Sour and my review is only on style issues. Cambalachero (talk) 18:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. All points should now be fixed.
The 1940s oil bonanza in Peru does sound like a fun and notable event worthy of an article. Surely, the Hollywood actors did not simply go there to drink Pisco Sour.
Thank you again Cambalachero for the comments (and for contacting Lester).
Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from a Chilean editor

I personally feel this article is too 'Peruvian', from its point of view. I am using a couple of sources to comment here. [23] [24]

Also, please consider:

Right now I can't give more comments, but as I said previously, the article reads too Peruvian-ish, it doesn't give enough weight to the Chilean claims of the ownership/origin of Pisco Sour. Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 19:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I checked the "El origen del Pisco Sour: en Perú y en Chile" page (and the subpage "Historia del pisco sour", and contain basically the same info than our article. In fact, the article explains the origin of the Chilean idea, and the "el origen..." only places the dispute on the pisco but not on the pisco sour, "A diferencia de la bebida espirituosa, el Pisco sour no está envuelto en polémica porque el Perú es el que se queda con el crédito del primer Pisco sour". Cambalachero (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My fault; that last source precisely supports the Peruvian origin thesis. Anyways, this article states a different Peruvian origin: "el origen del Pisco Sour se remonta al siglo XVIII, en el virreinato del Perú, donde ya se preparaba una bebida a base de pisco y limón que llamaban “punche” y que era distribuida por los esclavos".
Another article from TurismoChile further states that both countries dispute the ownership of Pisco Sour. It might not be the best of the sources, but meh. All I can say is that there has been a long time controversy regarding the ownership of the pisco and the pisco sour. Lester Foster (talk | talk) 01:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, I see you cite El Mercurio as crediting the Peruvian version; you are citing instead El Mercurio Online, which is kind of the yellow-press version of El Mercurio, retaining its conservative point of view (I mean, it publishes more 'miscellaneous articles). Actual El Mercurio articles can be found on http://diario.elmercurio.com. Precisely there, I found a couple of articles which may be worthy of reading (since a subscription is required to access the website, I may send you the articles if you ask so):
Extract from "Pisco sour chileno": "Existe abundante evidencia histórica de que el pisco sour ya se disfrutaba en los puertos chilenos a fines del siglo 19, preparado con el excelente aguardiente despachado de Coquimbo. El inventor del afamado cóctel es Elliot Stubb, mayordomo del mercante inglés Sunshine, quien decidió quedarse en tierra chilena y trabajar como barman en el American Bar de Iquique. Para sorprender a sus clientes, decidió combinar nuestro pisco con jugo de limón de Pica y azúcar flor. El resultado fue un exitazo. Todo ello ocurrió dos décadas antes de que el pisco sour se popularizara en los bares limeños." (Sunday 9 April 2006) [25]
An article dated 25 May 2013 states the pisco sour is "international" (in "Sours chilenos irrumpen en barrio mítico de Madrid"). [26]
"Elogiado por extranjeros en su versión sour, el pisco chileno está lejos de traspasar las fronteras nacionales." ("Industria pisquera. Exportaciones. Un mundo por conocer", 17 February 2003) [27]
I will add some more as I find more sources that could help support, somewhat impossible to defend, the Chilean version. Regards, Lester Foster (talk | talk) 02:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the comments Lester. I will respond to the points in bullet-style to organize all the thoughts.

  1. Elliot Stubb did not invent Pisco Sour, this being confirmed by the University of Cuyo's publication of the old Iquique newspaper that Oreste Plath used to claim Stubb was the inventor. This 2006 article may be outdated, considering the El Mercurio 2011 online article attributes Pisco Sour's origin to Morris.
  2. The second and third articles would serve good use for the "Popular Culture" and "Spread" (in History) sections. I would greatly appreciate it if you could provide me with a copy of them.

I honestly do not think anything else can be done to defend or support the Chilean claim of invention. History may change if new information comes up in the future, but all current information supports Victor Morris as the inventor. It is probably worth noting that this is also an "uncomfortable reality" for certain Peruvians (primarily the nationalists, of course) who argue the real inventor is Mario Bruiget (the Peruvian bartender). Thus, as it turns out, the true story does not truly satisfy either side.--MarshalN20 | Talk 12:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- This review has been open six weeks without achieving clear consensus to promote. Marshall, it looks to me like some of those commenting haven't yet acknowledged your changes/responses, so I'd be prepared to leave this open a little longer to give you a chance to ping them and see if it changes anything. If not, then I think we have to just archive this and give it another shot at a later stage, ideally after working through the remaining concerns with those editors. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to confirm that I still support the promotion of this article. Yes, there is a dispute, but the article does acknowledge this. Just because there is a dispute does not mean that Wikipedia necessarily has to give equal credence to both sides. After all, we don't give the views of the Flat Earth Society equal credence in the cartography article (actually they are not even mentioned). We judge the sources by their reliability and I think MarshalN20 has done a very good job of sorting through the rival claims and assessing their reliability and relevance. Carefully researched scholarly papers are to be given more credence than national pride motivated newspaper articles. More recent research is to be given more credence than out of date sources. Given that this is an article about a cocktail, I think that MarshalN20 is to be congratulated for the quality of the sources presented. SpinningSpark 13:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support and kind words. Sadly, if this does not get passed now, I probably will not be able to submit it again until after a year has passed (due to recent unpleasant developments at an ArbComm case that have sucked me in like a vacuum). Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 16:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will check the article again tomorrow in the morning. Please don't close the FAC yet. Sorry for the delay. Cambalachero (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked again the article, and I have no further corrections to request. I have seen the sources provided on both sides of the dispute, and it seems that the article is an accurate description of it. However, I should mention that MarshalN20 and me are part of an Arbitration case here. It's about a completely different topic, but both of us are included in it. I did not think it was a problem up to this point, as I was pointing things to fix, but I leave to the delegate's discretion to consider if I'm allowed to support the promotion of the article or if that is a conflict of interest. If I can do that, then I support. If I can't, then my intervention in this FAC may be considered over. Cambalachero (talk) 00:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I think that this has had quite enough commentary now, and that consensus is clearly with promotion; given the scrutiny here, I don't see that the Arb case should compromise the result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [28].[reply]

Millennium Force[edit]

Nominator(s): Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets all criteria and has all the information a roller coaster article should have. The article did not get promoted the first time because there was not enough reviews. It has gone through all the necessary steps and is ready for another review. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'm good with the above. Change to support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I'll reread to see if I see anything else. — DivaKnockouts 02:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by JDC808

Lead

I read the entire article and this is the only issue I really saw. --JDC808 ♫ 04:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it to read "Millennium broke and helped to break".-- Astros4477 (Talk) 16:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's better. I Support. --JDC808 ♫ 17:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (Flickr images with no obvious problems). Sources and authors provided. GermanJoe (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Source review - all Done apologies, if any of those were mentioned before, but i'll try to list all points, that stood out for me:

  • All points Done, the limited usage of external videos to illustrate trivial facts should be OK (per our sourcing guidelines such uncontroversial facts wouldn't need sourcing at all, but i agree they are helpful for interested readers). GermanJoe (talk) 07:31, 21 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [29].[reply]

Deadalive[edit]

Nominator(s): Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This episode died on the nomination table last time around, with only one comment. I'm renominating because I feel it is (and already was) ready. This is the fifteenth episode of eight season of The X-Files, and a big episode for the series; it features the real return of David Duchovny as Fox Mulder. I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it is ready for the next big step. It is currently a GA as well as an A-Class article. I implemented much of what I learned from my previous FAN attempt. It has been copyedited, as well as peer-reviewed by three different editors, including Noleander, The Rambling Man, and Ruby 2010/2013. The article reads well, features illustrations (and the non-free images have proper licenses), and the references are properly formatted and of high quality. I feel that the article's prose, coupled with its scope, MoS compliance, images, etc. would make it a perfect candidate for a Featured Article.Gen. Quon (Talk) 04:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: My concerns were addressed so I'd like to provide support for FA status. Praemonitus (talk) 18:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's... okay, but it could be improved. The Plot section is too condensed: it doesn't have an enjoyable flow and seems starchy. But the article improves from that point forward.

I think if you work on the plot section and fine tune the lead a little more, it'll satisfy 1a. Praemonitus (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed the four main points you brought up (I believe), as well as given the plot section a bit of a copyedit. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I added a concern and left one that appears unresolved. Praemonitus (talk) 23:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Image check - all OK (own work, PD-old-100, fair-use). Sources and authors provided. Fixed tags for File:Noel-coypel-the-resurrection-of-christ-1700.jpg. GermanJoe (talk) 14:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking!--Gen. Quon (Talk) 01:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I can't spot anything outstanding that would hold this from being a FA. Miyagawa (talk) 13:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ceranthor's Comments

Delegate comment -- I had requested a formal source review for this a while back but no-one had time, nothing problematic stands out on my inspection so we'll wrap this one up now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [31].[reply]

Poitevin horse[edit]

Nominator(s): Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another French draft horse breed... Unlike the last breed I had here, this breed had a precipitous population decline in the last half of the 20th century, and today is in danger of extinction. This is another collaboration between myself and User:Tsaag Valren, the wonderful French editor who took this article to featured status on the French WP, with additional help from numerous others. I look forward to your comments! (Oh, and this is a WikiCup article.) Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sasata (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Seems to meet the FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments/suggestions on prose & links from a 1st readthrough. I'll be back later with a literature check and perhaps a spotcheck of sources.

  • I'm not sure how this article is a "topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"? It's a French breed, and obviously France is closer to Britain than the US, but I don't think I've seen WP:TIES used in that manner before... Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And here, what few exports went to English-speaking nations went to the US rather than the UK, so geography probably not really a factor for that reason also. --Montanabw
  • I'm not particularly fussed about it, but it seems odd to me to have an article about a European breed written in US English. For a recent example of WP:Ties used in this manner, see [32]. Perhaps other reviewers will comment. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, misread the sentence. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elsewhere - clarified. Either "on" or "with" would be correct, but I've standardized to "with". Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bone" singular is correct technical language when referencing the quality of skeletal structure in horses. Weird, but correct. --Montanabw
  • Physical maturity - the time at which the skeletal structure has matured enough to stand up to the abuse of heavy labor. This occurs at different times in different breeds, with larger breeds (draft horses, especially) maturing later than smaller, lighter breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Dana, and a note that horses in general reach sexual maturity far before they reach physical maturity. --Montanabw
  • Ok, could this explanation be fit in the text somehow; I'm worried there's not enough context for non-horsey types to understand what this means. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redlinked. I really need to write that article... Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was always taught that they were necessary, and it's how I've always written. Is this a big deal? Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope. But consider "It is permissible to omit the comma after a brief introductory element if the omission does not result in confusion or hesitancy in reading." So, for example "In 1867, there were 50,000 pure and crossbred mares." could be changed to "In 1867 there were 50,000 pure and crossbred mares." without any loss of meaning or confusion to the reader. But this is largely stylistic so feel free to ignore. Sasata (talk) 04:32, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't been able to find this. I've dropped a note to User:Tsaag Valren to see if the exact numbers are in any of her sources. Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quebec : No accent in the name of french horse registered at haras nationaux, it's forbidden (for easier exportations) --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also one in the US, which I've now added... I don't know where, specifically, the source doesn't say and I haven't been able to find the information elsewhere. I've dropped a note to User:Tsaag Valren to see if she has any sources that would cover this info. Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Sweden, I know that it's the stallion Leonardo 11 who were exported (photo in the infobox) but I don't know where... See here : http://www.poitevin.org/ . And for the US, I really don't know --Tsaag Valren (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the academic databases and didn't find any glaring omissions from the literature. A few comments after trawling through Google Books:
  • Sorrel is basically the same color as chestnut, which is already noted in the article. (Sorrel is a regional dialect thing, mostly used in the American west, so not appropriate descriptor for the Poitevin)--Montanabw
  • Yes, what Montanabw said above. Also, this is a children's encyclopedia, which are notorious for getting even basic terminology wrong and/or simplifying things to the point of being incorrect, especially when it comes to rare non-US breeds. Dana boomer (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feathering (horse) is basically something that occurs only on the lower leg, but I added "lower" to clarify. Hope that worked --Montanabw
  • that the International Donkey Protection Program and Donkey Sanctuary of England support the Poitevin breeding and research program
  • that all purebreds are to be implanted with id chips
  • young horses have long hair that disappears by ages 2–4 with regular grooming, and ungroomed hair will form cadenettes?
  • I think that is the Poitou donkey you are noting from that source, which is very shaggy and gets "cadenettes" (aka "dreadlocks! LOL!). But horses don't get dreadlocks, and this breed doesn't have the hair coat characterictic of the Curly horse, either. --Montanabw
  • The majority of this source is referring to the Poitou donkey, including the last three points that you made. The population numbers are referring to the Poitevin, and I have added these, as well as the source that Tsaag Valren provided above, into the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This just proves I don't know my ass from a horse on the ground! Sasata (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the comments! I think all of the linking and basic copyediting stuff is done; I'm still working on the rest. I'm leaving comments above only if I have questions on anything... Dana boomer (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've addressed everything above, and left replies for any that I had questions/comments on. Dana boomer (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I commented on a couple small things on behalf of WikiProject Equine, as Dana and I have collaborated in the past and I generally Support her efforts, even where I am probably a bit too involved to be considered a neutral reviewer. Montanabw(talk) 17:22, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Thank you for the source review, Nikki. I think I have addressed all of your comments. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim I did the GA review for this, and I can't see any new issues. The minor referencing points identified by Nikkimaria should be easily fixed, so you have my support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Jim! Your GA review definitely helped to improve the article to where it is today. Dana boomer (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support: I reviewed my own contributions to this particular article and found they were quite minimal and mostly prior to the FA run, so as this is primarily Dana's and Tsaag's effort. I believe I am uninvolved enough in this article to add my name to those who support this FAC. Montanabw(talk) 22:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • You are quite correct. I have removed this sentence. Thanks for the comment! Dana boomer (talk) 18:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - content is clearly written and accessible (even for laymen), the article is well-organised. No obvious gaps in coverage or sourcing. Another fine article in that area well within FA-range. GermanJoe (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giants and GermanJoe, thank you very much for your support of the article. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [33].[reply]

Sunbeam Tiger[edit]

Nominator(s): Dennis Brown (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I bring this article here with some trepidation as I've never really done significant work on a car article before, but I had fantastic help from Dennis Brown, a fellow petrol head who did much of the research heavy lifting. This Ford V8-powered muscle-car version of the rather pretty Sunbeam Alpine is almost an object lesson in what went wrong with the British motor industry in the 1960s, and its subsequent domination by the Big Three American triumverate of Ford, Chrysler and General Motors. So please don't be put off from taking a look because you think you won't be interested in an article about a car. Eric Corbett 00:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: A few initial observations – I've not yet made a detailed reading:-

Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

I have not spotchecked. Subject to that and to the above small fixes, sources look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments

--Boson (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Background image caption should probably end in period, but licensing all looks fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, I'm not certain. My feeling has always been that if you wouldn't write a caption as a full sentence in the article body then it ought not to end in a fullstop. But it's arguably a sentence in this case nevertheless, so ... I'm still not sure. Eric Corbett 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whose is the quote: "a 'precision' instrument of questionable antecedents"?
    William Carroll's, now attributed. Eric Corbett 02:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pank" or "Panks"? ("Initial prototypes", para 3)
    It's Panks, fixed. Eric Corbett 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "already primered and painted bulkhead" – I don't think "primer" exists as a verb, therefore "primed", surely?
    I'm wanting to say that was the original word in the source. It seemed a bit odd, but since the source used it, I figured I would. I went ahead and changed the grammar per your suggestion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit bothered by "Jensen was...". Since the firm was actually called Jensen Motors, it would be more usual to refer to it as "Jensens", thus "Jensens were..." Not a deal-breaker, though.
    I'm inclined to think the singular is appropriate since we are referring to the company as a singular entity, but will leave that to Eric whose grammar skills exceed mine. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 02:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I too think that "Jensen" is correct. After all, Ford's full name is Ford Motor Company, but we refer to them as Ford, not Fords. Eric Corbett 02:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positioning of the "however" in the second line of the second "Demise" paragraph: it reads better at start of sentence, otherwise the relation to the previous sentence is obscured.
    I've slightly rewritten the first two sentences of that paragraph to avoid the need for using "however" altogether. Now reads "Manufacturing a car powered by a competitor's engine was unacceptable to the new owner, but Chrysler's own 273 small-block V-8 was too large to fit under the Tiger's bonnet without major modifications." Eric Corbett 01:58, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting extension to the range of featured article, and perhaps a forerunner of more. Brianboulton (talk) 19:18, 14 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [34].[reply]

Allan Walters[edit]

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First FAC in almost a year, and I don't see why everyone else should be having all the fun... ;-) This fellow had an action-packed career after he transferred to the Air Force after graduating from the Royal Military College, Duntroon: a top aerobatics pilot prior to World War II, and leading a fighter wing into combat over northern Australia at the ripe old age of 37. Plus he gets the sympathy vote by twice missing out on getting the RAAF's top job... Any and all comments welcome! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments (now on this nomination's talk page) have now all been addressed: great work with this article Ian. Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks for suggestions and support, Nick. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images I've tweaked one or two to use the PD-1996 tag to ensure US public domain status; however, File:AllanWalters1954a.jpg does not have a US copyright tag nor would PD-1996 apply. An alternative licence is needed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 15:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that, Grandiose. Given this image was the subject of a recent review resulting in it being kept, can I get your take on the alternative licence? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(The reply on that review isn't signed, but I shall proceed on the understanding that it is you.) I believe ((PD-AustraliaGov))((PD-author|the Government of Australia)) with a brief note and a link to the file review or the one above it. (PD-1996 is still better in the case of pre-1946 works, in my opinion.) Licencing will then be fine. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had a stab at it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: No major issues:

Comments

Support Comments - fantastic article as usual. I only have a couple of (very) minor comments:

I also made a slight tweak to the wording in one place. Feel free to revert if unhappy with it. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:26, 1 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [35].[reply]

Alexander of Greece[edit]

Nominator(s): DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander was king of Greece for a brief period from the middle of World War I until his death from a monkey attack. DrKiernan (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Support – which the few trivial comments below do not affect in the slightest:

  • Early life
    • "heir-apparent" – the Oxford English Dictionary gives "heir apparent" as two separate words, but possibly the hyphen is customary in US English.
  • Controversy
    • "Alexander's parents were not so happy by the match" – "about the match"?
  • Death
    • "which were later found to be infected and destroyed" – reluctant though one is to duplicate words I really think you need a second "were" before "destroyed" here to make the meaning clear.
    • "mésalliance" – I wonder, in passing, why the French term when we have "misalliance" in English for the same thing.
  • Issue
    • "was born 5 months" – usual to write "five months" with single-digit numbers

This article meets all the FA criteria, in my view. Clear, a pleasure to read, well proportioned, comprehensive as far as one can see, diversely and fully sourced. – Tim riley (talk) 10:45, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with nit-picks: An interesting, easy-to-read article on a topic about which I knew very little. Looks comprehensive, although I know nothing of the topic. Just a few little nit-picks. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I read it through intending to find things to comment on...and just zoned out and read it....which is a good sign. Not an expert in the area so cannot comment too strongly on its comprehensiveness...but it seems sound. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made an exception on the basis of "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", as most of his books are published by others[37]. DrKiernan (talk) 06:47, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'll accept that. Thanks for the quick reply! Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:37, 15 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [38].[reply]

Gather Together in My Name[edit]

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because, as part of my on-going quest to improve Maya Angelou articles, it's this one's turn to submit to FAC. I also think it's good to go. A question that comes up in almost every review of these articles is regarding capitalization. Here's the explanation: [39] Thanks; I look forward to the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Evanh2008

As per my standard review strategy, this one looks almost good enough to be a featured article. I'll have a handful of very minor concerns related primarily to prose. Please feel free to strike items as you resolve them, or I can come along later and strike them for ease of reading and navigation. Feel free to disagree with or question my reasoning on any of these.

Thanks, Evan. I submitted this article with the intention of improving it before anyone started a review, since it's my experience that articles tend to languish here for a while (although not nearly as long as they do in GAC). And then you jumped right in! And the changes I needed to make were more extensive than I expected. I think that we're ready to go now, though, but what it means is that many of your comments no longer apply.

Lead section:

I'm a little surprised you didn't nail me for the lead. The version it came here wasn't really a lead; it was more of a background section. Consequently, I've removed much of the content there and either removed it completely or put it in other sections, including creating a new "Background" section and adding more information garnered from other MA articles. Could you please review the new version?

Title section looks good. No issues here.

Plot summary:

Fixed, it was a silly typo.
All the above fixed.
Perhaps, but my intention was to introduce Bailey and to convey the emotional distance Angelou felt towards the woman.
Done.
All this happens in the Bay Area, but the scattered-ness of the book resulted in my scatter-ness as well. (How terrible is that; blaming the great Maya Angelou for my writing shortcomings?) ;) I made some changes that perhaps clarify it somewhat.
The book refers to him at "L.D.", but I changed it anyway. The other issue it clarifies is that in Angelou's autobiographies, which are fictionalized, the people she talks about, including herself, are characters. In this book, the character is "Rita" because she's no longer "Maya" as in Caged Bird, but she's not yet "Maya Angelou". She doesn't change her name until Singin' and Swingin' and Gettin' Merry Like Christmas (a FA), her third autobiography. I try to refer to her character as what she calls herself in each book. That's why I call her "Maya" In Singin' and Swingin', and it's what other commentators call her when they discuss the book. In Heart of a Woman (another FA), I call her "Angelou" because that's who she has firmly become and because the book is more about her adulthood. Is that long-winded explanation enough? ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the remaining sections within the next few days. If you haven't heard back from me by the weekend, feel free to give me a ping at my talk page. It all looks good, though. No major issues as far as I can tell. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

I've revamped the reviews since, and all the above are fixed, so could you take another look, please? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing do-over:

All the above fixed, except for the last point. The way that I've notated works is consistent, but in a different way. My tendency is to put sources in the "Works cited" section only if they're used more than once, and then cite it like this: "Cudjoe, p. 20". If a source is used only once, like with Braxton's article in the Casebook, I put it in the "Notes" section. This practice, which I think is clearer, is done consistently. If you don't like this practice, explain why and if it's reasonable, I'm willing to change it. Thanks for the review, I appreciate it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. In FN7 I see "In Joanne M. Braxton, ed. Maya Angelou's I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" (editor then title); in contrast, Cudjoe has "In Black Women Writers (1950–1980): A Critical Evaluation, Mari Evans, ed" (title then editor). I see that the ordering is different between the two sections, but why? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see now that I totally misunderstood you. I think I've made the corrections you requested now. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:20, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image Check

Selection is good, an both are licensed properly..--Dom497 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from TonyTheTiger

Plot Summary
I think that the changes I've made should be satisfactory. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Themes
I'm not sure what you're asking. Do you want more links in the plot summary, or in "Themes", or both?
Themes section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
I've linked the few notable ones; hopefully, it's enough. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 02:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
Well, he says that her honesty is formulaic and the events described are confusing. I can see how that's confusing, though, so I reworded the second part of the sentence. I think it does a better job of explaining what he meant.
Yes, to my surprise, there is! The stuff you learn in Wikipedia. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please move link to first use of the term.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, oops, done. Got overly excited. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:16, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cirt (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments moved to talk page. — Cirt (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC) [40].[reply]

Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded[edit]

Nominator(s): — Tomíca(T2ME) &  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have worked on it very hard to bring Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded to good article status. Now with the help of Dan56 (talk · contribs) who copy-edited it, I think that it is nearly ready to become a FA. We would like all the nominators who oppose, to bring their issues here so we can resolve it. Thank you! — Tomíca(T2ME) 15:54, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
  • Ne-Yo, StarGate and Tricky are her collaborators from the past, meaning she worked them on her previous albums and also on Good Girl Gone Bad, but teamed with them again for Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded, alongside some new guys with whom she didn't work previously. I think the sentence is clear enough, especially when people look in the track listing ;). — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose this can be ignored, doesn't deter a substantial amount. Et3rnal 12:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support For a re-release, the article's very detailed. Nice work guys. Et3rnal 22:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Et3rnal! — Tomíca(T2ME) 12:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Cassianto

Seems to be all complete, but needs a bit of fiddling with...

  • Combined the two sentences together. We don't know the exact time the album was finished; all we got is when it was almost finished, sadly.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Physically" is a commonly used term to refer to the album being released to retail stores. Whereas "digitally" is to digital stores. If you can think of a better word to use, please, suggest it.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick flick through at this point, I will re-read again over the next few days. -- CassiantoTalk 19:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second lot from Cassianto

Lead section

Background and release

  • Because all the information is in the source; I noted that FAC reviewers want every sentence to be sourced. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should not source every sentence if every sentence comes from the same source, and whoever suggested that is incorrect. --CassiantoTalk 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sourced only the first and the last sentence of the information coming from the same source. Is it okay now? — Tomíca(T2ME) 10:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no hard and fast rule that one has to cite after a certain amount of sentences in a successive order. The same cite (the last one in this case) should be enough to cover the whole text up until that point. I think only information which contains possibly contentious comments or bold claims should be cited seeing as the article is closely related to a living person. The other scenario would be to repeat the cite only after an interruption of another cite. For example: "Jimmy went to the shops and bought a red balloon.[1] He had his last red balloon stolen in 2011,[2] so bought a white one instead.[1]" If the section of text is neither of these things, I feel it appropriate to only cite once. I'm happy for you to leave it at two here, but anymore than that would be wrong IMO. --CassiantoTalk 22:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, now it's referenced only at the end. I hope it's good ;) ! — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm to be honest, I am not sure released into the shops is better than physically. I believe people understand the meaning of physically:). — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used diverse words similar to 'release'. I hope it's fine now. — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New Material

Singles

Promotion

Done all. — Tomíca(T2ME) 20:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical response -- Looks OK.

Commercial performance -- Looks OK

Legacy

  • How do you mean? It is? We are talking about the album itself...

Done for now. Looking good. -- CassiantoTalk 19:38, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Everything else looks A-okay. SnapSnap 22:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support I enjoyed reading the article and couldn't find any mistakes. It is very detailed despite it is only a re-release. Nice job. I have only one comment; the YouTube sources used for the synopsis of the music video for "Disturbia" and "Take a Bow"" should be replaced. It is an original research to put a link of the videos; after all the links don't state anything about the synopsis. My love is love (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I removed the state for "Take a Bow" since I couldn't find other FA reliable source, however, I found a better source for "Disturbia". Thank you My love is love! ;) — Tomíca(T2ME) 19:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. SnapSnap 21:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Tomíca(T2ME) 22:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Well written article. Great info that's too the point :) Deserves to be a FA. Good work, Tomica and Status. Arre 02:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Media check - images OK, sound samples fair-use needs some work. Done - (1 sample removed, others improved).

In general, when the article includes fair-use samples, make sure their musical features are discussed in the article and the samples provide representative, notable examples of the album's style. GermanJoe (talk) 07:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • FUR is improved, thanks (the rationales could be a little more specific for each case, but not objecting over that minor point). Having double-checked refs 24 and 26, i think you got the most notable details out of them. Despite their length they actually contain only few encyclopedic facts. GermanJoe (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

  • Ref 47: Text says: "The concept for the video was "high-end erotica"; Source says "The concept appears to be high-end erotica", which is not saying the same thing – the text should reflect the equivocal tone of the source
  • Otherwise, no problems with the few checks I did.

Apart from the issues raised above, sources look properly formatted and of appropriate quality. Brianboulton (talk) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Brian, your help is really appreciated! — Tomíca(T2ME) 11:46, 20 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [41].[reply]

Pigeye shark[edit]

Nominator(s): Yzx (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the lesser-known doppelganger of the infamous bull shark. I'm nominating this article because I think it's comprehensive and meets the criteria. Thanks for your attention. -- Yzx (talk) 17:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support with comments This article looks really, really good, and I'm going to go ahead and support. I do have a pair of minor comments though:

  • Is there a better way to phrase "remain within a local area"? I'm not sure if there is a scientific term (I'm guessing territorial isn't right) but it sounds a bit off to me.
reworded to "tends to roam within a fairly localized area." -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be interested in what cetaceans the pigeye shark is capable of killing, as it seems that is its largest prey item.
Details added; there's a record of one that ate a dolphin (species unknown), and it also scavenges from whale carcasses. -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for writing this article. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe add a comma between "short" and "blunt" in the lead?
  • "that only re-opened" ---> "that re-opened only" — "Only" should always be closest to where the emphasis is. In this case, "some 6,000 years ago."
  • "Western Australia and Northern Territory" ---> "Western Australia and the Northern Territory" — I've very rarely heard the latter term used without the definite article.
  • Link requiem shark in the "Description" section, since you haven't yet used that term outside the lead.
  • "potentially dangerous to humans though" ---> "potentially dangerous to humans, though" — Comma use.

Other than that, prose, references, and everything else looks good. Very comprehensive, and a fine article overall. Good work! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made edits as you recommended. Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 23:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I've made edits as per comments. -- Yzx (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason in Distribution and habitat why some countries and Cape Verde are unlinked and others such as South Africa are?
Well, I used to link all place names, but then in past FA reviews that's been pointed out as overlinking, so I stopped linking country names, and then I got a comment above about adding some links, so actually I've got no idea what people want for this. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I generally leave it at states or provinces of countries and anything smaller than that. But also some concepts such as Southeast Asia I think are useful. Yes it has been tricky navigating this over the years. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NB: I think I'd link Cape Verde and unlink South Africa - the islands mentioned are not well known by many and are valuable links. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Young sharks live in the bay year-round, staying mostly in the eastern side of the bay ... - be good if we can lose one of the 'bay's - but not sure if we can without introducing ambiguity.....
Removed the second instance of "bay"; I think it's still clear. -- Yzx (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The natural mortality for juveniles in Cleveland Bay ... - is the "natural" necessary?
I think so, to make clear that it doesn't include human-caused mortality. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and support. -- Yzx (talk) 22:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what the issue is. Do you think that the use of "fisheries" in the intro is not specific enough, or that it's a misapplication of the word? -- Yzx (talk) 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, fish can be caught by longlines, or by trawling or drag-netting but not by fisheries. Then again, it is apparent from the body of the article that this species is uncommon, and it seems unlikely that there is a pigeye shark fishery as such, let alone more than one. By the way, I notice that gillets is incorrectly linked. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Gillnet" fixed. -- Yzx (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "fishery" is also used to refer to an industry for catching fish, or the people who work in said industry, as defined here. So in that sense, a shark can be caught by a fishery. -- Yzx (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. It just sounded wrong to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I use this wording quite frequently. I think I'll wait to see if others object to it. -- Yzx (talk) 02:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Very little to nitpick about this excellent article, but just a few remarks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry about this, but I'm going to query the variety of English again. Many BE-English-speaking countries in the range, no US-speaking
As a note, I think the Philippines use American English except for commas. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the text to BE. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • presently lacks the data— lacks adequate data?
Changed. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • closely resembles the bull shark, morphology-based phylogenetic studies have considered the two species to be closely related—avoid repeat of "closely"
Switched the first use to "strongly resembles". -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • >3.1:1 versus ≤3.1:1—might be clearer if you write the more than/less than in words
I've tried it before, but I found the "less than or equal to" cumbersome. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • tapeworms Callitetrarhynchus gracilis— I'd be inclined to just put "several tapeworms", and not bother with the lengthy list of red-links (this is a personal aversion, so feel free to ignore. I'm uptight enough to write stubs for my parasites, but I don't expect anyone else to do it)
I think it's worthwhile information. Maybe the red links will inspire some reticent parasitologist at some point. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • its flesh can cause ciguatera poisoning. — Does the toxin affect the shark?
It does not and it's not clear why. I don't know that this needs to be in the article though, since it's a basic aspect of ciguatera. -- Yzx (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the responses, and I've changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing. -- Yzx (talk) 07:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Sasata (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine. Sasata (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. -- Yzx (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know as I don't have direct access to this resource. I've swapped in another ref. -- Yzx (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems to be a quirk of the template. I've bolded it manually. -- Yzx (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done the conversions, though this seems to be a task better handled by a bot. -- Yzx (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of comments (unrelated to sources):

  • The taxonomy section says that "Later authors reassigned it to the genus Carcharhinus.", but according to the taxobox synonymy, it was moved by the original authors in the same year originally published? Also, why both "J. P. Müller" and "Müller" as authority abbreviations?
  • I'm confused; the synonymy doesn't say that. -- Yzx (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I misread. Do we know who made the later transfer and when? Sasata (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think to dig this out would require much original research on my part. There may not be a single person responsible anyway; generic transfers are often a process of authors here and there doing it in publications until it becomes widely accepted. -- Yzx (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not the one who added the "J.P.", I can remove it if you want. -- Yzx (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If "Müller" is the official author abbreviation, then yes please. Sasata (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [42].[reply]

Tommy Amaker[edit]

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it meets the requirements. This is part of my attempt to put basketball back on the map at WP:FAC. Recently, my nomination of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Juwan Howard/archive5 was the first WP:NBA article to become an WP:FA in almost 4 years. WP:CBBALL has gone through a similar drought aside from nominally associated articles such as Jackie Robinson and Otto Graham.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. the recent WP:PR reviewer, Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs), suggested that I have someone else take a look at the article. I was able to get Finetooth (talk · contribs) to do a copyedit. Both the PR and the copyedit helped the article a great deal.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – I'm seeing a number of picky issues early in the article, which leaves me concerned about what else is in there

My initial thoughts were on hte sauce was that it was a nice way of engaging the reader and was useful on that basis to add some colour to the article.
Thanks for the support. I hope not to have to cut any more in response to comments above by others.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
...set numerous records and earned many recognitions. - what are "recognitions"? Is this a basketball-specific term?
Changed to honors and awards.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed recruiting violation --> "the NCAA ruled that Amaker had committed a recruiting violation" ?
Fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
what is Sweet Sixteen
I added (regional semifinals).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the tournament he barely played in at least one game and started in at least one. - worded funny - not sure where the emphasis is supposed to be.
This content has been an issue prior discussions (WP:PR and/or WP:GAC). Could you look at the source and make a suggestion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about - "He played in two games in the tournament, the first on-field for a mere two minutes against Puerto Rico, but he played a prominent role in the USA's win over Italy."
I modified it slightly, but I swapped that in essentially.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Overall, this looks fairly solid and I do not intend a full review. However, just glancing at it, I noticed a few glaring prose issues, which I am surprised to see so far into a nomination. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work released as CC, PD).

Sources review (beginning) I've started this, but am having difficulty with some links, particularly with PDFs which keep giving me timeouts. I hope this is a local problem that will soon subside. Anyway, thus far, from the first column:

    • I follow now: "Lawson steals the record" is the title of the fourth item down - no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your choice, but it would be simpler for the reader if you made the allowable correction. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will persevere with the remaining cols. Brianboulton (talk) 19:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

The article is certainly referenced comprehensively, and so far as I can see, with the odd exception referred to above, these are appropriate and reliable. Brianboulton (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Pls check your dup links. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 14 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [43].[reply]

Conte di Cavour-class battleship[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These battleships had a curious history. Virtually inactive during World War I, one ship was sunk by a magazine explosion in harbor (cause unknown) and the other two were given the most extensive reconstructions done on a battleship by any nation between the wars. One was crippled by the British attack at Taranto and under repair for the rest of World War II. The other was lightly damaged by the longest-range hit ever made at the Battle of Calabria and was later transferred to the Soviet Union as war reparations. She was sunk in 1955 by long-buried German mines in Sevastopol harbor. The article has a MilHist A-class review last month and I've tweaked it a little in preparation for this nomination.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates" be "The armor protecting the barbettes was reinforced with 50-millimeter (2.0 in) plates". Otherwise the new Barbette armour is thinner than the old. ϢereSpielChequers 10:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

Question Per this, shouldn't the article be in British English? --John (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow, John. - Dank (push to talk) 14:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's thinking of MOS:RETAIN, but I also think that'd be making a mountain out of a molehill... Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Dank (push to talk)

Support Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]

A few issues, mostly minor, I think. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replies above. Dana boomer (talk) 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above. I have changed to support, as the last remaining issue is not significant enough to withhold featured status. Dana boomer (talk) 11:36, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate cmt -- image review, anyone? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check all OK (PD). Sources provided. Author information provided, where possible.

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [44].[reply]

God of War: Betrayal[edit]

Nominator(s): JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because this is a nice, short article and I believe it meets, or at the very least, is close to meeting the FA criteria. Any issues that there may be can be easily taken care of. JDC808 ♫ 18:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Darkwarriorblake[edit]

Woops, got it. --JDC808 ♫ 08:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the release date, was it only released in North America? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not exactly sure. The sources didn't make it clear. It was for cell phones, so it may have been worldwide. Removed North America. --JDC808 ♫ 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

As to both of these, the reviews on the page, including those two, are the only reviews for the game. Modojo is one of the 3 listed at GameRankings. The Escapist is the only other review I could find. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but being the only reviews that exist doesn't make them high-quality reliable sources. Do these sites have any kind of editorial policy? Are these authors noted as experts in their field? Do clearly reliable sources cite or refer to these sites? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since I could not find anything that could defend them as "high-quality reliable sources", I have removed them. --JDC808 ♫ 18:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Red Phoenix[edit]

**Considering really only one paragraph in the Gameplay section is really about combat, is a subsection really necessary?

I'm sure this isn't all-inclusive, but it should get you started. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 15:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this later this evening. --JDC808 ♫ 15:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sub-section was to keep a consistent article layout across the God of War articles. Went ahead and removed it.
  • Removed "allowing" and reworded so that the backstory mention is in the next sentence.
  • Merged paragraphs. Further comments on this?
  • The way paragraphs are started is inline with my two previous FACs (which both are now FAs). With that being said, I've done some work. --JDC808 ♫ 06:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looking much better. Only thing I have left is that "context sensitive" in the Reception should be hyphenated to "context-sensitive", but I'm sure you'll get that in the blink of an eye. Well done. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 18:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I don't know if that should be hyphenated because each of the game's manuals don't use a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 19:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF, but if it helps to indicate, try doing a search here on Wikipedia for the phrase "context-sensitive". There are several articles that use the hyphenated phrase. I could see either working, so if other Wikipedians disagree with using the hyphenated phrase, I wouldn't mind leaving it as it is. Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... 20:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I searched Wikipedia via Quick time event and found this page: Context-sensitive user interface. Although the article's title and a sub-section have a hyphen, every time "context sensitive" is used (except for one spot inside quotations), it doesn't have a hyphen. --JDC808 ♫ 03:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted at WP:VG to see what others think. --JDC808 ♫ 03:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The hyphen was added. --JDC808 ♫ 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from czar[edit]

Took care of "manoeuvres" and the commas. --JDC808 ♫ 15:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Torchiest[edit]

Maybe it was unclear, but I had worded it like that because the two games prior to this (God of War I and II) were on a home console with full functionality as opposed to the limitations of the mobile platform (at least at that time). I'll try to word it better. The reviews were also essentially comparing it to the console games with respect to the mobile platform. --JDC808 ♫ 04:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --JDC808 ♫ 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded a little bit. --JDC808 ♫ 05:47, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was weird. I've rearchived it and it appears to be correct now (it didn't make it two pages this time). --JDC808 ♫ 04:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 16:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from hahnchen[edit]

Oppose

I don't own the game (other than a PC emulation I've yet to play, I watched the entire game on youtube though). Added SOE-LA as a developer. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any external links? Nothing of worth on archive.org? If I wanted to get the game, can I still do that?
Can't answer last question as all I get when I Google search is "download for free etc." Put IGN link in External Links. Nothing at archive.org. Also, SOE use to have a web page for the game, but not anymore. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop Gamerankings. It covers fewer reviews than the article does.
I disagree. I like having an aggregate score (Metacritic doesn't have one) even with the second part of your comment being true. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Didn't know about these. They never popped up in my searches. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The final paragraph is really clunky. Look at the first sentence, it features the phrase "limitations of a mobile platform" followed later by "the confines of the platform". I like the autosave comment, because the phone interruption is unique to mobile, but again, the delivery is clunky. Try getting rid of the quotes and just paraphrasing it.
Done some work. --JDC808 ♫ 05:23, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hahnchen 00:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't cite Mobygames as a source for the same reasons we don't cite IMDb. A primary source (the game's credits) is enough. I suggest putting Mobygames as an external link instead of IGN or allgame.
  • I don't see Gamerankings as being useful, when the reader can just glance at your list and get an ever better overview. But that's just my personal opinion.
  • I see above that you dropped Modojo. I think that's a mistake. Modojo are part of Gamer Network, the same company that operate Eurogamer. Modojo's editorials have featured on Gamasutra, a professional industry website. They're a reliable source. If there are lots of reviews to choose from, Modojo would not be on the top of my list. But you don't have lots to choose from.
I had struck the oppose, after you got the developer right. But have just unstruck it after reading the Modojo review, you need that in. He makes important points about the gameplay that you haven't covered. - hahnchen 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hahnchen 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I took care of these, let me know. --JDC808 ♫ 03:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose worthy comments addressed, !vote stricken. But there's still some clunky prose to address. For example, 'Modojo's Justin Davis said that although it "isn't too bad", it "isn't great".' doesn't tell the reader anything about the game. - hahnchen 19:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll look at it. --JDC808 ♫ 17:52, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added a little more to clarify his statement. --JDC808 ♫ 18:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Got round to looking at it again. - hahnchen 12:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 17:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment[edit]

Healthy level of expert support and all checks done, which is great, but like to give it a bit longer to see if we can't get a review from outside the gaming arena as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DivaKnockouts[edit]

The rest of these need to be fixed as well. Any work that is not a printed source (ex. Newspaper, printed report, book etc.) does not need to be italicized. There is also some WP:OVERLINK in the references as well. — DivaKnockouts 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never had this issue before. The cite web format automatically italicizes them. What are you referring to in regards to overlink? Reading past discussions on that page (and how I learned) is that WP:OVERLINK is geared more towards prose, and references should be consistent. --JDC808 ♫ 17:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the cite web template italicizes them. Though when citing sources, non-printed sources aren't to be italicized. I guess you right on the references part, though I'm going but what I've seen and experienced. Some editors do it different ways. — DivaKnockouts 17:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'll work on the italics. --JDC808 ♫ 17:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Italics fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 18:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good job:) — DivaKnockouts 18:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 18:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dom497[edit]

Okay...removed. --JDC808 ♫ 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A previous reviewer said that a primary source (the game's credits) would be enough. Added that. --JDC808 ♫ 19:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will support after these two comments are addressed.--Dom497 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Dom497 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 19:34, 14 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [45].[reply]

Kahaani[edit]

Nominator(s): Msrag, Dwaipayan, Pleasant1623, Karthikndr

I am nominating this for featured article because the article, currently a Good Article, underwent a significant peer review, with excellent contribution from Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) and Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). The article is on a Bollywood film, noted for its woman-centric theme,and also for being a surprise hit. Please have a look. Regards.Dwaipayan (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I'm very sorry to have to do this, as I think the subject is worthy and the coverage unimpeachable, but it's just not written in idiomatic English. I'm not going to list a few examples, as all that happens then is that they're fixed, I list a few more, they're fixed as well, and ultimately I end up having to copyedit the whole article. The bottom line is that this article needs to be copyedited by a native English speaker. Malleus Fatuorum 22:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, you have correctly described the knee jerk reaction style copyedits that articles, in particular articles developed primarily by non-native English speakers, undergo during FAC. I apologize for the lack of idiomatic English; yes, we Indians tend to use a form of English prevalent in India (sometimes called Indian English) which is not really well-defined.
Since you have found extensive non-idiomatic English use, we can withdraw this nomination, and work on that aspect. As you have said, a native English speaker (preferably British English user) will need to do a copyedit. The problem is finding someone who would do that. Since you have read parts of the articles I guess, would you be kind enough to at least guide us in the copyediting? Time is not a factor at all. You can take as long as you wish.
Finally, thanks a lot for stating that coverage of this article is sufficient; at least one aspect of A criteria is met :) Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't withdraw it just on my say-so, I could be completely off base. Wait and see what others think. Malleus Fatuorum 17:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: A number of issues require attention:

  • Done. Now url is live.
  • I do not know what to do with this. The interview happened, I saw it, and it was earlier available for public viewing. Shall I remove the URL (and keep the reference)?
  • Added.
  • For now, I have removed the sentence and the ref.
  • Updated url. The reference number now is 43. The url is live.
  • Ref 66 now; not yet addressed.
  • Removed. The sentence is well supported by other references present.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 66 now. Updated url. The new url is live.
  • Now ref 87. Added publisher. This is a film review, done by someone in Yahoo. This source, when mentioned in the text, has been in text attributed to Yahoo India, and the other instance of its use to support the rating the film received in this review. I think, although not high quality, in this particular instances, this source is reliable, especially since this has in-text attribution.
  • Well. if other reviewers are satisfied I will accept this. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 95 now. Fixed.
  • Ref 96 now. Fixed.
  • Removed this reference. The fact (earning in first week) is supported by the other ref (Box Office India).
  • Now ref 106. Replaced with a new reference from Bollywood Hungama.
  • Now ref 116. Not addressed yet.
  • Removed. The sentence is supported by the other ref present.
  • Now ref 120. Fixed title.
  • Ref 118 now. Title already fixed.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez, that's so embarrassing ! I mean. I should have checked these thoroughly. I apologize for these mistakes. I will rectify these within next 24 hours ( slightly busy right now, so please give me some time). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have adressed the source issues. In one instance (Yahoo film review) I managed to have the courage to differ from your point. Please have a look. Thanks a lot.--Dwaipayan (talk) 14:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Responses generally OK, no further issues. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "who co-wrote the film with Advaita Kala. " But I see no mention of Kala in the infobox credits...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Stalker comment) Hey, Blofeld, the infobox credits Advaita Kala under the "Story by" column. --smarojit (buzz me) 13:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see. When I came to edit it I was put off by the referencing on multiple lines, I understand the response will be mixed on that but I think it looks untidy and unnecessarily makes the article long in the editing space. Is there are guidelines which consider line formatting?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 13:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple line format o references was done by some other user (I forgot who). He converted all of the references to multiple lines. I did not have any problem with that though. Also, I am not sure if there is any guidelines in favor of or against multiple line reference formatting.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Sorry, I was away from Kolkata for a while so I could not participate in the FAC. Talking about the article, I agree with Smarojit that the article is very well written, comprehensive and very interesting to read. I support the FAC.----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 07:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images - all OK. Fixed a fair-use template and one license. Please make sure, all FUR-parameters are filled with detailed info and images have valid US-copyright (in addition to their source country). GermanJoe (talk) 08:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GermanJoe for your kind help. I think, thanks to your edits, the fair use image (poster) now has the detailed info, and the image of painting has US license alongside other licenses. Hope this is ok.--Dwaipayan (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator note Hi! I would be travelling for about two weeks, with very limited access to internet; so, responses may get delayed. Meanwhile, some other editors interested in this FAC might keep an eye. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, I'll follow this. --Tito ↂ Dutta 01:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • FN64 done. Trying to find alternative of FN 32. --Tito☸Dutta 12:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN32 supported by adding FN33. BollyJeff | talk 14:03, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to know it worked.--Tito☸Dutta 15:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Ian Rose!----Plea$ant 1623 ✉ 15:05, 14 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [46].[reply]

Tern[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from some low-level cannibalism and some aphrodisiac eggs, I'm afraid that there is little to offer in the way of sex or violence. This is, however, a major article on a large bird family. I've tried to make it comprehensive without getting too bogged down in the details of the forty-odd species. This is this a WikiProject Bird collaboration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the Bird Project[reply]

Sources review: Nitpicks

Otherwise, the article looks impeccably sourced. All the links work, citations properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for thorough check, Brian. I don't normally link abstracts, and I've now removed the url from 32 which I added in error. I've reformatted and clarified Linnaeus publisher and given translation for Stockholm location. Beckenham now Beckenham, London Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's normal practice not to have references in the lead, especially at FAC. Is there something I've said that isn't sourced later? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I won't quibble about "Their flight is buoyant and graceful", so no. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text says that the term was was in use in the eighth century, and the date given in my source for the poem is broadly consistent with those you suggest. It's obviously possible that it was earlier, do you have a ref for that? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You don't I think have one for the current text, except to a bird book. Generally criticism of AS poetry is evasive about dates, and certainly avoids statements like that - as with say Beowulf and other works, some think the text of the Seafarer we have developed in stages with more than one author, and I think generally the possibility that the language of the poems was updated is accepted. Gordon's edition is still I think standard; I see her note 23, continued on p. 35, isn't sure the bird meant was a "tern" rather than a small gull, and notes that forms of the word were used to gloss the Latin for "starling" also - here and back a bit. This older book [47] thinks it, or the main part of it (pp 28&32) may be as old as Beowulf, which might be 6th or 7th century. Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Jackson J. Campbell, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 87-96, JSTOR, esp. p.90, addresses the question without giving any date, also Another Look at Oral Poetry in the Seafarer, Wayne A. O'Neil, Speculum , Vol. 35, No. 4 (Oct., 1960), pp. 596-600, [48], esp. p597 'the 19th and earlier 20th century view that the Seafarer was an earlier pagan poem [so C7th at least] lengthened and recast in later AS days for Christian didactic purposes'. Later C20th criticism tends to find Biblical & Latin parallels throughout & see it as wholly a production of the Xtian period (without attempting any more precise date), adopting a traditional pre-Xtian style. You should either drop any attempt to date it, or say something like: "... appears in the poem The Seafarer, written in the 9th century or earlier...." Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the yellow or brown colour depends on the species. I've expanded to explain the "scaly" bit — Juvenile terns typically have brown- or yellow-tinged upperparts, and the feathers have dark edges which give the plumage a scaly appearance. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Sooty is the only tern that is stated not to be waterproof, which is particularly relevant since it's entirely ooceanic. Expanded slightly to They lack waterproof plumage, so they cannot rest on the sea. Where they spend the years prior to breeding is unknown. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given many marine species are said to live by diving, presumably taking them underwater, it is a bit puzzling there are only two references to one species that doesn't have waterproof plumage. If the others do, this should be made clear. Johnbod (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is tricky. Not all diving birds are waterproof. Even the cormorants, which swim underwater, need to dry out at intervals. Searches for "waterproof plumage" and "tern" either go to Sooty Tern or give contradictory results. I suppose the point is that since terns don't swim and are only briefly immersed when diving, it doesn't matter whether they are waterproof or not (I have a book, The Common Tern, which doesn't mention waterproofing or its absence in 100+ pages, and none of the three tern species FAs mention waterproofing). The problem with Sooty is that if it's not on land and it's not waterproof, where is it? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 08:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Although there is a huge amount of literature on individual species, particularly those that are common in Europe and the US, in writing a family-level article is necessary to give a overall picture. The lengthy de Hoyo introduction to the section on Sternidae does this very well, and I couldn't find anything else as comprehensive. All of the material from de Hoyo could be referenced to primary sources, but we are actively encouraged to use good secondary sources where possible. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:29, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough, but it would be good to add clearer info if it turns up. Johnbod (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your review and comments, let me know if anything still needs fixing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look.

  • the source refers specifically to noddies, so I've amended slightly to make that clearer. Of the sea terns, only Inca is all-dark, and that isn't mentioned Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tweaked to make it clear that it is the head cap that is the main indicator and that the partially capped Sternula and Onychoprion are the next most ancient. The cladogram in the ref illustrates this Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • the response above adds a little to this, but there isn't much beyond the genetic data to justify splitting the sea terns, which until recently were mostly in one genus, as the text says. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is not uncommon with bird articles. The thinking appears to be that there should be a scientific category, and a common name version that is more accessible. As you imply, this is probably a matter for another forum Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few edits. Generally looks great. J Milburn (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for review, edits and comments Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for support, I'll have another look at the cladogram, I've thought of a simpler approach Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thinocori needs some sort of explaining or linking - unusual word leaving the reader with no idea what it means.
The atypical Inca Tern has mainly dark plumage - if the "atypical" just refers to plumage, it is unneeded.
can we link Norfolk dialect? or even just the region if all else fails...means something different down this way....

Thanks for review, comments and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (own work, USGov). Sources and authors provided (1 comment).

Thanks Joe, I hadn't spotted the source deficiency, but I've now added the url for the USFWS image to the Commons page. Obviously PD as a US federal agency Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:05, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Would you mind dropping me a brief note on my talk, how did you find this image? (I tried, but failed) Thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article cites the chapter on terns in Volume 3 of the Handbook of Birds of the World. The article should credit the authors of the chapter which are M. Gochfeld & J. Burger and should give the chapter title. Also the isbn is that of Volume 4 rather than Volume 3 and there is a typo in the first name of the second editor. The reference should be similar to:

Thanks for comment, reformatted as suggested with minor changes for consistency with style of other refs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:20, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I use the cite template as in my example but it's your choice. Even dedicated ornithologists must hesitate at the price of the volumes. Aa77zz (talk) 17:49, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again, I only accessed the family intro thanks to the help of another Bird Project member, which is why it was deficient in citation details. I can't afford the books, unfortunately. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Promoting but pls take a look and consider whether such common animals as cat, rat, etc, really need linking... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [49].[reply]

Red Rail[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting extinct Mauritian bird, which has been overshadowed by the Dodo. The article contains most of what will ever be known about the bird, and all definite contemporary illustrations. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, final Comments from Jim Just a few comments for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:45, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thomas Herbert, Rodriguez Rail are overlinked
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taylor and van Perlo call this "Mauritian Red Rail" (pp. 59—60) and have Red Rail as a synonym for Ruddy Crake (p. 214) Taylor, Barry (2000). Rails. Robertsbridge: Pica. ISBN 1873403593. ((cite book)): Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Perhaps some mention needed?
Haven't come across this anywhere else. Not sure how it could be cited, without it being some kind of original synthesis? Birdlife doesn't mention it as a common name.[50] I'll make Mauritian Red Rail a redirect anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same book (pp. 59—60) also has the Rodriguez Rail in Aphanapteryx
That is outdated (or a minority view at best) by now, most recent sources keep them separate. There is some discussion of this in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • brought by them— seems redundant, that's implied by "introduced"
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with responses above. I'll have another read tomorrow to check of there is anything else I've missed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've had another read through, and I noticed free of predators in the lead. That should be mammalian predators, there are several birds of prey in the Mascarenes. I've changed to support above on the assumption that you'll fix this minor point Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed both occurrences, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Brianboulton (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good catch, fixed. Someone had added a link to the English translation, so I just changed the info accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few thoughts-

What if I remove "during hunting"? It seems redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's the "exploited by... by..." which is problematic. I mused about "exploited by humans during hunting, through the use of red cloth to lure them" but the hanging "them" is also not great. You could try something like "Human hunters took advantage of an attraction Red Rails had to red objects by using coloured cloth to lure birds the birds so that they may be beaten with sticks." J Milburn (talk) 16:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Heh, thinking about it, it sounded a bit kiddy-fiddlerish before... FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The origin of the word is clear, but the meaning is not, as described later. Changed etymology to meaning. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Red Rail, fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Generally strong, but then I've already had my say on this article. J Milburn (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense that these issues are mostly in text that was added since then! So thanks for the second look. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; well-written and sourced, and a very interesting topic. J Milburn (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Overall, quite well-written and sourced. I'm not crazy about the comparison in size to a chicken, as chickens come in many different sizes... If this is what the sources use, though, I don't think there's much we can do about it. Dana boomer (talk) 17:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, on the chicken issue, due to the lack of precise measurements, the newer sources just repeat the old comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK (PD-age). Sources and authors provided.

There are others on Commons[51], and I personally have no preference. The current map was used in other FAs, as well. FunkMonk (talk) 09:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at File:DodoRangeMauritius.gif even that zoom level doesn't add much detail. If nobody feels strongly about it (i don't), it's probably best to keep the current one as "standard". GermanJoe (talk) 10:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
... which resulted in a large amount of invalid junior synonyms. --> " which resulted in a large number of invalid junior synonyms." or " which resulted in many invalid junior synonyms." - as is makes it sound like a measurement...
Replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A complete specimen was found by the barber Louis Etienne Thirioux, who also found important Dodo remains - can any information be added which gives this sentence some context of date? As is could be any time till present....
Changed to "around the turn of the 20th century", as the source states, but is it just me or would that imply from 20th to 21th, instead of 19th to 20th? The latter is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agree Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be improper to change it to "around the turn of the 19th century", though the source states otherwise? I know it is a mistake. FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about "around the end of the 19th century" - less ambiguity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looking good. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 10 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:06, 15 June 2013 (UTC) [52].[reply]

SheiKra[edit]

Nominator(s): Dom497 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe that it meets all the FA criteria. This is the second nomination for the article as the first did not receive enough consensus to pass. All errors pointed out in the first review have all been addressed and is ready for a second review. Dom497 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Dom497 (talk) 13:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I have followed this article since its unsuccessful DYK nomination and have (disclaimers) done my fair share of copyediting. However, most of the problems I've encountered have been minor and have since been fixed fixed. FallingGravity (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Support - the article is not that far from FA, but it has some structural problems (and a few minor prose quibbles), that should be adressed first. Happy to change my vote after some more improvements (all points Done):

No news article or publisher has ever mentioned that. As we are talking about the amusement industry, it is easy to say that they probably did this to attract more guests but that would be OR.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem then. GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merged.--Dom497 (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The only other public response I could find are from was from the SheiKra web page...that's about it.--Dom497 (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Added some info.--Dom497 (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 01:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most pressing issues are the article structure, some chronological flaws and the handling of rumors and reception. Aside from those points the article appears comprehensive and well-sourced for the topic. GermanJoe (talk) 08:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - all points have been addressed above, changed to support. I made some minor tweaks and mentioned the 2 new features as notable "firsts" in the lead. GermanJoe (talk) 11:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.--Dom497 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a shot. Good?--Dom497 (talk) 12:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other ref is for Jonnyupsidedown which I don't even know why I included it. Derkeiler and Jonnyupsidedown are the only refd out there that state that the trains were revealed during this event.--Dom497 (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The sites being the only ones that mention a fact doesn't automatically mean that they are reliable. Again, is there evidence that they are? If not, that's a reason not to include that fact in the article. If it can't be cited to a reliable source, I don't think FAC reviewers would penalize the subtraction, if that's your concern. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've added three other refs to reduce the weight that the YouTube ref holds (ref 1 takes a lot of weight off, if not, most). This is POV of the ride. It can't be fake/modified. I don't think it should be removed because it provides the most detailed info about the layout. Also, I don't think it is OR by translating a video into words because the video clearly supports if the train is making a left or right (just as an example). Finally, YouTubes POV's are used in virtually ever roller coaster article that has a layout section.--Dom497 (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your ref additions are good, but I'm still unsure about citing YouTube. Being in other articles doesn't make YouTube more reliable; if anything, it may reveal a weakness in other articles. I won't oppose since I don't want to be the one standing in the way of this article's promotion, but I can't say I'm comfortable supporting at this point either. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- In case I missed it, have any of the reviewers done an image check, or spotchecked sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, a partial image check was done in the first review (I don't know if that counts toward this review).--Dom497 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - mostly all OK (own work, Flickr), just 2 points:

Thanks, i tweaked the FUR a bit more (avoid "n.a." as FUR-parameter, all WP:NFCC criteria must be met). GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem then. Status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 19:36, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of sources

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 14 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [54].[reply]

Henry I of England[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I believe it covers the current literature on Henry I of England fully. Henry I was a major player in Europe and a pivotal King of England, and this is a relatively popular article on the wiki. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:28, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review:

  • The only David I can see in ref 323 is "David, Carpenter (7 July 2006). "Off the rocks". Times Literary Supplement. Retrieved 22 February 2013." If that's the one, there's a year, but no page reference as the on-line version doesn't use them. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, all sources and citations look OK. No spotchecks carried out. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on a couple of issues:

  • I sympathize. The Normans were not an imaginative bunch when it came to names... :) Were there any points where particular confusion crept in? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general the article looks a pretty thorough piece of work, though I probably won't have time to read it in detail for a while. I hope it gets some attenton and support here. Brianboulton (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

I know what you mean about France and FoP, but I'm struggling to find the correct tag to use - is there any chance you point me in the direction of an image that already has one? Hchc2009 (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the age of both works, life+100 should be fine. Compare File:Theoderic_Quarter_Siliqua_80000847.jpg (minus the OTRS tag) or File:Christ_Magdeburg_Cathedral_Met_41.100.157.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki. Added. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support (see remarks at the end of my list of quibbles)Comment – This is clearly a top-notch article, and I look forward to adding my support. Meanwhile, a few quibbles, queries and comments, all minor. I'll need at least two goes for this; first go herewith:

    • "embroiled in the investiture controversy" – in the Lead section this is perhaps too specific: the reader new to the subject will wonder what an investiture controversy is. Possibly "embroiled in a serious dispute" or some such?
    • "their marriage proved childless" – "proved"? Odd word – perhaps "was"?
  • Count of the Cotentin, 1088–90
    • "he met with the King but was unable to convince him to grant him" – two distinctly American usages here: in British English one meets with abstract things like disaster, applause etc, but just meets people; and one convinces that (as in your next sentence) or persuades to.
    • "convinced Robert to release him" – as above
  • I'd never realised on the BritEng/US variation! Changed throughout. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "In late 1090 William Rufus convinced Conan Pilatus" – ditto
  • Fall and rise, 1091–99
    • "his power-base" – the OED does not admit the hyphen

More soonest. – Tim riley (talk) 16:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding lot of comments:

    • "initiated either by Henry and Robert, or by the barons" – that seems to cover practically everybody who was there, and so reads a bit oddly.
  • Agree (it excluded the Church, I suppose, but not much more!) Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • "would inherit their lands" – would inherit his lands
    • "the barons supporting either side who had seen their lands seized by the King or Duke" – I had to read this twice to extract the meaning. Would it be clearer to say "the barons whose lands had been seized by either the King or the Duke for supporting his rival…"?
  • Conquest of Normandy, 1103–06
    • "Henry invaded again in July 1106, hoping to provoke a decisive battle. After some initial tactical successes, Henry turned south-west towards the castle of Tinchebray. Henry besieged" – the prose would flow better, I think, if you replaced the second and third "Henry"s with "he".
  • Government, law and court
    • "Henry was a harsh, firm ruler… loyal and dependent on Henry" – Another batch of Henrys where a few pronouns might be preferable
  • Church and the King
    • "desire that the case not end up in a papal court" – in UK usage it would be normal to write "that the case should not end up…" here
  • Rebellion, 1115–20
    • "Henry was hit by a sword blow in the melee" – Reading this sentence I was expecting it to end with the name of a body part, and the melee came as rather a surprise. Perhaps turn it about and say, "In the melee Henry was hit by a sword blow"
  • A blow to the melee can be quite painful! Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Planning the succession, 1124–34
    • "generating prurient speculation" – tease! I think you should either say what the speculation was or else not mention it at all.
  • I've added a footnote; the original chroniclers weren't very clear either, but it clearly didn't amuse Henry... Hchc2009 (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing of any great consequence there, and I'm happy to add my support without more ado. This is a well-written article, admirably proportioned, without any sign of bias, thoroughly referenced from a good variety of sources. Meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Not responded to one of these before, so apologies if this is the wrong place. In the Welsh Politics section, you have misspelled Gruffudd ap Cynan's name twice as "Gruffud". Presumably this is the spelling in Green; I can't access it. Wikipedia also has articles on Owain ap Cadwgan and Gilbert Fitz Richard; I'll leave it to you to decide whether these three deserve bluelinks. I don't feel qualified to judge this on the FA criteria, but it seems very thorough and well-written. Thanks! Gareth (talk) 17:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Recusing myself from delegate duties for this one, I reviewed/copyedited/supported at MilHist A-Class and, having checked alterations made since then, am satisfied it meets the FAC criteria as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda left for Anjou, but Henry argued that the dowry had in fact originally belonged to him before it came into the possession of Fulk, and so declined to hand the estates back to Anjou - could change the last few words to "return the estates" - to eliminate two "Anjou" s in the sentence.
Much of the earlier text has a speculative tone, but I am guessing that is because of the nature and uncertainties of the sources (at least I hope it is!). I think the Historiography is an integral part of the story and am glad to see its inclusion.

Overall, I think we're over the line in prose and comprehensiveness (as far as I can tell as I am not an expert) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I used to live just up the road from the "real" Woodstock in question, so I'm afraid it was natural to link to it just by name! :) I know I can be sparse on linking - are there any particular medieval topics you feel should be linked in addition? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'll have to look yourself, but there are plentry there: Melee, consanguinity, suzerainity,... There will be plenty more. Please don't come back and say you've fixed those ones. I've corrected one mispelling of Callixtus, but there is another. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to identify the other ones that are concerning you John. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:46, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried to be consistent in linking at the sentence level, as I've suffered hugely in the past trying to work out when articles referenced by paragraph are genuinely so (as opposed to only part of a paragraph, etc.) and which parts of the paragraph link to which page, particularly with denser literary works. But I know there are several perspectives on this issue, and I'm probably on one side of the argument. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll see how we can get Frost's name into the template. Of the two modern biographies of Henry, I found Hollister the easiest for tracking the narrative facts of Henry's life, although, like several reviewers of the book, it was clearly a shame that Hollister never had the chance to expand further on some of the interpretation. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. She is listed as an editor, so I've added her on in that category in the template. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 31 May 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [56].[reply]

James Moore (Continental Army officer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article, on a military figure who was perhaps one one of the lesser-known "what if's" of the American Revolutionary War, but about whom little is written in modern scholarship, has been painstakingly re-written with all of the sources I could possibly find on the subject. Where I couldn't get ready online access to sources, I bought them, including some book sources that qualify as antiques. This article is concise, but comprehensive, and is one of the key parts of my plans to make a Featured Topic out of North Carolina's Continental Army Generals. This is just my second foray into FAC, but I am happy to make any changes the community finds necessary. I appreciate your assistance in this review. Cdtew (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Responses:
  • Flags: Done. I decided to try and be consistent with other AmRevWar pages (Benjamin Lincoln and George Washington, for instance) and put just KoGB and USA.
  • Life time: Done.
  • Source for troop movements: Pending Done. That was a creation of User:Magicpiano, and I'm inquiring with him for a quick answer. If, however, I don't get a response, I can cite to a source that confirms those general movements (obviously the arrows don't adhere strictly to the movements, but are directional in nature).
  • Clinton: Done. This poses an interesting question, though – the image that I found at [57] has a claim that it's protected by "National Army Museum Copyright". I'm presuming this is some derivative of Crown copyright? Or is there something I should be concerned about in terms of it not being validly PD? I would really like to upload the version of the picture they have on their website, but I don't know if that would make matters worse. If it's going to be a problem, there are many other images of Clinton I could use.
Follow-up: I've gone ahead and decided to forego the headache, and have replaced it with a much more impeccably sourced and attributed picture. Cdtew (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Nikki - let me know if there are any other issues, and I will try to get back to you on Magicpiano's map. Cdtew (talk) 00:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In re File:NCMooresCreek1.png, I'm not sure I understand the problem. I imagine the short answer is that this map is based on the sources used in Battle of Moore's Creek Bridge that describe the various movements, and the drawings were done using Inkscape. If this doesn't address the issue, you'll have to elaborate on what exactly the concern is. Magic♪piano 00:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Nikki was getting at is that we'd likely need a source citation for the information used to create the maps. It shouldn't be hard for me to pull one from the article itself, but I didn't know if you used one in particular when creating the map. Sorry, didn't mean to be so vague. Cdtew (talk) 00:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not your vagary; I'd just like to understand what Nikki's asking for so that a proper response can be made. Magic♪piano 20:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cdtew's got it: the drawings are fine, I'm just wondering how you knew which lines went where. Was it based on what was written in the article? (In which case, depending on how the article developed, you might need to specify which version). Did you look at source material directly? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the lines don't follow the movements with precision, they are more generalized point-to-point indicators based on my reading of the sources (if the sources say that one force went from Cross Creek toward Moore's Creek, draw an arrow that way; repeat as needed for other movements). I did substantial work on the battle article, and had access to all of the relevant sources. If you would like the file description to include those sources, that should be easy enough to do. Magic♪piano 23:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Magic♪piano 12:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:01, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Recusing from my delegate duties for this one; I reviewed/supported at MilHist ACR and having checked changes made since then I'm happy to support for FA. I don't pretend to be an expert on this area but coverage seems adequate and unbiased, and structure, prose, referencing and supporting materials satisfactory. Rechecked here for dab/duplinks and found none. Only minor quibble, in the lead: "In addition to his military involvement, he was active in the independence movement, despite having been a supporter of the colonial government during his early career. Moore was active in local Sons of Liberty organizations... -- can we avoid repeating "was active", e.g. replace one with "played a prominent role" or some such? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Many thanks for the comments and support! Cdtew (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Comments[reply]

  • Done.
  • Done.
  • Done - at the risk of overlinking, I've linked both in body and in lead.
  • Not done - I've looked in both Moore's biographies and Ashe's biographies, and I can't see where any strain in familial relations is mentioned. I do know, however, that Ashe received a Major General's commission in the state militia, and was made state treasurer, both of which were more prestigious and influential positions at the time.
  • Clarified - currently living in North Carolina.
  • Done
  • Done per your suggestion.
  • Done

Overall, looks quite good. The above are fairly minor; I look forward to supporting once they are addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your valuable input. I believe I've addressed everything that I can at this moment -- please let me know if the one unresolved item needs more input, or if it's satisfactory. Thanks again! Cdtew (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good, so I have added my support above. I was mainly curious about the potential family strife, not a big worry. Very nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 20:25, 1 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC) [58].[reply]

McDonnell Douglas A-4G Skyhawk[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article describes the service history of a variant of the famous Douglas A-4 Skyhawk fighter jet operated by the Royal Australian Navy and Royal New Zealand Air Force between 1967 and 1991. Twenty of these aircraft were built for the RAN, which operated them from its only aircraft carrier. Half of the A-4Gs were destroyed in accidents (killing two pilots) before the type was retired by Australia in 1984. The survivors were sold to the RNZAF, which subsequently upgraded and redesignated them as part of a program which was completed in 1991. Two of the former Australian aircraft were lost in crashes in 2001 (killing a pilot), shortly before the disbandment of the RNZAF's fighter force.

This article was assessed as a GA in April, and passed a military History Wikiproject A-class review yesterday. As I've exhausted the literature on this aircraft type and have further copy edited the prose, I think that it should also meet the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

Support. I ran through the article looking for prose problems, and didn't find many. My brief review can be found on the talk page. Fine work! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments, not a complete review. I'm writing copyediting software, so if my suggested changes doen't seem like improvements, I'd really appreciate feedback from writers and reviewers: - Dank (push to talk)

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [60].[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name[edit]

Nominator(s): Neelix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because the last FAC for this article failed solely due to lack of discussion and the article has since been promoted to good status. Neelix (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the image of the RCMP officers with a picture with a clearer statement of permission, added the publisher to FN61, switched "Professional ratings" to "Critical ratings", clarified the statement about the stars, reworded the statement about the play being "declared to stand out" for flow, reduced the amount of repetitiveness throughout the article, removed the "the" before "Aeolian Hall", added more information about Brian McConaghy, and added more information about the special effects. I am attempting to locate the missing page numbers through my local library. I have contacted the Calgary Fringe Festival and they have informed me that attendance in 2012 was at 9022. They also informed me that they have not published this statistic on their website or anywhere else, but would place the information on their website soon. Neelix (talk) 22:39, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with all of the footnotes you mentioned; they all now either have page numbers or urls. Neelix (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The performances in Calgary and Red Deer sold out.[7] Because the early 2011 performances were sold out—repeats "sold out"
  • Carl Kennedy portrayed Jason, Evelyn Chew portrayed Number 18, Glenda Warkentin portrayed Marta, Alysa van Haastert portrayed Ali, and Sienna Howell-Holden portrayed Mama. —too many "portrays"
  • one-man Passion play —"play" should be capped too
  • London—I know it's linked on the first use, but still seems a bit Easter Eggy, I'd prefer "London, Ontario" on the first occasion to avoid confusion with the Great Wen.
  • Fu—ing Stephen Harper—is this the actual title or a bowdlerised version thereof? Seems coy even for Canada (I've stayed on Davie in Vancouver!)
  • The Gazette declared Kooman's play only second-best—to...?
  • In the references, the title of the play needs italicising.
  • Some of the references aren't really RS, such as campus newsletters and the Joy Smith site, but looking at what they are sourcing, I think they will do (no action required).
I have reduced the number of instances of "portrayed" to one, capitalized "Passion Play", added the provinces to the cities on the tour, spelled out the full name of Fucking Stephen Harper, named the play to which She Has a Name was declared second-best by The Gazette, and italicized the title of the play in the references. Neelix (talk) 14:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've gone a little over the top giving explicit provinces for all the towns, I doubt that there are other Saskatoons or Ottawas, but that's your call. No other queries, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes way over the top with the province names, only London, Ontario needs one. Mattximus (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed all of the other province names. Neelix (talk) 04:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks I recommended a source check in one of the earlier reviews, but didn't do so myself as I'd already commented and was leaning support, so I was concerned about possible neutrality given I didn't have a fresh set of eyes. However, as no-one else has done so, here goes. I've selected statements and references more or less at random.

I have removed the word "unnamed" and have reworded the statements about the panelists to clarify that they were scheduled rather than that they attended. I have added "Subscription reqiured" tags to all of the references that employ Factiva links. I don't mind disclosing the fact that I am affiliated with the university mentioned. I have called the Calgary Fringe Festival again and they again agreed to place the attendance statistic on their website; hopefully, it will actually go up this time. They have told me that there were 9022 people in attendance in 2012, but there are currently no published sources for that statistic. I would agree that a significant portion of the audiences and support for the tour came from church groups interested in social justice; at least two fundraisers for the tour were held at churches, one of the performances took place at a church, and two of the panels took place at churches. I haven't found any sources that say anything more than that, however. Is there any way that you feel this point should be fleshed out in the article more? Neelix (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can only go as far as the sources say (and of course, I could be totally wrong in my assessment!). The coverage is OK given the available sources, but overall I think that this article's sources are a bit on the lightweight side for a FA, to be frank. A single academic article or an in-depth story by a serious journalist would be more useful in covering this topic than all the current sources combined. I'm certainly not opposing this article's promotion, and would be pleased to see it on the main page given that it's an impressive piece of work and you've made great use of what's available (and I know how hard it is to build an FA when there aren't any comprehensive sources to draw on) but I don't think that I can support it either. So I'm going to sit on the fence. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Although this nom has a healthy level of support, it's still barely two weeks old and I'd like to leave it open a little longer to give any other potential reviewers a chance to comment, especially in light of Nick's points above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose has requested an additional source review spot check here. The users who have already reviewed this article in other ways are Cirt, Nikkimaria, and Jimfbleak. Would either of you be willing to perform the second source review spot check? Neelix (talk) 13:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think this has been open long enough and consensus is still clearly with promotion, so we'll call 'time'. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 8 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:01, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [61].[reply]

Interstate 96[edit]

Nominator(s): Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I think it merits review and promotion. I-96 is an intrastate Interstate Highway; it only exists in Michigan. It parallels Grand River Avenue across most of the Lower Peninsula of the state, following in the proverbial footsteps of an Indian path and an early wagon trail used in the early settlement of Michigan. Imzadi 1979 → 18:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I don't usually comment on road articles, but I notice this review seems to have stalled some while ago, so I'd like to get it moving again. Here are a few mainly prose comments, on the lead and first main section:

It seems likely on the basis of the above that the rest of the prose could do with a bit of polishing, too. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prose fixes applied for the bullet points above except where noted. Imzadi 1979 → 07:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some copyediting on the RD, hope to finish today. --Rschen7754 10:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Few days late but copyedit is finished: [62] (with a few intervening edits). I didn't find much in the history part; usually it's the route description that has the most grammar / repeated word use issues. --Rschen7754 06:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- check dup links per this; may be grounds to keep one or two that span the length of the article but otherwise pls remove. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The links highlighted by the script appear in the lead and then again in the History, with the entire Route description section in between. The others duplicate between entries in the Exit list (which explicitly links to each intersecting roadway and destination city for consistency) and other links in the body (RD and Related trunklines) That meets the guidelines behind WP:REPEATLINK, so there's nothing to be removed. Imzadi 1979 → 02:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you look again, and remember that the checker only highlights the duplicates, not the first instance of the link... Just to take one example, you have Howell linked once under Route description and then twice under History -- this isn't necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I looked again and applied some tweaks. It would be better, I think then, if that tool actually highlighted each occurrence instead of the subsequent ones. Imzadi 1979 → 07:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better, tks. I grant you it might be better if the script highlighted the first instance of a duplicate as well but personally I'm just grateful we have any sort of checker. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review

Otherwise sources look good. Brianboulton (talk) 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A thorough Image check has already been done during ACR. No images changed afterwards. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [63].[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon[edit]

Nominator(s): — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything Tastes Better with Bacon was successfully promoted to WP:GA quality by Hadger, followed by a peer review with helpful comments from Casliber and Herostratus, a prior Featured Article candidate discussion, subsequently had a copy-edit through the Guild of Copy Editors by Lfstevens, and a once-over by FA Writer Tim riley.

Unfortunately, much time during the prior FAC was devoted to responding to comments which later turned out to be sockpuppeting.

I asked FA contributor Tim riley to look it over and he informed me it's ready for consideration a 2nd time at FAC.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration, — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Food and drink, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oregon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Literature, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Breakfast, User talk:Cirt, User talk:Tim riley, User talk:Hadger, User talk:Casliber, User talk:Lfstevens, User talk:Herostratus, User talk:Another Believer, User talk:Wizardman, User talk:Tbhotch, User talk:Victoriaearle, User talk:Jeff Bedford, User talk:Eric Corbett, User talk:GrahamColm, User talk:Tony1, User talk:Sadads, User talk:Nikkimaria, User talk:JoshuaZ, User talk:SandyGeorgia, User talk:Hunter Kahn. — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Note: Please note that I originally became involved with quality improvement contributions to the general topic of bacon, as part of the "Bacon WikiCup" of years past, since defunct, and subsumed by WP:BACON. You can see links related to the history of the "Bacon WikiCup", listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bacon#Bacon_Challenge_and_WikiCup. — Cirt (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 99of9[edit]

"classed it among more intriguing books in the topic". I don't get this. What is "the topic"? Bacon-only recipe books? Surely it's among the only books *on* the topic. --99of9 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for this helpful recommendation, — Cirt (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. So what's "the topic" to which this sentence refers? --99of9 (talk) 19:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is the genre of cooking with bacon. And actually, there are several books on the topic. — Cirt (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think this makes sense if there were no other books at the time in the genre of "cooking with bacon". I've looked up the quote from the GA passed version: "the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks". Are you sure she's not talking about a more general genre? --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you are right, it is a quote about all cookbooks in the entire cooking genre: "Then there's Puff (Chronicle Books, $19.95) by Portland Oregonian food editor Martha Holmberg. The puff in the title refers to puff pastry, and Holmberg has developed 50 recipes using the versatile French dough. She shows you how to make it from scratch, but nearly every recipe can be prepared with the frozen variety. Puff is a delicious offering from the publisher who produces the genre's most interesting and unique cookbooks, among them the 2002 book Everything Tastes Better with Bacon by Sara Perry." Thank you, I double-checked the source and that is the full quotation. — Cirt (talk) 16:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Added month to the info for this sentence. As far as total sales, as you can see my research took me through quite a multitude of secondary sources, and I could find none that reported total sales. — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Where was it sold? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added locations to publisher info in lede. — Cirt (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*What was the retail price? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added retail price to publication info in Background sect. — Cirt (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"She discovered that bacon increased the sweet and salt tastes of food". Shouldn't that be "salty"? And what's with the sweet - I thought bacon was a classic example of umami (Yamaguichi, S., Ninomiya, K. 1998. What is Umami? Food Rev. Int., 14(2&3): 123-138, cited by [64]). I don't have access to your (Smith 2002) source, but the word "discovered" seems a bit strange in this context - is that a direct quote, or a paraphrase? --99of9 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Changed "salt" to "salty". Changed "discovered" to "observed". You can see more quotations which might be illuminating to you in the GA passed version of the article. — Cirt (talk) 22:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was not the first ever book about cooking with bacon, if you are interested in others, please see Category:Books about bacon, and of course searches at Amazon.com or Google Books are helpful. :) — Cirt (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name one that was earlier and about cooking bacon? The only one in the wiki category that might qualify seems to be Bacon and Hams, but that seems to be more about cutting up pigs. --99of9 (talk) 22:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, actually, I'm not one-hundred-percent certain on this one. This search shows some other books that discuss the subject but not as its main topic. In any event, I haven't yet come across any secondary sources that say this was the first book on this topic. Unfortunately, we can't really make that assertion in the article main body text itself, without a WP:RS source that says so. — Cirt (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not advocating WP:OR. What I'm driving at is whether the RS's support a broad enough coverage of the topic to be FA. If RS's do not answer obvious questions like total sales or precedents in the genre, then perhaps we (you) just haven't been given enough to work with. --99of9 (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited over forty (40) total references in the article, and in the course of my research come across more than that. I think the topic has indeed received enough secondary source coverage to be FA. I would welcome any other specific suggestions on how to improve the quality of the article. — Cirt (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
40 is well below average for an FA. But it's not really about counting, it's about covering the breadth of all the important aspects of a topic. --99of9 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Yes I know this. I believe I have done so for this topic. — Cirt (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*If the original review said "interesting and unique", I think a direct quote of those words might be better than paraphrasing with "intriguing", because the meanings are a little different. --99of9 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Added quotation from cited source, per this FAC comment by 99of9 (talk · contribs), above. I don't like having any quotes in this article after comments at the last FAC, but hopefully a few sparingly is alright in direct response to subsequent FAC commenters! :) Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*The link in ref [18] isn't working. --99of9 (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Fixed ref link. This was due to a request from another commenter, at this FAC, below, to italicize that link. But that inadvertently broke the link. Now fixed. — Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've received comments at FAC in the past for not having them in one place or the other. The only way to please everyone is to make sure they are in both places. — Cirt (talk) 20:49, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd guess they would object if they weren't in the notes, but since more than one note (with different page numbers) can point to the same book reference, my understanding is that it's usual to leave them off the reference book list. --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but as I think I recall comments at FAC in the past about this, I'd rather not remove them from either place, just to be extra sure. — Cirt (talk) 20:55, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave this open in case there's consensus amongst reviewers. --99of9 (talk) 21:09, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sounds good, thank you, — Cirt (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*"Edition: 1ST" drop the caps? --99of9 (talk) 20:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Done. Dropped the caps. — Cirt (talk) 20:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Crisco 1492 (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments from Crisco 1492 moved to talk by user, see diff

Image review by Crisco 1492[edit]

Thanks very much! — Cirt (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tbhotch (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments from Tbhotch from Tbhotch moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Thank you for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cassianto (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments from Cassianto moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jimfbleak (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments from Jimfbleak moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff

Thanks very much for the Support! — Cirt (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review from Brianboulton[edit]

Sources review Nitpicks:

Otherwise,sources and citation formats look fine. Brianboulton (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Response to sources review
  1. Done. Added "subscription" template.
  2. Done. Trimmed title to just "Cooking".
  3. Done. fixed alphabetical sequence for Sara Perry 2002 book.

Thanks very much for these helpful pointers, — Cirt (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Brianboulton (addressed)[edit]

Addressed comments by Brianboulton moved to talk page, per agreement with user, see diff.
Thank you so much for the helpful comments and the Support! — Cirt (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [65].[reply]

Russula virescens[edit]

Nominator(s): Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Russula virescens is widely considered the best edible mushroom of the large genus Russula, and is popular in Europe in Asia. I have exhausted my sources and tweaked the prose to the point of diminishing returns, and think the article is ready for FAC. Thanks for reading. Sasata (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is especially popular in Europe and Asia. — ie the half of the world where it is easy to identify. A little sweeping, I think; perhaps change to Spain and China?
  • Mushrooms have a high water content — for me, this doesn't quite work, going from the specific to the general. Not a deal-breaker if you want to keep it
  • The green color of the cuticle — "color" is redundant here
  • and in deposit — I don't know what this means
  • its color tends to be more bluish-green — it tends to be more bluish-green
  • Russula virescens has a low capacity (x2) — "limited" might be better
  • Ref 14 needs publisher location
  • I'm happy with your amendments, can't see anything else, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Great to see a quality article on such an important species.

  • Reworded to "with patches of the same color dispersed radially around the center in an areolate pattern." Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now made this more explicit in the lead. Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing a lot of problems! J Milburn (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images seem OK (I don't really feel qualified to judge File:Stamp of Moldova 238.gif) but I'm finding myself slightly under-inspired by the photos; especially the lead, which seems to have been taken in less-than-ideal lighting. Although they're only small mushrooms, I'd be inclined to say that this or this capture the "ickyness" that Antonio Carluccio alludes to. If you're not convinced, stick with those we've got; I just imaging that choosing the right picture could make the difference as to whether someone stays to read the article or not! J Milburn (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually, I like the lead image in that it nicely shows the areolate pattern, and a sunken cap center that is mentioned in the description. I've deliberately avoided using images from North America for reasons described above. What do you think about this, this, or this as alternate lead images? Sasata (talk) 08:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choosing the right image out of all those is tricky. The depressed centre, which is a feature of the mushroom, is really only visible in the current one, which I think is the best really. this one is ok but the mushroom is a bit dirty, this one you can see the depression but it's a really odd shape. Tough call....Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to trust your judgement call. Two images in the infobox would also not be out of the question, if they show different features/show the mushroom at different stages of life? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another option to fit in an extra picture would be to convert the quote box in the edibility section to a block quote and add one of these images with a context-suitable caption like "Despite its "moldy" appearance, R. virescens is a good edible." How does that sound? Sasata (talk) 15:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since I have your attention, I'm thinking about replacing the spore image with this, as perhaps a picture of a young, not-yet green specimen is more useful than one of the spores. Comments? Sasata (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the quote-box move; something between a quotebox and a blockquote is Template:Quotation, which I rather like and would probably look good here. I agree that a young mushroom pic would be nice, but I'm also a big fan of spore pictures. Frankly, I think the least useful picture is the stamp, so if something's going to go... (An alternative to the stamp pic would be an external link to something like this, perhaps even using Template:External image. I also note that Moldova seems to have released a lot of stamps with mushrooms- I wonder if there's any literature out there about the meeting of mycology and philately? That'd make a fun article...) J Milburn (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've implemented your suggestions with this edit, what do you think? I think there is enough literature to make a "Fungi on stamps" page; there's a series of articles by Maurice Moss in the journals Mycologist, Bulletin of the British Mycological Society and Transactions of the British Mycological Society Sasata (talk) 22:54, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little jiggling- revert if you like. I'm just worried that some would see the article as a little crowded; I'm sure there's a solution that hasn't occurred to us... J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clade was already linked, but linked the other two. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I think it is awkward and that "formed a clade with ..." would be preferable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did a bit of rounding off where appropriate, but kept the conversion of 4 cm = 1.6 inches (neither 1 inch nor 2 inches would accurately reflect the original measurement). Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the correct way to refer to generic names in singular (with italics) and plural (without italics) forms. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the caption was technically ok, but added "mushroom" at the end, as using "edible" as a noun rather than an adjective probably sounds jarring to the non-mycophile (assuming this is what you thought the issue was?). Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed it, as it is chemically quite similar to reactive brilliant blue and there's no need to mention both. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I'm on vacation with poor Internet access, so will address these early next week. Sasata (talk) 02:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, real life delays made it take longer than expected to reply, but I think I've addressed your suggestions now. Sasata (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy with your responses and think the article is of a high enough standard to be a Featured Article. Changed my "Comments" to "Support". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2013 (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 Ian Rose 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [66].[reply]

SMS Thüringen[edit]

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another one, this ship saw heavy action at Jutland and blew up HMS Black Prince at very close range in some ferocious night fighting. I look forward to working with reviewers to ensure this article represents our best work. Thanks all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 18:59, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Images are fine, captions are good. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A pleasure to review. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 02:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments

Delegate comment -- Good level of support but like to give it a chance to garner a non-MilHist review before promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review: All sources look of appropriate high quality and reliability, and citations are properly formatted. Brianboulton (talk) 23:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – This non-MilHist reviewer is quite happy with what he found. The article is quite clear to me, and I only found a couple of minor issues to comment on:

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC) [67].[reply]

Jürgen Ehlers[edit]

Nominator(s): Markus Pössel (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article on and off for some time, and feel it is now ready for FA. It's been through a helpful peer review, and the Guild of Copy Editors have also been kind enough to have a go at it; the GOCE member who took care of it encouragingly commented that the article was "Overall in great shape". It's not an easy subject for two reasons: Ehlers is not in the same league as Einstein, Planck & Co., and that means there are not nearly so many reliable sources about him. I've taken care to exploit all reliable sources I could get my hands on, but a biographical article like this must necessarily be less detailed than for one of the Greats. Secondly, much of Ehlers' work is somewhat technical in nature. I've tried to strike a balance between including sufficient information for the description to be accessible, and keeping the text concise. For both reasons, this article was harder work than my previous FAs, in particular the related general relativity and introduction to general relativity. My reason for picking this topic is that I knew Jürgen Ehlers, and he was a kind colleague from whom I've learned much. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Everything checks out. More to come on the rest of the article. Wadewitz (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I read the article and it seems reasonably well written, but the physics terminology gets pretty dense—at least for me. It should probably have an independent review by an expert. Here are a few observations:

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments, which I'll address one by one. Generally, it is true that the article has, in part, content that is rather technical - a direct consequence of Ehlers' field of study. I've tried to strike a balance, but I'm of course open to suggestions on where somewhat more detailed explanations would help.
  • "The first paper, written with Jordan and Kundt" - I've changed this to a (hopefully) more accessible sentence.
  • "It also gives a systematic exposition..." - I've put in a somewhat more explicit version.
  • "...shadow produced by a narrow beam of light passing an opaque object": encountering seems best, since part of the beam can intersect, while another part can pass the object.
(will address the other comments later) Markus Pössel (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Replies to Comments, part 2:
  • "...the gravitational field inside cannot be static, but must evolve" - changed to "change over time", and given the simplest example.
    • So... my completely naive intuition tells me that all of the mass within the event horizon would collapse into the singularity and the internal gravitational field would stabilize based on the boundary conditions. Ehlers' statement is that this cannot happen, but instead the field must be continually evolving in some manner? That's ... strange. Okay, thank you for the example. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...tt-component of the metric" - added the physical meaning: the rate of ticking of clocks whose spatial coordinates do not change
  • I did add wife and children in the same manner as the obituary you've cited, namely as a statement of whom he left behind. Without a published source on date of marriage and the children's years of birth I see no suitably referenced way to insert that information into the chronological part of the article in an earlier section.
Again, thanks for your comments! Markus Pössel (talk) 17:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing my concerns. Good luck with the FAC. Praemonitus (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Markus Pössel (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ceranthor Comments
Many thanks for your comments, and for your support!
  • "lecture- and professorships", for "lectureships and professorships", is not a typo. I've changed it to "various posts as a lecturer and, later, as a professor" which I hope to be more clear.
  • habilitation parentheses removed.
  • 1955/56 changed to 1955-56
  • Kiel, Syracuse and Hamburg are meant to be in sequence, implying that he did move to Syracuse for a position. I've changed this part a little bit; hopefully, I've put matters more clearly in the current version.
  • I've dropped the "name" and now have Biermann recommending Ehlers directly.
  • The "indeed" was meant to link this to the previous sentence - after all, the Society did not decide spontaneously, but in response to the lobbying. But I have no fixed opinion either way, and have removed the "indeed."
  • The italics are for emphasis. The "invariantly" is the important and new thing here. I'm leaving the italics for now; if there's another way of making that emphasis, I'm open to suggestions.
Again, thanks for your input! Markus Pössel (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All seem fine. Thanks for your speedy fixes! ceranthor 19:02, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment -- Hi Markus, been a while since you've been at FAC, yes? Just like to see a source review and spotcheck for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I've left a request at WT:FAC for someone to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's definitely been a while. World Science Festival, later moved to World Science Festival, 2008 was the last one in late 2008. I don't recall source and image reviews (under that name) from my previous nominations; a more recent custom, I suppose? Is there anything I can and/or am supposed to do facilitate the review and spotcheck (apart from having clearly identified and linked my sources, of course)? Markus Pössel (talk) 18:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, just sit tight -- the fact that most of the refs seem to be online should make spotchecking easier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review The sources themselves are impeccable, but checking the citations out out is nightmarish. Citation styles should be simple, and easy for the general reader to follow. I am also surprised by the failure, before this submission, to check that all online links were working. At least half a dozen are not, and I doubt they all went wrong after the submission. Specific problems:

  • Ref 3: check the link on "Editor's comment". Is this the intended source? How does it support the cited statement
  • Ref 5: First link returns "not found"
  • Ref 12: Neither of the first two links works (the link to the website, if not used as a source, should appear under "External links").
  • Ref 33: link gives error message
  • Ref 38: first link denies access, requires login
  • Ref 39: link gives address not found
  • Ref 40: second link goes to the wrong page

I think all these issues need to be addressed before the article is ready for promotion. Brianboulton (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thorough check of the citations. I will respond to your points one by one over the next few days. Markus Pössel (talk) 21:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before making specific changes, a few more general issues. For reference, here is a permalink to the current version, in case reference numbers will change later.
  • I would like to keep the additional annotation as per WP:Cite where they tell the reader how the different references act together to support the sentence or pargraph in question (and no, a number of those you cite are not discursive footnotes - they explain the references). I see where having this annotation style, but also list complete references, makes for crowded and thus less easily readable notes. My proposal would be to go the same way I went in general relativity, with Harvard-style references in the notes, and all the references listed in alphabetical order below. That should go a long way of making the notes more readable. It would also solve problems like that of ref. 4 and 16, which contrary to what you wrote are not identical, as one provides a page number, the other doesn't - they could both refer, Harvard-style, to the same article listed in the reference list.
  • I don't see anything in WP:CITE about stating whether or not an article link requires purchase or login, in particular if it is a DOI link. Frankly, I don't think such a policy change would make much sense. The main reference is the printed one in this case, and DOIs are a kind of automatized convenience link. That's the way it sounds in WP:SOURCELINKS, too.
  • Same with listing the language - where is that a requirement, in WP:CITE?
I'll see about the uncontroversial issues, such as consistency in ISBNs and so on, now, but for the issues mentioned above, I don't see what's WP:CITE-non-compliant in what I did. Markus Pössel (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think "nightmarish" was rather harsh a word, but I readily admit that splitting into Notes and References makes that part of the article much more readable than before, and I am somewhat embarrassed to find that so many of the links I thought would be stable did, in the meantime, break. This is what I did to fix things:
  • I moved all articles and books into a separate reference section, using Harvard notation to refer to them from the (newly rechristened) Notes section, reducing redundancy in the process
  • All books that have ISBNs (not all do) should now have them listed. Publisher locations are, consistently, not.
  • Ref 3: The editor's note is indeed the intended source. It's a 5 page essay which accompanies a re-publication of the original article, putting the article into perspective and describing the historical context.
  • I fixed all the broken links.
  • Ref 8: The only purpose of the CV is to confirm that Ashtekar was a guest at the Max Planck Institut für Physik und Astrophysik on various dates. Since this is non-controversial information, I would like to leave this in as a reference.
  • Ref 13: Changed this to the AEI obituary, which is now properly linked as a reference, including the authors (that is, the institute directors)
  • About "e.g." - in the case of 24, for instance, I am using one specific cosmology book as source for a statement that can be found in every cosmology book. "E.g." signals the reader that this is not a canonical, let alone the canonical reference for this statement. For someone not familiar with the subject, that is important information, and the reference would lose if I left it out.
Going through your list, my conclusion is that, in combination with my previous reply, I have now addressed all the concerns you raised. Thanks again for your attention to detail. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You certainly have improved the layout of citations and references. I have not rechecked all the links and will take your word for it that they are now all working. On the question of language and subscription tags, WP:CITE is a guideline, not holy writ. It has long been a convention at FAC that these tags be used, as a guide to the reader, and I strongly advise that they are added here (I see GermanJoe makes much the same point, below). The only other thing I have objection to is the CV. Items in a CV don't confirm or authenticate anything; it is the principle of using such dubious sources that is in question, rather than this particular case where the information is non-controversial. If there is no other source that confirms Ashtekar's presence, I suggest you leave this detail out. Otherwise, no further issues on sources. Brianboulton (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your additional comments!
  • I've removed the CVs, and am now relying on the blog article by Breuer who mentions who was a guest in the Ehlers group at the time in question.
  • As far as I can see, GermanJoe has indeed added missing language tags; I have no problem with those. But I think subscription tags really are a bad idea. Whether or not the DOI leads to a subscriber-only article is a function of time - a number of journals have a "moving wall" policy for when an article will become freely available, so a number of subscription tags will become outdated over time. Adding subscription tags without any automatization in place creates additional work for WP editors without adding important extra information. Also, in an age of e-prints, having the DOI-linked version of the article subscription only doesn't necessarily mean that there is no non-subscription way of accessing the article content. Also, what counts as "subscription required"? Does a free registration that lets you look at three items without paying for a subscription (such as for JSTOR) count? That would surely depend on whether or not whoever is looking at the article has already used up his or her free quota. To sum up, I think a "subscription required" tag doesn't do justice to the various situations we could be dealing with, and seeing that all the details about access (as well as, usually, an abstract) are just one click away, it doesn't add sufficient information to be worth the trouble - and I feel the same about adding a "purchase required" to listings of books; something I note that you are not advocating either, but which I think is perfectly analogous case. So, just as GermanJoe did, I would like to leave that particular tag out of the Jürgen Ehlers article.
Having fixed the Ashtekar CV problem, and given arguments why I do not think the subscription tags are necessary or useful (and while WP:CITE is a guideline, as you write, it is a guideline that Wikipedia:Featured article criteria sets out for those bringing articles to FAC to follow - so these tags are definitely not required), I believe I have now addressed all your comments. Markus Pössel (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Subscription tags are a warning to the reader that he/she won't necessarily get access to the source article. I have JSTOR access, so I know, when I see a subscription tag on one of these, that I can access it. But there are lots of paywalls that I can't penetrate without a subscription, and I like to know in advance when this is the case. In the past I have been disappointed to find, having clicked on the link, that I cannot read the article without paying some exorbitant fee; it's no comfort to know that maybe, in a few years, the article will become freely accessible. That is my position; I don't, however, see this as a sufficient issue to withhold the article's promotion if there are no other issues outstanding, and will leave it to the delegates. Brianboulton (talk) 07:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since the tag issue is more general than this FAC discussion, I've started a discussion here on the WP:CITE talk page. Markus Pössel (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck - OK (see comments)

In the interest of transparency, i focused mostly on German and less technical texts. Checks showed no problems with close paraphrasing or obvious inaccuracies. The article is written as summary and seems to cover all notable, important aspects of its topic. I see no reason to doubt the finer scientific details, as the article had an extensive PR with a lot of constructive, knowledgable feedback. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Language and subscription tags are useful convenience tools for the reader to navigate through the references (they might even be required, but i am too lazy to check). I fixed some broken harv links and added a few tags. GermanJoe (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the spotcheck! As for ref 8, I've now added the Breuer 2008 text as a reference, which mentions the various Munich department members and guests. I've also added two more online CVs for corroboration; for the other persons listed, no such CVs appear to exist. (I guess once you've got tenure, the motivation to put your CV online is drastically reduced.) And no, it's not common knowledge apart from those who actually were part of that group, so it was definitely useful to point out this omission. Markus Pössel (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the only minor point, thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the formatting fixes, for the support and for your kind words! Markus Pössel (talk) 06:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments (2)

Thanks for your comments!
  • Ehlers group: What used to be citation 22 covered both the second and third paragraph; it's possible this was a single, longish paragraph which was split during copy-editing without the citation being adjusted. I've split the citation accordingly.
  • Thanks for the pointer to the script; I've removed one of the duplicate links; the remaining five should, in my opinion, be left in - each is not very close to its duplicate, and each involves a term that is important in that particular context, and that readers might want to click to understand better that particular paragraph.
Markus Pössel (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 8 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [69].[reply]

Jane Joseph[edit]

Nominator(s): Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Joseph was a composer of the early 20th century, much influenced by Gustav Holst whose pupil she was. Most of her music was never published and has been lost; her few published pieces are now rarely heard, though some were highly thought of when first performed. If she had not been so busy helping Holst (she copied out the whole of the "Neptune" movement of The Planets suite for him, among many other tasks), she may have gained greater recognition as a composer. Her career ended prematurely with her death aged 34: "I can't imagine Music without her", lamented a friend. The article has been carefully peer-reviewed for which many thanks, and acknowledgements also to Ruhrfisch, for making the lead image presentable. More comments welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and image check Had my say at the peer review, glad to see the change I recommended was carried out. Images are fine, fair use lead image used appropriately for identification, the rest are PD of various sort. God only knows what will be used for its TFA...--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I and and a number of others hope that God will soon come to his/her senses, and will allow non-free images to appear on the main page if their sole purpose is to identify the subject. Having said that, I don't have any TFA plans for the near future; Jane's 120th birthday, on 31 May 2014, is probably the most relevant date. Thank you for your reviews, here and at PR, and for your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; I was also a happy PRer and a subsequent re-read shows no reason why this shouldn't be an FA. - SchroCat (talk) 03:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and for the continuing due diligence on the matter of ellipses. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I too took part in the PR, where my (very minor) queries were thoroughly attended to. This article meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion. Moreover, it knocks spots off any other web article on the subject, even the one in the online Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians, which offers a mere 300 words as opposed to more than 4,000 words of top-notch stuff here. – Tim riley (talk) 10:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: spotted while having an enjoyable re-read of the article – ref 27 duplicates some of the biblio info on Cooper's book given in full in the list of sources; and ref 50 needs a date showing which Gibbs work you refer to. Tim riley (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind words, much appreciated. It is exceedingly unlikely that Jane Joseph will ever get a full-length biography, and I hope that this article will go some way towards fulfilling this function. I have made the two small ref fixes that you have spotted – what sharp eyes you have.
On the question of the genitive form that you reverted (sorry, Graham), I agree with you; it was an orchestra made up of Josephs. Another way of looking at it might be to say it was an orchestra belonging to the Josephs, in which case "a Josephs' orchestra" might be justified. But I am inclined to leave things be. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I was another at the PR whose questions cleared up. A very enjoyable article and I think it easily meets the criteria. I'm not quite sure how BB does it! Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: Other than Tim's points above, just a one minor query.

Everything else looks fine from a sourcing viewpoint. Sarastro1 (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reviews, here and at PR. It is not usual, with well-known magazines and newspapers, to include publishers and locations; see for example the Gustav Holst article. Glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - as noted above, I cleaned up the lead image a bit. I have read the whole article twice now and find it meets the FA criteria. I have a few questions, which do not detract from my support.

  • The only line in the sources that refers to her life outside music is the quoted one about her being hard to know and probably lonely. I think she was truly devoted to Holst, who was unavailable, and that she was unable or unwilling to look further – but that is pure conjecture. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, yes (and the source says "memory", so no excuses. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence was poorly written, and an "s" was missing from "characteristics". I have redrafted: "In Joseph's Mirage song cycle of 1921 (five songs with string quartet accompaniment), a Holstian influence is evident alongside her own distinctive compositional voice." Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting these things. Glad to have your support. Brianboulton (talk) 09:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - thank you for a fine article. I tried looking online to see if I could find any free images of her or her grave or even of some of her music, but was unable to find anything. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 13:01, 28 May 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [70].[reply]

The Man in the Moone[edit]

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk), John O'London (talk), Eric Corbett (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies and I started work on this article about one of the earliest works of British science fiction so long ago that I can hardly remember why we embarked on it. I'm glad we did though, because I think that together, with the help of John O'London, we've produced one of the best, if not the best, encyclopedic accounts of this rather short but surprisingly influential book you're likely to find anywhere. I hope you agree. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and images - spotchecks not done

I think I got all those except for the page numbers for FN15, which I don't immediately have access to, and flagging the language on a couple of the sources. As I wouldn't feel confident in distinguishing between Dutch and Flemish I'll leave that for Drmies to sort out. Malleus Fatuorum 19:42, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think we've got all those now. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell you how much I hate that "rule" of "no periods for incomplete sentences". Bleh. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim Excellent article, just a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spelling includes both AE and BE, should be consistently the latter, especially since you have both "favor" and "favour"
    I think we're consistent Br English now. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two of "Further reading" need language fields
    Done. Malleus Fatuorum 12:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar speculation—why is lunar capped here?
    Fixed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • posthumously, Jesuit, circumnavigation, Tenerife, Calvinist, genealogy —link?
    I've added links for Calvinism and Tenerife; Jesuit was already linked. Not sure we need links for posthumously, circumnavigation or genealogy though. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sidereus Nuncius, Somnium sive opus posthumum de astronomia lunaris, De Christiana expeditione apud Sinas—Give a translation?
    Done. Malleus Fatuorum 13:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1630s also saw the publication —also seems redundant
    Agreed, removed. Malleus Fatuorum 17:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peking —is this version rather than Beijing a conscious choice?
    Not really, changed to Beijing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar Christianity—again, why caps
    Because "Lunar" is the name Godwin gives to the inhabitants of the Moon, therefore it's a proper noun here. I'll read through again to make sure we've been consistent in using "lunar" when we're talking about the Moon and "Lunar" when we're talking about the people. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • gansa—does the book actually say they are swans? It looks like the Indo-European root for "goose" (I don't have access to the OED, which presumably clarifies)
    They're definitely called swans in the book. Malleus Fatuorum 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, swans--and Jim, the OED definition is actually in the article. :) Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar inhabitants.— why caps?
    Changed to "lunar inhabitants". Malleus Fatuorum 17:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, "Lunar" struck me as odd as well with a capital once or twice, but I chose consistency. I'm not married to capitalization. Thanks MF. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added language parameters to the "Further reading". Personally, I wouldn't red-link journals, but then I wouldn't blue-link either, just a style thing. I had a quick look to see if I could spot anything else, but all looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That linking is my doing, no doubt, for reasons which have as much to do with the journals and their (future) articles as with this specific article. I'm a big fan of redlinks when appropriate, and I think (or I like to think) that I didn't add them for non-notable publications. Malleus's mileage may vary. Or can vary. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got no problem with the red links. I simply thought they were a reminder to you to get your arse in gear and write the linked articles. Malleus Fatuorum 20:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot of Doom comments. I've worked with Malleus on several articles but have had no input on this one, indeed this review will be the first time I've read it. Due to restraints on my time, I will review only the text; citations et al I leave to others.

  • FWIW, I asked above for some of the less transparent titles to be translated. I can see that leads to a bit of inconsistency, but De Magnete is pretty obvious, and I would have thought L'Autre Monde: où les États et Empires de la Lune was accessible enough Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of much that's possibly missing from this article, although truth be told, I found some sections, particularly those discussing other, similar works, to be slightly impenetrable. But the above criticisms aside, I'd definitely support this. Parrot of Doom 17:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I've read this a couple of times now, and aside from a few minor points listed below, can find very little to fault. It is well-written, clear and interesting. The points below do not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's two big fat paragraphs, that's true. One reason for its length is that it was a pretty big deal, at least until it got settled. Another is that the grounds for dating the text involve some pretty big things--other texts, borrowings, and the growth of scientific knowledge--and they can't just be mentioned but have to be contextualized. As such, it also serves to introduce some of those scientific and historical issues, like the Chinese Jesuit mission and the relationship to Burke. Drmies (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, as one of the nominators(!), I've been so busy watching the ongoing edits, I've only just spotted something that dates back to April 2011 under "Dating evidence" - "it was thought that Godwin wrote The Man in the Moone relatively early in his life, perhaps during his time at Christ College from 1578 to 1584". Now I may have been at "the other place" myself, but I'm pretty sure it's never "Christ College" in Oxford. Under "Background and contexts" he's more correctly described as "a student of Christ Church, Oxford" with a wikilink (and the link reminds us that "'Students of Christ Church' [note capital "S"] are not students, but rather the equivalent of the fellows of the other colleges" - does this need explanation?). - John O'London (talk) 22:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you're right, I've changed that. Malleus Fatuorum 23:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sorry--my fault. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, no--appositive and all. "is" makes the phrase an independent clause, necessitating different punctuation before and after. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I have to change that back as well: the hyphen indicates elision ("Noordnederlandsche en Zuidnederlandsche letterkund") and "belongs" to the adjective.
  • Thanks for your commens and, Malleus, for your quick edits. Drmies (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comments

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

re "I'd expect the last sentence of English editions and translations to be cited." - just move the Poole and Buisman citations (notes 27 and 28) to the end of the sentence. John O'London (talk) 11:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the logic is exactly the same as it is for the plot section, in which the book itself is the source, so I don't think that sentence needs to be cited. Eric Corbett 01:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There may be an argument there but if the remainder of the editions and translations section is cited, it seems logical to be able to cite this -- especially if, as John indicates, refs 27/28 in fact cover it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of a quiet life I've moved those two citations to the end of the sentence. Eric Corbett 02:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2013 (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 GrahamColm 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC) [71].[reply]

Charles Inglis (engineer)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article I created five years ago and have slowly been building up ever since. It passed a Mil Hist A class review last month during which Dank kindly copyedited it. I believe the article to be as complete as I can make it and suitable for consideration as an FA. If promoted I believe this would become our only FA on a civil engineer (we have a few aeronautical engineers and an electrical engineer and Isambard Kingdom Brunel was an FA in 2006). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Support. I reviewed this in some detail at the ACR Dumelow links in his nomination statement (and examined the edits made since then), and I believe it to be of featured quality. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Thank you, I have added an additional licence for this image - Dumelow (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support: I could find very little to fault with this article; as far as I could tell it satisfies the criteria for FA status and thus I'd like to provide my support. Nice job. Praemonitus (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: It would be more convenient to readers if online links were all contained within the citations (as they indeed are in most cases). In refs 2, 5, 6, 37 and 56, however, the reader has to go to the bibliography and search, before finding the link. Brianboulton (talk) 17:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brian. I have always kept journal articles and books separate from other sources so they can be cited by page. I have played around a bit and converted all my citations to harvnb style. This allows the reader to click the citation to be taken to the relevant entry in the bibliography. Hopefully this solves that problem (and I think more elegantly than repeating the full citation in the references section). Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:58, 15 May 2013 (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