In the world of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008, we find a wide variety of aspects and singularities that deserve to be explored and understood. From its origins to its relevance today, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008 has been the subject of interest and study by experts and researchers. The diversity of opinions and approaches about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008 invites us to reflect on its impact on different spheres of society. Throughout history, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008 has generated debates, controversies and even inspiration, leaving its mark on culture, science, politics and other areas. In this article, we will delve into the fascinating universe of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/July 2008, investigating its multiple facets and significance in the contemporary world.
Think it fulfills the criteria, natch. I've printed out the article and done a copyedit of the text, so I think I've fixed all the issues that I'll be able to find. Covers the gameplay, plot, development, and reception, so it's comprehensive; the major aspects are touched on in the lead; and it's got images with appropriate fair use rationales. Oh, and lots of print sources and such, but I don't see any questionable WP:RS issues, I could be wrong. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)20:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Comments
This comment is practically on every FAC I review: redundancy. "though some publications such as Edge felt that the nature of point-and-click gameplay limited the title heavily." - just one example, there's more.
You could make the caption to the single picture in the article more concise; it seems unnecessarily verbose.
"The game's sound and graphics were consistently praised" - I think it would sound a bit better with the context if an also was slapped in there - "The game's sound and graphics were also consistently praised"
"Gehn's theme is only heard in its complete form near the end of the game, portions of the melody can be heard throughout Riven— this served to highlight the way Gehn controlled his Age." - there should be a but after the comma, shouldn't there?
If you're sourcing the "story" section, some of it is lacking a source.
Withdraw it—Well, this is one that needed more work before nomination. It should be withdrawn and resubmitted after fruitful collaboration. Here are random issues from one small sample of text.
"Also"—weed out all of the idle instances, please.
"a trap book—book that appears to be a linking book, but is actually a one man prison"—euuw, reps and missing hyphen and article; in a clunky sentence.
Removed the instances of 'also' and 'some', as Nousernamesleft pointed out above. Fixed the awkward sentence and combined sentences and reworded them so that one paragraph doesn't start out with "Atrus" every time. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)16:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Riven is a game I could never complete, Myst was much easier even though it was hard.
Current ref 20 "Gann, Patrick "Riven The Soundtrack" ... can we source this to something besides RPG fan? I'm not sure about the reliablity of that site, and since it's just the release date and length, surely Amazon has it?
Comment: I was under the impression that the "stranger" was designed so the player could completely immerse themselves as though they really were the character—no backstory, entirely first-person view, etc. Therefore, referring to the player's character as being male doesn't fit in, to my knowledge the "stranger" has not had a gender defined within Myst canon. I'd advise altering the wording of the story section to make it gender neutral, as there's no evidence I know of that suggests the player's character is conclusively male. -- Sabre (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Support The prose and been significantly improved by several copy-editors and there is no issue left. This is FA-quality. Kariteh (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
"between $5 and $10 million" → "between USD$5 and $10 million"
"causing a delay in the publishing of Riven. Even though " — Citation needed?
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it fulfils the FA criteria. It's an important article about one of England's best known castles, however there are no articles about castles of FA quality so this is a bit experimental. I believe it's comprehensive and has benefited greatly from a peer review and a copy edit. All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome. Thanks in advance. Nev1 (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Nev1 has responded to all my major concerns.
CommentsOpposing for nowI need to be convinced that the references support the statements in the article.GrahamColmTalk18:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence is too long. There is too much information here; please try to make at least two sentences.
It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in their possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries. — There's a singular/plural problem with earldom, which makes the sentence sound wrong. Try using something like the Earls' possession.
Please be more specific about the 1970s; it wasn't that long ago.
The castle was taken by Henry of Anjou, later Henry II, in 1153 when the Earl of Warwick's wife was tricked into handing over the castle, and was again lost temporarily in 1264, following a surprise attack during the Second Barons' War. — If you were new to the article, and had strategic distance, you would instantly see how funny this is. It is the ownership of the castle and not the castle itself.
When was it used as a prison?
It don't think the castle "demonstrated" power; it was a symbol of power perhaps?
Please do not use "various", it adds no information.
When Fulke Greville gained ownership of the castle in 1604 it was ruinous; £20,000 was spent on its restoration. — Do you mean it was ruined, or a ruin even? And, what's twenty grand in today's money, both sterling and dollars?
In the 17th century the grounds were landscaped and turned into a garden. — I think in this context landscaped and turned into a garden mean the same thing.
The castle was the subject of several paintings and drawings by the Italian master Antonio Canaletto — As the paintings still exist, please use the present tense.
I think the "haunting" sections lower the quality of the article. Does it really need them?
I have made these changes addressing your concerns. I think the outstanding issue is concerning the 'haunting' section. Hauntings have become part of the folklore surrounding Warwick Castle with attractions pandering to the public's curiosity on the subject, and some readers will be coming to this article in search of this information. I have attempted to avoid adding bias either way to this section, I have also taken steps to prevent the addition of unsourced material to the section by adding an unsourced comment. If consensus emerges that the section is inappropriate, I think the information should be integrated elsewhere into the article. Nev1 (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
More comments
Warwick Castle is situated on a sandstone bluff in a bend of the River Avon, making it a naturally defensible site. — The source says that the river and cliff form natural defences, which is better.
The castle's position made it strategically important in safeguarding the Midlands against rebellion. The military significance of the castle diminished as the Normans secured their control of England. — I can't find this in the source given, and shouldn't this be in the history section?
Hmm, not sure where I read the bit about diminishing military significance so I've removed it. If I find it again, I'll re-add it. There's been a bit of copy editing too. Nev1 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
More comments
legend has it that the construction of the fortifications was instigated by Ethelfleda, daughter of Alfred the Great. — Why do you call this a legend? It seems to be true.
The source from Times Online says it's a legend. This is available to read if you have an account, however since the average reader won't have one I did not include the link. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick. A Church of All Saints was founded by the first Earl of Warwick within the castle walls by 1119; the Bishop of Worcester, believing that a castle was an... — There are two occurrences of Earl of Warwick close together.
Changed to "In 1088, Henry de Beaumont was made the first Earl of Warwick. He founded the Church of All Saints within the castle walls by 1119"
In 1153, the wife of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick, was tricked into believing that her husband was dead, and surrendered control of the castle to the invading army of Henry of Anjou, later King Henry — Reference 4 has this:
On the arrival in England of Henry of Anjou in 1153, the garrison was tricked into handing over the castle to Henry's men, possibly at the instigation of the Countess Gundred in the absence of the earl, who supported Stephen and is said to have died of chagrin on hearing the news.
The printed source, Castles in Context by Liddiard, contains the information on her being tricked into believing her husband is dead, Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I've changed it to "handed over control of the castle". For anyone reading out of context, that may seem like a complete change of tone, but the original sentence read "According to the Gesta Stephani, a 12th-century historical text, Roger de Beaumont died on hearing the news that his wife had lost the castle". Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
During the barons' rebellion of 1173–74 Warwick Castle was under the control of King Henry II and was used to store provisions. — I can't find this in the source.
I can. From reference 4: "In 1173 the sheriff provided a large store of wheat to provision the castle motte, placed a guard on it probably from local levies raised against the revolt of the king's sons in that year". Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The castle and the lands associated with the earldom passed through six generations of the Beaumont family until 1242, when King Henry III gained ownership of Warwick Castle. — Again, can you point out where this is in the source?
From the online source: "Thomas the 6th earl, who died in June 1242 without male heirs. He was succeeded by his sister Margery, whose husband, John Marshal, was given seisin of her lands and of the castle but died in October of the same year. (fn. 7) The widow agreed not to remarry before the following Ascension Eve on pain of forfeiture, (fn. 8) but the castle was nevertheless ordered to be taken into the king's hand as a pledge for a suitable remarriage". Sorry that bit's rather long. I took the 6th earl of Warwick to imply there had been 6 generations, although on reflection this may have been incorrect and I have altered it slightly. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Similarly this: During the Second Barons' War of 1264–67, William Maudit, 8th Earl of Warwick, was an inactive supporter of King Henry III.
From the online source: "At an early stage of the Barons' Wars, in which the earl was an inactive supporter of the king, Warwick Castle attracted the attention of John Giffard of Brimpsfield who in 1264 was holding Kenilworth Castle for Simon de Montfort." Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
And this De Montfort ordered the walls along the northeastern side of the castle to be slighted so that it would be useless to the king.
From the online source: "He took Warwick Castle in a surprise attack and, in the words of John Rous, 'for that it should be no strength to the king, he beat with his fellowship down the wall from tower to tower, which unto Earl Thomas's days after was hedged'". I have removed mention of de Montfort ordering it. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
was captured by Guy de Beauchamp, 10th Earl of Warwick, and imprisoned in Warwick Castle until his execution on 9 June 1312. — The source does not give the date.
This work was performed under Thomas de Beauchamp — Where in the source does it say this?
"To Thomas Beauchamp the elder (d. 1369) must be ascribed the building of Caesar's Tower, the gatehouse and barbican, and part at least of the high curtain wall on the north-east front" in the online source and further backed up by the Liddiard book. Nev1 (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
A few more comments
These refer to the section 'A country house and following sections:
The article suffers from a lack of commas, particularly this section.
In this sentence, Fulke Greville spent over £20,000 (£3,000,000 or $6,000,000 in 2007) renovating the castle to make it "a place not only of great strength but extraordinary delight, with most pleasant gardens, walks and thickets, such as this part of England can hardly parallel" according to William Dugdale, a 17th century antiquary. — The according to might be better a the beginning of the sentence.
Please check the article for endash and emdash usage, I think I saw a couple of misuses.
There is an odd double bracket, in 2007)34).
This sentence, Restoration and reparations carried out by Salvin during 1872–75 cost £9,651, which were subsidised by donations from the public, needs some attention; it's not clear what the "which" refers to.
A large visitor attraction business — does not sound idiomatic.
15 tons of ice — please check what, if anything, WP:MOS has to say on starting a sentence with a number.
The first record of formal gardens belonging to Warwick Castle is in 1534. — ? is in 1534, sounds odd.
These edits have been made. Could you be more explicit in your concerns about dashes? All endashes between words are spaced, and not when linking numbers (ie: in dates) and emdashes are generally avoided. MOS does not mention numbers at the start of sentences, but I have changed it anyway. Commas? {{sofixit}}. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for an interesting FAC and the invitation to edit :) But I think I've spent enough time on the article for now. Best of luck with the rest of the candidature. Graham. GrahamColmTalk18:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
All images are tagged and used appropriately; the nonfree image has an appropriate fair use rationale and meets WP:NFCC. —Giggy11:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment—I think this article needs a thorough copy-edit. Some notes:
"It is traditionally associated with the earldom of Warwick, one of the oldest in England, although it was not in its possession between the early 17th and mid-18th centuries." I find this sentence to be rife with ambiguities. One of the oldest castles or one of the oldest earldoms? Does the second it refer to the castle or the earldom? Please clarify the text.
"It was again lost temporarily in 1264..." It was regained prior to 1264? Unclear.
"...lands associated with the earldom passed through the Beaumont family..." Does this mean it was returned to the Beaumont family, or that they did not have control?
"...has eroded the rock the castle stands on into a cliff." Seems awkwardly worded.
"During the 12th century, King Henry I was suspicious of Roger de Beaumont, 2nd Earl of Warwick. To counter the earl's influence, Henry bestowed Geoffrey de Clinton with a position of power rivalling that of the earl." It is unclear what this has to do with the surrounding text, or the location of this castle. Please clarify in the article.
"...handed over castle." 'The' castle?
"...are both machicolated and were residential and are considered..." Too much switching of tense and too many 'and's.
Thank you for addressing my concerns. I'll try to take a look through the remainder of the article.—RJH (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The following text, while interesting, makes for a jarring break in continuity: "The conspirators involved in the... ...to help in their escape." The paragraph begins with the conversion into a country house, then the theft of horses for the Gunpowder Plot, and finally back to a discussion of the conversion. Please could you fix it?—RJH (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, I'd already tried (unsuccessfully) to integrate that brief mention. I'd like to put it into it's own paragraph, but it's only a couple of sentences and I can't find any more on the event. How about if I changed it to this (added text in bold):
In 1604, the ruinous castle was given to Sir Fulke Greville by King James I and was converted into a country house. Whilst the castle was undergoing repairs, it was peripherally involved in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605. The conspirators involved awaited news of their plot in Dunchurch in Warwickshire. When they discovered the plot had failed they stole cavalry horses from the stables at Warwick Castle to help in their escape.
CommentsWeak oppose. The article is pretty good, but I think that there is a bit of detail that should be added to help readers unfamiliar with the history and the workings of castles. The images are absolutely beautiful.
The last paragraph of the lead may need a bit of organization work. The sentence about the paintings seems out of place in its current location - I'd move it to become the last sentence of the lead.
In the location section, I am a bit confused as to why the information about Geofrey de Clinton and Kenilworth are included. This seems to be better situated in the history section somewhere.
It was originally intended to explain why Kenilworth, the nearest castle to Warwick, deserved a mention but has since expanded. It could be trimmed? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The article mentions that the wife of the 2nd Earl of Warwick surrendered the castle, but later mentions another Earl of Warwick who supported Henry II. There may need to be a brief explanation of how they got the castle back.
I think there should be some rewording and a bit more explanation of the events of 1242. Perhaps explain that the Xth Earl died, and while his eldest daughter looked for a husband the King oversaw the castle... Readers who are not familiar with this time period may be confused.
Perhaps a sentence about why Piers Gaveston was captured, imprisoned, and executed? It sort of sounds in the article like Beauchamp took matters into his own hands.
I realize that a lot of the terms are wikilinked, but I think that some of them should be explained a bit in the article, too. Otherwise there just seems to be too much jargon. For example, machicolated, barbican
I've added explanations of some terms that may not be clear to the reader are there any others that might need explaining? Nev1 (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"The reconstruction of the gatehouse and the east façade was also funded by the spoils of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356." - this implies that we've been told an additional funding source for the reconstruction, but we haven't
It was meant that the gatehouse and facade as well as Caesar's Tower, rather than as well as an alternative source. I have reworded it. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph that starts with Anne de Beauchamp dieing does not flow very well. There is a lot of repetitive wording.
Per WP:MOSQUOTE, short quotations (less than 4 lines) should not be offset as block quotes, but should be in the paragraph.
I've removed the quote template from one quotation, but the remaining three I have left as they are for now. The problem with the MOS conditions (ie: 4 lines) is that it's subjective. The quotes are all about 3 lines on my screen but other readers with lower resolution monitors may see more. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
"Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick, left the castle during the Queen's visits" - does this mean he joined her at the timber building or that he was rude and totaly left the area?
Is there any more information available about the rooms inside the castle? The history is told in good detail, but I feel like the structure itself is more glossed over.
All the sources I have available (including access to Jstor) concentrate on the defences of the castle rather than the residential buildings. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - The first thing I do when looking at a FA candidate is look over the references. But I saw no problems here, great job with the article. Well-referenced, kind of short for an FA but sweet and to the point. Well done. --Meldshal{C}20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The article went through a PR recently, passed GA today, and now I'm taking the final step in the process. That said, I feel it is certainly good enough, but I am often proven wrong in these cases. So, tell me what needs to be done. Thanks, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support as it seems to be well done. I have just a few concerns.
Some passive voice
Forecasts of hurricane activity are issued each year by noted hurricane experts Philip J. Klotzbach, William M. Gray, and their associates at Colorado State University
Comment - Just a picky little thing from a stat-geek. In the "Pre-season forecasts" section you say that "he potential for at least one major hurricane to affect the U.S. was increased" when in fact you mean the estimated potential. The scientists don't know the actual potential, just their estimate of it. My first stat professor drilled this into my brain. The sentence is also in the passive voice, but I'm not too concerned about that. PlasticupT/C03:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportComments - The 2007 Atlantic hurricane season was an active Atlantic hurricane season I recommend changing "active" to "busy". Just kidding, the article looks great. Here are my thoughts:
Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale is linked to three times, plus once in the infobox and twice more in the "Season Impact" tables. I don't have a problem with the links in the templates, but just one wikilink in the body of the article should suffice.
Since you calculated the season's total damage, Hurricane Dean has been revised downwards. Sources now say that the storm caused US$2.2 billion of damage. See the storm article (and its talk page) for details.
Units:
The first instances of "miles", "km" and "mbar" are not wikilinked. It also spells out "miles" twice before switching to the abbreviation "mi". WP:MOSNUM says to spell it out once, as you did with most other units.
You may want to add inHg conversion for the mbars that have already been given.
In "October–December" nautical miles are used for the first time. It might be less confusing to stick with statue miles (and km) throughout. If not, the first instance of "nmi" needs to be spelled out and wikilinked.
The first instances of ft and m (in the Impact section) need to be wikilinked. "Feet" should be spelled out in its first instance.
In the ACE section knots are mentioned for the first time. It makes sense to use knots here as that is how ACE is defined, but you should wikilink its first instance.
Done with everything. I am considering working on a featured topic for the season, but it depends on whether the Hurricane Dean article is brought up to at least GA status by somebody. ;-) Thanks for the comments, JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone21:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have worked on this article for a hundred edits or so, and I think it is as complete as it will ever be. The prose is polished, the MOS exhaustively consulted, and as far as I know it meets the FAC criteria. PlasticupT/C17:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
*Comment: Some of the refs need to be consolidated as per WP:CITE. See "Using the same citation again", which explains how to use the <ref name=""> command. María(habla conmigo) 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC) Comment withdrawn. The refs are only deceivingly similar. María(habla conmigo) 17:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I would never think that anything would go as deep as "Meteorological history of", and yet... Great article, meets all the FAC criteria. --I'm an Editorofthewiki23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing However: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States." I have no idea what this means. Please reduce the jargon in this sentance, or add links. --I'm an Editorofthewiki23:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OpposeComments It's a decent start, but the prose needs lots of work. Needs a general copyedit on top of the issues I've listed.
As a Tropical Depression it brushed Nicaragua and spent several days in the waters off the country's coast before winding its way north into the Greater Antilles. "Tropical depression" shouldn't be capitalized. — Juliancolton 00:17, July 25, 2008 — continues after insertion below
As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it performed a complicated interaction with an upper-tropospheric cyclone and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. Remove the link to Tropical storm, as it redirects to Tropical cyclone, which you've already linked once in the lead.
After a few days as a very unusual hybrid tropical/subtropical system in the Gulf of Mexico, Gordon re-claimed its fully tropical form and made yet another landfall, this time across the Florida peninsula and into the Atlantic Ocean. "Fully tropical form" is awkwardly worded.
The storm's characteristically wandering track briefly brought it near North Carolina, but ultimately the storm headed south, weakening into a minor Tropical Storm before making its sixth and final landfall back on Florida's east coast. "Tropical Storm" shouldn't be capitalized, and remove the word "back".
Hurricane Gordon was the seventh named tropical storm and third hurricane of the 1994 Atlantic hurricane season. Remove the word "tropical", as any named storm is already a tropical storm.
During the first week of November a large area of disturbed weather accumulated just north of Panama over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. "Accumulated" is a poor word choice.
Is it? That's sort of what happened. Several small and non-notable disturbances gathered together off the Panamanian coast. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
A tropical wave passed through the area and gave it mild convection. "Gave it" → "sparked".
I want to show that the convection came from the tropical wave. Saying "sparked" implies that it occurred somewhat spontaneously, but "gave" implies that the convection was passed from one system to the other. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I changed it to "A tropical wave passed through the area and caused mild convection to form." Does that work? Or should it be clarified further, to "A tropical wave passed through the area and caused mild convection to form in the region."? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
This organization, with an initial intensity of 30 mph (45 km/h), warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve. Clarify that 30 mph was it's maximum sustained wind.
Spots of convection flared on the morning of November 9 and banding features appeared shortly thereafter even as its center made landfall on the northeastern Nicaraguan coast near Puerto Cabezas that afternoon. Run-on sentence.
Weak steering currents could not give Gordon a firm movement and it meandered north-northeast in the presence of mild west-southwesterly wind shear, unable to strengthen under the adverse conditions. Keep a block of references in numerical order.
Okay, well I have gone through it and found a couple more citations that needed straightening. They should all be in order now. PlasticupT/C11:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite the warm waters, Gordon did not strengthen that day as strong upper-tropospheric shear retarded development, eroded the upper level circulation, and reduced the winds to 40 mph (65 km/h). "Retarded development", while grammatically correct, could be worded better.
Then maybe we can rob them of their narrow view and expose them to the glorious versatility of the English language. That is, after all, a hallmark of professional writing. And for the record, WP:ILIKEIT is an essay (not a policy) and is directed at AfD, not FAC. PlasticupT/C11:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
November 13 was a busy day for Tropical Storm Gordon. Unnecessary sentence.
On the contrary, I think it is vital. Prior to that section, each section represented several days of activity. I want the reader to notice that the following two paragraphs all describe events that occurred on a single day. That fact is what makes Gordon so remarkable. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I still don't know what it means for something to be "unencyclopedic". The sentence introduces a very important pair of paragraphs, and adds that anthropomorphic touch that people attibute to weather. "Professional writing" doesn't have to mean "boring writing". PlasticupT/C12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Not by any means does professional writing have to mean boring writing. I just think it would make the prose sound more professional to change "busy" to "active". JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone14:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The primary purpose of professional writing is to transfer an idea clearly and efficiently. The word "busy" elucidates my meaning as well as any other. In fact, as it is simpler and more precise than "active" I would argue that it is even better. PlasticupT/C14:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Accelerating, Gordon turned towards the northeast. Would read more smoothly as "Gordon accelerated as it turned towards the northeast."
One comma isn't going to hurt anyone, and good writing exhibits qualities other than "smoothness". Characteristics like an interesting variety of sentence structures can differentiate engaging prose from boring drivel. PlasticupT/C12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of redundancy, particularly in the form of "Wind shear continued..." or "The storm continued...", mentioning the same facts two or three times.
Its sustained winds were still only 40 mph (65 km/h), but as the system approached eastern Cuba a gust of 120 mph (192 km/h) was reported. At first, I did a double take, and I had to go check the source. Be sure to clarify that the extreme gust was from a downburst associated with a thunderstorm.
When Gordon crossed eastern Cuba, the NHC determined that it became the most dominant system of these low level systems and absorbed their convections. First, this is the first mention of the NHC, so you have to give the full name. Also, I don't think "convections" is grammatically correct with the plural form.
By nightfall that day Gordon had not only made two landfalls and survived interactions with three competing systems but also, in assimilating the Bahamian low, it had also gained the cool central core typical of a subtropical cyclone. Remove "it".
The deep-layered ridge continued to steer the hybrid Tropical/Subtropical Storm Gordon west-northwestward past the western Bahamas. Unneeded, as you already mentioned this fact before.
Did I? It mentions the steering of the deep-layered cyclone, the pressure gradient of the deep-layered ridge, and then the steering of the deep-layered ridge. Three effects, three sentences. Maybe I could clean up language to avoid repetition of "deep-layered", as that is a little confusing. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Steering currents remained weak giving the storm a chance to full re-develop its deep convection while immobile at sea. Again, keep references in numerical order.
The eastward component of the storm's movement increased, and Gordon moved northeastward onto the Florida peninsula at a healthy 10 mph (17 km/h). "Peninsula" is capitalized. Also, remove "a healthy".
Early on November 17, back over the open ocean, the storm's central pressure began to fall. Improved organization was not apparent and wind shear was biting into the core of the deep convection when, on November 17, Gordon suddenly spawned 75 mph (120 km/h) winds and was upgraded to a Category 1 hurricane. "biting into the core" is unencyclopedic language. Also, the storm doesn't "spawn" 75 mph winds, but rather generates them. Despite sounding the same, they are slightly different,
There is no such thing as "unencyclopedic" language. I tried to use colorful descriptions that prevent the reader from falling asleep, but that does not make the work less "encyclopedic" than the dreadfully boring articles that constitute the majority of our current FA collection. "Spawn" is an anthropomorphic version of "generated". That is the only difference, and it is not accidental. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand. There is most certainly such a thing as language that is not suitable for an encyclopedia, which strives for professional prose. Additionally, wind shear doesn't bite into the inner core, but rather shears it apart from the convection, so that is factually inaccurate. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone02:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You are absolutely right about the wind shear - biting was factually inaccurate. I have changed the sentence to better reflect the "shearing" force that was actually occurring. PlasticupT/C12:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
In its brush with the mid-Atlantic states, Gordon dropped 2–5 in (5–13 cm) on the continent with a maximum of 5.25 in (13.3 cm) recorded at Norfolk, Virginia.In its brush with the mid-Atlantic states, Gordon dropped 2–5 in (5–13 cm) on the continent with a maximum of 5.25 in (13.3 cm) recorded at Norfolk, Virginia. The Mid-Atlantic isn't a continent...
Strong upper-level winds sprung up and sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection. "Sprung up" is more unencyclopedic language.
Between its three landfalls, Hurricane Gordon dumped 5–10 in (13–25 cm) of rain on Florida, with a station at Cooperstown recording 16.1 in (40.9 cm). Wait, didn't it make six landfalls? You should say "Between its three landfalls in Florida, Hurricane Gordon dumped between 5–10 in (13–25 cm) of rain in the state..."
I'd really like to see more than a couple sentences between final landfall on Florida and dissipation.
I'll try to add something about rainfall, but there's not much to tell. The system was just a nondescript low at that point. It really burnt itself out on the lead up to it's sixth landfall. PlasticupT/C02:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose I'm seeing improvement, but I just read through it closely, and there are still too many prose issues. Some more examples:
The thirteen-day meteorological history of Hurricane Gordon was erratic, persistent, and highly unusual. "Thirteen" → "13". — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
As a tropical depression it brushed Nicaragua and spent several days in the waters off the country's coast before winding its way north into the Greater Antilles. Run-on-like.
Here Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba, while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola. I don't like the presence of the word "here", as the previous sentence mentions nothing of the storm's location. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
It now reads Executing a slow turn to the north and then the northwest, Gordon made two more landfalls on eastern Jamaica and eastern Cuba while delivering tremendous rains to western Hispaniola.PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
As Tropical Storm Gordon made its fourth landfall crossing the Florida Keys, it performed a complicated interaction with an upper-tropospheric cyclone and a series of cyclonic lows which lent the storm some sub-tropical characteristics. Why not just "it interacted with an upper-level tropospheric cyclone..."? "Preformed an interaction" sounds awkwardly worded. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I wanted to work in the word "complicated", but I can leave that for the full explanation in the body of the article. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The second paragraph of the lead mentions the name "Gordon" four times. Remember, it's a storm, not a person. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
It also mentions "storm" twice, "system" once, and "hurricane" once. I have changed one of the "Gordon"s to "the storm", but I don't think that the reader is in any danger of forgetting. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Three of its landfalls were in the U.S. state of Florida. Link U.S. State and Florida. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Done. I had wikilinked Florida somewhere else (I remember because I ended up reading the whole Florida article), but it must have come out in one of the revisions. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
During the first week of November a large area of disturbed weather accumulated just north of Panama over the southwestern Caribbean Sea. "Accumulated" is still a poor word choice, but as I know you are inclined to keep it as it is, I will not fuss over it.
Moving northwest, the storm began a very slow strengthening pattern and developed a favorable upper outflow. Remove "a".
Throughout the article, I see run-on sentences, and just plain sentences with no commas where needed.
Eventually a trough prodded Gordon to the north-northeast at 8 mph (13 km/h), and it strengthened slightly to 45 mph (75 km/h) as it moved through the central Caribbean Sea. It's not necessary to mention the exact winds, as it only increased by 5 mph. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Okay, I have done this but let me explain the problem. The actual strengthening was 5 knots. If I convert that to mph and km/h I get 5.8 mph and 9.3 km/h. If I round to the integer I get 6 mph and 9 km/h, which is deceptive because the NHC measures wind strengths to the nearest 5 knots. So maybe I should round to the nearest 5? But then I would be saying strengthened by 5 mph (10 km/h), when anyone who knows anything about mi vs km knows that 5 mph is not the same as 10 km/h. Then it looks like I have made an error. So yeah, I thought about this during the original draft, but I'll defer to your suggestion. Current revision reads: strengthened by 6 mph (9 km/h)PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Despite the warm waters, Gordon did not strengthen that day as strong upper-tropospheric shear retarded development, eroded the upper level circulation, and reduced the winds to 40 mph (65 km/h). Why not just "Gordon failed to strengthen that day"? — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Failed implies intent. Also, you lose a whole load of information. There were warm waters, which usually strengthen a tropical system, and there was wind shear, which weakens tropical systems. These factors were in conflict, and the result was very slight weakening. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Through the Greater Antilles" section should be named simple "Greater Antilles". — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
The article is written as a narrative. It tells a story. This story progresses. Movement is one of the story's key elements, and I don't have a problem with it being reflected in the section heading. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
November 13 was a busy day for Tropical Storm Gordon. I'm afraid I still greatly dislike that sentence. — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
While possible, this view was never accepted by the official hurricane summaries. What official hurricane summaries" — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
The two summaries linked immediately after the full stop: "Preliminary Report Hurricane Gordon 8-21 November 1994" and "Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1994". PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A large ridge of high pressure near the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast increased the pressure gradient around the storm, so although its sub-tropical elements (namely a lack of deep convection) precluded a core of strong winds immediately around the storm's nucleus, strong winds were supported well outside the storm's circulatory center. First, "Mid-Atlantic" is capitalized. Second, a storm does not have a nucleus... — Juliancolton 14:30, 26 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
Agreed on the capitalization, but the word nucleus simply means "center". I use the word "center" later in the same sentence, and needed a synonym. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Core" is already used in that sentence and the hurricane did not have an eye. "Middle" and "midpoint" are a bit awkward and I don't think that either of them are as precise as "nucleus". And in the end, these are synonyms. What is wrong with "nucleus"? PlasticupT/C22:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"Nucleus" is a term that I have only heard used for describing a component to a cell. I just looked it up, and the only way it relates to meteorology is being a particle on which water vapor molecules accumulate in free air to form a droplet or ice crystal.. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone14:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Nucleus' primary meaning perfectly captures what I was trying to say: 1. a central part about which other parts are grouped or gathered; corePlasticupT/C15:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
You mentioned that there were a lot of run-on sentences. I have read through and chopped up a couple, but if you want to give me specific examples I would be grateful. PlasticupT/C18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Alright, here's some more examples of run-on sentences:
Spots of convection flared on the morning of November 9 and banding features appeared shortly thereafter even as its center made landfall on the northeastern Nicaraguan coast near Puerto Cabezas.
The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and its influence was replaced by a mid-tropospheric ridge over the eastern United States.
Not really. The way I would have modified it is by adding a comma or a period, or flat-out rewriting it: "The shortwave trough that had been steering Gordon across Florida moved ahead of the storm and stopped affecting the system. Its influence was replaced by that of a mid-tropospheric ridge located over the eastern United States."Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)21:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The hurricane's loop continued and as it moved to a west-northwesterly heading Gordon briefly threatened North Carolina's Outer Banks before stalling offshore once again. Not really a run-on, but could use a comma.
Strong upper-level winds battered the storm from the northwest and sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection.
I have broken it up as so: Strong upper-level winds battered the storm from the northwest. They sheared away Gordon's upper-level convection while polluting the storm with colder and dryer air that weakened its lower level convection. It is now fit for simple.wikipedia.com. PlasticupT/C02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The high pressure system over the continent continued pulling the depression west until it made its final landfall near Cape Canaveral that night with winds of 30 mph (45 km/h). Could also use a comma. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is simple. "X happened until Y". No need for a comma whatsoever. This is why God gave us conjunctions. PlasticupT/C02:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Current ref 31 Jose Fernandez Partagas "Gordon a Complex Weather System" is lacking a last access date.
Ref 31 had an accesscate instead of an accessdate. That is fixed. The pdf that you linked took me a while to find because it is transcluded from Template:Wettest_tropical_cyclones_in_Haiti. I am fixing that now. I also noticed that none of the pdf references have format=pdf in the citations, so I'll be fixing that too. PlasticupT/C13:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Opening sentence is unnecessarily awkward - the whole title of the article need not be written out and bolded. Just "Hurricane Gordon, which lasted thirteen days, was erratic, etc. etc." would be fine. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I do. Just because other articles have passed with subpar opening sentences doesn't mean every article should. If you like, you can ask a few other prose reviewers on FAC for their opinion. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm going to stand by my oppose unless you agree to change the opening sentence - the opening sentence needs to be grammatically immaculate because it's all most people will read of the article; this one is far from that. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
A comma after two words is pretty much the definition of awkward. The opening sentence, as it is now, it straightforward and dead simple. The subject is clear and the only commas separate items of a list. Your alternative introduces an unnecessary subordinate clause after just two words. PlasticupT/C21:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably shouldn't have used grammatically incorrect, but it's confusing and makes little sense. You have subjects mixed up - Hurricane Gordon was erratic, inconsistent, etc., not its history. The current version, however, implies the latter as opposed to the former. Nousernamesleft (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
That's an interesting point. But I don't want to start the article by talking about Hurricane Gordon in general - I want it to be clear that this article is about the hurricane's meteorology. Any suggestions there? PlasticupT/C03:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is "Tropical" in "Tropical depression" capitalised? This kind of thing happens throughout the article. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I count one instance of this. It was in the lead and I have fixed it. The phrase "Tropical Storm Gordon" earns a capitalization because it is a proper noun, much like New York City is not New York city. PlasticupT/C01:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mean to be difficult, but I just did a case-sensitive search of the article, and every instance of "Tropical Storm" is followed by "Gordon". Maybe I fixed them while making another edit, but in any event I hope that this issue is resolved. PlasticupT/C03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Rechecking, it appears that that's the case. Never mind. I'll respond to the other point soon after another runthrough of the article. Nousernamesleft (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to Category 1 Hurricane Gordon." - why not just "In the Atlantic, Gordon rapidly strengthened to a Category 1 Hurricane?" - words in brackets are optional. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
"The storm's characteristically wandering track" - why not just "The storm's characteristic wandering"? — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
I always try to make articles a concise as possible - the former method of expressing it seems unnecessarily redundant and lengthy to me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
"warranted that the system be classified Tropical Depression Twelve." - unnecessarily awkward, similar to the bullet two above this one. — Nousernamesleft 23:12, 25 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
The article contains many of the faults demonstrated in the last and third to last points. The unneeded capitalisation is also an issue (albeit a minor one), and the rest of the prose has some other mistakes as well. Give the prose a cleanup and I'll be happy to support. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, but help me out for a minute. Is your argument that the sentence is unclear? Does it not transfer its intended meaning? Because I think that the sentence is perfectly clear. So your argument must be that the meaning of the sentence is not one worthy of being transmitted. Here again I am perplexed - it is a brief introduction to two very important paragraphs. PlasticupT/C20:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not concerned that the sentence doesn't transfer its intended meaning—it is perfectly clear. I just believe that it is unnecessary, because the reader can determine for themselves that November 13 was indeed a busy day because of the numerous notable events in the storm's history. It just adds more text for a reader to progress through, without adding any meaningful context to the prose. Even though I am in favor of having the sentence removed altogether, if it were to stay, a substantial improvement would be to replace the word "busy" with "active". JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone20:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I don't see anything wrong with the sentence (it takes a whole second to read—it's not going to bore anyone into not reading the article), as it is simply stylistic flair. However, I changed it anyways. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)22:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I stopped copy editing because you were displeased. There are still changes I would make if it were up to me. Why don't you ask User talk:Juliancolton to suggest a replacement sentence for the one he dislikes? Besides following User:Tony1's rules and other rules of copy editing, much is a matter of taste. If User talk:Juliancolton says that he finds the sentence troublesome, then it seems to me you must take him at his word. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't that sentence in particular so much as it was the stripping of every bit of creativity in the name of "encyclopedic"-ism. But I'll concede this point if it makes everyone feel better. Beware, my future FACs will all have interesting and professional language as well. ;-) Champions of the bland be on your guard! PlasticupT/C00:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I defended your use of language in one of your past "Hurricane" articles because there it served to enhance the article. That is not the case here. The use of "busy" in the first sentence was not "engaging prose" but more like Time magazine writing, sorry to say. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak support The majority of my issues have been addressed, and the few that remain are not significant enough for me to withhold a support. All in all, well done, but some more copyediting would be nice. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone22:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been working on this article for several months and I do believe it is ready to submit as an FA candidate. The article has also undergone a recent peer review that I think has hammered out any minor issues. I would like to thank the following users for their dedication in helping the article reach FAC: Patrickneil for his dedicated mentorship; Brianboulton for his extensive peer review; Maralia, Realist2, and Juliancolton for their copy editing prowess; Ealdgyth for being a tireless reference checker; Dr. Cash for his help over at WP:CITY; and last but not least, Saxonthedog for relentlessly making sure the article reflects a NPOV.
Resolved comments from Aude (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Oppose The article is quite good, but I see some changes that should be made.
The history section jumps from 1874 to the 1930s. Around the turn of the century, the McMillan Plan was devised and major changes to the city made (e.g. National Mall created, Union Station built and the railroads relocated there, etc.) I know this is mentioned in the cityscape section, but it could also be tied in with the history.
The mention of 9/11 is awkward. That bit doesn't tie in very well with the rest of the article. How has 9/11 affected DC since then?
I would mention the effect on security, but 9/11 had the same affect pretty much everywhere else. I think it would be pretty redundant to say that security was tightened as a result. But, I'm not married to having the information in the article in the first place. I'll wait to see if any other editors are concerned about it.
I don't think the coordinates should be mentioned in the geography section. The numbers are meaningless to most people. Anyway, the coordinates are already provided in the infobox.
The geography section could really use a picture of one of the park areas (e.g. Rock Creek Park, C&O Canal, or other park area). Parks are very important as part of people's everyday life in DC, as a place for recreation, perhaps more so than other cities.
In the climate section, the average amount of snowfall is mentioned. There, the article should also mention about the major blizzards that Washington has from time to time. They tend to be a big deal, with schools closed and other impacts.
When they happen they are a big deal but they tend to be few and far between; I wouldn't think most of them to be a major aspect worthy of mention. The Great Blizzard of 1899 is already mentioned, however, because it was the largest. epicAdam (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning 1899 is fine, but mentioning generally that blizzards happen on occasion might be appropriate, similarly to how the article mentions about occasional flooding in Georgetown and the occasional hurricane. --Aude (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I added information about Washington blizzards using information from the article provided by the National Weather Service. -epicAdam (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article might be better if it cited Zachary Schrag's book on the development of the Washington Metro system. He talks a lot about transit-oriented development and gentrification, as relates to construction of the Metro system.
I think something is missing. One thing is that I can't find when the construction of the Metro system began or when the system first opened, yet the system has had important impacts on the city. Schrag mentions how the Metro system helped stimulate gentrification in the Downtown/Chinatown area, as well as U-Street and other areas with transit-oriented development. At the time the system was planned, building freeways was the popular thing to do. Washington had the option of doing that, and had plans to build a freeway through Adams Morgan and other neighborhoods. But they ended up choosing to build the Metro. Some brief mention in summary style about construction of Metro might fit in the history section, the transportation section, or elsewhere. --Aude (talk) 08:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I added information about Metro's role in gentrifying areas along the Green Line, referencing Schrag's book. The information about Metrorail's opening is already present in the transportation section.
I think the story of the Washington metro is fascinating, but I don't want to overemphasize its role in this article. One has to remember that the transit system wasn't meant to help revitalize the city; it was built to quickly shuttle suburban residents to and from work downtown. Plus, gentrification has been uneven. Areas like U Street and Columbia Heights are successful, but other neighborhoods in southeast and northeast aren't really any better off than they were before Metro came through. I don't want to make it sound like Metro was the city's great "development messiah" when it was really one of many factors that aided development. Also, just for comparison, the article on New York City gives its subway a grand total of five sentences, and it is arguably one of the most important subway systems in the world! -epicAdam (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - With the changes, the article looks good to me. It does a excellent job of summarizing all the subtopics, and the sources look good. Excellent work with the article over the past few months. --Aude (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I remember the numerous problems this article had when it was first up for FAC. It was ugly and had issues with citation formatting. I have been
astonished with the work that has gone into it in recent months, to the point where I found myself wondering just this week when it would appear up here. I have given advice to editors and have worked on the images at times, but am not a major contributor. I think the criticisms mentioned already are not enough to withhold support, and have been, as far as I can see, already remedied. With attention to the History section, I don't worry that it skips too much, but that it could be shorter yet. Still, it is no longer than that of other similar city articles such as New York City, which is already a featured article. I encourage readers to compare DC with New York to see that Washington, D.C. now deserves to be elevated to featured status.--PatrickѺ20:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: I did a very detailed peer review for this article (a review which, by the way, is still open and needs to be closed). I raised a great many points, all of which were responded to in a positive manner. Since my review a considerable copyediting and revision exercise has taken place which has improved the article further. I share the view expressed above, that the criticisms on which the oppose is based are relatively trivial and easily rectified. Of city articles, this is probably the best I've seen and is in my view thoroughly deserving of promotion. The only question which I have is about the wikilinking of dates. My understanding of current policy on this is, don't link dates unless they are of particular significance, e.g. a person's dates of birth and death in a biographical article. In this article all dates seem to be linked - including a year-only "1973" in the History section which has got to be wrong, whatever the dispensation. I suggest the editors check whether they are within current date-linking policy and act accordingly. But this is nothing to do with the quality of the article, of which the editors ought to be proud.--Brianboulton (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I de-wikilinked the year. But I too have asked for clarification about the dates. I think it makes sense to only wikilink relevant dates, but it seems like full dates are supposed to be linked. If not, then I can quickly delink irrelevant dates. -epicAdam (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I did a peer review of the article, and after some minor issues, the article meets the criteria, and then some. I'm not concerned about the history section skipping a time period, as a subarticle exists. An excellent piece of work on such a notable topic. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 146 "Haynes, V. Dion and Theola Labbe "A Boom for DC Charter Schools" is lacking a last access date.
Otherwise souces look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I did a check at the peer review, and the concerns there have been addressed. Ealdgyth - Talk12:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
There appears to be over wikilinking per WP:CONTEXT. For example, in the intro the following probably do not need to be wikilinked: United States, states, workweek, commuters, trade unions, area, Minority-majority state (Washington D.C. is not a state). Additionally, you could consider not wikilinking the dates, since it is optional per WP:MOSNUM to do so and does contribute to the "sea of blue" effect. Autoformatting (wikilinking dates) only benefits the small percentage of readers who are both logged in and who have set their preferences. The rest just see a blue jumble. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: Wikipedia:CITE#Scrolling lists "Scrolling lists, for example of references, should never be used because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such lists will display properly in all web browsers." There are also some faulty italics in the citations, resulting from using the "work" parameter on sources rather than the publisher parameter; newspapers, journals and periodicals use WP:ITALICS, but why is the website CNNMoney in italics, for example? See what graphic? For example, the District's unemployment rate fluctuates greatly within the city; in August 2006, unemployment ranged from 1.5% in affluent Ward 4 to 16.3% in Ward 8 (see graphic).SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. I have just gone through and performed a section-by-section sweep of the article and have removed unnecessary and/or redundant wikilinks, empty reference fields, adjusted publisher settings to conform to WP:ITALICS, corrected problems with date autoformatting, and removed the hidden scroll bar. Please let me know if you have any additional concerns. Best, epicAdam (talk) 05:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - What about the fact that Washington D.C. is not a state? It is jarring to see it called a state in your introduction. Perhaps thinking of Washington D.C. as in the class of "states" is why the article glosses over how its special status contributes to its positives and negatives in the present day. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Re above comment "it is jarring to see it called a state", the last sentence of the lead begins with the qualifier "If Washington DC were a state...", which is rather the opposite of calling it a state. I see no confusion here. Brianboulton (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm a little hesitant to support or oppose this article, because I've contributed to it in the past. Though the vast majority of the work has been done by Epicadam, who has done an awesome job recently. It has gone through a GA review, peer review, and improved significantly in the past year. I think Washington, D.C. represents one of Wikipedia's finest city articles, and I would not hesitate in promoting it, IMHO. Dr. Cash (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I am disappointed that this article gives so little space to the architecture. It does not contain a description of the ensemble design of the important buildings with squares adjoining each other in the Italian manner, the streets radiating from the center etc., and other characteristics of the complex geometric overlays famously designed by Pierre L'Enfant and then revised and implemented after L'Enfant was dismissed. Its descriptions of artchitectural style are very general, as provided by wikilinks. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Alas, therein lies the problem with summary style. Much like like the issue about the role of the Metro, it's hard to pinpoint the exact level of detail that should be reflected in the article. I will say, however, that the cityscape and architecture section is as detailed as that of New York City#Cityscape.
As for the street layout, the start of the cityscape section does say, "In 1791, Pierre L'Enfant drew up a basic plan modeled in the Baroque style, which incorporated broad avenues radiating out from traffic circles, providing for maximum open space and landscaping." There is a "see also" to the article on Streets and highways of Washington, D.C., which goes into further detail.
Based on your suggestion, I also added a footnote about Andrew Ellicott's role in creating the final plans. We had originally decided against mentioning him because not only was L'Enfant's plan not significantly altered by Ellicott, the plans were never entirely executed, either. It's for this reason that the McMillan plan is highlighted; those architects are largely responsible for the appearance of the city today, even as they followed L'Enfant's general design scheme.
The architectural styles are general. Again, relating to the summary style guidelines, it's hard to choose just exactly what buildings and architectural styles should be highlighted without providing undue weight to some subjects. Perhaps a sub-article on the Architecture of Washington, D.C. would be warranted to deal with this in greater depth, but I have a hard time imagining how it would all fit into the main article.
Self-nom. I wrote this article on a minor naval action of the French Revolutionary Wars back in March when I didn't really have time for an FAC. Now I do, it has passed for GA and I think this meets the FA criteria, so let me know what you think. Jackyd101 (talk) 07:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've audited the dates and removed the autoformatting to allow your high-value links to breathe. MOSNUM no longer encourages date-linking. No glitches in the formatting, BTW, which is uncommon!
This is an interesting article indeed. The prose needs a little work, though. Here are random examples:
"Ireland was seen on the European continent as a weak point in Britain's defences because unlike in Britain herself, a landing of foreign troops in Ireland could count on the support of a large proportion of the native population."—"unlike in Britain" is clumsy. Needs recasting, possibly with a colon in the middle.
"Such a force would also expect"—stronger without "also".
"The divided nature of French politics"—whenever I see "nature", I quail. Is this better? "Divisions in French politics". the operation, not this.
"These failures bred a negative mentality amongst the French officer corps which had survived The Terror and discouraged adventurous strategic thinking." What is "The Terror"? Explain briefly: we shouldn't have to hit the link or look up the ref to find out.
"with 13 ships lost and over 2,000 men drowned"—after "lost", it sounds as though the men were drowned as you do to unwanted kittens in the bathtub.
Are you suggesting that the word "lost" or the word "drowned" is at fault here? If the former, I chose it because "sunk or captured" seemed too long winded. If the latter, I can't really think of a viable alternative.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"The following year, Tone and his companions attempted a second time to land troops in Ireland, persuading the government of the Netherlands, then under French occupation, to prepare their own expedition." Why not "companions again attempted"? I can't quite get why the persuasion of the Dutch is relevant in this sentence. The Dutch haven't yet been mentioned.
Grammar aside, this paragraph is important because the section is disscussing the efforts of the United Irishmen to persuade France (or in this case a French client state) to inavde Ireland. Camperdown was the second of three failed attempts to successful invade Ireland, the final one of which is the subject of this article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And lots more. I have high hopes for this article, but the prose needs to be significantly improved. I can't stress enough how important it is to bring on board fresh editors—word-nerds if possible. Identify them through the edit history pages (edit summaries give them away) of articles on similar topics. They could be valuable future collaborators, too. Oh, and there are rather a lot of red links. Do you think you could write stubs for some of them? Wouldn't take long, surely. TONY(talk)14:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've dealt with you immediate issues and will go over the article again soon. I do have some regular copyeditors but they all seem to be a bit busy at the moment, I'll try widening the net. Regarding date formatting, I'm now very confused. Can you link directly to the relevent bit of WP:MOSNUM so I can understand it for future reference?--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments Ah yes, there now seems to be a lack of copyeditors. I can barely find any for the main article I'm working on McGill
It seems quite good actually, and I can only find a couple of errors.
One tiny thing, it would be better in paragraph one, in the section Warren's Pursuit, line four,
Comment I haven't really read the article yet, but at first glance I noticed that in the sentence, Saumarez immediately gave chase to Savary's force, and the squadrons exchanged long–distance cannon fire throughout the day., the en dash should be changed to a hyphen in this case, per MoS. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I noticed this article was a FAC so I went ahead and recreated the PNG battle map in SVG format. This way if it makes it onto the main page, now there is a more visible, scalable map that can be used as a thumb to accompany the article. I haven't read through the article yet either though so I can't really say much about the content. TIM KLOSKE|TALK01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Update: a number of editors have performed copyedits on this article or parts of it, particulaly User:EyeSerene, to whom I am indebted. Please let me know of any further problems.--Jackyd101 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Vinegar hill.jpg -- Definitely public domain. It's too bad it's not higher resolution, but that's not required.
Image:Battle of Tory Island.svg -- user created, appropriately licensed. Jacky, I see you created the original version of this image. Great work going the extra mile like that!
Support. In the interest of fair disclosure , I contributed the original png version of the current battle location map (now svg). I find it meets all the FA criteria. Ruhrfisch><>°°14:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—It is FA-worthy and I could find no significant issues. A more tactical map or two would have been helpful to follow some of the action, but I can understand if none are available.—RJH (talk) 18:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Tactical maps are difficult and prone to controversy because the initial reports of the action were so contradictory (as discussed in the footnote). Otherwise I'd love to have one. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've been working on this article on and off for some time, and now I think it's ready to be considered for promotion to FA. I hope you agree. The Pendle witch trials are among the best-known and best-documented of the 17th-century English witch trials, thanks to an official published account written by the clerk to the court, Thomas Potts. Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Supportwith minor reservations: The article is very informative and well-sourced. I have only a handful of concerns that no doubt can be quickly addressed:
Citations: Since the sources provided are mostly published references, I cannot determine off-hand whether the citations provided source all the material proceeding them. For example, in the first paragraph under "Religious and political background", the article claims that James I "had become convinced that he was being plotted against by Scottish witches" and other surprising details of his fascination with witchcraft. Yet the next source provided doesn't come until three sentences later when a citation is provided about a new anti-witchcraft law. I'm sure the sourcing is adequate, but on first read it just seems like a lot of information to come from a single page in a book.
The last paragraph under "Religious and political background" is a bit unclear, at least to me. I'm not certain what "King James' attitude towards witchcraft was perhaps difficult to understand for the two judges hearing the trials of the Pendle witches" means. What I gather it to mean, given the surrounding text, is that the jurists who were to hear the cases might not have been clear as to what the King actually thought to be witchcraft, and that somehow this led to the wrongful execution of the nine accused...
I meant it to mean that the judges weren't certain which course of action would gain them favour with the king; whether to be sceptical in examining the evidence, or to encourage the convictions. I've rewritten the last paragraph to try and make that clearer. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Awkward sentence here: "The event which seems to have triggered Nowell's investigation, culminating in the Pendle witch trials, occurred on 21 March 1612, when Alizon Device encountered John Law."
Otherwise I think this is a great little article. I like the family tree illustrations (much preferred than repeatedly referencing family members in the prose) and the tables at the bottom. I think the graphics and illustrations are adequate for an article of this length, and the three web sources present I believe are appropriate for the information referenced. Best, epicAdam (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll just note the assumption (at least on my part) is that any information given before a footnote is sourced to that footnote, whether it's one phrase or a whole paragraph. That's been the assumption for my FACs, also. Ealdgyth - Talk11:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support tried hard to find something with which to bring an opposition with, but to me, this is a flawless piece, and an enjoyable, informative read. MOS, CITE and IMAGE compliant (AFAICT). Well done, --Jza84 | Talk 12:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments: This is a very interesting article about a subject I previously knew nothing about. Although well written and obviously well sourced, I'm not sure the lead section gives an adequate summary of the entire article. In areas it is a little too detailed (One of the accused, Jennet Preston, lived in Gisburn, just over the border from Pendle, in Yorkshire) and some of the information (fewer than 500 witches were executed, so this one series of trials over three days in the summer of 1612 accounts for more than 2% of that total) is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. The "Modern interpretation" and "Aftermath and legacy" sections are not represented nor is Thomas Potts' written account, which seems to be a major part of its legacy, is not explained. Because of these deficiencies, I think the lead should be rewritten. María(habla conmigo) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: I have read several books on this particular subject and this article provides an excellent summary of all the major points that need to be covered. An enjoyable read, and highly informative.-- Seahamlass18:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: I have seen this article after the suggestions made on this page have been incorporated into it. It reads well, conforms to MoS issues, and its coverage is very good and detailed enough. I think it deserves to succeed here. DDStretch (talk)20:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Firm Oppose for now: Generally good and comprehensive, but needs retouching at a number of points to make FA standard, plus more depth and better flow. The sources are very thin for an FA, nearly all of them being papers in the same book. After that we are down to the Pocket Essentials The History of Witchcraft. The nominator seems unprepared to improve the article, or even to believe that is possible, so progress seems unlikely. Johnbod (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"William Harrison Ainsworth, a Victorian novelist considered in his day the equal of Dickens ..." (repeated later) - no such claim at his article & I very much doubt this was a generally held view.
I would suggest that whatever is claimed at his wikipedia article is irrelevant. The claim is fully supported by reference to a respectable academic source. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually "Richards 2002" is not in the refs. Where is that link supposed to go? Is he an Eng Lit academic? Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Prof Stephen Carver, who wrote the book on Ainsworth says "His brief period as Scott's successor in the eyes of the press after Rookwood had also given way to Dicken's meteoric rise, a literary superiority to which Ainsworth cheerfully deferred" here. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"the people of Pendle remained largely faithful to their Roman Catholic beliefs and openly reverted to Catholicism on Queen Mary's ascent to the throne in 1553." - the great majority of the population did so, under intense government pressure.
"The Protestant establishment, however, regarded Catholic practices as little more than conjuring, and their prayers as charms." Reference or not, this is an unacceptably crude way to describe the very complicated attitudes of "the Protestant establishment" in 1612. Such views were much more likely to be held by non-conformists, themselves also practicing a form of religion heavily discriminated against by the Govenment.
I realise that you have some vested interest in any article that mentions the word "Catholic", but everything in that sentence to which you are apparently objecting is appropriately attributed. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
" but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, which had resulted in a woman being sentenced to death by hanging for witchcraft" needs clarifying. Presumably:"but he had recently been accused of a miscarriage of justice at the York Assizes, when he had sentenced a woman to death by hanging for witchcraft"
That would be going beyond what the source actually claims; it doesn't say that Altham had sentenced a woman to death, although one could speculate that's what had happened. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Where did the "witches" actually live? Were they actually recusants?
They lived in the area around Pendle, as I thought the article made clear. Can you suggest any way of making that clearer? Whether or not they were recusants is unrecorded, although one could speculate that they very likely were. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Nobody lives on Pendle Hill itself, and the now largely vanished forest of Pendle is ill-defined. I see you removed, after a comment above, the fact that one lived at Gisburn. Don't we have better information on the others? Where was Malkin Tower for example? Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm really struggling to understand your point. The "witches" lived in the area around Pendle Hill. Nobody knows precisely where Malkin Tower was, other than that it was somewhere in the Pendle area. It has long since disappeared. I only removed the "Gisburn" fact from the lead, after an earlier objection about there being too much detail in the lead. It is still there in the Trials section. The Gisburn fact was in any case only relevant to explain why one of the accused was tried at York Assizes but the others were tried at Lancaster. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit more on the wider perspectives of what modern historians make of the witch trial phenomenon is needed really.
My view is that this article is not the appropriate place for that wider discussion. The pupose of this article, in my view, is to explain the Pendle witch trials. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The third para of the lead will do for an example. I realize there are lots of relationships and facts to get in, but this & many other passages make for a knotty read. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not that fond of the tabular format of the trials. That is a large chunk of the article text, and I think it would be better served in prose.
How strongly do you feel about the table format? I quite like it (obviously), but I'm not wedded to it if you see it as being problematic. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
What was the result of Jennet Device's later trial? Was she found guilty or not guilty?
The evidence is sparse, not helped by the fact that many of Lancashire's court records were destroyed by fire. It's not absolutely certain that it was the same Jennet Device who was tried for witchcraft in 1634, but most researchers seem to believe that it likely was. The result of the trial was that she was found guilty, but the judges refused to pass the death sentence and referred the case to king. Device was detained in Lancaster jail, and was recorded as still being there in 1636. Nothing else seems to be known about her; the most likely outcome is that she died in jail. I'll expand on that a little, as it does round off Jennet Device's story. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Summary I believe that all of the actionable comments have now been addressed, perhaps with the exception of one. I am unwilling to extend the scope of this article to include a discussion of the general witch trial phenomenon because I believe that would be better described elsewhere, as in fact it is. This article is about a specific event that happened in the summer of 1612, in what was then a remote part of England. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been recommended for FA consideration after completing its peer review. Serendipodous20:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
and a mean distance from the Sun of 43 AU. Lowell assumed that, like the gas giants, Planet X would have a low density and a high albedo, and would thus present a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13.
What does "high albedo" and "a disc covering one second of arc and have an apparent magnitude of between 12 and 13." mean? I consider myself reasonably educated in the sciences, and I have no clue. Provide wikilinks, or strike.
Lowell's sudden death in 1916 temporarily halted his observatory's search for Planet X. His disappointment at not locating the world, according to one friend, "virtually killed him"
I don't like the construction of this sentence. "his observatory's search for Planet X" doesn't read well. "disappointment at not locating the world" also doesn't read well. At least change world to planet--this isn't poetry here. Can one be disappointed at something? I thought "in" was the only option.
The two images of each section were then placed in a machine called a blink comparator, which rapidly shifted them back and forth to create the illusion of movement of any objects that had changed position or appearance between photographs.
Passive and verbose. Try something like: "...a blink comparator, which created a time lapse illusion which exposed the movement of planetary bodies."
On February 18, 1930, after having searched for nearly a year and examined nearly 2 million stars, Tombaugh discovered a possible moving object on photographic plates taken on January 23 and January 29 of that year.
David Jewitt is the man who discovered the Kuiper belt, so his opinion in this matter is valid. The others I can swap out. Serendipodous15:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support - Because I am amazed by the comprehensiveness of this article, I support. However, Serendi, not everyone will overlook the fact that the article only has 35 references. --Meld§hal*talk to me*17:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—I did a PR on this article and all my concerns were addressed at that time. It's a fine article on the subject and, as far as I know, comprehensive (considering that it is about something that may not exist). I'm not at all concerned about the reference tally as there is a fair amount of re-use. Another image or two might be nice, but it's okay now.—RJH (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. FYI, I can say from experience that locating a public domain image of a planet that doesn't exist is somewhat difficult :-) Serendipodous16:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:ClydeTombaugh.jpg -- The image claims it is a work of the federal government. The source page says it's from Lowell Observatory, a private institution. I'm concerned the uploader may have inadvertently misrepresented the status of this image. Some evidence needs to be provided that this was ever a work of the federal government.
Image:Pluto discovery plates.png -- this image is also from Lowell Observatory, but is uploaded with a proper and valid fair use claim.
Image:EightTNOs.png -- user generated and appropriately licensed. Very nice.
Support Comments...ok, diving right in..I think we are over the line here. Maybe a few more prose tweaks but no deal-brekaers for mine. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
::Since the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there had been considerable speculation that a ninth planet might exist beyond its orbit. - something about this sentence bugs me, as there was speculation, then they found Pluto, Pluto is then 9th planet, then there's more, then we're back to 8. It simplifies things to the point they can be misconstrued. I do concede this is a hairy point and right now I haven't a clue how it can be rephrased but I am ruminating...Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC) (addendum - maybe just 'another planet' or 'further planets')
::..the irregularities observed in Uranus's orbit were due to an incorrect measurement of Neptune's mass.. - could state here that it was an under or overestimate (more exact).
::Although many of the larger members of this group - erm, I thought it was only 4 or 5...(?) Do we have the exact number? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 10:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Multiple prose problems. Here are two almost at random: "Besides supposed gravitational effects, probability arguments have also been used to suggest the existence of planet-sized objects in the outer Solar System. Sedna's 12,000-year orbit is so extremely eccentric that, according to Mike Brown, who discovered it in 2004, there was only a one-in-sixty chance of it ever having been observed." The first sentence has a dangling modifier. The second is clearly nonsense: in fact the probability of it ever having been observed is 1; it has, after all, been observed. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. This is a lot better, and I've been learning a lot as I've been going through it. The prose could still do with some polish, and (as per below) I do think that the referencing needs to be more exact. But I'm withdrawing my previous "oppose." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Well researched and adequately referenced. Some minor prose issues such as the above, but worthy of FA jimfbleak (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—I agree with my colleague, Jbmurray. Here are just random examples from the top only.
The bolded items scattered through Para 1 are very distracting. This is a classic case where the guideline on the bolding in the lead falls into an exceptional category, where the topic is hard to restate at the opening. I suggest you debold all three items.
"The X in the name represents an unknown and is pronounced as the letter, as opposed to the Roman numeral for 10, as it would not, at the time, have been the tenth planet." What is "it"? The reader has to work too hard.
"in fact"—redundant.
Metric conversions, please.
"no planet was found"—unnecessary passive voice; recast with the previous sentence.
"... Lowell conducted a second search from 1913 to 1915. In that year ..."—Um, which year?
"...(or half ..."—It's not either or, so remove "or".
"low density (meaning large size)"—meaning? No, "indicating" or "suggesting" or "equated with".
While I participated in writing this article, I have not read the text for more than two weeks and therefore can contribute into the copy-edit. I have copy-edited several parts of the article and hope to finish the work tomorrow. Ruslik (talk) 16:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. The article states of Robert Harrington: "He calculated that any Planet X would be at roughly three times the distance from the sun than Neptune; its orbit would be highly eccentric, and strongly inclined to the ecliptic—the planet's orbit would be at roughly a 90-degree angle from the orbital plane of the other known planets." However, reading the article cited, Harrington appears to say quite the opposite: "The history of previous searches increases the probability of a planetary orbit moderately inclined to the ecliptic, for a planet brighter than seventeenth magnitude. However the lack of discrepancies in the declination observations argues for a planet close to the plane of the ecliptic" (p. 63). Is this not saying quite the opposite? Indeed, I can't see anything in Harrington's article that supports any part of the sentence in the WP article. On the other hand, this is not my area of expertise at all. I could be quite wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going on a quote from page 60 of Ken Croswell's Planet Quest, my main source for this article. It says, " calculations indicated that the planet's mean distance from the Sun was about 100 times the Earth's, or a little over three times Neptune's, and it traveled on a highly elliptical orbit. The planet also journeyed far above and below the plane of the Solar System."
Of course, Ken Croswell could be wrong, or Harrington might have revised his predictions. After all, he was looking for a non-existent planet, so theoretically it could be anywhere. I didn't sub that paper as a reference, and I can only read its abstract, so I can't comment on its differences.Serendipodous09:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. While we're at it: in general, the references should be much more specific, indicating page numbers, especially for direct quotations. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 07:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is not necessary to give a page number for every citation, because it inflates reflist out of all proportions. Ruslik (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the whole point of citing references is to be able to look them up. They must have all the necessary information--including page number. Lwnf360 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
MOS actually says that citations to books should have pages numbers (where appropriate). However journal articles already have page numbers, and to add additional number on the top of them is unnecessary. Ruslik (talk) 18:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for FA. Just a reminder, English is not my first language, if reviewers have comments could they please write in clear, full sentences to avoid confusion on my part. — Realist2 (Speak) 11:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Note of interest to reviewers. Because this article was slightly long, we removed a few things to keep it all tight and neat. A few of the things removed were on the topic of Jackson's appearance and health. To help the FA review, we removed some of these details and I set up a new article for it which has been nominated for deletion.Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physical appearance, health and diet of Michael JacksonThe article was nominated because it was "controversial and pov", we have reviewed this article and have all agreed that content was of an FA standard in it's own right. If the article is deleted we are going to have to bring some of the info back, wasting our hard work trimming. For those editors who understand the article and the content please help, that info needed its own article because of this article's length. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments regarding MoS compliance:
The Dangerous album had seven million shipments in the US, sold two million copies in the UK and sold twenty-seven million copies worldwide; sales figures were slightly lower to those of Bad. Not a big deal, but try to keep blocks of references in numerical order.
Shortly thereafter it was announced that Jackson was producing an all-star charity single — entitled "I Have This Dream" — to help raise relief funds for victims of Hurricane Katrina. The single has not yet been released. em dashes need to be unspaced.
Image shouldn't be left-aligned directly under section headers like in the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section, but again, not a huge deal.
Weak Oppose - I provided some feedback at the peer view. This is looking very good. But there are some problems with the prose, and other things (I am focusing on the "Legacy, influence and artistry" section):
"He broke down racial barriers, transformed the art of the music video and paved the way for modern pop music in his own country." - This is unsourced, and quite a few things are being said here.
The reason that is unsourced is because I go onto describe these things in there relevant descending section. The music video section below it, shows all the details on breaking down racial barriers and transforming the music video. Also the Thriller section of the article talks about his visit to the White house and how that broke down racial barriers (again sourced). Is resourcing for the sake of resourcing absolutely necessary when the article is sourced an absurd 300+ times. I could resource it but then I would be accused of reusing web links :-). — Realist2 (Speak) 14:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Minor redundant words throughout: "Before the success of the Thriller album, Jackson hadstruggled to get MTV airing because he was African American." - I'm not sure how to reword it, but "to get MTV airing" sounds terrible.
D0NE
"When the fourteen-minute long Thriller video aired, MTV ran it twice anevery hour to meet demand" - "ran it" -> "played it" (and also, change 'an' to 'every')
DONE
"He would occasionally grab or touch his chest, torso and crotch." -> "He occasionally grabbed or touched his chest, torso and crotch."
DONE
"Jackson hired Martin Scorsese to direct the eighteen-minute music video; it sparked controversy, as Jackson's physical appearance had changed significantly" - This sentence really confused me at first. At first, I thought it meant the decision to hire Scorsese was controversial, not the music video itself. Needs some clarification, maybe?
OK, I think I have managed to clear that up, would you mind reading that section on the bad music video and seeing? — Realist2 (Speak) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"Although the music video for "Leave Me Alone" was not officially released in the US" - Why not?
I have absolutely no idea, and probably never will. It was probably the labels decision, but as it was some 20 years ago I don't think anyone knows aside - Sony. After reading multiple books, studying this guys life for a number of years, I have no idea. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"The entertainer was given the MTV Video Vanguard Artist of the Decade Award" - Why is Jackson now being called "the entertainer"? - Let's keep some consistency.
I tried to mix it up a little using, "Jackson", "the entertainer" and "the singer". Do you want it to say "Jackson" every time? Personally i find it can get annoying hearing that name so many times, hehe. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"In 1995, it gained a record breaking eleven MTV Video Music Award Nominations; winning three in total." - I would add a footnote for this, who says it was record-breaking?
I see that, I will alter it to "more than any other video" as I don't think there was ever a record to break lol. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to stop here. There are many other examples of minor, but still important things which need addressing with 1) the prose and 2) the citations. I suggest you get someone from WP:PRV to copyedit this.
I have resolved or replied to what you are willing to talk about, however since the article has been checked by multiple editors on and off of PRV and you haven't left further specifics yourself I don't know how to resolve your weak oppose. If you care to make more suggestions that I can work with please do, either here or on my talk page if you like. After being checked so many times by some many editors I'm interested to know what they missed. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It's quite simple. The examples I found were in one section. There are many other sections. This article has failed FAC several times already because of prose problems. It doesn't hurt to ask someone to go through and copyedit the whole article (there's no rush, FACs last quite a while), checking for misuse of commas, redundant words and choppy prose. I'm not asking you to copyedit it yourself—get someone new to the text. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)15:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, User:Kodster has taken it upon himself to copy edit it, considering the article length that will take him a few hours, interested to know what you think when he is done. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm in the middle of copyediting the article, especially looking for redundancy errors and such. (Look at my edit summaries in the history.) :-) I still have a long way to go, but I'll post here when I'm done. All the best, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)16:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I am a complete novice when it comes to Michael Jackson, so I was looking for more info in your notes list and - sorry - found some I didn't really understand. There are several refs that just read "Taraborrelli, p. 464–471 or "a b Campbell (1995), p. 53". Please excuse my ignorance, but are these books or magazine articles or something else entirely?-- Seahamlass16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure, they are all published books. The full details of their publication can be found further down, by here. Sorry if that confuses you. When an article is sourced so many times it becomes impractical to write the full book detail out every time. The style of notation is perfectly within wiki policy. The taraborrelli book in particular is very well recieved, easily the most comprehensive book on the singer, although not a favourite amongst fans of Jackson. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou. I was just reading the (recent FA promotion) Mary Shelley article, and the editors there had done exactly the same thing as you. Now I know why!-- Seahamlass16:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
While I cant make heads or tails of that link, if it involves altering every single book ref I have used, my reply would be (as MJ once said himself) "No Way In Hell". The refs are accurate and reliable and it seems like a lot of unnessary work for nothing. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No. That template links the footnotes directly to the book its referring to in the 'References' section. Yes, it would be more work, and of course it was just a suggestion as Seahamlass had trouble figuring out the book footnotes. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)17:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
All FAs must meet the criteria:
(a)-Well written:Kodster is copyediting the article now and after reading the article several times I did not find any major problems
(b)-Comperhensive:The article is 108 KB long and covers his entire life and career,IMO that covers all the major facts and details
(c)-Factually Accurate:The article has 190 notes 14 books and 10 external links as references.IMO that is more than enough to verify the facts in the articles.
(d)-Neutral:Considering the controversy that Michael Jackson has gone through before, this article provides a neutral point of view and does not takes sides saying, "Michael Jackson is bad" or "Michael Jackson is the best singer in the world" instead it's "Michael Joseph Jackson (born August 29, 1958) is an American musician and entertainer. "
(e)-Stable:The article has not had any major edit wars recently rather it has only improved over the last few days.
(f)-A Lead:The article has a nice long lead though I am not sure if it really "summarizes" Michael Jackson.
(g)-Appropriate Structure:The article covers Michael Jackson's life and is excellently organized by the years of his life. The table of contents is of an acceptable length.
(h)-Consistent Citations:With well over 190 citations the article is well cited throughout the article.
(i)-Images:The article has 8 images and 2 audio files, enough for this article.In addition all the images have the correct rational.
(j)-Length:I do not feel that this article goes into unnecessary detail.
Comment: There are some minor WP:MOSNUM issues, or at least stylistic issues that can be resolved by referring to MOSNUM.
*It's nice to have the dates fully formatted for date preference settings.
Non-breaking spaces in spelled-out numbers is always a plus, e.g $95 million.
Sorry, could you clarify what you would like me to do hear please, I don't understand.
$95 million. This will make sure that $95 and million always stay together, rather than million hopping down to the next line if $95 happens to be as far to the right that it can go. --Elliskev20:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's done, I got most of them. By the way, in this article, since numbers less than 100 are spelled out (i.e, "ninety-five" not "95"), should it be "ninety-five million dollars" or still "$95 million"? All the best, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)20:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe. According to the Manual of Style "In the body of an article, single-digit whole numbers from zero to nine are spelled out in words, when none of the other reasons indicate otherwise; numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words (sixteen, eighty-four, two hundred, but 3.75, 544, 21 million)." and "Careful readers may object to the use of 100,000 troops as a rough description of a force of 103 thousand; it is preferable to use one hundred thousand for such approximations." So I guess it depends.--Elliskev20:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I went through it added about 6 or 7 but couldn't find more (I'm new to using that symbol so I might have bee a little conservative in my usage.) Hope that's ok now? — Realist2 (Speak) 20:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't go back and check, but I'm sure it's fine. It's really a preventive measure. To see how it looks without the non-breaking space, take a look at today's (7/17/08) FA on the main page. World War II really should be all on the same line. With my browser size, World War and II are broken. You can see it by resizing your browser. Adding the nbsps just makes for a more professional presentation. Maybe you can nbsp Billboard Hot 100. I don't think you have to, but it makes it better. --Elliskev21:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There is at least one instance of of between a month and a year (I found one in the 1995–1999: HIStory, charity, second marriage and fatherhood section). --Elliskev19:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
There were no others (except "November of that year", which I believe is acceptable). I used the "Find" feature and searched for all 12 months plus "of". This is done. All the best, Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been editing this article a very long time (just check my history, it goes back!). In the years i've worked with it, I've seen constant edit wars, agenda pushing either side of the spectrum and bizarre, bizarre editing from every possible source. This however (without gushing too much) changed when Realist2 got some experience in wikipedia and began editing the article properly. In the past months (not years, months - such is the degree of remarkable transformation) this article has had something done to it I didn't think was possible - it's actually bloody neutral. It's neutral. I cannot overstate this enough. Neutral!
I personally could not have done this, and anyone reading my comment should kindly take a look and see that this article is well written prose of the highest degree - deep, well written, practically existential at certain points! It's a work of actual art. The liberal use of photographs brings it into a class unto itself, the sourcing is just, plain, incredible. It's had zillions of people check, re-check, add more sources and change them over the years. In short it's a paradise of well written factual information.
The articles lead is so good I find myself re-reading it and pinching myself each time. It's better than the Britannica article, hell, it's better than the Taborelli book's intro (one of the best books on Jackson). Structure is exhaustingly well studied, overhauled. I've been part of a recent mind mapping in the themes section, we first theorised appropriate material in a mind map at mind domo. Realist2 found plausible sources and we ransacked them for information, before Realist2 wrote it into perfect prose. It was by far the most interesting and satisfying experience I've had on this article, and I've been working on it for years. So you see, this article has been sourced from good material ground upwards. This is so far beyond original research, it's unbelievable. Because 2 years ago, it was a hive of OR rubbish.
It's exhaustingly comprehensive. This mans' been places, and this article covers this man. Properly. There have been no edit wars going on 6 months, if not more. The current bunch of editors and moderators of the article are in-tune with each other, helpful to new users and encouraging to previous editors to continue the articles transformation, which whilst not complete is now by far and wide more than enough and actually representing a powerful achievement. Neutrality with such a cult, mainstream and notorious figure. This is beyond FA, it's been beyond FA for over 2 months now. If there's something above FA standard, this article is trekking boldly towards it. To think a couple over 8 months ago it was so bad I wanted GA status delisted! . How the article has changed! Unquestionably - Support.--Manboobies (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on this article a lot (it's my second most-edited article, in fact). And I've seen it change. I've changed too. I supported an FA the last time, but I wasn't as experienced an editor as I am now. The MJ article that went up for review last time wasn't an FA (though I thought so at the time). Now it is. Let's run through the Criteria:
Well-written: I've been copyediting this article ever since I've seen it, revising and revising until the prose was brilliant. I just did my last copyedit this morning, and I was stunned at this excellence of the prose that I was reading. It was incredible; literally beyond Brittanica.
Comprehensive: 108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. Nothing less.
Factually Accurate: 190 reliable sources, nine books, no filler. It is factually accurate to the decimal, no doubt.
Neutral: This is to be applauded. I mean, this is Michael Jackson we're talking about here. I've seen people with death wishes for this guy. And yet, this article manages to keep a neutral, informative, encyclopedic tone. This is sheer genius.
Stable: No edit wars on the Michael Jackson page. Another mystery of geniusness.
Lead: The lead summarizes the beauty of the article with an inherent beauty of its own. It's succinct, yet intriguing.
Appropriate structure: Logical system of his biography followed by his legacy
Consistent citations: Every citation is marked to perfection.
Images:Images are used appropriately and with relevance to the article, and the two audio samples highlight some of Jackson's great work
Length:108 kilobytes of Michael Jackson. No more. No less. Sure, the article is long, but this is Michael Jackson we're talking about, not John Power. Michael Jackson is one of the most influential, controversial, talked-about people of all time. There's so much to say. But still, there's no "bull" in this article, and nothing less than the best.
That's all I have to say. This is from a completely objective point of view actually, not taking into account any work that I took place in this. Kodster(heLLo) (Me did that)23:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I share the concerns about using allmusic for a biography. While it's generally a reliable source for album information, it's not as reliable for biographical details that might be controversial.
I removed some that weren't needed, replacing others with reliable sources already used in article. The vast majority that remain can only be found in the "Themes and genre" section. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Another concern is using google books snippets for sourcing information on a living person. The problem with google books is that it doesn't always allow you to get the whole context of the information you're shown. You really should read the whole book for information, not just a excerpt.
I shall eliminate this concern for you. I could have used the Taraborelli book that I own all the way through, it literally contains everything I could need. However I also used a few book from Google to mix it up a little. If you check out the two book by Campbell on Google it is an almost complete preview only about 20 pages are off limits from each book! (Seriously that's not bad for Google books). I only used info from books on Google if it was also corroborated by the Tababorelli book of if it was clear that the full context was available. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Stuff is very reliable, seeming as they are the company that fans must go to in order to select the albums track list.
To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk14:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablity of the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk13:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I just stumbled across this and I'm not sure if my input here is warranted, however I would just like to point out that stuff.co.nz is owned by Fairfax Media, the biggest media corporation in New Zealand and Australia. Also holds the title of New Zealand Website of the Year 2008. Very reliable source. ~ AmeliorateUTC@09:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I know but as there were questions raised about it's falidity validity I removed it so that it didn't damage the articles prospects. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I see issues with some of the books that are used, and I think it would be better if you could substitute in more refs from Taraborrelli, which seems to be by far the most reliable-looking book source you have. The article relies heavily on two books by Lisa Campbell published by Branden. I cannot find anything about Campbell's credentials, the books look like extremely low-budget productions, and the publisher's website doesn't reassure me that they are reputable. The Lewis and Jones books are likewise published by somewhat marginal publishers. Any facts that could be instead sourced to Taraborrelli would be good, because he is clearly an established, reputable author in the field. Mangostar (talk) 14:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
While Taraborrelli is an acclaimed writer, the only acclaimed writer who has dared to write a complex biography on Jackson, I have surely used that book enough? Are there specific, controversial issue that you think should be sourced by Taraborrelli over Campbell? For the vast most part, I have not used the Campbell books for controversial material. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A featured article should use the highest-quality sources available, even for facts that are not particularly controversial. I have much more confidence in Taraborrelli's (and Taraborrelli's publisher's) fact-checking than Campbell's or Lewis's. (By the way, Jones wasn't used in the footnotes so I removed it... perhaps it should be added to further reading.) If you are worried about relying too heavily on a single source, I would double-cite these. I don't think concern over relying heavily on a single source is really an issue though, since it is clearly the best biography there is. Mangostar (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I went through changing a lot of refs for the career overview written by an acclaimed writer on R&B/Hip hop artists. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replacing so many of these. I still think it would be better to replace the remaining Campbell/Lewis refs, but they're not the end of the world and I don't think it's anything worth opposing over. I haven't read the whole article thoroughly, so I can't support or oppose at this time. Perhaps some of the prose may need a bit of polishing. Mangostar (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Image Review: All images and media okay --JayHenry23:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Image Review
Image:Michaeljackson (cropped).jpg -- problem here. This image is obviously not cropped from the image it claims to be cropped from. The correct source needs to be located.
It was taken by the same man/family here . He has given away the rights to it. We need to upload it and have the crop linked to it. Can you help with that I can't do pictures.
Ah, I see. Good find! I'm just heading out for the evening but I can fix that tomorrow. Actually, I can go ahead and fix the star as well. So no worries, all images are okay. Too bad we couldn't find one of him in concert, or at the superbowl that one year. --JayHenry (talk) 00:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I look forward to your help. I agree, I wish we had more pictures. Michael Jackson's art is a lot to do with his dancing, costumes and music videos. He uses imagery as his art form, unfortunately with wikipedias policies it is almost impossible for the reader to understand how captivating he is. It is a shame that we cant use more music video pictures or something. Instead we must settle for words. How does one describe a performance such as the Super Bowl or Motown 25, I will never know. It is somewhat tragic that the reader cannot see the guy moonwalk or spin or simply grab his crotch (OK the last one was a joke)--— Realist2 (Speak) 00:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:MJ Star.jpg -- Flickr image. It's identified on flickr as {{Cc-by-sa-2.0}}, which is an okay license to use, but it's uploaded to Commons as CC-by-2.0. The image is okay, but the tag needs fixed. Might want to ask a commons person how to do that. User:Giggy would know.
Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg -- fair use audio, slightly less iconic song, but still important enough to merit fair use, low quality and brief, appropriate rationale.
Sorry Jay, I'm going to have to disagree on the current usage of Image:Michael Jackson Thriller.ogg and Image:Smooth Criminal by Michael Jackson.ogg being suitable. The fair use rationales are fine but the in article descriptions are inadaquet; how is "Excerpt of the album's title track, and one of Jackson's signature pieces, "Thriller" released as a single in 1984." "critical to the understanding of such a performer" as asserted by its fair use rationale? Same applies for the "Smooth Criminal" caption (though that's minorly better, it still needs more detail. Let me know if you'd like some good examples.). —Giggy07:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm reviewing for WP:NFCC 1-10. This satisfies NFCC. Editors are welcome to go above and beyond if they so desire. To be frank: the reason some other image reviewers burned out is because they were demanding that editors go sometimes radically beyond what's required. I'm not here to do that. If you'd like to encourage the editors to spiff up presentation that's cool. You're not talking about NFCC issues though. It'd be ludicrous to suggest someone could understand Michael Jackson without hearing a note of Thriller, that's enough for NFCC#8 right there (never mind that thriller isn't discussed only in the caption). --JayHenry (talk) 08:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry if my tone seemed prickly. I didn't take the comment as criticism. I'm familiar with NFC guidelines as well (hence my specific use of the word iconic above). It is noted in the captions that both are signature songs, and there's further discussion of the songs in the text outside the captions--sourced commentary on both. Now, perhaps the article would be better with more commentary on his iconic music--I don't dispute that. Like I said, definitely go above and beyond and make it as perfect as possible! Some examples where you feel NFC is executed really perfectly would probably be of great help to Realist. Actually would be useful for me as well. In future I could present it as: "X satisfies guidelines and policies, but here's an example of what's perfect." --JayHenry (talk) 08:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, damn, you asked for "perfect", that means I can't give any of the articles I've worked on;-) Anyways, check out Silverchair, for instance; the "Luv Your Life" sample in the "Diorama (2001–2002)" section contains piano and an orchestral arrangement... and so does the caption. The "Straight Lines" caption (at time of writing) probably needs improvement and the sample itself isn't that great, but hopefully you get the idea from the first sample. Hmm... just browsing, Odyssey Number Five contains some pretty good captions, though I say so myself. —Giggy09:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi guys, to clarify, is the lead picture and star now fixed? Do I need to do something with those audio samples? If and when this is all cleared up can it be struck as resolved? — Realist2 (Speak) 13:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware the lead image issue is resolved (Jay said he was happy with everything so I'd say it's all done). I fixed the star issue on Commons, so that's fine. There's just the audio samples still to fix, in my opinion; basically the captions need better descriptions of the music on them, and on the significance of this music (they talk about significance at times, but not about the music itself). —Giggy05:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I gave this article a copyedit a while back, right around the time when User:Realist2 really did some amazing work with it. Okay, I'll take credit for my small part with the lead, but Realist was definitely the power behind the throne and has done wonderful things with the article. I congratulate him/her, and feel that that the Michael Jackson article definitely fulfills all the featured article criteria. Best, Happyme22 (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for any confusion, it means that for a very long time MJ has had money problems and health problems. There are sections of the article dedicated to this. Should I reword the sentence or have I cleared that up? — Realist2 (Speak) 23:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
But now it says something different. Has he had these difficulties for a long time, or just in his later (you have "latter", but the way, but I won't change it in case the sentence itself is wrong) i.e. more recent, years? Nousernamesleft (talk) 00:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment There's a lot of extraneous details best reserved for song, album, or other such articles. One example is an entire paragraph devoted to the name change from the Jackson Five to the Jacksons. That kind of detail doesn't belong here. I was telling Realist that this needed to be addressed before the article underwent another FAC. This article needs more focus, especially with a subject so well documented. This article needs to be as effective as possible, but it still needs some work.WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
While I appreciate your advise, you told be that you wanted to remove aproximately 20,000-30,000 bytes, with the community consensus of only yourself, (if that was a slight joke or an exagoration then I didn't get it, I thought you were being serious). I am not of the opinion that much details needs removing and do don't believe it to be in the best interest of the reader, since I have actually studied Mr Jackson. I always made is a goal of mine to stick to a square 100,000 bytes which I am happy to support, but bringing it down to 80k is absurd. There are many FA article above 100,000 bytes. — Realist2 (Speak) 13:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up I've gone through and removed a lot of details better suited to subarticles. At this point the biography section is pretty good, with everything from the early life through Thriller more or less perfect. There are some issues I have in latter portions of the bio, but I'll get to that later. I was trimming down the music videos section, but Realist kept revert me and even removed the in-use template at one point. Now, that's just not very nice, especially since I'm more or less working on this because Realist has asked for help in the past, but I'm not going to dwell on that. There are still some issues that need to be dealt with, and the entire second half of the article should probably be restrucured and definitely trimmed of detail. I don't feel like touching the "Themes and genres" section right now; I was going to remove a lot of unnecessary detail, but I realized that would have left nothing about Bad. In contrast, there's nothing about Jackson's voice. He has a very distinctive voice and phrasing, and I know there's commentary about that. The "Physical appearance" and "Finances" sections should be merged into the rest of the bio. I'll come back in the next day or so listing more specific items that need to be fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Detail levels are perfectly appropriate, and there's nothing about Jackson's voice because nothing authoritive exists about it that has been written. Simple, really.--90.213.175.101 (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Article is now at 53,000 bytes for readable pros, perfectly acceptable considering the nature of the topic. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My concern was never the exact length. My concern is over how much of the material is actually necessary or pertinent to this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree some areas could be trimmed but removing chunks seems wholely inappropriate when quite a number of editors (some of whom have FA articles or are regulars on the FA circut) already feel the article is up to standard. The vast majority of them have voiced their delight at seeing an article on Mr. Jackson that is neutral, a good read, well written, "better than Brittanica" (two people have said that, one of whom was a long time critic of the article) and tells the whole story. I am interested to know what you think of the various improvements I made since yesterday at your suggeestion? Have the alterations further improved the article? — Realist2 (Speak) 03:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm not a fan of MJ but this is an article that every great encyclopedia must have. I was invited to review the article by the nominator, (see my talk page), and I reluctantly agreed. Reluctantly because, well because this is about Michael Jackson and I was expecting problems of neutrality and so forth. But I was pleasantly suprised; this is a great article, well-balanced, neutral, comprehensive and quite a good read. I noticed a couple of glitches:
The musician then released... — presumably this is Jackson?
Yes, I wanted to mix it up a little, hearing "Jackson" over and over can drive one mad :-), if you thing I have over done the musician thing (he is a musician by the way) I will happily fix it. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Jackson has been observed in public spending large amounts of money in an apparently frivolous manner, such as in 2003 when he spent six million in a single store, or from money given to charity. — There is no logical connection betweeen the two halves of the sentence; it needs to be split or otherwise fixed.
"The son of Joseph "Joe" Walter and Katherine Esther (née Scruse), he was the seventh of nine children. His siblings are Jackie, Tito, Jermaine, Marlon, Randy, Janet, La Toya and Rebbie" - why the sudden change in tenses?
You mention the term "gigs" in the first section - some people (including me, sort of) might not know what that means, could you use either a clearer word or explain in-text?
"An unusually candid ninety-minute interview with Oprah Winfrey occurred in late 1992, Jackson's first interview in a number of years" - one of the most clear-cut cases of redundancy I've seen.
"Huey asserts that throughout his solo career, Jackson's versatility has allowed him to experiment with a number of themes and genres." - as above. Not nearly as clear-cut, but still probably redundant.
"Jackson was charged with seven counts of child molestation and two counts of administering an intoxicating agent in order to commit that felony; all charges regarded the same boy, Gavin Arvizo, who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged crime." Also, this is the topic sentence of a second paragraph that seems to have nothing to do with the first paragraph in the section - the transition is a bit choppy. This happens a few times in the article; could you please rearrange the paragraphs or reword the sentences to make the article read better?
Oppose Now, let me say right off the bat that my oppose is for technical purposes. I don't like to render an "Oppose" at an FAC unless the article is nowhere near FA status. However, given a number of supports that have been listed it's only prudent to note that the article still has deficiencies which need to be fixed. A lot of work is still needed. I've been helping out for two days and I'm really exhausted. Now here's my attempt to to list as many issues as possible that need to be addressed.
The paragraph on Thriller should mention that it's one of the best-selling albums of all time. Also, the other sections mention the album singles, so it would be appropriate to at least mention the top hits.
Done, connected it in with the stuff on the beatles catalog.
The sentences "On May 14, 1984, Jackson was invited to the White House to receive an award presented by American President Ronald Reagan. The event, notable because an African-American met a Republican president at the White House in the 1980s (a time of racial tension), was seen as a positive move forward in social views towards race." is really blowing things out of proportion. Compared to previous decades, the 1980s weren't any more a time of racial tension", and it's doubtful that Jackson meeting Reagan had any sizable effect. Find a more objective source to describe the event.
"Jackson renewed his contract for $65 million; a record breaking deal at the time." Date?
Done
The item about Jackson in a wheelchair at the 1993 Soul Train Awards seems out of place. Possibly remove it completely, as well as the following sentence about the awards he received there. Jackson has received many awards during hsi career; keep it to the most notable.
Removed the awards sentance, keeping performance, it was a noteworthy event.
The paragraph about Ryan White should be cut. Their friendship isn't necessarily important to mention in this article. The part about the "Gone Too Soon" dedication belongs in that single's article. The most relevant thing about the paragraph is Jackson pleading for more HIV/AIDS research funding. It could possibly be paired down to a sentence like "Inspired by his friendship with AIDS victim Ryan White, Jackson publicly pleaded with the Clinton Administration to give more money to HIV/AIDS charities and research at the Inaugural Gala in 1992", and inserted as part of another paragraph.
Cut
There's a lot of detail in the 1993 sexual abuse allegations section, much of which can be transferred to the sub-article. What especially worries me is the way many of the details are presented, which favors Jackson and really paints a bad portrait of Evan Chandler. My suggestion to Realist was to cut it down to the barest facts (Jackson was accused of molestation, the news became public, public opinion turned against Jackson, Jackson settled and he was never prosecuted) in oroder to maintain as neutral a POV as possible.
There are no neutrality problems with it, I provided all the evidence from both sides of the story, if that makes Jackson look innocent, too bad. Since they searched both his homes, found nothing, since they closed the case citing lack of evidence and Jackson was never ever charged it's quite bloody hard to make him look guilty. I provided the stories and evidence of both parties in their full, it just so happens they couldn't nail anything on Jackson. I provide the full facts of both parties, I have tried to avoid inappropriate tone. Its all factually accurate, sorry. Also on the talk page I have been encourage to write more, expose the full strong, something you dont hear in the tabloids where they only tell the accusers side of it. If the truth in controversial too bad. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The detail on the courtship of Lisa Marie Presley is a bit much. Cut that down ([retty much, just say how they met, how they reconnected, and why they got married) but expand on where they were married and public reaction to the marriage (which was huge).
Im not going to cut anything from whats there, I don't thing it is too much but I will add the other points you suggested. — Realist2 (Speak) 22:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
"In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later, retained half-ownership and earning $95 million in the deal as well as the rights to even more songs". I put 1995 as the year, but the sentence should be rewritten to better describe the event as it happened.
It reads clearly to me, seems accurate. No need for rewording.
"In 1995, Jackson merged the catalog with Sony's publishing division a decade later" Was the year 1995? Either way the "decade later" part needs to go. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
AH!!! I see, you know that is why I should never has been incharge of intergrating the finances section. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 12:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing about the atmosphere in which Invincible was released. At the time, it was touted as Jackson's big comeback. Then it disappointed everyone (including me; man, was that a waste of money).
The sentence "While most reviewers felt that the album was one of Jackson's least impressive, negative reviewers often discussed the singer's perceived eccentric image rather than the music" is too vague and gives the impression of dismissing the negative response to Invincible. Possibly quote some reviews instead.
Wasn't there some controversy about the release of "What More Can I Give?" I remember it kept getting pushed back and atatched to different charities.
Yes, sony pulled it's release because they didn't want it competing with the Invincible album. Then there was an issue about the director being involved with gay porn which caused a number of companies like McDonalds to pull out. Jackson eventually released it 2 years later. I don't think its important though, in the near future it will have completely vaded from public memory. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraphs about Number Ones and Visionary are really short. Possibly combine these two into one paragraph at the beginning of the section.
"Reports of financial problems for Jackson became more frequent in 2006 . . ." This seems to indicate there were financial troubles for Jackson beforehand, but I can't find any mention of them previous to this.
The bit about Jackson returning to the US for James Brown's funeral is only necessary if it indicated a permanent return to the country. Right now it seems pretty vague: did he return just for the funeral, or did he return and stay afterwards?
Cut down on the details for Thriller 25. It's a reissue anyways.
The sentence "Fortress considered a foreclosure sale of Neverland Ranch to service the loan, but ultimately sold the debt to Colony Capital LLC in May of that year" just hangs there at the end and could possibly be cut.
Ok, the musical style section. This will need some serious work. The main problem is the "Themes and genres" section spends an awful amount of space describing styles and meanings from specific tracks, often to the point of detailing entire albuum tracklistings. In contrast, the "Vocal style" section is more effective. Use the "Vocal style" section as the basis for the musical style section. Cut the "Themes and genres" section, and readd relevant details from that section to the vocal style section. The sentence "Unlike many artists, Jackson did not write his songs on paper. Instead he would dictate into a sound recorder; when recording he would sing from memory" is definitely worth keep; most everything else can go to the song articles. Instead of describing the sound and meanings of various songs, try to summarize typical styles and lryical themes Jackson uses often. Also, mention something about how Jackson arranges songs; there were some details about this on the Off the Wall reissue disc.
There should probably be a section on Jackson's dancing. See Joy Division for reference, where there's a "live performances" section to describe an important element of the band.
I wont be commenting on his dancing unless I'm allowed the assistance of a video clip, his dancing and the power it has over an audience are too hard to explain in pro's alone and wouldn't do him justice. — Realist2 (Speak) 12:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
You won't be able to include a video of him dancing, but there needs to be more discussion about his dancing in order to be fully comprehensive, since it's a major part of his performance style. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The article already talks about his Motown and Super Bowl performance in their relevant sections, I also talk about his sexual dancing in the "Bad", "Black or White" and "In The Closet" videos. — Realist2 (Speak) 23:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The music videos section needs to be more concise. See The Smashing Pumpkins and Tool (band) for effective subsections about artists' impact with music videos. Just like with the musical style section, don't describe each and every video. Summarize and talk about recurrent approaches/themes, then get specific when you absolutely have to. I would also strongly insist the screenshot of "Scream" be replace with one from, say, "Billie Jean" or "Thriller". There's plenty of talk about the fact that they were important videos, but next to nothing about why they were important (In the case of "Thriller", it was a big expense\ive shot with lots of extras in complex makeup); a screenshot of either of these would be more helpful to someone who hasn't seen much of Jackson's videograpy.
I won't be changing the scream shoot (although I would be ok with a shoot from "Black or White"). We have 3 pictures of Jackson in the 80's and only one from the 90's. If we do what you want that will make it 4 pictures from the eighties and there will be no pictures of his changed appearance in the 90's. NO MORE 80'S US NOLSTALGA. Like I said though, if you can help get a pic of the black or white video (that is a good pic), I will go with that. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand the desire to try and cover as broad a scope image-wise, but frankly videos from Thriller are the most important. "Black or White" could possibly work, but it might be hard trying to screencap the most notable aspect of that video, the "morphing" bit. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well that's my offer, actually the end sequence is also very noteworth and I could write some great pro's on the sexual imagery, the dancing and the banning of the end segment on MTV. If not "scream" is staying but I am actually warming to the idea of black or white. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's more about the controversy about the end segment "Black or White" than Jackson's approach to making videos. Remember, the point of screencapping a video in this article is to illustrate to the general reader unfamiliar with the article's subject Jackson's impact through the music video medium. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes and it was also one of the artistic highlights of the video, it's up to you, I've compromised as far as i'm willing to go, the scream video was considered fine and has sufficient rational. If not I will just have to bit my lip and accept your oppose. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
If there's a better image from "Scream" to post, go ahead. But the one that's currently there . . . it's just Michael and Janet, in black and white. It's not very enlightening to an unfamiliar reader. Compare that to say, Michael dancing with zombies or Michael touring in stop-motion inside a theme park version of himself or Michael transforming from a pile of sand in Ancient Egypt. Do you understand what I'm getting at? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Well bookkeeper showed us a much better version of "scream" but you haven't commented on it (as far as I'm aware). Maybe "Remember the Time" would be better, his fashion sense and graphics are very inique in that. I suggest we arrange a consensus on my talk page unstead of here as this is taking up a lot of room. — Realist2 (Speak) 09:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
That's most of the pressing concerns. I would like more editors to take a look at the grammar. I'm also somewhat wary of some of the book sources. Ssome of these titles (The Magic and the Madness, Michael Jackson: The King of Pops Darkest Hour, Michael Jackson, the King of Pop: The Big Picture : the Music! the Man! the Legend! the Interviews!) are rather sensational, and I'm curious as to if these are the most credible bios about Jackson available. I'm busy with the article prose, so I would like someone else to check out the credibility of those sources. There's lots of work still to do here, but we might very well get this done. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The books have already been checked once, all books on Jackson have sensastional titles, even the very best book ever written on him The Magic and the Madness is a "sensasational" title. He's had an interssting life unlike the beatles. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 08:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Just wanted to make sure because given he's one of the most famous celebrities of the 20th century, there are a lot of subpar bios created for sensational/monetary purposes floating around. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Wesley, Have you actually looked into the sources in detail or are you going on a gut feeling? It seems you are judging these books by their titles, rather than the author and/or publisher's credibility for accuracy and knowledge on the subject. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)09:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I ask because I haven't had time to look at the sources myself since I've been heavily editing the article, which is pretty difficult on its own. If someone else can vouch for the books, great. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Guys don't argue, we have done the source checking already, lets get on with sorting this article before I give up.— Realist2 (Speak) 09:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning ; #35 on the Rolling Stone Immortals list? (Also, why don't the internet references have access dates?) —Giggy09:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone removed them two days ago, I let it go without reverting, I assumed it was an FA thing, I can dig up the edit and revert it? — Realist2 (Speak) 09:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I did them all manually by todays date and double checked there were no dead links. Off to bed, will continue my work tomorrow but if I don't get some sleep I'm going to get ill. — Realist2 (Speak) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I see many examples of the prose tightening needs mentioned by Wesley Dodds, example: "He was referred to Dr. Steven Hoefflin, who performed Jackson's second rhinoplasty as well as more throughout his career." More ... rhinoplasty? More ... surgery? Only throughout his career, or throughout his life, and what is the difference ? WP:MOSNUM attention still needed, as mentioned above (is it 25 or twenty-five? what is the boundary on spelling out numbers)? Eleven years or 11 years ? mid-1980s needs a hyphen. Little glitches like that are easy to find: User:Epbr123 might be willing to help with the MoS issues, but prose tightening is also needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, thats it, I have had enough of this stupid number business, different people are giving different advise. Sandy, I trust you, what pattern should I follow for the numbers and I will do it now, but I need it down in words so I can say "Sandy said so", every other week someone has a different opinion on it and they get changed according to that preference. Someone give me a cystal clear system and I will implement it. I'm tired of changing the numbers every other day. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I've read your talk page, the article talk page, and this page, and I can't find the contradictory information; can you point me to what you were told by others? We just need a consistent boundary, that doesn't disagree with WP:MOSNUM#Numbers as figures or words. For example, you spell out many numbers, such as twenty-five, but then we find, " ... Although the group scored several top 40 hits, including the top five disco single "Dancing Machine" and the top 20 hit ... " where five is spelled out, but numerals are used for 20 and 40. It's not clear what your boundary is for spelling out vs. using numerals. Perhaps you've decided to spell out most numbers to avoid too many digits because of The Jackson 5? If so, you just need to be consistent in choosing a boundary for spelling out vs. using digits that is consistent with MOSNUM. Also, see WP:HYPHEN on -ly adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure it was a different shot from the same music video, we swopped it as opposed to adding one. I will get Giggy or someone on it. I'm off to bed now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
See WP:MOS#Captions on punctuation on image captions. Also, the grammar in this caption needs attention (I'm not sure how to best fix it, but their status didn't display frustration) ... Michael Jackson and sister Janet Jackson display their anger and frustration suffered by their status as celebrities in the acclaimed music video for "Scream", primarily a retaliation against the media for misrepresenting them to the public SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The Fair Use rationale on this image would be okay except that as far as I can tell, the information in the caption is not cited anywhere. Is there a citation that they intended the video/song as a retaliation against the media? Once that's cited, I think we're okay here. I believe the caption has been rewritten since Sandy's remark, as it reads well to me and is punctuated correctly. Just need that citation... --JayHenry (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The thing is the picture isn't needed to get the point across that the video is a retaliation against the media, so it's fair-use rationale is shaky. Additionally, that's more appropriate for the "Scream" article than for this one. This is why I'm saying a different video screenshot should be used if any at all, because trying to illustrate this point about the "Scream" video is unnecessary. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd disagree with "shaky" because in addition to illustrating the retaliation, it's also a striking image from an iconic video. And, I'm really just saying that the Fair Use rationale is valid. Whether or not there's possibly better images, or better places to use this one, is more of a content decision than a matter of satisfying Fair Use guidelines. Does it satisfy WP:WIAFA#3? WP:NFCC? In my opinion, very clearly. That's not to say Wesley's points are incorrect, just that they're not something I consider critical to my (limited) review of Fair Use. May still be relevant toward having the best possible article, but I'm agnostic on that point. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
A lot of work has gone into this article, but since it's about Jackson, it has to be better than good.
Can I just ask you on that, are you sayin that this article passing FA should be set a higher thresshold because it's about Michael Jackson? Surely it should be the same thresehold as any other article. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Overall organization. It might assist to separate Jackson's musical career from his personal life in the article. Instead of a biography encompassing the two, try a non-musical career biography, then one about the career.
At its last failed FA I was told to intergrate the two and since I've done that I have come to agree that intergrating was a better option. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The article reads like a publicity bio of Jackson. While I understand Realist2 is a big fan, and only the insanity that comes with being a fan will allow the kind of time and effort in getting an FA, it might also cloud judgment in the more human aspect of Jackson's development as a person and a musician.
If you think it's biased thats ok, there are a number of people who disagree with that opinion, but you are entitled to it. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's necessarily biased, but it's incomplete. And it's not as compelling as it should be. You have described Jackson's major accomplishments, of which there are many, without giving the reader insight into his development and creative process. Michael Jackson is one of the very few superstars that puts him on a plane that is very difficult to understand. His immense popularity has clearly affected his personality and how he deals with people and events. But he is still the son of a Gary, Indiana working class family. You have to take your reader from relating to the kid in Gary to the mask-wearing monster of a publicity machine. Walk us through it step by step. I see you've already expanded the abuse section in his early life. That's a good start. --Moni3 (talk) 15:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1958–1975: Early life and The Jackson 5:
I know Jackson's siblings are famous, but the sentence naming them all is odd, kind of halting the flow of words.
This is something I was specifical told to add in the last review "all his brothers and sisters should be named together". Maybe it needs better wording, but I would like to avoid removing it at the expense of being told later to reisert it. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
You're building a framework here to address Jackson's eccentric behavior and motives for his alleged molestation. You need to be very specific about the kinds of abuse Jackson endured. Everything must be cited well.
Added more detail about childhold abuse & added a few details amount other mental conditions. I dispersed them in their chronological order to avoid coatracking of mental illnesses. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1976–1981: Move to Epic and Off the Wall
Open the paragraph about The Wiz (which is one of the scariest movies I have ever seen, btw, but not because of Jackson) with a topic sentence about Jackson getting into acting. This was based on the Jackson 5's multiple TV appearances on variety shows, yes? Can you tie that in?
Yes, he definately wanted to break into movies, not so much acting, he got a grip of that just from his general music videos. But, yes, he did want to take it one step further but that wasn't until the mid 80's. Jackson actually hated all those variety shows, he was gutted when it was successful enough to go into the second year. However the point of the Wiz wasn't so much about getting into movies (like I said that was the mid-1980's), it was more about Jackson leaving the family setting, travelling and getting his first taste of independancy. I can certainly add those details if you like. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
1982–1985: Thriller
I think you really, really need to supply the article with a very powerful paragraph about how big Thriller was. Thriller, by the way, was monumental, and anyone who was listening to music at the time—I don't care if it was Merle Haggard or Yo Yo Ma—stared at the radio and thought, "Wtf is this??" Provide quotes and statistics from the music industry. Have you researched Rolling Stone for their literature on Jackson's early solo career? His videos for "Billie Jean", "Thriller", and "Beat It" on MTV stopped action because they were so unlike anything ever seen, and they probably kept the fledgling station alive. It's my opinion that if Jackson had done nothing after Thriller, that alone would have earned him his second induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.
OK, I added a huge part about how it affected the industry. It might be a little too much detail, so feel free to trim if needed. — Realist2 (Speak) 15:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I felt the level of detail about Thriller was already sufficient, getting the main points across. some of the detail needs to be trimmed, or else this article is not using summary style effectively. Remember, there's always the article for the album itself. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Wes, I'm going to ask you to step away from the article, you are over complicating my job. You have overhauled the article to meet your personal taste way more than awayone else. If you have further problems to with the article then add it to your list of opposing reasons. You have a vested interest in this article and it's unhealth for the process at this point. If you oppose the article that is your perogative. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Where is the Michael Jackson Burn Center?
Hehe, I have clarifed that since it does have a rather misleading name. It was actually a piece of new technology funded by Jackson that helped treat people with severe burns. Rather odd title therefore but thats Mr. Jackson for you. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 16:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I don't agree that Jackson paved the way for Prince. If that guy thinks so, then put his name in it as in, "Richard Harrington from The Washington Post says..." then I can write to him and tell him he's wrong.
I gave the name of the publication which is the genenral style I follow, I think adding the name adds undue sceptism of the statement and the source is very good. — Realist2 (Speak) 16:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to comment on this. The comment about getting black music back on the radio is inaccurate; there have always been "black music" formats on American radio. If anything Jackson allowed it to "cross over" (as they like to say in the music industry) to "white" radio. I'd be in favor of just excising the Washington Post comment. WesleyDodds (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't now the name of the award and I have previously done research on it. However I did add what the award was for. In all honesty though, it was really just an opportunity of the Reagans to meet Jackson. I'm personally of the opinion that Jackson should have run for President around 1985. No-one really knows if he is a democrat or a republican though. Hmm.— Realist2 (Speak) 16:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think you also need to discuss Jackson's publicity stunt-like behavior here. I don't know if it was a reaction to the very strong fanatical following he earned, or if he cooked that up, but his oddball style started to come out at this point: the one white glove, the quasi-military costumes, and the legions of screaming fans. In later videos and concert footage, it's not clear if his publicity machine supplied these screaming folks, or if they came out and screamed of their own volition, but the immense popularity that Thriller earned him set him so far apart from anyone else that it increased his loneliness. Hence, Bubbles, Liz Taylor, and the rumor machine starteth.
Added more info about the oxygen chamber, elephant mans bones and bubbles. I'm not getting into clothes or his choice of friends. Considering the number of mental problems that he has been sourced as having it is impossible to prove that he is acting that way for attention. A number of people who know what they are talking about say he has no understanding of how he is perceived and has the mental state of a ten year old. Considering that, I think it goes against the concept of basic human dignity to imply he his behaving in a deliberate manner without strong proof. I disagree with complying with the tabloid sentiment that he is an attention whore. There is strong evidence that suggests he has little control over this behavior. I also feel some of this stuff would cross into original research or be totally subjective or suggestive. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it also contradicts the truth, Jackson it not an egotist, he is the complete opposite. He is shy, reclusive, hates his own appearance and it quite evidently depressed. He lacks self esteem not has too much. — Realist2 (Speak) 18:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, regarding the glove, sunglasses and the mask, having done some research on the disease vitiligo and after viewing statements made by Jacksons makeup artist, it is very possible he was using these to cover up vitiligo. Around the mouth and eyes vitiligo is very hard to cover, purple patches can appear. We know looking at Jacksons finger tips that covering the vitiligo is almost impossible. Of course you won't hear this in the tabloids, who blindly continue to refute photographic evidence, legal evidence & medical evidence. — Realist2 (Speak) 17:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Jackson royally pissed off McCartney by outbidding him. You need to expand that. That's serious stuff, and probably keeping Jackson afloat financially today.
Moonwalk is mentioned, but not cited. Why? Specifically in terms of abuse Jackson endured.
The info on Moonwalk is supported by two refs, am I missing what your saying? If so feel free to Trout slap me. :-) — Realist2 (Speak) 20:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not being withdrawn, Sandy has given a 24 hour break from FA stuff in order for me to catch up on lost sleep. Sorry, Moni3, this has become somewhat unnessarily stressful. — Realist2 (Speak) 14:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment This is not necessarily the place to bring it up, but will someone please ask Realist to not revert me when the "Under construction" tag is on the article? It's very discourteous and frustrating, especially since I edit this article primarily in large blocks of time. I've asked Realist a few times to refrain from reverting while the tag is on the page but he continues to do so. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
You are disregarding the requests I resolved of other editors. You are being controlling and over powering, you have said your piece. If you continue I will withdraw this nomination. — Realist2 (Speak) 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I simply ask that you assume good faith and don't revert when an under construction tag is on the article. You can revert afterwards. Reverting while I'm editing really throws things out of wack. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No Wesley, I have worked bloody hard on this article today for Moni3 and I specifically asked that editor to review my additions. Instead you revert them because you don't like them. BACK OFF. If you have more problems with the article add it to your already accessive wine fest above. You are over stepping the mark, making my job harder and more confusing. Unfortunately this has all made me ill from lack of sleep. Stop now. — Realist2 (Speak) 02:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I remember the previous FAC. I don't see any major image or formatting problems. Only one image tends to overlap a heading, and thats in a section that will slowly expand and resolve (the 2008 section). The article appears to be long and comprehensive. Plus, the primary editor has proven themselves as willing to fix any minor problems and is devoted to making the page as good as it possibly can be, which shows after multiple FAC and Peer Review edits. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've seen enough to have a guess, and your situation normally leads an editor to stop trying. That shows a lot of commitment. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support to make all of his life and career comprehensive, it's simply 106kb long, but manages to be well-referenced and written. igordebraga≠19:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I worked extensively on this article a while ago, and although it had some serious problems back then, most of these have been resolved now by Realist, who has been a tireless contributor to all things Michael Jackson on Wikipedia.UberCryxic (talk) 03:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
It has taken a long time but I believe that all the issues that were raised during the December nomination have been addressed, and I think this article is now one of the best history of science articles on Wikipedia and fully meets the FA criteria. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment – I have yet to do a more thorough examination, but I've fixed a few simple things in the article to start: the hatnote has been standardized to use {{otheruses4}} instead of :'', the references section now properly uses {{reflist}}, and I've fixed all of the links to disambiguation pages except one to Variation which is somewhat ambiguous as well in the text—I tagged it instead with a disambiguation-needed note. The article looks quite thorough based on my quick skim, though: I would say that criterion 1b will probably not be a problem. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment The colons at the end of section titles that don't have anything after them look really awkward. Remove the colons when they are the last character in a section's title. GaryKing (talk)00:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I updated the image pages to show the original sources. The problem was that someone converted the original images from jpeg (or in the case of the great chain of being from GIF) to png and didn't copy over all the information. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I could make a case that hypatia-lovers.com is a reasonable source for material on a Greek philosopher, but I admit the point could be argued because the only conventionally published work (that I can find evidence of) by the author of the piece (Khan Amore) is a historical novel not a work of non fiction. Therefore I have replaced the originally cited source with an article from the Internet Enclopedia of Philosophy ] that is written by a Professor of Classics at the Uninversity of Ireland, Maynooth, and which cites its own sources. The new source says the same things the old one did but in duller prose, and I hope it should be considered unimpeachable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
TalkOrigins is a use group, but it is a very well known source for information on evolution and the evolution-creation-controversy and articles in its archives are routinely used as sources for artices on those topics (such as objections to evolution) here at Wikipedia, and some of their stuff has been published conventionally (The Counter Creationism Handbook is just a snapshot of TalkOrigins database of creationist claims and rebutals published in book form). I don't see any problem in using such a TalkOrigin archives article as a source for a routine translation of Aristotles comments on Empedocles. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I have a dead tree translation of Aristotle's Pysics from Britanica's great books at home. I will substitute that translation instead when I get home. Though I prefer a linkable web source the only 2 I can find are this one and the one at hypatia-lovers.com which has also been objected to as a reliable source. So I will go dead tree on this one. I don't like the implications of TalkOrigins archives not being considered a reliable source however. That could be a problem for other FA and future FA articles as not everything found there will have an alternative dead tree source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
For Talk origins, you'd have to individually show that the particular author of a post is well known in their field and published widely in the field with a good reputation. There can't be any blanket "reliablitiy" standard for usenet/web forum posts. Ealdgyth - Talk14:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 7 "Daoism and Nature" needs a last access date.
I also think I could have defended this source, but it turns out that it was redundant, as another source that was added later covered all the same points. Therefore I just deleted the disputed source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 27 has the publisher in the title link. Please, for consistency with the other references, put it outside the link.
I wonder about this repetition first under Greek thought:
This scala naturæ, described in History of Animals, classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" or "Chain of Being", placing them according to complexity of structure and function, with organisms that showed greater vitality and ability to move described as "higher organisms".
Then, a couple of short paragraphs down, under Middle Ages > Christian thought and the great chain of being you have:
and of all potential life forms being present in a perfect creation, to organize all inanimate, animate, and spiritual beings into a huge interconnected system: the scala naturæ, or great chain of being.
This has bee discussed on the article talk page. Aristotle's Ladder of Life was a biologic system of classification for animals. The Christian Great Chain of Being was a much bigger metaphysical idea that included both natural and supernatural elements. It is true that one was partly derived from the other, but they are not the same thing even if the Christian theologans happened to use the same Latin term, scala naturae, for both. The cited source is clear about this. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support (Comment—It's a good article and I'm leaning toward support. But I did find a few issues that could be corrected:)
Why is there a year range for Plato and Aristotle, but not for other individuals?
I have now provided dates for all the people mentioned in the Antiquity section although the dates for Anaximander and Empedocles are approsimate, and the best I could do for Zhuangzi wss that he lived sometime around the 4th century BC. I don't see any reason to provide dates for people mentioned in the other sections as there are other dates in those sections that provide chronological context. Rusty Cashman (talk) 04:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
To maintain the correct historical sequence, shouldn't the Islamic thought section go before the Christian thought section?
Done. You are right, although Christian and Islamic thought developed in parallel the Islamic ideas discussed started earlier. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This sentence seems confusing, or at least puzzlingly ambiguous, and I think it needs a re-write: "Unlike Cuvier, Buckland and some other advocates of natural theology among British geologists made efforts to explicitly link the last catastrophic episode to the biblical flood."
Rusty Cashman: I've marked some spots in the "1920s–1940s" sections where I think paragraph breaks would be most natural. I'm not sure of the reference structure, however, as those big paragraphs have their refs all at the end—so I've left off actually implementing paragraph breaks. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, and I clarified where the Mayr and Provine citations really applied. The Bowler and Larson citations really are global because they (quite reasonably) treat the subjects as closely related and cover them with entire chapters .Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I should say that I find the article fascinating and will support it. Also, on review, I might have been wrong about the source I criticized above and that you changed on my account. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well all is well that ends well and for a translation of a qoutation from Aristotle a full translation of the entire work probably does make a better source than an essay with a snipet no doubt taken from some other full translation. I do think there is some great material in the TalkOrigin archive though, and I am sure some other FA article will use it as a source, for something that can't so easily be found somewhere else. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
The use of "Darwinism" is inappropriate, unless it is in a historical sense or in discussing creationism. In the lead, it states that the term is "often used." In general, not by scientists. Darwinism is a pejorative term hijacked by fundamental religionists to imply that studying Evolution is like a religion. However, to confuse me and the reader, the editor uses Darwinism correctly later in the article to describe Darwin's specific theory of Evolution, which does make sense in a historical context. But if one reads the lead, one assumes that Evolution=Darwinism, but later in the article, apparently Darwinism (really meaning the early theory, not the totality of Evolution) is eclipsed. Well, I contend that Darwin's theories have not been eclipsed, just added to the overall Evolutionary synthesis, but worse is the fact that a casual, slightly biased reader would then say, "see, Darwinism is dead." And if this article is a history of evolutionary thought, it should clearly state that the word Darwinism has a different context today than it did 100 years ago. That alone indicates a weakness and possible POV in the article.OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Just so it's clear, I think this is a great article, and should eventually become FA. It's just that the bias inherent to the word "Darwinism" has a negative meaning to anyone who studies Evolution. I think the lead needs to reflect the bias in the word. And again, if this is truly a history of evolutionary thought, why wouldn't we discuss how that term has changed in meaning? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions15:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Rusty and I have reworded the lead a bit more. The misuse of the word "Darwinism" by creationists is probably better ignored in this article, since it deals with the history of genuine evolutionary theory, not religious-political maneuvering. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree that the creationist discussion doesn't belong here, but I thought if there was going to be some push-back on continuing to use Darwinism, then the historical context needs to be explained. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Some of the section titles are a bit clumsy, which makes it difficult to anticipate what it's going to discuss. Specifically "Anticipations of natural selection", "Unconventional evolutionary thought", and the remaining sections that use "thought" in the title. Usually, an individual has a thought. A people or group would have an "idea", "opinion", or "theory". When I looked at this article a few months ago, it bothered me then, but I think I was so obsessed with "Darwinism" I forgot to bring it up.
I do wish the headings could be shortened and be more focused. Since Anticipations of natural selection is already under 19th century before On the Origin of Species, could it be shorted to Pre natural selection or something like that? Also, is Evo-devo a common term, as I have never heard it? —Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm almost certain that the "other uses" redirecting to Evolutionism is inappropriate. Shouldn't that redirect to modern evolutionary synthesis or something to that effect? OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hope I am not being ignorant, but Plato (427/8–347/8 BC)? Are these normal dates?
That was the way the dates are presented in Plato, however I have switched to (c. 428-348 BC) which is a more standard way of presenting approximate or uncertain dates per the MoS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to put forth detailed speculations about evolution was the Afro-Arab writer al-Jahiz in the 9th century. He considered the effects of the environment on an animal's chances for survival, and described the struggle for existence." Is it right to wikilink Darwin here?
I have removed the wiki-link. It was questionable because Al-Jahiz talks a great deal about the struggle for existence, but it is not so clear that he is talking about natural selection. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
"He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time, arguing that the former were developed " - do you mean to wikilink Darwinism here, considering its meaning now, referred to above?
I think this is Ok. Darwinism describes both the historical and modern meanings of the term, and we can't get away from the term here (because it is a quotation) and so it is probably best to link it for explanation. Especially since we no longer give the historical definition in the lead like we used to. In fact I think I will go back and link the term in the Huxley quote as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if Mattisse and OrangeMarlin could take a minute and let Tim and myself know if you feel any of your previous comments have not been satisfactorly addressed. Between the complex nested comments and responses here and the comments some other editors have been leaving on the talk page, I am afraid something might slip through the cracks or that there might be a misunderstanding about what has been addressed and what has not been. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, my comments have been addressed. I still have a hesitancy about the TOC, that the section headings are needlessly long and inconsistent. However, I have been unable to find MoS statements specifically addressing this, so perhaps I am wrong about any requirement along those lines. I also have minor quibbles about the order in which topics are introduced; for example, Darwin seems to pervade the entire article although the evidence in the article shows that he was only one of many who contributed to the history of evolution. Also, the overlapping of dates is a little confusing, for example, in sections titled after a date range but not containing everything in the article within that range. Am I making sense? Anyway, these are my own quibbles and others may not agree. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The issue Mattisse raises seems to arise from minor and probably unneccessary references looking forward to Darwin in earlier sections – in the Islamic "He compared these early theories to the modern Darwinian theory of evolution of his time" could be simply "He compared these early theories to the modern evolutionary theory of his time", thus avoiding the diversion into all the various meanings of "Darwinism" (an article i'm in the midst of revising), and in the Great chain of being section the reference to "a saying which Charles Darwin often quoted: natura non facit saltum ("nature does not make leaps")" is not helped by the reference to Darwin – if mentioned at all, that should be discussed in relation to Darwin dealing with the saltationist ideas of his contemporaries, including Huxley. There may be other instances. . . dave souza, talk19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support – The article overall appears excellent to me, at the moment I'm a bit bogged down in detail so may comment later. . . dave souza, talk19:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - "While transmutation of species was accepted by a sizable number of scientists before 1859" - I know the FAC editors do not like this kind of vague wording. Is "sizable number" most scientists? Also, there is quite a bit of unnecessary passive voice in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I have changed the wording to "By the 1850s whether or not species evolved was a subject of intense debate, with promininent scientists arguing both sides of the issue.", which I think is stonger and which closely follows (Larson 2003 p. 50). I can't get much more precise than that and remain faithful to the source. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportComment Prose is good, structure is good. A couple of points
Haldane's role in population genetics is noted but skipped in the modern evolutionary synthesis. Something that has been suggested as wilful neglect on the part of Ernst Mayr.(Unable to trace citation, but there is something in the last 5 years on this) It may be good idea to make amends and include him in the evolutionary synthesis part.
It is true that there has been some controversy on this issue in the past, with some accounts (inlcuding that of Provine prior to the 1990s) treating the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright in integrating Mendelian genetics with natural selection as if that was the modern evolutionary synthesis. However, the current consensus among historians of science as reflected in (Mayr and Provine 1995), which represents a shift it position by Provine, (Bowler 2003), (Larson 2004), and (Bowler and Morus 2005) is to treat the foundation of population genetics in the 1920s as a key step towards the synthesis but defining the synthesis itself as the work in the 1930s and 1940s by field naturalists, paleontologists, and botanists to synthesize their disciplines with the new ideas from population genetics to produce a new universal theory about how evolution worked. This is the position taken by modern evolutionary synthesis and I believe it represents current consensus among historians of science. Incidentally this issue was thrashed out in depth in talk page discussions on with me arguing the other side (based on older sources I had read) before I was convinced I was wrong.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was not about Haldane specifically , but rather about the treatment of the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright together as part of the story of the modern evolutionary syhnthesis. Mayr is stingy in his treatment of all of what he called the practitioners of "bean bag" genetics, which included Haldane, Fisher, (and to a lesser extent Wright). This was at least in part due to his frustration with earlier accounts that treated the creation of population genetics as if that was the entire evolutionary synthesis. However, this portion of the article does not follow Mayr (and only follows Mayr and Provine for a few specific points) rather the main account follows (Larson 2004) and (Bowler 2003) which treat Haldane's work as quite important (especially Larson) as does this article. I just don't see the problem with the current text of the article, which clearly says that the work of Fisher, Haldane and Wright was foundational to the field of population genetics and that population genetics was a key step in modern evolutionary theory. I just don't see what else would be needed or appropriate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree, but the section on the synthesis makes it appear that the population geneticists did not know where their work fitted in the scheme of things and that Dobzhansky "bridged the divide between"... That "divide" seems to have been introduced by Mayr and that is where I feel amends must be made. Hope you found the piece above of use, not all pages seem to be visible on Google books, but I think that should be sufficiently relevant. The current text seems to fail to note the large number of players in the synthesis as indicated fairly well in the main article on the MES. Shyamal (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a little text making the point more explicit that the development of population genetics and the integration of Mendelian genetics with natural selection was the key first step in the synthesis. As to the gap Dobzhansky "bridged" most historians now believe that was real enough. The work of the population geneticists was highly mathematical and not read/understood by many field naturalilsts or paleontologists and the models the population geneticists used for real world populations were too simple, under estimating the degree of genetic diversity, and the importance of genetically distinct sup-populations. Rusty Cashman (talk) 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) I added some as well with a rewording that links to microevolution and macroevolution. If you think the phrasing needs an additional citation, you can use Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA and he is quoted here http://bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca/Evolution_by_Accident/Macroevolution.html. Shyamal (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Microbiology has just recently developed into an evolutionary discipline is rather an odd statement. Indeed Luria and Delbrück's; and Lederberg's replica plating experiments should be pioneering. I suspect that the wording was intended to indicate that only with the advent of sequencing has microbial phylogeny been put on a firm footing.
Gaia as an extension of the endosymbiotic theory is one way of connecting the ideas in this section to the earlier parts. I think the view may be found in some work(s) by Margulis herself.
Comment The sections on the Chinese and Romans need some work, I think. The Chinese paragraph especially is woefully short and doesn't really explain much, and both need to have their connections to evolutionary thought more thoroughly explained. Also, you shouldn't have a section in the plural ("Unconventional ideas") if only one example is present. And if only one unconventional idea exists, why not just make the Gaia hypotheses a top section of its own. But surely there is more than one unconventional way of thinking about evolution. There are Christians who believe that God guided evolution, for example, which I'm pretty sure has been written about. Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I renamed the section to "unconvential evolutioanry theory". Theistic evolution is addressed under "alternatives to natural selection". I will look at the Chinese tomorrow.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment 1) The section on Lucretius is very misleading: the default expectation with anything in Lucretius is that it is Epicurean doctrine, not his own ideas. Some experts (Sedley) would go so far as to say that Lucretius is only reporting the doctrine of Epicurus himself and ignoring subsequent developments. You could partly avoid the problems by making the section "Greeks and Romans" (it's a continuous tradition in any case); but you should also be careful with the wording (don't imply that we know or even think that this is Lucretius' own idea). 2) The summary of Lucretius also looks wrong (e. g. if I remember correctly it's the evolution of society that Lucretius is talking about with humans, not some biological change, which is the impression that the reader gets from your text). 3) Reference to primary sources, the actual place in Lucretius where he says these things, is desirable (alongside secondary lit., if it's reliable). There's a commentary on the relevant parts of Lucr. by Gordon Campbell, Lucretius on Creation and Evolution: A Commentary on De Rerum Natura, Book Five, Lines 772-1104, Oxford: OUP, 2004. ISBN 0199263965. N p holmes (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't notice any inaccuracies in the rewritten section, though I still think you'd do better to put Lucretius at the end of a Greeks and Romans section. It's slightly lacking in detail now, perhaps. If the decision on Featured article status is going to take a while, I could suggest specific wording; but it'll do as it is. N p holmes (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It's getting there. While not perfect in terms of balance, I think the material through the modern synthesis is in pretty good shape. I have some more major issues with the post-molecular biology sections that I'm in the process of describing on the talk page and trying to work out in the article.--ragesoss (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - In the last three sections especially, there is too much use of the passive voice, from my point of view. Are there not any names that can be attached to varying views? It makes the more recent times seem dull compared to the contrasting views of individuals and schools in previous centuries. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that ragesoss's efforts will address some of these concerns. Hoever it is a simple truism that with history of science articles that cover big topics like evolution it is impossible to cover later developments in the same depth as it is possible to cover ealier ones. This of course is because of the exponential growth of scientific activity during the 20th century. The lack of historical perspective on recent developments hurts as well. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This article meets all FAC requirements, has undergone GA and Peer (unofficial in the later case), is well referenced, etc. A somewhat obscure topic, perhaps, but one of relatively major historical significance in Canadian science. Maury (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The paragraph starting with "The current building was designed in 1853 by local architect," has only 1 reference - is all of it from that one ref?
"There was some discussion of what to do with the Cooke telescope, as the Meteorological Office had little use for this purely astronomical instrument. No other use was immediately forthcoming, and the telescope moved along with the Meteorological Office to their new Bloor Street Observatory." - No reference?
"The observatory, officially Her Majesty's Magnetical and Meteorological Observatory at Toronto, was completed the next year."...Why have you used unnecessary bolding in this sentence?
"It had long been noticed that compasses tended to "wander" from north when measured from different locations, or even at a single location if measured over a period of time. This affected navigation to varying degrees, and was a topic of some interest for that reason. It was also believed that the same effects might be causing weather to change, so that studying the magnetic variance might lead to better weather prediction." - No references?
Yes, Ref 17 inline, see discussion on Bolding on MoS talk, fixed, OK I guess (although personally I think access dates should be left 100% to robots). Maury (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
If you use a book/journal article/web site as a source, it shouldn't be listed in the further reading, it should be listed in a "Bibliography" or "Sources" section. Thus Thiessen and Beattie need to be in the bibliography/sources section, not the further reading section.
Current ref 3 (Astronomy in Canada) redirects to the front page of Discovery.com
Fixed, freakin EXN, this happened sometime in the last two weeks - should I simply remove that half of the sentence? Or leave it? Seems unlikely to be challenged. Maury (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, can this be used as a ref? It's just the archive of the same ref. I assume they stick around a bit longer? Maury (talk) 11:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"located on the grounds of what is now the University of Toronto." - written in present tense... so why what is now known as the Toronto Uni, as opposed to what is the Toronto Uni? —Giggy09:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The photo was taken between 1855 and 1907 and does not appear to be subject to CC. What information is missing from the tags? Maury (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It's generally difficult to prove a negative, and more so in this case when the image is over 100 years old. It is found in the UofT archives, for what that's worth. Maury (talk) 18:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments. Overall I found this to be a comprehensive article. I did some copyediting and changed two of the section headings to comply with the MOS. Small comments:
"Although moved and modified over the years, it remains the oldest building on the university's campus." - from the lead, this made me question whether the observatory's current building is the oldest on campus or whether the original building was moved and modified.
"British Association for the Advancement of science" - should science be capitalized or is this correct?
I think this needs a citation: "University College was not completed until 1857, making the new Observatory the oldest remaining building on campus."
The answer to the first issue is "both". As the image captions note, and one of the main refs covers in detail, the building is slightly re-arranged compared to how it was at the original location. The building itself, and its materials, are the same as they were in the original state. So, then, the question comes down to your definition: if I move a door, is that a different building? how about moving the location of the building? It's a grey area.
For the first, perhaps you could just remove "Although moved and modified over the years," so that it just says that the building is the oldest. As for the third, I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing anywhere a citation that the building is actually considered the oldest on campus. Karanacs (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --> Support. until properly massaged. MOS, sentence structure, redundant wording. Please find someone new to look through it carefully: the whole article, please. Here, I've looked at a section towards the bottom, which is interesting in content, but disappointing in terms of 1a.
Ah, I like your avoidance of an Easter-egg link—let's all take note: "Coincidentally, the Canadian government (having ](my italics) was interested in ...". Readers will almost certainly ignore single-year links (piped), expecting them to be the irritant they've seen so much of on WP.
Do we need a metric conversion for "6-inch"? Maybe.
MOSNUM breach: AM and PM don't need dots, but they do need to be in lower case.
Caption: this sentence is not grammatical—"The rotation of the tower is more obvious here, compare the location of the windows with the images above."
"After a length debate"—they were debating the length of what? This is a bad glitch.
"a single building, built of stone,"—remove the comma and two words.
"The new building was completed in 1855, located directly opposite the entrance of today's Convocation Hall." Awkward; try "1855, and stands directly".
"were distributed locally in Toronto"—is "locally" necessary?
Um ... "which was a major service among fruit vendors, who used the reports to plan shipping." Monty Pythonesque, unless you give a little more in explanation.
Never comfortable without the agent I think: "many believed that there was a direct connection between sunspots and weather". Many scientists? authorities, even?
"that raised it high enough up the tower to have a reasonable field of view"—so why was "a reasonable field of view" (of the heavens, I presume), necessary to observe the Transit of Venus? That's the implication. What is "reasonable"?
Please remove dictionary-type links: "tramways", etc.
My understanding of Australian idioms is rather limited, so I'm having a difficult time parsing some of these comments.
The first comment is particularly difficult to understand. Are you saying the link is inappropriate? Clever? I can't figure it out.
What does the term "Monty Pythonesque" mean? Comedic? The text doesn't seem amusing to me, but I'm not a comedian and have never seen the show.
And I'm at a complete loss as to what you are talking about when you say "without the agent". I'm looking at that statement now, and if my guess as to what "the agent" is referring to is correct, then it's clearly mentioned,
It appears Julian has already addressed many of the issues above, at least the obvious ones (thank you Julian!). If there are any remaining ones, please let us know!
Support I just finished some more copyedit, and I think that after having the prose fine-tuned, it meets the criteria. Having another copyeditor take a look wouldn't hurt, but for the most part, the writing is up to par. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone00:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, thanks. I'd still like to hear back from Tony before we try to move on to the final stages though. I think he has more examples he'd like to inject, and I'm more than happy to take one more pass through it if it's going to tighten everything up. Maury (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I write in standard English. "Monty Python" is a famous British comedy team, although I've never seen more than odd snatches of it (not my thing). I assumed it was known the world over. The first comment, unusually, was an entreaty to others to use this type of construction instead of piping just a year alone. Agent: "the girl kicked the ball"—"the girl" is the agent.
We probably need "theodolite" to be linked, but I'm unsure about common words such as "brass" or "copper"—no big deal, though. Can you check MOSNUM about "PM". I'm sure they say lower case. "This led to the purchase of a 6 inches (150 mm) refracting telescope"—"inch" singular when art of a compound adjective. "The dome, now unused, receives a yearly multi-color paint job by the engineering students."—we haven't heard about these engineering students before, so remove "the"? "longer term variations"—See MOS on hyphens. Tony(talk)12:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, AM->am, leaving piping of link alone now that I understand the comment, someone linked theodolite already, removed conversion on 6-inch (actually "6-inch Cooke" appears to be a sort of proper name, these were common instruments at the time), removed "the", added hyphen (and in short-term too), changed comment so "the agent" isn't even needed (direct quotes are always better anyway). Still mystified by the Monty Python thing though, can you be specific as to what change you would like to see in the statement?
Whatever the sources say, the images are in the public domain. They're both over 100 years old. I can slap copyright notices on the Mona Lisa, but that doesn't make it mine. Maury (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, we can't take your word for it. Images are only in the public domain if no one renews the copyright that once existed. If institutions are claiming copyright on the images, you cannot use them unless you provide a reliable source stating their age and that they are in the public domain. --Laser brain(talk)14:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ummm, I'm sorry, but none of this is correct.
To start with, the entire US renewal system was ditched in the late 1970s for a single fixed-period time span, currently set at 75 years (with some exceptions). You don't have to take my work for it, take the US Copyright Office's, as found here. This has been further developed as part of GATT, and is pretty much universal among IOC. As if that were not enough, Canadian copyright law, as far as I can tell, never included the concept of renewal at all. Moreover, the Canadian term limit is 50 years, not 75.
Furthermore, PD applies in spite of anyone's statements to the contrary -- that's the whole point, if the copyright holder dies or ceases to exist in corporate terms, the works will return to PD anyway. William Shakespeare's works are in the public domain... do you recall him issuing a statement to that effect? Neither do I.
William Armstrong died in 1914, and the painting is his, so that means it pre-dates 1914. The page where I found it states it was painted in 1852, and I have no reason to doubt that. Under any possible interpretation of the copyright law, this image fell into PD long, long ago. The second image in question is a photograph of the building prior to it being moved in 1907. The fact that Convocation Hall and the Stanford Fleming Building are not in the image (they would both be visible here) means the image is from some time before that. Once again, this image has fallen into PD some time ago. There was a question about whether the second image was CC, which is different, but that does not appear to be the case. Maury (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I found the prose pretty sloppy, and with a surprising number of typos. There are still some apparent typos in one of the quotations, which will need to be checked against the original. (I've left an note inline to indicate where, but the whole quotation needs to be checked.) In general I think that the article, though close, could do with a final polish. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you be more specific on the quote? I don't see any cite tags inside quotes except the clip from the meteorological description, and I think I put that there. Maury (talk) 11:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It's this one: 'At the seventh meeting of the Royal Society in Liverpool in 1837, Sabine declared that "the magnetism of the earth cannot be counted less than one of the most important branches of the physical history of the planet we inhabit" and that a worldwide effort would be "regarded by our contemporaries and by posterity as a fitting enterprise of a maritime people; and a worth achievement of a nation which has ever sought to tank foremost in every arduous undertaking".' Here I have italicized what would seem to be the obvious typos. But the first part of the quotation is odd, too; again, it should be checked. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Well caught! The typos are from scanning errors from the original source. The original can be seen here. Both fixed. Maury (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing to the original. There are two other errors of transcription there. (Again, I urged you to check the original again): a comma transposed as a semi-colon; and two words omitted. I'll fix these myself, but again, beware! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed. Also fixed a misleading paraphrase. But I'm also confused: is the original source the NYT obituary (per your link here), or "Thiessen, pg. 308, from Report of the Seventh Meeting of the British Association of the Advancement of Science, 1838" as is claimed in the article itself? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 19:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
It is from Thiessen, but if you follow the link below you'll see the problem: the scan is barely legible in places. I used the NYT version here as a more legible second source. Should we switch the ref? Maury (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, OK. Stick with Thiessen, I'd say: a scholarly journal is better than a journalistic account. (And personally, I don't find it particularly illegible.) NB that there are discrepancies between the two sources: the NYT says "arduous and honorable"; Thiessen simply says "arduous," for instance. I'll reverse a couple of my edits accordingly. Ideally, you'd check the original 1838 publication.
Indeed. I wonder, does anyone know of a wikipedian that might be in a position to have these publications at-hand? They're literally filled with precisely the stuff I like to write about, old science experiments and theories, and not having local access makes my life somewhat difficult. On the upside, a new copy of "Jet" just arrived, so as soon as this process ends I'll be off to patch up the Frank Whittle article next. Maury (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
My university library doesn't seem to have it (at least, it's not in the online catalogue); but then the university wasn't founded until the twentieth century. I'd have thought that for an older British or Commonwealth university, these would be standard parts of their collection. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
maybe this?
Morrell, Jack and Thackray, Arnold (1984). Gentlemen of science : early correspondence of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. London : Royal Historical Society.
If you need help obtaining sources, I might be able to help out. I have access to a large research university. Awadewit (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Support This seems like a thorough treatment of this interesting observatory. Thanks! Here are my suggestions for improvement:
I'm not really sure what the infobox adds to the article and it is crowding out the images.
The images are all right-aligned. WP:MOS#Images recommends that images be staggered for the best visual effect. For comparison, I see that they are lined up, but everything still seems smooshed.
It had long been noticed that compasses tend to "wander" from north when measurements were taken at different locations, or even at a single location over a period of time. This phenomenon affected navigation, and so was a topic of some interest. It was further believed that whatever was causing this effect might also be causing changes in the weather, and so that studying magnetic variance might lead to better weather prediction. - This is an extremely vague beginning - how long? who had noticed? when did it affect navigation? The passive voice removes so much information that we don't know our orientation in time or space at all - give us a sense of history here. Suddenly, we jump to 1833 in the next paragraph - help anchor the reader earlier!
The Association continued to press for the construction of similar observatories around the world, and in 1838 their suggestions were accepted - accepted by whom?
The team assigned to Canada originally planned to build their observatory on Saint Helen's Island off Montreal, but the local rocks proved to have a high "magnetic influence", and the decision was made to move to Toronto instead - The quotation marks here are slightly confusing - I read them as meaning there was no magnetic influence but they could also be a direct quotation - do we need to make this clearer?
Using the measurements from the Toronto and Hobart sites, Sabine noticed both short-term fluctuations over a period of hours, and longer-term variations over months. - Perhaps we should say fluctuations in what exactly?
This led to the purchase of a 6-inch (150 mm) refracting telescope from T. Cooke & Sons, which was mounted on a large stone pillar to raise it into the tower and improve its field of view. - Slightly awkward - I would fix it, but I'm unsure of the intended meaning.
However, Louis Beaufort Stewart campaigned for it to be saved for the Department of Surveying and Geodesy, eventually arranging for the building to be re-constructed on a more suitable site. - Since Stewart is a redlink, could you ID him in the article a bit? Describe him in a phrase?
The references are not all listed the same way - for some the years appear in the middle of the listing and for some, they appear after the author name. I don't use templates, so I can't really fix this problem. The preferred form appears to be AUTHOR, DATE, TITLE, PUBLISHER, ACCESS DATE, but there are some variations from that.
I actually aligned the images as they were specifically so the reader could easily compare them. But in retrospect, the arrangement I've put in now is even better. Now the images are closely associates with the historical narrative, which seems to make a lot of sense. See what you think!
I've also been thinking of moving the last image into the infobox, but as you note, I too have doubts about the need for the infobox at all -- but it seems to be part of most observatory articles, so perhaps that's an argument for leaving it there? Or not, I don't have strong feelings either way.
I always like there to be reason for infoboxes. If there is no reason, no infobox. "Everyone else is doing it" is not exactly a reason, is it? :) Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As to the dates on the wandering, I'm not sure what we could add here. I'm guessing it was noticed as soon as compasses became widespread - I noticed it myself as a kid when I left a compass lying open for a few days on a shelf. Something like "since the beginning of time..." doesn't seem terribly compelling!
The navigation part of the story narrows the dates considerably to the "Age of Exploration". I could probably dig up a reference somewhere to this, if you want me to. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Finally, the date formatting issue is a technical problem in the CITE templates. I don't know how they managed to make the template worse, but they did manage it. I guess I could pull them all out and just use REF tags (I do that in all my new articles now). I find the REFs leave the body text in a much more editable format anyway.
I use REF tags, too - I find the templates too restrictive and plagued with problems. I would probably make the change, just so all of the notes are neat and orderly. Awadewit (talk) 19:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I will do this. I have found, however, that people "helpfully" edit them to CITEs. I wish someone would just FIX IT ALREADY! We had a great discussion on the whole REF/CITE issue on wiki-tech, but nothing came of it. Maury (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I have contacted SimonP about updating the tag, and he seems to frequent the Wiki fairly often. If this isn't corrected in a couple of days, is it OK for us to change it? It seems that the deprecated tags are "simply replaceable" with the -no-disclaimers version. IE, the second of these tags is identical in purpose to the original, changing it would be akin to fixing a spelling mistake? Maury (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Good analogy. Yes, anyone can fix it; it's not an actual license change, just changing to a more precise tag. If you can tell me what the original en.wiki page said, I can even do it for you. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't think there's any super-hurry on this, so I'll give SimonP some time to do it himself. Given all the tips and suggestions I've been getting here, I'm totally happy to keep getting more in the meantime.
If I understand your question, you're asking about keeping a FAC open, that has already been running for three weeks and is at the bottom of the page, while we wait for one person to resolve one image? It would seem easier to comment the image out until it's resolved. If Elcobbola is able to fix it, why not let him do it? FACs can run a long time, but when most everything is resolved, it's nice to move over and share the space with other nominators :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I've been cleaning up the references on this article. As I poke around, I'm a little surprised that the article doesn't follow up on this site's recommendation to seek out 1) Dalton, I. R. and Garland G. D. (1980). "The Old Observatory's Noble History," The Cannon, vol. 3, no. 3, October 31. (The Cannon is apparently the journal of the University of Toronto's Engineering Society) and 2) the "reading files on the "old observatory" at the University of Toronto Archives." I've been looking around the Archives site myself, and have found its various search tools basically impossible (though see here, accession number B1980-0005). But I understand the nominator here is located in downtown Toronto: how about dropping by the U of T's library?
Oh, if you think their search tools are bad, try the actual library some time! I did see a bit from The Cannon, and it's definitely not as useful as the "6-inch Cooke" or "Founding Of". It's a lightweight article not much different than the one on the page. It's also not up on the 'net, and I greatly prefer those. BTW, does Fraught deserve to be in Refs and not notes? It's only used for one ref. Ditto for Thomas? I always though you used direct links to the notes if the source was only used once? Maury (talk) 11:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"It's also not up on the 'net, and I greatly prefer those." Why on earth would you say that? This article rather suffers from being based on web-only sources. I do think that should be changed. Indeed, you said as much before, but nothing has been done. I'm surprised that, if you have actually gone to the University Archives as you suggest, none of that work is reflected in the article itself. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This is interesting in a general sense, and definitely useful for The David Dunlop Observatory article (I'll be abusing everyone on FAC with that shortly) but I can't find a lot of info on this one. Nice picture though.
Comment. There's a strange problem with this image, and I don't mean regarding copyright (about which I know next to nothing, though the version in the archives does say it's "Copyright: Atmospheric Environment Service"): if we compare it to the version found in the U of T archives, much poorer quality I know (though perhaps someone has been at it with photoshop), we see that one of the two has been flipped. My guess is that the version in the archives is correct, and the one we have is wrong. But it would seem important to find out. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I realize I didn't answer the question: the archives version appears to be the flipped one. If you look at Plate XIV in Thiessen, you'll see a layout diagram that shows the observatory was aligned north-south with the "dome" on the north, Next to it is an image that shows the arrangement of the buildings, with the barracks to the east of the observatory (note that the direction of north changes between the two diagrams!). That means that the original image shows the view looking south-south-east with the barracks in their proper location to the east, whereas the new one from the archives shows them on the west!
I'm not sure I understand this. It would be good to have this confirmed from the Archives. (In any case, if it is indeed their image that is wrong, they should be told.) What, incidentally, about the copyright claim? That also seems echoed by the version of the image currently in the article, when you have a look at the relevant page. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The claim is bogus; Canadian copyright is death+50 years, which expired decades ago. As to the flipping issue, as I said, compare the layout of the buildings in the two copies of the painting with the layout in the major reference. Maury (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. I do think that both issues should be cleared up. And I've been starting at the Thiessen plate, the two versions of the image, and your explanation for the past ten minutes, and can't really make them correspond. I take it you're saying that the building on the left (in the current version of the image) is the barracks? But it seems to bear very little correlation to the barracks as outlined in Thiessen's plan. NB I'm not sure why you are calling the roof housing the theodolite a "dome." It doesn't seem to be one, as far as I can tell. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the copyright claim, there are two works of authorship within the single image: 1) the painting and 2) the photograph thereof. The Atmospheric Environment Service is, no doubt, claiming copyright on its image of the painting, not the painting itself. Per Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., however, such claims are non-starters (a person or entity can claim copyright all the live long day, but that doesn't necessarily make the claim valid - i.e. it's "bogus", per Maury). If the thought occurs to you that Bridgeman is U.S. law and the image is Canadian, kudos on your astuteness, but it's a long story for another place (the image is fine). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk18:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Grand. I did figure as much. It is a little depressing when those who should know better (such as university archivists) get such things wrong. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 18:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The disclaimer says they host both public domain images and images for which they hold copyright. They are well within their rights to require attribution, etc. for the latter. In the case of the former, however, they would not be expected to have a legal basis for enforcement of the "requirement". ЭLСОВВОLДtalk19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(undent)Dome, cone, peaked roof, etc. I had "scary quotes" on them, but someone removed them. Please, feel free to suggest a better name! And yes, the building on the left is the barracks. Do you see how that means that the other image is reversed? If not, consider the placement of the fences instead. Maury (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
My problem is (in part) that the plan suggests that the barracks is square, whereas the building in the painting clearly isn't. Again, I can't really get the painting to correspond to the plan. But...
Better yet: the painting is in the library of the Downsview Met office, I just got off the phone. The version on the page is the correct one. Maury (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW I've been thinking of replacing the last image with a new one, but the day job has interfered so far. The University has place a number of "ground markers" showing the original location of the observatory, and they might might a nice addition.Maury (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Off topic: if you ever want to see just how broken the CITE template is, look at the Schools reference. Notice that its put the link on the wrong portion of the ref -- you link to the section, and italicize the work. Perhaps a new essay is in order, "CITE template considered harmful"? Maury (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the problem here is that the web version of this source is very unreliable: it even has got wrong the name of the book it is supposedly reproducing. Rather than worrying about templates, worry about that. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Windup: With the exception of replacing the second image, which is post-FA, is there anything else I've missed? The list is pretty long, I'm getting disorganized. But we've fixed all the refs, dealt with the images, and SimonP fixed the tag on the one image (interesting, I though I had fixed it, but I think I did so on the stub page, SimonP did so on the commons). Is anything dangling or is it go time? Maury (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually I noticed jbmurray has removed a ref at the bottom on a statement that the building is currently the SAC HQ. I'm not sure why that statement needs a ref personally, but after two have been removed for not being good enough, I wonder if this one satisfies? Maury (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
That claim (that as of 2008, the building was the head office of the students union) previously had a reference; but that reference didn't actually support the claim. I therefore removed it, and added the tag. You added another reference, which again didn't explicitly support the claim, which I therefore removed again, adding back in the tag. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I added the citation, easily located by googling on Stewart Obervatory rather than Toronto Magnetic and Meteorological Observatory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, back to the windup then. The image discussions appear closed, the refs are in, the infobox is gone. Is there anything else we've missed? Maury (talk) 12:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, sorry Awadewit, I just noted the FACT Added. I'd like one with more detail, but this will serve for now I suppose. And thanks for the history insert! Maury (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Self-nomination. Seeing how poorly I performed in the 9/11 article FA review, I got a second wind to finish this article. Anyway, I have more than doubled the references, chosen reliable sources over blogs, and rewritten the article in fine detail. I am open to your criticism. -- VegitaU (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I believe that quotations inside blockquotes, or pull quotes in your case, are not supposed to have quotation marks.
Response I've delinked load factor because the article I wanted to link to is uncreated. I've always seen quotes in the quote boxes with quote marks. El Greco, Flight 11, and Flight 77 are all FA with that style. -- 17:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Figured, but I hate trying to guess what the editors would format the publisher as... I never guess right! Done! Ealdgyth - Talk00:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I've read a few sections of the article, and it seems really great, overall. I understood the meaning of the words perfectly, but as I am very bad at catching minor errors, like Ealdgyth did above, I'll wait to see what happens later before supporting or opposing. However, I do have a minor issue about {{reflist}} in which I've left a note on the article's talk page. --haha169 (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Would you mind if the dates that are not full dates are delinked? The trend in FAC is to link as little as possible, and linking to specific days or years that are not full dates for no apparent reason is discouraged. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Looking at what you've done, VegitaU, there seems to be a misunderstanding of Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Date autoformatting. If you use autoformatting (date linking), full dates, as well as month-day combos need to be linked so user date preferences will display consistently. Dates need to display consistently, both for logged in user with date preferences set, and logged out users, in raw format. Delinking only month-day combos is not correct, because they display according to user preferences, just as full dates do (for example, 27 June or June 27 and 27 June 1949 or June 27, 1949). What you've done now will display dates inconsistently, depending on user preferences, since some month-day combos are linked and some are not. For example, depending on a user's preferences, they could see September 11 in one case, and 11 September 2001 in another, because you've delinked them only partially. If you delink dates, you don't just delink dates that are not full dates; all full dates and month-day combos (not month year or solo years) should be linked or not linked consistently throughout the article, and the raw format should also be consistent. So, you have several issues now. You just delinked (incorrectly) month-day combos, without delinking month day, year combos, while the dates in the text are Month day, year format, but the dates in the citations are year-mm-dd format. To get back to a closer version of correct, you could revert the date delinking you just did. I'm not asking editors to fix the citation date inconsistency, since that's an issue with the cite templates, but you do need to link correctly and consistently within the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I started a thread at MOSDATE, where you can followup with further questions, so it won't take over the FAC page. This new guideline is confusing people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This article is very compelling. You have outlined the sequence of events very well. Some of the direct quotes seem off, but I am assuming you have transcribed them correctly. An excellent article. I am sure to support. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a good article. I've cleansed it of date autoformatting—both full month/day/years and month days. It is highly appropriate that US formatting be used throughout: all English-speakers are used to hearing and reading September 11, 2001, and "9/11" as an iconic item. Date preferences should not be allowed to reverse this. It's still rather densely linked; I removed some trivials such as "cigarette lighter". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs) 16:54, July 12, 2008
Tony, thanks for finishing the dates, but we still need to discuss (at the MOSDATE thread preferably) how to handle delinking when the citation templates aren't consistent. The article now has delinked dates in Month day, year format, while the citations have linked dates in the ISO format. As I explained at the MOSDATE thread, since that is a cite template issue, I'm inclined to overlook it for now, as long as the article and the citations are each separately consistent. Followup there, but on this FAC, we need to be sure there's no misunderstanding about partial linking/delinking within the article, which was the status last night. (VegitaU, since this is all somewhat off topic because of the guideline change, I'll move all of this delinking talk to the talk page later.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Just some suggestions to reduce the linking per User:Tony1 above. Perhaps Al-Qaeda could be delinked right before Osama bin Laden since it is linked in the Osama article anyway. Maybe you could pipe the names of some Florida towns, since Florida is linked on its own, e.g. Miami, Orlando. Also, does linking GTE right before airphones contribute anything? —Mattisse (Talk) 18:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Another featured article from the Wikipedia House of Mirth, VegitaU. Why must I stare at flowering vegetation for an hour or so after reading your articles?...In looking at sources, have you considered making #13 and #15 bibliography entries and citing page numbers instead? Practically, it helps readers find the place you're citing much quicker, especially if it's a substantial text such as the 9/11 Commission Report. Personally, I get nervous citing a source more than five times, and it helps allay suspicion that you're interpreting a large amount of text to your liking. --Moni3 (talk) 14:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Note; there is a large amount of WP:NBSP work needed, not just on the delinked dates. (When dates are delinked, nbsps need to be added, but there are other nbsps missing as well.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment The article is very impressive, although I find the generally short sentences to give a choppy feel to the text. ( Ceoilsláinte21:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Hard spaces and autoformat-free dates: well, I don't agree entirely with Sandy about the necessity of adding hard spaces between month and day, but I suppose in the larger scheme of things, it's preferable. Please consider doing this; a monobook should shortly be available that does this automatically (more news later). I've added the hard spaces to the dates in this article.
I note that during the recent debate at MOS about how widely hard-spaces should be used, Sandy was on the wide-usage end; the argument that hard-spaces should be used judiciously won the day, i.e., in places where it's awkward to see a new line start with a number, or where it's awkward to read a word and its associated number over a line-break. As worded previously, MOS said "11 chairs" had to be joined by a hard-space—the consensus was that this was taking things too far, given that hard spaces can exert an undesirable stretching of words across a line, especially where the compound unit is a long string. TONY(talk)05:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
No, but it does say "other official works" of the government. That is what a passport is: an official document issued by the governing body of a nation. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. User:NE2 brought it up on commons, but no one is talking. I'm dead-set certain the photo is public domain. It was released after the Moussaoui trial here and is not his passport photo seen here. My problem is I can't find where it came from besides the FBI site. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Although the article is vastly improved, there are things to address.
The "hijackers" section stops at June 27, when the last hijacker arrived, and then the article jumps ahead to the hijackers checking in for the flight on September 11.
Some of the details in the "hijackers" section are excessive, such as that all three "muscle" hijackers arrived from Dubai.
"Jarrah called his girlfriend..." - what girlfriend? nothing about her is mentioned previously in the article. That he had a girlfriend and was closer to his family was important. He is the one who had doubts and considered dropping out of the 9/11 plot.
"It remained delayed on the ground and did not takeoff until 08:42" - this is a rather important fact, but the article doesn't say anything about why the flight was delayed.
"Investigators found some debris scattered up to eight miles ..." - debris, such as what?
A lot of disparate information is in the "Aftermath" section. How is Bin Laden, Atef, and KSM discussing targets something that fits in the aftermath section? This part of the article probably belongs elsewhere, with a subheading.
Why did Flight 93 have only four hijackers? what about the "fifth" hijacker, and speculation surrounding that?
This is just a preliminary review, with some things to work on. I can do a more detailed review sometime this week. --Aude (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Alright, I've made as many changes as I could from your issues. Let me address them.
It's hard to find notable information about the hijackers between their arrival and 9/11. Most of the stories come from witness testimony about running into the men in a hospital or apartment. I don't think that adds anything to the understanding of United Airlines Flight 93. How about you ask some questions where you aren't understanding instead of a vague statement, please.
About Ziad's girlfriend: his having a girlfriend is nothing that comes off as jarring or sudden. He had a girlfriend in Germany. She doesn't have much to do with United 93, her info should be in Ziad's article.
I don't feel two paragraphs on the intended target really warrants a subheading. Not everything in "aftermath" has to be written in post-attack tense—it just has to deal with post-attack investigation and the intended target was one of those investigative questions.
I wrote about the 20th hijacker speculation. Sorry, I'm not sure why they went ahead with a four-man team. You'll have to ask bin Laden. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for working on these issues. The article is quite good and should pass FAC. But, I think the article needed/needs some tweaks to make it the best it can be, before it does pass. I apologize for being unavailable to help with the article. The best I can do right now is provide comments.
Regarding Aysel (the girlfriend), Jarrah was the only one of the pilot hijackers with close family ties. And he had a girlfriend. Over the summer of 2001, he considered dropping out of the plot. I know there were arguments between Jarrah and Atta, and that according to the 9/11 commission, KSM sent Moussaoui to the U.S. as a possible substitute for Jarrah, should Jarrah drop out. I believe this is all very relevant about Flight 93, that he was the least committed of the four pilot hijackers and considered dropping out.
Comment: I've added more info about his close contact with his family and how Atta was upset by this. I also added info on Moussaoui's possible replacement. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
More about Aysel, I found this using Google Books search, from Inside 9-11: What Really Happened by Der Speigel, "Later he would phone Aysel nearly every day from America. He even called her from the cockpit of United Flight 93. Jarrah must have wavered until the last..." and "Whether or not Ziad Jarrah considered jumping ship" There is no ability to preview pages of the book other than the snippet. I do have the book, but it's in storage and can't access it right now. Terry McDermott's book, Perfect Soldiers also talks about this, but his book is not on Google Books either. I think Jere Longman also discusses about this in his book, Among the Heroes, which is also not on Google Books but is among my books in storage. It would have been nice for the article to come to FAC at a later time, so I could be more helpful to address this. Overall, the article is quite good and this issue shouldn't hold the article back, but this aspect about Jarrah should be addressed somehow, to some extent. --Aude (talk) 13:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the "20th hijacker", all we have is speculation, but that speculation is notable and relevant to Flight 93. What you added looks good.
Here are some specific suggestions:
In the lead, it says "The plane fragmented and investigators found debris miles from the crash site" - this is true, but the vast majority of the debris was found in and closeby to the crater. Debris found farther away mainly included pieces of paper which fell "like confetti". Instead of saying "investigators found debris miles from the crash site", maybe the lead should mention that the crash caused a crater.
"Based on the 9/11 Commission Report, the aircraft impacted at approximately 580 miles per hour (933 km/h)." - this sentence is not needed. The 9/11 Commission Report isn't the best source for technical details such as this. They compiled their information from other sources. The NTSB and the flight data recorder is a good source, and sufficient.
"Conspiracy theorists have accused her of manufacturing the photograph and are thought to have called and harrassed her." - The references should both go at the end of the sentence, after the punctuation.
This isn't the best time for FAC reviewing/assistance, but I may have some free time later this week to go through the article in detail. Please bear with me. --Aude (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
More comments:
"muscle" hijackers—unfamiliar term, to me at least. Is there a link to this? Or a ref? Who uses it? Is it a translation from the Arabic?
"forty" but "27". nine/10 is the usual boundary between spelling out and rendering as a numeral, unless there's a good reason not to.
"take off"—two words as a verb, one as a noun.
This WP thing of "conditional-as-future tense": "he would not send the message to Flight 93 until 09:23"—too much of it here, so why not "did not send"? Check others, please.
MOS hates --
"Jarrah remained seated until the crew were overpowered and then assumed the flight controls out of sight from any of the passengers"—who assumed, Jarrah or the crew?
Comment: I just wanted to let the reviewers know that I'm still dedicated to this, but I won't be able to edit this until this weekend (in 2 days). Thanks for you patience. -- VegitaU (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - With the changes to the article, I think the article meets all the FAC requirements. I'm double checking sources and details. Some details with the article may have to wait until I come back to the states and cross check with non-web sources (e.g. Without Precedent by Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton). Still the quality if the article is excellent and it should pass now. We can always make minor changes later. --Aude (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
These are just random shots. Although I supported, I recommend fresh eyes go through the whole text carefully to polish it: we want to be proud of this account, which should be the best on the Internet, yes? TONY(talk)08:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: I wholeheartedly agree. Please rip this article to shreds on here, if you feel it is anything less than exemplary work. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I fixed Tony's specific complaints, except for the "muscle" hijackers. Also, many of the complaints in the comments above his are covered in the sub articles. My personal opinion is that the level of detail you have chosen to cover in the article is just right. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - "Tom Burnett made several phone calls to his wife beginning at 09:30:32 from rows twenty-four and twenty-five, though he was assigned a seat in row 4." According to Tony's rule: "nine/10 is the usual boundary between spelling out and rendering as a numeral, unless there's a good reason not to" - is not your sentence backwards? Or am I not understanding the spelling of numbers rule? —Mattisse (Talk) 15:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Is there anything outstanding that's holding this article back? I'm not sure where the NBSP and Date formatting discussion concluded at. Are there still problems with these? -- VegitaU (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: The provenience of Image:ZJarrah.JPG is unknown. Sources do not support the claim of federal/FBI authorship; why, for example, would the FBI (the claimed author) have had cause or how would it have managed to take such a photo (pre-9/11, obviously)? Use in a federal document is not, in and of itself, indicative or demonstrative of authorship. Confiscating photos, further, is a transfer of physical property rights, not intellectual property rights. We simply can't use images with unknown authorship (claiming certainty isn't good enough; verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion). The image could be commented out pending closure of the Commons deletion request or replaced with Image:Ziad Jarrah Passport Photo.jpg (which would seem to provide some illustration and, for better or worse, be much more poignant). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk14:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply: I'm figuring you have some proof for the claim that the photo isn't in the public domain. There are photos released by the trial that are copyrighted, but these have been clearly marked. Are you insinuating that the government marked some copyrighted and some they just said, "fuck it"? I don't think so. And how is Image:Ziad Jarrah Passport Photo.jpg a suitable substitute? Did you read the discussion above? -- Veggy (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Images are presumed to be under copyright unless demonstrated otherwise. There is no burden on me to prove they aren't public domain; I can't prove a negative. I've explained why the sourcing provided is not acceptable indication of PD status. You needn't use the alternative; it was merely a suggestion. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk00:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
From here: Information generated by the Department of Justice is in the public domain and may be reproduced, published or otherwise used without the Department’s permission. What else do you want me to do—fly out to Washington and talk to the director? -- Veggy (talk) 00:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The photo was not "generated by the Department of Justice"; it was merely included in one of its reports. What you do in your free time is your business. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk00:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I'm trying to find something that says it came from somewhere other than the FBI, but that's all I see. (Source: FBI). -- Veggy (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the image, it's not public domain and not the work of the FBI. On the FBI most wanted page, they note that the FBI uses those photos, but they are not necessarily public domain. I think the same goes with photos of the hijackers. That said, I think the passport photo is usable on Wikipedia under fair use. --Aude (talk) 20:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding who has copyright to the image, I would say that Ziad Jarrah had copyright. Same if I go to the local Kodak photo store or Walgreens and get a passport photo. They take the photo, but I'm paying (or hiring them) to take it. It's a work for hire and I believe that I own the copyright of my passport photos. Same situation with Jarrah or anyone else. I'm not sure about tracking down further details on the source of the image. --Aude (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
"He captained the Australian team in 17 Tests, winning 7 and losing 5." - you should explain this, since what I first thought when seeing it was, "But 7+5=12, not 17." Are there draws?
"Despite this record, his term as national captain was best known for the loss..." -> "Despite this record he was best known as the captain who lost...", less confusing.
"The tour of the West Indies later that season was a cricketing and diplomatic triumph for Johnson; the Australians winning the series comfortably while avoiding the disturbances surrounding the visit to the islands by the English 12 months earlier." - this just sounds rather... awkward. Could you rephrase it?
Comment "Aged only 16, and still a schoolboy at Wesley College," → "16 years old and still a schoolboy at Wesley College,"? GaryKing (talk)17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't really like starting a sentence with figures if I can avoid it. If you are still uncomfortable with the wording I will see what I can do. -- Mattinbgn\talk00:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah yes, that is a very good point. It should be "Sixteen years old..."; and yeah, I feel uncomfortable specifically with "Aged only 16", which just doesn't sound very natural to me. GaryKing (talk)05:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Will the cricket articles ever stop coming here? Until they do, I guess another review is in order.
"with a firther 5 drawn." Typo.
Only recently added, but should have been picked up. Thanks. -- Mattinbgn\talk
Test career, Debut and early Test career: "and the match was drawn; Johnson failing to take a wicket. This is awkward and I recommend changing to "failed to take a wicket." Works better with the semi-colon.
Decline in form: Why is The Ashes in italics here?
They were all originally in italics but I was convinced by an earlier copy-editor they were unnecessary. It appears I missed plenty :-(. -- Mattinbgn\talk01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Johnson had another lean series; taking only eight wickets at an average of 32.75." Change the semi-colon into a comma.
Yep -- 01:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Captaincy, Selection: "cricket establishment; an alumnus..." Try cricket establishment; he was an alumnus...".
It's a very good piece, but I am finding some punctuation oddities. It wouldn't hurt to have someone do a quick check for more.
Giants2008 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I find his batting record so sub-mediocre that I'm questioning the description of him as a "bowling all-rounder". In 1st class cricket he barely broke 20 as an average and in Tests it was below 20. 2 hundreds in nearly 200 matches; even allowing for the lower scores of his era, I think that's a generous and POV description. The fact that he played most innings at number 8 in the order and had most success at 8 and 10 (see Stats Guru) seems to back up my assertion.
Not many Australians have taken 100 wickets and made 1000 runs in Test cricket, even today. From the article "... making him one of only eleven Australians to achieve the "double" of 1,000 runs and 100 wickets in Test cricket." However, I can't find a source that uses the word "all-rounder" to describe him so it has been removed. -- Mattinbgn\talk03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
More POV alert (or OR) "Despite this record, he is best known as the captain who lost consecutive Ashes series against England." Unsourced - and there's no legacy section where such a claim could be discussed and reffed.
There is no legacy section, but there is a legacy paragraph (His record as the Australian captain was mixed ...") in the Home and Retirement section. I can't see that it is of much use creating a specific legacy section for a cricketer and captain who did not have the impact of, say, a Bradman, a Chappell or even a Taylor, especially if it is added for the sake of allowing a reference. Having said all that, I can reff the claim that concerns you, either in the lead or as an addition to the "legacy paragraph" Your thoughts? -- Mattinbgn\talk23:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"He would not play first-class cricket again for three years". Presumably because he was deemed not good enough, but to avoid OR, do you have a source?
Tasmania were not a Sheffield Shield team until 1977 and for most of their history they were substantially weaker than the other f-c teams. Because of this, the matches were often used to trial young cricketers and to give them some encouragement and contact with the experienced team members. This would be similar to the practise of the English Counties in matches against the University teams. Johnson was only a schoolboy, albeit a very promising one, but with family connections in high places. It is not unreasonable to suppose he was given an early opportunity that he would not have been given had the matches counted toward the Sheffield Shield. Note this is all speculation and unsourced and can't be included in the article. What I could say is something along the lines, "Johnson was given an opportunity to play first-class cricket while still a schoolboy, against Tasmania, in a non-Sheffield Shield match" or some such. -- Mattinbgn\talk22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"He secured his place in the Victorian team in the 1939–40 season" Parag is already talking about that season? Did those performances secure the place? Puzzled.
There is a good reason you were puzzled, the article was incorrect! The earlier mention of "1939–40" should have read "1938–39" Now fixed. -- Mattinbgn\talk22:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"making his Sheffield Shield debut against South Australia in Adelaide in November 1939" He's already played 4 1st class matches. Were they not Shield games? Specify.
As above, Tasmania did not compete in the Sheffield Shield until 1977. In a real sense, his Sheffield Shield debut is his first real entry into meaningful high class cricket. I am not sure how you want me to be more specific. The sentence seems clear to me; "making his Sheffield Shield debut". Can you clarify please? -- Mattinbgn\talk22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you always need to give the details of every single Test, but as you have done, the omission of 4th Test in 1948 stands out.
It wasn't included because Johnson did nothing worth including. While the match is obviously notable, Johnson as a player did little other than continue with his mediocre form. I will discuss my rationale for including individual matches later
Why would the South Africans be particularly weakened by WWII, more so than the Aussies? I would asume the opposite would be the case.
This may be a stretch by myself and could do with some rewording if the sentence is capable of misinterpretation: from the source "The complete lack of success by the national side since the war set the Union selectors a tremendous problem, and they were not helped by a leg injury to Athol Rowan, who could not play in any of the Tests." Note the article as written doesn't claim any causation, merely correlation: "Against a South African team weakened following the Second World War ..." I think it is entirely reasonable that South African cricket—much weaker and less established than cricket in Australia—would be more affected by the interruption to international cricket caused by the war. -- Mattinbgn\talk12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I'm not sure if anything would really be lost by deleting that entire sentence.
Respectfully disagree. South African cricket was particularly weak at that stage and Johnson's performance in that series should be seen in that light. Happy to consider a reword. -- Mattinbgn\talk12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure you've been consistent about use of singular/plural when referring to a team. Either way works, just check you've been consistent.
Further to the above, there's a notable flaw, that the text lingers lovingly on the Test-by-Test details early in his career (which I think is too detailed for an encyclopedia article) before skipping through later series.
I have done a bit of an analysis of Test-by-Test mentions at Talk:Ian Johnson (cricketer)#Analysis of mentions in individual Tests. The only series where I see it as perhaps an issue is the 1946-47 series vs England and I think that the mentions are justified. The 1948 series is a rather special one and I was keen to expand on Johnson's role, particularly in the light of the Featured Topic.
Pains me to say it, but there's inconsistency in spacing around mdashes. Grr.
Current ref 47 (Aussie Daily Teleg). Is that verbatim? If so, needs a "" for lack of apostrophe in "selectors'". Also, citation needs a date after another pipe (to make what's currently a loose comma useful!)
Apostrophe added per source (my typo). I don't have a date for the editorial, I used an indirect source (Haigh). Further, all {{quote}}s in the article have that hanging comma and for most of them I do not even have a year! Is this a problem with the template? If so, any suggestions on a replacement. -- Mattinbgn\talk12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
tag added. Sorry. It's probably the same source as the next sentence, but needs its own, in case they get separated at some time, because it's an important claim. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
C-e restarted. Sorry for delays. I've added a couple of tags and hidden comments today
Article includes quote:"Just cos you are one of the old blokes in the side doesn't mean you don't have to bloody well put in you know." Is it unpunctuated in the source, too? I'd have a comma after "in". I assume "put in" means make an effort
Similar issue with punctuation in "Well I saw John's shoulders sag, and he looked so crestfallen that on the spur of the moment I nodded to the umpire and walked."
That shouldn't be too hard to find. I suspect the family picture was retrieved from a photo editor at a newspaper who wanted a head shot of Johnson for another purpose. I did think of asking if someone may be able to restore it, but it actually looks quite interesting the way it is! -- Mattinbgn\talk12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it looks that bad. It also illustrates a topic discussed in the article; Johnson's family. If removing it is necessary for FA, then I will remove it but I am not convinced. -- Mattinbgn\talk12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts, perhaps I can get it fixed up and then add it. An image of the family is useful but not essential, giving me time to fix it. -- Mattinbgn\talk10:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. I am still waiting to see if the sourcing information on Image:Ian Johnson.jpg can be made more specific. If it was any other image than the infobox headshot, I would have removed it. -- Mattinbgn\talk22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - thank you. I believe everything checks out now. (You Aussies have it easy with that 1955 rule!) --NE205:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, I had a look at this earlier this month and would have supported then. A cursory glance at the most recent version (and the diff since) suggests that nothing has gone backwards. Again, great work. Daniel (talk) 07:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—Well-written; congrats. You guys make a good team. Pity the dates are stuck on autoformatting in the infobox. The "half" symbol in the infobox is larger than life; can you cut it down to size? Errant comma after "Telegraph,", end of blockquote. Oh, I see this after all the attributions; looks odd. Can't you just jam the ref number up against the last word? the "Johnson bowling" caption shouldn't have a dot: it's just a nominal group, isn't it? Check others. TONY(talk)06:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I was going to wait until Dweller finished his round of comments before supporting, but Tony's support indicates to me that this is ready now. A while back I made a couple minor edits, which took care of all my remaining complaints. It looks good to me after a quick skim through the current version. The punctuation seems okay, although I didn't read all the way through again. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Note - My copyedit won't be finished until early next week, at the soonest. If the decision to promote is done in the interim, I certainly won't complain (and I won't hold back from finishing the job either) Oh, and by the way, awful I've not said it yet, but this is a dang good article. Well done. --Dweller (talk) 12:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the copy-edit. It has improved the article beyond my best expectations, considering I thought it may have been a little premature listing it here. -- Mattinbgn\talk02:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Support although I have tweaked this article quite a bit. And as the initiator of {{Invincibles Advert}} I did promise to abstain from all these FACs, but since this seems stalled and under full declaration anyway. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Although there are some open issues from my just-finished copyedit and I have some lingering concerns over the quality of photos (fuzzy or badly cropped). --Dweller (talk) 15:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it's passed GA, and why do one species when you can do 24? I'm a significant contributor (262/383 currently), but other members of the bird project have been very helpful, especially with the images. Reviewers please note that I'll be away for two days during the week, so responses may not always be instantaneous (something to look forward to when I get back) jimfbleak (talk) 06:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Remove the period from "A Eurasian Nuthatch climbing a tree trunk in search of food." – it's a sentence fragment
I've removed the full stop. I'd rather leave the table as is for now, if there is more support for hiving it off, obviously I'll reconsider; prior to FAC it hasn't been suggested. jimfbleak (talk) 07:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that the table presents the information well, and, if it was not there, the article would probably need a list of species. Snowman (talk) 09:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Comments - just starting to look through now. At 37kb, the article is at the lower end of FA size anyway. Prose looks good first up but there are a few comprehensiveness issues:
The taxonomy section doesn't really talk about the family sittidae until it pops up mentioned by name after the mention of sittellas. I think it needs a couple of sentences at the bottom of first para or beginning of second para, on definition of sittidae (Linnaeus the authority of the family too?).
Also, the cladebox mentions the wrens/gnatcatcher clade etc but this is not mentioned in the text. It would be good to have, along with why they are placed there (morphology or DNA) (still not mentioned what it is based on) and how strong is the evidence - are there any alternatives?
This is the consensus tree and for this part there is apparently fairly strong evidence from DNA. Added the reference and noticed that the usual academic standard pp. for multiple pages and p. for single page is not followed. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Any fossil record? There should be something on evolutionary origins and where they are thought to have occurred. Great work. If there is doubt about what the fossil is, then explain the knowledge including uncertainties and possibilities. This is one of those great situations where a bit of openminded writing and less dogma is fantastic. Let the reader be the detective and draw their own conclusions...sorry I am going off on a tangent but you get the idea.
and perhaps should be promoted to a full species. - not thrilled about the wording - sounds like the WP article is pushing for this. Can be worded differently - 'strong evidence for specific status'? or something similar.
first-year birds - sounds odd to me - 'year-old birds' or 'birds in their first year'?
It has occurred as a vagrant - 'It has been recorded as a vagrant'?
Breeding and survival has lots of eggs, by switching I think you could get rid of one lot.
Done as far as possible. the minor points all fixed. I can't find anything on the evolutionary origins of the Sittidae (Lesson, not Linnaeus), although it's "obvious" they arose in SE Asia. I've rejigged the cladebox text into the main, but I have nothing more than what's there. Should I remove the text and cladebox? I already had the fossil ref (there's nothing else I can find) but didn't put it in originally since it may not be a nuthhatch (or a treecreeper) - new genus, not Sitta or Certhiajimfbleak (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
On the fossil issue, that's all there is, I only have access to the abstract, and everything that says is in the text. On the superfamily bit, I've added the DNA basis and set it in context, but there is virtually nothing else out there regarding the robustness of including the wrens and gnatcatchers with the nuthatches and treecreepers. jimfbleak (talk) 06:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. It generally looks good. I have added some cite info about food caches (something my supervisor is into in a big way). I do have a major problem with the first line and the taxonomy section however, it is inconsistent and confusing with regards to whether the article is about a family or genus. The taxobox states that it is about the family Sittidae and genus Sitta, but the first line only alludes to the genus. The Taxonomy section mentions that the family sometimes includes the Wallcreeper, but that species is treated as its own family on its page. If the article is about the whole family then Sittidae should be bolded and in the first line. If the whole family is taken to include the Wallcreeper and this is the family page then that atypical "nuthatch" must get further mentions in the text. If it isn't included in this page but in the Sittidae family then a new page is needed for the family. Perhaps a better solution is to simply treat it as a separate family for now and treat this page as the family page for the Sittidae. But the current arrangement isn't really good. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk04:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support (Full disclosure, I am WP:BIRD member and have made a few contributions to this article while reviewing). I would mention which family the genus is from in the intro. And curses for expanding an article to featured status, then demoting it down to genus and creating another family stub. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk00:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
*Note to reviewers I think I've now addressed outstanding concerns from Gary, Caliber and Sabine's Sunbird. I'll be in London until Tuesday now, so responses to further comments unlikely before Tuesday pm at earliest. jimfbleak (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and apologies. I'll try to work up the Sittidae article when this is done, and I'll add the family to intro jimfbleak (talk) 05:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I have wrote in the attribution details to the mirror image, but I note that the copyright that was given to it is different from the original source image. I think that only the uploader (who is away until Tuesday) can change this, if it needs correcting. If the image is not needed, I guess that it can be deleted. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Problem fixed by using a new cropped image: I am not sure why a mirror image was used, and so I have re-cropped the source image (leaving it facing to the right) and repositioned the new image on the left of the page. This semiautomated tool on commons did most of the work. Snowman (talk) 18:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that, you seem to have sorted it all while I've been in London. I'm not sure what the convention is on attributing modified images. Obviously the modification is my own work, and I have to name the original image to justify GFDL, but I don't know what else is expected. Since you've sorted the issue here, perhaps we could discuss elsewhere (the bird project page? jimfbleak (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not know the exact details, but the license on the original work has implications for the licenses of modified works ad infinitum. Anyway, I think that the semi-automated tool did not have an option to use the license that you used for your modified work (no longer on the page). I think that explains it, but you can start a discussion on a specialised page, if you want to. Snowman (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Just for completeness, I've now discovered the derivative image page on commons, so problem shouldn't arise again. jimfbleak (talk) 11:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The table has the header "Species in taxonomic order", but this is not explained, and there is no footnote. I think this jargon should be explained. Snowman (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A footnote has been added, but it seems to be incomprehensible. The foot note says "...means that the list is in the order of the relationships between the species", which does not explain what the order is. Is it the order in which they were discovered? or something to do with the DNA of the species (and if so what)? The page about taxonomy that it is now linked to also does not explain what taxonomic order is. Snowman (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The rewording seems better, but as I was seeking an explanation and as I do not know much about this, I can not make substantial edits to the footnote. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that there is much more that can be said - the reasons for the order vary from case to case, all we can say is that this is what it's thought to be jimfbleak (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, Jim, I recognise the prose patterns. Let's take the opening:
The nuthatches are a genus, Sitta, of generally very similar small passerine birds found in much of the Northern Hemisphere. Together with the Wallcreeper, they constitute the family Sittidae. They have a distinctive shape with large heads, short tails and powerful bills and feet, and all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group. These are vocal birds with loud, simple songs.
Oppose—Maybe the first clause is OK, but it's a pity it has a choppy, hiccoughy rhythm. The move from the taxonomic them to where they're found, back to the taxonomic, doesn't help. Move the "found in" phrase down to where you talk about their shape etc. Comma after "shape". Why is "all the species are recognisable as belonging to this group" (which, genus? family? I'm confused) jammed into a sentence about their appearance. It's a complete mess. Sorry.
"Most nuthatches breed in temperate or montane woodland, but two species have adapted to rocky habitats." OK, temperate or montane, compared with just rocky: is rocky temperate or montane? Or tropical? Your normal punters like me could be forgiven for thinking that "rocky" occurs in all climates.
"All nest in holes or crevices, and several members of this genus reduce the size of the entrance to the breeding cavity by constructing a mud wall." First you refer to them as "All"; then they get the full shebang, "of this genus". Very awkward.
Careful with you use of "but", which usually implies contradiction. The two "buts" in the lead are only just OK.
"head first", I think, should be hyphenated, especially in BrEng.
This can't possibly be promoted. The prose is wickedly awkward, so that readers have to work harder than they should, but still don't get the straight, etched line they deserve. A fresh copy-editor is required, and it's not a quick job. All of the text needs surgery. You have a lot to offer WP in this field, but I can't see these unfortunate features of your writing style improving. I don't mean to attack you personally—far from it: I nurse a hope that you might become a fine writer. Tony(talk)09:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Presentation of the table; I think the table can usefully summaries more details of the genus. I have reorganised the table to make better use of space. There is now room in the table for a description in which identification details of the species and the length of the birds could be included in an easy to scan format. Scanning is easier when the image is to the left of a block of text. Snowman (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not happy about this. The information for each species should be in the species' article. I don't want an edit war in the middle of FAC so the alternatives are
You complete the species' details (I can just about live with that.)
revert to previous format
withdraw article from FAC - even I wouldn't support it with an almost empty column
The discussion on the talk page indicates that the table needed an improved format, and you have written "if you want to change the format, please go ahead" here, and that is what I have done which seemed to be with your blessing, at least in part on 8 July 2008, 11 days after this FAC started. It is a wiki article, so several editors can help to complete the table. There is some criticism of this article in this FAC, and some editors have criticised the table on the talk page rather than discussing the table here. There is a lot of information on this page that is also in the species pages, so that is not a problem in itself, the table being is an easy-to-view summary of the genus. Some of the images are diagrammes, some photographs, some drawings, and there is one video link, and the inconsistency has been mentioned on the talk page. The new description column will bring more consistency to the table. This article needs every help it can get at aiming at FA level. Edit warring is irrelevant to my table reformat, which is to improve the table on the nuthatch genus, and is as discussed on the talk page under two discussion headings, at least in parts. I hope that the main editors of this page can continue to improve this page, with the help of opinions and contributions from editors new to the page and I welcome more opinions on the table. It may look like the article is heading for a fail and it may seem to be a good tactic to withdraw your FAC nomination, but many pages have improved during FAC and I would like to give it more time. Snowman (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
For the first image I gave incomplete and incorrect details, now amended on the image page. Wikimedia fx wouldn't let me licence this as a derivative, but since they are from the same pd source, this can stand alone anyway now. The red-breasted is a US federal picture, but I can't now find the source, so I've deleted it from the article. 16:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I must concur with my colleague that the prose is very hard to get through. I'm not talking about glaring errors—the prose just needs smoothing. Some random examples:
"Nuthatches are vocal birds with loud, simple songs, which they use to advertise their territories." Advertise seems an odd word, but perhaps it's my ignorance of birds. Do they want other beasts to come in (which "advertise" suggests) or to stay out?
"They are omnivorous, eating mostly insects, nuts and seeds, and the habit of wedging a large food item in a crevice and then hacking at it with a strong bill gives this group its English name." Odd construction makes readers go far ahead of "... and the habit" to discover that it's not another list item and is actually outlining another concept.
"The nuthatches are all placed in the single genus Sitta ..." Why not just "the genus Sitta" since you already wrote "all"?
"... the word element hatch being related to hack through palatalization." Linguistics journal, yes. General-audience encyclopedia, no please.
"The family Sittidae is usually considered to contain the "true" nuthatches in the subfamily Sittinae, and the Wallcreeper as the only representative of the subfamily Tichodromadinae." Again, very belabored and I'm left unclear about what you're really saying.
I've addressed the specific points made ("advertising" is standard, but I've spelt it out anyway). Thanks for the invitation to withdraw, but I decline to do so. A family level article was never going to be easy, but Nuthatch can take its chances here. If it fails, so be it, I'll concentrate on Greater Crested Tern instead. Having been rebuffed twice by an fac copy editor in the past, I see little mileage in that route - or are you volunteering?. jimfbleak (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I will copy-edit almost anything on request, but you'd have to wait for me to finish a couple other commitments. Also, I'd have to be monitored to make sure I don't change the meaning of various passages. A good example is "advertised" above, but I thank you for teaching me something today. :) --Laser brain(talk)06:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a question about the intent of this sentence: **"The two species are not strongly tied to woodland; as their names imply, the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding." The prior sentence discussed to woodland species; why the sudden reference to rock nuthatches in a sentence that starts by discussing two woodland species? Is the intent to note that though several species are tied to woodland, not all are?
That's what I was trying to say - this bit has given me more grief than anything else. It shouldn't be "the two species", anyway, I've corrected that.
"They nest in cavities, with most species using tree holes except for the two species of rock nuthatches, making a simple cup lined with softer materials to receive the eggs." I've copyedited this sentence but would change it further if I knew for certain that the rock nuthatches are the only nuthatches not to use tree holes. Is that the case?
The cross-section of the nest is "based on various sources" according to the uploader of the image. Could you add a citation to at least one appropriate source? I don't insist that the citation be in the article; adding it to the image talk page would be OK. It looks as if the Harrap and Quinn reference to pp. 155-158 in the adjacent text probably covers it.
I looked at Albatross as a comparison article, since it's featured and covers more than a single species. There are some sections in that article that don't appear here. Can you comment on whether it would be useful to have sections, or perhaps just a little more information, on evolution? How about a map showing distribution (not down to the individual species, but just of the overall Sitta distribution? Is there anything interesting to be said about their flight? Is there any notable courting behaviour?
Small birds like nuthatches leave few traces in the fossil record, and I can find nothing concrete about their evolution although they "obviously" spread from south Asia. I have zero map-making skills, and I'm not sure what it would add - basically shading in most of NAM, Europe and Asia. Unlike albatrosses, where the flight is well-studied, small non-migratory birds excite little interest. I'll check again to see if there's any thing to add about courtship.
There's nothing for the family as a whole. Courtship is described in detail for a few well-studied species, notably Eurasian, but nothing that can be safely generalised. In previous FAs I've also looked at diseases and parasites, but these small woodland birds don't attract much investigation.
Fair enough. If you can source a statement about their "obvious" origin, phrased that way, that would be a reasonable addition, I'd think. Mike Christie(talk)12:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I've done a copyedit pass and found a few things to fix, some of which were noted by others above. Overall I think the prose is FA quality now. I'll be glad to support once the points above are addressed.
both negative and positive (in response to the above)
I think the table is fine. I'm not overly bothered by the variation in pictures and drawings. I think the link to taxonomic order in the title is enough explanation.
You may want to order the refs in numerical order, e.g. ...north of its extensive range. (there are several)
Lead
They forage for insects hidden in or under bark - I don't think bark needs to be wikilinked, it's a common term.
Taxonomy
The English name, "nuthatch", of the genus refers to the habit... - Could you safely remove of the genus?
...hacking at it with their strong bill: hatch being etymologically related to hack. - I would think you'd need to replace being with is, or else replace the colon with a comma.
Some taxonomists place the nuthatches and treecreepers in a larger group along with the wrens and gnatcatchers. - could you get rid of along?
The fossil record for this group appears to be restricted to a foot bone of an early Miocene bird from Bavaria which has been identified as an extinct representative of the Certhioidea clade. - what does appears to be? Wouldn't we know for sure whether it was? Also, I would remove this wikilink around clade and link the first instance instead.
Species boundaries in the nuthatches may be difficult to define; the Red-breasted Nuthatch of North America, the Corsican Nuthatch and the Chinese Nuthatch have breeding ranges separated by thousands of kilometres, but are similar in habitat preference, appearance and song. - the may be difficult is a little confusing here. Can we know for sure whether it's difficult? Also, this is a long, complex sentence, you could maybe split it.
Together with the Krüper's and Algerian Nuthatch, which they also resemble in plumage and vocalisations, they form a superspecies, the members of which all excavate their own nests - this sounds awkward to me. How about which have similar plumage and vocalisations to the... and separating the members of which all excavate their own nests into a new sentence?
They have been regarded as anything from one to four species, with the latter being the current view. - this sounds awkward to me, with the anything from, and the with transition, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
Description
Patterns on the head can include a long black eye-stripe, contrasting white supercilium, dark forehead or cap. - wouldn't there be an and? Is eye-stripe really hyphenated? Is there a better way to word than can include?
This is a very difficult sentence: The sizes of nuthatches vary from the Giant Nuthatch, 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighing 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz) to the Brown-headed Nuthatch or the Pygmy Nuthatch, both around 100 mm (4 in) long and weighing about 10 g (0.36 oz), but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. How about two: The sizes of nuthatches vary, but all are immediately recognisable as members of the same family. The largest is the Giant Nuthatch, which is 195 mm (7.75 in) long and weighs 36–47 g (1.3–1.6 oz), and the smallest...
Their songs tend to be simple, and often identical to the calls but longer in duration - what's the difference between a song and a call?
Er, what's the difference between a breeding song and a contact call? I don't suppose there's an article to wikilink to?
Good idea, now linked
The Red-breasted Nuthatch coexists with the Black-capped Chickadee in much of its range - This sentence introduces the rest of the paragraph, but your reader has no idea why they're reading it until later. I would rearrange it to have the last sentence higher up. Or you could include it as a parenthetical in a later sentence (which is quite long and could stand to be split).
Distribution and habitat
Representatives of the nuthatch family occur in suitable habitat in most of North America... - suitable? I don't think this adds any explanation, it's kind of circular.
...although both will move into wooded areas when not breeding. - could you do away with will with no change in meaning? How about both? Also when not breeding strikes me as a little awkward, but this may not need to be changed. What about changing the clause to ...only moving into wooded areas when they are not breeding?
Those that breed further north, like Eurasian and Red-breasted, may be lowland birds in the north of their range, but associated with mountains further south. I read this sentence several times and still don't get it.
The Velvet-fronted Nuthatch is the sole member of the family for which the preferred habitat is tropical lowland forests. - would it change the meaning to say which prefers?
Breeding and survival
The altricial chicks take about 21–27 days to fledge - could you explain altricial in parentheses?
One hundred and seventy Pygmy Nuthatches have been recorded at a single roost, and this species is also able to lower its body temperature when roosting - This is confusing because it covers two different topics. I would split out the second half of this sentence and combine it with the next sentence.
I moved a sentence for flow here. If the ref at the end of it applies to the whole paragraph, you should move it to the end again, but I didn't want to for fear of making it look like the ref endorses more than it does. delldottalk15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ref moved
Feeding
...often hanging on on foot and supporting themselves with the other. - often hanging on one foot?
It may carry the bark tool from tree to tree, or to cover a seed cache. - I would add the second half of this sentence to the previous one, or flesh it out and make it its own sentence.
These caches are remembered for as long as 98 days. - citation for the 98 day figure?
Status
Some nuthatches, like the Eurasian Nuthatch and the North American species, have large populations and wide geographical distributions, and present few conservation problems, although local populations are affected by reduction and fragmentation of woodlands. - Long sentence. Also, is present the right word here?
I've left as is for now, seems disjointed to me if split into two sentences
The endangered White-browed Nuthatch is known only from the Mount Victoria area of Burma, where forest up to 2,000 m (6,560 ft) has been almost totally cleared and habitat between 2,000–2,500 m (6,560–8200 ft) has been heavily degraded. - I don't understand the measurements. If we're talking area, wouldn't it be square meters? Or is this above sea level or something?
Nearly 12,000 people live in the national park, and their fires and gum traps add to the pressure on the birds. - What's a gum trap?
The former species prefers open pine woodland, and is better able to cope with tree felling, but although still locally common, it has been lost from several of the areas in which it was recorded in the early 20th century - too long.
A law for the promotion of tourism came into force in Turkey in 2003, further exacerbating the threats to the habitat. - this is too vague to be helpful. What did the law do that threatened them?
Good, but you might remove the "foreign investors" thing; surely foreign investors aren't more of a threat than any other kind? Or do they somehow develop in a less sustainable way? delldottalk15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Done, the only point really was that it was particularly difficult for foreigners to invest before the 2003 law.
We've discussed this before: I'm still not really comfortable with the paragraph based on a primary study in Breeding and survival (Beginning An American study showed that nuthatch responses...). This wouldn't be cool in the medicine Wikiproject, but I don't know anything about the bird project--is this common practice? My problem with original studies is that the article seems to assert that this is always the case based on one study, it's not clear how relevant it is, and other issues with primary sources. But if other folks in the bird wikiproject say that use of primary sources is ok, I'm fine with it.
How about combing the article for long, complicated sentences?
Did you get that copyedit from Laser Brain? If not, I think it's still a good idea. Let me know when you've addressed these and (hopefully) when you've gotten the outside copyedit so I can have another look. delldottalk16:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment- as far as bird related sources go, the most useful thing about wikipedia articles at least from a research point of view are the links to primary sources, especially when there is a dearth of reviews or compilations (secondary/tertiary sources) to go by especially on ecological, behavioural and not to mention the ongoing work in phylogenetics.Shyamal (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed a couple (can't find an earlier clade), try to get the rest done tomorrow. Just to add to the "sources" comment, even with a reasonably well-known group like this, if you take away the primary sources, there's very little apart from Harrap & Quinn for most of the many Asian species, and comprehensiveness becomes an issue.jimfbleak (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I can get the clade thing myself. I don't think the comprehensiveness would suffer in this case if you were to remove the info about the hawk/egg predator study, but I'm fine with the primary source staying. delldottalk19:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I've addresses all your comments as best I can, please let me know if there are any other issues or if my changes have failed to fully answer your concerns. I'm between a rock and a hard place on sentence length, since Tony always opposes my FACs partly on the basis that the sentences are too short and choppy. I'm genuinely very grateful for the time and effort you have put into helping with this FAC, but unfortunately laser brain says that a copyedit in the timespan of FAC is now unlikely, so your efforts and mine may yet come to nought, since the two opposes will probably stand by default. Thanks again, jimfbleak (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, beautifully done jimfbleak. Sorry for the sentence length thing, it's incredibly frustrating to be given conflicting suggestions by reviewers. But I do think there's a balance to be struck, and I still think some sentences are too long. For example, The Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest from mud, dung and hair or feathers in a rock crevice, cave, under a cliff overhang or on a building, and may decorate the exterior of the mud wall or nearby crevices and cracks with items such as feathers and insect wings. I should have been clearer before: it's not exactly a sentence's length that's the issue, rather how easy it is to follow. I think sometimes replacing commas with colons or semicolons can give the reader a little pause and can separate ideas more distinctly. I don't think the efforts are for naught; if the article's improving, that's a good thing, whether or not it passes this process. Having produced a piece of work of this quality is something you should be proud of whether or not it has a shiny sticker. Looks like Awadevit's going to give it a copy edit, I look forward to seeing it afterwards! delldottalk15:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
}}
Thanks for addressing these. Let me know when Awadewit's through copyediting: I'll read it again and hopefully be able to give my complete support! delldottalk15:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Support--reads clear as a bell now. Just a couple more issues I picked up on my last read-through:
There are some sentences in the table that end with periods, some that don't.
The descriptions I've added full stops since some have one mid-way anyway. The ranges, I've left without full stops except for the single example of a complete sentence. Is this mad?
Much better, but there's still a full stop after "Endemic to Burma" and "China, Burma, and Thailand" in the White-browed Nuthatch and Giant Nuthatch rows, I don't see how these are different from the other ranges in that column. Am I missing something? A very minor point anyway. And yes, where there's a full sentence keep the full stop. delldottalk16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Juveniles and first-year birds are difficult to distinguish from adults because they are almost identical--Can this sentence be made less redundant? Either remove the first half of the sentence or expand on how they're almost identical.
However, two species are not strongly tied to woodlands: the two rock nuthatches breed on rocky slopes or cliffs, although both move into wooded areas when not breeding --this sentence has two, two, and both, I think some of these are redundant.
Comment. This may be a sign of my ignorance, but why does the article start "The nuthatches are" instead of "The nuthatch is"? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
That is because it is a group name rather than dealing with something specific. Something like vehicle; hard to make that kind of article start in singular form. Shyamal (talk) 10:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Huh? There's no grammatical reason why the noun shouldn't be in the singular. I was wondering if there were some other reason. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
May be just style. One could have "A nuthatch is a member of the genus Sitta", and this approach seems to be followed in dictionaries. Here are some other comparable bird group articles:
Eagle - Eagles are large birds of prey which are members of ...
I have finished my first copyediting pass. This was just to work on some paragraph and sentence-level organization. I am now going to work on words and punctuation. Please check over the changes I made to make sure that I did not introduce any errors.
I have finished my second copyediting pass. I have left a series of questions on the article talk page to help with clarification. I will do a third copyediting pass later today or tomorrow. Awadewit (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have finished the last of my copyediting. It would be ideal to have another person run through the article, if one could be found. Awadewit (talk) 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be , but the only free video is the one linked from Blue Nuthatch. I'll check the changes when I do the next bit.
I think the lead needs to be a bit more of a summary of the article. For example, here are some major points of the article not mentioned in the lead: there are species boundaries issues; "The species diversity for Sittidae is greatest in southern Asia (possibly the original home of this family)"; the coloring of the nuthatch; the nesting practices of the nuthatch; etc. Awadewit (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably do this in the morning. Colouring probably too variable to summarise easily, but I'll look.
I've had a shot at this, except nesting. It already say they nest in holes, and there are few other practices they have in common jimfbleak (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any idea regarding population sizes for each species? How many of these birds are there? (Is that a silly question?) Awadewit (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
(Potentially silly answer) Actually such estimates can vary widely and estimates tend to exist only where the species are rare, large and distinctive or the distribution range is small. Most ornithologists love to study species only when they get rare enough for the funding agencies to dole out money for research and at that stage there are few enough birds to count. Shyamal (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
There are estimates for the European and NAm, I'll add these to table. They are little more than educated guesses by the scientists. It defies belief that Red-breasted has twice the population of Eurasian, given the latter's enormous and tree-filled range. jimfbleak (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In the table, are we going with "lower parts" or "underparts"?
All changed to underparts
Is "eye stripe" one word or two? The article has both. I've checked several dictionaries and I think it is two words, but I wanted to make sure before I changed everything. Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - This is a well-written, interesting article on nuthatches. I didn't know anything about nuthatches before I started copyediting it, but now I'm quite fascinated. I keep telling everyone I meet little factoids about nuthatches. :) The article has presented its information in an accessible and organized way. It is well-illustrated and the sources appear to be reliable. Thanks for the hard work put into this! Awadewit (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Krupersnuthatch.jpg - In the description, this just says "my own work". I assume it is by the uploader, Jimfbleak, but it would be good to make that explicit.
Image:Rocknuthatchmirror.jpg - This image should indicate what encyclopedia it is taken from ("1905 encyclopedia" is not very revealing!) and I believe it should also indicate that it is cropped. Was this book published in Germany? (Need to know to check the license.)
What is Naumann's entire name? I'm trying to verify that he has been dead long enough to allow this book to be in the public domain. Also, note that the source for the image indicates it was published in 1897, not 1905. Was this a multivolume encyclopedia or something? Sorry to be so picky, but we have to get the details right!
Johann Friedrich Naumann died 15 August 1857. He published The Natural History of German Birds between 1820-1844, so presumably multi-volume. I don't know why the dates on the website are after his death, presumably a later posthumous edition (I don't read German). This source hasn't had problems anywhere else, but if you're not happy, remove the image. Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - formating concerns, i.e, a large table in the middle of the text before any of the important information is not encyclopedic and makes pleasure reading difficult. I have concerns over the pictures (some are way too large) and the shortness of topics such as description. Final picture is not alternated. Plus, references aren't harvnb citation style for those that can be, i.e. there isn't a template there, which would be necessary. Also, you rely heavily on only a few books, when there are tons of "bird guides" and other resources out there, which seems to suggest that the page is not as comprehensive as it should be. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that is incorrect. They are set by default at 180px, unless they have a px tag. However, those images are not set at that, and wont be for most people. For instance, the one is set at "275px", which overrides any controls. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know that. The two I checked randomly did not have sizes specified, hence my word many, not all. Which images do you think are too large? --Laser brain(talk)19:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The red-breasted nuthatch with the media file is forced to 275px because otherwise the image and the media file are cut off on some screens. See the discussion above. Awadewit (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
One image still seems to stick out, and the final image isn't alternated. Now, the rest of the problems mentioned haven't been addressed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
The description section for the family as a whole has to be short, since the 24 species have few shared characteristics. The information on the individual species is in the table. There are "tons of bird guides" out there, but most are field guides which are mainly intended for identification and specific to a particular country's avifauna; they do not give much behavioural information. Harrap and Quinn is the standard text for this family, and for 15 Asian species I know of no other source giving details of breeding biology, diet etc. Even for the Eurasian Nuthatch, there is no other serious life-history text apart from Snow and Perrins (for the European part of its range only, and that's largely based on Harrap and Quinn). "tons of field guides" is unhelpful, please point me to ones I've missed that give the information, are not based on Harrap, and give life histories for the Asian species. Or are you saying that Harrap is not comprehensive enough? jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comprehensiveness - comment is unhelpful, seems unfounded. What information is both available and missing? There are no sources I can find (and I did a great deal of research) that add anything significant to what is already here - eg there is nothing for the family as a whole, on, say, parasites and diseases. Again please be more specific about what reliable texts or other detailed sources you think I have omitted to use. jimfbleak (talk) 05:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
images - I've move the last image as requested, put the red-breasted back to a thumb. Only forced pics now are the 100px in table jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Table - nowhere else it can logically go. There has to be some way of giving basic information about the 24 species, and anything other than a table will take up far more space. jimfbleak (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(copied from talk) I've moved species list as suggested, makes sense. On comprehensiveness, I think you miss the point. The article is about the genus as a whole, not individual nuthatch species, which have their own articles. I could easily write an article this length for Eurasian Nuthatch or any of the four American nuthatch species (it's the Asian ones which lack information - I note that of your links, only one was for an Asian species, one European, rest all American). The intention isn't to write every fact about every one of 24 nuthatch species - for what it's worth, I found 65 articles/books on just Eurasian Nuthatch in my research. Looking at the refs you gave, I've actually dealt with, for example, cooperative breeding in Brown-headed, and locomotion for the group as a whole, and I can't see why I need multiple refs for the same info (not required by MoS). In fairness, it's not enough to say there are lots of sources I haven't used - there are probably several hundred given the size of this genus. I repeat, if there are specific aspects of the genus Sitta that I haven't covered and for which the information exists you should specify what is missing, otherwise you give me no way of actioning your concern. Thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(copied from talk) If you feel that it is unactionable, then state so on the FAC, and Sandy will take that into consideration when she decides. However, there are a lot of books out there on the genus as a whole or provide information on the genus. I just feel that the topic could use some more detail. A lot of your references tend to be references linked to the same line, instead of providing more information. Feel free to say more and go into depth. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
"From mud, dung and hair or feathers, the Western Rock Nuthatch builds an elaborate flask-shaped nest whose exterior and nearby crevices it may decorate with feathers and insect wings." The word order (the opening phrase) is highly "marked": why? I've been struck down for using "whose" to refer to an inanimate object.
Why the sudden future tense, in conflict with the previous tense? "This species will also nest in river banks or tree holes and will enlarge its nest hole if it is too small." If the bird is too small?
Word order again: "Depending on the species, the eggs may be incubated by the female alone or by both parents, for 12 to 18 days." Put the last phrase without comma after "incubated". "are typically", not "may be".
"For those few species for which data are available". "the few".
When I opposed above, it wasn't a complete fix-it list, but examples of why the whole text needed treatment. Why am I seeing lots of glitches in just one small sample of text under "Behaviour"? Tony(talk)06:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I not sure that the for is necessary in British English, but I've changed it anyway. I agree about "From mud...", not sure where that came from. Fixed others as per comments. The article has had a detailed review from Delldot, and a copyedit from Awadewit, as per your original request jimfbleak (talk) 06:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that with the recent image de-sizing, the red-breasted nuthatch image and media button were cut off on my screen. I explained this above, but someone de-sized it anyway. I have forced the size so that the entire image, the button, and the media help link are all visible. Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 16:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, with a few minor comments.
This reads awkwardly to me: "A 2006 review of Asian nuthatches suggested that there are still unresolved problems in nuthatch taxonomy and proposed splitting the genus Sitta. This suggestion would move ...". should that be something like "... with the proposal to split the genus ..."? What suggestion?
"The law reduced bureaucracy and made it easier for developers to build tourism facilities ...". Shouldn't that be "tourist facilities"?
"For the few species on which data are available ...". I know that data is strictly the plural of datum, but even the OECD now concedes the use of data as singular: "... data is available" certainly sounds much more natural to me anyway.
Article has failed last two FACs because of lack of responses, concerns about meeting WP:WAF, and own nominator ignorance. However, it has gone through peer review, been copyedited twice by me (although I admit I might have missed some minor things), and I added in three paragraphs of out-of-universe information, so I believe all the bases are covered. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)15:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support - Ah, the Flood - I hated them when playing Halo 1! Couple of minor things, mostly good though:
Concerns of comprehensiveness issues relating to criteria 1b in the first and second FAC nominations have been resolved from what I can see.
The article mentions cultural impact and development. This is referenced to reliable third party sources including most importantly several published books, MTV and GameSpot.
My only concern with the references is http://www.cmdstore.com as a source, as it is a commercial website.
When citing the same book more than once, there is no need to repeat the book title, publisher, ISBN and first author name. Instead, use this format: "Nylund (2003). p. 199."
It also looks like the prose has been improved since the last FAC, but there might be minor stylistic things I have missed.
It would be nice if you could add 'p.' and 'pp.' appropriately before page numbers in the footnotes, to avoid any confusion.
It would also be nice if you could add a little bit more detail to some points. The merchandise, did it sell well? Also, when was each action figure released onto the market?
The second paragraph of the section Appearances, subsection Halo: Combat Evolved is a bit confusing. I only understood it as I have played Halo.
You should put a quick mention of the Flood in the Halo 2 subsection when it infected the heretic faculty. And of a mention of the Flood in the novel Halo: Ghosts of Onyx.
In the Halo 3 part, put a couple of examples of the new Flood forms.
From your first point, I assume you mean where the Flood cycle is explained. I've condensed it and reworded; is it better now? I've also added a passing mention to their appearance on the faculty, their confinement as of Ghosts of Onyx and a bit about the pure form. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)18:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It would seem that this article's peer review is still open. Per the instructions, "An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time." María(habla conmigo) 20:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Gamecritics.com is an independent reviews site operating since 1999; in an email requesting info about their writing policies, site owner Chi Kong Lui wrote that: "...For our reviews and feature articles, . We expected our writers to fact-check and content is reviewed by two editors before publication. absolutely, we would post corrections and retractions if errors are found." I consulted User:Ealdgyth about the sources, and the rationales were good enough for him at least :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)18:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Reworded; as for the review; per contact with the site team (their about us page doesn't seem to work) they've been around since 2001, and do fact checking on their features (though this is not a feature, it's a review, and it thus meets WP:SPS as verified, non-contentious material: it's their opinion, and is clearly denoted as such in the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)00:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - I did look over the sources at the peer review, and they looked fine. (I'm a she, btw, David!). Links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk13:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, great work! --Laser brain(talk)14:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Comments, leaning toward support. I corrected a few problems as I was reading, but it is basically ready. A couple questions:
"... the ancient Forerunner are forced to kill themselves" Here you use Forerunner as a collective noun but in the linked article, there are two versions ("The Forerunner are" and "The Forerunners are") Which is correct?
It's mentioned both ways, so i just changed it to plural to standardize and ill do that to the other article as well. I removed 'one-shot' as it didn't really add to the comprehension anyhow (one-shot meaning it was a single issue, not a series.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)12:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets the criteria for being an FA article...why else? ;) Zeagler (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Current ref 7 (The Black Crowes At Long Last they Have an album..) is lacking a last access date.
Comment SupportI think its quite good but needs a ce in places. I can tend to this, but it might be a few days. ( Ceoilsláinte22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Lots of work since I read this last, its really come on in terms of prose, and meets all the other criteria easily (I'm fine with nudeasthenews.com on the basis that I broused it when Ealdgyth raised it above, and though its an site run by both freelance and amature writers, its quite impressive, all the writers are named and their credentials are listed). So, pleased to be able to switch to support. ( Ceoilsláinte21:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing only image licensing: I don't think the Late Show screencap adds anything. The other two look fine. --NE212:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments—> Support. Has potential, but please get someone fresh to the text to go through it in fine detail, so we can be proud of it. Here are random examples of glitches at the top. Deckiller might be able to point you towards a collaborator, or you might find one by searching the edit histories of similar articles. Word-nerds are obvious from their edit summaries. Try to gather long-term collaborators.
"The album's critical reception was mixed; numerous reviewers found similarities to Led Zeppelin, with some approving and others not." Approving of the album overall or of the similarity?
Similarity. Fixed.
What's a "quality song"? Bit vague; can you express it in more concrete terms? Lack of originality? Lack of ...? Looking at the extraordinary diversity of star-ratings in the infobox, can you briefly summarise what drove these reviewers to such opposite conclusions?
Replaced "quality" with "memorable" and added sentence about lowest rated reviews.
Space the ... ellipsis dots, unless they come between sentences.... in which case, like that.
Fixed
"about his behavior"—whose?
Pipien's. Fixed.
"to hire someone with limited touring experience after the Pipien episode"—is it the hiring policy or the experience that "after the P. episode" refers to?
I'm not appreciating the difference. Hopefully fixed anyway.
"but the album title, as well."—no comma required; but why not remove the last two words?
Fixed.
"Lions is a symbol that stands for the fierce feeling and freedom that music allows you," proclaimed Chris.—Is the comma part of the original quote? Odd to include it within the quote, rather than after, as MOS wants.
Fixed.
"Frictive moments"—I'm looking up my dictionary. Is there a more common epithet?
"Heated discussions". Fixed.
Said Rich, "We must have recorded 'Come On' about five times in different ways. Then just took it away with him and came back with this different mix," which impressed the band, leading to—Invert the first two words, unless you're being poetic.... Ellipsis dots like this, and only put the square brackets in if you really want to; they can be a little intrusive. Again, is the comma part of the original text? Best not to chop it off on a punctuation mark, so why not do this: ", which. TONY(talk)03:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed.
If you believe these fixes are sufficient, I invite you to continue listing concerns with prose. In the meantime, I'm waiting on a reply from Deckiller. Thanks for your help so far. —Zeagler (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Is the Promotion and release section image really necessary?
I believe so. It provides a lot of information about the mise-en-scène easily that would be impractical to convey with prose. The vastness of the field. The highly saturated colors. The fact that Andy Hess and Audley Freed appear despite not playing on the track. The extras scattered throughout the background. Even stupid fanboy stuff ('Chris doesn't have a beard!'). You get a good feel for the concept of the video.
OK, so we agree that it can be justified in appearing there. Now to do that in the article - can you put something along the lines of this rationale in the article (and source it if possible) in talking about the video? —Giggy01:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
"23 second sample from "Soul Singing" containing distinctly different chorus and verse; thus, Rich won the argument." - huh? The word "argument" is used nowhere else in the article. Audio sample captions should clearly have some educational value; this doesn't at the moment as I have no idea what the argument you're talking about is, or how it relates to the music I'm listening to.
The caption is related to the corresponding paragraph in the prose, but I added to it to make it more standalone.
"25 second sample from "Young Man, Old Man" containing portions of the chorus and the "'Freddie's Dead' vamp" that is the verse." - Describe the music more. Just noting that it contains some of the chorus isn't enough for critical commentary/educational value.
"memorable" rather than "quality" songs is going from the pot to the kettle: still what the grammarians call an "interpersonal epithet" (i.e., a personal judgement). Maybe it's acceptable to put it in quotes to show that you're (the critics were) using it in a manner of speaking.
Pulmonary contusion is the most common potentially lethal chest injury. This article's had a peer review as well as several reviews on the talk page. In addition, three chest trauma experts have read it and said it's good or made minor suggestions that I've addressed. I believe it meets the FA criteria, but please let me know how it can be improved! delldottalk17:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I first became involved with this article when delldot submitted it for "Good Article" nomination. Delldot has brought it to an exceptionally high standard, on a par with other medical featured articles. The content is accurate and the references are of good quality. I am happy to assist delldot with any further comments or suggestions. Axl (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Issues resolved. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This is a good start, but this is overlinked. Here's some words which are linked, but should not be: "bruising", "shotgun", "World War I" and "World War II", "consolidate", "sensitive" and quite a few others. Please keep links minimal and relevant. Words like bruising and shotgun should not be linked because we know what they mean, and World War I and II we know about, and it doesn't have direct relation to Pulmonary contusion. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)18:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for pointing this out. I've removed the ones you mentioned and others I found when looking over the article (e.g. "ribcage"). I left the link to Consolidation (medicine), because I don't think it's a familiar concept to lay readers. delldottalk19:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
}}
Support - Very well written and fully referenced, meets the criteria nicely. These are both hard to do when the subject is as technical and difficult as this one. Well done! — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)21:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess it's no big deal either way, but would this make everyone happy? "The severity can range from mild to deadly: small contusions may have little or no impact on the patient's outcome, yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma." delldottalk21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
That works, too. The problem before was that the change left the clause opening with a dash but closing with a comma, which isn't correct. There's nothing wrong with the way it is now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
It takes an average of six hours for the characteristic white regions to show up on a chest X-ray, and the contusion may not become apparent for 48 hours. Keep the block of references in numerical order from lowest to highest.
Chest injuries may also contribute to hypoventilation (inadequate breathing) because the chest wall movement involved in breathing adequately is painful. Ditto.
The severity can range from mild to deadly—small contusions may have little or no impact on the patient's outcome—yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma. Try not to use dashes following a reference.
Comment - "These two signs, as well as wheezing, may be present for 24 hours." Do you mean just for 24 hours? Somehow, this doesn't quite make sense to me. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point, why couldn't the symptoms be present after 24 hours? The source (PMID15732422) says "Auscultation of breath sounds may reveal decreased breath sounds, rales, and wheezing over the next 24 hours", but the 24 hours thing isn't that vital so I'll take it out. delldottalk21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment what is a "frank tear" (in the intro)? Please link to an appropriate wiktionary or wikipedia article for non-experts. Mangostar (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
A frank tear is a macroscopic one, as opposed to the many tiny tears to capillaries you'd find in a contusion. Changed to "cut or tear", I can add "macroscopic" or "visible to the naked eye" if it needs further clarification. delldottalk21:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Difficult content very clearly explained to the best attainable level. Tightly supported with references. Only one question: do we still want to mention Swan-Ganz catheters (refs 13 & 55) now that there is strong evidence from various studies that these do more harm than good (see PMID1450833)? JFW | T@lk21:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't mind taking this out if you think we should. Are you sure you linked the right article? I can't get it, but I don't see anything in the abstract about catheters. The review (ref 13) is from '07, so it's doubtful that more recent info has come up to change the practice (e.g. this is from '03). Anyway, I'm happy to take those sentences out if you think it's best. delldottalk22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
JFW, your pubmed reference: "One-view versus two-view mammography in baseline screening for breast cancer: a review". Perhaps you entered the wrong number? Of course JFW is right to remind us of the pulmonary artery catheter controversy, particularly with the arrival of LiDCO. Part of the problem was that PA catheters were being inserted into everyone arriving in ITU, whether they needed it or not. Most intensivists would still regard PA catheters as useful in very selected cases. For this article, I think that it is acceptable to include those two sentences that mention the PA catheter for patients who "require large amounts of fluid". Axl (talk) 07:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This is a small complaint. You have intubation linked three times in the article, under slightly different wording. I personally don't mind, but if there is a concern with overlinking you may want to look at that. Also, I'm curious if viral pneumonia is a concern in hospitals. Another question, I notice that you mention pain under treatment. Is pain ever used as a sign or symptom in the beginning? —Mattisse (Talk) 22:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching the overlinking, I gotta watch out for that! I've never seen anything about viral pneumonia in any of the sources I've read, it's all been about how contusion creates an environment that's favorable for bacterial growth. Pain would be due to associated chest wall injuries rather than contusion itself (at least I've never seen anything saying the contusion itself is painful). I've clarified this under Signs and symptoms. delldottalk22:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"I'm curious if viral pneumonia is a concern in hospitals." I presume that this is in the context of pulmonary contusion? The short answer is: no. The majority of cases of viral pneumonia are self-limiting. Many cases are due to influenza, RSV and adenovirus. Immunosuppressed patients are at risk of life-threatening viral pneumonia including HSV, CMV and chickenpox. However this is not relevant to "Pulmonary contusion". Axl (talk) 16:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Needs more copyediting. In an encyclopedia article, substitution of terms for the sake of variety probably should be avoided. It causes confusion and, if the terms cannot be expected to be familiar to the reader, requires overlinking. Eg: contusion, bruise, injury, lesion, etc. If you mean exactly the same thing, it is okay (even preferable) to use exactly the same word. --Una Smith (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, good point, thanks. I've replaced all instances of 'lung contusion' and 'lesion' in the body with 'pulmonary contusion'. Where 'the injury' was used to mean 'pulmonary contusion', I've replaced it; I left 'injury' where it referred to the causative event or more general conditions (e.g. 'lung injury', 'chest injury'). So hopefully it's more precise now. delldottalk15:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Better, but still needs more copyediting. Look at the lead paragraphs: there are misplaced sentences in most of them. It might help to give each paragraph a topic, maybe in hidden text: mechanism, treatment, complications, etc. --Una Smith (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I reorganized the lead and gave each paragraph a hidden title: "Definition", "Causes & history", "Diagnosis & treatment", "Prognosis & epidemiology". What do you think? delldottalk16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments regarding images:
Image:AARDS X-ray cropped.jpg based on Image:ARDS X-Ray.jpg states "Chest X-ray of a patient with ARDS. Signed release into public domain, and licensed under GFDL as such". I'm going to ping Stevenfruitsmaak since he wrote the patient images essay to see what he thinks. Since there is nothing identifiable about the patient I would think there isn't an issue, but I'm not certain so I want to see if he has any feelings.
As far as I know, there is no clear consensus on the copyright status or the medical ethics of these images. Personally, I think Samir can be trusted with this statement (although I'm a bit confused by his PD - GFDL statement). As you say, identifiability is of primary concern. Currently, I don't see any reasons why this image would prevent FA status. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't able to find the author or date for the image, so I replaced it with Image:Morgagni portrait.jpg. I still don't know the artist's name, but it was published in Morgagni's 1761 book. As I understand it, the author info isn't essential as long as it's known to be in the public domain because of its age, am I wrong? delldottalk15:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I would think it's ok as long as you know that it was published in a 1761 book and that it was retrieved from the linked Italian site is enough to safely assert that the image is in the public domain and from a verifiable source. In general though I think that is everything as far as images goes that covers it. Nice work on the fluid-filled alveoulus by the way, and thanks to Stephen. That does it for me Support -Optigan13 (talk) 04:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Support — This is a little biased as I have done a little work on the article too but I think it's an excellent piece of work from all editors involved! —CycloneNimrodTalk?21:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's too obscure of a topic to have an article in any other languages, unfortunately. For example, it doesn't exist on es. Until April, it didn't have one here either. Of course, I'm not sure how I'd verify that for every language, but I think it's a safe bet that this is the only article on pulmonary contusion in any of the Wikipedias. delldottalk15:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, you discuss "consolidation" in two places: under the heading Consolidation and collapse and then you expand further on the explanation under X-ray. I suggest putting the complete explanation in one place for the sake of lay readers like me. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Good catch. Moved the general sentence on consolidation in X-ray to Consolidation and collapse, but kept the X-ray appearance in X-ray because it wouldn't really fit anywhere else. delldottalk17:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Still having trouble with terminology, especially the distinctions under Classification. I notice that collapsed lung, if it were wikilinked, would link to pneumothorax. However, you have "A collapsed lung can result when the pleural cavity (the space outside the lung) accumulates blood (hemothorax) or air (pneumothorax) or both (hemopneumothorax)." I am confused whether "an injury to the lung tissue" is the same as a "lung injury" and therefore a "collapsed lung" would qualify. However, you say "Pulmonary laceration" is not the same. That must be because there is no "injury to the lung tissue"? I am not clear, still, on how pulmonary contusion differs from these other conditions. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly right about pneumothorax etc. Reorganized the section, is it clearer now? I emphasized that pneumothorax etc are not lung injuries per se (I believe they're classed as pleural injuries). Let me know if it needs further work. delldottalk19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Just one more question. You say, "An indication of more severe damage to the lung than contusion, a hematoma also takes longer to clear." This seems to minimize a contusion, but in the intro above that you have said, "yet pulmonary contusion is the most common type of potentially lethal chest trauma." Am I confused? —Mattisse (Talk) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't think it's a contradiction. Pulmonary contusion is more common than laceration (which can cause hematoma), but less severe. They're both potentially lethal, though. I was actually thinking of moving the sentence you quoted to pulmonary hematoma though, what do you think? delldottalk21:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason why sometimes you use "pulmonary contusion" and sometime you use "bruising"? From my point of view as a lay person, you can't use "pulmonary contusion" too much as then I know exactly what you mean! I am assuming that "pulmonary contusion" and "contusion" are the same thing in this context. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops, thanks for catching that, I meant to replace all of these when Una Smith brought it up above, guess I missed a few. I've replaced the instances of 'bruising' now. Is it OK that I've left 'contusion' instead of 'pulmonary contusion' in cases where it's clear from context that we're talking about lung tissue? It's just that so many instances of 'pulmonary contusion' is wicked repetitive. delldottalk22:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think contusion is clear (I know about the worries of repetition!) because you never use it in any other sense in this article. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
It may be short, but it sure is comprehensive, especially considering the short length of the road itself. It took quite a bit of research, and I think I've found every last bit of information about the route that there is to find. Comments are appreciated, obviously. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone16:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport
You don't need to link common units of measure, like mile and kilometer. (I think I've gotten all of them already.)
The sole remaining one is in the infobox, which links it automatically, from what I can tell.
In the lead section, "The earliest inhabitants of the route" sounds funny. I don't think of people living on a route. Similarly in the "History" section. (Is "on the route" a regional phrase, like "standing on line" vs. "standing in line", perhaps?)
Also, same section, "the Native American Mohicans" sounds funny, too. Perhaps "the Mohicans, a Native American " (Also in section "History")
What's the relevance of the bridge opening date in the lead section?
"National Register of Historic Places" linked in back-to-back paragraphs in the "Route description" section.
In the "History" section, "An estimated 8,000 Mohicans existed…" sounds kind of harsh and clinical. How about "An estimated 8,000 Mohicans lived…" or, even better, "The total population of the Mohicans was estimated at 8,000…"
In the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike charter quotation:
The river is spelled Susquehannah, and, as a direct quote, should appear spelled that way. Adding "" is appropriate.
The parenthetical phrase "now Bainbridge" is not in the source linked, and should be in brackets. Also, "present-day Bainbridge" is a little more clear.
Unless there is a good reason, wikilinks within quotes should be avoided, per MOS:QUOTE.
"NY 308 was assigned…" Since the article itself is about NY 308, perhaps say "The NY 308 designation was assigned…"
Several book citations are missing page numbers. Examples: current notes 9–11, 10, 13.
Several book references are missing complete publishing data, such as location, publisher, and isbn. For those books without an isbn, other locator aids, like OCLC (available from Worldcat.org), are helpful.
Note 8 does not need to preserve the all caps of the title. Change to title case or sentence case, please.
Refs include a mixture of "Lastname, Firstname" and "Firstname Lastname" styling. I believe that the former is most common, but all should be consistent regardless.
Comments - sources look good (although it'd be nice to see the Milan Concerns source changed to something from a true historical society or suchlike, it's not a requirement), links all checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk12:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments I think it would be worthwhile to include functional classification and traffic data for the route as this information is readily available. Also, the Ulster and Delaware Turnpike is not linked anywhere in the article. At a minimum, it should be linked the first time it is mentioned in History (even if it is currently a red link). --Polaron | Talk01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
982M is the current designation for the former portion west of US 9. Also, I just checked the functional classifications of NY 308 and the two GIS segments are listed as "07" or rural major collector roads. --Polaron | Talk14:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: It may just be my web browser being weird, but the second image in the Route description section seems to push the History heading over. - Algorerhythms (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments—This is a very interesting article, and it should aspire to be the best summary source of information of its type in that part of the world. The writing needs scrutiny throughout; it's not too badly written, but there's certainly room for massaging to a professional standard. Here are random examples from the top.
"a rural major collector road"; maybe I'm wrong—wouldn't you invert the order of the second and third words?
Note that this is a technical term for a functional classification of the road. If it sounds too awkward, I suppose "rural" can be removed. --Polaron | Talk04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Acres converted to sq. km, as opposed to hectares ... was just discussing this with Lightmouse. Normally I'd say small to small and large to large—I think it's 2.4 acres to the ha. But here, it's so large that maaaybe it's better. How many acres to the square mile? Do American readers have a better sense of point something of a sq. mile than thousands of acres?
A portion of —wouldn't "Part of ..." be simpler? Portion sound like a kitchen recipe. There are others further down.
The "also" in Para 1 is idle; stronger without. Every sentence is additional info. "Also" should only be used to mark additionality, to coint an ugly word.
This is a long winding snake: "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco, a small lake near NY 308, the highway began its history in about 1685, when a group of Native American Mohicans called the Sepasco built a trail known as the Sepasco Trail that ran from the Hudson River, eastward through modern-day Rhinebeck (then known as Sepasco), ending at Lake Sepasco." First off, use dashes so the reader doesn't think it will be a list: "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco, a small lake near NY 308, and a marsh at the end of the route, the highway began ...". See what I mean? So "Indicated by artifacts found near Lake Sepasco—a small lake near NY 308—the highway began its history in about 1685, when a group of Native American Mohicans called the Sepasco built the Sepasco Trail; this trail ran from the Hudson River, eastward through modern-day Rhinebeck (then known as Sepasco), and ended at Lake Sepasco." Now you'v allowed them to rest momentarily at the semicolon and gather their thoughts. If you don't like two sets of dashes in two consecutive sentences, turn the next ones into commas.
Talking of the next sentence, make it easier by removing "State of" (definitely) and "Town of" (maybe, see what you think). Shouldn't be caps, anyway.
The last "also" in the lead: yep, that's a good one; it should always clearly relate to what has come before.
"soon exiting Rhinebeck as it runs parallel to the Landsman Kill River"—"As" is a difficult word: is this a "while" or a "because" as? I think it's a "while" as, so "while running"? I avoid "as", usually. Non-native speakers have particular problems with it.
MOS breach: no hyphen after "-ly".
"inn in"—ha! Maybe try to avoid the juxtaposition, but it's no big deal. Inside the inn in Innsbruck.
Bit stilted: "The Landsman Kill is noted for its numerous spawning runs of smelt, alewife, and blueback herring." (my italics). Who notes? The ref? I guess so. Just state the fact: "has numerous ...".
"by way of an interchange"—"through", or even "via", although some people might object to the latter outside a scientific context (I don't). Via means route in Latin.
Redundant wording: "carries an average volume of about 6,400 vehicles per day" --> "carries a daily average of 6,400 vehicles". See MOSNUM on approximations of large numbers.
I'm not sure I follow about approximations. Should we change to "six thousand" (instead of 6400) and "four thousand" (instead of 3700)? I also think the word "volume" or "traffic" should be there since your phrasing is unclear as to what is being carried. --Polaron | Talk04:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I think I fixed all the prose issues listed, so I'd appreciate if you could take another look and give me another set of examples. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone17:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The source given doesn't seem to verify the claim of the oldest continuously operated inn (at least I couldn't find it there); anyway, this NY Times article can be used to source that text (noting that its wording is more in line with my thoughts, I'm not sure it's the oldest, but one of the many that claim to be). As Tony said, another run-through is needed; I found too many little things. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I think " Preface" should be renamed to "Background"
The currencies used should be clarified; both Canadian and American people and teams, are mentioned, for instance, so do the dollar signs represent American or Canadian dollars?
Renamed to background. The currency situation is tricky though. Prior to 1924, it seems obvious that figures would be in Canadian Dollars. After 1924, it becomes messy. I will have to check my sources on them. The $15,000 that Charles Adams paid for the Bruins, for example, could be either currency, and I don't think my sources specified. Likewise, Smythe's purchase of the Maple Leafs I would presume to be Canadian Dollars, but can't say for certain. Resolute19:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not according to Canadian dollar. Also, Canada has been associated with the British since its founding, and the United States had that whole Declaration of Independence thing going on. I don't think the two played that nicely together. GaryKing (talk)20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The article says " the dollar was pegged at par with the U.S. dollar, on a gold standard of 1 dollar = 23.22 grains gold." It doesn't mention a change in the exchange rate until the start of World War II. Then again, that's not really proof of anything.-Wafulz (talk) 20:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've linked the first usage of $ to the Canadian Dollar, as the majority of the dollar figures in the article would definitely be using that currency. The only two figures I am uncertain of are the $15,000 price paid to buy the Bruins, and the $75,000 for the Americans. I can assume they are still referring to the Canadian Dollar, but none of the references I have suggest one way or another which currency was actually used. Resolute01:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
According to this, the Canadian and American dollars were nearly equal during those time periods, so I don't think it's that big of an issue.-Wafulz (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportComments by delldottalk
This FAC was brought to my attention over IRC. It's a really a beautiful article. Just a few superficial comments, some don't even require action, they're just questions about minor points I'm not totally clear on. So for a lot of those feel free to explain or correct me if I'm wrong.
I would state the obvious and establish context in the first sentence by stating what nation we're talking about.
I couldn't figure out how to add it to the first sentence, but I did specify that the NHL was originally all Canadian in the lead paragraph.
I suppose you've considered starting the article with The history of the National Hockey League of Canada and rejected the idea? Really it's fine the way you have it, just a suggestion. delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I did, but "of Canada" wouldn't belong as part of the bolded lead, and the league was only a Canadian-only entity for seven years. In fact, it very quickly had more American teams than Canadian. In this case "National" is really just a word.
Does 1880s need to be linked?
Looks like it has alrady been done.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I thought it shouldn't be. Tuberculosis, a FA selected at random, doesn't link decades, and other decades in this article aren't linked. delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Ahh. I wasn't thinking it should be linked either, actually. Changed back.
Looks as though that has already been changed for consistency.
perished sounds kind of weird to me, I'd go for died in order to avoid a fancy word where a plain one will do. But maybe ask another person who's good at prose.
Personally, I just liked the word. I'll change to died for now, however.
I don't know if led by Billy Burch and Shorty Green is a strong enough departure from the rest of the sentence to require m dashes, I'd think commas would work.
changed.
Aren't you supposed to wikilink the first occurrence of $ to the type of currency? I vaguely remember having read that somewhere. Why is it linked much farther down, in Great Depression?
Yeah, we're working on finding sources that specify which currency is being used. I could just link the Canadian Dollar on the first instance, but I am not certain that remains true later on.
I'm not familiar with the term American-based. Would it be better to say American team or team based in the US or something?
Removed "-based".
This seems kind of repetitive: Rangers goaltender Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game, leaving the Rangers without a goaltender. But I can't figure out how to rephrase it maybe the Rangers were left without a goaltender when Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game, leaving the reader to figure out what role he must have played from the context?
I simply removed the first instance of "Rangers" in your quoted section. The entire paragraph is about the Rangers, so it should still be obvious which team is being discussed.
Oops. Removed the first usage of goaltender as well. It's implied that Chabot was the goaltender by the rest of the sentence.
With the Maroons unwilling to allow the Rangers to -- with seems kind of clumsy here. Maybe since or as?
Agreed, changed to "As the Maroons...".
There's a problem with switching tense here, but I'm not sure how to fix it without a lot of brackets: In his words, he wanted "a place where people can go in evening clothes, if they want to come there for a party or dinner ... a place that people can be proud to bring their wives or girlfriends to."
Removed the "In his words..." but other than that, I am not sure how to rephrase this. It is a past tense statement about a future tense quote. I'll think more on it.
Yeah, I've never heard of a way to fix this. Maybe something like Smythe also wanted to build a new shrine for his team, envisioning "a place where people can go...", but all this does is introduce more tenses. delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Is it intentional that sometimes punctuation is inside quotation marks and sometimes outside?
Probably not. I'll double check and fix where needed.
While other owners feared that broadcasting their games would cut into gate reciepts, Smythe supported the broadcast of Leafs games. -- kind of repetitive. Also, would it be Leafs', or is Leafs not possessive? Same question about the Canadiens organization, under Great Depression.
Reworded. On the possessiveness, it really could go either way. I can see it being taken as a possessive, but I have typically seen such phrases written without the apostrophe.
I actually think having the "Smythe supported" part as the second half of the sentence is better for flow, but no big deal either way. You could start it with Unlike if you wanted to keep the original construction. delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure though is the most logical connector here: Shore would ultimately serve a 16-game suspension for the hit, though it was known that had Bailey died, Boston police would have charged him with manslaughter.
Reworded.
Under Howie Morenz, this sentence is kind of confusing, with a lot of temporal terms: Morenz's return to Montreal would be short-lived, as on January 28, 1937, he broke his leg in four places after catching his skate on the ice while being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert.
Removed the entirety before the first comma. It's unnecessary.
It was the after catching ... while being thing that I didn't like. How about On January 28, 1937, he broke his leg in four places: he caught his skate on the ice while being checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert? Still not perfect, I know. Or maybe On January 28, 1937, Morenz was checked by Chicago's Earl Seibert, caught his skate on the ice, and broke his leg in four places. Whatever you decide is fine. delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Broke it into two sentences. Hopefully this simplifies
No need to utilize utilize when you could use use (under Rules and innovations).
Fixed.
Sorry, I'm sports oblivious: what does iced the puck mean? If this is shooting the puck the length of the ice, you could put icing the puck in parentheses.
Done.
the league abandoned the rule forbidding goaltenders from leaving their feet to make a save - coincidentally, Benedict himself was the chief practitioner of this. m dash, not a hyphen. And was the chief practitioner of this sounds a little odd.
reworded.
I don't really like best either; it's so vague, it doesn't really provide any information. And who says he was one of the best? Maybe just an expansion of the concept is needed here. One of the most enthusiastic? Defended the goal most effectively? delldottalk00:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gone and removed the caveat about Bennedict altogether. I'm not certain what RGTraynor was intending to state, and it doesn't really fit well, especially since it is an anacronism given how the paragraph is presented. Hopefully RG sees this and re-adds it as he sees fit.
lol, I forgot about the citation vs cite x rule. I went with citation on general refs because the harvard reference template has been depricated. I'll correct the other citations tomorrow. Hockeydb has a page citing its sources. Sportsecyclopedia looks amateurish, but comparitavely speaking, I've found the information highly reliable. I think they had a references page as well, but I'll have to look for that tomorrow as well. Resolute03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Well-done, comprehensive article on the history of a major North American sports league. What's not to like? Well...
Background: "and league attendance and excitement dropped." Is there a better word than excitement? I think interest is more of a match.
Changed to interest.
Founding: The Canadiens, of all teams, don't need another link here after the previous section has one.
Fixed.
Early years: 1919-20 season linked twice in section.
Fixed.
"second-half champion Toronto team" Replace team with Arenas? It should be okay since their nickname hasn't been mentioned yet.
The team wasn't formally called the Arenas until 1918-19. In 1917-18, they were simply "Toronto". Arenas would be anacronsitic in this case.
One-sentence paragraph at end of section. I never like these, but it doesn't seem to go well anywhere else.
Broke into two sentences.
Competition with the WCHL: I recommend a change in the last paragraph to "were purchased for $75,000 by New York mobster Bill Dwyer". The order of this sentence looks off as it is now.
Changed.
1920s expansion: "The New York Rangers were granted" Either find a replacement for granted or say "granted to him".
Done.
New York Americans goalie Joe Hall links to the Canadiens' Joe Hall.
Oops. That is supposed to be Joe Miller, not Hall. Fixed.
Conn Smythe and the Toronto Maple Leafs, Livingston's court battles: "making her the first female owner in hockey history, and only the second in all of sports." Is this referring to major North American sports? If so the article should indicate that.
The source I have doesn't specify. I'll eliminate the statement of her being the 2nd in all of sports to eliminate ambiguity
Ace Bailey benefit game: Plenty of hockey players have survived vicious checks. It would be better to describe the damage this hit did to Bailey. Right now it just says he landed on his head, but the life-threatening injury, brain hemorrhaging, isn't even mentioned.
I'll improve this when I have access to my sources.
Great Depression: "The Eagles played only one year in St. Louis before asking permission to suspend operations." I believe this should be "asking for permission...".
Fixed.
"The league refused, bought out and dispersed the Eagles' players." Missing a connecter after the comma.
Reworded.
Howie Morenz: "as teams attempted to fit in the cap." Awkward. I prefer something like "under the cap."
Fixed.
"Morenz's his skate" Also, I recommend this change: "while he was being checked...".
Typo fixed, change made.
Chicago's "All-American" Team: "to compile a team only of American players." Reverse only and of.
Done.
"regularly in the league" to "who appeared" or similar.
Reworded, slightly different.
Rules and innovations: "After the Senators third championship in 1924," Should be Senators'.
Fixed.
Formatting issue in third paragraph (icing).
Fixed.
Odd to have Frank Calder linked with full name in third paragraph of section when he isn't in first paragraph.
moved.
Hyphen for two piece?
Toyed with an em-dash, just to mess with ya, but fixed. ;o)
Hold on a second. I just noticed the introduction of some new material, which has created a number of new problems.
"the heavily-favoured Maple Leafs" No hyphen after ly.
"fifth-place Red Wings" Should be Red Wings'.
"declare the Red Wings as "unbeatable"." Not sure as is needed, although this is a judgement call.
This is the primary reason I dropped my support: The Leafs are not the only team in NHL history to come back from a 3–0 deficit (check spelling of deficit). As a Rangers fan this kills me, but the 1975 Islanders deserve credit where it's due. Featured articles can't contain mistakes like this.
I would start a new subsection with the new paragraph and the birth of the Original Six. This would be a better fit than shoving the information under the Chicago subsection.
Sorry for the switch, but our best work must be as flawless as possible. I'll be perfectly willing to support again once these are resolved.Giants2008 (talk) 00:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Whoops... silly mistake. The Leafs are the only team to win a championship series. I forgot a word (doh!) Other issues corrected. Resolute01:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Further to Gary's query about currency, can you announce at the top that "National" means "Canadian"? Many readers won't instantly know whether it's US or Canadian, since ... the north of the US can be pretty cold, can't it? Just add "Canadian" before "National"? TONY(talk)16:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, if I correctly understand what you're saying, I think I'm gonna disagree here. "National Hockey Association" is the proper name of a league, as is the "National Hockey League". We don't call the "National Hockey League" the "United States National Hockey League", so why should we call it the "Canatdain National Hockey Association"? If someone wants to know more about the NHA they can click on the link. Blackngold2917:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
It is stated in the lead that the NHL was formed as a new "Canadian professional league..." Beyond the league's founding, to specify it as being part of a single country would be inaccurate, as since 1924, the NHL has teams in two countries. So in truth, "National" does not mean either Canada or the US. Resolute19:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
If Tony is referring to the WHA, I would prefer "the Canada-based National Hockey Association (WHA)". That way the league name is unchanged and adequate context is provided. I don't see a problem with the NHL in this regard. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't really see such a change as being necessary. The lead states where the four teams are from, and they are all Canadian cities. It's fairly obviously implied, imo. Resolute15:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
None of these would be government works, so they would not be subject to crown copyright.
Image:Lpatrick.jpg Is stated to be in the public domain by Library and Archives Canada. I have tried to update, so if that isn't what you are looking for, let me know.
Comments—The prose is not bad, but could do with a polish throughout by someone unfamiliar with it. Here are examples I picked up at the top.
I've been through a PR and had other members of the hockey project look it over. Any suggestions you have are most appreciated.
Always uncomfortable with an historical statement in the present tense: "The history of the National Hockey League begins with the demise of". Then we're shunted into past tense.
reworded
"The NHL suffered during the latter half of the 1930s, as the Great Depression and World War II led the league to contract to six teams by 1942." Rather than leave us hanging for a line with the word "suffered" (how did they suffer?), why not: "During the latter half of the 1930s, the Great Depression and World War II reduced the NHL to just six teams by 1942." Avoid "contract" in this sense (confusion with players' contracts).
reworded
"This commercialization conflicted strongly with the prevalent amateur spirit."—unidiomatic. "This commercialization was strongly against the spirit of the prevailing amateur ethic", or something like that?
reworded
"from inside and outside of the AHAC"—spot the redundant word.
reworded
"and rink owners wanted to have senior hockey as their marquee attraction, senior AHAC clubs became increasingly leery about"—Remove "to have"; can you find a more familiar word than "leery"?
changed to "reluctant"
"where seven clubs existed"—ouch; please avoid "existed" in this sense (I see a lot on WP): "where there were seven clubs".
PS MOSNUM says all or none for date autoformatting: you had half-way house. I've cleansed it all to allow your high-value links to breathe. TONY(talk)04:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Rejoinder: But what about the rest of the text? Someone fresh is needed to go through it; these were merely random examples. We do want to be proud of the article. Can you locate a word-nerd or two from the edit-history pages of similar articles? Try FACs first. WNs are obvious from their edit summaries: view diffs to see whether they're up to it. TONY(talk)05:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I've asked Maxim to take a look, if he is up to it. And, of course, any further examples you might identify would be appreciated. Thanks, Resolute16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, concerns addressed. --Laser brain(talk)15:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)Oppose but open to convincing. It's within reach and Maxim made excellent progress; however, there is still work to be done. Several oddities spotted just in the lead. I was discouraged after reading the lead, which is one of the weak points of the article as it stands. However, reading further rewarded me with better prose. Let's allow our readers to judge this book by its cover, shall we?
The layout is weird in my browser—the "History of the NHL" box appears below and to the left of the lead image (under the text).
I'm definitely not a fan of "easter egg" piped links like the one in the lead for the Toronto Arenas. Please see Wikipedia:MOSLINK#Intuitiveness.
"... by 1926 consisted of ten teams in Ontario, Quebec and the Northeastern United States." Chicago and Detroit are not considered part of Northeastern United States.
"At the same time, the NHL emerged as the only surviving major league and the sole competitor for the Stanley Cup." Would eliminating "surviving" change the meaning?
"... and was among the first leagues to allow goaltenders to leave their feet to make saves." Do you mean jump or leap? Dive? What?
The lead is actually rather short considering the content. Little context given to Bailey and Morenz—why make us read on just to understand the basic? Why were they raising money for them? Is that fact actually important enough for the lead? Some seemingly-important facts missing from the lead include dominant teams and players of the era.
"Regulate" seems a more apt term that "regularize" doesn't it?
"Several of the league's team owners were growing increasingly frustrated with Toronto Blueshirts owner Eddie Livingstone ..." Remove "growing" or "increasingly".
"During the second game of the series, Lorne Chabot was injured early in the game ..." Suggest "Lorne Chabot was injured early in the second game of the series ..." --Laser brain(talk)07:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought the lead was already copyedited by Resolute with Tony1's advice and I skipped it. I'll work on that as well... Maxim(talk)12:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes, Maxim. And my apologies on the "Northeast US" bit. Being in Western Canada, "NE US" is much larger to me than it is to people who actually live there. ;) Resolute15:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
This is the fourth and last satellite article created to expand the Everglades article. It has been a mission of the FA Team, and has had peer reviews or copy editing by WillowW, Ruhrfisch, Awadewit, Dank55, Scartol, and much assistance from Casliber. It has spawned an FA of its own, Ficus aurea. I'll do what needs to be done to see it featured. Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 16:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, with the disclaimer that a lot of the copyediting is mine, and I don't do images or endsections. Moni's work is the same high quality as in the previous FAs in the series. I'll be happy to answer questions about my stuff. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
To address this, I've left a question at the talk page for Non-free content, which is where I go by default for questions about images. I don't know why. I just do. If you or someone else can answer that question, I'll get on it right away. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was federal because, according to the catalog record, the photograph is from the "Department of Commerce Collection". Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Weirdness. I just left a comment, and now there's no record on wiki or my computer that I was ever on this page. Freaky. At any rate, despite the resounding silence my question received, I wrote to the State Archives of Florida to ask their permission via a GFDL permissions note, and they provided their own release. I sent it to the OTRS system, and I hope to have a ticket number for both images soon. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There is a correspondence between the State Archives of Florida and Wikipedia permissions. Since the State of Florida is closed on weekends, I'm going to assume no more will be done until Monday. Sorry. --Moni3 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If it would make your life easier, I will temporarily remove the images. *Sob* That one of the storm over the Shark River is art. The State of Florida Archives gave permission for the images to be used, but their wording and Wikipedia Permissions working needs to match up, I guess. Let me know what you want me to do. --Moni3 (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Comments I have a question on the use of the plural 'ecosystems' in the lead, I suppose having a big ecosystem with little ecosystems within it is technically correct, but does sound (to me) a little confusing. I did think of substituting 'components' or something like it for one or both mentions in para 1 and 2 of lead. This isn't a deal-breaker as such, more of a free-train-of-thought speculation and seeing what others feel. More to come. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The Big Cypress Swamp is well-known for its 500-year-old cypresses - there are 4 'cypresses' in a short segment of prose. I bolded this one and am musing whether a word like 'tree' (though that is recently used as well), specimens, individuals, conifers, or something else will go there (scratches head in perplexed manner)
Neither of these are earth-shattering deal breakers so I think this one is over the line. I took the liberty of tweaking a few bits and pieces. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Support (Disclaimer: I did a sort of hybrid peer review-copyediting thing.) Thanks again to Moni3 for writing this well-organized and clear introduction to an interesting topic. I came to the article an uninformed reader and left it an informed reader. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportComments. This is an excellently researched and written article - kudos to everyone involved. It made me want to visit the Everglades :)
I think the first sentence might read better if it were a little simpler. Perhaps The geography and ecology of the Everglades are complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida.
Do you think that Image:Everglades ecoregion.jpg would be a good addition to the article, for those who are unfamiliar with the location of the region? There is a sort of map later in the article but that is only useful (location-wise) to people already familiar with Florida.
Should there be a citation for "The gradient change is so slight that the river moves only 0.5 miles (0.80 km) a day."?
Is there any information about when the last severe drought-fire period was? Was it more than 550 years ago? Since the article says the trend has stopped, I'm curious to know when it was last seen.
Why use "solution hole" instead of the more common "sinkhole"? I've never heard the term solution hole and had to click the link to figure out what it is
Consistency in numbers: "three to seven months" followed in same sentence by "4 inches" (I think is the only instance of this type of inconsistency)
"are among the more than 100 species of birds that use mangrove trees to raise their young." -- are there 100+ species that use mangrove trees in the Everglades, or anywhere? I think this should probably specify
The article does a very good job of describing the natural things that affect the geography and ecology of the Everglades, but barely mentions the effect of man. I know that this information is covered in broad detail in other areas, but it seems reasonable to also summarize it in a short section here.
No more cake for you. I tried to make each of these satellite articles separate and unique from the Everglades article, yet still integrate it with the main one. That's why I want to use images in this one that are unique to this article, and ones unique to Everglades. If you think I should toss that vision out the window, let me know.
I understand wanting to leave the articles separate. Is there another image, perhaps, that might be able to show the location of the Everglades so that it is also clear to the reader that they are in fact surrounded on several sides by water? It's just not clear in the existing image. I can definitely see a case for including a section on human effects on the geography and ecology of the Everglades (linking back to the other two articles). As a reader, I expected to see at least an overview of all the main factors that effect the geography and ecology. Feel free to convince me otherwise :) (And perhaps a small explanation of what a solution hole is in this article might be helpful - "solution holes, smaller version of sinkholes, ..." Karanacs (talk) 19:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be a whole 'nuther fight to recommend against the "convert" template? That template doesn't have an option for spelling out "4 inches". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
My position (and I may be "unanimous in this", as Mrs. Slocomb used to say) is that to do it the other way round and write out "four", we'd have to put on our asbestos suits and go change MOSNUM first, which currently says: "Measurements, stock prices, and the like, are normally stated in figures, even when the value is a small positive integer: 9 mm, The option price fell to 5 in three hours after the announcement." So I agree on the 4 part. Not sure how I feel about the months; MOSNUM doesn't provide any guidance on what to do when integers are in the neighborhood of spelled-out numbers; should it? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
P.S. The closest it comes is, "Within a context or a list, style should be consistent (either 5 cats and 32 dogs or five cats and thirty-two dogs, not five cats and 32 dogs)." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs update: Solution holes is better explained, I hope. Flow rate is cited and changed for accuracy. The last time a severe fire occurred was 940 BCE (in the article now), both Draining and development of the Everglades and Restoration of the Everglades940 are linked within the text.
Questions: There are 181 species of birds that use the mangroves. I'm not sure what you wanted me to do. Cite it or clarify 181 species? Also, the first sentence has bothered almost every reviewer I've had, and I've changed it four times. I think I changed it from what you suggested there. See this diff. I honestly don't know what the first sentence should say anymore. --Moni3 (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I crossed off the first sentence thing - if it's already been changed from my suggestion, so be it. Perhaps for the birds sentence you could say are among the more than 100 species of birds that use Everglades mangrove trees to raise their young.. Karanacs (talk) 01:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Question for Karanacs: I'm unbelievably dim in process sometimes. Were you looking for a paragraph that summarizes the impact that humans have had in the Everglades, that links to the Draining and Restoration articles? Is that the last point that would earn your support? --Moni3 (talk) 18:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Opening sentence: "The geography and ecology of the Everglades are the areas of study that concentrate on the complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida." Odd to define the topic in terms of an area of study rather than directly as the subject (of that study). One too many links in the chain. Why not "The geography and ecology of the Everglades involve the complex elements affecting the natural environment throughout the southern region of the U.S. state of Florida."?
"The area recognized as the Everglades was, before drainage, an interwoven mesh of marshes and prairies covering ..." Simpler to read as "Before drainage, the area recognized as the Everglades was an interwoven mesh of marshes and prairies covering ....".
Remove "within a geographic boundary"?
"It is such a unique meeting of water, land, and climate that the use of either singular or plural to refer to the Everglades is correct." Rather than expressing it in terms of correct or incorrect, what about "It is such a unique meeting of water, land, and climate that both "Everglade" and "Everglades" are widely used terms."
Consider a semicolon after "Mexico".
"constant ... constantly".
"formative—the Everglades arent' being formed; they're in a state of flux, but not formation. See if you can wind in your words—sustain and transform", without repeating them.
Consider moving the Grunwald quote down to one of the sections.
Caption: "recent" is not good—how long do you see this article as lasting? See MOS on vague chronological terms. Give us the month/year.
Turn this negative into a positive: "A vast marshland could not have been formed without underlying rock formations in southern Florida." --> "The underlying rock formations in southern Florida were critical to the formation of the vast marshland."
As a whole, the article is quite well-written: the lead had more problems than the other samples I took below. But close scrutiny of the whole text by someone new to it is necessary. Tony(talk)02:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
To Karancs: Paragraph added at the bottom. For your perusal.
To Tony: I hope I addressed all your points to your satisfaction. Except for one: the issue about the singular/plural in the lead may not be clear. Everglades is always written with the "s" at the end. The region can be referred as "the Everglades are" or "the Everglades is". I included this to illustrate that it's so unique that it defies the basic uses of language. Let me know how I can make that clearer. Thanks for reading it and giving your comments. --Moni3 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because... I am hoping that it is of the quality you are looking for in a Featured Article. This was pretty much a stub when I first started working on it in March, but I began by adding some history and then decided to go the whole hog and try for FA quality. I am breaking into new territory, somewhat, with this article, as I could only find one FA and three GA articles about newspapers - and none of them about provincial English newspapers. It has been rather tough, therefore, to follow any set format for this piece, and if you have any suggestions for improvement I will gladly follow them. The article has undergone a thorough peer review by Brianboulton and has been copy-edited by Malleus Fatuorum. It has also been checked over by brighterorange's dashification gadget, although he found nothing needed to be done. Permission for use of all the article's pictures has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system and I have tried to ensure that all the refs are to WP reliable sources. In order not to have any red-links, I have also created extra (smaller) articles about the founders of the Echo not already mentioned on Wikipedia. Seahamlass12:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 2, is it published by the Sunderland Daily Echo? It's hard to tell because both are italicised. Same for current ref 5.
Yes. Ref 2 says it is published by the Sunderland Daily Echo. The ref automatically formats titles in italics, and I was told in Peer Review that the paper's name should always be in italics. Do you want me to take the paper's name out of italics just for the refs?
No, they should be italicised, its just hard to distinguish.
Holdthefrontpage is a website written by journalists, for journalists. It is not a blog, or an advertising site, it is purely a website for the newspaper industry. This is the blurb I found about it: "This website, maintained by the Derby Telegraph, provides information for, and about, regional newspapers and it is intended for journalists and journalism students. It features a comprehensive listing, with hypertext links, of the UK regional newspapers which have a web presence; a contacts database for research stories; a UK list of regional journalists; news about journalism awards; training courses for journalism and ideas for news stories. HoldTheFrontPage was launched in 2000 by Northcliffe Electronic Publishing."
Wearsideonline - the one ref I thought you might question as reliable! I've done some digging and it is described as "a non-commercial website run by independent businesses in Sunderland." It takes its historical stories from properly sourced books such as Sunderland - River, Town and People, by Stuart Miller, and merits history links from the BBC website, a mention in the bibliography of a history brochure produced by District of Easington Council and can also be found mentioned on the Sunderland City Council website. I also backed up the ref with further refs from Sunderland - River, Town and People - which has exactly the same information.
Current ref 22, need to remove the bare url link. LIkewise for current ref 20. both are to measuringworth.com.
I took out the two bare refs you mentioned. The website won't let me cite to the direct conversion page, as I've tried. It just brings up a page saying you haven't put in any figures for a conversion. You have to do it manually on the site.
www.ne-diary.bpears.org.uk can be considered a reliable source, as it is is written by a local historian who has used documents and data from World War Two to produce the site. (These can be found listed on the site). He has also designed and maintains the Tyne and Wear Archive webiste for the North East. (Run by local museums). His work is well known and cited in many articles, books, newspapers etc and also merits links on About Tomorrow's History site (an official NE England history site), the BBC , the Durham County Record Office site etc. Again, I have backed up the refs with extra written refs from local newspapers, which document the same material.
Removed: www.abyznewslinks.com/ukingne.htm - I can't claim to know if this is 'reliable', although I wasn't using the site to back up anything controversial (!), just to provide another way of seeing which papers are produced in the North East of England. I chose the site as the details are correct and fairly simply presented.
"World War Two" vs "Second World War" choose one (I prefer the latter).
Done Changed to Second World War
"The tabloid format remains today, although the Echo ..." - why although here?
Done Although removed
"Daily" in the infobox should just be "daily"
Done
"The highest number of readers, 29%, " 29% isn't really a number is it? Perhaps a proportion?
Done Switched to proportion
The overview is not that much of an expansion of the lead.
OK: I used the General Overview to talk about the paper today, its readership/circulation etc in more depth than the lead, but I always thought the lead had to give a summary of what was included - so obviously they touch on the same things.
Northern Echo redirects to "The Northern Echo" so perhaps that's what you should call it here.
Done Retitled The Northern Echo
" and nostalgia and a local history nostalgia supplement" double nostalgia makes this awkward reading.
Done Removed the extra nostalgia
Not convinced you need the see also for Samuel Storey.
Done Removed see also
"full colour" - hyphenate?
Done
"44,000 tabloid copies" - is there a need to re-emphasise tabloid here?
Done Removed the extra tabloid
Is Sunderland a town or city? I think it's referred to as both in this article. Perhaps it changed status though...
Both - as far as this article is concerned. Sunderland changed status in about 1992. So, it was a town right up until then, and is now a city.
MP is relinked but, worst of all, it links to a dab page.
Done I had found one the other day, but over-looked the second. Removed.
"rise by a halfpenny" - that, in isolation, doesn't sound too big a deal. However, it's double what it was previously. Point that out?
Done
"He died two years later, three months after the death of his eldest son, Fred. The chairmanship of the company passed to another Samuel—Fred's elder son." - merge so the relevance of the first sentence becomes clearer sooner.
"The Sunderland Echo is still published" again, add a timeframe, eg. as of July 2008.
Done
"with the huge rise in the popularity of the internet" - no, that's not why the paper's online, it's because of a response by the company to the huge rise in popularity of the web.
Done Removed that line
"Bt" - this needs linking out to something.
Done Removed
Portrait formatted images should use the upright parameter according to WP:MOS#Images.
Done - although not at all keen. The pics - particularly of the first Echo, look squashed
Because you've hidden the awards, my browser (Safari) won't render the Show button - it's behind the image. Any way you can make the awards section prose and not hidden?
Fixed: I've tinkered round with this and now works OK.
ref 22 needs a comma in the 3500.
Done
External links can be made using the {{cite web}} template or by plain links like this but not the way you currently have them.
Brief comment. I can't open the presumably collapsible list of awards because the final image covers over the end of the box in my browser. Peanut4 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
comment Fantastic job with the licencing of the images. The best article dealing with a contemporary subject from a GFDL image point of view I have seen. This really should be held up for others to aspire to! I would maybe remove the copyrighted Image:Echologo.gif, as it is available on the frontpage which is cc licenced, and tag Image:Echofrontpage.jpg with {{trademark}}. I would prefer a frontpage without post-office and Citreon logos (but that is me being petty). With the removal of the logo, it will pass criteria 3 with flying colours. Fasach Nua (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi Fasach Nua. Many thanks for your kind comments! I have done as you suggested and removed the Echologo and marked the newspaper picture as {{trademark}}. I picked this edition of the paper, as it didn't have a "personal" story on the front. I didn't want an edition featuring a tragedy, murder or court story, as that could have caused problems in the future. Done-- Seahamlass09:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Support: By way of disclosure, I carried out the main peer review and made various suggestions that have been incorporated into the text. The article looked in pretty good shape after the review, and has been worked on substantially since. At this stage I would offer the following comments for consideration:-
"Today the Echo has an average daily circulation..." "Today" is changing all the time; it would be better to say: "In July 2008 the Echo had..." You can always update from time to time, to keep the article current.
Done I have changed this to "as of July 2008"
"across the demographic divide" - what is this "divide"? Do you mean "across a range of demographics"?
Done Agreed - and changed
I am a little concerned about the extent of repetition of detail. The final paragraph of the lead and the first paragraph of "Facts and figures" are virtually identical - we don't need to read this information twice in rapid succession. One or other of these paragraphs should go, or be reduced to a simple summary. Also, later in the article the reversion of the title to Sunderland Echo is reported twice, once in the "Post-war changes" section and again in "Decades of change".
Done I have re-jigged the lead, cutting quite a lot out to prevent repetition. The only repetition now is the sentence about circulation, readership and website figures, which really has to be mentioned in both the lead and main piece. Removed one of the "reversion of the title to Sunderland Echo" sentences too.
There seems to be some confusion about when the Shipping Gazette name was dropped - either in 1972, as in the Post war changes section, or in 1976 as in Decades of change. Again, this change doesn't need to be reported twice.
Done Good catch. Fixed now and one mention removed.
During the peer review I remember suggesting that it would be useful to have a modern day value equivalent of the £3,500 invested by Mr Storey, and I believe that this was done. Now, it has disappeared. May I ask why this information, which I think is of use, has been dropped?
Done I didn't remove the refs, they are at numbers 21 and 23. I like these too much to take them out! The only thing changed about them is that I removed the "bare url web refs" - following a comment above. The website won't let me cite to the direct conversion page, as I've tried. It just brings up a page saying you haven't put in any figures for a conversion. You have to do it manually on the site - so I have just mentioned the figures etc.
Support Well researched, generally well written and nice use of images (although I wanted to see the smiling / frowning sports sign). I prefer a lead with a few more "hooks" to draw the reader in (in the Second World War the city was heavily bombed but the paper was undamaged, however it did have to print its competitor's paper - that sort of thing) but I am happy to support as it now is. Ruhrfisch><>°°17:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - An excellent article, comprehensive but understandable for even those who have a basic grasp of the English language. A particularly nice use of images and less formal tone than what I had expected, concludes the fact that the article covers all of the featured articles requirements. All comments above have been addressed to an acceptable standard. A credit to the author and copy-editors alike. Well done. Rudget (logs) 21:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I started working on this article some time ago; I liked the narration but the structure and the referencing needed improvements. During the last two months, the article went through a successful MILHISTA-Class review, and a successful GA review. It has been also peer-reviewed by the MILHIST project. I would like to point out the critical approaches and contributions of Zburh, and Septentrionalis. Some of Zburh's insightful interventions in the article's talk page constitute top-class reviews. Cplakidas also made useful contributions during the A-Class review. I am grateful to Dank55 and Ceoil who copy-edited the article. I almost forgot to thank Giorgo who devoted time to translate Julian's map. And—how stupid I am—I forgot to thank Talessman who created the Seleucid Empire's map. I thought it was the right time for this nomination. Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, but with the disclaimer that I did a long copyedit during GA and a short one just now, covering everything except the the Strategy section (which I'll do later), images and endsections. (I'm done with Strategies now.) "to recognize de facto Roman protectorate" doesn't sound right to me (would "a de facto Roman protectorate" be better?), but I'm not a historian. I'm not sure what "Iranian heartland" means, although I'm not sure what would be better; perhaps "Iranian plateau". "which must have impressed the Sassanids"...does the source say they were impressed? Lakhmids are described differently in the Wikipedia article on them; this article said they constituted border units set up to oppose the Romans, so I changed the wording to something neutral, and perhaps you want to check your sources on this. In the last paragraph of the Strategies section: "was gone" how? (see Lakhmids). "comparable to Palmyra" how? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
According to all the sources, th Lakhmids most of the time were allies of the Persians against the Romans. I added something. Well, the Lakhmids were finally absorbed by the Sassanids. I'll make that clear.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Palmyra aided the Romans around 260 AD, and that is shy Frye makes this comparison. Nevertheless, reading the sentence again, I am not sure if such a comparison in this context is helpful for the reader. After all, Palmyra's role is analyzed in the proper section. So, I rephrased a bit.--Yannismarou (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, he had to put it like that to make it clear he was stating his own conclusion, but we're using him as a source, and you are willing to rely on his judgment, and we cite him at the end of the sentence, so to avoid the appearance of "hearsay", I changed it to "impressed". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support With the disclaimer of being invloved with the copyedit. I've read this many times now, and is another fine effort by Yannismarou, easily up there with his best work. ( Ceoilsláinte23:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I was not involved in the editing of the article, but after reading through I found it meets the criteria. Well written, fully referenced, comprehensive and complemented by good images. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)06:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support; excellent, well written, and well referenced. Just a minor note; a lot of the refs contain a "*" followed by an alternate source (eg. Zacharias Rhetor, Historia Ecclesiastica, IX, 2 * Greatrex-Lieu (2002), II, 86). Should that be a bullet point? If yes, please fix like this: (and if no, please revert me). Otherwise, well done! —Giggy09:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it is a technique for grouping multiple citations. So, when I want to cite something, and I want to mention more than one citations, I group them in primary and secondary sources, using the * symbol. Multiple primary or secondary sources are then separated with the use of a simple ;. It is a technique I "stole" from Sandy (see Tourette syndrome), then implemented in El Greco, and then I modified a bit, since in this article I had to use both primary and secondary sources. I do not think that a bullet is helpful in the citations' section. I hope I clarified a bit my intentions!--Yannismarou (talk) 10:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing only image licensing: a few possible issues. Image:Julian Campaign 363.png could use a better description of where it came from. Image:NE 500ad.jpg contains "Image is free for public and/or educational use"; it should probably be made a little clearer that it's also free (GFDL) for other uses. For Image:Justinian Byzanz.png, the licensing looks fine, but could we have a version in English? Image:626Byzantium.JPG needs more sourcing and preferably some cleanup. --NE211:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Julian's map is a translation of a German wiki map. It was done by User:Giorgos Tzimas. There are no copyright problems obviously. Justinian's map (its German creator is the same with Julian's map) works fine as it is IMO with the provided caption. Unfortunately, I Photoshop work is not my expertise, and, although fellow users have tried to learn me things, it seems that it is beyond my powers to absorb such knowledge! As far as the other two images are concerned, I do not see any copyright problems, but, if it is deemed necessary, I can search for another map or image to replace NE 500ad. After all, it is not a key map for the article.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"Despite victory at the Battle of Ctesiphon, Julian was unable to take the Persian capital, because he was killed the same year at the Battle of Samarra." That's a weird way to put it. Julian was already in retreat and it is hard to see how he could have salvaged the situation, let alone taken the Persian capital. Haukur (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Weak opposejust starting to read this - interesting choice of topic. It is promising bu the prose is quite awkward in places. I don't think it is far off but definitely needs a little massaging. I will note issues below and change any very straightforward issues. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, you make a lot of good points. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The last of these wars seemed to have shattered this pattern - why not just 'shattered'?
This is just a guess, but I'm wondering if this is the same issue as I had above with "must have been"; that is, the source is using "seemed to" to draw attention to this as a personal conclusion, but we shouldn't be saying it like that. Yannismarou, is this what's going on? If so, do you trust this source's conclusion? If so, then make sure there's a citation immediately following (just as if it had been a quote), and change it as Casliber suggests, to "shattered". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I trust my sources, and I'll fix it, if I ever find the phrase! Just allow me to make a comment: Sometimes, especially when we speak about historical events of the past, we're obliged to make hypotheses. Therefore, we cannot be absolutely sure, and that is why expressions like this one are often used in secondary sources as well. And it is not be default something bad, at least IMO. The whole Aspasia article I rewrote is nothing more than a series of hypotheses. And it is inevitable, because nothing is sure about her! Nothing! In this particular case, "seemed to" can indeed go, because it is fact that the last war of Khosrau against Heraclius shattered the pattern; but this is not always the case.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh! I found it and it is in the lead! Now that I know what I am speaking about, I think that the basic reason Zbuhr used "seemed to have shattered" is again because at the end of the war territorial inertia returned! During the 30 years of the war, territories changed hands indeed very often (something not usual during the previous wars), but at the end of the war territorial status quo ante bellum was restored. So, again, territorial inertia was reaffirmed despite the previous "territorial mobility." So, thinking again, I am not sure at all about removing "seemed to" as Casliber proposes. I believe Zbuhr's wording reflects better historical reality. "Seemed to" indicates successfully this meaning of "yes, we almost got there, but ... "--Yannismarou (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
..with Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupying huge swathes of Roman territory for many years, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction. - following on - presumably the occuation happened after the war? In which case a 'then' or 'after' rather than with.
In Historical background, surely the first sentence can be written without resorting to a direct quote?
An easier-to-digest quote might be better (most readers won't know what "polities" are), but there are very few quotes in this article. People seem to prefer having a few quotes in most FAs, in part because it establishes an atmosphere that readers and writers of popularized history find appealing, and in part because academic writing is a little like sports journalism...it's okay to have a little "color commentary" and to let the "players" say things in their own words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I have just 2 or 3 long quotes in the article. And we speak about me, a person addicted to quotes! I do not think this one is so bad, and introduces nicely the reader to the subject. So, please, spare me this one quote! Seriously, now, I agree with Dank's comment above.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Roman–Parthian contact was restored when Lucullus invaded Southern Armenia, and defeated Tigranes in 69 BC, but again no definite agreement was made - (1) what sort of contact, a friendly one? (2) if it occurred after Lucullus invaded have 'after' here instead of 'when' (3) 'formal agreement' or would that be a treaty?
It was friendly in the beginning. Parthians and Romans were to agree to attack Armenia. Lucullus felt however that the Parthians were not fulfilling their promises, and decided to attack them. But this never actually happened, and no further negotiations or skrimishes between the two sides took place until Pompeius' time. I admit it needs some rephrasing.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The Parthians made no move.. - not an expression I would use with an army or nation over years. Needs to be rephrased. Military made no offensives, though that is clunky too but you get the idea.
Well, I really don't know how to rephrase that, not even if I should. The meaning is what the sentence says: The Parthians were friendly towards Pompey, but actively took no sides during the Roman civil war. They made no move, not just military offensives but neither providing indirect support (diplomatically let's say) to Pompey. This happened with a Pompeian general only after Pompey was killed.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... Maybe ... Actually the meaning is that they remained inactive. They liked Pompey but they did not actively helped him. So, yes, until Pompey's death they remained neutral, having some contacts with the Pompeians nevertheless and probably hoping that they win.--Yannismarou (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
prepared a campaign against Parthia - prepared sounds odd with a noun, like preparing a cake. 'Prepared to invade'?
Strategies and plans of attack and defense can be prepared; preparing a campaign sounds parallel to these to me, but I'll change it if you like. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
After that defeat, the Parthians invaded Roman territory in 40 BC in conjunction with Quintus Labienus, a Roman erstwhile supporter of Brutus and Cassius - the flow of this is awkward (the Roman erstwhile??), how about 'After that defeat, the Parthians invaded Roman territory in 40 BC in conjunction with the Roman Quintus Labienus, an erstwhile supporter of Brutus and Cassius'
Fixed, and substituted for "erstwhile"...ick. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
::they swiftly overran Syria, defeated Roman forces in the province, and advanced into Judaea, - how about 'they swiftly overran the Roman province of Syria, and advanced into Judaea,'
::the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in Parthian hands or on the point of capture. - could be reworded 'the whole of the Roman East seemed to be either in or about to fall into Parthian hands.'
::In 195–197 another Roman offensive under the Emperor Septimius Severus led to the Roman acquisition of northern Mesopotamia, - needs a comma after the bolded bit, or you can place the bolded bit after 'Mesopotamia' - either is good.
Khosrau I was defeated by death early the next year.. ..umm..huh?
Again, history is a little bit like sports. An important figure won many victories on the battle field and was only finally defeated by death, as are we all. Historical narrative always runs the risk of "then this happened, then this happened" (which this article suffers a bit of IMO), which should ideally be broken up with occasional observations about the commonalities of life. Feel free to rephrase. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I have to get off the keyboard for a bit. Will come back soon. I do think this is doable and will get over the line this time but there are some odd phrasings that need addressing. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 07:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for you insightful comments, and the additional copy-editing you offer at the same time! I'll try to do my best to responf to the issues you raised, hoping that I'll also have Dank55 most valuable assistance, who is much more capable than me on prose issues.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to do alot myself. I think it won't be too hard. as I said, if I have inadvertently changed meaning, please change back or fix meaning :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments -
Any way you can replace current ref 52, the Justinian article from Encyclopedia Britannica? It looks odd for a general encyclopedia to cite another general encyclopedia as a source.
Mmmm ... I am not sure about removing. Britannica, yes, is another general encyclopedia but of high quality. I do not see why it is a problem to cite it. But I added an additional secondary source, which is definitely specialized: Greatrex-Lieu. I hope it is fine now.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, incorrect hyphens instead of endashes throughout the citations on page ranges. I'll put in a request for User:Brighterorange to run his script to fix them, but it misses Roman numerals, so they will all need to be checked manually after Brighterorange goes through. I also saw WP:PUNC, logical punctuation errors, so you might want to ask User:Epbr123 to run through the article. I also see copyedit needs: " ... Roman sources reveal a long-standing prejudices ..." In the "Strategies and military tactics" section, there is text squeezed between an image and the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I checked the page ranges, and fixed some other typos I saw, including this "a" in the Assessment section. Removed the image so that the text "breathes".--Yannismarou (talk) 15:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—The writing needs to be improved. This is such an interesting topic, and after a thorough clean-up of the prose will be a proud addition to our featured content**. Try to read it as though a newbie to it, and identify ambiguities, over-elaborate structures, and redundancies. Often there's an elegant cadence in the writing, but it turns to porridge when you examine it. I've gone through the lead to exemplify the task at hand thoughout the article.
"made it increasingly difficult for either side to make territorial gains unless they effectively incapacitated their opponent's armies. The robust organization of both empires in addition to their well-matched military capabilities lead to a stalemate in which either side was only rarely able to do so." To do what? It's too far after "to make territorial gains" for the readers to remember. What about "to gain territory" anyway, which is simpler. "Lead" is on the periodic table as an element. Don't confuse with "read".
The occupation of ...
"Occupation of enemy territory was usually highly localized or extremely brief and almost invariably reversed when peace was concluded, if not before." Needs a boundary: "... was usually highly localized, or extremely brief and almost invariably reversed when peace was concluded, if not before." Or does the comma go after "brief"? Add "was" after "almost". Is occupation reversed? (Awkard).
Long winding snake: "Durable cessions of lands in the border zone were made in Mesopotamia in 299 and 363 AD and in the Transcaucasus in 591 AD, but these were limited in extent and were the result not of seizure by force but of negotiations in which a ruler had been personally placed in a difficult position which induced him to make concessions." These "duration cessions of land"—were they by both sides at various times? Remove "these"? "which ... which". Needs splitting, possibly with a semicolon, and simplification.
The old "noun plus -ing" urchin, preceded by "with" as a connector: "The last of these wars seemed to have shattered this pattern of territorial inertia, with Khosrau II's Sassanid forces occupying huge swathes of Roman territory for many years, bringing the Roman Empire to the brink of destruction." See these exercises in avoiding it; you're aided here by the length of the sentence—split it to recast yourselves out of the ungrammatical structure.
Same issue again: "However, a counter-offensive led by Heraclius resulted in the Romans regaining all their losses in a final peace settlement." Here, just an apostrophe will do the trick—Romans'. Purists would say "all of"; maybe.
Why the W in the title and the main text? Perhaps it's standard, but teach me, can you?
Alarming number of red links in the infobox; can't you stubbify some or most of them?
Some maybe, although not an easy task. Most of these generals' names appear rarely in sources. Sometimes only in the battle in question and that's it. I could un-red them, but I am not sure though; I never regarded red-linking as a flaw for an article, especially when this red-linking does not occur in the main text.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Then you see a three beautiful sentences at the end of the lead. Make it all like that?
Thanks for your suggestions. I'll try to do my best, although Dank, Ceoil and Casliber have already copy-edited the article. But I think that of course there is room for improvement.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Since "Greco" isn't a word, it should be a hyphen. I'm sorry, I'm on a wikibreak; perhaps Ceoil, Casliber or Sept can help. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Forksville Covered Bridge has had two very helpful reviews: for Good Article (thanks to Juliancolton) and a peer review (thanks to Dincher, Ealdgyth, and Finetooth), which found no major problems and whose suggestions for improvement have all been addressed. I believe this article, which follows the FA model of Cogan House Covered Bridge, meets all of the Featured Article criteria. This is a self-nomination in that I have made most of the edits to the article, but I have sought feedback from many and have received positive comments. This is a quite interesting bridge and I hope the article does it justice. Thanks for any feedback, Ruhrfisch><>°°11:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments As the GA reviewer, I think this is certainly close to FA. I just have a few quick comments. First, in the "Literature comparison" section, the image should be right-aligned under section headers, per MoS. Also, I think the {{reflist}} should be two columns. JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone13:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the catches. I have moved the image right and made the reflist two columns (I use IE so I can not tell the difference - it always displays as one column for me - hopefully this is OK now). Ruhrfisch><>°°15:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"The Forksville Covered Bridge is a 152.9-foot (46.6 m) long Burr arch truss covered bridge" - I had to click the wlinks and get my brain into gear to work out exactly what the last five words were saying to me. Not sure if it's just me or if it could be reworded better.
The wording is the same (with different names) as the FA model's first sentence, which is The Cogan House Covered Bridge is a 94.2-foot (28.7 m) long Burr arch truss covered bridge over Larrys Creek in Cogan House Township, Lycoming County in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania. I agree it is a bit much and could change the sentence here to "The Forksville Covered Bridge is a 152.9-foot (46.6 m) long covered bridge of the Burr arch truss type over Loyalsock Creek in the borough of Forksville, Sullivan County, in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania." Would that be better? If so, I will change it in both articles. If not, I am open to suggestions. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
"and it serves as the logo of a Pennsylvania insurance company." - why not say which one?
I changed it to just the name of the company in the lead. My original thought for not including it was that it is not a well known company. Thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Both the infobox and the see also section contain Commons links. Redundancy is OK, I guess... *shrug*
Support. It's pretty well written. A few things I noticed:
"The Forksville bridge was built by Sadler Rogers, who was only 18 years old at the time and supervised construction using a hand-carved model of the structure." Maybe better organised this way? "The Forksville bridge was built by the 18-year-old Sadler Rogers, who supervised construction using a hand-carved model of the structure." (You hardly need the "only" emphasis, since 18 speaks for itself.)
Thanks, changed to "The Forksville bridge was built by the 18-year-old Sadler Rogers, who supervised construction using his hand-carved model of the structure." as I like that he carved the model himself first. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"lassic gable roof"—are the square brackets to lower the case of the C? If so, please just use "c" without them: MOS says to, with good reason. Same with asically? Plus others.
Thanks, but the original quotation is Set over the rocky Loyalsock Creek, the Forksville Bridge has one of the most attractive settings in the state. So I reverted it to ... and according to Susan M. Zacher's The Covered Bridges of Pennsylvania: A Guide, its location "over the rocky Loyalsock Creek" is "one of the most attractive settings in the state."Ruhrfisch><>°°14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"and gave Forks Township its name when it was incorporated in 1833"—what is "it"? If the town, write "when the town was"
Sorry, did not realize this was confusing. In Pennsylvania Townships are incorporated municipalities, and the it refers to the township. Changed now, thanks Ruhrfisch><>°°02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, the burning question as to why you'd bother covering a bridge is answered down in History background. I don't mind either way, but it might be engaging to shove that bit into the lead.
"fairly recent, and presumed most accurate." Ouch. MOS avoids vague chronological items (fairly recent). Who's presuming?
The problem is there are four reliable sources that give four different lengths and three different widths for the bridge. I cut it to just read "The article uses primarily the NBI and NRHP data, as they are national programs." Hopefully this is better, thanks, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, edits and comments. I will address them all eventually, but am a bit pressed for time now, so I have only replied to one comment above. Ruhrfisch><>°°14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe I have addressed all of the issues that could be changed with the exception of adding the bit to the lead (as I do not know which bit you mean). Thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°°02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. The prose is okay but not great, but the article is quite interesting. One little nitpick: "During three weeks in 2006, the bridge was painted red." - makes it sound as if after 3 weeks they painted it back. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support, edits and comment. The sentence in question used to be "In 2006 the bridge was painted red, in an operation that took about three weeks." before being changed in peer review. I changed it to "In 2006 the bridge was painted red, which took about three weeks." - is that better?
I do not think one of your edits improved the article. You changed "PennDOT decided to renovate the 120 year old bridge in 1970, rather than tear it down and replace it, because of its historic nature and appeal to tourists." to this instead "The bridge was renovated rather than torn down because of its historic nature and appeal to tourists." Before the sentence told us who made the decision and when, now that information is lost. Ruhrfisch><>°°03:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I like the revised sentence on the painting. As for the changes I had made, the previous paragraph is specifically speaking of the renovation in 1970; I thought it redundant to include that information again. Karanacs (talk) 13:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, glad you like the paint change. My point with repeating the date was to emphasize how attitudes changed in the last half of the 20th Century - two of the five bridges left in the county in 1954 were razed by 1970, and there was serious consideration of tearing this bridge down then too. By 1980 it was on the NRHP and now cannot be towrn down by state law. Ruhrfisch><>°°15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not wedded to any of the changes I made to the article. If you feel strongly about any of them, please revert. My support is not contingent on it all staying the same. Karanacs (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I will think about this for a few days and then decide - I need to check the 1970 revision source again and make sure it says only three covered bridges were left in the county then, and also see if the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission ban on tearing down such bridges is truly a law. If I have good refs, I might add something more like what I wrote above about attitudes changing. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch><>°°17:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. As noted above by User:Ruhrfisch, I did a peer review of the article, and I made a few minor proofing changes. The article is excellent, and it continues to get better. Finetooth (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment It may be just be, but I'm not used to seeing decimal fractions of feet in articles. "152.9 feet", for example. If the bridge was built that way, fine, but I suspect that it's "152 ft 11 in". I admit that the decimal probably works better and should be understandable enough, but it struck me as being a little odd. Is there any WP:MOS guidance on this? JRP (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for a great question. Since it was built in 1850, I am sure the original measurements were in feet and inches. I used the {{convert}} template which is why I used decimal feet, plus I am used to working with the metric system and am used to decimal measurements that way. As for the sources for the length, only one actually uses inches (Evans). The NBI is only given in meters, so I converted it to decimal feet. The NRHP form has it as both 147 and 146 feet (no inches) and Zacher is also only feet (no inches). I am amazed at what a huge difference there is between the four sources. I looked at Wikipedia:MOS#Units_of_measurement and did not see anything applicable here. Perhaps SandyGeorgia or Epbr123 know the answer? Ruhrfisch><>°° 00:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. I asked User:Epbr123 if s/he knew of any MOS guidance on this. I asume Sandy reads this from time to time and will weigh in if she knows, Ruhrfisch><>°°01:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's really a MoS issue as much as it is that in the US, measurements are expressed in feet and inches, not as decimals. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I know it's dodging the issue really, but couldn't the figure be rounded? it would only introduce a 0.07% error. Nev1 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, and Epbr123 agrees too. I prefer not to round, but thanks for the suggestion Nev1. I will change the feet measurements to feet and inches next. I need to read up on {{convert}} and see if it can handle these or if I will switch to non-templates. Ruhrfisch><>°°01:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have gone back to the original sources and entered feet and inches. I literally can not recall ever putting feet and inches into an article before, so I probably omitted dashes or put too many non-breaking spaces, or something wrong, so if someone could please double check I would appreciate this. Ruhrfisch><>°°02:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but the unit links in the {{Geobox}} for bridges (not an Infobox) are automatically generated and cannot be turned off that I can tell. I will ask on the Geobox talk page and check the rest of the article. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
And some more from me:
I've also never heard of board feet. Perhaps simplify that to just square feet?
Thanks, but board feet is a unit of volume used for lumber, and square feet is a unit of area, so your request is impossible. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget to remove the decimal feet in the infobox to match.
Thanks and good catch. However, when I tried to do that, the {{Geobox}} for bridges does not seem to work for an input of feet and inches. I will also ask if this can be fixed / changed. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you separate out content footnotes like #24 from your references? Maybe create a separate "Notes" section to put them in. (You may have to do this by hand, but I think there is a way to have grouped notes with the reference tags, but I don't know it off hand.)
Sometimes you use Template:convert and sometimes you don't. I'm not sure if that's an issue, but I usually aim for consistency. (I try and use convert everywhere I can since they do a better job with getting the right number of decimal places than I do, but I know there are some that dislike templates as a rule.)
I use it where it works - it does not work for obscure units like board feet, nor does it work for inputs in feet and inches (so I had to remove the convert templates where I had to switch from decimal feet to feet and inches per your earlier request).Ruhrfisch><>°°04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
"height of 8.0 feet"
the complete phrase is above a sign with the posted clearance height of 8.0 feet (2.4 m), - this is grammatically correct. Ruhrfisch><>°°04:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I found that convert will accomodate feet and inches as inputs, so these are updated now and the dashes are in place too. I have to stop for the night. Ruhrfisch><>°°05:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Update Tony has kindly edited the lead. I want to change things around some based on his ideas (for example, I do not think anything in the article should be in the lead only as it is a summary of the rest of the article). Unfortunately, I am quite busy right now and will not be able to make many edits for the next several hours. If any one plans to comment on the article, please be aware it will be changing within the next 12 hours. Sorry for the delay, Ruhrfisch><>°°16:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I had some time and tweaked the lead. There is no reason given for the US DOT FHA using this as a model gable roof. The standard spelling is just Burr arch truss bridge (no dashes). I need to reread it all, but this is better. Ruhrfisch><>°°21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Hello there! I'm pleased to nominate Greater Manchester for FA status, on behalf of the Greater Manchester WikiProject. I understand that's an unusual move in itself, but there has been a consensus to do so on the basis that this works well for the project (as evidenced by the FA Peterloo Massacre), and thus I will now refer to "us" as a collective! We believe this article - our highest priority article - should be an FA on the basis we agree it meets the FA criteria. This article is the result of the Greater Manchester WikiProject's efforts to provide the finest and most comprehensive page on the internet about our city region.
This sentence may need a tweak: The Industrial Revolution transformed the local domestic system, and much of Greater Manchester's heritage is related to textile manufacture during the Industrial Revolution and the infrastructure that grew up to support this sector. ((the tense shift, "local domestic" redundancy?, may be better to state what the transformation was rather than state that there was a transformation)
Although the City of Manchester lost over half its population during this time (from 766,311 in 1931 to 452,000 in 2006), the total population of Greater Manchester remained almost stable. - this is only about a 40% loss in population. I think remained almost stable is a generalization going in the wrong direction, I would go with something like declined slightly or lost 8%.
Changed to "While the population of the City of Manchester shrank by about 40% during this time (from 766,311 in 1931 to 452,000 in 2006), the total population of Greater Manchester only decreased by 8%" Nev1 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Saw a couple of sentence that begin with numbers, which I generally don't like.
Curious, the economy section says 0.8% employed in "energy": how do they generate electricity? is one of the rivers dammed? or a oil/gas or nuclear plant? maclean08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This has been replaced with a more reliable source, Wigan Archaeological Society. The archaeological societies in Greater Manchester all have links with Manchester University Archaeological Unit and I believe they count as reliable sources. Nev1 (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 118 (Manchester Airport offers more destinations...) is lacking a publisher and all bibliographic information. Is the date in ()'s supposed to be the last access date?
Current ref 132 (Cheshire CCC) is lacking publisher and any other bibliographic information
Taking the last four. The archive was at web.petabox.bibalex.org, I checked last week, but I've moved it over, so it should be OK now. Manchester airport; fixed. Cheshire CCC ceratinly exists as a minor counties club; looking around that site suggests that it is the 'oficial' site; however, I cannot find any suitable publisher data—I could make it up, but I'd rather not. Given that it's simply supporting the fact that CCCC play in the southern half of the county, it disn't seem a major deal. The BBC orchestras press release is still there, I've put today's date in. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
www.investinmanchester.com MIDAS is Manchester’s inward investment agency. (Manchester is defined very loosely, but let's not go there today.) Mr Stephen (talk)
jonathan.rawle.org doesn't look like a WP:RS to me. I've linked to a House of commons briefing paper instead. I don't think its disputed that London chose to have an elected mayor. Mr Stephen (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
http://www.manutdzone.com suggests that the improments to OT cost £114M. A book by Mihir Bose (at Amazon) puts the spend at £112M since 1991 (the book is dated 2007, however it's the 2nd ed, and the 'time of writing' isn't given). On the other hand, this 2003 article put the costs for 1996-2003 at £140M for OT plus £23M at Carrington; this 2004 press release puts the costs for 1991-2004 at £172M for the pair. Since then (ie during 2005-6) £45M was spent on the 'quadrants' (this appears quite often). I can't find a recent total figure by googling. There are a couple of Manchester United-based FAs on Wikipedia, and their use of manutdzone.com is sparing. Best to rip the sentence out, I think. Mr Stephen (talk) 14:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Note that I am a member of the wikiproject, but not one that has previously worked on this article, excluding some small edits today. However, some small comments: Mike Peel (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Much of the region was omitted from the Domesday Book of 1086." It was? Ref? Why?
"The Greater Manchester Exhibition Centre (better known as the G-Mex centre and now branded Manchester Central) was a converted former railway station in Manchester City Centre used for cultural events." How does this tie into the rest of the paragraph it's in? It seems to stand separately at present
"Chat Moss comprises the largest area of Grade 1 and 2 farmland in Greater Manchester": how is "Grade 1 and 2 farmland" defined? Is there an article describing this that could be linked to?
I was a bit worried about the latter one you mentioned too (the name being a bit dubious). I can't find that image anywhere else with a google search. We have an alternative image (Image:Stockport Town Hall.jpg) which can be used to alieviate concerns. I'll take a look at the others you mention to see if I can help. --Jza84 | Talk 12:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—Oh, this was pretty good to read. I do hope the main authors can work on other UK articles. However, I do have a serious issue: overlinking. The article is a sea of blue, not just at the top, but throughout. Now, I see that the links have, by and large, been skilfully added; but that's all the more reason to cleanse it of the trivial ones, so your high-value links can breathe and not be swamped by the needless ones. I've removed the date autoformatting (no one minds UK dates, I can assure you—they appear automatically after everyone's signature, and autoformatting is no longer encouraged at MOSNUM). This was only a minor reduction in bright blue, though. I've removed London (about eight of them), explicitly mentioned in MOSNUM as unnecessary. There are tons of repeat links, especially for geographical items such as Manchester—it's no big deal, but if it were my article, I'd clean them out and link only the first occurrence (see MOSLINK). Long piped strings such as "largest shopping centres in the United Kingdom" that makes most of that caption bright blue could be changed to pipe with just, say, "largest". The readers will still hit it if they want to. Amazing picture. Nominate for featured status?
BTW, I found broken autoformatting and day/month units unformatted: MOSNUM says all or none. None is far superior in a heavily linked article.
The prose does need scrutiny throughout, even though there's an underlying strength. Here are the kinds of points I'm referring to, some more important, some trivial:
"through" rather than "via" in the lead would be nicer.
Semicolon before "However" in the lead, maybe?
Comma after "metropolitan county". No wonder they dropped the ugly "SELNEC".
"several independent county boroughs"—normally, I'd want to know how many, but if it's a big deal to find out, don't worry. It's just that it is exposed in the lead.
"The modern county of Greater Manchester was created in 1974. However, the history and heritage of its constituent settlements and parts goes back centuries." False contrast, I think, in "however". Try "The modern county of Greater Manchester was created in 1974, after a history and heritage of its constituent settlements and parts that goes back centuries." That's better, but I query "history and heritage" (just "history"?), and "settlements an parts" (just "settlements"?).
"The remains of 1st-century forts at Castlefield in Manchester, and Castleshaw Roman fort in Saddleworth, provide evidence of Roman occupation." Provide --> are.
"... Redhead states that this was due to only a partial survey being taken,...". The old noun plus -ing awkwardness. Please see a few exercises in this here. Perhaps "Redhead states that this was because only a partial survey was taken", but you may have a better way.
Plus more. Someone new might be better at massaging the text. Sorry about the mess-up I caused in pasting the whole article onto FAC, ouch. Fixed now. TONY(talk)04:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the autoformatted dates from the Notes section as well, to match the article body, and in so doing corrected a few more of the (hidden) inconsistencies in date formatting you mention. All of the prose issues you raised have been addressed, and I've at least somewhat reduced "the sea of blue". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Just a note Tony1 that that was very constructive feedback, thanks. Thanks also to Malleus for taking the time to address the issues. :) --Jza84 | Talk 22:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: I don't see an image review, and it's not clear to me if Ealdgyth is satisfied (actually, I'd like to exempt Ealdgyth from the capping problem :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
User:NE2 did an image review (above). He found a few "sketchy" photos, but only one which had some concern surrounding it (which has since been swapped out). --Jza84 | Talk 23:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Agendum had hoped to get the William Wilberforce article to featured article status as part of the bicentennial celebrations for the abolition of the British slave trade in 2007. Well, it took a bit longer than anticipated but here we are, thanks to the contributions of many editors, including the useful review for the successful Good Article nomination, , very helpful peer reviews from
Ealdgyth and qp10qp, and Elcobbola who kindly checked the images. We look forward to hearing your comments and suggestions for further improvement, and hope that we will be able to celebrate the 201st anniversary in style!! Slp1 (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 105 the "Parliamentary History of england from the earliest period to the year 1803" is lacking a last access date. I'd really rather see this listed as a book bibliographical entry, honestly, rather than the link to google books which it is now.
Thanks, I've unmixed the templates (you learn something new everyday, I guess!) and reworked ref 105. It was actually a book citation all the time, but just with very few of the fields: no author per se, no isbn etc, only a title, a printer, print date and volume number. Hopefully what I have done is OK, but perhaps there are other suggestions for how to deal with such a source? Slp1 (talk) 01:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Gary. I've sorted the page no and metric conversion. I'm not sure how to link the date, but I guess someone there knows...? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Very minor comment: I find the prose in the intro a bit confusing, especially "and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812) and a close friend of Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger". What is this trying to say? Was he a friend of Pitt before becoming a Member? Or did he "become a member and a friend"? Perhaps this could be improved. I also feel the first paragraph is a bit dense. Perhaps it could be split into a short introduction sentence, similar to the current one, and then a second para? Maury (talk) 13:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Maury, for your comments. I have been trying to figure out a way of addressing them, but I think I need more information, partly because I am having trouble understanding the problem. Perhaps I can start by answering your questions: Yes, WW was a friend of Pitt's before becoming an MP, and yes, he became a closer friend after becoming an MP. I am worried about dividing the first paragraph into two because the Lead is supposed 3-4 paragraphs long, and it already has 4 paragraphs.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if we're simply trying to say to much in what is, after all, only an introduction. How about deleting mention of William Pitt at this stage (it's all there in the article, anyway)? That's what I'll do – if anyone has any better idea, please change it. Thanks for bringing it up, Maury. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
(sorry for the tardiness) I think Agendum nailed it. In retrospect I don't think it's his friendship with Pitt that makes him historically important, so perhaps simply removing that one item is best. Maury (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportComments I think this article is very good - it was quite interesting to read. I have no doubt that my concerns can be easily addressed: — Awadewit 23:29, July 4, 2008 — continues after insertion below
The lead gives an excellent example of the problems with infoboxes - Wilberforce had a conversion experience. Labeling him as simply "Anglican" does not really do justice to his religious convictions. I would suggestion removing these kinds of fields from the infobox, if not the entire infobox.
I have added "Evangelical" to Anglican in the infobox. I tend to agree about the dangers of infoboxes, and the boxes they out people in. If we are to have an infobox, then I think his religion is important; he was keen Anglican for sure, but not of the standard variety for his time, it is true, so hopefully, Evangelical Anglican will be an accurate summary.--Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
His grandfather William (1690–1776) had made the family fortune through the Baltic trade - what kind of Baltic trade?
You would not believe the number of sources that say that they got their money from the Baltic Trade, without explaining what it means. But you are right, it is needed. Some research is needed here. --Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe the Baltic trade was principally the importing of timber for shipbuilding, together with flax and hemp. I can't find my original reference for that, but I've just found (scroll down to the para starting "After the mid-17th century". Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The trade also involved the importation of wine, grain, and especially Swedish iron ore. Without reearching precise information about Wilberforce's family, I think it's impossible to say to which particular trade the family owed its wealth. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 11:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I contacted a friend of mine who happens to be an expert on the history of Hull, and I have just received his reply. He could not be absolutely certain, but says that: "The Baltic Trade.... It also shows details of each and all of their cargoes, as said, for the 1779 season. It should be understood that these convoys were an almost constant flow of trade because what they brought home were in effect, naval supplies, as you said, tar, hemp, timbers of many sizes and sorts. The 1779 convoy was composed of some 40 of sail, it had started out leaving their Elsinore rendezvous with nearly 70 vessels, a massive undertaking. Yet, there were other convoys, and it may be safely assumed that the traffic continued from the time the Baltic thawed out until it froze over again the following autumn/winter. As to Wm. Wilberforce Snr., involvement in this trade, it seems only natural." I don't think we're going to do better than that.
So I think we can say something like "...the Baltic trade of timber and ship-building materials." I'll change it to that and if you wish to improve it, please do so. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Well done with your research, but with all due respect to your friend, we really can't add these details unless it has been verified that they made their money in timber and ship-building. To be honest I don't think we are going to find a reliable source detailing exactly what the specific trade the family were involved in: even the sons just say "his father was a highly respectable and wealthy merchant of Hull, a town on the German Ocean, which has large commercial connections with the Baltic Sea" and "who continued in the Baltic trade", without more details. I think the best we can do is to give general description of the what it was. --Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea this was such a difficult issue! Perhaps a footnote explaining what the typical Baltic trades were and then explain that it is unknown what exactly Wilberforce's family was involved in? Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added what the typical imports and exports were as a footnote. Thanks for the suggestion.--Slp1 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Wilberforce was described as a sickly and delicate child - Is the passive construction necessary here? Either he was a sickly and delicate child or tell us who described him as such, I think.
With his mother struggling to cope, the nine-year-old Wilberforce was sent to a prosperous uncle and aunt who lived in St James' Place, London and in Wimbledon, at that time a village seven miles (11 km) south-west of London. - The aunt and uncle lived in both places? This is slightly confusing.
where he grew extremely fond of his relatives and was influenced towards evangelical Christianity by his aunt Hannah - "influenced towards" is awkward
I've tried to improve this, although I'm still not totally satisfied with the way it reads – but it's certainly better than the original. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 10:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
the sister of the wealthy Christian merchant John Thornton and a supporter of George Whitefield - Tell the reader who Whitefield is. (Check the rest of the article for this - make sure the reader knows who various historical personages are.)
Done Whitefield. I'll check the article to do the same elsewhere. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk)
Wilberforce's staunchly Church of England mother and grandfather, alarmed at these nonconformist influences and at his leanings towards evangelicalism - Is it worth explaining to the reader a bit of the historical background here? I know it, so this all makes sense to me, but I wonder if other readers might be confused.
Madame de Staël described him as the "wittiest man in England" and, according to the Duchess of Devonshire, the Prince of Wales said that he would go anywhere to hear Wilberforce sing - I think the Duchess that should be linked here is Georgiana Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire.
Alternatively, Wilberforce's frequent tardiness and disorganisation, as well as his chronic eye problems, may have convinced Pitt that his trusted friend was not ministerial material. - What eye problems? Could this be explained more? This is rather sudden.
I have referred to the problems starting in childhood and also briefly amplified the functional impact here.--Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Milner accompanied him to England, and on the journey, they read Philip Doddridge's Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul. - Briefly describe Doddridge so that the reader knows he is a Dissenter, etc.
The British had become involved in the slave trade during the 16th century, and by 1783 the triangular route that took British-made goods to Africa to buy slaves, transported the enslaved from Africa to the West Indies, and then brought slave-grown produce such as sugar, tobacco, cotton and coffee to Britain, represented about 80 per cent of Great Britain's foreign income. - This sentence is a bit long.
The movement to abolish the slave trade is generally considered to have begun in the 1780s with the establishment of Quakers' antislavery committees, and their presentation to parliament of the first slave trade petition in 1783 - I'm not entirely sure this is correct. When I was doing research on British antislavery literature, I got the impression that the Quaker antislavery movement began earlier and that it was in the 1780s that it finally garnered support outside the Quaker community. See David Brion Davis's seminal The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, chapter 1, for example. Perhaps this statement just needs to be more precise?
I've changed "movement" to "campaign", hoping that this will address your concern about precision: I believe I was trying to avoid the overuse of the word "campaign" yet again. My understanding is that, yes, the Quakers, among others, were interested in and opposed to the slave trade before the 1780s, but that public attempts to influence parliament etc began with the committees and the 1983 petition. Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
That is my understanding as well. I think that this change rectifies the problem. "Organized campaign" or somesuch might be even better. Awadewit (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
With their encouragement and help, Ramsay spent three years writing an essay highly critical of slavery in the West Indies, published in 1784. The book was to have an important impact in raising public awareness and interest, and excited the ire of West Indian planters who in the coming years attacked both Ramsay and his ideas in a series of pro-slavery tracts. - Is this Ramsay's An essay on the treatment and conversion of African slaves in the British sugar colonies? Could we mention the title since it is so important? (People like me still read it, by the way.)
Diagram of a slave ship, the Brookes, intended to illustrate the inhumane conditions aboard such vessels - "intended to illustrate" or "illustrating" (note the massive difference in meaning!)?
These included the works of former slaves Ottobah Cugoano and Olaudah Equiano, who had published influential books on slavery and the slave trade in 1787 and 1789 respectively. - Might we link to at least Equiano's autobiography, which is now routinely assigned to undergraduates?
Have linked it: I have wracked my brain to try and think of way of including the title more formally, but without success or lots of extra verbiage.Slp1 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Wilberforce and Clarkson tried unsuccessfully to take advantage of the egalitarian atmosphere of the French Revolution to press for France's abolition of the trade - Do we need to make clear that France did partially abolish slavery in 1793 and 1794? Although this is unrelated to Wilberforce and Clarkson and more of a response the revolution in Haiti, we should be careful not to imply that France did not abolish anything. Of course, Napoleon reestablished slavery later. Don't you love the French Revolution?
The dream was of an ideal society in which races would mix on equal terms - Are we absolutely sure of this? What I have read of Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect's writings does not suggest that they would support such a vision.
Here's what Hind says: "The Saints were stimulated by Sharp's vision and the settlement of Sierra Leone. The idea of a free colony appealed to them, committed as they were to civilizing African, advancing the cause of abolition and atoning for past wrongs committed by Britain against the African race. Sierra Leone could become a lasting symbol, they decided, an ideal society where races could mix on terms of equality, where free Africans would prosper by cultivation and legitimate trade, and where the myths used to justify the slave trade would be finally demolished." p. 326-7 --Slp1 (talk) 11:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Do we have any other sources that suggest this? I'm worried that the paternalistic aspect of the Sierra Leone project is getting lost. If you read Wilberforce's writings, the tone is more "we white people know best". I can't think of a white British abolitionist in the eighteenth century who argued for true equality between the races actually. Awadewit (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Here's a few "Promised free passage, free land and racial equality..." from "For abolitionists, the Sierra Leone settlement was a welcome step toward the larger emancipation of blacks and toward the abolition of race as a primary differentiator of status in the British Empire" , and "Richard Hogan, the chief justice, wrote in 1816 that he spared no effort to "inculcate with the most anxious and unaffected earnestness in the minds of the that they are all equally free, all intitled to the same encouragement and protection: all possessed of the same right, without distinction, as well as liable to the same penalties for infringing of others, and all alike objects of the paternal care and constant solicitude of the common government." from --Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. There are sources for this statement. I do not have the time to dig out all of my notes on this and see if this idea really deserves to have multiple viewpoints represented in the article (it takes a lot of time to figure that out). I might try to figure that out when I return from Wikimania, but that won't be until the end of July, so for now, I'll just strike this. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The article uses single quotes and double quotes - pick a style and stick with it.
Happily, we no longer have to link every date. You might think about delinking all of the dates and just check to see that they all follow the same style.
I've rationalised the style of the dates, although, as yet, I've not unlinked them. There is some discussion about that on the Talk page and I've not yet made up my mind of the best way forward. Any thoughts, anyone? Agendum (talk) 19:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the delinking is obligatory, is it? I believe, the consensus on the talkpage is that we would prefer to stay with the linking of the full dates. One editor really likes it, and they are used consistently, so hopefully that's okay.--Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
On this occasion and throughout the campaign, abolition was held back by Wilberforce's trusting, even credulous, nature and his deferential attitude towards those in power. - I think this needs to be explained a bit more.
I think there needs to be some reorganization - Wilberforce dies twice. It is quite confusing for the reader. The "Emancipation of the enslaved Africans" section might have to be broken up and some of the information moved later in the article - that way he stays alive. :)
Reorganized so he only dies once. Makes much better sense now, and it makes better sense to bookend his political life with the two slave-related aspects. Thanks.--Slp1 (talk) 18:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Other concerns" section feels a bit tacked on and listy at the moment. Wilberforce, while primarily known now for his slavery work, contributed much time and effort to moral reform efforts. We have to be careful not to shortchange these - they were incredibly important in the eighteenth century. The Clapham Sect, of which he was a part, was known for these efforts. I wonder if this section could be written a little more cohesively? We might (gasp) have to use a bit more summary style on the abolition material.
Okay, final Awadewit job done, I hope. I have done my best (or worst) at delistifying, contextualizing, expanding and integrating these sections more into his life story. I sincerely hope they fit the bill.--Slp1 (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I would combine the "References" and "Further reading" into one "Bibliography" as that will better aid those coming to the article for research assistance.
There's a style inconsistency in the References and Further reading sections, and I'm not sure how it came about. We have to pick one of the two and stick with it if we are to amlgamate these sections. Any advice from other editors? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that's a good thought and will do it. Looking at oclc there do seem to be other pamphlets etc he likely wrote and had published. I particularly like this one! --Slp1 (talk) 18:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Awadewit, for this and for your edits to the article itself. They are very helpful. I (and others, I am sure) will work through them in the next few days. Slp1 (talk) 02:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and have a great time! Having spent some time in Egypt myself, I am sure you will find it fascinating and wonderful.--Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
And thanks too from me, for your interest and input into this article. It's much appreciated. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think some of the phrasing here unintentionally ignores the somewhat earlier (not very successful) American campaign against the slave trade, in New York (see John Jay), Pennsylvania (John Woolman) and Virginia (Thomas Jefferson). (The original draft of the American Declaration of Independence cited a veto of legislation on this as one grievance against George III.) The sources themselves may not lay stress on this point; their authors are only considering the British, and sometimes the English, campaign. I have added a strategic British, which may suffice; but the article should be read through to be sure it's not overbold on this point. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson01:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments and help to globalize the article and as you recommend, I will look through the article to check that such assumptions are not being being. It is true that sources about Wilberforce tend to focus on the British campaign.Slp1 (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I thought this was already of FA standard when I peer-reviewed it, and it has only improved since. It's well-written, comprehensive, and throughly sourced. Slp1 and Agendum have done a commendable job in bringing this important article to such a high standard. This is a tricky subject because of the drawn-out and often circuitous and blurry development of the campaign and the difficulty of pinning down Wilberforce's character and contribution at key points. Hopefully the marathon will soon end with a victory. qp10qp (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the infobox info a bit: massive overlinking, repeats, unnecessary, MOS breaches. Why is that auto-range template displaying a spaced en dash? I think it's designed for full dates. Unspaced here, please; I think you need to just write the years, and the piped link for "1812" (twice, no less) is entirely unnecessary here: put it in the main text.
I've cleansed it of date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged; it's still pretty heavily linked. I removed a few trivial dictionary links (MOS says no). I've made a few of your closing page ranges two digits (please not 115–6); can you check them all, please?
Prose: it's not badly written, but I think a polish by fresh eyes is required (great advantage over those who are working from the inside of the text). Here are queries just from the lead, indicating that the whole text needs scrutiny.
"resulting in changes in his lifestyle and in his interest in reform"—perhaps "resulting in significant changes to his lifestyle, and a lifetime interest in reform."
You've made this binary: statement, and then also. "Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education. He also championed other causes and campaigns, including the Society for Suppression of Vice, the introduction of Christianity to India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." This would be straighter: "Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality, and education, and championed other causes and campaigns, including the Society for Suppression of Vice, the introduction of Christianity to India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals." Check whether "other" is necessary.
"Wilberforce supported the campaign for complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because his health was failing". Please don't leave out "the", the way scientists often do. And try "... Parliament from ill-health."
"Eventually" is usually inappropriate in an exact account; I'd remove it.
By "passage of the Act ... was secure", do you mean that they'd agreed to pass it, but hadn't? Needs to be a bit clearer. TONY(talk)04:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the page numbers, done more delinking, finished the date-delinking (though editorially consensus here and on the talkpage had been that we preferred to retain it, but anyway). I will try and figure out the infobox thing and have a look at the prose comments in intro about tonight. I confess to feeling a bit discouraged about the request for some fresh eyes for polishing the prose, though. Lots of eyes have already looked at it and made comments/improvements, and frankly, I don't even know where/how to recruit an outside person for such a task, as I gather the League of Copyeditors is defunct. WP:LOCE Any suggestions? --Slp1 (talk) 12:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Made changes to the lead para in line with Tony's comments above. I'll have a look at the remainder of the article tomorrow. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
And I've fixed the infobox concerns, as far as I am able: I am presuming the spaced en dash is okay with full dates, as these appear to be part of the templating format, whether they are full dates or not. And User:Malleus Fatuorum has kindly agreed to be an independent set of eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
*Comments:
"During the frequent government changes of 1781–84 Wilberforce supported his friend Pitt in parliamentary debates, and in autumn 1783 Pitt, Wilberforce and Edward Eliot, travelled to France." What has the first half of the sentence got to do with the second half? Why did they all decamp to France anyway?
The idea was supposed to be that W and P were so pally that they went on their hols together.--Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Probably ought to say that then, as it wasn't clear to me. I thought that perhaps they were off on some kind of parliamentary jolly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"On 6 April, when the Whigs were defeated, he was returned as MP for Yorkshire at the age of twenty-four." What has the defeat of the Whigs got to do with Wilberforce's election?
The Whigs had been very powerful in Yorkshire, but the country was very pro-Pitt at the time, so the election in Yorks was between the Whigs and the Yorkshire Association (which was pro-Pitt but not strictly speaking Tory). WW was elected under the YA banner. But it is all so complicated that I think the best thing to do would be to just deleted it. --Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Need to be consistent in whether parliament is capitalised or not. "Wilberforce attended Parliament regularly ..." ... "In 1786 Wilberforce leased a house in Old Palace Yard, Westminster, in order to be near parliament." Same with parliamentary/Parliamentary.
How very interesting. Good point. Hague uses both capitalized and non-capitalized, as does Hochschild, while Tomkins uses longer case throughout. There must be some method here. I will try and figure out what it is and make it consistent once I understand the issue. Thanks for all the help, so far, BTW!Slp1 (talk) 20:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay it seems (by implication a bit) from this and and this that caps are for specific Parliaments and non-caps are for generic mentions. I will go through and ensure that these are consistent in the article/Slp1 (talk) 21:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
"The colony, while troubled at times, became a symbol of anti-slavery, with residents working with African tribal chiefs and communities to prevent enslavement at source, while a British naval blockade was to stem slavery from the region." Not sure about the chronology or precise meaning here. Was to stem slavery?
Support. The few issues I raised above, while I'd like to see them resolved, are not enough to cause me to have any doubt that this really excellent article deserves to be featured. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This is the second article I've written on a battle of the Texas Revolution. The battle was fairly small, and thus the article is pretty short. Very few records survived that can provide details from the Mexican perspective, although I've tried hard to keep the article from weighing too heavily towards the Texian side. Modern Texan students are indoctrinated in this time period, so please point out any instances where I might have forgotten to include enough background detail. Karanacs (talk) 17:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - prose is excellent. One thing: Couldn't you change group="notes" in the footnotes to something else? It's really odd to read "blah blah blah held the Mexicans off until blah blah blah.". Nousernamesleft (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I realized that I would have to add nbsps to the dates if they were unwikilinked, so I just went through and rewikilinked all of them. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry you did that. I am one of those that has difficulty with the "sea of blue" and the lack of nbsps is a lesser evil. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support with a few comments:
In the lead it's referred to as the Mexican province of Texas. I don't know all the technical details of what constitutes a province vs. a state, but I've always heard it referred to as the state of Coahuila y Tejas.
In the first sentence of "Background" you might move the date either to the beginning of the sentence of the end. Right now it reads confusingly.
What about links to missions San Juan and San José in the "Prelude" section?
In the "Battle" section, how about "had in his belt" rather than "had slipped through the front of his belt"?
In the Karnes quote in the same section: I presume that's supposed to be damned but is semi-redacted in the source. Right now it looks funny like d-d is some sort of abbreviation. Maybe you could use an em-dash (d—d), or maybe start the quote later, or I don't know… ?
The first sentence of the "Aftermath" section is not clear. In the phrase "… but his forces had delayed their departure …", is his forces referring to one of the two pieces of Austin's command? (And how about "parts" instead of "pieces"?)
Fixed Lead, Background, Prelude, and Aftermath section issues. I've actually found two different versions of the Karnes quote and have replaced the one used in the article for the other version that is a little clearer. I'd rather not change the wording on the knife through the belt. "Had in his belt" implies to me the knife was in a holster on the person's side (the usual position for a knife). In this case, Jarvis actually had the knife pretty close to his belt buckle, and it's location caused his injury to be a little worse than it might have been if knife and bullet had been on the side. Lastly, the is because the only thing left out is a change in the tense of the verb. Instead of "careened" I used "careen," and since the word itself was modified I thought this was the best way to show that. Karanacs (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing only prose and some MOS: looks like a Support from me. Well-written. Congrats.
I've audited the dates and removed the autoformatting to allow the high-value links to breathe.
MOS: no hyphen after "-ly"; more than one instance.
MOS: no spacing of em dashes—here one is and one isn't: "By October 20 the Texians—led by Stephen F. Austin, the first empresario to bring English-speaking settlers to Texas— had reached ...". Also, the juxtaposition of the Note number would be nicer if it weren't jammed against the dash (change to commas, or relocate note?).
"until 7:30 or 8:00"—I know the "p.m." is earlier in the sentence, but consider sticking another after "8:00".
Note 1: "compared with" for contrasts. "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day" (John Donne).
Seems appropriately referenced: I presume nothing more than the odd small string of words is duplicated from the references without quotes. (Not accusing!)
Thanks, Tony, I learned from the best ;) I've fixed the hyphens, spaced mdash, "an", and "compared to" issues. I couldn't figure out a way to include note 1 that I liked better than this, so left it for now. If there's more than a word or two duplicated from the references it is definitely unintentional - my notes tend to be bullet-pointed paraphrases from the source which I later rewrite into (hopefully) coherent text. Karanacs (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, it's you, Karanacs. I hardly ever look at who the nominator is. We must get cracking on the Dispatch! TONY(talk)12:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for FA. Heroes aren't always strong, silent and self effacing; sometimes they are self-aggrandizing braggarts. They can still be heroes. This article is about a hero who was also a boaster. It's had lots of attention at PR, and I believe it now meets the FA criteria. Thank you very much Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I didn't find any major issues. It is well-written and sourced to reliable books. However, there might be the odd bit of wording that could be tweaked. For example, in the lead, I changed "in the first decades of the 20th century" to "during the early 20th century" - "first decades" doesn't mean anything, so you might as well say 'early' instead. Better yet, be specific and tell the reader the dates. Another thing to consider is converting the footnotes to use the Harvard template, but this is not mandatory or necessary. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)12:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. To give all three expedition dates would be a bit cumbersome; could say "between 1901 and 1917", I suppose? Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I made a couple of minor edits, but overall I have to say this is exemplary. Well written, comprehensive and fascinating. Excellent work. Gwernol12:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I recently peer reviewed this and thought it was FA ready then, recent changes have only improved it. Well done and a fascinating read, Ruhrfisch><>°°03:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: In the interest of full disclosure, I should say that I peer reviewed the article and did some light copyediting. This is an excellent article about an interesting character. Finetooth (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
All five were by now showing symptoms of scurvy. Within a relatively short time at Hut Point, however, a diet of fresh seal meat enabled them to recover.Scurvy is vitamin C deficiency. Seal is not a fruit or vegetable, please explain. Also however is redundant jimfbleak (talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Fresh seal meat - in fact, any fresh meat not overcooked - is a plentiful source of Vitamin C, and an effective preventive and antidote to scurvy. In 1916 they knew the antidote bit, but hadn't cottoned on to its preventive powers, so continued to pack their sledging rations with dried and processed foods, and continued to catch scurvy. Brianboulton (talk) 16:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support for another much enjoyed article. As usual, I couldn't resist a little tinkering, but nothing I would object to being reverted. I have a few comments, but they do not amount to much:
I don't think de facto is needed here.
It does properly describe Joyce's position as acknowledged but unofficial leader, and it's briefer than saying all that.
Would when refusing be better than in refusing? - Agreed
I think his fathers would be better than the fathers because the article is about Joyce, not the family. - Agreed
I didn't like fit him, would prepare him be better? - Agreed
Again, I didn't like arrived en route, would stopped en route be better? Better still can we find a way of not using en route and use on the way to? - Agreed
What is so special about Barrier weather?
I've put in a short footnote reminding the reader that it was treacherous Barrier weather that help do for Captain Scott a few years earlier.
I find them almost impossible to spot, but is there one of those dash errors after outright invention?
It was a properly-formatted ndash, but since I have used mdashes elsewhere in the text, I've upgraded it.
Thanks again for a damn good read. (PS, nothing to do with the article but you don't catch scurvy, you get it ;)).
(Yeah, I noticed that after I'd posted it but was too idle to change it.)
Image:ErnestHenryShackleton.jpg This photograph was published in 1909 as the frontespiece to the first edition of Shackleton's Heart of the Antarctic, 1909. In my view, the Commons claim to PD through NOAA is questionable. As the image is clearly free of copyright as published prior to 1923, I have re-uploaded, using the book as source. The image is much smaller, but I don't think that matters. Brianboulton (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(Later) I have found a better Shackleton, image from Library of Congress, and have now installed that.
I have established that the Aurora photograph was first published in Shackleton's South, Wm Heineman, London 1919. I have added this information to the image description. As to the AuroraCrewRoss image, I am continuing to seek information concerning its source. Will delete if necessary, but reluctantly. Brianboulton (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My enquiries have established that a very similar photograph to the AuroraCrewRoss image was taken by A H Ninnis, who died in 1956. I cannot establish whether these group photographs were ever published - my suspicion is that they were not. I am therefore deleting this image from the article. Brianboulton (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments—Look, it's not bad now, and I hope it's promoted. But PLEASE get a new word-nerd to check throughout the text. I shouldn't be picking up things like this at random, just at the top.
See MOS on no dots after captions that aren't real sentences, like the first caption.
Long, winding sentence at opening: "He came from a humble seafaring background, began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891, and ten years later joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman." Try this: "He came from a humble seafaring background, began his naval career as a boy seaman in 1891; ten years later, he joined Captain Scott's Discovery Expedition, 1901–04, as an Able Seaman." Check for any other snakes.
I don't much like your suggested wording with its semi-colon. The sentence isn't actually shortened. I've decided to make two sentences of it, placing a stop where your semi-colon is. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"the latter year"—only when there are two of them. Here, it's 11 years, so "last".
I mentioned two years in the text, 1891 and 1901. Of these two, 1901 is the latter. However, to avoid any further argument, I have changed it to "last-named". Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"but took readily to the life,"—um .. "seafaring life"?
"in an attempted climb of Mount Erebus, ascending to some 3,000 feet (920 m)."—"to attempt a climb of Mount Erebus, ascending to some 3,000 feet (920 m)." BTW, how did they know their altitude in those days?
I've decided I don't like the phrase "a climb of" so I've adjusted the text to " an attempt to climb Mount...". As to how they knew their altitude, they had equipment (theodolytes, etc) and could work things out. The height of Everest was established in 1841, and this was 1904. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Consider "however" at the start of a new clause, not stuck in the middle. Whoever spread about the idea that the middle is elegant should have been horse-whipped: flag the angle to the reader at the start. Same with "Therefore".
Again, someone has gone through and adjusted the howevers and therefores. However, despite your vehemence on the topic, it's only your opinion, not a established rule of style or grammar. Perhaps you should express yourself more tolerantly, where others think differently?
Date audit yielded some glitches (extraneous comma, incomplete autoformatting. I've removed the damned auto-lemon, which is no longer required by MOSNUM, thank the lord. TONY(talk)08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that word-nerds, whoever they are, can add much at this stage, but I will go through and check for any further egregious violations, solecisms, cock-ups etc. Brianboulton (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
There should now be no image problems outstanding. Of the two left in abeyance by NE2, - the Aurora ship image and the survivor group - I have deleted the latter because I cannot confirm publication before 1923. Meanwhile, Elcobbola has dealt with the medal image, also (sadly) deleted. I did ask NE2 to revisit, but he hasn't. I hope that's clear now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I corrected sourcing on two images on the Commons side; Image:Albert Medal in Gold for Life Saving.jpg is still a problem. If this photograph is from 1914-1918, as the image page asserts, then I'm the queen of Spain. This is obviously a contemporary photo of a medal from a 1914-1918 conflict. The source, in fact, asserts copyright with non-derivative and non-commercial provisions. We can't use this.ЭLСОВВОLДtalk15:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This article had nearly passed the previous FAC, in my opinion, with only a few more days left until a possible promotion. Since then, DHMO, now User:Giggy, has given it a peer review, and the article has only improved since then as members of the taskforce edit any errors they've seen. The previous FAC was archived when an issue was still being discussed, and I believe that the issue has been addressed satisfactorily. I believe that this article meets FA criteria, but please give any suggestions for improvements. --haha169 (talk) 03:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Please let me know if WP:FAC instructions were followed: "Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Do other signficant contributors (who were recently active) agree the article is ready, and were they consulted?
I've talked to Satoryu prior to the nomination, a few weeks past. He said, "Wait a few weeks". I've talked to Arrowned, but I received no reply, and it was only recently that I noticed Sukecchi and FullMetal Falcon were still active, since they've been straying away from VG articles. I've also discussed the article's status with Giggy, but not about possible FACs. And I discussed with Judgesurreal, who has recently became a major contributor, but obviously not on the list. And me, I'm on that list, so... --haha169 (talk) 16:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Co-nominating - As Haha has stated, the article issues from the last FAC have been addressed. The only issue I see that people may notice is a long Gameplay section, but you will also notice there are many different gameplay options and modes to explain, and the plot section is also incorporated as a subheading under Gameplay, so it is only natural that it is a bit longer than most gameplay sections. It should therefore be FA worthy at this point. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments -
What makes the Kotaku refs (current refs 74 and 78, both by McWherter) reliable sources?
FixedCurrent ref 74, we had a discussion about in the previous FAC. "It is an interview with the creators, and you cannot fake an interview" like that. I've removed current ref 78. --haha169 (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Nearly nearly there Comments - given that I am watching the thing at the moment I may as well review it:
Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters expands that of its predecessor; - the roster isn't doing expanding (as a transitive verb) as such, so needs to be reworded. 'Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has expanded from that of its predecessor;' or 'has grown', 'has been enlarged'. Have a play with this.
There were numerous minor issues of redundant words, tense, repetition, some passive verbs and grammar that I corrected as I went along as I felt the prose needed a bit of a massage. I can't think of what else it needs comprehensive-ness wise, so once this grammar issue is fixed i will Support. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 13:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ashnard gave lots of examples below, which I have all fixed. If you can find anymore, please feel free to list them. I will go on a treasure hunt for mistakes and errors after a while. But I'm not the best editor to do this, since I'm biased...:P --haha169 (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose:Neutral: Okay, as said, I'll review the article. I'll work from bottom up, as there's something I noticed straight away:
Three decimal places is inappropriate for a Gamerankings score. Round down, or round to one decimal place. I think I remember reading in MoS that three decimal places should be reserved for scientific use, but I can't find it now.
Done, it looks odd with all those decimals anyway. I think its vandalism because GR doesn't list so many decimals in the first place. --haha169 (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Upon release, Super Smash Bros. Brawl has received widespread critical acclaim." Redundant.
I've said this in other FACs, but having a "Reception" format divided by pros and cons is just simplistic and basic. However, I do realise that this is just personal preference, so I don't expect anything to be done over the course of this FAC.
It is basic, but if you have a preference, we can work on it after the FAC.
I have a problem with source 83. You say that "GameSpot editors noted that", yet it is attributed to a review source, which is supposed to be reviewed by one person. Then I follow the link to realise that it isn't the review, and them quoted words aren't contained on the page.
Agh, source 91 doesn't state the author although it is clearly stated in the link. I'm not going to look through all the refs—check every ref to ensure that all the info is provided. I can see many at a cursory galnce.
Fixed Its been put in my someone. I've also added an author to current ref 96, or last ref. Added author to Gamespot review ref as well. --haha169 (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Solid Snake is the first third-party character to make an appearance in a Smash Bros. game." Are we forgetting the blue hedgehog as well? The article is contradicting the statement made in "playable characters".
Fixed image caption to say: "the first third-party character to be announced for appearing in a Smash Bros. game." Since Solid Snake was announced way before the blue hedgehog--haha169 (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"emphasise". Conflict of language. The article uses American English predominantly, so it should stick with that.
"Melee leading to the international release of the formerly exclusive Fire Emblem series, he became more interested in characters exclusive to Japan-only releases" Exclusive...exclusive. If you're mentioning the FE international release, then there's no need to say "formerly exclusive".
"but Sakurai said that Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima "practically begged" for Snake to be included in Super Smash Bros. Melee, which did not happen since the game was too far into development." This needs a source, especially considering a quote is included in the sentence.
I personally find it strange that two very similar sections—Inclusion of characters and Playable characters—are separate although again, this may be just personal preference.
Inclusion of characters is about the development teams' decision to put what characters in as PC, AT, or trophies, etc. Characters is just describing how the selected ones are from a wide range of Nintendo games, 3rd party, etc. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console, butand would hopefully be a launch title with Wi-Fi compatibility for online play." I've striken (struck?) some things I feel the sentence could do without. Strange to write in this way.
"The announcement was a surprise to Sakurai, creator of the Super Smash Bros. series. In 2003, Sakurai who left HAL Laboratory in 2003.the company that was in charge of the franchise's development." Just clarifying what, in my opinion, is an unnecessary way of wording the data.
"He was not informed of Nintendo's intent to release another Smash title, despite the fact that Iwata told Sakurai shortly after his resignation from HAL that if a new Smash game was to be developed, he would want Sakurai to again serve as director." Needs a source
"It was not until after the conference that Sakurai was called to Iwata's hotel room, where he was asked to be involved in the production of the new title, if possible as its director." How is the reference to the hotel room required to establish this concept. In the broad spectrum of things, this is a meaningless detail, unless something is being implied.
"At the pre-E3 2005 press conference, the Nintendo president Satoru Iwata announced the next installment of Super Smash Bros. was not only already in development for their next gaming console" – Development of the game did not begin until October 2005, This inconsistency needs to be corrected as soon as possible.
"Nintendo also enlisted outside help from various developer studios, including Game Arts. Sakurai stated that these people had spent excessive amounts of time playing Super Smash Bros. Melee. This team was given access to all the original material and tools from the development of Melee, courtesy of HAL Laboratory." Why have three short sentences that aren't linked when they could so easily be joined? poor prose.
"several Smash Bros. staff members that reside around the area of the new office joined the project's development" Shouldn't it be reside in the area around the area of the new office.
"As far as Wi-Fi play is concerned, Sakurai stated his plan was to include Wi-Fi connection compatibility and online functionality" The two are virtually synonymous, so why mention both? Why not join to the next sentence instead of having a standalone statement.
"Nintendo of Japan president Iwata" You've already stated his position in the company. Plus, he's the president of the whole company, so why say "Nintendo of Japan"?
Removed True. That could be to differentiate between Reggie Fils-Aime, but I find it un-needed, since his position is described elsewhere, and the name is also linked. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"was pushed back one week". Too informal for my liking, use "delayed".
"As Super Smash Bros. Brawl is the first Wii title to use a double-layer disc, Nintendo has conceded that some Wii systems have trouble reading the game due to a dirty laser lens." Strange way of wording things. Implies that the second disc to use this won't have problems.
I'm not even sure when that was added. It was really recent, and consensus was against its addition, so I've Removed it. --haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've mentioned this before, and I suppose it is still personal preference, but I find "Stages" to be needless.
I don't think you have. But anyways, I just can't remove such a well-cited section, and it does include some new aspects to a Smash Bros. game.--haha169 (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"statuettes of video game characters and objects, that can be collected in the game" Needless comma here.
Another example of how the prose could be better: "Returning from Melee are trophies, statuettes of video game characters and objects , that can be collected in the game. These trophieswhich give brief histories or descriptions of their subjects."
"A Spectator mode allows players to watch matches from players who have enabled the "Allow Spectators" option," Defining a gameplay feature by way of another feature in the game will leave non-gamers non-the-wiser.
"While waiting for a match to start online, players may practice fighting against Sandbag." And yet you wonder why "Gameplay" is so long with a writing style like this.
"A purple cloud slowly forms around the stadium, where the Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, transporting the stadium into Subspace." Writing style is inappropriate. The cloud doesn't need to be mentioned, nevermind the fact that it appeared "slowly"—like that gives us a judgement of the speed anyway.
Done Changed to "The Ancient Minister and his Subspace Army suddenly appear and detonate a Subspace Bomb, which transports the stadium into Subspace" --haha169 (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The section also contains multiple unexplained terms such as "subspace". Reading it I think you'd be better rewriting from scratch.
Done, its an alternate dimension where Taboo lurks. Source cited on the bottom of section, in Sakurai's DOJO plot update. --haha169 (talk) 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"and the Primid, enemies that come in many variations." None-the-wiser.
You know what, I may as well just stop there. My oppose is reluctant but well founded I feel. There's too many inconsistencies, contradictions, errors, and poor examples of prose to be ignored. Sorry. AshnardTalkContribs16:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Ashnard, its fine. That's what an FAC is for anyway. I'm certain I can fix all the problems you've mentioned, making the rest of the FAC easier. I should be thanking you anyway, since you volunteered to do this before I nominated anyway. Your help is very much appreciated. --haha169 (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Tell me when you're done and I'll look over the article again and reconsider. I'll also say not to feel any onus to address problems that have been judged as personal preference, as I can't force something which may amount to an opinion. Cheers. AshnardTalkContribs17:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, since you've been working hard on this and other related Smash articles, and we all want the FT. Don't worry, many of your examples mention one example, and I'll try my best to find others with the same problem. --haha169 (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, I've copyedited a bit and added a load of author info missing from multiple sources. Ref 7 and 55 need sorting out by a major contributor. I'll return with a full copyedit and review, after which I'll reconsider the oppose. AshnardTalkContribs20:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I added a date to ref 55, and 7 was added very recently, here. I'll see what I can do about 7, but I think USK rating is unnecessary. Update - I've removed ref 7.--haha169 (talk) 22:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've declared myself neutral considering the examples have been addressed and that I've copyedited the text. I still think too much weight is given to particular aspects, but that may amount to personal preference. The main issue is the quality of prose I feel. Thanks for your hard work addressing my comments. AshnardTalkContribs12:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I requested for semi because of the vandals. There won't be any problems with them for a while. Awards will come out at the end of the year, "Game of the Year" awards, and that won't come for a while, at least. I don't the stability will be a big issue, at least during the course of the FAC. But thanks for your concerns and comments! --haha169 (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Brawl allows the player to select between 35 characters. Some can transform into alternate forms, with different move sets and play styles. Some are new, but others return from Melee—in some cases updated or refined, either in appearance, fighting capabilities, or both. - This implise that all characters from melee either stayed the same or got better (fighting-wise). This isn't quite true - some characters have been made much weaker fighting-wise since Melee (Sheik) while others have been greatly improved (Zelda). Raul654 (talk) 16:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
PS: If you need a source for my above comment, see this mlg article: Zelda was buffed from Melee which helps a lot because Shiek was slightly nerfed on some of his Melee-style killing moves, such as Foward Air.Raul654 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While I do, in fact, trust your source, the whole matter is of opinion. I can add it in as a reception complaint, though. Is that fine? --haha169 (talk) 17:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, after reading the source more in-depth, I'm going to think about a good way to put it in the article. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 17:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support, I think this article is very close to FA status, the only problem I think is that the prose needs a little sprucing up. Some examples:
"Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of its predecessor, and is the first in the series to feature third-party characters. Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." I believe the first instance of the word "predecessor" is redundant, as it is used in the next sentence. Changing it to Super Smash Bros. Melee, which it already links to, would solve this problem.
The second paragraph of the article uses the word Brawl four times. I think you could replace one or two instances of it with "the game" in order to eliminate redundancy.
"A player can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." Wouldn't the sentence work better with "Players" instead of "A player"? I don't know if that's just my personal preference or not.
Thanks! Your edit summary says, support, right? Ok. And, what are these quirks? I'd love to fix them soon. --haha169 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What? I think you only read the last paragraph of my edit. There is a beginning paragraph that states Weak Support, then three bullet points, and then a final paragraph. Artichoker22:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
However, this time the image caption has been rewritten to establish notability. 3rd party inclusion is very notable, and violates Sakurai's promise back in 1999 to stick with Nintendo 1st and 2nd parties. Plus, it has text about it right next to the image. --haha169 (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
True... one thing, however... the larger image sizes don't seem to add much except to add blank white space (such as the snake picture.) Perhaps they could be resized down to thumb (except for the cast pic). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)23:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
??? I see a white space no matter how small I put it. Could you please elaborate more? What size exactly? Thanks. --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think David means that "250px" should be removed, so that only "thumb" is left. That way you get the standard image size. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I fixed a few quote endings where the quotation marks were inside the sentence (". instead of ."); other than that, the article looks good. I was going to bring up something with the images, but it appears that has been dealt with. Since I have nothing further to suggest, I give the article my full support. -- Comandante {Talk}17:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Replaced I see it reliable enough, looks like French IGN. However, I found a better source saying the exact same thing so I decided to replace it. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
{{cite web}} not complete filled out for all refs (ex. cur #97 is missing the date of publication.
Reply ...There is no ref 97. 96, 95, and 94 all have publisher dates, so I believe you made a mistake.--haha169 (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Concerned about weight of sources. There are next to no print sources, but that doesn't bother me as much as the fact that about 50% of the sources are from a primary source (the game's page.) Couldn't secondary sources be used to balance this?
Reply There are really no printed sources except for the instruction manual, and they are all on the game's site anyway. The rest of the sources are all reliable. Jeuxvideo is answered above. --haha169 (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Lead does not address all aspects of the article (e.g. development)
"Masahiro Sakurai, director of the previous two games in the series, assumed the role of director for the third installment at the request of Iwata. When development of the game began in October 2005, various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Is there about Development. Gameplay, Reception, and everything else is also in the lead. --haha169 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"The game's musical score was composed through a collaboration between 38 renowned video game composers, and was lauded for its representation of different generations in gaming history." doesn't really fit when you suddenly switch gears from reception to music creation. Reword or split into two different statements.
4.85 million units as of March 31.... could we find sales figures more recent, that might thus include Europe and Australia?
Reply No, Nintendo doesn't give sales data a lot. We update when Nintendo releases, and they have not released. --haha169 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I've been looking for that for so long! But...there is no sales numbers. Just sales standings. Plus, wouldn't it be violating WP:SYN if we combined it with JP and NA sales? And also, this is ignoring the sales in France, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the rest of the EU, not to mention Australia. Perhaps we should wait until the Nintendo sales report... (Ashnard, do you know how to access those? I can't find them using normal Google.) --haha169 (talk) 15:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It can be used, although actual numbers are preferable. Yes, it would be original synthesis to combine sales for multiple regions and then present it collectively as total sales. I'm afraid I don't know how to access them. AshnardTalkContribs17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't know where they got the information from, so the figures are probably not reliable, but this has sales data galore. It says that SSBB has sold 5,963,306 units worldwide in total, and there are figures for different weeks too. I guess if these figures are deemed reliable enough, that would be fantastic, but it seems unlikely. Deamon138 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
You guessed right: VGChartz data are not to be used on Wikipedia. However, Gamespot is perfect. Thank you so much! --haha169 (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you not say somewhere in the article (using Ashnard's and my links), "It outsold all other games in it's debut week in the UK, Australia, Spain and Germany" or something much better phrased (you know what I mean)? Or is chart data not allowed for a FA? Deamon138 (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, its not specific enough, and the Brawl article wasn't organized to do this. I could possibly fit it in, but it would be much simpler to wait for numbers. --haha169 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Obviously, do what's best for the article, but I will say that chart data is acceptable in any VG article. On a side note, The World Ends with You uses VGChartz, but with an "according to" to sort of negate any dependence on a dubious source. Whether this is an example to follow remains to be seen as the article is still undergoing FAC. AshnardTalkContribs10:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. It's a GA article. But WP:VG has a discussion about it...so I'd rather not. Chart data is acceptable, but I'd rather have uniformity. "Brawl sold 1.5 million in U.S. on first day, and hit #1 charts in UK." ... sounds odd without numbers, but that's IMO. --haha169 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Who says that both facts (i.e. that it sold X in one place, and it placed Y in another place), have to both be in the same sentence? Surely as long as they're both mentioned somewhere in "Reception" it doesn't matter? Deamon138 (talk) 01:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Then there will be organization issues. There are only two or three sentences about sales in the Reception anyway. That would make it a bit difficult. I don't know - maybe you can try on one of your sandboxes, Deamon? I'll see what I can do, but I still think it would be much easier to wait until numbers come out. But yes, I will try. Hmm...I read over the few sales data sentences, and added another one in it. How do you like it? --haha169 (talk) 17:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, what you've put seems fine imo. So long as no-one else has a problem with writing "European", as in "top in several places in Europe", then I think it should suffice. Deamon138 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing only image licensing: looks good, I think. I'm not sure about the importance of the Snake image. --NE213:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Check out the discussion with David Fuchs. The image caption says all. Its definitely less important than the others, but still merits entry due to the importance of its subject. Thanks for reviewing, though.--haha169 (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, after the recent volley of changes and copy-edits. --Laser brain(talk)04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Oppose, not happy with the tone and accessibility. It's come a long way, but it still reads like a game guide to me. The lead and opening sections are thick with jargon, poor narrative, and audience-specific prose. I've left some examples below starting from the top. At the least, a thorough treatment by a non-gamer is needed to sort out the rough prose and jargon.
Disappointed that the penchant for long strings of foreign-language characters persists in the opening sentence, causing me to have to jump over a good 1/3 of the sentence's length to continue reading.
This follows policy the guidelines is what I meant to say, see here. If you have a problem with it, bring it up on the talk page over there. Artichoker16:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, as I said, it's an editorial decision and I recognize that. I don't care for it, and I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it. It's funny though, because every time I say something, someone tells me it's a policy to have it in there, which is simply not true. --Laser brain(talk)17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"When development of the game began in October 2005, various second and third party Nintendo developers collaborated on Brawl." Not well-written. They collaborated only when the development began? Terms like "second- and third-party" should be hyphenated. Why is "Brawl" not in italics here?
I did some work on it - that sentence has always been awkward and difficult to proofread. Maybe some more help might do it some good. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Brawl's roster of Nintendo characters has grown in number from that of Super Smash Bros. Melee, becoming the first in the series to feature third-party characters." Bewildering to a non-gamer and without context. The reader has no idea of the significance of the characters and who "third-party" characters would be. As written, the "roster" is "becoming the first in the series".
First of all, let's say I come across an article that talks about "Charon", but I have no idea what it means. I click on the link. Quite simple; that's why things are wikilinked. And it is first in the series regarding third-party inclusion. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Like its predecessors, Brawl is a departure from traditional fighting games, notably in its simplified move commands and emphasis on ring outs over knockouts." Again, lacking context or meaning to lay readers. We've not even had a basic sentence such as, "The object of Brawl is to use one of the available characters to knock other characters out of a ring." Readers have no idea what the game does yet.
Why link "multiplayer" for reader context but not "single-player"? The linking strategy is erratic. Some puzzlers like "side-scrolling" appear unlinked early but are linked later in the prose.
I've fixed the concerns you've used as examples. When I'm done with the rest of the list, I'll come back and see if I can catch some more. --haha169 (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"It received an aggregate review score of 94% on Metacritic and 93.3% on Game Rankings." You've just been writing about the musical score—the score received a 94%?
Fixed Oh, apparently that's an organization error that was missed during the huge lead proofread. Thanks for catching that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Players can choose from a large selection of characters, controlling them as they fight on various stages, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen." As written, the stages attempt to knock their opponents off the screen.
Fixed "Players can choose from a large selection of characters, each attempting to knock their opponents off the screen as they fight on various stages." - better now? --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Instead of using health bars, percentage displays are employed, which begin on 0%, but increase as the characters take damage." I implore you—imagine you know nothing about video games and re-read this.
I doubt anybody is ignorant such basic things like health-bars and math. A character gets hurt, percentage increases. Difficult? I really doubt that anybody, non-gamer or not, can't understand that. --haha169 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope I don't come across too harsh—I can tell a lot of work has gone into this. But, it's not ready in my view. You absolutely have to get some more non-gamer eyes on this. --Laser brain(talk)06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it's always appreciated when you give a big list of "disappointments" at the last part of an FA with a few hours to react before it gets archived :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 13:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's a fair assessment of the situation. It's not as if the nomination was the subject of wild approval before I left comments. Of the editors above that actually delved into the prose, I see either neutral or outright oppose. --Laser brain(talk)14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
It is difficult to get non-gamer eyes, since only gamers volunteer in the Volunteers for Peer Review list. I'll fix your concerns immediately, as well. Thank you for reviewing - I can tell the article has improved since your comments are no longer asking to fix very obvious errors. --haha169 (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Laser Brain, am I right in assumming that most of the errors, in your opinion, congregate in the lead and the gameplay sections? --haha169 (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you got me. Fuchs switched to neutral. After I posted this. I actually stopped reading after the lead and gameplay sections to get these issues posted, but I hope I will find fewer game-guide jargon issues when I'm clear of the gameplay and plot. I realize it's difficult but I had two other non-gamers sit down and read what I covered, and they were confounded. You are too close to the text to understand the challenge here, I think, which is why I'm requesting an external copy-edit. --Laser brain(talk)17:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I understand what you're getting here. But the problem is, it is very difficult to get a non-gamer to copyedit this thing. Don't think I haven't tried. I got Ashnard, Giggy, and several other people to copyedit/peer review it, but they were all a part of WP:VG. When I went to the "I can copyedit anything" list, each one came up with the excuse: "I'm too busy." If you have any suggestions, though, I'd gladly take it. --haha169 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
If you don't have any more specific fixes, your oppose is not valid. Either list more things to fix, and we can fix them, or strike your oppose. Fishing for others to find copyediting problems in FAC is not cool. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Judge, please calm down. I doubt Sandy will archive this FAC just yet. If she does, I'll just re-start it with valid reason. Plus, truthfully, its not the FAC assessor's job to copyedit the article. Its our job to. LaserBrain does list some interesting issues, but its very possible that his concerns will not hinder this FAC process greatly. --haha169 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
::Deep breathes:: Ok, what I'm saying is that yes, it is our job to copyedit it, but people have copyedited the hell out of this article, it has already had three peer reviews, and at this point, for us to take his prose concerns seriously, he must state what issues remain specifically. Can't fix what we can't see. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize changes have been made in response to my comments, and I will revisit them shortly. Since editors are quite actively addressing feedback, I will do my best to delineate any remaining issues. Hopefully we can get this wrapped up in time to see the article promoted. --Laser brain(talk)20:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Fixing your concerns was actually the first thing I did. I learnt that in the previous FAC - delaying doesn't do any good. Thanks for your effort. Its greatly appreciated! :)--haha169 (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Laser brain, if there is no policy against having the Japanese in the first line like this article does, then why should that hamper its chances at becoming a featured article? Deamon138 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I know. I was just referring to his problem further up the page, on which hos last comment was, "I'll probably comment on it every time an article comes to FAC with it." If there's nothing wrong with it, then it shouldn't affected this articles chances. If he doesn't like that articles are allowed it, it should be raised on the appropriate VG page, not here. Deamon138 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
He said it wouldn't matter whether or not he comments on it. Its not really a big issue - even he said so himself. He doesn't care. But deamon, remember that Laser Brain reviews pretty much every FAC article, so he can't remember everything. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, thank you Laser Brain! Just another note, I wiki-linked "Health Bars" to help anybody who honestly doesn't understand what health bars are. --haha169 (talk) 22:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Notes: why is European red-linked? (Why is European linked at all?) I see at least one missing publisher: ^ Gerstmann, Jeff. "Super Smash Bros. Brawl - Review". Retrieved on March 28, 2008. WP:PUNC logical punctuation issues throughout. Copyedit needs: ... Hideo Kojima "practically 'begged' " for Snake to be included ... (strange quote marks). Redundancy even in the lead: Overall, Brawl received an aggregate ... (what is the use of "overall" here?) I believe the block quotes are wrong, see WP:MOS#Quotations. Perhaps ask User:Epbr123 to fix these MoS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. I've fixed your concerns. I'll ask Epbr123 to see if he'll help, as well. Thanks again. --haha169 (talk) 04:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Additional queries We're almost there, I think. I've been making some edits but I'm left with a few questions/issues:
"In Classic Mode, the player goes through a number of randomly generated matches, although there is a specific order of appearance for each series." I couldn't make heads or tails of this statement—can someone clarify?
Are we confident that "minigame" is not jargon? I've never heard of minigames outside the the context of video games. At the first mention, how about saying, "Brawl also features objective-oriented minigames, or small games within the game, in Stadium Mode."
"Though primarily a single-player mode, cooperative multiplayer is available." What makes it primarily a single-player mode?
Fixed Its designed as single-player, listed in single-player section, and most people play it single player. I only included the last example, since all of them would be too much. --haha169 (talk) 04:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
"This mode features a power-up mechanism ..." Spot the jargon.
"Once one character loses a life, another character on the team can take his or her place until the stock count, of which each stage has a set number, depletes." This lost me.. stock count? How/why does it deplete?
"Sakurai claimed that this mode would be more "fleshed out" than the single-player modes in previous Smash Bros. titles." The name is mentioned rather suddenly after not reading it since the lead, I think—I had to scroll back to recall who it was. Suggest beginning the sentence with "Game director Masahiro Sakurai claimed ..."
All right. I believe I've addressed all concerns. I feel proud of myself. You should to, Laser. Thank you for your hard work. Is there any more? --haha169 (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed to support above after making a few more tweaks. Well done, and thanks for addressing my comments so quickly. You may want to ping Ashnard, David Fuchs, etc. to let them know additional copy-editing has been done. --Laser brain(talk)04:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! I know I've told you this many times throughout the course of the day, but your work is really appreciated. And yes, I'll ping Ashnard and Fuchs. Thanks again! --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Make sure that new additions are revised properly: "Brawl reached number one on both European and Australian sales charts, surpassing all competition that week." "surpassing all competition that week."—that's usually what being numer one means. Doesn't state which weeks. AshnardTalkContribs08:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I must say that the article is looking better regarding prose and minor issues. It seems the accessibility and readership has been fixed, although I didn't notice it because of my gamer mindset. However, I am remaining neutral mainly regarding personal prefrences. I've stated them before, but this is mainly due things like the organisation of Reception, and the weighting given to particular gameplay aspects. However, that's just me—I'm sure the article will pass anyway. AshnardTalkContribs08:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a self-nom, article is over a year old but has recently been improved and passed GA. It has also been peer reviewed. I believe that it meets all of the featured article criteria, but I am looking forward to responding to your comments. JRP (talk) 19:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Various nitpicks
The Gray book, Forty-five years under the flag, Chadwick and Arctic Experiences all have ISBN numbers which should be in.
All of these books were published prior to 1966 and the editions I have don't have ISBN numbers. Is there a reliable way to find the number? I tried an Amazon search, but, for example, their page on the Gray book doesn't list an ISBN. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This page does though. Maybe because its an import? The others seem to have isbn's where they've been more recently republished. You get the amazon list up then go for any recent publication. Fainitesbarley21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The inclusion of "retrieved on's" for books and articles that are not web-sources seems rather odd - or is this some policy I don't know about?
Something I was told to do either during a peer review of another article or a GA/FA when the copy you use is on Google Books. I can easily remove those. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't remove them right now if somebody more knowledgable than I says its OK. I just haven't come across it before and find them rather distracting. You could ask SandyGeorgia. Fainitesbarley21:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If you have a URL, you should have the accessdate. If you got info from googlebooks, you should provide the link and the date. If you got info from a hard print source, there is no URL, there is no accessdate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
If you put the whole reference in "references" you don't need to repeat the whole thing every time for each page number in "notes".
Fixed. I can move the refs closers to where they are referencing (the individual countries in both cases), if you like but I don't like having refs in the middle of a sentence if I can help it...JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect to Sandy (and I have tons of respect here), I ask that I not have to format the links in this way. They look attractive, but I don't want to fake a bulleted list using asterisks. If The mediawiki software doesn't support having a real (but non-indented) b-list, I'd rather wait until it does than create a list in this way. I'll be happy to keep the links separate (which seems fine for most FAs), separate them with semicolons (as the FA article Edwin Taylor Pollock, promoted a year ago) does, or separate them with BRs. Just please don't ask me to fake formatting in the text! JRP (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
So as to skirt around this issue, I have broken up all multiple citations in a row following the guidance in WP:REFPUNC (and elsewhere) that I can do references after commas. With that guidance, I've moved all refs to be closest to the element that they are citing and there are no longer any multiples in a row. This should make everyone happy, I hope... JRP (talk) 13:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Do none of the newspaper articles have named authors?
Any that had named authors, I included the name. The vast majority don't have a by-line with the article. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This sentence Though his search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, several years later, Sebree was sent to the Arctic again, this time to rescue Adolphus Greely and the survivors of the Lady Franklin Bay expedition. is possibly a little clumsy. The second clause seems out of place. It also implies that he was personally responsible for the lack of success and therefore his subsequent selection for a second mission was surprising.
After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in the country due anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda - not clear which country (even though its obvious if you think about it).
This sentence Because of the legal issues, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December and then proceeded immediately to Mare Island Naval Shipyard where the United States Navy held its own investigation, also finding the crew of the Baltimore not responsible for the riot may be better split in two.
In a sign of this ambiguity, Sebree was detached from command of the Abarenda in March 1902 to give him additional time as commandant and "governor". Is "in a sign" correct here?
I don't know because I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mean because of or as a consequence of or despite this ambiguity? Fainitesbarley20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
More or less, mean neither. Sebree was officially governor according to the Deed of Succession (or rather, his predecessor was, so he was by extension) BUT the US government and Navy didn't recognize this. Or rather, they did recognize this in some ways, such as the orders that Sebree responded to and the removal of his command of the Abarenda to give him more time to "govern", but it wasn't official that was the reason. (Officially, he was responsible only for the naval station.) A bit of a wink going on here, but I don't want to say that the in the article because I don't want to make a conclusion that my secondary sources don't. And he was given command of the Wheeling again a bit later, so it didn't really stick. I'll try and be more clear on this as I revise, but I want to think on it for a bit. JRP (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've completely reworded. I could be just an idiosyncrasy of my particular regional dialect, but "in" and "as" a sign mean something very slightly different to me. So, to make us both happy, I've completely reworded that section and I think this makes it clearer. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Also an overall view that there are too many commas and those not necessarily in the right places.
Copy-editing that I and others have done on this article have removed a small number of questionable commas, but I don't have an easy diff to show you. Can you point out other commas which should be removed? I don't want to over-punctuate. JRP (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
How about the map and last twp pictures going left - right - left?
Done, but I can't have images just under headings per WP:MOS, so I'm not sure I like how it looks this way. Let me know how you feel. JRP (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
looks better I think - on my slightly wide screen anyway! It differs on different computer screens. (not the left and right but how the text fits round it).Fainitesbarley20:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Blimey! Was Kitchener really ever called ""world's greatest general"? How times change.
Do you need me to put the citation for this with the quoted text, or is at the end of the sentence fine? The trick is that the same source is used for the quote as the rest of the sentence, so it would be the same citation twice in a row over a very small text space. Please let me know. JRP (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No, its fine as it is. i was just thinking how things change. Fainitesbarley
I removed this line anyway, while doing other copyedits. On a careful review of sources, the "world's greatest general" line, while repeated without a source in several articles about the banquet (implying editorial authority), it was specifically pulled from Governor Gillett's speech that night and therefore should be properly attributed. But, in trying to figure out how to mark up the text to do that attribution, I decided that it's just easier without it. JRP (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've included a few responses inline. I'll get to addressing your points in the article later on this evening. JRP (talk) 20:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
This first sentence He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, and for being the second acting governor of American Samoa as well as, later, commander-in-chief of the Pacific Fleet.
How about "He is best remembered for his two expeditions into the Arctic Ocean, for being the second acting governor of American Samoa and, later, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet."Fainitesbarley20:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Is this "scandalous conduct tending to the destruction of good morales", really "morales" and not morals? Or maybe morale but not morales. or is this another Americanism I'm not familiar with?
You are correct. The title of the article suggested it should be 'morales', but the quote in the article itself is 'morals'. I've corrected it and moved a citation to be with the quotation for clarity. JRP (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Is this bit In 1916, Sebree reported that the United States Navy was behind the world's other major navies. A single dreadnought, he claimed, could ravage the entire Pacific Fleet. According to the dreadnought article the US laid down dreadnoughts in 1906 - or did Sebree not notice in his dotage?Fainitesbarley20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
He was specifically remarking on the lack of them in the Pacific Fleet and not the US fleet as a whole. I'll research that time period more closely and see if I can phrase that differently so that it's more clear what he was responding to. JRP (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've clarified the text. He was responding to a policy where the Pacific Fleet did not have dreadnoughts, but the Atlantic fleet did. I've made a change-- is it clearer now? JRP (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "Acting Governor" is rendered five different ways in the article: Acting Governor, acting-Governor, Acting-governor, Acting-Governor, and acting-governor. —KevinMyers22:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll knock it down to two ways, a title and a noun form. I've placed a note on WP:MOS to get their advice on which of the variants it should be. Thanks, I hadn't realized how inconsistent it was.JRP (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I can only find one case where I was not doing that (in the infobox, per your example). Can you see any others? I've corrected that one. Please let me know if you see additional problems with the article. JRP (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. This is an interesting article, and it seems quite comprehensive. However, I think the prose needs just a bit more tweaking. There are awkward sentence constructs, passive voice, and repetitve phrasing. I've highlighted a few examples of these below. I would also recommend a comma audit - I think there are some unnecessary commas thrown in and a few places that the commas were ommitted and shouldn't have been.
As was noted at the time, this rescue mission was the first official United States military expedition to the Arctic - is the "as was noted at the time" really necessary? It either was or was not the first official US military expedition.
An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - This sentence feels out of place to me. I have not thought of a better transition sentence yet, but I think this needs to be rewritten.
This sentence sounds awkward to me. After the Chilean Civil War, anti-American sentiment was strong in Chile due to anger over the United States granting asylum to the supporters of deposed President José Manuel Balmaceda.
I've noticed several instances where passive voice is used when active voice would be better.
Watch for issues with repetitve phrasing. For example, the Buffalo was unable to leave until December. Once they were permitted to leave, the crew was ... could be the Buffalo did not receive permission to depart until December. The crew was then ..."
Is the name of Sebree's wife known? (or the date of their marriage?) Did they have more than 1 child and only 1 survived?
Her name was Anne B. Sebree. I can't find her maiden name or the date of their wedding. I'll search around. She was almost 20 years his junior, so they must have been married sometime in the middle of his career... JRP (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the names of Sebree's parents known?
Yes and I have included a little bit more information about his father in the first paragraph. (And a bit more is known about his brother in secondary sources, which I did not include.) Consulting primary sources (genealogy databases), I have his mother's name, their wedding date, etc. but I will not be including them in this article since no secondary source that I have been able to find mentions them. JRP (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: I'm sorry, but I'm swamped in RL right now and probably won't be able to take another look at this article. If Malleus and Dan are satisfied with the prose after their copyedits, please disregard my oppose. Karanacs (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments Interesting article! I have a few questions:
An important episode in Sebree's early career was his participation in the second Polaris rescue mission. - Why was it important? I think this topic sentence needs to be a bit more explicit.
I've reworded. I'm not sure how to explain this better. The Polaris mission, although unsuccessful, was what put him on as the XO in the Greely relief mission more than a decade later. That put Sebree in a good relationship with Capt. Schley, plus gave him a fair amount of fame, both of which were boosts to his career. We can't know if he would have had a different trajectory without this event, but it did set the dominoes in motion. JRP (talk) 01:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Though the Navy's search for the Polaris was unsuccessful - The lead states that the search for the Polaris was unsuccessful, but the article indicates that the Navy found evidence of the men and discovered that they were rescued by a Scottish ship. Is this considered unsuccessful? I thought "unsuccessful" meant that the men died or that the Navy never found anything.
There is not much on Sebree's personal life. When did Sebree marry? We only find out about his son in the last line - is there any more to say about his family relationships?
I have this information in primary sources only. His biographies are military ones and so skim or completely omit personal information. (Even his obit barely mentioned a family.) I've added a little bit since you made these comments from secondary sources, but I have yet to find a good source for more. JRP (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering what other reviewers think - is this article original research? Looking at the footnotes, I was struck by the number of contemporary sources, such as newspaper articles, and I thought that perhaps the article was actually a work of synthesis. I am curious how others interpret our policy on these matters.
This is harder to respond to. WP:NOR applies to unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This article does not include unpublished facts and I have gone out of my way to not include any, even when I have found details from genealogy databases, etc. which would have been nice to include. (Like unpublished information on Sebree's family.) I have used primary sources only as a means to ensure the accuracy of my secondary sources. I also have worked hard to not advance any position and to be as unbiased as possible, using multiple sources (some not included as references) to avoid bias.
Any synthesis that is done is just putting facts in order. The skeleton of the article comes from his obituaries and some biographies written for newspapers during his career (promotions, retirement), plus Government of American Samoa website and Record of Living Officers. The events described in those are filled in using other newspaper articles and books, sometimes pertaining to Sebree and sometimes not. Each of the events described have been separately researched to the best of my ability-- using secondary and tertiary sources-- so that I can provide context for Sebree's role in the events only. (But that does bump up the number of citations in the article.) I believe that there are only a handful of events later in his life which I went to newspapers directly for the first word and by then it was because he was major news and Commanders-in-chief have plenty of prose written about them in many sources. Synthesis, if that's even the right word for what I've done, is still allowed by WP:NOR as long as it doesn't advance a position.
As far as I can tell from the guidelines, there are no restrictions on using contemporary secondary sources versus modern ones. I suspect the line would be difficult to draw anyway. (And while there may be more modern sources to draw on than what I used, it's a lot easier to find older ones for these figures because out-of-copyright books are more often indexed and searchable.)
I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Umm. Actually, they were sort of lost in the shuffle. I'm sorry. I'll try and respond to these all later on this evening. JRP (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
'Oppose'—1a.
Is "then" necessary in the second sentence?
Fixed. I've removed it, per your suggestion, but now I am concerned that it's unclear that these postings did not happen simultaneously. But, if that's the way you want it... JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"United States Navy's first mission"—the first two words are entirely in the reader's mind by now, and to repeat them ad infinitum slows it down. "the Navy's"
If this came out of only two paras, it indicates that fresh eyes are necessary to audit the prose throughout. An hour at least by a good copy-editor. You know how to locate the right person? TONY(talk)12:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll put out a call for a copy-editor, but you know how difficult that can be these days. Since you have a very good eye for this, I would appreciate any additional comments that you have on other areas of the prose that need improvement. In the meantime, I've corrected the several issues that you mention above. JRP (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It can be hard, but you need to forge collaborations with word-nerds who are interested in this type of topic. Research edit history pages of similar articles; copy-editors are obvious from their edit summaries. TONY(talk)14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
User:Malleus Fatuorum has agreed to take a look at this for me and I have notes out to one or two more copyeditors that I have contributed on my previous FAs or recent MILHIST FAs. JRP (talk) 15:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Update 7/11: Tony, since you last reviewed this article it has received some copyediting (some minor, some significant) from User:Hmains, User:Laser brain, User:Mattisse, User:Dank55, User:Malleus Fatuorum, and User:Fainites. (And several more that had contributed copyediting before your comment on the 4th.) Can you please take a look at the article now and see if your concerns have been addressed? Dank55's work I think deserves particular mention and I think that his style of fixes are related to the issues that you described. Thanks for your assistance in evaluating this FA candidate. JRP (talk) 04:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The most specific source I can cite is "United States Navy", but I have updated the image on the commons to include the specific year the picture was taken (before, I just used the years that Sebree was on the Tennessee) and additional information relating to its call number at the U.S. Naval Historical Center, as well as an image to the USNHC's website where this image can be located online. Is this acceptable? JRP (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I formatted the additional details into the template, and expanded the description from the source. Kellyhi!22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Copyediting. JRP asked me to have a look. See my last comment at WT:FAC; I like the idea of making copyediting "sexier", in order to increase the number of copyeditors, and one way might be to let copyeditors up the count in that "significantly contributed to X FAs" userbox whenever we/they do significantly contribute. I'm not looking for co-nom status of course but I'd appreciate being considered to be a "significant contributor", if my work merits that. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"in what was the navy's first mission": changed to "in the navy's first mission". This sounds a bit like "in what became the navy's first mission"; if you're saying that the mission one was thing and then became something else, then "in what became" would be better. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic, according to contemporary sources. (And I don't have any modern sources which dispute that.) If we get very specific with definitions, the "Arctic" is larger than the "Arctic Ocean", and the expedition only traveled as far north as the Nares Strait which links Baffin Bay with the Arctic Ocean. So, you can read it as either "It was the Navy's first mission to the Arctic Ocean, but they didn't need to make it that far." or ignore that clause. I think this is academic because contemporary sources didn't dwell on whether they made it to the "Arctic Ocean" or not and the exact borders as defined then (given the unexplored nature of the territory) may have been different than the definitions today. That's why I phrased the line that way, but I have no problem with changing it if it's a difficult read. You're the expert here. JRP (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"prominent citizens of Howard County" (your quotes): I'm not sure if this means you're quoting a passage, or if these are "scare quotes". (That was an example of "scare quotes", btw.) I searched in ref 1 for "prominent" and didn't find it, and I can't search the next ref. If it's a quote, I'd prefer the proper reference be at the end of that sentence, or at the end of that quote. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I've adjusted the text to reflect that the quote came from the Jefferson County Tribune. (My source is the Atlanta Constitution, which reprinted the article, because the JCT doesn't seem to have any archives that I have access to and isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia.) The article itself relates a story from Sebree's career which isn't notable enough to bring up elsewhere (Sebree discovered a former slave that he had known in his childhood who had escaped and somehow returned to Africa), but it includes a biographical overview that is better than from other secondary sources which comment only on his military career. JRP (talk) 00:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"...the remaining crew members split up as some abandoned their ship to the pack ice and others made their own way south." I'm not following; didn't they all abandon the ship? Were they walking? Were the first ones not "making their own way"? I read the reference pp. 162-165 , and didn't see anything, but page 164 wasn't scanned in. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The book is somewhat hard to follow. Capt. Hall dies on 162. On p. 198 is when the Polaris crew is split up with 19 crewmen on an ice berg and the remaining in the ship when the berg they were anchored to broke off. They are rescued by the Tigress p. 326. The fate of the Polaris during that period starts on p. 398. The Polaris crew is rescued on p. 405. I see that I didn't cite all of that, and I will adjust the citations as you suggest. (Btw, Polaris expedition is a much more succinct description.) JRP (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Shortly thereafter Sebree was made an instructor...": The infobox says that didn't happen until 1884. If he was hired in 1882 but didn't start teaching until 1884, I think I would put this sentence after the sentence that refers to 1883. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I removed that clause. In truth, he was an instructor both times and just that stint wasn't reflected in the infobox. (It wasn't listed in his Navy bio and he appears to have served in that position less than two months.) Since it was so brief and didn't add anything of note, I think we're fine just removing it. (Which I did.) JRP (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Your style is a little more comma-heavy than average for WP (unless someone else was doing the commas), but that's okay. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"Oregon and Washington Territory": I changed to "Territories", since those were two territories in the 1880s, but feel free to revert if some other meaning of "territory" was implied. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Ick. My source said "Oregon Territory", but I realize now that was a mistake. Oregon was made a state in 1859, but Washington wasn't until 1889. I've corrected the prose to now link to the state of Oregon and the territory of Washington. JRP (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to ask questions...part of the process is getting your writing out there for the world to see and making you a better writer and copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
The rule for a year or two has been to put an en-dash in "Spanish–American", although you'll get resistance in some quarters. The rule is that hyphens mean that you're talking about a single entity, a "Spanish-American" (someone who has immigrated, perhaps?); an en-dash means "between" or "or". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't take a position on "small public uproar", but I don't think it will fly: was it small, or was it an uproar? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you suggest another phrasing? It was "small" because there we no public protests. Mostly, it was well-covered in the domestic media the unfairness of the situation. I don't know if I'd say "public outpouring of support" because there might be a POV issue with the source, so I'm trying to use neutral words. Certainly, the caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way), which was somewhat unusual I think for the time period. JRP (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"caused enough of a stir that the military had to respond to it directly (though not in the hoped-for way)" sounds great to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Okay, your comments above look good, and I like all the changes you made. I'm done. Commas need to be inserted in the middle of auto-formatted dates (that is, January 11900 should have a comma in the middle), so that when this text is copied elsewhere, it keeps a comma.
I don't really understand this requirement (why doesn't it get the comma if mediawiki adds it?), but fixed anyway. JRP (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, thanks for your prompt attention to my comments. --Laser brain(talk)06:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Comments Overall a nice article and well-written. I noticed some minor issues such as commas needed so I just fixed them. There is some wordiness that I tried outlining below:
What's the difference between "... would eventually become a lawyer." and "... became a lawyer."?
(Note: Laser is an excellent writer and prolific FA copyeditor, and generally, he's one of the guys whose comments I don't need to respond to, but I'm trying to build a relationship here of copyeditor/writer, which involves standing up both for my copyediting and for the writer! P.S. As I starting writing my comments, I realized that I really enjoy dealing with a good copyeditor, so I guess I'm trying to build a collegial relationship with Laser as well!) I thought about that and decided to leave it, on the grounds that changing to "he became a lawyer" would make that the one sentence in the article whose verb tense doesn't match the generally "paratactic" flow of the article: "This happened, and this happened, and this happened...", meaning "next". The readers have to switch the way they read the article to understand that "became" doesn't mean "and then he became..., and then..." here. However, I often see that "became" language in just that way in bios; the bottom line is that I'm happy with it either way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 10:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"Sebree was not held directly responsible for the collision itself, as he was below deck at the time, but he did not do enough to determine whether or not the other ship was damaged before sailing away." Things like "itself" and "or not" can be eliminated.
I won't generally change "whether or not" to "whether" since the first is so ubiquitous in English, but I do buy the idea that "whether" is better in an encyclopedia. But concerning "itself", the sentence was better with it. Good writing follows the "principle of least astonishment", and in that one word "itself", the readers are alerted before they get any farther that while Sebree didn't get into trouble for that, he did get into trouble for something else. It's not a bad sentence when you remove "itself", but it requires the readers to backtrack after they understand the change in tone. Joe has good expository writing instincts. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"This contributed to growing anti-American tensions in Chile." Avoid beginning sentences with "This ..." in vague reference to a previous idea. This what?
Good advice, but on the other hand, I would have written "which" instead of "this"; I don't think Joe was unclear here, I just agree with Laser that it's good to take a second look whenever you're tempted to use "this" in this way. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
"On October 9, 1901, Sebree received orders to travel to American Samoa to take command of the USS Abarenda and to be commandant of the United States Naval Station Tutuila. He was simultaneously promoted to captain." Why not just "... and promoted to captain."?
Laser is right, it's better without "himself"...but not because such sentences are always better without "himself", which is what you'll hear from some at FAC. The purpose of "himself" would ideally be to alert the reader that after a long string of "X did this, Y did that", you're transitioning to a paragraph that's all about what Sebree did...except you're not in this case.
I didn't make changes based on my responses to Laser; I'm not reviewing this article, and I'm happy to leave these things up to Joe. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
All items have been fixed, as you suggest. However, the line about being promoted to captain has been adjusted to reflect that the promotion actually came three days after the change in assignment. "Simultaneously" was an exaggeration and I agree that if it was simultaneous, it should have been in one sentence. But two separate sets of orders over three days probably should be in two separate sentences. Please let me know if you don't agree with this change.
Support. My comments were resolved some time ago but I've watched the copyediting with interest. Its transformed it from a competent article into one thats a real pleasure to read. (No insult intended JRP - you know what I mean). Suppose instead of calling yourself a significant contributor Dan you listed them in a form that more clearly acknowledges your particular skill? Must be a suitable phrase that recognises this art? "Finishing"? "Polishing"? "A to FA in the tap of a key". Fainitesbarley20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
If Dank33's !vote should be excluded, then that's Sandy's decision, but I wouldn't protest it. If this article doesn't make it before Sandy inevitably loses patience, I'll survive, work to improve it, and submit it again in a month or two after I've had a chance to work on something else. No hard feelings. JRP (talk) 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I haven't lost patience, JrP :-) I am, however, moving all of this off-topic discussion to talk, since it seems that Awadewit's earlier on-topic commentary got lost in the shuffle. Let's keep this page focused on the article, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - just dropping by with a few comments.
First, it'd be nice if the lede could be three paragraphs. On that note, it would be nice if there was a better opening sentence. Was there anything special the person did that could be mentioned? Also, is this phrase appropriate; He is best remembered? Personally, I would remove the "best remembered", take one of those things and stick it as the first sentence, and write out plainly what else he was remembered for. But that is a bit of a change, and it's up to you.
One minor thing - do you have the name of his mother?
I have it, but only in a geneology database which isn't a secondary source. Since I never found it in a biography of him (most biographical sketches of him centered on his military career), I have decided not to include it due to WP:NOR. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
In Early Life and Career, be careful when mentioning his family, as in the second sentence it is not clear who "he" is (brother or Uriel?) - His brother, Frank P. Sebree, became a lawyer. He entered the United States Naval Academy on July 3, 1863, during the American Civil War. After his graduation in 1867, his first assignment was on board the USS Canandaigua.
Is there any more in his early life? He seems to have been promoted pretty quickly, though it doesn't say what he did, or how good of a job he did. At the other extreme, there seems to be a bit too much about the Polaris expedition. I can see keeping the section long, but at least have more mention for what he actually did, and not just what happened on the expedition.
Not much more about his early life or the Polaris expedition, but I'll search around. Early life is difficult since he didn't have a contemporary biographer and he grew up in Missouri just prior to the Civil War. I'm not even sure why he joined the Union Navy, rather than the Confederacy. But after that, the record is terse until his more notable achievements. (And, as you point out, his major action on the Polaris expedition was to be present and to do his duties-- but this gave him value for the Greely expedition later.) I'll see what I can do to improve this. JRP (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, with the disclaimer that I did a thorough copyedit, and I don't do images or endsections. Some of the people who commented haven't had a chance to give a second look, so I came back and gave it a read-through, and I think it's easily FA material, despite my inherent COI as a copyeditor. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Sorry, I've been a bit tardy in getting to this. I don't think the article's quite ready yet. For instance, on a quick look through I found this: "a small group of explorers were stranded on the now-crippled Polaris ...". A few others:
"A bunch of kittens were playing in the grass" is perfectly okay; it depends completely on the collective noun in AmEng. "Group" can take singular or plural, and is often a judgment call. "were" is fine here. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"Sebree was subsequently transferred to the USS Powhatan, although not as the ship's commanding officer". It's kind of unsatisfactory to be told what he wasn't. Was he the ship's cook then?
Agreed that it would be better to know; is that information available? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Not in a secondary source that I have found. What I have merely states whether we was in command or not. In this case, he was in command of the Pinta, he screwed up, and then he didn't get his own command again for 13 years. I included "although not as the ship's commanding officer" to put it in contrast to the Pinta, Gedney and Silliman which he had recently commanded. It can be omitted if you feel that is better. JRP (talk) 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"... to finally discover Greely's surviving camp" I know what this means, but it isn't camps that survive.
changed to "the survivors of Greely's camp", which is better, but camps, colonies and outposts can indeed "survive"; it means they still exist. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"... locals were charged in the incident but ultimately acquitted". They were charged in the incident?
Sadly, yes, this is now fine in AmEng. This construction started many years ago as "He was charged in the murder of...", and then over time, the press started confusing a charge of murder with a murder, and decided they didn't even want to express certainty about the charge, so it has morphed in news accounts into "He was charged in the incident." - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Pardon for being a damn Yank, but I don't even know what the proper preposition should be here. Charged on the incident? I hate feeling like I can't speak my own language. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"... Sebree was transferred back to the Academy from 1893 to 1896." His transfer took three years?
How would you say this, Malleus? I see a tradeoff between strict accuracy and extra verbiage here, although it wouldn't bother me to add a few words. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
Changed to transferred back to the Academy and taught there from 1893 to 1896, for clarity. JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Two years after the war he was transferred back to the Twelfth Lighthouse District" Back? When was he there before?
It's in there: After his return from the expedition Sebree taught at the Naval Academy for a year before being transferred as the lighthouse inspector. It's also in the infobox. (The prose could be clarified that United States Lighthouse Board is an organization that inspectors, and others, work for... if you see that as necessary.) JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"member of the majority opinion" How can anyone be a member of an opinion?
"This so-called "Pathfinder Squadron" would travel from New York to California" Would travel?
I like "would". Anything else takes more words and doesn't add to the meaning that the trip was definitely about to happen, but did not happen at this instant in the narrative. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
"a steam pipe burst, instantly killing two officers and wounding ten others" So there were 12 officers standing around this steam pipe?
Good catch; changed to "ten men". "others" is ubiquitous in TV news meaning "people" and it's common in newspapers, but it's not common enough for Wikipedia, yet, I agree, because of the ambiguity. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes)
I don't like men here. It implies enlisted men, when given in contrast to officers, and I'm not certain that's factually the case. How about "and wounding ten more"? JRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Ugh, you're right, "men" used like that would mean "not officers". "others" would be better than "more" IMO, but there are other options. Malleus? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"a farewell banquet which featured British Field Marshal Herbert Kitchener" Seems strange to talk about a banquet featuring a guest.
I wondered about that too, but it certainly happens. Do the sources support that the guest was "featured" in some way, JRP? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. The article only uses the term "distinguished guest", but "the banquet hall was draped in the flags of the armies and navies of England", Kitchener was the second to speak (after the Governor of California), and the several press reports were mostly about Kitchener rather than Sebree. But I can soften the language if you like. which included ... as a distinguished guestJRP (talk) 04:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
My, you should all be proud of this article now. Congratulations. Please note that I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged by MOSNUM. I think you'll like the greater emphasis it gives your high-value links. TONY(talk)13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
This article is well written, well sourced, conforms to WP:MOS, and is stable. It recently underwent a peer review which lead to a few polishing changes and gave me the confidence to submit this article as an FAC. I look forward to your thoughts. PlasticupT/C17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's quite well written. In this genre, where you're recounting a story, essentially, I'd be inclined to use more commas after sentence-initial time phrases ("That afternoon, the storm ..."). Gives a rhythm, a pace, that makes it easier on the reader. Boy, it sure is hard to edit with those inline citations ... phew. TONY(talk)10:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you changed all of the unit ranges from, for example, "12 to 14 cm" to "12-14 cm". Either one is acceptable, as long as it is consistent within the article. I don't have a preference either way, so I'll just leave it as is rather than change them all back. Also, in a moment, I'll see whether I can add some more commas, although, one you start down that road, things can get a little out of control, if you know what I mean. ;-) PlasticupT/C12:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure—too many commas is worse than too few. Generally, the longer the sentence and the more formal the context, the more ilkely you are to use optional commas. You're safe using them after sentence-initial prepositional phrases (In 2006, the). I'll check through quickly once you've done it. Also, en dash for ranges, not hyphens (see MOS). But I used en dashes. Punctuation is usually neater and easier to read than from ... to. TONY(talk)16:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually struggled with adding appropriate commas to the lead — 'appropriate' being relative to this type of article. There are plenty of opportunities for optional commas, but it wouldn't feel right in this register for some reason. — Deckiller23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentences that you re-worded are great but I really don't think that all those commas are necessary. They make the prose hard to read. For example, this comma slows the reader without adding anything: "Once in the Caribbean Sea, the storm rapidly intensified to a Category 5 Hurricane". I am going to remove a few of them. PlasticupT/C02:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a matter of opinion. I won't change to object based on the commas; I don't think Tony will either. If you feel it reads better, then very well. — Deckiller02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Support To me this is an extremely well written article that reads like suspenseful story. Having read it through several times I can't find any MoS issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—solid sources, references, prose, and images. Slight formatting issues; I'll try to address them. — Deckiller23:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that non-breaking spaces were required between months and days. I think that I have fixed them all now. PlasticupT/C01:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Good job for the most part. I just have a couple comments regarding prose.
On August 14 the depression gained strength and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Dean. "Gained strength" could be worded better.
I'm not sure how to say that any plainer. "Gained strength" is a pretty simple phrase. What do you mean by "better"? As it is I think the sentence conveys its meaning quickly and precisely, which is all I could ask for. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are the dates not autoformatted?
As Mattisse pointed out, that guideline was changed. See his comments below. I actually had them autoformatted when this review began, but someone removed the formatting. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
After its first landfall, Hurricane Dean crossed the Yucatán Peninsula and emerged, weakened, into the Bay of Campeche. Unless I'm missing something, the last part of this sentence is making little sense.
Strong upper-level easterly winds slowed development, but on August 13 the tropical wave gained enough organization that the National Hurricane Center designated it Tropical Depression Four. "but" → "although".
That afternoon the hurricane continued to improve its outflow, and its numerous spiral bands gave it a well defined satellite presentation. This sounds weird. The hurricane itself didn't improve it's own outflow.
Hm, I didn't know that. I thought that as the air cooled it rushed outwards from the storm. I'll have to do a little research, and then I'll amend this sentence appropriately. PlasticupT/C22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
As the warm air of the eyewall rises to about 12 km it creates high pressure near the tropopause. This powers the anti-cyclone sitting on top of the cyclone. The anti-cyclone is the outflow. So stronger storm → stronger anti-cyclone → stronger outflow. The hurricane improves its own outflow. PlasticupT/C23:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The eyewall became even better defined throughout the day, the cloud tops cooled, the minimum central pressure fell and its winds increased to 160 mph (260 km/h), making Hurricane Dean a Category 5 hurricane once again this time less than 210 mi (335 km) from its first landfall. This sentence needs to be broken up into 2 or 3 sentences.
It used to be, but I condensed it into one sentence. By having short, choppy sections like that it makes the reader speed up, giving the sense of rushing towards the hurricane's inevitable landfall. Grammatically it is sound and I like the effect. PlasticupT/C22:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I can break the last bit off into another sentence. That will make it easier to read without interrupting the rush. PlasticupT/C12:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
"Nevertheless, the warm waters of the bay proved conducive for some development and the eye contracted overnight, indicating that the hurricane was regaining structure." This is more of a personal preference, but I don't like to see italics used in in-text prose.
Autoformatting dates is optional and there is an increasing movement against their use, per User:Tony1, the Feature Article Criteria guru. The reason is that autoformatting only works for registered users who have their preferences set, a small percentage of the Wikipedia readers. For the rest, it is just a jumble of blue. See WP:MOSNUM and WP:CONTEXT. Right now the issue is in a transitional phase. See , for example. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I actually asked Juliancolton to review this article for me, so I feel bad rejecting so much of his advice. I think the problem is that by now so many people have read through this article that there isn't much more to fix. I appreciate his help nonetheless. PlasticupT/C23:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Why are there no citations in the lead? The rest of the article seems to be heavily sourced. I see this as inconsistent per FACR §2.c.
My preference, except for the most extraordinary claims, is to keep the lead free of citations. Everything in the lead is cited in the body of the article. If the consensus is to cite any (or all) of the lead, however, I'll be happy to do so. — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise this is certainly comprehensive and well sourced--particularly given the topic's scant significance. (Why anyone would care so much about this ship to write such an in-depth article is beyond me. I mean no offense to the contributing editors.)
To each his or her own. Why does anyone write about old hurricanes or TV shows? Because it interests them, I suppose… — Bellhalla (talk) 01:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I would also say that it is well written and well laid out. One would think that this was one of the most important vessels in naval history.
In the article LASSCO is enclosed within <small> tags, like this – LASSCO – to simulate small caps. It's an old typography thing to keep acronyms or initialisms (typically of 4 or more characters) from drawing UNDUE ATTENTION, as this example phrase may do. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, the website's been quoted in The New York Times and USA Today. They even say so right on the front page, so it must be true! All kidding aside, the publisher of the website is Martin Cox, who guest-curated a 2004 exhibit on the Los Angeles Steamship Company (the last owner/operator of this ship) at the Los Angeles Maritime Museum entitled "Hollywood to Honolulu: The Los Angeles Steamship Company’s Voyages to Hawaii in the Roaring ‘20s" (link to notice of exhibit at museum website; link to museum newsletter (pdf) that confirms his role ). He also reports that he has an upcoming book of the same title to be published in the fall of this year by the Steamship Historical Society (though there's no independent confirmation of this on their website).
The website is mentioned and a co-editor quoted in the following news articles (backing up the claim on the main page of the website):
Individual ship pages at the website list references consulted, and in cases where I have had access to the same references, I have confirmed the accuracy.
The specific information that I cited was a personal account of the iceberg collision that identifies by name the passenger and the granddaughter who forwarded the story to the website. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The DANFS citations are referring to items that are in the "References" section, where full details are provided, much like book references. Were there other inconsistencies apart from those? — Bellhalla (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Support — Solid prose, well-cited, and better in style and content than most existing military history FACs. Strongly recommended both for its clarity and the depth and quality of the information. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a self-nom, as User:Brian Labelle and I are the primary contributors to the current version of the article. I've gone through the Good Article process as well as had a couple of people provide peer reviews. I also requested a couple of experienced FA editors (User:Resolute on-wiki and another one off-wiki) for their thoughts. Being new at this FA thing, I can't say that I'm 100% confident that this is good enough, but I am 100% confident that I've done what I could to get advice on getting it there. All of that being said, I welcome your comments, provided that you don't bite the FAC newb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Is it possible to get an infobox image facing the text?
From the first point, "Images of faces should be placed so that the face or eyes look toward the text". From my perspective the infobox image is looking to the right (towards my scrollbar). Apologies if I'm misinterpreting. :) —Giggy06:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I missed the "or eyes". I guess his eyes are looking towards the right. But his face is facing slightly to the left. What to do? Well, since this is the best free picture of the guy we have, I'd suggest that what we do is either live with it or fail the FA over it (my vote would be for the first one, but I'm biased). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Activist Mike Hudema holding a depiction of Stelmach as he protests Bill 46." - I take it Hudema is protesting? Reads like Stelmach is the protester. (Image caption)
"and had directed it to the Wikipedia article on Harry Strom" - for context, say why redirecting to Strom's article is meaningful (if there is any significance to it).
I'd covered this earlier, but I've re-arranged the section to place it alongside the mention of the redirect. I agree that that's better. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"After this manoeuvre was met with mixed media and public reaction, Stelmach backed off threats of legal action and turned to negotiation in an effort to acquire the domain name." - ref?
"As of February 2008, no resolution had been reached." - what about as of today?
Removed. Unfortunately, the evidence of no agreement having been reached is in the lack of reporting on the subject, and in Cournoyer's last blog post on the subject , which probably doesn't qualify as a WP:RS, and an e-mail from Cournoyer telling me that no resolution has been reached, which certainly doesn't. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It's a project of the Heritage Community Foundation, which develops its content in conjunction with government, museums, archives, and media outlets. In the case of the specific facts I use it to reference, it's just taken raw data straight from Elections Alberta and posted it on the web. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks, I figured that might be, but having it out in black and white for other reviewers never hurts. Doesn't hurt to make sure my assumption wasn't wrong either! Ealdgyth - Talk02:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The Parliamentary Debates refs, are the dates the dates of the debates or the last access dates? I'm assuming they are the dates of the debates, in which case they probably need last access dates for the web links.
They are indeed debate dates. Unfortunately, Template:Cite hansard doesn't currently have an |accessdate field, and I'm not confident enough in my markup skills to add one. If somebody else wants to, I'd be happy to add it to this article. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Yikes, I'm not adding anything to a template, at least one I don't use. Any way you could add the access date manually like this: <ref>{{cite hansard}} ]</ref>?
Strong support Fantastic article in every respect. Balanced, well written, nicely illustrated and comprehensive. If only we could get this much detail on people who aren't currently alive! Maury (talk) 13:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've addressed your first two points. I'll need to give some thought to the third one, since it will take either some re-writing or some expansion to deal with it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This article, currently a GA, has been copy-edited and peer reviewed several times. The consensus is that it is ready for FA status. I think it meets the criteria and will let it speak for itself. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 01:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Awhile ago, I was about to delist this from GA status. I've followed what's been going on since Hrothgar showed up and I can say now that I consider it FA quality. Wrad (talk) 01:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support As a copyeditor, I could find nothing worth changing before FAC. I knew that reviewers here would pick up the rest of the minor issues. --Meldshal42(talk to me)12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this improper dash needs to be replaced:
The popularity of Geoffrey's Historia and its other derivative works (such as Wace's Roman de Brut) is generally agreed to be an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in 12th and 13th-<here>century continental Europe, particularly in France.Like nouser said, this happens a couple of times in the article. --Meldshal42(talk to me)13:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The trouble is that the hyphens have been the subject of back-and-forth edits for a month or two. Originally, this was "12th- and 13th-century continental Europe", which was entirely correct. But not everyone seems to understand that compound modifiers must have hyphens and that in the construction at issue the hyphen after 12th must not be removed. To save any more bother I have rewritten this as "an important factor in explaining the appearance of significant numbers of new Arthurian works in continental Europe during the 12th and 13th centuries, particularly in France". qp10qp (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - wow, the prose is amazing. One thing: you have both the formats nth century and nth-century in the article; that should probably be more consistent. Nousernamesleft (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: The article should be inconsistent, as not all instances of "nth century" are compound adjectives requiring hyphenation. I checked all instances of "century" in the article and fixed some errors. Awadewit (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The hyphens were removed a couple of times, for some reason; I put them back the first time but must have forgotten the second time. Awadewit has restored the correct forms. qp10qp (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
All of the images, except for the lead image, are set to size "thumb" already. I have moved the Merlin image up. See what you think. I am unsure if the move is an improvement. Awadewit (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I usually have a great deal of difficulty wading my way through large articles like this, but I can freely say that I had no such difficulty this time. Excellent prose, well-referenced. Excellent work! Cam (Chat) 18:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support (Disclaimer: I copyedited the last two subsections of this article.) This article is well-researched, well-written, and well-illustrated. It clearly and concisely explains a large swath of art and history, balancing all of the different elements of "stuff related to King Arthur" extremely well. I, too, think this is one of the best articles Wikipedia has produced. Awadewit (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Supprt This is cited excellently, and the prose is very easy to read. A well-researched article like this deserves the star. --haha169 (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Other inscriptional evidence for Arthur is tainted with the suggestion of forgery - this is tantalising. should there be a link here
I've linked the reference to the "Glastonbury cross" — in the footnote that is attached to the above text — to the brief description of the inscribed cross and the circumstances of its discovery on the Glastonbury Abbey page; does this work for you or do we need a link in the main text? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Not a huge issue but works better for me in main text as I am not one for linking to wikipedia material from footnotes unless an author. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 00:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The intro is quite long. In particular, the third paragraph seems overly detailed for a lead section. Perhaps it would be possible to edit down the third paragraph or combine the third and fourth paragraphs into one shorter paragraph about the development of the legend of King Arthur. Otherwise, I'm afraid you are going to lose a fair number of readers before they even finish the intro. Kaldari (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Also I'm not sure if I can support this article not mentioning Monty Python and the Holy Grail whatsoever. For us Yanks, it is generally our first (and often only) exposure to the legend of King Arthur, as sad as that may be. I realize this may smack of recentism, but it does seem like a notable enough cultural influence to at least mention somewhere in the article. Kaldari (talk) 22:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean adding mention of the movie would be a trivial task, or do you mean the movie is too trivial to add it to the article? Kaldari (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The second meaning, Kaldari. I do think the third paragraph could be shortened. I would take out specific mention of Malory, Tennyson and Twain, and replace with more general and brief statements. Clíodhna (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Put it this way, its one of my favourite films no doubt, but this a very very strong and scholarly article, and because I'm anti 'in popular culture' on wikipedia in general, I wouldn't be comfortable making an exception based on my own personal taste. That said; eh, whatever - no big deal. Happy to let the writers of the article decide. Clíodhna (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it is a weak oppose, any only because I had two minor criticisms. I'll be happy to change it to a support if at least the lead is edited down a bit. Kaldari (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
'edited down a bit'; In the absence of suggestion I can only assume you mean simplified. Fine, but 'comment' would have been a better option to take so. If I had suffrage I would discount your comment on this. Clíodhna (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean any offence. I was just trying to offer some suggestions to improve the article. I'm sorry if my objections seemed trivial, but I think readability is extremely important, especially for the lead section. It looks like Cuchullian has fixed the lead now. As soon as I'm not editing from a cell phone, I will change my vote to support. Kaldari (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Kaldari's points might be minor, but they directly relate to 1(b) and 2(a) of the FA criteria. If he feels the article is not comprehensive (no mention of Monty Python, shrubbery, Knights Who Say Ni, etc.) or that the lead is not "concise" (too long), he has a valid objection to this FAC. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)15:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed :) Reading the comments above, it would seem like the lead problem is fixed, so thanks to Cuchullain. On the other, I have no objection to including the Python movie if folks think it is necessary and sufficiently noteworthy, and so I have now added it. If I can just clarify on what is/isn't in the article, I obviously had to exclude large numbers of important works when writing the article. I made descisions based largely on (1) whether the work included innovations in the portrayal of Arthur/his story that were picked up by subsequent authors and (2) whether they were good illustrations of trends in the portrayal of Arthur & his story and/or if they showed the continuing vitality of earlier interpretations of Arthur (e.g. the continuing influence of the romance tradition). Boorman and the other movies seemed good examples of the latter, hence why they were chosen; Python wasn't used simply because others were :) Hope this helps, cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: The references include the (reputable!) canonical and current sources, and the coverage is even-handed and thorough. - PKM (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Okay, there are some sources in the references that are not used in the footnotes. Alexandre is one.
Weighing in on the Monty Python bit, if you mention the serious retellings (although including Excalibur in that is quite a laugh) you should probably mention the other side, which is the comedic treatments also.
Comment. The article lead mentions both the "Sword in the Stone" and "Excalibur", neither of which are ever mentioned in the article body. Where did these parts of the legend originate? If we're not going to mention them in the article, they should probably be removed from the lead. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like "Excalibur" comes from "Caliburn" which is Arthur's sword in Geoffrey's Historia. Could someone add this into the article body where it is appropriate? Kaldari (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
They were mentioned in the article, but then peer-review indicated that the article was too long and so they were removed to the excalibur page. I can re-add the material on the development and changes to Arthur's weaponry but it will add considerably to the article... Any thoughts? My feeling, for what it is worth, is that the article needs to focus tightly on changes to Arthur and the development of his core story over time, rather than getting into the changes to his weapons etc, otherwise it will become too large again e.g. adding in excalibur < caliburnus would then mean discussion of caledfwlch and its relationship to caliburnus is required, and then probably also discussion of how excalibur and the sword in the stone are inter-related etc. But I'm happy to add it back if the consensus is against me :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Why can't we just mention that Excalibur originated in Geoffrey's Historia, where it is refered to as "Caliburn"? Surely there must be some happy medium between discussing the minutia of his weaponry and not mentioning it at all. Kaldari (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, how about that? Short but points to the potential sequence Caledfwlch > Caliburnus > Excalibur, with a wikilink to the main page on that sword and the ref to Bromwich and Evans for further discussion if anyone wants to follow-up. Fixed? :) cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support: my absolute favorite class in undergrad was a King Arthur lit. course that I took while studying in England, so while I don't count myself an expert on the subject, I know a thing or two. :) I found this article to be magnificently written and engaging. Truth be told, I thought it would be huge, but I'm glad that the writers didn't go overboard and include wads of information to distract me from my daily tasks. I was disappointed, however, that more attention was not paid to Malory; Le Morte d'Arthur isn't even mentioned in the lead, but that is the work that introduced Arthur to Tennyson and later writers, including White and even the Monty Python lads. I don't think it should be so diminished. Although most of his material was taken from past tales, he did invent and reinterpret things that are still considered canon to this day. I was also surprised to see the Nine Worthies reduced to a mere "See also" mention; I would say it's noteworthy enough to be described in the article somewhere. Obviously these points do not keep me from supporting an interesting article on such an important figure in literature and the English speaking culture as a whole, but maybe I want moar! Great job, contributors. María(habla conmigo) 14:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
lol! And thanks :) On Malory, I can see where you're coming from re: the lead. He is v. important and mentioned specifically in the Further Reading, so I can see a rationale for adding him back to the intro, but there is a worry over its length and avoiding the lead becoming a list of key authors. Perhaps "culminating in Malory's Le Morte d'Arthur" added to the section about the legend thriving in the Middle Ages? What do those who have been working on the lead think?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
As one of the editors who has commented on this issue in the pase, I would be in favour of mentioning Malory in the lead. The six or seven words you suggest sound good, but the exact wording may need to be tweaked and sourced. Geometry guy21:49, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Malory needs to be mentioned in the lead, any more than the Vulgate Cycle and the Prose Tristan do. I think it's definitely best not to name too many different works in the lead. In this case, Malory's influence was mostly on later, English language writers long after his death, it was not translated extensively in the way other versions were during the medieval period.--Cúchullaint/c22:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Support An admirable (mind-boggling, really) amount of research has gone into this. One tiny suggestion (such as it is): The musical Camelot is mentioned (I heart Julie Andrews), but might it be worth mentioning that the presidency of John F. Kennedy was intertwined with the musical? Both started in 1960, and the title song for the musical was one of Kennedy's favorites, and arguably a reason that many Americans were introduced to some Arthurian literature. Arthurian legend has been used as an allegory for a president who was immensely popular, and whose death killed the innocence of the early 1960s in the US. Such as this, and this, and this. --Moni3 (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a section on this but it was moved to King Arthur's messianic return due to length, and such a move does help bolster the focus on Arthur debated below. What I find fascinating is that JFK very rapidly develops an Arthurian 'return' motif... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Extreme Oppose (Update in addition to the below) - Why is there no mention of Charlemagne in the piece? He definitely formed the basis for what a "knight" was and was very influential. There should be multiple paragraphs filling this, because I have seen this concept in most text books, articles, and even the history channel. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Previous Oppose - I only wish to state a few things: 1) The picture of Sigurd is unjustified based on the body of text and lacks citations to justify it (two different MoS problems). 2) "Historical truths" as a topic title has no MoS basis and is PoV. 3) There is no background section, which is troubling. 4) The text "In one stanza, the bravery of a warrior who slew 300 enemies is praised, but it is then noted that despite this "he was no Arthur", that is to say his feats cannot compare to the valour of Arthur." is referring to a Welsh source. Arthur is not a welsh name, and the citation is not enough to justify this connection/relationship, which also invalidates the supporting picture claiming (without a citation) it as an early instance of Arthur. Furthermore, it would not prove it was the same Arthur. This problem continues by claiming other Welsh text, without evidence that it is the same Arthur. (I've studied the works, the names are quite different and only a few scholars try to claim the two as one beyond all doubt). 6) The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. 7) Morte D'Arthur, a very large and significant book, gets almost no mention. 8) The "Modern legend" section includes unnotable or off topic trivial information. Arthurian youth groups and the rest are not King Arthur, but on the realm legend. You cannot mix the two. 9) Your reference section includes far more references than the notes, which causes an imbalance (to put it mildly).Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
While none of of the images need to "justify presence" (they are all in the public domain and most are listed at the commons), the Sigurd image is somewhat random, I agree. Something needs to be added to the prose that connects these two myths, with a source, of course. I believe, however, that the Tristan and Isolde image is applicable and the caption more than adequately explains Arthur's marginalization by way of side stories, which includes T&I. María(habla conmigo) 17:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
MoS requires all images to have a reason to be included, even if they are free. The page is on King Arthur, so Tristan and Isolde can never be justified, especially when they don't deal with Arthur, or depict them dealing with Arthur in the painting. Ottava Rima (talk)
The image of T&I is justified because it is in a section describing how Arthur became overshadowed by other characters (such as T&I) in a certain time period. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think an overshadow section is justified. It is rather POV, seems to encourage off topic ideas, and if King Arthur is "real" then it wouldn't fit standard bio, and if he is a fictional character, well, I've never seen any precedence for such commentary (is there a section where "Bilbo" is overshadowed by "Frodo" by chance?) Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that is a fair comparison, but perhaps you should read the section again? ("Romance traditions") It is very focused on Arthur. It is not an "overshadow section". Wrad (talk) 18:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I would say that the second paragraph ventures a bit too far into the "Arthurian legend" world and away from Arthur the character, though. Other paragraphs seem fine, unless people feel that outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is important for this article, otherwise we can move it to Matter of Britain. Wrad (talk) 18:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I see you point on that paragraph, although the development of Arthur as an incestuous father and cuckolded husband seem fairly important to me, as is the changing medium in which his stories are transmitted and the transmission of the 'do-nothing' king back into Welsh literary versions of Arthur (though this latter is probably the easiest bit to lose). On the notion that "outlining how the characters around Arthur were created is important for this article", I would whole-heartedly disagree -- the whole point of Arthur is the stories of him and through all of these, from Pa gur? forward, he is defined by those around him and his relationship to them. cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
There, try that -- better? It probably needs a quick copy-edit check as I have to rush off and do soemthing other than wiki now, lol! Hrothgar cyning (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Wrad and Maria's point seems perfectly correct to me. It is not POV, it happened and is on-topic for the development of Arthur's character into the 'do-nothing' king. It is also accepted by all scholarly commentators I am aware of. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The term isn't invented by the article writers: it's in the sources. It's an old term, used, for example, of the Merovingian kings, who became ceremonial figures while those around them went off to battle. qp10qp (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A historical origin of a term does not remove the possible POV nature behind it, just as racial slurs still have a connotation that is not acceptable. I feel that the page does not do enough to show opinion as opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry, this is just silly! There is no comparison whatsoever with racisim and I wonder whether the old usenet 'Hitler' doctrine is relevant here (when one side compares, completely ludicrously, what the other has written to Nazism - or racism, in this case -, it is clear that the person doing this has no interest in a sensible discussion or changing their mind). What possible PoV could I possibly be aiming at? Arthur as the roi fainéant, the "do-nothing king", in medieval romance is a well established concept in the scholarly literature, if you'd just care to read it; it's not my fault if you go out of your way to misunderstand such common concepts. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I take it by your use of "sensible" that you will not regard an actual point and instead wish to attack. A change in view of any character must be expressed in a way that emphasizes that its an opinion. A view of a trait is not a fact, and cannot be described as such. I find your many as inappropriate, and I believe that you are unwilling to listen to a major MoS problem that makes it impossible for the page to be an FA in its current state. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Hroth is backing up everything he says with sources. He's 100% right and your point is moot. Let's move on to other things, please. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You can personally attack me all you want, but it does not negate the fact that the above is opinion and below (the "th" sound) comes from Greek (i.e. works like Theogeny have a "th" for a reason) and that it cannot be claimed as coming from Welsh. If there was such a definite Welsh origin, there would not be so many critical works claiming others as Arthur. Stop acting as if absurdity is fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The sound was written in Greek before there was Welsh writing. The letter combination comes from Greek, and was written by a Monk who would probably know of the Greek language/Greek language's influence on Latin, which introduced the "th". Note, the Theogony predates when the "Welsh" would have been in the island. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The heading "Historical truth" was mine: I changed it from "historicity" for reader friendliness: if we change it back, would it cover that objection? qp10qp (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
No, because it is a POV section based on the "main" link. Having anything about "historical" is siding with a POV argument. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't like the Historical truth heading. I'd be fine with "Debated Historicity" or something. Wrad (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Historicity was the original heading and I see no problem reverting to that. Whilst I can see the point on 'Historical truth' I most definitely cannot on 'historicity', especially if it is made 'Debated Historicity' Hrothgar cyning (talk) 19:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sigurd/Siegfried has been connected with Arthur by scholars. Certainly Richard Barber does. But, since there is no shortage of images for this article, it will save argument to move the picture out. Done. qp10qp (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a need for a background section as the entire article describes the background of the King Arthur story. Wrad (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Background sections normally have the "historicity" (or whatever you want to call it) information with some of the origin information combined. It also gives a chance to provide overview details. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like our Historical truth section as it currently stands to me... We already have an overview with the lead section, anyway. Wrad (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
(1) I have no opinion on the Sigurd image, so am not bothered if it goes particularly as the legitimiate comparison between Arthur and Sigurd is no longer in the text (it was when the image was added)
(2) See comment above; changing to 'debated historicity'
(3) I disagree, see above
(4 ?and 5?) I'm afraid you are misinformed here. Arthur is indeed a Welsh name and all reputable scholars agree on this. There are, of course, bizarre theories such as "Athrwys is Welsh for Arthur" (Wilson et al, I seem to recall), but they are neither serious nor scholarly; alternatively you may be referring to the root form of the name, which is quite likely either Latin Artorius or Arcturus, but even if you are then the name Arthur is still a Welsh name, displaying for example the following British/Welsh mutations which distance it from its roots: long -ō- to -ū-, then -ū- to -ü- (with an intermediate stage) plus the Late British loss of final syllables, if from Artorius (no long -ō- to -ū- if Arcturus but still the other two). As to the notion that the Welsh poetic references to Arthur do not all refer to 'our' Arthur, there have been occasional suggestions that one or two may not refer to him (Barber on Y Gododdin, suggesting that a reference to the Dalriadan L6thcentury Arthur was intended) but these have been quickly and widely dismissed by other Celticists in reviews and subsequent books and articles and no serious researcher that I am aware of would accept your suggestion. In sum, we could take account and disprove with copious references every minor theory and pet-obsession of Arthurian enthusiasts, but if we are to do that then we will end up with a verrrrrrry long article indeed. The article as it stands represents pretty well the current scholarly consensus and debate, as far as I am aware of it; I did have a few mentions of such theories in the first draft but they have been rightly removed during copy-editing. For up-to-date views on the Welsh material try, for example, The Arthur of the Welsh edd. Bromwich et al, or Koch's recent (1996) survey, both cited on the page.
The fact that it appears in another language centuries before in writing demonstrates that the sources are either incorrect or improperly used to justify a claim. As Garboty claims, you just can't know where Geoffrey based his source of the Arthur myth, and that he only used other sources (like Nennius) to base non-Arthur stories. Also, "Arthur" would be a common enough name like Alexander that there is no way to claim that the one is the same as another. Its controversial regardless, but what is the point of it? Is it a page on the character, or is it a page on the real life person? You cannot have both, otherwise you enter into the realm of in-universe by treating a fantasy character as real. It is odd that the page would be part of the "biography" and the "mythology" wikiprojects, even though they contradict each other. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
(6) See comment above.
(7) Yes, it's important and that importance is reflected in the references to it made in the article. Malory reflects the culmination of the medieval tradition and is commented on accordingly; it is also used as the yardstick to judge the popularity of the Arthurian legend in post-medieval England and as Tennyson's inspiration and source (not his only one, mind). See further Cuchullain's comments above. It is surely only right that large sections of the article look at pre-Malory developments in detail, as these were the changes to Arthur and his legend that produced much (not all) of Malory's narrative.
(8) Such groups are important as they are indicative of the continued influence of the romance tradition of Arthur: the article is concerned all the way through with how portrayals of him and his associated legend both developed and remained the same over time. This is clearly why the youth groups are mentioned and is legitimate.
(9) Huh? As you can see from reading the above FAC commentary, only works referenced in the notes are in the references section.
4)/5) "Arthur" is not a welsh name, and it would have to be anglicized in some way. I've read welsh. I know that such letter combinations are basically impossible. You have to make the argument on the origin of the name, and then critically justify it. Linguistically, you cannot make such claims without solid evidence. 8) I don't believe that is proved in the body of the work, and if so, it doesn't belong in a pseudo biography on the character of Arthur 9) It appears that I overlooked some of the "nested" references in which you combined multiple refs into one entry. If there are such redundancies, why have both? Why not cut one and allow the newest one to stand? Ottava Rima (talk)
4/5) Sounds like you're objecting based on your own Original research. Hroth has already provided plenty of "solid evidence" in the form of citations and clear reasoning. Please show us some evidence that your opinion has similar citations behind it. 8) Shouldn't the article reflect the influence of the character on society? 9)The more refs, the better, in my mind. I don't have a problem with this, as long as the body of the article isn't littered with little numbers, and I don't see that problem here. Wrad (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Cutting refs??? How bizarre - you do know that academic and scholarly work often cites more than one work in each footnote? I fail to see any merit whatsoever in such a suggestion. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OR is putting forth something not based on sources. I have yet to see a source that two different spells are really the same person. You can supply a source that claims such and such is true, but that is an opinion, and it is not held as such in the body of the text. That would be expressing a point of view as fact. And influence of a character on society? This is a person, or is it a character? Who is reflecting what? You just pointed out the inherent problem of setting up a "biography" that merges a fictional character and a possibly real life figure. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
You are misconstruing what I said. It is a puzzle but it can be done and is being done. Hroth has provided you with sources. please stop picking fights when people are trying to address your concerns. Wrad (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Hroth hasn't provided any sources. You seem unable to understand the distinction between "real" and "fictional" and why they need to be separated distinctly. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
He just provided a ton of them, see "Final Reply from Hrothgar". None of the sources he provides are fictional, either. Please don't belittle my intelligence. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Final Reply from Hrothgar Ok, I'll have one more shot at this then I really can't be bothered, as it's clear you're not familiar with the most basic scholarly literature on this topic and others and seem to simply enjoy a good argument. I have plenty of non-wiki work to do and this is all taking an unreasonable amount of time. I trust someone will alert me if you actually come up with a sensible objection based on knowledge. I have no problem with people commenting on how the article is written etc even if they know nothing in detail about Arthur -- note, I've re-written whole sections of the article tonight to tighten the focus on the character of Arthur and its development and deployment over time, as was requested/implied by you. Similarly, I have no problem with knowledgeable people commenting on the detail of topics they know about and suggesting that we need to include more on topic a to balance the article, or we are mistaken about topic b, as can be seen from reading article c etc etc. What I do have a problem with is wasting my time correcting basic misapprehensions that result from a desire to argue and a lack of knowledge.
Right, first off I really have no interest in your personal opinions and guesses on etymology, they are irrelevant. Arthur is a Welsh name; no serious modern researcher would suggest otherwise -- all its earliest appearances are in Welsh or Breton documents and it can be quite satisfactorily explained as a Welsh name using basic British/Welsh philology. You are, quite simply, wrong. It may have started out as a Latin name, but in the form Arthur and latinizations of this it is Welsh. There are already references in the article that will point you to discussions of all of the above and to explanations of how Arthur would emerge as a Welsh name. I suggest you follow them; I will not post details of how the changes run on the wiki article because that would be original research, and pointlessly detailed: the references either cover it fully or point you to where you need to go to learn more. If you personally want to learn about British/Welsh linguistics and the sound changes that would transform, for example, Latin Artorius/Arcturus into Old Welsh Arthur (which I have, in fact, kindly supplied you with above), rather than just speculate wildly, please consult some or all of the following, several of which actually discuss the name Arthur: K.H. Jackson, Language and History in Early Britain (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1953); P. Sims-Williams, The Celtic Inscriptions of Britain: Phonology and Chronology, c.400-1200 (Oxford: Philological Society, 2003); P. Sims-Williams, "Dating the Transition to Neo-Brittonic: Phonology and History, 400-600" in A. Bammesberger and A. Wollmann (edd.) Britain 400-600: Language and History (Heidelberg), pp.217-61; P.Schrijver, Studies in British Historical Phonology (Amsterdam, 1995). These discuss all the above sound changes, including where the -th- comes from. Enjoy.
Ok, I'm out of this particular set of replies; Wrad and Qp seem to be dealing admirably with the bizarre notion that we should try and separate out the legendary from the historical in this article. If one reads the article it should be obvious that the two inter-twine throughout the whole history of Arthur's development and cannot and ought not to be separated if we are analysing the character as a whole. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone should tell Thomas Garbaty that he is wrong, because Hrothgar says that conjecture now equals fact. Garbaty stated blatantly many times that "Arthur" and the name "Arthur" comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth and no other. The fact that the above user claimed such absurdities as the "th" sound coming from Welsh (its Greek, and if anything, came to the Welsh via monks who knew Latin and Greek). I think common sense with actual dates of items, and one of the most widely known and widely published Medieval scholars, should put this to rest. The above user is mixing fantasy and reality, opinion and truth, and this article cannot be an FA until these are fixed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please stop belittling people Otto. You have yet to provide a single source on this page for you claims and Hrothgar has provided a ton and bent over backwards. It's time to drop it. Wrad (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
1. Please explain how Thomas Garbaty is not a source? Or the fact that a document from 700 BC that contains "th" in it long before Welsh and known to monks would not be the origins of a "th" used by the first scholarly chosen source of Arthur? 2. Please explain where I was belittling others, when you and others have personally attacked me for pointing out large problems with a page. Remember, you do not own the page. They do not reflect you or anyone else. This is Wikipedia. This isn't about prizes, its about providing legitimate and actual information. Please take some care to reflect on this before continuing to attack me for pointing out legitimate problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Please provide the titles of the two works you are referring to, along with page numbers, as Hrothgar has. Wrad (talk) 02:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. I'd just like to reply to this comment of Ottava's: The picture of Tristan and Isolde is of Tristan and Isolde, not King Arthur, and "Arthurian" is not enough to justify its presence. Tristan and Isolde developed as part of the evolution of the Arthurian story, though not necessarily through the Malory version. Gottfried von Strassburg is at the root of Wagner's version, and links trace back from Gottfried to the Celtic tales of Arthur. All the offshoot stories count as "Arthurian", and they are treated in books about Arthur; this article is conventional in doing the same. Having said that, perhaps the caption is a bit gauche. qp10qp (talk) 20:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Arthurian is not Arthur, just as Augustan is not Augustus. A movement named after a person is not the same as a person, and this should be acknowledged through the whole piece. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Why should we constantly reiterate something that is so obvious? Everyone knows that Arthurian and Arthur are two different things, just as they know that Arthurian legend and literature are important influences of Arthur himself that deserve to be mentioned in the article. Wrad (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
If its so obvious, why are "arthurian" info in Arthur's page? It appears to not be so obvious to those who added off topic information into a pseudo biography. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I already explained this in my previous post, my friend. We explain Arthur's influences in his "bio" just as much as we explain Shakespeare's in his bio. Wrad (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Shakespeare's influences are real. Arthur's are not. To put in fictional "influences" is to treat the subject in-universe, which goes against MoS. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree strongly with that. We discuss the influences of fictional subjects on wikipedia just as much as we do "real" subjects, just as actual experts do. Such discussion is not judged to be "in universe" in any discussion I have seen. Wrad (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Ottava Rima by qp10qp. When you say there are "far more" sources in the references than in the notes, I'm sure this can't be true, having been through them a couple of times myself. On the other hand, I daresay there might be one or two extra ones, owing to various cuts and changes in the text. However, as far as I know, there's no rule against this. It would help if Ottava Rima would list any superfluous sources he/she has found in the references. qp10qp (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why this is a problem. Multiple entries are used in many FAs. Just press Ctrl + F to search for things like this. Wrad (talk) 21:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly be useful to be able to click from the references to the cites, but the techies haven't worked out a way of doing that yet. qp10qp (talk) 21:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, please explain why Arthur (the possible real life person) is with Arthur (the myth) and Arthur (the character)? What is this page supposed to be? A general summary of all the Arthurs like some kind of impressive disambiguation page? Ottava Rima (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you honestly see any way we could separate them? I don't. I think we would lose a lot if we did that. When scholars discuss "King Arthur", these are the things they discuss, and we should reflect that. Wrad (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
This overlapping necessarily goes with the subject. There are many books and articles on the subject of King Arthur that, as this article does, look at the historical documents, the legend, and the literature. qp10qp (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I think we have reached deadlock with Ottava Rima on several points. I think it is best we just let his/her oppose stand and leave it to Sandy or Raul in closing this FAC to decide whether the objections have been addressed. qp10qp (talk) 07:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with qp10qp. I think the points raised by Ottava Rima have been addressed to the extent that they are going to be. If Ottava is still opposed I don't think further discussion here is likely to be fruitful. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The only actionable part of my oppose left is how the "historical" information meets the character of Arthur information. I put forth a possible suggestion for dealing with such a thing on Qp10qp's talk page. It just strikes me as odd to treat the individual as both a biography, a myth, and a literary character at the same time in the manner that it currently does. The rest (modern youth groups, "arthurian" info that isn't directly Arthur) are more minor points. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
And it's clearly best to take no action on that at this point - I don't speak only for myself when I say that acting on it would not improve the article. You are of course entitled to your opinion.--Cúchullaint/c17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The pictures are generally below the standard of the prose, and too few, for which there is no excuse with this subject. The first one should link to the recent Hofkirche, Innsbruck, where there is also a colour version that may be preferable. The Tristan & Isolde picture is horrible and insipid - the medieval one or the Waterhouse would be greatly preferable. One of the stirring "Boys.." series on commons should go in the modern section.
They seem fine to me but am happy to leave this for others who know more of such topics and how to use images in wiki to debate, decide and do :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I prefer the color photo to the b&w if we're going to lead with the statue. All in all, a good selection of images over time. - PKM (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
OK Personally I would like to see the Alans in, but ....
There would also be a case for more on classical influences (such as Alexander on the Galfridian Arthur), but we have to draw the line somewhere. Given that the Sarmatian theory is very much a minority idea and has had dubiosu reviews (e.g. Lacy in Arthuriana), I can see more of a role for discussion of the Sarmatian theory in an article on Arthurian romance, especially as the parallels are more convincing than the proposed transmission process for many researchers. cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
DONE Is it true that:" This interest in the 'Arthur of romance' continued through the 19th century and into the 20th, and influenced poets such as William Morris and Pre-Raphaelite artists including Edward Burne-Jones." - They were extremely keen on Arthurian subjects, but that is not the same thing.
Changed to "'Arthur of romance' and his associated stories": it is true, as you say, that they spent a lot of time on the surrounding legends rather than specifically the king himself, but then this minor role within his own legend is part of the character of the 'Arthur of romance' as defined earlier in the article, and he is still clearly important e.g. the cuckolded 'Arthur of romance' is a main character, even though dead, in Morris' "King Arthur's tomb", for example, and he is central in Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon". (I seem to recall reading somehwere that Burne-Jones considered himself to be an Arthur-figure...) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Here is an interesting newspaper article that looks at Burne-Jones' "Arthur in Avalon" and refers briefly to his self-identification with the king; I don't have time atm to look for something more scholarly, maybe later :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
DONE Given the time-span etc, all captions should indicate the date of the image.
Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (from original manuscript, artist unknown) Here's the image from SGGK. Arthur is top center. Wrad (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Images: I've just uploaded this one; personally I think it's a better lead image. Caption: King Arthur as one of the Nine Worthies, detail from the "Christian Heroes Tapestry" dated c. 1385. Footnote: "Arthur among the Nine Worthies is always identified by three crowns, which signify regality, on his standard, his shield, or his robe." -- Geoffrey Ashe, The Quest for Arthur's Britain (1969). Caveat: Image and caption are from one of my own websites. - PKM (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Lol, I actually just removed that in response to Ottava's comments a few days ago, due to the fact that Wagner is inspired by the legends but Arthur doesn't feature really... I can (and am happy to) put it back, but do admit that if we are to keep the focus tightly on the development of Arthur as a character, then there is an issue. As to non-English/French/Welsh works, I see your point; Lanzelet is mentioned but most of the major innovations (the thing I was really looking for, as discussed somehwere above) in Arthur's nature seem to me to come from these traditions, but if if there is something of this kind I have missed please do say and we'll incorporate :) cheers Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been sprucing up the list - perhaps if put back as: "Richard Wagner's Tristan und Isolde and Parsifal are the most distinguished of several other operas on Arthurian subjects written before the First World War." - or something, it will be more acceptable, since the other ones are more directly on-topic. Anyway, given all the other stuff, I think Wagner deserves mentioning. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
If these operas don't really tell us anything new about Arthur I don't think we should include them. I'm fine with French, English, and Welsh being the main thrust of this article unless it can be shown that other literatures have significantly contributed to his character, and I don't see that with Wagner. Now, if Wagner was missing from Matter of Britain, that would be a different story... Wrad (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a matter of concern; in particular, if we keep that new bit on Wagner in despite lack of direct relevance to Arthur's development/treatment, it may well compromise other decisions on inclusion/non-inclusion on the basis of lack of innovation etc etc. Hmmmm.... Hrothgar cyning (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Try that - any better? This way he is an example of the continuing marginalization of Arthur in his own legend, so reference to him seems legit; revert if don't like :) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit-conflicted but I'll post anyway :) ) Both fixes done (dashes and c.) by me and Qp :) I see you've left a message for picture review so I'll leave that alone. Am assuming the initial objections are all met as Johnbod has said done/ok to all but the pics, which he then did himself (thanks for that, btw!) -- this true Johnbod?? Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments:
Did Thomas Green really argue that Arthur fought werewolves? This is something I have neither seen for myself or read about in the secondary literature (There is an episode in Historia Regum Britanniae where Arthur defeats & slays a giant by wrestling him, so Thomas' argument is plausable -- but the werewolf bit harms his argument.) If he did, I suggest his words be quoted; if not, it might be best to drop this item.
In the Old Welsh poem Pa gur?, Arthur and his men fight cinbin, "dog-heads", and — probably part of the same battle, as Sims-Williams 1991, p.42 points out too — Gwrgi Garwlwyd , who in the Triads is said to have killed one of the Cymry each day with two on Saturday (see Concepts of Arthur, pp.119-121). So, Arthur does indeed fight dog-men, "or werewolves if we prefer" (Concepts, p.84 - note, werewolves and dog-men are a frequent occurance in Irish material too; Kim McCone has an interesting article on some aspects of werewolves in insular 'Celtic' culture: "Werewolves, Cyclopes, Diberga, and Fianna: Juvenile Delinquency in Early Ireland" in Cambridge Medieval Celtic Studies 12 (1986), pp.1-22). I don't think it needs a separate reference beyond the one at the end of the sentence, esp. as the conflict is discussed by other commentators too, including Sims-Williams and Padel (2000). Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My point was not to debate whether or not Arthur fought werewolves, but to point out that to write so is a surprise to those who aren't as well versed in the Arthurian mythos. (I've had to struggle against some peculiar material being added to this article in the past.) If Green uses the word "werewolves", then we should quote him; otherwise the risk is that several months down the road, when everyone who has worked hard on this article has moved to other articles, someone new will see this passage, decide it is erroneous, & remove it. Putting this statement in quotations, IMHO, will prevent this from becoming a permanent change in the article. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Footnote 31 in the paragraph on Y Gododdin would be better served if it was made to K.H. Jackson's critical translation of this poem (The Gododdin: The Oldest Scottish poemISBN0-85224-049-X) instead of Alcock's work. Alcock (as he admits himself) is an archeologist; Jackson was a Celticist, & an authority in this field.
Alcock isn't actually referenced in fn.31 and I think the references in that footnote are sufficient; on the date of Y Gododdin and its Arthurian reference, Jackson's work is now superceded by the works in that footnote. Alcock is, however, mentioned in footnote 3 with reference to Y Gododdin. I don't know where this reference came from; I'm changing it to the Charles-Edwards ref and Sims-Williams 1991 (which discusses virtually all the early poetry but Y Gododdin. Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
However, Alcock's book is useful in the section "Name", because he provides a list of historical persons with the name of Arthur. As Alcock notes, "The name Arthur was unknown in native circles in Britain before the time of the Arthur who is our concern. But in the generations around 600, at least four royal families called one of their sons Arthur." (p. 73)
I'm generally opposed to using Alcock anywhere much, as it is so far out of date and discredited in many areas. On these Arthurs, I'm not sure what the benefits of mentioning them are, insofar as they have no discernable impact on the character of 'our' Arthur; none of them can be considered the 'original' Arthur, as Brynley Roberts, Jackson and Bromwich all long-ago pointed out; and their significance with regards to Arthur's historicity is wholly unclear and uncertain (compare Padel 1994 and Green 2007, who see them as potentially evidence of Arthur's folkloric origins, with the old view put forward by Alcock, for example). The only obvious reason would be to point out that these were amongst the only occurances of the name Arthur used as a real personal name in a British context in the Middle Ages (see especially Bartrum's article on the name Arthur in the National Library of Wales Journal 1965, pp.243-5), but I'm not sure this article -- so much as the one on Arthur as a name -- would gain anything from this and we might then get embroiled in why this situation happened, and this article isn't really the place for this either, I think... Cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
One problem I have with this article is that it was difficult for me to find a summary of the "Arthurian mythos"; I had to re-read the article a couple of times to find it at the beginning of the section "Geoffrey of Monmouth". There needs to be a help to the reader to quickly & easily find it, maybe a note in the lead of the article.
We did discuss this on the talk page, I think, and I seem to recall that it was thought that there wasn't any point doing this as it changes so much over time and even from text-to-text. Which version do we choose? Because Geoffrey's is very different from the Welsh Arthur, whilst the Romance/post-Chretien is different again, as is the Vulgate one etc etc. The article as it stands is designed to work with this reality by looking at how the character of Arthur and his legend altered and developed over time and not tying us to anyone 'version' in a summary, which would be somewhat redundant. Any other comments on this topic?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That's about how I saw the discussion, too. With stories like this that have been around for so long, it is impossible to summarize the story the same way we do other stories because the myth is so fluid and changing. The article as a whole summarizes how Arthur's story and character has changed over time, and I don't really think there's a better way to do it. Wrad (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
My point is not that there is one version of the story (if you look far enough back in the article's edit history, you will see where I put this article into its present structure), but that less informed readers will come to this article & expect to find a single story. My comment was to suggest that this fluid nature be made more explicit. -- llywrch (talk) 20:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, ok :) Right, try these changes to the lead and see if they address the issues. Any comments from anyone appreciated as to whether this works and feel free to make changes, I have to go now so a bit rushed :) Thanks, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that works. It signposts the readers that there is no single storyline, but many variants, though it emphasizes the significance of the Malory version. qp10qp (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I honestly wish I had the time to have helped with this article. I have wanted to make this a FA for far longer than I suspect many of you have contributed to Wikipedia, & can only be envious of the fact it has gotten there with little help from me. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
On the name question, Higham 2002 also covers this in depth, with several specific named individuals as examples (p. 76-77). - PKM (talk) 18:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
On werewolves, Green, discussing the battles in Chapter 56 of the Historia , says: "The other battles are largely unidentifiable, though the tenth, the ‘battle on the bank of a river which is called Tribruit’, is recorded elsewhere in very early sources as a traditional battle against werewolves, thus casting further doubt on the Historia’s value." - PKM (talk) 18:58, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments on images:
Image:Athrwys.jpg has a source, but no information on creator or date/place of creation.
Wrad, it looks from the file information as if you uploaded that first one. Are you able to add the supplementary information? qp10qp (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I have replaced the Commons image of Gawain with one I have just uploaded to Wikipedia, along with the necessary sourcing gubbins, etc. Hrothgar, I have been a bit vague about the dating and author on the image page. I understand that the manuscript that survives is a copy: is it the copy or the poem, or both, that dates from the late fourteenth century? I have put the author down, for the moment, as the Pearl Poet, but, on second thoughts, if it's a copy, then I suppose that the illustration is unlikely to have been done by the poet himself.qp10qp (talk) 09:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Both, off the top of my head, but I think your reasoning is probably correct - the image is lkely to be the copyist's work, not the poet's (although that is not to say that it couldn't have been copied too...) I can check up more if necessary... cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I've added a link (Stanbury) to Pearl Poet from which it is fairly clear that the Cotton MS is of 1400 at the latest & insofar as EngLit types take any interest in the illustrations at all, they don't tend to regard them as by or after the poet. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean "year published"? It's on-line from the BnF (French National Library - "libre de droit" = "free of rights"), as you will see by following the link. It's from a C15 manuscript that has never been published as such. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The University of British Columbia page that culhwch.jpg comes from says "The scene is Culhwch's arrival at his cousin Arthur's court, pictured below in an illustration to Sidney Lanier's 1881 adaptation in The Boy's Mabinogion", so am adding it into the summary of Culhwch.jpg as that - see image for full ref - and then people can play with it if it isn't in the right format etc etc (I'm a text person, not a pic one :) ) Hrothgar cyning (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
ok, have swapped the Athrwys pic out of the article, as the source website has a copyright notice for the phote on mouse-over... Put the AC image from later in the article in its spot and put in a pic of mordred at Camlann where the AC was, which seems to have all relevant details (I hope)... How's that look guys?? ok?? cheers, Hrothgar cyning (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment "and achieving a 5.3/14 in the key adults 18–49 demographic." – What do the numbers mean? Nielson Ratings, I assume, but this needs to be explained. GaryKing (talk)00:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
They publish information on Nielsen Ratings that can be found nowhere else on the Internet by someone who is not a member of the press. Information that has been published elsewhere checks out. –thedemonhogtalk • edits19:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments pertaining to images:
Image:Dharka.jpg - purpose of "To illustrate an important scene" is not adequate. WP:RAT and WP:NFCC#10C require rationales to be detailed, clear and relevant to each use. Caption contains "filmed at a rock quarry"; why is a fair use image needed to convey this understanding (NFCC#1); what significant contribution to our understanding (NFCC#8) is really made by seeing the backs of characters/crew and equipment?
Support pictures have adequate FU rationales, but could they be improved? Well referenced, written, all sections required are present and clear, intro could do with some rearranging:
How can "To illustrate a pivotal moment in the episode" be considered a detailed rationale? Is Illustration critical commentary? or is it just eye candy? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I dont see how either of those images convey anything about the rock quarry. Would it be possible to get a free image of the rock quarry? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I have to agree about the rock quarry: it adds nothing the readers' understanding, and looks like an adornment. So ... it's a film set in a rock quarry, and that's what it looks like. See NFCC 3a and 8. LINKING: I've removed the autoformatted dates so the high-value links can breathe. It's still quite heavily linked, but better now. MOSNUM no longer encourages autoformatting. Hard-spaces added, too. Can you check that the numbers are consistently rendered as numerals? Usually it's 10 and above unless there's a reason for spelling one out (like start of sentence). Why is "assassin" linked? I see "blah. ... blah", so check MOS for spacing and number of ellipsis dots, which are better as sequences of periods rather than the symbol.... four without previous space when at a period, and ... spaced three when chopped mid-sentence. TONY(talk)10:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments and thanks especially for your changes to the article. The article actually has numbers consistently spelled out, unless decimals are involved. –thedemonhogtalk • edits20:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Reviewing only image licensing: first one looks good, I think; I'm not sure about the quarry. --NE213:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Notes; inconsistent WP:DASH usage (some unspaced emdashes, other spaced endashes), WP:MOS#Ellipses attn needed (spaces), WP:MOSNUM attention needed throughout (... the survivors' ninety-seventh day on the island... ), copyedit needs (glancing at the last sentence ... The San Diego Union-Tribune Time, ... reveals missing comma), and times need WP:NBSP and correct formatting (9:00 PM ... see Wikipedia:MOSDATE#Times). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not sure what the MOSNUM problem is. I suspect that you want "ninety-seventh" changed to "97th", but MOSNUM states that "numbers greater than nine may be rendered in numerals or may be rendered in words if they are expressed in one or two words". Everything else has been addressed. Thanks, –thedemonhogtalk • edits07:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it passes all of the FA criteria. It's well-written, well-sourced, properly formatted, and the whole she-bang. Any problems? I'll fix 'em. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because a source is a blog doesn't make it inherently unreliable, MFC - see WP:SPS. However, I definitely agree that those links above aren't reliable and should be changed. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood22:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
"The third named storm of the season, Chantal developed on August 14 from a tropical wave in the tropical Atlantic Ocean." - sounds awkward and redundant.
"It tracked rapidly westward throughout much of its duration, and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - "throughout much of its duration" sounds redundant. Why couldn't one just write "most of it's duration"? Misplaced formality, it seems.
"Chantal reached a peak intensity with maximum sustained winds of" - could be more concise. How about "At its peak, Chantal reached maximum sustained winds of..."?
Redundancy: "though wind shear first and later land interaction prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time"
Thanks a lot for the comments. I removed the "third named storm of the season" bit. I don't know what is redundant about "throughout much of its duration", but I went ahead and changed "throughout" to "for". I removed "maximum sustained winds", since it's not particularly important. I also removed that redundancy. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
It appears so. In the main text, spell out the main units and use unit symbols or abbreviations for conversions in parentheses (e.g a pipe 5 centimetres (2 in) in diameter and 37 kilometres (23 mi) long).JuliancoltonTropicalCyclone18:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
But in the next sentence of the MOS... When there is consensus to do so, the main units may also be abbreviated in the main text after the first occurrence. In articles which repeatedly use the same units (3-4 times per paragraph, in some cases) it makes a lot of sense to abbreviate the units. PlasticupT/C02:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
"and after degenerating into a tropical wave the system passed through the Windward Islands." - could be a bit more crisp by removing "the system"...
"prevented strengthening to hurricane status each time; despite the unfavorable conditions, the storm was consistently anticipated to attain hurricane status." - this doesn't read great... probably should say that it was anticipated, then say that it didn't actually get it.
"In the Windward Islands, lightning from the system caused two indirect deaths in Trinidad" - don't need both "in the"s...
Notes, text squeeze between info box in the lead and the first image. Incorrect use of author field in cite templates. Websites need publisher, newspapers need work to be italicized, neither are authors. Inconsistency in author names; is it last name first or first name first? Please make consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The text squeeze is actually standard with the tropical cyclone project, in that the storm path map should be at the top-left of the storm history section, which is naturally to the left of the Infobox. I fixed the author fields, BTW. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment—It was significantly overlinked (see MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT, so I've reduced some of it to allow your high-value links to breathe. Making every month/day bright blue is kind of irritating when it's a date-based story. No one minds US date formatting, I can assure you. Repeat links undesirable here, I think.
Most authorities prefer although in a formal context. I notice this in just about all hurricane FACs.
Quite well written, but ...
"with winds of 80 miles per hour (130 km/h) or greater forecast within a few days"—greater?
Hint: avoid "as" unless perfectly clear whether a "while" or a "because": "Tropical Storm Chantal became disorganized as the center became ill-defined and situated to the west-southwest of the main area of convection".
"it" in the very last clause is redundant.
"The upper and middle level circulations"—See MOS on hanging hyphens.
"... although initially convection lacked near the center." If "lacking convection" will not change the meaning, I would recommend it. The phrase still bothers me though.. it had no convection at all?
"A tropical storm watch was issued for Barbados, St. Vincent, and Saint Lucia on August 15." Change to active voice and tell us who issued. --Laser brain(talk)06:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Very few of the citations have publication dates. Most only have publication years. I know it's a bit of a pain, but as the full dates are available they ought to be included in the citation. PlasticupT/C02:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
This article passed a Good Article Review on 17 June2008, but subsequently failed its A-Class Review - this seems to be the system, given that it only received a single support (although no opposes). Everything in the review was responded do, and if there were issues they were fixed. Given that in my opinion it did pass the ACR, it just did not receive enough attention from potential voters, I want to put it up for FAC, instead of going through the ACR process again. Please, tell me if there are any issues and I will immediately solve them, thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The Santa Barbara Sistemas reference is lacking publisher.
I'm assuming that current note 39 United Nationas Register of Conventional Arms is the same as the the ref "Spain" United Natioansl Register of Conventiaonl Arms? Probablys should list the note as "Spain" United Nations Register of Conventional Arms to make it consistent.
I'm unable to judge the reliability of the Spanish language sources.
Please alphabetize your references for ease of the reader finding them from the notes.
Thanks for the feedback on the sources; the Spanish-language sources are from El País, a national newspaper, while the majority of the rest are from a monthly defense magazine called Fuerza Terrestre - many of the sources used for this article (except those published in Fuerza Terrestres) were also used for the Lince (tank) article. In regards to the SBS reference, who would I mark as the publisher? It's the company's website. As for the alphabetization of the sources, sources without authors are listed first and by title, otherwise they are alphabetized by author. Finally, I changed note 39! JonCatalán (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The SBS, I'd list the company as the publisher, that's who is putting the information out. I'm sure Sandy will look at the Spanish language sources for me, since I'm distressingly monolingual. (Okay, well, some Latin, but that's so useful!) I'd alphabetize all the references together. The idea is that when the reader wants to look up the full bibliographical details, they go to the references list which is alphabetical and easily find the shortened form you've used in the notes. So the references should have the first item of the entry be whatever the first item of the notes is. Usually that's author, but if it is lacking an author, it's title. So you alphabetize the references by the first item listed in each entry to make it easier for the reader to find the correct entry. Right now, they can't do that easily. Ealdgyth - Talk13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll check the Spanish-language sources once they are cleaned up. JonCatalán, after several FACs, we shouldn't have to point out the same issues again. Please separate References used in the article from those not used (as Further reading). Please use consistent date formatting and linking within your citations. Please use the language icon (in Spanish) consistently within citations (either at the beginning or the end of each citation, as long as you're consistent). And please use endashes instead of hyphens on page ranges: User:Brighterorange can run a script to fix them for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
In regards to Spanish language tagging, all the references should have 'Spanish' added in the template (instead of adding the es icon out of the template) - the news article seems to put it at the end, and the rest seem to put it after the title. Perhaps the templates should be revisited, because in regards to template Wiki code all of the references are consistent. All of the articles and books cited in the references section are used in the text, as well. And, if I missed some references I apologize, but I thought I had changed all the dashes to en dashes. :/ I apologize. JonCatalán (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I was 'changing' all the dashes to endashes, but it won't save the changes - so, I'm assuming that they are already endashes. JonCatalán (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Both have been fixed! For the note, I kept consistency with the references and put Santa Bárbara Sistemas after the title, to denote the publisher - since, there is really no stated author. JonCatalán (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I think 'see also' sections are discouraged because they are not aesthetic. Many of those tanks are wikilinked from the article. Perhaps there is a better way of wikilinking some of those links? Thanks. JonCatalán (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has only improved since its (unfortunately) failed ACR. And yeah, "See Also" shouldn't be used in a well-wikilinked article. Cam (Chat) 06:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment on availability Hi, I am leaving my flat this weekend and so my internet access may be non-existant. I will try to access the computer prior to 14 July, but that's when I return to San Diego, California. If I do not respond to requests until then, you know my reasoning - I hope that this can stay open until then. JonCatalán (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Support
The Leopard 2E is expected to remain in service until 2025 at least - This needs to be rephrased as the end sounds awkward, but otherwise it's a fine article and definitely FA material. Skinny87 (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, since it's supposed to remain in service until 2025, I took out the at least (redundant, in any case). JonCatalán (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't make it past the first two sentences:
The Leopard 2E is a variant of the German-made Leopard 2 main battle tank tailored to the requirements of the Spanish Army, which acquired it as part of an armament modernization program named Programa Coraza, or Program Armor. The acquisition program for the Leopard 2E began in 1994, five years after the cancellation of the Lince tank program, when Spain started procurement efforts to acquire the Leopard 2.
WP:ITALICS are used for non-English language words, but the opening sentence is the opposite, with Programa Coraza unitalicized yet Program Armor italicized. Please check the entire article for italicization of foreign phrases (non-English). I can't sort what the first sentence means; it seems to be missing a comma somewhere, and I don't know what "main battle tank" means. I can't sort the meaning of the second sentence. Acquisition program ... procurement efforts to acquire? Isn't that redundant? I think it says the same thing three times (acquisition, procurement, acquire). Is it trying to say, "In 1994, five years after the Lince tank program was cancelled, Spain started the program to acquire the Leopard 2E? That's as far as I got; the prose is going to need attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Sandy. I did some copyediting to work on the sentences you mentioned and to do some copyediting per Tony's comments below. I hope it looks better now. If not I will continue to work on it when I return to San Diego on the 14th. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose until copy-edited throughout by fresh eyes. Here are random examples.
"In 2005 it was declared by the Spanish government that the 108 Leopard 2A4s were to cost Spain 16.9 million euros, which were to be paid by 2016." Clumsy sentence.
Equivalency. Why not plain "equivalence"?
"Like the Swedish Leopard 2S (Strv 122), the Leopard 2E also has increased armor thickness"—Spot the redundant word.
Hyphen? "identical second generation thermal viewers"
What's wrong with this one? "These are integrated into the tank's by"
Hey Tony, thanks for the review! I did some 'extensive' copyediting on the article, trying to get rid of some redundant words. I hope it looks better now. As per the hyphen in thermal viewers, I don't think there is one (one is not included in the source, for example - but the author of the source is Spanish and English is not his native language so I'm not sure). If it doesn't look good yet I will continue to work on it when I come back and try to put it through the league of copyeditors. Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I have asked another editor to look through the article and copy edit it as needed, but I don't know when said editor will be able to get to it. I hope that this FAC is not forgotten! JonCatalán (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Support with one caveat:
On my computer, there is a very large gap between the heading for Programa Coraza and the text in that section. I suspect that is because the image is underneath the infobox. Perhaps the image could be moved to the left?
With the editing done while I was flying the problem doesn't seem to show up on my computer here, but I did see it when I was using a computer in an internet café in Madrid. Is the problem still existing on your screen? JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Note, partial and incomplete date delinking on yet another FAC, and failure to add WP:NBSPs on delinked dates. Also, is it Armor Program or Program Armor? The article is inconsistent. All of the date delinking and NBSPs need to be fixed. Incorrect endashes as well (2003 – 2008); please have someone who knows MoS go through and catch all of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for going through and offering some samples. For example, I tried to add some nbsp's were I could find the need for them, such as Leopard 2 and what not. I'm not sure about 'manhours' - it's certainly the terminology the source uses, but it may not be politically correct from an English-speaking perspective. I'm not sure. JonCatalán (talk) 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I've withdrawn my oppose, but there are still a few things to fix. There's "2x" in the infobox; is this meant to be two times ...? If so, "2 ×".
"with 15 more being delivered before the end"—Remove "being".
Should "Leopard 2E" be bolded in the captions?
"It is also one of the most expensive Leopard 2s built to date"—Remove "also". I see other alsos that need to be weeded out ("scope ...").
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it is comprehensive, almost exhaustively so, the images are all correctly copyrighted, and the prose has been copyedited by several people and is succinct/concise and treads a line between technicality and losing meaning. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
"(2½ in)" → "(2.5 in)" (throughout article) (I think I got them all)
You've mixed using the Template:Citation with the templates that start with Cite such as Template:Cite journal or Template:Cite news. They shouldn't be mixed per WP:CITE#Citation templates.(I couldn't finure out whether that was a book or journal - it is a gov't report. I have made it book and will look for some isbn or something)
Otherwise sources look good and links checked out with the link checking tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the reliablitiy of the non-english sources Ealdgyth - Talk12:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
MushroomExpert has been used on several other Mushroom FAs. It's managed by a published author and speaker. The Turkish Journal of Botany link is not dead; direct linking to the PDF is not allowed even though the article are free to access. I tried replacing it with a link to the abstract. Circeus (talk) 16:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Hm, on mushroom expert though, we need some idea of how reliable it is. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. Ealdgyth - Talk13:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The site is overseen by the main site-owner and contributor who I presume vets all contributions. This is tricky as mycology is somewhat obscure but I will see what I can find. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 21:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Given the extremely contentious nature of mushrooms (snickers), I'm pretty sure that if you can show that the guy who puts out the web page has managed to have something published in a third-party press on mushrooms, that'll go a long ways towards showing reliability. Ealdgyth - Talk22:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Second para - "It may be sold fresh in Finland..." seems to suggest that it cannot be sold fresh elsewhere. Is this the case? (yes, the article mentions a ban in Germany, Spain, and all english guidebooks strongly advise against eating it. I have no idea about eastern Europe WRT commercial sales to individuals as such, but Finland does stand out in its consumption of this fungus)
Taxonomy and naming, second para - why are English common names italicised? This seems odd. (Italics are used for emphasis of a word when it is stated. I concede it is confusing as scientific names and foreign words lose their marking feature. I'll ask Tony on that one)
Fourth para, second sentence: "most closely related to the genus Discina, and also Pseudorhizina, Hydnotrya" - is a word missing here? (I reworded to clarify)
Description, first para, fourth sentence: "Specimens from California may often have more reddish-brown caps" - it would read better if you picked either "may" or "often" (done)
Eighth sentence: "...with transparent spores elliptical and 17–22 μm in length"; perhaps "that are" between "elliptical" and "transparent"? (done)
Second para: "G. esculenta is somewhat similar in appearance..." "somewhat" is unnecessary, especially given the clarification later in the sentence. (reworded)
Distribution and habitat, third sentence: "The hunting period..." Is "hunting" really the commonly used term here? (I've seen morel hunting and truffle hunting written quite a bit actually, maybe its something about ascomycetes...)
Same sentence: "...and it may even appear"; "it" is ambiguous here, since (I assume) you're actually talking about the mushroom and not the hunting period. (done)
Fourth/Fifth sentences: "It can be common in some years.... The mushroom is more commonly found" - this would read better if the word "common" wasn't repeated like this. (abundant )
Sixth sentence: "Enthusiasts in Finland have been reported burying newspaper..." - tense disagreement (past/present) (I wrote it as "have been reported" (perfect passive - i.e. has happened and could keep happening) followed by 2 present active partiples and a past passive one 'inoclulated'. Erm, do you want me to change the participles?)
Second para, first sentence: "...is found widely across the continent, as well as...Mexico". Mexico is part of "the continent". (ok, fixed)
Third sentence: "...and more montane areas than lowlands". "More in montane areas", perhaps? (done)
Fourth sentence: Why are Northern Ireland and Turkey lumped together? (trying to highlight either end of europe that they have been recorded)
Toxicity, first sentence: toxic reactions in general?;) (clarified)
Second sentence: "or misidentification" seems out of place. Maybe something more along the lines of "The wide range of of effects seen led experts to speculate whether reported toxicity was caused either by an allergic reaction, or misattributed due to confusion with another mushroom". (yeah. done)
Third sentence: has an unencyclopaedic tone. (The whole para could use reworking.) (changed to 'become severely ill or perish' - I liked 'perish' here)
Second para, second sentence: "at the time" is implied; if retained, it would read better if it was moved further down in the sentence. (yep. removed)
Third sentence: "and there had not been a fatality reported" - what about "and no fatalities were reported"? ("There had not been" is a little clunky). (got it)(trimmed and reworded a bit)
The first para talks about poisoning. The second para introduces gyromitrin, then goes back to poisoning. Then the third para goes back to gyromitrin. It might read better if the name is introduced in the third para, instead of at the start of the second. (done. should have seen that one)
Third para, third sentence: "However" isn't necessary. (removed)
Fourth sentence: "unclear whether...or that..." Whether and that don't match here. (change to 'to')
Geographical variation, third sentence: "However" is unnecessary given the second half of the sentence. I would recommend ditching "however" and replacing "although" with "but". (removed however, don't think it needs a but though)
Symptoms: Para 1 is a little jargony - "more severe poisoning may present". Para 2 has a lot of big words - they are linked, but even I don't know what "mydriasis" is. The "Treatment" section could also be translated into natural English. (trying here. Tricky but making a little progress)
Carcinogenicity: refs 56-59 don't appear to the used elsewhere in the article. Couldn't they be combined into a single link?
Fourth sentence: ...it is possible there is a...risk" - needs a word like "that" in there. (added)
Fifth sentence: "It is not known if the toxins can be completely removed by parboiling" seems a bit out of place here. (it means potential carcinogens here, clarifyed)
Consumption, tenth sentence: "False morels are also sold prepared and canned, in which case they are ready to be used" - this would appear to contradict the toxicity information elsewhere in the para (and is uncited). (it comes from ref 69 as well, and it means they have been boiled as per the preceding process before being packaged for sale. Would merely adding a 'fully' help or should it be elaborated more?) --> ('False morels are also sold canned after being adequately prepared')?
Sentence 13 - "As well as Europe, Gyromitra esculenta is consumed in the Great Lakes region..." Shouldn't start the sentence with "as well as Europe" (and if you did, it would need the word "in"). (Changed to 'Outside of Europe' as a natural link, or do you think it can disappear altogether?)
Prospects for cultivation, second sentence: is this supported by ref 78? (ref 79 did, but I tweaked it to show how)
Third sentence: "Furthermore, the fungus has been successfully grown to fruiting in culture" - "in culture" isn't clear. "In cultivation" or "in culture media"? (media it is)
Thanks. nice to open the scoring on this one. Do you mind if I strike the above or put it in one of those collapsible box thingies or something? Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. (COI declaration: I helped Cas a little bit to write the toxicology section) I believe it meets all the criteria, is well written, and all the medical info is up to date.Mr Bungle | talk23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Support and comments::fungi known as "False morels", and later (Snow morel) - query capitals (gosh, thought I had them all. gone)
It is also common in Central Europe and less commonly in the east, - is this grammatical? (commonly --> abundant)
As well as Europe, Gyromitra esculenta is consumed in the Great Lakes region and some western states in the United States. - I know Americans are hearty eaters, but doubt if they could swallow even a small continent. jimfbleak (talk) 13:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)(changed first bit to 'Outside of Europe')
"For vampires in general, it is shown that daylight is not good, but it does not cause them to burst into flames" - prose in general needs a spiff... it's OK (GA quality) but not really professional (FA quality)... Get someone who hasn't seen it to do a copyedit.
I have given the image a better rationale (I think), and I added some mention of reception to the lead. I will ask someone to copyedit the article soon. Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion05:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. I really like the production and reception sections and the free images inside them. I copy-edited some of the article, but after reading the beginning of the plot section, I was… well, lost (hmm, that doesn't work as well here). Some tips for the future: Instead of ], just use ]s; avoid self-references ("we") and contractions and make use of the edit summary field. I am not convinced that the picture being used has the strongest fair use claim of any possible screenshot. The necklaces, the funeral, the stabbing or some other picture may be better than a close-up of the (already pictured) main character hugging someone whose face cannot be seen. And have you seen this? Excellent work, –thedemonhogtalk • edits07:30, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The comingsoon.net link was replaced with the official Comic-Com website. The tvbythenumbers link was inserted to give credibility to the ratings, as two sources are better than one. I know moonlight-archive.com isn't a reliable source, but it's an interview. Trevor Munson said those words (unfortunately to an unreliable source) but I still think it's ok to provide the source. Futon Critic, I know it isn't considered to be very reliable, but that's the only place with that kind of information. Could exceptions be made for those citations? Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion14:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, WP:V isn't a guideline, it's a policy. To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Ealdgyth - Talk13:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I removed the TV by the Numbers reference. I still stand by my comment that the moonlight-archive.com should be allowed to stay. It is an interview, so I don't think (and this is what I think) that it really matters on which site it is posted. As for The Futon Critic references, I will try to find alternate sources. Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion09:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want, please take the moonlight-archive issue to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard where others can weigh in on the issue. For me, it's a matter of how reliable is the place recording the interview. How do we know they didn't edit the interview or insert some bias into it. While it doesn't appear likely in this case, it's always a concern. Ealdgyth - Talk13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeComments
Needs a fair amount of copy editing. Here are some examples from the start of the article:
Lead image caption needs to avoid repetition of "body" in the same sentence.
Opening sentence - no need to specify both "pilot episode" and "first season" since pilots by definition must preceed the first season.
Lede second sentence - need to define "sire" for those not familiar with vampire lore.
Lede third paragraph - rewrite to avoid saying "critic" three times in two sentences.
Plot section, first paragraph - "Mick arrives at the crime scene of the murder of a young woman" is a little clumsy, something like "...arrives at the scene of the murder of.." reads better
"Beth takes the picture, but cannot help but notice large puncture wounds on her neck" - I haven't seen this show, but are we really aware of her inner thought processes to this extent? Can she really "not help" but notice the wounds?
"While thinking of vampire-related titles for her story" - same issue - how do we know what the character is thinking?
"Beth runs into Mick, who she says looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other" this seems like a convoluted way of expressing a simple sequence. I had to read this a couple of times to sort out who exactly said what to whom. You could split it into separate sentences to make it obvious: "Beth runs into Mick. She says he looks very familiar, but he insists that they do not know each other"
"At BuzzWire, Beth's editor tells her that she likes the vampire angle, with Beth saying it just came to her." - sudden jump of scene within the same paragraph. the phrase "with Beth saying" is confusing - is Beth talking simultaneously with her editor? Again this sentence needs a rewrite.
"The next morning, Beth finds the dead woman's car, with a necklace hanging from the rearview mirror." How does she find the car? Just a lucky coincidence?
"Meanwhile, Mick goes to visit Josef, his vampire friend who is 400 years old." - what is the important information here: that Josef is Mick's friend, that Josef is a vampire, that Josef is 400 years old or that Mick visits Josef? It seems like too much information crammed into one sentence.
"Josef seems concerned about the "vampire" murder being bad for their safety." Why the scare quotes around vampire? You haven't told us yet whether this is a vampire murder or not. Do vampires really murder their victims? Aren't they feeding? Is that the same as murder?
"Mick goes to the morgue to get some blood and information from his friend, Guillermo (Jacob Vargas)." what does "to get some blood" imply? Is he really drinking the blood of his friend Guillermo? That's a very good friend.
"He smells the dead girl found in the fountain, and realizes that a vampire did not kill her." Is her body in the morgue? How does he know a vampie did not kill her by smelling her blood?
"Mick and Beck break into the dead girl's apartment and find another of the necklaces, with a vial of blood inside". Who is Beck? We haven't been introduced to this character yet. Or is this a typo for Beth? If so, why is Mick working with Beth? You say "another of the necklace" but this is the first mention of necklaces or vials of blood, so I'm confused.
"Someone calls Beth, a person named Josh (Jordan Belfi), and Mick disappears". Re-order this sentence: Josh (Jordan Belfi) calls Beth, and Mick disappears". You also need to say why Mick leaves (or does he literally turn invisible?)
"...her lecturer Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin)..." only "Professor" should be wikilinked to Professor, since that article is not about the character of Professor Ellis.
These are just examples. The whole article needs a pretty thorough rewrite by someone who hasn't worked on it before. I'm afraid this isn't at featured article quality yet. Gwernol11:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these specific issues, Cornucopia. However, I think you need to get someone fresh to do a thorough copy edit of the article. It still suffers from prose issues and doesn't flow well for the reader. You still have lots of very short sentences in there which break up the flow and make it hard to follow the plot your writing about. The The examples above are examples, rather than an exhaustive list of the issues that need to be fixed. For now, I'm remaining opposed, though I'd be happy to reassess this after further work. Good luck, Gwernol12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've taken another look at the article. Sorry it has taken a while, I have been busy off-Wiki. The article has definitely improved - thanks for the hard work. I've found fewer issues with it, so I've removed my formal oppose, above. However I'm not ready to support it yet. There are still some prose issues I'd like to see ironed out. I've fixed a couple of obvious ones, but several need an editor who is more familiar with the show and this particular episode. Here's what I found:
The wikilink of "sire" goes to Childe (World of Darkness). This seems problematic. The linked article is tagged as having multiple issues. The linked article deals with the term childe, not sire (though sire is mentioned as a synonym). Most importantly that article covers a different mythology from the Moonlight mythology - is the vampire legend in Moonlight really exactly the same as World of Darkness?
In the plot section: "Beth has some one on one time with Ellis..." too informal and unspecific. Does this mean Beth talks to Ellis after the class is over? What do they talk about?
Plot section: "Beth passes out..." its not clear to me why she passes out, since it was Mick who was stabbed
Plot section: "Mick...lights the place on fire" you shouldn't refer to "the place" without having first told us that "the place" is. Can you change "the place" to be more specific?
The Continuity section is misnamed, since it deals with part of the pilot, not its continuity with the rest of the series.
Continuity section: "Vampires also have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well, smell the past and glimpse the future" - there are no senses that can be heightened in order to allow you to glimpse the future. That ability is not a heightened sense, it is something else.
Production section: "Trevor Munson ... spent the better part of two and a half years writing a novel around this character" should read "...writing a novel featuring the character"?
Production section: "The script later fell into the hands of..." again suffers from being too informal and not specific enough. Can you clarify this?
Production section: "...to turn his script into a television series" reword to "...to rewrite the script as a television series"
Production section: "With an almost entirely different cast, a retooled, full-length pilot for television audiences was re-shot and creative control of the show changed hands". This needs to be split into two separate sentences. The information about reshooting the pilot is separate from the information about creative control changing hands. In the second sentence we need to know who gained creative control and why.
Production section: Picture of Bruce Willis - Willis was briefly mentioned as a possible cast member for the film version of the series. It seems odd then that the only photo illustrating this section is of Willis.
Production section: "Originally, Josef was to be portrated by Šerbedžija, who according to O'Laughlin, was twice Jason Dohring's age". Not sure about the "according to O'Laughlin" bit. Is there some doubt that Šerbedžija was twice Dohring's age? I've already fixed the spelling error in that quote.
Production section: "it was a concern that he was more a "father figure" to Mick when Josef was much older" I just can't parse this phrase. What exactly is the studio's concern - that he would seen as a father figure because he was older? Father figures usually are older. This needs to be rewritten to more clearly express the intent.
Reception section: "Maureen Ryan of the Chicago Tribune also praised the lead actors, saying that O’Loughlin's was "passable in the lead role", and that Myles was "reasonably good"" I wouldn't describe saying that the lead actor was "passable" counted as praise, unless you want to include this as an example of "damning with faint praise". I think you need to reword this.
Reception section: I'm concerned that the lede does not properly reflect the reception section. Reading the lede I was left with the impression that the reviews were pretty mixed, with some pans and a few positive. After reading the reception section, its pretty clear that the pilot was almost universally loathed by the critics with only a couple of minor exceptions - and even these amount to faint praise with significant caveats. I think the lede needs to more accurately reflect this.
Hope that is helpful. The article is much better and getting closer to the prose quality required for a Featured Article. Best, Gwernol12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed most of the points raised, though I am not sure what to do with a few. Another user requested a meaning for "sire" in the lead, though I am not sure how to insert it without making it sound akward. Do you think it would be okay if I left it as it is? I changed the "Continuity" section to "Mythology"; I couldn't think of anything else. For the sense thing, seeing the future could be related to "the sixth sense" (I realise how stupid that sounds). The source I used to verify that statement uses those exact words, so I'm not sure what to do. Maybe change it to "Vampires have heightened senses, allowing them to hear very well and smell the past. They also develop psychic powers, allowing them to glimpse the future". As for the photo of Willis, I previously had two others (which were more relevant), but they were both deleted. That was the only free image I could find. :D Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion14:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually the "other user: who asked for sire to be Wikilinked was me :-) My point above was not that it was incorrect to Wikilink sire, but that the particular article you linked to doesn't seem like a good one. The right link would be (in order of preference): 1) an article about the specific meaning of "sire: in the Moonlight mythology (or a link to the appropriate section of an overall Moonlight mythology article) 2) an article about the general concept of siring (again, or to a section in a general article about vampire mythology) 3) If none of the above exist, then find an external source that explains what "sire" means in the world of Moonlight, and use that to explain the meaning. Gwernol21:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I changed the link to the main Moonlight page, where I wrote a very brief description of a sire. I think the writing is a bit akward, read it and tell me what you think! Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion02:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppos-ish comment I have begun copyedititing the article, but I really find the plot summary to be too unfocused, long and unhelpful for someone (like me) who hasn't seen this programme. For example the first plot paragraph: Who are Mick and Beth etc. (private investigator, reporter, can be shorter than in the lead)? Why is it important that Beth tries to take pictures than takes pictures? Is it important that the body was found in a fountain? In the next paragraph, Beth writes an article for BuzzWire, although it has already been stated before that she "is reporting for the online newspaper BuzzWire". In general, the plot summary should be trimmed by one third down to 450 or less words, and the problem will mostly dissolve. I can't comment on the other parts of the article yet, but FA potential is there. – sgeurekat•c09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The length of the plot section seems better now. I'll reserve other comments for when I've finished reading the article. – sgeurekat•c06:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment (None of the following is meant to sound harsh, but it is my honest opinion as an FA reviewer, to help you get the article to FA quality.) The reception section appears to be a collection of every review that appeared in reliable sources, but in an unordered and unsummarized way. For example, the section mentions in several sentences how four different reviewers compared the series to Angel – why not say once that several reviewers compared it to Angel and be done with it? Reception of the cast appears everywhere, and info about positive and negative reception is mixed. Many sentences begin with "S/he said". There is no real flow; it reads like a list of reviews was thrown together to appear like prose, which is good as raw data in a GA, but not thoughfully arranged reception information in FA quality. Mind you, I have seen several FA episode articles do the same, so I won't oppose, but I can't give my support either. (To get my point better across, imagine if a wiki reader cares more about (1) whether Tom Shales of The Washington Post gave a negative review, or (2) if the show was similar to Angel, had a good/terrible cast, had (no) potential, etcetera. I.e. focus on the points of reception, not on the reviewers.) – sgeurekat•c15:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I originally wanted to wait with another comment until I have read the article very closely in full, but I just skimmed the reception section and must say, very good job. I'll give the article a good read-through and a copyedit tomorrow, and it's already looking very close to support (at least). Goodnight. :-) – sgeurekat•c19:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've run a copyedit through the plot section for conciseness, but you should check again where I messed up in grammar (not so likely) or plot summary (more likely). I have also left two invisible comments that should be addressed because the plot summary there (or the significance of sentences) didn't make sense to me. If the Mythology really constitutes most of the introduction to this episode, the section should either be moved before the plot section or should be merged into the plot section as the first paragraph, as this explains much of the plot. My reading of the Production and Reception section will follow. – sgeurekat•c15:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of merging some of the mythology into the plot, which I will do in a few minutes. If you feel that it is not better, then I can change it back and put the mytho section before the plot. Oh yeah, please make sure you keep on pressing control-c on your edits, just in case there are a few edit conflicts. Corn.u.co.pia♥Disc.us.sion15:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I am too unfamiliar with the show, but since I am not a big fan of stubbish sections anyway, I think it could find a place elsewhere. Maybe it works in the production section as an explanation after "the original concept", but that's just an idea. – sgeurekat•c17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think it's nearly there, but I've done all I could. You should still try to get rid of some "saying"s in the Reception section. It is also my feeling that the Reception section could do without four or so less quotes (they are little bit overwhelming I think), but I'll leave that decision to you. – sgeurekat•c17:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Support; I just did a casual read through and the prose has improved significantly since I last looked at it. Happy to support - well done! —Giggy07:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose—Requirement for professional-standard formatting (overlinked), Cr. 1a.
Overlinked. Many of your links are valuable to readers, and they're significantly diluated by the bright-blue patchwork at the moment. I delinked a few trivial ones at the top, including the date autoformatting, which, please note, is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). Please weed out the trivials throughout: items such as "CBS" repeated link, "eulogy", "assistant", "garlic", hello ...?
I took a spot-check on one single para in the middle.
A certain looseness in the tone, and I see reviewers above have pointed this out. "spent the better part of two and a half years"—well, um ... how long? If WP doesn't tell you exactly, who does?
The dreaded with as a connector (very poor) finished off by the ungrammatical noun plus -ing: "with Bruce Willis being considered".
"The script was then shown to ..."—We know it's a sequence of events, so remove "then".
"to executive produce the project"—nope, readers won't cope with that as a verb, despite the flexibility of English. "to be e ps on"
And there's another "with plus noun plus -ing".
Can you find someone else to go through the whole text and polish it up, please? It's not a huge job, but needs doing so we can be proud of it. TONY(talk)12:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Made a few tweaks. Seems good enough now. I think I preferred Image:Rade Serbedzija.jpg to the image of Bruce Willis. Everyone knows what BW looks like. It seems more interesting to see what Dohring's character almost looked like. There's probably some reasoning behind this I don't know about. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, 1a (prose/narrative) and 1c (sources). The prose is pretty good but there are errors and narrative problems as outlined below. The plot section needs copy-editing. Also, there are a couple questionable sources (TV Guide and TV Squad, details below).
I don't really understand the genre classification of "supernatural" in the lead. What makes a drama supernatural? In the article about the show, it is called a "paranormal romance".
"Behind the scenes, the pilot underwent several major changes." Not a good paragraph opener. Suggests context that isn't there yet—changes from what? Describe what was changed before you say it was changed. You go on to mention an "original short presentation" that we don't know about.
Run-on sentence in the lead: "Many critics criticized the acting and the writing, one said that it had the 'worst writing of the new season'."
"After the dead woman's lecturer, Professor Ellis (Rudolf Martin), has given an eulogy at her funeral, a blonde girl named Chloe attacks him, slashing his neck." The phrase "dead woman's lecturer" is odd. People have dentists and gardeners, but not lecturers. I'm not certain about regional dialects, but "eulogy" normally is pronounced beginning with a "y" sound meaning it should be "a eulogy".
"Beth tracks down Chloe, who explains the professor's vampire-worshipping blood cult and his belief in being a vampire." Meaning he believes he is a vampire, or he believes he can become a vampire?
"Later Mick finds Chloe's dead body, and knowing Beth has gone to Ellis's class, he runs off to save her." Are we to assume Ellis has killed Chloe? Don't make readers guess at this if it was stated in the show. Ellis had a class after being slashed in the neck at a funeral? "Runs off" is inappropriate tone.
"Ellis attacks Beth and though she escapes ..." Prefer "although" for more formal prose.
"When she wakes up, she remembers that Mick saved her as a child and that he was stabbed by the assistant." These happened at the same time? Confusing narrative.
"The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology ..." I'm not convinced what you've listed is a "unique" mythology since I have seen these elements of vampire mythology in other fiction. Please provide a relevant quote from your sources that establishes the mythology as unique. A TV Guide episode recap is not an acceptable source for critical interpretation.
"Joel Silver and Gerard Bocaccio came on board ..." Colloquial, please revise.
"The project was renamed Moonlight when CBS gave it an early pick-up ..." What is "giving an early pick-up"? Explain jargon or wikilink.
The TV Squad source is unreliable, I think. I was looking around the site for their editorial guidelines and I saw "There are no strict editorial guidelines; every blogger's opinion is his or her own." That's bad news. --Laser brain(talk)20:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, according to our guidline, "As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." TV Squad's own FAQ (as quoted above) states that they do don't that at all—there are no editorial guidelines. --Laser brain(talk)21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have fixed most of the raised points. I increased the lead size, what do you think? For this line: "The conventions of Moonlight are based on a unique vampire mythology", I added a reference to an interview with O'Loughlin. I think the TV Squad ref is okay, it is not sourcing anything controversial or important; it is merely sourcing an editor's point of view. Corn.u.co.piaŢĐЌDisc.us.sion04:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Much improved—your use of TV Squad seems okay on second look, but I'm not convinced the particular blogger you cite is anyone special. Why should his views be cited in an encyclopedia article? Do you have any print sources citing TV Squad as a notable blog? --Laser brain(talk)05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I removed the line that mentioned the reviewer, though I left the parts that were described by him; e.g. "Several critics compared it detrimentally with the television series Angel". Is this compromise good enough? Corn.u.co.piaŢĐЌDisc.us.sion10:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because viruses are important and despite their tiny size, very complex. Because of their complexity, the main article, Virus, can be difficult to understand in parts, especially by those readers with little knowledge of biology. This Good Article has had two especially helpful peer reviews and I think it is ready to be considered for FA. My long-term project is to improve the coverage of virology on Wikipedia and I want this article to be a useful, general introduction not just to Virus, but to other articles in which viruses are discussed. I thank all my fellow editors whose names can be found in the article's history, but stress that any errors are entirely my own work. GrahamColmTalk14:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes," – for a general introduction, I'd add some subclause about DNA and RNA, and wiki-link protein.
"plasmids, that can move within, leave, and enter cells and this is the cellular origin theory" – should probably be similar to what is in the lede: "plasmids, pieces of DNA that".
"to study tobacco mosaic virus. He published the results of his experiments which proved that crushed leaf extracts of infected tobacco plants were still infectious after filtration." – sounds a tad awkward. The "his" is probably redundant. And it should probably be "what is now known as the tobacco mosaic virus", if the word virus was introduced only later.
Sure, I don't want to be over-picky. Another point, though: is it important to stress that he published his results? Was that unusual at the time? If not, I'd make it "His experiments showed...". Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar." – a bit ambiguous; presumably the area of death is not on each bacterium, but instead on the agar?
Better now; how about "described viruses that, when added to bacteria growing on agar, would lead to the formation of whole areas of dead bacteria." or similar? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"Wendell Stanley examined tobacco mosaic virus" – is that scientific usage? I'd expect there to be a definite article.
Yes again, it is scientific usage, like we never say "the smallpox virus" of "the rotavirus", but in an introductory article, I think the definitive article is better, thanks. GrahamColmTalk
"in fertile chicken eggs" – not clear what that means. What are infertile chicken eggs?
The ones you buy from the shop, most chickens eggs are not fertile, that is they will not hatch. But I'll delete the "fertile", it's obviously a distraction. GrahamColmTalk18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"this virus was separated into protein and nucleic acid parts" – I'm pretty sure this is the first time nucleic acid pops up. Definitely to be wikilinked, and I think there should also be a brief explanation of what those are.
"The proteins that attach to the DNA or RNA are known as nucleoproteins, and together form a nucleocapsid." – reads a bit abrupt. Should it be something like "There also exists an inner shell around the DNA or RNA, formed by proteins called ..."?
"Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm." – so as not to give the reader pause, it should probably be noted that "sub-microscopic" refers to ordinary light microscopes.
Yes, this is explained in the link, but it should be made clear without the reader having to click on it. I'll find a solution to this. GrahamColmTalk18:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
"Most organisms use DNA, but many viruses (e.g., retroviruses) have RNA as their genetic material." – I think it's sub-optimal for this to be the first time retroviruses are mentioned, and without any explanation.
"Genes are made from DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and, in many viruses, RNA (ribonucleic acid)." - since this is for a general audience, might one want to mention the word "double helix" somewhere?
"Viruses, although simple compared to cell-based organisms, are very efficient at reproduction." - I don't understand that sentence. Why the "although"? Is there a natural link between being complex and reproducing effectively?
"called segmented genomes." - I think it's a bit odd that this is the first mention, properly wikilinked, of genome. The problem is that wikilinking gives graphical emphasis. A reader might think that the new-and-important thing here is "genome", whereas what's significant here is "segmented".
"Most viruses produce a protein that is an enzyme called a polymerase." - wikilink polymerase? And I think the following description should be expanded to be more widely understandable. That the host cell has similar enzymes comes somewhat out of the blue; an extra sentence describing what the polymerase actually does could be helpful.
"Retroviruses are very different: they have RNA, but inside the host cell a DNA copy of their RNA is made." - since this is now the first time retroviruses are mentioned, they might be introduced a bit more directly: "For a certain class of virus known as retroviruses, ..." or similar?
"Main article: Viral life cycle Main article: Viral entry": if those are indeed two main articles (and not one main article and one "see also"), you should probably put them both into a single template: {{main article|Viral life cycle|Viral entry}}
"Other viruses such as HIV are released more gently by a process called budding." - budding links to "viral shedding", which includes both lysis and budding. Should it link directly to the budding section of that article? (With a comment added to that section, so that nobody will change the section title and break the link?)
"The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis." - any disease mechanism is called "pathogenesis", right? This sentence makes it sound as if that were a virus-specific term.
Is it only micro-organisms, though? What about heat-stroke – does that have a pathogenesis? I would recommend to leave the sentence out altogether, and wiki-link the "virulent" in the next sentence. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"People chronically infected with Hepatitis B virus are known as carriers who serve as reservoirs of infectious virus." - is there a non-infectious Heptatitis B virus? Also, and this is no doubt due to my unfamiliarity with the subject: I used to think that every little virion was called "a virus", whereas from this article, I gather that "virus" is properly a class name ("the Hepatitis B virus"), whereas the individual instances of that class are called "virions". If that is correct, should those people not be reservoirs of virions?
I'll remove the "infectious". WRT "virions", this is tricky. Strictly speaking a virion is a virus particle outside the host and often the term implies that the virions have been purified.
Re virions: OK! Another comment, though: presumably the term "carrier" applies more generally, not only to Hep B? That is certainly how the definition of "endemic" reads, directly afterwards. Should this be "People chronically infected with a virus are known..."? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"also spread by vectors, which are usually biting insects" - sounds a bit awkward as, grammatically, this could be read as a description of the habits of vectors, viz. that the vectors can usually be found biting poor hapless insects. "Blood-sucking insects" would make this clearer, but might not be entirely correct. Is there a way of reformulating this? Also, it might be good to reiterate the way this was introduced in the lede - many readers might not remember the lede's brief explanation of what a vector is.
"Some virus infections are spread by contaminated food and water (Norovirus and Rotavirus)" - can you not get, say, Norovirus by contact with an infected person? Using the same hygienic facilities, say, without direct contact with food/water?
Your version has only food/water for norovirus; its wiki page says it can also be transmitted person-to-person, and that the key substance is fecal matter. I'm pretty sure the latter is correct. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
But that's not as hard as it sounds. Person goes to the restroom, doesn't wash his or her hands thoroughly, you shake hands with that person, happen to touch your mouth with that hand afterwards – no visible amounts of pooh involved. I think the current version, with its emphasis on food and water for the norovirus, is too exclusive. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to make sure: I'm not talking about the lead, which now indeed has the other route; I'm talking about the section "Viruses and diseases". Markus Poessel (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Normally plant viruses only cause a loss of yield." - to me as a non-specialist, that sounds like a superficial distinction. Isn't a loss of yield an indication that the plant "isn't feeling too well"? Some general loss-of-form that, if it were to occur in humans which can tell us about these things, would certainly be called a disease?
"These are normally insects, but some fungi, nematodes and protozoa have been shown to be viral vectors." - I guess most people will know what fungi are, but nematodes and protozoa might benefit from a brief subclause of explanation
The addition of "worms" helps - what about protozoa? Is there a brief addition that would make clear what those are? "single-cell organisms"? Markus Poessel (talk) 14:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"Plant viruses are harmless to humans or other animals." - this makes me very curious: is it easy to say why? Can this be traced directly to some difference between plant and animal cells? If there is a reasonably brief explanation, I would encourage you to add it to this section.
"They are important in marine ecology because they release carbon compounds from bacteria they have destroyed back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth." - this sentence could probably be polished. How about "They are important in marine ecology: as the infected bacteria burst, carbon compounds are released back into the environment, which stimulates fresh organic growth" or similar?
"Interferon is produced by the body when viruses are present and this stops the viruses from reproducing." - another case where a brief hint of how this works would be a great addition.
I think this could be even more explicit. Here's my attempt to translate what I found in the wiki article interferon: "The body produces special proteins called interferons, which slow down viral replication within the infected cells, activate certain kinds of the immune system's killer cells, and help the host cells to become more resistant to virus infection." Markus Poessel (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Markus, I don't agree with this, they induce apoptosis programmed cell death. I think my synopsis is better.
OK, I'm no expert - I just go by the wiki articles here... in that case, the small remaining quibble would be that "Special proteins called interferons" might be better – else the reader might think that they were already supposed to know what interferon is. Markus Poessel (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
The description of antibodies would be made more lay-reader-friendly if it included a brief description of how antibodies kill viruses. Do they bind to some specific part of the virus? What do they do?
My personal preference would be to expand this even more – is there a brief way of saying how the attachment of these molecules kills the virus? Mind you, this is optional, but I for one would find it interesting, and think it is worth adding. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
"Plants have elaborate and effective defence mechanisms against viruses. They have resistance (R) genes that protect them from viruses." - unless resistance genes are the only mechanism, how about "One of the most effective is the presence of so-called resistance (R) genes", plus a brief sentence of how this protection works?
Personally, I think the additional information is very helpful. The spots are, presumably, visible on the plant's leaves and/or stem? If yes, it might be good to say so; before, we're always talking at a micro-level; now, we're presumably talking macroscopic features? Markus Poessel (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Protective chemicals: how are those protective? As mentioned a number of times before, giving the reader at least an inkling of how the protection works would, I think, be a significant improvement.
"Vaccination is a way of preventing infections by viruses." - again, I'm not an expert here, and I'm a bit confused now. Earlier on, I learned that infection occurs when barriers like the skin etc. are overcome by the virus; at that point, mechanisms set in that limit infection. As far as I understand vaccination, it stimulates these latter mechanisms - infection occurs, but it is quickly limited and overcome. Yet your first sentence states that infection is prevented, and doesn't even occur. Which is it?
Once more, a brief description of how vaccines achieve their tasks would be a good addition. I have some vague notion that they simulate an infection, so that, when the real virus comes, the immune system is prepared, with suitable antibodies in place (or something like that). If that is the case, I think it should be explained here. A simple statement that vaccines prevent a full-fledged infection can never be as memorable as even a simplified account of how this works.
"DNA replication is then stopped because these drugs lack the hydroxyl groups, which along with phosphorus atoms, are needed to make the strong "backbone" of the DNA molecule." - OK, here is an account of how this works, but it is rather technical. Is there a way of supplementing this with a simplified version? Would it be fair to say that the antiviral drug inserts some faulty instructions into the virion's genetic code; when that code is executed to build more virions, the faulty instructions make it crash? Or something along these lines?
Here, too, I think that a slightly extended version might be better. Ideally, the story should be told at a level where the reader can understand something, not just accept, OK, they stop it growing. If matters are too complicated, then this cannot of course be done, but if there's a simplified, yet reasonably accurate version, I'd gladly read it. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added two sentences of further explanation but this is a difficult request. To understand fully how these things work, the reader needs to know about the chemical structure of DNA, (and RNA), in particular the structure of the bases and how they are linked together. These drugs cannot form these links, so the DNA is faulty only by its being unfinished. GrahamColmTalk05:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I can see it's not easy, but it would be great if we could find a good solution. The current description is, I think, close, but not quite there. From what I glean from your description, is it something like (please correct what's wrong):
"Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, which are molecules very similar, but not identical to DNA building blocks. When the replication of virus DNA begins, some of these fake building blocks are incorporated. As soon as that happens, replication stops prematurely – the fake building blocks lack the essential features that allow the addition of further building blocks. Thus, DNA production is halted, and the virus can no longer reproduce."
"There is a class of drugs called protease inhibitors which inactivate this enzyme." - is there a difference between "inactivate" and "deactivate"? Also, if there is a simple way of describing what happens, this would make a great addition.
"In 80% of people infected, the disease is chronic and without treatment they remain infectious for the rest of their lives." - temporarily ambiguous; I read this as "the disease is chronic and without treatment" (i.e. untreatable) before reading on and realizing that "without treatment" doesn't refer to the disease, but to the people. "is chronic; without treatment"?
Interferon is only mentioned in passing, in relation to Hepatitis C. Isn't it more generally applicable? And once more, if there's a simple way of saying what those treatments do, this would make a good addition.
References, since this is FAC, and articles are meant to be in top form stylistically as well: citation styles differ a bit. Sometimes, the journal is in italics, sometimes it isn't. sometimes journal abbreviation and author initials use periods, sometimes they don't. To satisfy the stylistic criteria, citations should probably have a uniform style. How about using the templates available for that purpose, such as cite or Citation? In the case of the books cited, this would also provide a direct link to catalogues (via the ISBN).
I didn't mean you should use both. Choose one that's most convenient. The few citations I looked at didn't appear to use any template at all, hence my suggestion. Markus Poessel (talk) 01:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Markus, would you let me off with regard to this? Those templates can be useful; but they often make editing a real bummer. Given that I have mainly used only two (excellent) secondary sources, I think the article will not benefit from this. GrahamColmTalk05:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be picky, and if nobody else minds, I'll let it go, but: how about making the way that author initials treated uniform, as well? E.g. author initials always with a period, and always separated from the last name by a comma in the first instance. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
For Topley and Wilson, it should probably be "ISBN-10" instead of "ISBN-0". What follows, however, has a mere 9 digits. The citation also doesn't look quite optimal - the title, edition, volume and volume editors sort of run together.
Are there no external links that might be useful? Doesn't the CDC have links to information about virus infections for a general audience (useful for readers that are driven to this Wikipedia article by a sudden, intimate interest in one particular virus)?
The "Virus glossary" is made up of three nested tables, so it looks like an onion or something. There is probably not much that can be done about it, but I thought I'd mention it :)
SupportComments This is an interesting article and I want to thank the editors for writing it. Lay readers like myself really appreciate the work put into these introductions. Here are my questions:
I think the "Virus glossary" was a wonderful idea - very handy.
Viruses are about 100 times smaller than bacteria, and it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in). - This kind of comparative statistic is very evocative for a reader like myself who doesn't deal in measurements on a daily basis.
When infected by a virus, a cell is forced to make thousands of identical viruses. - Are they always identical?
Yes, ...and no. By appearance they are always indistinguishable, but sometimes there are subtle genetic changes. These changes are important of course, but this is a subtlety that is best glossed over in an introductory article. (I've alluded to this in the "reassortment" sentence). Graham
They reproduce at an extraordinary rate, but cannot do this alone - I wonder if it is worth repeating "viruses" at this point, just to be clear about the "they".
A virus consists of two or three parts: genes composed of either DNA or RNA, a protein coat that protects these genes, and an envelope of fat that surrounds some viruses when they are not within a cell. - So only some viruses have the envelope of fat but all viruses have genes and the protein coat? I wonder if this couldn't be made a little clearer.
Yes, this is true and I will try to make it clearer. Graham
I think "soccer-ball shape" is misleading - I thought that meant "round" or "spherical" until I clicked on it.
OK, and this is going to be fun. A soccer ball has icosahedral symmetry where flat parts with six and five sides are stitched together to form a round shape. Virologists love (soccer) footballs. GrahamColmTalk22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be, but it made no sense to me in the context of the article. I asked several other lay readers what they thought this meant and they all thought "round", too, and would not have clicked. I think "icosahedron" would be better than "soccer-ball". Too many people think they know a soccer ball is spherical. :) Awadewit (talk) 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Viruses of plants are often spread from plant to plant by insects and other organisms, known as vectors - "viruses of plants" seems like an odd constructions - what about "plant viruses" or "viruses that infect plants"?
Yes, this is the bad language of virologists like me. I'll change this. Graham
Some viruses are spread by biting insects - I was momentarily shocked by this sentence because I knew that viruses didn't bite insects! I think this could be worded better - "insects that bite " perhaps?
Oh yes, stupid me, insects that bite! (the bastards), I'll fix this. Graham
Whereas viruses such as influenza are spread through the air by coughing and sneezing - "by the coughing and sneezing of their hosts" perhaps?
Yes, viruses don't cough and sneeze, stupid me again. I'll fix this. Graham
others such as norovirus and rotavirus contaminate food or water - Is "contaminate" a human POV? :) Don't they just "live" there?
No, contaminate is the best word. Outside cells viruses are not living—they are in a kind of limbo. Graham.
they are usually completely eliminated by the immune system, conferring lifetime immunity to that virus - The immunity clause is worded a bit oddly, I think - what about "conferring lifetime immunity to the host for that virus" or something like that?
Some thought required by me here. Graham
The origin of viruses is unclear because they do not form fossils - I thought that a lot of evolutionary work was being done using DNA now. Would this still preclude identifying the origins of DNA-based viruses? (I am sure I have misunderstood something. My exposure to this topic is limited to Richard Dawkins, after all!)
Oh I dreaded this one. I deliberately avoided molecular phylogeny in this article because to date the technique can only "go back" a few decades, not the millions of years that viruses have been (we guess) around.
It might be worth mentioning the limitations of the technique, since the major popular books on evolution mention it. (Even I, who study literature, wondered about it!) Awadewit (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Over time, genes not required by their parasitic lifestyle would have been lost - This just sounds too funny! Seriously, though, I wasn't sure what the "their" was referring to.
Yes, this is odd, I must have been smoking something. I'll get back to you on this. Graham
Still reads the same here. (Someone also just pointed out to me that is odd to speak of viruses as having a lifestyle.) Awadewit (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth - It might be a good idea to mention when cells first appeared on earth. I'm thinking "long, long ago".
Hey, do we know? Must be millions. I'll see what the latest guessimate is. Graham
Viruses may have evolved from complex molecules of protein and DNA at the same time as cells first appeared on earth and have been dependent on cellular life for millions of years. - Should it be "may have been dependent on cellular life"?
No, by definition, they have to be dependent. Graham
In the late 19th century French microbiologist Charles Chamberland invented a filter with holes small enough to remove bacteria - This is a confusing beginning to the "Discovery" section - a filter for what? It seems a bit in medias res. Perhaps some more background?
Yes, more background required. Graham
A little more background added, but Chamberland was a bacteriologist, he invented his filter to sterilize liquids. It was the later use this filter was put to which is important in the history of virology. GrahamColmTalk18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a more general background would be helpful. Fill the reader in on the state of research into this area. It just seems too specific a place to start. What about some of the information from History of biology#Physiology? Awadewit (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
We obviously don't need all of that material, but some general background would help the reader. This is not a big deal, though. Awadewit (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
French-Canadian microbiologist Felix d'Herelle described viruses that caused areas of death on bacteria growing on agar - "areas of death"? The diction sounds a bit off to me.
Counting these dead areas allowed him to calculate the number of viruses in the suspension - To me, this sounds like one virus=one dead area, but that can't be right.
Here's how it's done. You dilute the suspension precisely, say 1:1000, put a measured amount of this diluted suspension on the lawn of bacteria. Later count the dead areas, multiply this number by 1000 and you get the number of viruses in the measured amount. Graham GrahamColmTalk13:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
A problem for early scientists was their inability to grow viruses without using live animals - This sentence is missing the "because" half - why did they need live animals? Why couldn't they grow viruses in the lab?
Because viruses only grow in living hosts. Lab techniques were a later development. Graham
Most viruses are sub-microscopic and their sizes range from 20 to 300 nm. They are so small that it would take 30,000 to 750,000 of them, side by side, to cover one centimetre - Why is nanometre abbreviated and centimetre spelled out? Is this some obscure MOS rule I don't know?
I'll check.
The DNA or RNA of viruses consists of either a single strand or a double helix. - Can there be a single strand of DNA or is DNA always a double helix? I was under the impression that DNA was a double helix, but perhaps not in viruses?
No, DNA can be single-stranded. Yours isn't, neither is mine, but these viruses......
Each type of protein is a specialist that only does one job, so if a cell needs to do something new, it must make a new protein to do this job. This is called protein synthesis. - Can the cell make any proteins not encoded in its genes? How "new" can we go?
Yes and no, a cell can only make proteins encoded in its genes unless a bloody virus gets inside.
There are two images illustrating viruses small size, one in relation to other teeny-tiny things and one in relation to a cell. As the images seem a bit crowded to me, I suggest keeping only the cell. The other chart requires more knowledge, I think.
Yes, I'll dump the chart. Graham
When a virus infects a cell, it forces the cell to make more viruses by synthesis of new viral nucleic acid and proteins, which combine to form complete new virus particles - Should this be "completely new virus particles" or just "new virus particles"?
No, not completely new, quite the opposite, identical, (more-or-less).
The ability of viruses to cause disease is called virulence and the mechanism is called pathogenesis. - Can we add a bit more substance to this sentence or integrate the terms into the surrounding sentences?
Therefore it is not economically viable to try to control them, the exception being when they infect perennial species, such as fruit trees - Can we get rid of the "being"? Ew.
The skin, particularly its surface, which is made from dead cells, prevents many types of viruses from infecting the host. - Is this human specific, mammal specific, what?
Animal, I'll fix this. Graham
Some blood cells eat and destroy other virus infected cells. - Is this easter-egg link acceptable for accessibility?
I don't know, what do you think? Graham
I clicked because I thought "why are they linking eat?" but I am a rather curious sort of reader. I would go with "eat (phagocytosis)" or something like that. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Antiviral drugs are often nucleoside analogues, (fake DNA building-blocks), which are incorporated into the viral DNA during replication - I'm not sure what "fake DNA building blocks" means.
Viruses have genes, they reproduce, they mutate, they adapt, they have sex, they evolve by natural selection, they spread across the planet, they grow in cells in our laboratories, they are, more often than not, a bloody nuisance to other living things; I don't think this philosophical debate is needed in an introductory article. Graham. GrahamColmTalk20:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought this was a debate. I'm reading The Way of the Cell, which explains different theories of life, some of which include viruses and some which don't. I'm confused now. Is this book crap? Am I being misled? Awadewit (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The virus article has a section on the "Lifeform debate" which begins "Viruses have been described as "organisms at the edge of life", but argument continues over whether viruses are truly alive." - Is this inaccurate? Awadewit (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I wrote that. It's best left in the main article I think. Awadewit, you have moved on, this introduction is no longer needed by you :) GrahamColmTalk21:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I would be curious what others more knowledgeable in this area think should be done about this. The concepts are easy enough to understand, so I think an "introduction" version could be written. Awadewit (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Awadewit, this has been fun and very useful. Thank you so much for these questions and your edits. I will address all of your points in the article in the morning. It's getting late in the UK. Best wishes, Graham. GrahamColmTalk22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
This sort of thing is always fun for me. I learn a lot and (sometimes) help improve an article. Thanks again for writing this. Awadewit (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
1) Is an "intro" article--which is supposed to be the function of a lead--something that we want to consider eligible to be FA?
2) I do appreciate the existence of this article, given the technical depth of the virus article.
On quick inspection, the article serves as a solid introduction to the topic, and the language is mostly OK.
The absence of a "see also" section is a little odd, given that this is an article whose existence is predicated on it being a guide to more in-depth articles.
Many of the other virus articles are in a poor state, (apart from Rotavirus of course). How about if I See Also the ones that I have at least managed to draw the life-cycle diagrams? GrahamColmTalk08:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
We already have at least two "introduction" articles that are FA - introduction to evolution and introduction to general relativity. These articles serve a necessary function that you outline well - the main article can be too technical for some readers. In my opinion, this longer, less technical article is better than a four-paragraph lead. We are better serving the needs of all of our readers this way. Awadewit (talk) 00:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and I also know that Sandy will take this into account when she judges whether or not a consensus has been achieved, there was a time, not that very long ago, (only last year), when I had only made two edits :) Graham. GrahamColmTalk22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Current ref 12 "Ernst Ruska Nobel Prize Autobiogrpahy" is lacking publisher, author and last access date.
Current ref 11, I"m assuming this is a journal article? What is the title of the journal, I can't tell because it's not in italics like the other journal entries
I took the liberty of alphabetizing your bibliography. Otherwise sources look good, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk12:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
For some reason the two external links do not work for me, going to "Page not found" and "Page cannot be displayed-System Error" error messages. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—I'll continue to sift through it for prose polishing, but I really think this is an excellent article. Check BrEng spelling? I see "colored", too, as well as "filter". And I think "three main theories of ...". Superb pics! TONY(talk)15:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I have found a problem in the article, which states in the lead: "is a microorganism". Looking at virus and microorganism, which both clearly state that viruses are not microorganisms, it becomes obvious that this article has some conflict with other articles. This is not a big issues, but it would be best if someone expert on the topic take a look at it.--haha169 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
"A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RNA, long molecules that carry the genetic information; all have a protein coat that protects these genes, and some have an envelope of fat that surrounds them when they are not within a cell." - shouldn't the final comma be a semi-colon?
"...to cover 1 centimetre (0.39 in)." - I don't think "cover" is the right word here - that suggests area. How about "stretch" instead?
"...that had pores that were smaller than bacteria."
"At the same time, several other scientists proved that, although these agents (later called viruses) were different from bacteria," - first comma seems unnecessary.
"The term virus was first used by the Dutch microbiologist Martinus Beijerinck who used the words "contagium vivum fluidum" to mean "soluble living germ"." - a comma after the name of the scientist, maybe(?)
Support - I have been following this article through FAC and have read through it many times. For me it is an excellent and very clearly written introduction to a topic I knew little about. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Should not "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" be at the same heading level, under "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals"? —Mattisse (Talk) 21:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Are you referring to this comment: Prevention and treatment" is still its own section, but it seems to be a part of the discussion of "Viruses and disease" to me. Awadewit (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)?
"Prevention and treatment" is under "Viruses and deseases". My issue is different. I am suggesting that "Vaccines" and "Antiviral drugs" are both "Prevention and treatment of viral disease in humans and other animals" and therefore both should be under that heading. Perhaps I am over picky or I misunderstand. Don't let me drive you nuts.—Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments - A few possible wikilinks, although I'm not sure if they add enough to not be overlinking:
Structure#Size, light microscopy -> Microscopy#Optical microscopy techniques (It's a little odd since sub-microscopic is already linking into Optical microscopy, so I'm not sure here);
Structure#Genes ¶1, DNA and RNA (they're wikilinked several times in the article already, but it's an important concept for that section)
Structure#Protein synthesis ¶3, Sense (molecular biology) (Either positive-sense RNA viruses or positive-sense or both, not sure)
Viruses and diseases ¶1, Populations and carriers -> Populations and Genetic carriers (important epi concepts, although they're covered in the endemic article too);
Viruses and diseases ¶2, Host (biology) (Same as population, although it is somewhat covered by host range in the glossary),
Viruses and diseases#Plant resistance, resistance (R) gene -> Gene-for-gene relationship (not sure on this one)
Viruses and diseases#Antiviral drugs, AIDS epidemic -> AIDS pandemic(although piped with epidemic instead of pandemic still).
The only other issue is could you please add an {{Information}} tag to the images and move them to commons(Magnus' commonshelper). They still satisfy criteria 3 for me, and I could move them, but as Graham is the artist on most of them I'd prefer he do it so he clearly gets credit for them. I'd support but I'm not quite comfortable with my grasp of the MOS and the general qualities needed for an FA. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I plan to move the images, and the ones on my user page, to commons. I'll move the ones in this article when its FAC closes. GrahamColmTalk17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has improved since I looked over it for GA. I wonder if it is not too late, however, to mention the research being put into viruses for use as medicine, such as JX-594. I think that might be of interest to the target audience of this article. bibliomaniac1517:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Oncolytic poxviruses, (such as JX), are very new and only discussed in primary sources. All I could add on this would come across as speculative at the moment. GrahamColmTalk17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - This is a very little complaint but it has bothered me for some time. In the sentence, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all have genes made from either DNA or RN....", do you think it should be "Viruses consist of..." in order to fit with the plural after the colon? Or, alternatively, "A virus consists of two or three parts: all viruses have genes made from either DNA or RNA..."? Each time I read it I wonder briefly if "all" refers to a virus or to parts. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Self-nominator. The major objection raised by the first FAC has been dealt with: McCain-written sourcing has been minimized, with in particular the POW section now being primarily based on the two standard works that cover all the American POWs in Vietnam, Hubbell's P.O.W. and Rochester and Kiley's Honor Bound. All remaining McCain-written cites now contain an explanation in the footnote for why they are being used. Another major improvement in the article came with the partial release of McCain's military records by the Navy a few weeks ago; the article now gives more specific dates, assignments, reasons for medals awarded, etc., than it did before. Various other improvements have been made since the last FAC as well. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Stylistic suggestion, but generally any section or subsection over about five paragraphs gets too dense for readers and probably should be broken into more sections or subsectioned. Specifically the Prisoner of War section is huge and daunting to even think about reading.
Ealdgyth, thanks for your comments and link checking as usual. Breaking the POW section into two parallel sections doesn't seem right, so I've divided it into three further subsections. I may tweak the names, but we'll see if this works better. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Turns out this cite isn't needed anymore, because the other genealogical cite being used supports the Scots-Irish ancestry. Removed. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The first source, the Naval Academy history web page, only says that the fixed B.S. curriculum started in 1933 and "later" was replaced by a much more elective curriculum. But we need the year, to support McCain's point that his poor class rank was partly caused by having to take a lot of courses he wasn't interested in/wasn't especially good at. The Military Operations Research Society source is used to fix the date of the elimination of the fixed B.S. curriculum, which was 1968, a decade after McCain graduated. Admittedly a symposium briefing document isn't as solid a source as a paper presented at the same symposium would be, but this material was likely taken from some other Naval Academy history that doesn't happen to be online (or if it is, I couldn't find it), and overall I don't see a reason to doubt it. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Urf. Im not convinced this is a reliable source for the information, honestly. Check the Naval History sites? Just a guess, but given the date they changed the curriculum, perhaps it was connected to the Vietnam War and maybe something related to that will show it? Ealdgyth - Talk17:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, the MORS cite has now been replaced by a 1977 article from the Air University Review journal (see this page for a description of the journal itself), which shows the reform to the fixed curriculum didn't start until shortly after McCain graduated, and didn't really take effect until around 1968. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
From Timberg's The Nightingale's Song p. 46: "Even though he lived it, or something like it, McCain recounts his romance with Elena these days as if it were a dream. In some ways it was. But it wasn't just his dream. With minor variations, it was the dream of all but the most inert midshipmen. Duty, honor, country, sure, those things were important ... the chance of someday being swept away and ravished by a beautiful woman in some exotic locale has always been an unspoken part of the deal. ... McCain's fling with Elena, though rare, was not all that rare. Things like that happened often enough to keep that goofy dream alive." Maybe I should add some of this to the footnote, to try to explain the usage. And thanks for the comment and praise. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments:In the section on "Family heritage", I wonder why the focus is exclusively on the paternal line of descent. This seems kind of sexist, unless his mother's side of the family consisted of a bunch of nobodys (and ditto for his paternal grandmother's ancestors, et cetera). I mean, if we're going to discuss the family tree, why only focus on people who had the last name "McCain"? That was a small fraction of the subject's ancestry, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Regarding "The family tree has a long heritage of American military service, with ancestors fighting ...", those ancestors include not just McCains but also various Youngs, who produced Elizabeth Young, who married Slew's father in 1877 , so there is some inclusion there. Regarding the focus on Jack and Slew McCain, that's the natural thematic approach that every bio takes, but if there is something interesting in other parts of the tree, I'd be happy to see that in. The other avenue to explore is the Teoc plantation in Mississippi, which might be worth a sentence. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
McCain's maternal grandfather was Archibald Wright, an interesting guy. He made a fortune as an oil wildcatter. Lived to be quite old. Born in Mississippi. A stay-at-home Dad after he hit it rich. (And a second-cousin four times removed of George Washington.)Ferrylodge (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've added Archibald. I've also added Teoc plantation, along with the slaves (I know, possible trouble magnet, but I think it's in context), sharecroppers, and Mississippi John Hurt (how weird is that) aspects, along with a statement that McCain's heritage has always been military, not Southern. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I just want to be clear that I did not ask for more info about his father's side of the family, such as slaves, Mississippi John Hurt, et cetera. Generally speaking, I think it's rarely necessary or useful for a Wikipedia biography to discuss distant ancestors whom the subject of the biography never even met. We got into this kind of thing at the Mitt Romney article, where people wanted to include lots of info about polygamous great-grandparents and that sort of thing. If distant ancestors are discussed in this article, I hope they at least stay here, and do not migrate into the main John McCain article. Again, all of this stuff about his father's side seems undue weight, given the dearth of stuff about his mother's side. It may be traditional to focus on patrilineal descent, but it's still sexist.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, adding the Teoc part was my idea, once the section was 'opened up' (I'd mulled over it previously). McCain did spend time at the plantation, so it and its history is relevant in the very brief way we now cover it. McCain makes a point that the ancestral attachment to a specific place made his grandfather's decision to leave it behind and adopt the rootless life of a naval officer more remarkable. Yes, the Mitt Romney goings-on were awful: people were trying to jam the whole LDS-polygamy history into that article. That ain't gonna happen here. Agree that there's no reason to add any of this to main article. As for sexist, McCain's mother gets several mentions in what I wrote, as a significant influence on John. Had she been born in a different era, she might have become a Navy Admiral herself, or an art professor, or who knows what. As for her ancestors, find more good stuff about them, we'll put it in. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, how about that Roberta and Jack eloped in Tijuana, after her parents disapproved of the marriage proposal? Doesn't this seem more pertinent than stuff about distant ancestors? How about that Roberta has a twin sister who's still alive? How about giving the ages to which John McCain's four grandparents lived?Ferrylodge (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the elopement. Rowena Wright seems a bit far afield; we have almost nothing on John McCain's own siblings. I added the years for Slew, but is there a source for the other three grandparents, including Archibald? From this John McCain peer review comment, apparently we can't use this Wargs genealogy, and this NEHGS summary doesn't list the years for the grandparents (can you buy the full report? dunno, but my WP "budget" has already been spent on Washington Post, Arizona Republic, and Philadelphia Inquirer archive articles :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 12:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Believe it or not, there is no full NEHGS report. The full article is two paragraphs long. But it still has some interesting stuff: "his parents were born in Iowa and Oklahoma. His grandparents were natives of Mississippi, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Texas."Ferrylodge (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the southern ancestry on both sides. I've also now worked in Rowena, as part of Roberta and Rowena's adventurous travel practice (serves to illustrate origin of McCain's instincts) and as a second cite on Roberta's role in informally educating him. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I do not understand the reluctance to mention that his mother was born in Oklahoma and raised in southern California. Apparently, those facts do not mesh with the theme that McCain is a southerner and descendant of slave-owners. There are now five footnotes to the article titled "McCain's ancestors owned slaves" though McCain never met those ancestors. McCain did, however, meet his mother. Can we please mention briefly that she was born in Oklahoma and grew up in southern California? It's fully supported by the existing references ("nehgs" and "nyt121407"). Thanks (and many people consider neither California nor Oklahoma to be part of the Southwest).Ferrylodge (talk) 13:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment:The bit about hitting the power lines in Spain says he was "flying too low over Spain." Was he in formation or alone, and did he get disciplined for it? Just curious, no problem if you don't know. Also, we mention all the awards he got, but do we know if he was ever subject to any formal disciplinary action (aside from at the Academy)?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Would love to know the answers to all of these questions. Please get the DoD to release his full Navy records! ;-) In particular, there's a story that the Spain collision caused a power blackout and a minor international incident, but Timberg says the tale is overblown. Would love to find a Spanish news story from the time on this. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment:I'd suggest adding the bolded words: "On July 3, 1965, McCain married Shepp in Philadelphia. She already had two children, Douglas and Andrew, born in 1959 and 1962 respectively; he adopted them the following yearin 1966."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "Made a lieutenant commander" should probably be "Promoted to lieutenant commander" or "He made lieutenant commander."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment:The article says his last bombing target "had almost always been off-limits to U.S. raids." This is kind of mystifying. Why would it have been off limits? I don't doubt that it was, but it might be good to briefly mention the reason, if we know it.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Due to its location in central Hanoi and the possibility of collateral damage. On top of all Hanoi targets being politically sensitive to begin with. Explanation added, same cite covers (the excellent Pribbenow article, for which I inexplicably didn't have a url link before, but now do). Wasted Time R (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Please change present tense to past tense: "lead led an effort to only write letters home that portrayed the camp in a negative light."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "Jack McCain's tour as CINCPAC ended in September 1972, despite his desire to have it extended so he could see the war to its conclusion." This is kind of mystifying, though undoubtedly true. Can we briefly mention why the tour ended (e.g. "routinely" or "due to incompetence" or whatever).Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
McCain says Nixon turned down Jack's request to stay on. Reason not clear, but apparently Jack (and John) somewhat bitter about it. I've been on the lookout for a more neutral source on all this, but haven't run across it yet. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
One of my military-knowledgeable sources says doesn't know the reason or a source for it, but suspects it was because during 1972 no one knew for sure how much longer the war would continue, and to keep Jack McCain on until it did would have meant his planned successor would have been put in "command limbo". Wasted Time R (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: These two sentences make it sound like he attended his father's funeral on the same day his father died: "Jack McCain died on March 22, 1981. The same day in late March saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life."Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Clarified it to "Later in March, the same day saw McCain ..." Just trying to end the article with some engaging prose! :-) Wasted Time R (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: When used as a verb, the word "nurse" usually means something that only women can do. "Overly, and subsequently Day, nursed McCain and kept him alive". Maybe "tended to" or "cared for" instead of "nursed"?Ferrylodge (talk) 18:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I dunno, this search shows a lot of writers using the same construct, including reporters for the New York Times and Arizona Republic. I know what you're saying, but I think the laxer meaning is now in general use. And "nursed" conveys more the heavy level of care required; see the Coram book on Bud Day for some graphic descriptions of what was involved. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Some more past tenses need to be cleaned up. For example, "In September 1964, he became a flight instructor at Naval Air Station Meridian in Mississippi, where McCain Field was named for his grandfather.". Does this mean the field was dedicated after McCain III arrived? If it had already been dedicated, the sentence should read "where McCain Field had been named for his grandfather". Melchoir (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. But would like to see something about his mother's side of the family, as mentioned above. And the heading "Final years" bugs me. How about "Final years in Vietnam"?Ferrylodge (talk) 19:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Thanks for all your comments and the support (I got off easy this time, but you're allowed to come back for more later ;-). Yes, I'll add the mother's side later today, it's on my list of things to work further on. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The POW subsection titles are new and I'm still ruminating on them. I've changed it to "Release" for now, which is what the somewhat similar chapter in Faith of My Fathers is called. I'm trying to keep them terse, because they're there are visual separators more than content indicators. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a section on the contemporary legacy of events during these years. Let me be clear, I do not, do not, do not want to see one of those petty little "Controversy" sections pop up in this article. But there must be a few worthwhile things to say. Is this a 1(b) concern for comprehensiveness? Melchoir (talk) 19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the other articles link back; I'm just wondering if there should be explicit links forward as well. Maybe the box is enough. Melchoir (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Maybe the readers don't understand that the "Main article" links actually point to a different webpage. It could also be that 97% of visitors don't care about the details and wouldn't have read the text even if it were returned to the main article. The complaints would be the most troubling to me; you'd think anyone invested and knowledgeable enough to complain would know where to look! Melchoir (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've thought the {{main}} template's wording could be improved, or maybe put in a different color font so that it's more easily seen. I agree that to really know what's going on, you'd have to monitor reader's web sessions and see where they go and what they do. For all we know, lots of readers may just read the lead section of articles and nothing else, in which case nothing we do to make subarticles visible would matter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the prose in the lead could be strengthened. I'm not quite sure enough about any of these points to just edit the page myself, so here goes: Melchoir (talk) 03:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"attended many schools growing up as his family moved among different naval facilities" Feels like some punctuation would help, and "among different" is redundant.
"adopting two children from her previous marriage and having another child with her" "Having" seems awkward, and "with her" isn't absolutely necessary.
"five and a half years" Should this be "five-and-a-half years"?
"out of sequence with other prisoners there longer" Needs a verb.
"and then was the Navy liaison" Unnecessarily passive, especially in comparison to the preceding part of the sentence. Would "became" be better?
"divorced his wife Carol in 1980, and married" This time I don't think the comma is needed.
"married the former Cindy Hensley shortly after." I think this should be "shortly thereafter". With "after" you expect a following phrase. (After what?)
I've made changes on these, see what you think. The only one I didn't do was "five and a half years"; a google search seemed to show that at least half the usages like that these days don't use hyphens. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment: "who were eventually won over by his combination of charm and penitence" -- weaselly and needs to attribute those to someone since not clearly factual. I think there is some more like this but I haven't read it all yet. grenグレン00:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. It's from Nicholas Kristof's reporting in this article, where he interviewed lots of people from that era. Kristof wrote: "Some family friends were appalled that a man who seemed so decent, so full of compassion for anyone who needed help, could treat his own wife in a manner they regarded as brutal. But Mr. McCain gradually won everyone around again, with the same traits he now displays after making a mistake: a combination of charm and penitence." If you read the article, Kristof gives specific examples of some friends where this happened. And note this story overall was not a puff-piece; it was Kristof's reporting in it which revealed that John and Carol McCain were not separated at the time he met Cindy Hensley, contrary to John McCain's previous assertions (and those of his biographer Robert Timberg). Wasted Time R (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not always the best with style but I still think "charm and penitence" should have quotes around it to show that it's not our words. Without the quotes it seems like we are ascribing these as definite feelings when it's (educated) conjecture of a writer. I think it's a fine sentence but that should be made clear. grenグレン07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into the quote and attribution business here (too awkward), so I reworded the clause to "... who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened." This seems to capture what those Kristof interviewed were saying. How does this seem to you? Wasted Time R (talk) 11:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport
I found it an interesting article, as he indeed seemed to live quite a full life at an early age.
I feel as if there are too many parenthetical statements. For a Featured Article, I think most of them can be integrated with the rest of the text.
Is there a MoS guideline about parenthetical statements being bad? If so, where? To me, they're a useful syntactic tool for including extra information without creating a digression or confusing the narrative. In one case, I've restored the parenthetical, for reasons given in the edit summary. I'm certainly willing to look at them on a case-by-case basis, but I don't understand the notion that Featured Articles shouldn't use them much (I may well have missed it somewhere). Wasted Time R (talk) 21:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I consider most parenthetical statements unnecessary for encyclopedic writing. If it's a digression, then it doesn't belong. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This may be your view, and you are free to use this approach in articles you write, but I don't see any WP guidelines against the use of parenthetical expressions. The FA Franklin D. Roosevelt article, to pick one I took at random, has about 20 real parenthetical statements and expressions in it (in addition to abbreviation introductions, date ranges, etc.). So I doubt there is any FAC prohibition or admonition against them either. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
While I have never been tortured in prison, and it is undoubtedly an emotional experience few are able to comprehend, this statement: and the North Vietnamese were never able to break him again sounds melodramatic and filled with praise. I think it would be sufficient to state that he did not feel as if his spirits were broken after a certain point.
I changed "were never able to" to "did not" which is a bit more matter-of-fact. Who knows what the North Vietnamese could have done if they had tried harder?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you quantify this statistic, please: By 1971, some 30–50 percent of the POWs had become disillusioned about the war and less reluctant to make propaganda statements for the North Vietnamese
Some imprecise phrasing was here. Hubbell, the source, says that 30-50% were disillusioned with the war, both due to lack of apparent military progress (meaning they'd never get out) and to the growing anti-war movement back home (which the North Vietnamese were happy to tell them about). As a result, "many" (but not necessarily 30-50%) of the POWs adopted a "to hell with it" attitude — why go through torture or other misery to resist giving a statement offering aid and comfort to the enemy, when members of Congress and half the country seemed to be make the same kind of statements on their own volition? Hubbell concedes that they had a point. I've now expanded and reworded this part a bit, but I can't go into too much description of this in this context. We really need an article on the whole Vietnam POW experience; right now, Hanoi Hilton partly does that, but somewhat illegitimately since a lot of what happened occurred in other camps. Other material is spread out amongst the individual Category:Vietnam War prisoners of war articles. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide a name or organization of who is speaking for all the POWs who cheered the resuming of bombing of North Vietnam? Since several sentences earlier the article states some of them were losing their faith in US motivation for the war, what is the difference here?
The previous answer should clarify some of this — much of the disillusionment was with the lack of progress in the war, not the inherent motivation for it, although there was some of that too. I've also found a New York Times article from March 1973, that confirms that most of the long-time POWs cheered the Christmas bombings, while some of the newer POWs were just scared by it. I've added this description and cite to the text. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can you state what about Ronald Reagan McCain admired? He was governor of California at the time. What part of Reagan's political or personal actions did McCain highlight as admirable?
Reagan already had a considerable national rep after being elected Governor (he was mocked onstage at Woodstock, for instance). But I've taken out the "role model", since that pertains more to McCain's future political career, and instead have added text describing what McCain admired about Reagan at this time (thought Vietnam service honorable, wouldn't get country into war it was unwilling to win) (whether the latter is really true of Reagan or any other prez is a discussion for a different time). Wasted Time R (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
While I can appreciate not all Vietnam Veterans experienced flashbacks, I cannot accept that someone beaten and tortured in captivity for over five years had no adverse psychological effects from the ordeal. I think the article needs to state right out McCain's own quotes about his never experiencing such a thing. (I still wouldn't believe it.)
I tend to disagree. The article already quotes psychologists: "Psychological tests, given to all the returning POWs, showed that McCain had 'adjusted exceptionally well to repatriation' and had 'an ambitious, striving, successful pattern of adjustment'." Moreover, I don't see why a person who goes through all that would not have positive psychological effects. Solitary confinement provides time for introspection and contemplation, which can be very beneficial, and one can learn a great deal about human nature by being thrust into such an extreme situation. So, I don't think there's any reason to assume psychological damage, especially given that he does not seem to have sustained any brain injury.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Being cloistered in a monastery gives one the opportunity for personal reflection. Being beaten within an inch of your life and tortured to say things that go against everything you've been taught does not foster a well-adjusted psychological state. Is there a direct quote from McCain that states he never had any adverse mental effect from his time as a POW? It appears from the article now that he has experienced more trauma from sleeping around and hurting his wife than he did at being tortured. I think that's an odd position of priorities. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the cited source, McCain "felt that he had profited by his experience and had changed significantly" and "learned more about himself, about others." Being subject to physical abuse can sometimes have a strengthening effect, though it's not something one would do voluntarily. Should we put this quote into the article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
This became a big issue in McCain's 2000 campaign, when Republican opponents started circulating the word that McCain was mentally unstable as a result of his POW experience. (See John_McCain_presidential_campaign,_2000#Campaign_developments_1999.) McCain had to release 1,500 pages of his Navy and civilian medical records, to show that this was not the case. Although he didn't experience nightmares or flashbacks, the sound keys rattling would startle him (echoing the sound the prisons guard had made); I almost included this once before, and have now done so. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
To the bigger question of how did the POW experience affect him, the whole last chapter of Faith of My Fathers attempts to grapple with this. I've included the biggest point he makes, at the end of the POW sections: "He also gained an appreciation, from experiencing the mutual help and organized resistance of the POWs, that his earlier individualism needed to be tempered by a belief in causes greater than self-interest." He makes some other points too, but I think it's better to "show, not tell" here: as the biographical narrative indicates, he hit the ground running (figuratively, not literally) when he came back, with a sense of purpose he didn't have before, and hasn't stopped since. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I was astounded that McCain had extramarital affairs in Jacksonville. Having grown up there, I wondered how he found these people. I think I shall chalk that up to his not being very discriminating...
Hmpf! As the footnote text indicates, some (maybe most, don't know) of the affairs were while he was on flight stops around the country, and thus not in Jacksonville. But, from the available sources, McCain seems to have been the "my type is every type" kind of guy ... Wasted Time R (talk) 22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Praise: The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality and his frequent expressions of guilt over what had happened Quotes from these friends would help it.
Everyone hates this sentence! (Already changed from previous commenter above.) The quotes from the cite that would be added are:
"We were ticked ... I'd glare at him, and he'd say, 'Nance!' ... If you meet him, you're under his spell. He's irresistible." and
"He has always felt very guilty about it. I have never talked with him for more than 40 minutes when he didn't bring it up, saying he felt badly about it."
Do we really want to bog the text down with these quotes? It risks giving the whole matter undue weight. And for sure we'd get criticism that the quotes are puffing up McCain even more than this text. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it has to be ponderous. Can you include something like ...were won over by the force of his personality, which had the effect, according to Friend X of being "adjective", and Friend Y as "another adjective". --Moni3 (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
It would end up as
The same happened with most of McCain's other friends, who were eventually won over by the force of his personality, which family friend Nancy Reynolds described as "irrestible", and his frequent discussions what had happened, about which liaison office subordinate James McGovern said, "He has always felt very guilty about it."
We're now giving this more space than how he reconciled with his children, more space than the divorce terms, etc. I just don't see the merit in it. Are we doubting Kristof's account of this so much? Are there other sources out there which claim that McCain lost most of his friends after the divorce? Wasted Time R (talk) 03:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this is a matter of how much space is devoted to one issue or another, but how information is presented as neutrally as possible. It's a bit frightening to think what impact this article might have on voters. Because of the time of year, this article should get extra scrutiny for POV. This is part of why I am concerned about the unreal aspect of McCain's not being bothered by his POW experience and the extra helping of guilt about sleeping around on his first wife. This illogical juxtaposition of emotions sound like the perfect things a candidate should say to sway public opinion. The editors of this article have more responsibility than other FAC editors. This may be unfortunate, but I don't think so. We have to hold you to a bit of a higher standard knowing how often this article is used by readers, and for what purpose. I admire you for bringing the article this far and working so diligently to make sure all the comments are addressed. --Moni3 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've worked on Hillary Rodham Clinton for three years, so I'm used to the added POV scrutiny and welcome it :-) But we're not claiming that he isn't "bothered" by some aspects of his POW experience. As the article says about his forced "confession", "He was haunted then and since with the feeling that he had dishonored his country, his family, his comrades and himself by his statement, but as he later wrote, "I had learned what we all learned over there: Every man has his breaking point. I had reached mine."" And of course, "His injuries left him incapable of raising his arms above his head to this day." which bothers him every day (he has trouble putting jackets on, and can't comb his hair). But in terms of general psychological effects, he's gotten a clean bill of health from a number of medical/psychiatric exams, many of which were conducted in the 1970s, long before he was viewed as a politician much less a presidential candidate. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure how much this is worth commenting on further. I guess you can decide. I'm not saying McCain should be under the bed with a knife in his teeth at the sound of loud bangs. There's a difference between having nightmares, anger at your captors, and shame for being broken, and being considered mentally ill. He doesn't have to be diagnosed with a neurosis or a psychosis for him to be affected by his experiences for years after. I wouldn't fault him for it at all. It makes him more human and seem less like a cardboard prop of a political machine. It wouldn't be his tensing up at the rattling of keys that would concern me about his being president. I think the article so far is written very well. It's quite engaging and tells a remarkable story about a young man's life. It just raises questions of logic; if McCain has said that the sum lesson of his time in captivity was that it made him more reflective and stronger, my opinion would be that he really hasn't dealt with the anger and pain of it all, or he's lying. --Moni3 (talk) 17:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
McCain has said: "Only a fool or a fraud talks tough or romantically about war. I hate war, and I know how terrible its costs are." Is there anything like this currently in the Wikipedia article?Ferrylodge (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
That remark was made in 2008. I prefer to use the quote that he said a couple of days after the 1967 Forrestal fire, that's already in the article: ""It's a difficult thing to say. But now that I've seen what the bombs and the napalm did to the people on our ship, I'm not so sure that I want to drop any more of that stuff on North Vietnam.""
McCain hasn't said that that was the sum lesson of this time in captivity. He spends a whole chapter ("Free Men") in Faith of My Fathers on this. Perhaps the key paragraph in terms of this discussion is this: "Neither did we expect to soon forget the years of anguish we had suffered under our captors' 'humane and lenient' treatment. A few men never recovered. They were the last, tragic casualties in a long, bitter war. But most of us healed from our wounds, the physical and spiritual ones, and have lived happy and productive lives since." (p. 345) To support that conclusion, you can also read POW James Stockdale's New York Times op-ed on this, "John McCain in the crucible", which he wrote after McCain was being hit with instability rumors during his 2000 presidential campaign. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This sentence is confusing: Later in March, the same day saw McCain attending his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and then flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life.
I've rephrased it: "Later in March, McCain attended his father's funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, wearing his uniform for the final time before signing his discharge papers, and the same day saw him flying to Phoenix with his wife Cindy to begin his new life."Ferrylodge (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I realize now I can fix the date in question - it's March 27, five days after Jack's death, per Worth the Fighting For. I've reworded again, based on that. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Not bad, but it's very heavily linked, which affects readability, appearance, and the likelihood that high-value links will be followed up. I see "Mississippi" linked many times in one para: two are separate, so one of those can go. "English" should not be linked. See MOSLINK. "Boarding school"? We do speak English. Tons of repeated links (such as "Southern/ers"). Just once, please. Complete audit required. I've removed the date autoformatting, which is no longer encouraged. See MOSNUM, which no longer encourages date autoformatting and which now prescribes rules for the raw formatting), and MOSLINK and CONTEXT. TONY(talk)10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Tony1, thanks very much for your comments. Regarding heavy linking, I've begun the reduction of these. "Mississippi" has been reduced, as has the overlinking in that first section. I'll continue with the other sections tonight. I will say that military articles tend to be more linked than most, due to the many place names, unit names, base names, equipment names, etc. that occur. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Regarding date autoformatting being discouraged, this is the first I've heard of that. I hope everyone agrees, because otherwise I'm going to get whipsawed on this. Also, if autoformatting is out, I'm screwed on the dates and accessdates in all the cites, all of which were done in the ISO yyyy-mm-dd format. Guess I'll have to look for a tool that converts all of these into the hardcoded American format.... Wasted Time R (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
"my father's career. ... At each new school"—Nope, "career.... At"
This article on a relatively rare but devastating form of stroke has been receiving the attentions of WikiProject Medicine for the last few weeks. It achieved good article status and has subsequently been undergoing further improvements and reviews. It has been externally peer reviewed by a neurosurgeon, whose advice was followed in ensuring that the article reflected daily medical practice and covered the medical literature available. I believe it meets the featured article criteria, and would benefit from being accorded FA status. JFW | T@lk23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Comments - ok, notes below - looks ok, complete yes and neutral, but prose needs soem work. I picked up the following - watch for repetition of words and lots of brackets. I will read again fter changes below, and note what others have to say. prose better now, others may find a few things more but i am pretty happy. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::The diagnosis is generally made with computed tomography (CT scanning) of the head - why not just 'The diagnosis is generally made with a CT scan of the head'?
Done 02:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::before arriving at a hospital - 'before reaching hospital' is smoother
Hmm, to me, I'd eliminate the article here, using 'hospital' as something like, well I am not sure but like a state I guess, and that's how I would use it in the UK or Australia. To me it flows better mentally. I will be interested to see what others think. Not a deal-breaker though. 02:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
these are aimed at assessing the likelihood that the symptoms are due to SAH and identifying other potential causes. - somewhat cumbersome, but an alternative doesn't leap to mind.
How about these are aimed at determining whether the symptoms are due to SAH or to another cause? Slightly different meaning, but after all, that is the aim, ideally. delldottalk02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::The diagnosis (of subarachnoid hemorrhage) can however not be made on clinical grounds alone - can lose bracketed bit again
::especially given that 15% have a further episode (rebleeding) soon after admission. --> as 15% may have further bleeding soon after admission.'
Changed to especially since 15% may have further bleeding soon after admission, since I didn't want to imply that this would be the only reason. delldottalk02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::Hypertension, if present, should be left untreated. --> Hypertension should be left untreated if present. (no commas needed this way)
::Delayed ischemia is characterized by new neurological symptoms; it can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography. - bit clunky, maybe a comma and an 'and' make it flow better. 'Delayed ischemia is characterized by new neurological symptoms, and can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography.'
Done, but what would you think of Delayed ischemia, characterized by new neurological symptoms, can be confirmed by transcranial doppler or cerebral angiography?
::Delayed ischemia is detected in about one third of all people admitted with subarachnoid hemorrhage, and half of those suffer permanent damage as a result. - passive and repetitive after preceding sentence, try 'About one third of all people admitted with subarachnoid hemorrhage will have delayed ischemia, and half of those suffer permanent damage as a result.'
::Ditto in Early morbidity and mortality - combine first two and rewrite first sentence of para 2 for flow Poorer outcome is associated with numerous other factors to 'other factors associated with poorer outcome include...'. And mention the 'many of which are not modifiable risk factors.' at the end or separately.
Reworded, combined, and did away with the modifiable thing, because it seemed patently obvious to me. Others working on the article are of course welcome to add it back in. delldottalk02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::seem to be at a higher risk --> 'increase risk'
Changed to having two copies... seems to increase risk; I think that seems to is important--we aren't sure it does increase risk. delldottalk02:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
::Neurocognitive symptoms, such as fatigue, mood disturbances, and other related symptoms are common in people who have suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage. --> 'Neurocognitive symptoms, such as fatigue, mood disturbances, and other related symptoms are common sequelae'
::Genetics may play a role in a person's disposition to SAH, since risk (of SAH) is increased three- to fivefold in first-degree relatives of people who have suffered a subarachnoid hemorrhage - remove redundant
::'The incidental detection of an aneurysm (e.g. when someone undergoes an MRI scan of the brain for a different reason) presents a conundrum, as all treatments for cerebral aneurysms are associated with potential complications.' needs rewriting - 'An aneurysm may be detected incidentally on brain imaging for an unrelated reason; this presents a conundrum, as all treatments for cerebral aneurysms are associated with potential complications.'
Comments Brief ones, more to come later. Very comprehensive article, top-notch sources, and I especially like that you were able to arrange an external peer review—I'd like to see a lot more of those in science-related FACs. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't suppose we could get an image of an aneurysm being coiled? :) An LP image would probably be a nice addition as well, but I'm not sure where to put it.
Doing.. I'll approach a neurosurgeon or neuroradiologist to try and get such an image. We've only one decent LP image on Commons and it's a child undergoing the procedure. Considering SAH is incredibly rare in children, it wouldn't be a good choice. — CycloneNimrodtalk?contribs?17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
For those of us with little or no experience interpreting scans, could captions be a tad more descriptive? (In Image:Subarachnoid hemorrhage CT.jpg, for instance—what are we looking at? Is that blood pooling in the posterior horns?)
We have no neurosurgical service in our hospital, so I could not prevail on them to borrow an image. I'll approach Mr Grundy. I will improve the image descriptions. JFW | T@lk16:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, one more thing: "Xanthochromia and spectrophotometry remain reliable tests several days after the onset of headache." May sound a bit pedantic, but xanthochromia isn't a test per se—you test for xanthochromia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. That's it from me; this one's ready for the big time :) Congratulations to JFW, Cyclone, delldot, and everyone else who worked on the article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
You could try but it would most likely look ugly, normally the original version shouldn't contain the line. I guess the image provider added it, better ask him. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it adds much compared to the other CT already displayed at the top of the article. JFW | T@lk22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The image from Dr. Gallo just came like that. Don't know why there is a line. It probably could be removed without making too much mess but as JFW said it doesn't really add much I suppose. Just thought the article looked a little bare at the time! — CycloneNimrodTalk?22:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
SAH.png seems to be a legend to go with a real CT image. I'm not sure if we can use images from the journal under the creative commons license. JFW | T@lk22:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course you can, that's the great thing about BioMedCentral. The entire article, including images, is licensed freely. Why your doubt? It's a great resource for images. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you should have removed Gray's plate. It is more helpful than the second CT brain. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments.
From "Signs and symptoms", paragraph 2: "Seizures make hemorrhage from an aneurysm more likely..." Does this mean that seizures cause hemorrhage from an aneurysm? I don't think so. Axl (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Diagnosis", paragraph 1: "Lumbar puncture, in which cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) is removed with a needle from the lumbar sac, will show evidence of hemorrhage in 3% of people in whom CT was found normal..." I have never heard the term "lumbar sac" before. Is this a recognized anatomical description? Does the 3% refer to all-comers with thunderclap headache? Probably not. Axl (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Lumbar sac" Googles fine, and AFAIK it is a bona fide description of the CSF space around the distal cona medullaris where we take our LPs from. JFW | T@lk23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Indeed this is a remarkably high incidence: 117 confirmed on CT out of 175 with headache. This contrasts with the BMJ article: "Only about one in four people presenting with sudden severe headache will have had a subarachnoid haemorrhage.... Third generation computed tomography scanners miss about 2% of cases of subarachnoid haemorrhage within 12 hours and about 7% by 24 hours." Axl (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Suarez goes as far as to state that the sensitivity is now 100%. LP would then only be needed if too much time elapsed between headache and CT (but they don't say that). JFW | T@lk08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Van Gijn mentions this. It depends on the method used. If all you do is look at the sample, any time is OK for LP. However, bilirubin is only generated after about 12 hours and therefore LP should be delayed if you're using spectrophotometry. Do we need to discuss these finer points in such detail? We have also agreed not to delve into "sentinel headaches" and whether LP is actually necessary. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure that you read the article that I linked to. It is not OK to just look at the sample. The sample must be sent for spectrophotometry. I have seen neurosurgeons insist on a repeat LP because it was done too soon. In my opinion, this is an important omission. It only requires a sentence on two in the article. I am happy to add it if this is helpful. Axl (talk) 06:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A survey in the USA a few years back stated that 97% of labs were not using spectrophotometry. I will add something about timing LPs as easily sourced to Van Gijn and Cruikshank. JFW | T@lk08:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Classification": "In addition to the ubiquitously used Glasgow Coma Scale, three other specialized scores are in use. In all scores, a higher number is associated with a worse outcome." Although with GCS, I presume that a high score is associated with a better outcome? Axl (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Treatment": "Management consists of general measures to stabilize the patient while using specific investigations and treatments to prevent rebleeding by obliterating the bleeding source, prevention of a phenomenon known as vasospasm, and prevention and treatment of complications." This long sentence should be split. Axl (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Treatment", "General measures": "Analgesia (pain control) is generally restricted to non-sedating agents such as codeine...." Codeine is non-sedating? Axl (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Treatment", "Prevention of rebleeding", paragraph 3: "On the whole, aneurysms of the middle cerebral artery and its related vessels are hard to reach with angiography and tend to be amenable to clipping, whilst those of the basilar artery and posterior cerebral artery are hard to reach surgically and are more accessible for endovascular management." Another long sentence. Also, the technical term "endovascular" doesn't have an appropriate link. I see that endovascular treatment of brain aneurysms redirects to Guglielmi Detachable Coil. Axl (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll fix the long sentence. "Endovascular" would be a dicdef. It could be a disambiguation page for GDC (the term used by neurosurgeons), EVAR and perhaps those clever endovascular aortic valve replacements. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Treatment", "Vasospasm", paragraph 3: "Evidence for is inconclusive and no sufficiently large randomized controlled trials have been undertaken to demonstrate its benefits." The reference (Sen) indicates that no RCTs have been conducted. Axl (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From "Epidemiology", paragraph 3: "Some protection of uncertain significance is conferred by ... diabetes mellitus." Curiously, the reference (Feigin) indicates a relative risk of 0.3 (95% confidence interval 0 to 2.2) for a cohort study, but an odds ratio of 0.7 (95% confidence interval 0.5 to 0.8) for case-control studies. Another reference (Rosengart) indicates an odds ratio of 1.46 (95% CI 1.18 to 1.80) in their univariate model. In my opinion, these conflicting findings do not support the tentative conclusion stated in the "Epidemiology" section. Axl (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Feigin is talking about risk factors for developing SAH. Rosengart is referring to the prognosis after having developed SAH; it is no secret that diabetics are more at risk of hospitalisation-related complications. JFW | T@lk23:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments"On November 5, 7, and 8 Tokyo Express missions" → "On November 5–8, Tokyo Express missions"? I'll find some more after werewolves have stopped chasing me. GaryKing (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the support and constructive feedback. I corrected the two sentences you mention. Cla68 (talk) 07:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment—Bordering on support, but I think some parts of the article could benefit from some judicious editing. Otherwise I only have a few concerns:
In the first part of the article, some sentences may be excessive in length and could read better if they were sub-divided. An example is the first sentence. My opinion of course; others may see it differently.
"the Japanese tried three separate times" --> isn't separate redundant? Perhaps not, but if so it's unclear why.
"The US was attempting to destroy the Japanese forces on Guadalcanal and the Japanese were trying to prevent this from happening." Is it necessary to state that the Japanese goal is merely to survive here? How about, "the Japanese were trying to hold their defensive positions until reinforcements could arrive", as was stated later in the article?
In the First Battle of Mount Austen section, the relevance of the two events to the decision to attack and secure Mount Austen is unclear. What have a raid and a skirmish to do with the need to take the Mount? The earlier discussion about Mount Austen seemed more to the point. Please clarify in the article.
Is there a reference for the participation of troops from the British Solomon Is., as listed in the infobox?
Someone removed the word "separate" from that sentence.
I changed the sentence in the intro as you suggested .
I clarified the connection between those two events and Patch's decision .
I have referenced text in the article stating that British Solomon Island natives took part in the battle as supply/support personnel. Cla68 (talk) 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I will be on vacation from now until 20 July, during which I will have intermittent internet access. I will revisit this nom as often as I can. Awadewit (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—Mostly pretty well written. An important and engaging topic. Now, there were just tons of autoformatted bright-blue dates—especially day and month alone. You have so many valuable links that I decided to remove the auto-lemon. Autoformatting is no longer encouraged (see MOSNUM). I think the result looks better and is easier to read. No one, let me assure you, minds US date formatting. And now we can have proper date ranges.
A few instances of U dot S dot, which is strongly not my personal preference, so just check that they are required because part of official military titles (divisions, etc.)—I suspect this is the case. Well done indeed. *Plus some of your captions need the lose the final period (Injured soldiers, maps, etc) TONY(talk)12:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your helpful edits to the article. I removed some periods from the image captions and went over it again to try to make sure no "U.S." remained. Cla68 (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - I commented during the review of the article. It's well written, and the clear majority of the long sentences it once had have been broken up to make the reading easier. As a note, I believe Cla68 is currently on a short WikiBreak, which explains why he hasn't come back to respond to some of the comment made insofar. JonCatalán (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You're correct, I was away from a computer for almost a week but I'm back now. As soon as I get caught up on some things I'll be responding to the comments posted here. Cla68 (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has undergone significant expansion in the last several months and satisfies FA criteria now. The article is about the ring system of solar system planet Uranus. Ruslik (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - Extensive and comprehensive article complicit with 1a & 1b. Sourcing is consistent and formatted appropriately. Intriguing article and I doubt that there will be any more issues ascertained by those who participate in the FAC discussions. Brilliant article. Thanks for rectifying the issue I mentioned above. Rudget (logs) 20:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Support—I performed a PR of this article back in May. At the time it already seemed FA worthy, and a check through now shows that the article remains in fine form. Hence I am lending my support.—RJH (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 7 Showalter, Mark R. Lissauer J.J. et. al. "The Outer Dust Rings of Uranus..." is lacking a publisher, which I believe would be the magazine the abstract is from?
Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk19:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Commentsbeginning a read-through. Need to watch redundant repetition in prose. I tried to remove as much repetition as I could and improve the flow but I concede this is tricky to do without losing meaning. I think a good balance has been struck now, though maybe a little more could be done I think we're just over the line prose-wise. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 01:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the first sentence adds nothing and is redundant and sentence 2 can go as either first or second sentence in para 2. This also brings the bolded bit (sentence 3) to the top of the article. Seriously, have a look in 'preview'
I actually merged two first sentences reducing redundancy. Putting the former sentence 2 after the sentence about discovery will split the historical summary. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings (around Uranus), - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are
The rings (of Uranus) are extremely dark - remove bracketed bit - clear from flow where rings are
of the rings particles does not exceed 2%. - rings'
The majority of Uranus's rings are narrow and optically dense—they are only a few kilometres wide and have optical depth on order of unity - I don't know what this means, so needs explaining.
I deleted 'optical density' from the sentence replacing it with opacity and rearranged the sentence. Ruslik (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The paucity of dust - 'relative lack of dust' maybe? Not hugely fussed.
The ring system was definitively discovered on March 10, 1977 by James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory. how about 'Astronomers James L. Elliot, Edward W. Dunham, and Douglas J. Mink made the definitive (and accidental) discovery on March 10, 1977 using the Kuiper Airborne Observatory.' - this makes teh prose more diverse and reduces repetition, and is active tense. Slipping in 'accidental' allows one to delete the repetitive The discovery was serendipitous;
In December 2005, the Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings. --> 'The Hubble Space Telescope detected a pair of previously unknown rings in December 2005, bringing the total number to 13.' (and allowing removal of last sentence)
The Uranian rings can be divided into three groups: nine narrow main rings (6, 5, 4, α, β, η, γ, δ, ε), two dusty rings (1986U2R/ζ, λ) and two outer rings (μ, ν). - take your pick - remove rings from the last three, or the first one to 'they'.
This means that their albedo is much lower, when they observed slightly off the opposition. - is this the same as 'viewed from an angle' in colloquial english?
"off opposition" means that the angle (phase angle) between the object-Sun line and object-observer line is not zero. The opposition is when Earth is at the line connecting Uranus and Sun. Ruslik (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
1) The introduction might be overly detailed/long. For example, the William Herschel idea may be shortened to something like: "although WH made some doubtful claims 200 years earlier.
2) Several names of the ζ ring are used, including ζ/1986U2R, and 1986U2R/ζ. I suggest either stick to the Greek letter, or decide which one is more used in academia. You could probably rename its section to ζ(1986U2R).
The parameters of 1986U2R and ζ rings are different (see Table). They are treated as separate rings in literature. It is actually not know if they are the same ring that has changed its appearence since 1986. Though I change the order of names from ζ/1986U2R to 1986U2R/ζ in the lead matching the main text. Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
3) Why are the rings named this way? Why some use numerals while some use Greek letters? Was it the order they were discovered?
4) I suggest moving Exploration and Herschel's observations up and merge them into the discovery section (rename it as Historic?).
I merged Herschel's observations to Discovery. However the Exploration need to be kept separate from it, because it contains technical details that do not fit into Discovery section.Ruslik (talk) 08:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
5) Where are 1, 2, and 3? Were they renamed? This might be written somewhere, but I suggest put the history of the names in the first section. Nergaal (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Another really wonderful solar system article from Ruslik (and Wolfman)! This article is quite good. Just a few observations, in addition to Nergaal's, directly above.
Support. My concerns have been addressed; well done.
1. More than 200 years ago, William Herschel also reported observing rings modern astronomers are sceptical that he could actually have noticed them, as they are very dark and faint. "Skeptical" is misspelled, and may I suggest a semicolon after "rings"?
2. The majority of Uranus's rings are opaque and only a few kilometres wide, which means that they have optical depth on order of unity or more. Perhaps wikilink optical depth and unity, or explain them to the reader in layman's terms? The footnote leaves me clueless, and this is coming from someone who knows what albedo is, and who can calculate diameter based on absolute magnitude.
3. the star disappeared briefly from view five times both before and after it disappeared behind the planet. They concluded that there must be a ring system around the planet. The rings were directly imaged when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew through the Uranian system in 1986. Voyager 2 also discovered two additional faint rings, bringing the total to eleven. A continuity issue: the rings go from numbering five in 1977 to eleven in 1986 when just two more were discovered. 5+2=11?
5. The rings of Uranus mainly consist of large particles and but little dust Suggest "particles but little dust".
Since dust also consists of (small) particles a clarification is necessary. I changed 'large' to 'macroscopic'. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
6. The width variations were measured directly from Voyager 2 images, as the ε ring was one of only two rings resolved by Voyager’s cameras. This statement is made directly above a Voyager 2 picture clearly showing five rings!
Resolved means here that the finite width was observed, not that they were detected. The non zero width of the rings other than ε and η is result of image smear. Ruslik (talk) 08:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
7. The ε ring is known to have interior and exterior shepherd moons—Cordelia and Ophelia, respectively. Little focus is given to the shepherd moon phenomenon at Uranus; this section is all of three sentences; the dynamics aren't explained at all here.
10. R/2003 R1 and R2 are the provisional names of μ and ν rings. The article states they were discovered in 2005; why then the "2003" prefix attached to their provisional names? A number like that almost always indicates the year they were first detected. I suggest 2005 was the year they were confirmed, not discovered.
Support: I cleaned up a few things. There are inconsistencies of decimal place in the table, and < and ~ need to be spaced. Sometimes you use that dreadful e notation template that squashes up the items; sometimes you space them. Nice work. TONY(talk)12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I believe it meets to FA criteria. It passed GA, and I have tried to tighten up the prose. Self-nom. Guettarda (talk) 05:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
A couple of the external links failed the link checker, but Wiley's website is apparently in the middle of an update. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Conditional Support(moral or otherwise) - I created the stub and have seen the article grow and looked it over for prose several times. I feel it fulfils FA criteria pending one fix. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 06:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
It was in the "effects in the built environment" section, but with the long quote cropped out that section is basically about "uses", so I merged the two.
Explain who Suzanne Koptur is (just an adjective or two - eg (nationality + 'botanist' will do fine) Works fine for me :) Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 23:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. I used affiliation (Florida International University) rather than nationality, since it probably makes more sense here.
Support (COI declaration - I made six edits to this article prior to this review).
Note, support above is from Jimfbleak even though subsequent indenting makes it look like he is responding to an unsigned support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, but there are a few more dash issues; a handful of dashes need to be changed to em dashes (or en, depending on how you want to use them). Also, I'm scared of editing FACs now :) GaryKing (talk)16:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Naught to do but get back on the horse. Don't know what has scared you, but I would so much rather have a reviewer fix these small things than bring them to my attention. Otherwise, it makes the reviewer seem that s/he doesn't have the ability (or doesn't care enough) to address much more comprehensive and serious issues like prose and content. --Moni3 (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Not sure what that means, but since it has no more to do with the article in question, you can explain it on my talk page, or drop it. Whatever you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Current ref 4, Flora de Nicaragua database is lacking a last access date
Same for current ref 25 Ficus aurea Nutt.
Otherwise sources look okay, and the links check out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk19:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I'm wondering what the specific epithet aurea refers to with regard to this tree - perhaps the colour of the figs (?), but noticed that fig colour hasn't been mentioned.Melburnian (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Support- a comprehensive article, nice work. --Melburnian (talk) 00:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. Colour added.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it fulfils all of the featured article criteria and it has undergone a successful GA review. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I don't know why, but I thought this article was about Ellen Page. Some work should be put into that article to become featured, too; heh.
"under 5 ft (1.5 m) tall" – "under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall" – spell out measurements, but not in the converted units
I'm worried about accuracy here; please research the Marni Nixon, Natalie Wood vocal role in West Side Story (my info could be wrong, but it is my understanding that role was not sung by Natalie Wood, so I'm concerned about how well this article is sourced and written). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
This source (http://arts.guardian.co.uk/theatre/drama/story/0,,2085160,00.html) which is an interview with Elaine Paige, quotes her response to the question What got you started? as - "Singing along with Natalie Wood on the LP of West Side Story when I was 14. It occurred to me that singing on stage wouldn't be a bad thing to do." That appears to be straight from her mouth, so if there is some historical mistake, I was totally unaware because this is what this usually very reliable source stated. I don't know what I can do, as The Guardian article quotes Paige as saying Wood ... I don't think I can change her own words? I can assure you this apparent mistake is no reflection on the overall reliablility of the article - all sources are of a very high standard. Eagle Owl (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I overreacted (this is one of those "everyone in the musical theatre world knows it" deals, so that kind of error is surprising in an MT article). Perhaps you can 1) use the direct quote (to show it's her error, not ours), and then 2) add a parenthetical about Marni Nixon? Or, alternately, leave out any mention of Natalie Wood, and just say she was singing along with West Side Story? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I like your thinking - I've just avoided the use of a name and just stuck with "Paige listened to the LP version of West Side Story". Eagle Owl (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
http://www.lupus.org.uk/article.php?i=159 while its not exactly an unreliable source, some may question the reliance on a interview from a source not usually known for interviews. I merely point this out as an informational notation.
Oppose
Overall I think its close to featured article status, there has obviously been a lot of hard work done to this article. However, I think it needs a thorough copyedit before it is ready. Here are some examples if issues I found. I'd encourage you to get someone fresh to review the article:
Lead image - I know how hard it is to get good free images of people, but is there really nothing better available of Paige?
Opening sentence: "...is an English singer and actress, primarily in musical theatre" - this feels like a slightly convoluted way of saying this. Could it be reworded? Perhaps: "is an English singer and actress, best known for her work in musical theatre"?
Lede, second paragraph "...which remains the biggest-selling record by a female duo in the Guinness Book of Records" - this needs to be rewritten since the Guinness Book of Records contains no female duos. You need to source this claim from the Guinness Book, rather than making it seem like they are recorded their duo in the book.
Lede, second paragraph: "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 when she played the lead role of Norma Desmond, winning critical acclaim" reword to "Paige made her Broadway debut in Sunset Boulevard in 1996 playing the lead role of Norma Desmond, to critical acclaim"
Lede, third paragraph: "Paige has been nominated for and won many awards for her theatre roles and has become known as the First Lady of British Musical Theatre" needs commas.
Background section: "Paige now only stands at just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..." Now? Has she shrunk? Should this just say "Paige is just under 5 feet (1.5 m) tall..."
Background section: "It was at 14 years of age that Paige listened to the..." better as "At 14, Paige listened to...". You should Wikilink LP.
Background section: "Paige's musical ability was pushed by her school music teacher..." do you mean "encouraged" or "developed" rather than "pushed"?
Background section: "Her father later suggested that she should go to drama school after recognizing her talent" this is a little confusing. When exactly did her father suggest she go to drama school? Can you be more accurate that "later"? Is is really necessary to say "after recognizing her talent"? This could be read as implying he initially didn't see her talent, is that true?
Early Career section: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was marked during the UK tour..." what does "marked" mean in this context? Should this read: "Paige's first professional appearance on stage was during the UK tour..."?
Early Career section: "About five years previous to Paige's role in Evita, she had almost been cast as the lead in The Rocky Horror Show instead of Covington in 1973" - this sentence should probably come before the section on Evita, so they are in chronological order. The sentence should not contain both "about five years previous" and "in 1973" - use one or the other. It should say "About five years before Paige's role..." not "About five years previous to Paige's role..."
Early career section: "Playing the role of Perón proved to be the defining moment in her evolution to the proclaimed title, the First Lady of British Musical Theatre". I'm not sure what "proclaimed title" means. Do you mean "acclaimed title"? I'd just drop that phrase altogether, since it seems like editorializing. This sentence isn't properly sourced from - the source does not support the claim that her role of Peron was the defining moment for her.
Early career section: "For her performance in Evita, which spanned for 20 months in total, from 1978 to 1980, she won the Society of West End Theatre Award..." could be made simpler: "She won the Society of West End Theatre Award... for her performance in Evita". The length of the show should be mentioned elsewhere since the length is not connected to her winning the awards.
All done. Regarding the image, you would be surprised how few images there are out there of Paige. It's only by chance that I came across that one, so I asked someone from Wikimedia to upload this for me. The image now is actually an improvement to how it originally looked as I had to crop it. Thanks for you comments, the only thing is I don't know who I can ask to copyedit the article. Eagle Owl (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe you about the image, its surprisingly hard to find good, free images of living people for use on Wikipedia. Personally I think the one you have is acceptable, though a better one would be an improvement. Your first port of call for a volunteer to help with copy editing would probably be Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre. Gwernol13:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I did some copyediting in the first few paragraphs. There is a lot of fluffy information in this article taken from interviews. For example, the article says that Dustin Hoffman asked her not to quit theatre, but the information is just something that SHE told an interviewer, so it is not reliable in an encyclopedic sense, and it is trivial and not really encylopedic information. I took out another statement that said that Paige (told somone that she) had some trouble handling her fame: did she go to rehab, etc? If not, this seems true of most celebrities. The nominators should go through the article and try for a more formal, "encyclopedic" tone. Any references that do not contribute encylopedic information, but are just lifestyle type interviews should be eliminated. Also, the list of stage performances does not exactly match the mentions of the stage performances in the narration. This must be corrected. Also, you don't need more than one source to show that Paige played a certain role in a certain show or film. Try to use only the most important, best quality references to verify each claim in the article. I'll try to come back to this article another time to continue. Good luck in your efforts to improve the article to FA quality. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help and comments. I've gone through the article and removed over-citation and some un-needed information and I agree with everything you say, though I cannot find where the stage list does not match up with the narration. Eagle Owl (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I have now been through the entire article and have removed what I thought was the most fluffy trivia, as well as copy editing the prose. The article is enjoyable to read and gives a good sense of Paige. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your wonderfully thorough copy edit - thanks to you the prose has improved hugely! Your work on the article is very much appreciated. Thanks. Eagle Owl (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I can say that I have addressed all of the queries raised. The article has had two good copy edits, so now it makes much better reading. Eagle Owl (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support with comments: This article has come a long way from when I glanced at it during its GA-nom. I quite enjoyed learning about Paige's life and career, especially since I always preferred her performance in Cats to that of Betty Buckley's. :) Some comments/suggestions pertaining to the lead:
I think that her place of origin (Barnet, North London) should be mentioned in the lead. Perhaps as "Born in Barnet, North London, Paige attended the Aida Foster stage school..."?
Paige has been nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards and won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called the First Lady of British Musical Theatre. This is a run-on sentence. How about, "In addition to being nominated for five Laurence Olivier Awards, Paige has won many other awards for her theatre roles and has been called..."?
She has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum, and she has been featured on seven cast albums. Paige has sung in concert across the world, and she also hosts her own show on BBC Radio 2. This is also clunky with so many "and"s. Perhaps "Paige has released 20 solo albums, of which eight were consecutively certified gold and another four multi-platinum. She has sung in concert across the world and is also featured on seven cast albums. Since 2004 she has hosted her own show on BBC Radio 2 called..."?
Support - I think we're there. I made a few minor prose improvements, but overall this article looks to be in good shape. Congratulations. Gwernol11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I see my username fairly high up there, but I do not consider myself to be a significant contributor to this article; I only made a few copyedits after I stumbled across this FAC. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Support Well-sourced, well-written, very comprehensive, and very interesting. Deserves to go to the main page. Congratulations! Idontknow610TM20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I've replaced what I could, but there were several (for the functioning of the seal incense clocks) that I couldn't find anything on, so I'm rewriting the paragraph now with other sources. I removed all links to Yoshino. · AndonicOEngage.18:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Replaced, but we'll need another supporting reference, because that one says that "old atomic clocks..." making no reference to newer ones. · AndonicOEngage.23:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I fail to understand how these sources are different, or in any way more unreliable, than any other sources in the article? Can you please elaborate? Thanks, Qst (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
It's more a concern with the fact that newer scholarship may have superseded the Catholic Encyclopedia. But, striken. Ealdgyth - Talk23:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 66 (Wells Cathedral Clock, Science Museum) which Science museum?
It would be nice if it stated specifically in the reference which science museum, rather than forcing the reader to click through to either link. If you're adamantly opposed to that for some reason, it's certainly not going to cause me to oppose, but it's a nice touch for the reader. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
As above, while it's not something worthy of an oppose over, it's just a courtesy to the reader to not put in abbreviations that they have to click through the links to to figure out. Ealdgyth - Talk18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the title of the site is "Contrôle Officiel Suisse des Chronomètres," the name of the organization and the publisher, I don't think it would be desirable to repeat it in the publisher. So, I think it would be better if we stuck with the abbreviation "COSC." bibliomaniac1518:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 99 (Encyclopedia Britannica Online) the publisher is in the link title and the link title doesn't give the article title being linked to.
As a general concern, it's a bit odd for a generalist encyclopedia (Wikipedia) to link to another generalist encyclopedia (Encyclopedia Britannica) as a source.
Links checked out with the link checker tool, sources look okay.
I removed your strike throughs, generally at FAC the person who makes the comment/concern strikes through when they feel the issues is resolved. I changed them to little "dones" after the statement so you can keep track of what you've done. Ealdgyth - Talk22:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you thought I was being specific. That was a general "your" to whoever did so. I apologize if you were offended. Ealdgyth - Talk22:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I added them (and re-added them—didn't see your message until now). I do think, however, that they should be left, because there are nine or so people helping with this article: might get confusing (maybe confirm that you reviewed the changes?). · AndonicOEngage.23:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's wrong with putting a line below that it's been addressed to your satisfaction or a reply, and then when I feel it's addressed it can be struck out. The system has worked pretty well for me at FAC for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk23:43, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Gah, I really should join Tzatziki one of these days - I planned to a long time ago. Others will probably catch MOS issues so I'll focus on prose. I'm really, really picky about one MOS thing, though - why are years linked and centuries/decades not? Generally it's the other way around.
"*The* history of timekeeping devices"? Why "the"? It sounds as if this is the only history of timekeeping devices in all... well, time. Why not "this"? Note that I might be wrong; this might be convention.
Mainly because "this" would be more direct to the article; the article itself is focusing on the entire history of timekeeping devices across the world, so "this" would sound as if it was referring to a specific area. (Note, that wasn't a good explanation, but hopefully you'll understand.) Qst (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
"The system developed then—which remains in use today—was sexagesimal." - the em dashes disrupt the flow of the prose; so strong a disjunction isn't needed. Commas will do.
"They were probably first used in the Precinct of Amun-Re, however, their use continued outside of Egypt, especially in Greece." - not a complete sentence.
"Mechanical clocks became necessary because relying on the sun had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear days, cast no shadow at night, and the length of hours varied depending on the season." - if one is skimming the lead, that looks like three things. Suggest rephrasing as " had two drawbacks: sundials worked only on clear as they cast no shadow at night and the length of hours varied depending on the season."
"Mechanical clocks, in all of their varieties, were the standard modern timekeeping device." - "were"?
"From the turn of the 14th century, until the middle of the 20th, they contained various escapements, which transferred rotational energy into discrete motions." - "until the middle of the 20th" doesn't need to be preceded by a comma.
Redundancy: "In the twentieth century, a variety of new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators, atomic clocks, and the common wristwatch."
More redundancy: "Important times and durations were broadcast by bells, rung either by hand or by some mechanical device, such as a falling weight or rotating beater." - "some" is not really needed, it could be replaced with an article like "a".
"This has inspired several modern replicas, including some in London's Science Museum, and the Smithsonian Institution." - no comma needed before "and the Smithsonian...".
"the comma used immediately before a grammatical conjunction (nearly always and or or; sometimes nor) that precedes the last item in a list of three or more items" - only two items in this list. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood03:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Still more redundancy: "The astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace, among some other individuals, modified the dial of his pocket watch to decimal time."
Support - prose looks good except for the one remaining unaddressed up above (the one biblio responded to), address Tony's issues below though. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood03:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Not quiteOppose. Neutral 1a
The prose is mostly good, but needs a careful copy-edit throughout before it reaches the required "professional" standard. I did a few spot-checks.
I've changed a few pet-hates like upon and in order to.
Caption: "water thief."—The dot must come after the quotemark (MOS).
"While the Greeks and Romans did much to advance water clock technology, shadow clocks were not abandoned."—Why the passive voice? "they did not abandon ...".
"Others also wrote of the sundial in the mathematics and literature of the period."—"Also" is redundant and has the opposite effect to that intended (it weakens the flow).
Unnecessary passive again: "Later, the largest sundial ever built was constructed by the Romans". And more. You need a good reason to use the passive voice, and it's much too much in evidence throughout. TONY(talk)02:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Rejoinder—you may have fixed the issues I mentioned, but I made it clear they were spot-checks only. I was expecting a copy-edit throughout the article. And you haven't even fixed the overuse of the passive voice: it took four seconds for me to find "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Do you know how to change it to active? "Other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims, developed shadow clocks during this time". Passive is all over the place. And immediately above that:
There were also other problems, however, which were never solved. One of these was temperature, as water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze. Another, that the water clock did not account for the fact that the length of days and nights changes throughout the year. Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons.
Keep striving for simplicity and plainness in the prose:
However, other problems were never solved: one was temperature, since water flows more slowly when cold, or may even freeze; another was that the water clock did not account for the changing length of days and nights throughout the year, leading to variable accuracy.
Can you coopt a word-nerd or two from the edit history pages of similar articles (try FAs first)? You can tell who's a nerd from their edit summaries. Ask nicely, and you might strike a few new Wikifriends who'll be collaborators now and in the future. TONY(talk)10:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I'll go through it one more time, once I've finished with the refs Ealdgyth pointed out above (because the content is likely to change a bit, or the wording may need to be altered). · AndonicOEngage.14:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
The following reference is completely broken and shows as plain text: {{cite web|url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Clock|title=Merriam-Webster Online:
Comments Since I know how much of a pain it was to fix all the refs at Cannon, I'll make the appropriate changes myself. I do have some other concerns that I believe should be addressed.
Ref 10 is a book. I've converted this to {{cite book}}. One question, how is 10a used as a reference for "Among the first confirmed shadow clocks were ancient Egyptian obelisks, first constructed around 3500 BC; the oldest existing sundial—not in the form of an obelisk—is made of green schist, and is also Egyptian"? I couldn't find anything from this reference to corroborate this statement.
"By the 8th century bc more precise devices were in use; the earliest known sundial still preserved is an Egyptian shadow clock of green schist dating at least from this period." bibliomaniac1517:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
9b was appropriate, but probably not the best choice of a source. It didn't explicitly state that the Greeks had developed a shadow sundial. You could understand that interpretation only if you knew Anaximander was Greek and that a gnomon, which he discovered, is the part of the sundial that casts a shadow. Nishkid64(Make articles, not wikidrama)18:59, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
9b was citing: "Shadow clocks were also developed during this time by other cultures, including the Greeks, Chinese, Romans and Muslims." Greeks, yes, but Romans, Chinese, and Muslims? Not a huge loss, though, that sentence was out of place. · AndonicOEngage.19:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Listed page numbers for a, b, and c; I couldn't find d, and I couldn't find the words "Arab" or "engineer" in the book (using the Gbooks search function), so I removed the third instance. · AndonicOEngage.23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I stopped saying which refs I fixed, since it was somewhat pointless... anyway, I went through all the books, and tried to find page numbers. I found them for all, except those which weren't on Gbooks (around five or so, I think), and a PDF document at the end. · AndonicOEngage.19:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments. I don't think this article is quite there yet, and would benefit from someone going through it again. Just a few examples:
"In the 20th century, new methods were invented, including early quartz oscillators ...". When were the later quartz oscillators invented?
"While accurate, shadow clocks relied on the sun ...". Shouldn't that be "Although' accurate ..."?
"The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), proving that they were used in ancient Egypt, possibly earlier than anywhere else." This reads very awkwardly to me. Why not something like "The oldest-known waterclock was found in the tomb of pharaoh Amenhotep I (1525–1504 BC), suggesting that they were first used in ancient Egypt."?
"... hourglasses could be reused by turning it over again." There really ought not to be simple grammatical errors at this stage.
"... making the reading of the clock more precise and facile." Are you happy with the word "facile" here? Not sure that I am.
"Because of this, the clocks' accuracy varied throughout the seasons." Shouldn't that be "clock's accuracy"?
"... unlike water, this element would not freeze under normal circumstances". Makes it sound like mercury refused to freeze, rather than simply did not freeze.
"The oldest working clock in the world is Salisbury cathedral clock, which dates from about 1386, and has most of its original parts." Leave out the part between the commas to see why this doesn't work.
"a popular watch of most American airmen was the A-11" Wouldn't something like "the A-11 was a popular watch with most American airman" be better?
... it does not account for leap seconds or other corrections which are periodically employed to systems such as Universal Coordinated Time"> Should that be applied instead of employed? Or employed by?
"When turned over, a flow of grains of sand passed from the upper one to the lower through the hole. As the downward current of sand was constant ..." Perhaps a good example of Fowler's elegant variation. Current and flow don't quite mean the same thing, so don't be afraid to repeat flow by saying "As the downward flow of sand was constant...".
I echo Tony's point about overuse of the passive voice. Sentences like this: "The oldest documentation of the water clock is from the tomb inscription ..." make the prose feel stodgey.
Thanks for the copyedit, Malleus. I've fixed your points except for the last one. I'll do a copyedit of the whole article and see what I can fix. bibliomaniac1521:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm about ready to support now if one additional thing is fixed, consistent use of metric->imperial conversions. From Early Western mechanical clocks: "box-like iron frame, measuring about 1.2 meters (3.9 ft) square". From Candle clocks: "each 12 inches (30 cm) high". From Early mechanical clocks: "Zhang implemented the changes into his clock tower, which was approximately ten meters tall, with escapements keeping the clock turning". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Image:Susong.gif: Image asserts it is redrawn (i.e. derivative) of an original found in Joseph Needham's Science and Civilization in China - a work very much under copyright. Where is support for the claim of publication under the Free Art License ({{FAL}})?
Image:Salisbury 02.jpg claims to be "by Jason Hopwood"; uploader, however, is "Jasenlee" (i.e. Jasen Lee). How can we confirm uploader and author are the same person or that Jason Hopwood has indeed released the image under the indicated license?
Image:Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.JPG: what is the copyright status of the painting? Freedom of Panorama in Poland is limited to "works that are permanently exhibited on the publicly accessible roads, streets, squares or gardens" (i.e. outside). If the painting is under copyright, this is a derivative work.
I deleted Susong.gif (even the source website had removed it), and removed Przypkowscy Clock Museum - clocks 02.jpg (left a note on the uploader's talk about the possible copyright violation); Relogio stDumont.jpg was deleted by another admin. For Salisbury 02.jpg, we can't confirm that Jasenlee is Jason Hopwood, however, his userpage says his name is Jason (as opposed to Jasen), so it seems to me that that implies he is Jason Hopwood. Finally for ChipScaleClock, I left a note on the user's talk page (on his home wiki). · AndonicOEngage.22:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I am the individual who took this picture and released it under a open license. How else could I confirm? --Jasenlee (talk) 21:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
What, then, is the date of first publication or the name of the author? Verifiability, not truth, is the threshold for inclusion. Alternatively, the painting can be blurred. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk23:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
To claim that the photograph is a "derivative work" is clearly absurd. A derivative work depends on the value in the work depicted in it. In this case, it's difficult to see how a photograph of a few clocks has derived any value from the rather out of focus and irrelevant skewed inclusion of an old painting that nobody recognises. If we're to have image lawyers making spurious objections like these, then at least they ought to make an effort to understand the laws that they are pretending claiming to uphold. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunate that your knowledge of copyright is so poor as to require the need to attack mischaracterize my concerns, among other things. I'm done here. When you're ready to discuss concerns civilly and productively, do be sure to let me know. ЭLСОВВОLДtalk00:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you will now reconsider your suggestion that my understanding of copyright is poor? I had no intention of upsetting you by my earlier comment, simply to shake you from what appears to be a rather mechanical application of rather fuzzy laws operating in rather grey areas. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Did someone go through the entire article? (When I can easily spot prose issues, it's not a good sign, because I'm not a wordnerd.) You've changed it to twelve hours and 6 orbits, exactly the opposite of WP:MOSNUM, so a check throughout is needed. Have you asked someone like Epbr123 to run through, as well as gotten another set of eyes on the prose, given that I easily spotted errors? There are redlinked dates in the citations; do you scroll through your entire article to check for errors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
WP:MOSNUM is in dispute on this issue (not by me); it is only stable because Noetica is on hiatus. The present division between one and two digit numbers is a rule of thumb, and one of several possible ones; it has a dozen exceptions because it is only a rule of thumb. In this case, the satellites and the orbits should both be spelled out, or both figures because they are related; and twelve should probably depend on whether the orbit is exactly half a day (spell out as count), or approximate (figure, as approximation to a continuous quantity.
The writing's in better shape now, but I see little problems at random, such as:
Although similar to the candle clock, incense clocks burned evenly, and without a flame; therefore, they were more accurate, and safer for indoor use. Several types of incense clock have been found, the most common being the incense stick and incense seal ones. An incense stick clock comprised of an incense stick with calibrations; most were elaborate, sometimes having threads, with weights attached, at even intervals
Which two commas to remove?
And:
"An example of a candle clock" (caption)—which three words to remove?
Tony doesn't do polishes. He feels that his limited time is better spent by being spread over more articles than it would be if he were to focus too much on any one. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And, he's pretty busy trying to copyedit guideline and policy pages, and write and copyedit the Dispatches in all his spare time. Smoothest is to have articles copyedited before approaching FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd prefer that most of the first sentence be deleted, but I don't have any particular advice on how to incorporate the title or what you want to say, so I left it. It just doesn't add much, and feels a little "book reporty" to me.
My feeling is that we should lowercase most of the occurrences of "sun" and "moon", but this is a matter of style. The first occurrences should probably be capitalized, but North American style guides, and Wikipedia, prefer what's called the "down style" of capitalization, which means roughly, find any excuse you can to lowercase. This issue came up recently in Roman Catholic Church, where the thinking was that the faithful might be offended by "the church", so it was often left capitalized, but we don't have any faithful sun-worshippers here to offend, and TCMOS, AP Stylebook and NYTM all recommend even lowercasing such religious terms at the first opportunity where it's clear which church you're referring to. The analogy here is, as soon as you know which sun you're referring to, it's time to start lowercasing it. Having said that ... does anyone feel strongly that you need to uppercase Sun and Moon throughout? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I deleted virtually no material from the lead, but I tightened it down to 2 paragraphs, which leaves room for a 3rd paragraph summarizing more from the article. WP:LEAD suggests a 3rd paragraph would be nice.
I don't hate passive voice as much as some (*cough* Tony), but I don't like it either. However, I don't want to take the time to do the research to figure out who the subjects would be if I removed the passive voice; if you guys know, then please remove some of the passive voice that I left.
"the first device able to measure time within the span of a day": I wasn't quite sure what this meant. (I will avoid the usual snarky copyeditor comments such as, "Is there time which is not within the span of a day?") - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to change the lead a bit, per your suggestions. As for "Sun," "Moon," and "Church," I think it's best to leave them capitalized for correctness. Fixed the "span of day" sentence. · AndonicOEngage.12:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Dank, I don't "hate" passives per se; occasionally they're suitable. But here, passives were scattered all over the place in quite unnecessary ways. TONY(talk)04:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, everything has been fixed down to Incense clocks, with nice edits by Tony, Malleus and Andonic. I changed a couple of words in the lead. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Little confusing here: there are nine nominators listed, but no indication about who is going to finish up copyediting the bottom of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies for the confusion. I can do some of the copyediting, but I'm not the best copyeditor around, so it won't be anywhere near perfect. I'll do what I can. Keilana|Parlez ici00:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Could you deal with this then? "In the United States, GPS is regulated by 12 satellites ...". What does "regulated" mean in this context? How is it "regulated" elsewhere? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
According to the source, the United States maintains 24 satellites (the Navstar system) that circle the Earth every 12 hours. I'm not sure where this came from. Also from the source, the E.U. is working on its own GPS system, as is China. I'll fix the article. Keilana|Parlez ici02:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There's one awkward turn of phrase here: "Sundials came into their present form during the Renaissance, with the acceptance of heliocentrism and equal hours, as well as applications of trigonometry; they were built in large numbers in many locations." I can't get it to make more sense/be more fluid; would anyone else like to have a go? Keilana|Parlez ici03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The "Aveni, Anthony F" reference refers to page 92, but the accessible pages at that link stopped just before that. I wanted to look at it to figure out what to do with this: "It is possible, however, that search for increased precision was not due to their interest in science, but rather their desire to imitate nature and the heavens, which formed the basis of their religion." I'm not a classicist, but my sense was that saying that it might be one but not the other doesn't paint the right picture; these two motivations were entertwined for the Greeks of that time. That is, science was to a large degree the pursuit of a way to understand nature and bring man in line with nature, especially for the Stoics. Thoughts? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Odd, it was on googlebooks before; anyway, that's exactly what he suggested, with different wording of course (the author was proposing this view, not saying it was a fact). If you think it's out of place or doesn't make sense, then feel free to remove it, since it'll never be known for certain what their motivations were. · AndonicOEngage.11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
You can see page 92 here. Imitating nature seems to be a reasonable inerpretation, but I'm less convinced about it being the basis of their religion. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an interesting point. He cites "science historian Derek Price", but again, I can't pull up the page that the reference is on. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Aveni seems to be talking about precision, not accuracy - i.e. sundials need not have hour marks to be intellectually satisfying. This makes a lot more sense than what the article says: accuracy would be part of ritual correctness. (And the argument is weak anyway; these are Hellenistic constructions, when the Greek religion was beginning to fade.) The sentence as phrased begs several questions, chiefly whether the Greeks would have had any problem pursuing religion and science simultaneously; I think we can do without it. Possibly a footnote, indicating a source readers may wish to follow? SeptentrionalisPMAnderson17:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm also a fan of footnotes for that kind of comment, and that sounds like a good solution to me, unless one of the editors has some direction they want to go with this. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I left the reference (it cited the other sentence, as well), but removed the questionable precision/religion sentence. · AndonicOEngage.11:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
In History_of_timekeeping_devices#Modern_sundials, the paragraph starting "Water clocks were used..." is out of place, and repeats information from the section above, but I didn't want to just yank it because it's got 2 references; perhaps the information and references should be merged into the proper sections. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
There was a paragraph in the Modern sundials section on hourglasses that included information from the 1500's, so I changed the 3-heading to 1 AD – 1600 AD, and gave the hourglass information its own 4-heading. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to move "The hourglass was also used in China, but its history there is unknown" out of the Incense clocks section, but when I searched for "hourglass" in the reference, I get no hits. Can anyone find "hourglass" in that reference? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Several things in the second paragraph of Clocks are contradicted earlier on the page. For instance, mechanical clocks didn't "spread quickly" to the West, or at least, not quickly after they were first built in China. The fourth paragraph seems misplaced. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I've removed the fourth paragraph (everything seems to already have been in the article, and it was unsourced), going to work on the rest now. · AndonicOEngage.11:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The information from the two different sections on Wallingford's clock should be combined (3 different sections if you include the sentence from Modern sundials). I'd be fine with a short mention in one section (either one) and the bulk of the material in the other section. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The last paragraph in Early Western mechanical clocks needs a rewrite. (It's too much for me to figure out, and I have to move on.) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Changed to: "During the Middle Ages, clocks were primarily used for religious purposes; the first employed for secular timekeeping emerged around the 15th century." · AndonicOEngage.11:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Malleus was working backwards from the end and it looks like he made it to Pendulum clocks, so I'll stop at the end of Early Western mechanical clocks. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Fantastic. I really like feedback, especially that feedback :) I checked your diffs too and I was happy with everything. I left a question on your userpage. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment. OK, I'm done with the copyediting now. So far as I can see there are just a few content-related issues left for the nominators to sort out from Dank55's comments above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
The only remaining issue from Dan is the two paragraphs on Richard of Wallingford; I'm trying to address that now. · AndonicOEngage.11:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Prose now looks good; reading your changes quickly, everything looked good except for one sentence, which I fixed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Asking for opinions. It would be nice to find ways to encourage more and better copyediting at FAC and GAN. Bronze stars on userpages appear to be reserved (in practice) to noms and co-noms of FAs. How about the userbox that says "This user has written or significantly contributed to X Featured Articles on Wikipedia"? Would it be false advertising for a copyeditor to up this count by one, if they provide a link to diffs and comments that indicated that their copyedit contributed largely to the article passing? This might make copyediting "sexier". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 16:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
This article documents a small battle during the Texas Revolution. I'm intending it to be the first in a potential featured topic on the Siege of Bexar. Although I would have liked to include a map of the area in which the battle took place, none of the books that discussed the battle included maps or diagrams, and the creeks used as landmarks are fairly small and may have changed course since 1835, so I did not create my own. Karanacs (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - Short but sweet. Well-written and referenced throughout, definitely meets the criteria in my eyes. Well done, Karanacs. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits)18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The first sentence of the "Background" section is worded strangely. The "in 1834" seems to be misplaced, perhaps?
What region is being referred to in the sentence beginning "On October 11…"? If you mean the future state of Texas that's accurate, but it almost reads as if the Gonzales area was meant. Gonzales was in the Green DeWitt colony while Austin's colony was quite a ways away, in 1835 terms, at least.
On my screen setup, the James Bowie image ends where the "See also" section begins, creating an indented head but with the text below at the left margin. Swapping sides for the two images would solve the issue.
The swapping of images has solved this one but created the same issue for the "Aftermath" section. Since that section is longer than the two lines of the "See also" section, it's not much of a concern to me, at least. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The sentence about the deserter being seen in Gonzales doesn't seem particularly relevant.
The "References" section contains a mix of {{citation}} and {{cite book}} which results in (ever so slight) formatting differences for some of the books. Also, the Hardin book (which is manually formatted) does not list the place of publication
I fixed one typo, and added a relevant external link.
Good catch on the ambiguous "region"; I've switched that to "in Texas" and fixed the other prose issues you have pointed out. I don't want to swap the images, as MOS says the images should look towards the text. I'll see if I can expand the section by a sentence or two so that the See Also is pushed down a bit. Karanacs (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
We need a qualifier on colonists for Stephen F. Austin to distinguish his colonists from, say, the Canary Islanders. I'm thinking something along the lines of American or Anglo but neither seems exactly right to me. — Bellhalla (talk) 11:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that and decided not to put it in. The article is so short that is seems overkill to have an infobox too. Karanacs (talk) 13:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, all other articles in the "Texas Revolution" box have an infobox. I think it is helpful for readers to get the quickest possible overview about a battle. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I hadn't realized that alll of the other articles in the Texas Revolution campaignbox had infoboxes. I've added one. Karanacs (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
CommentsSupport
I'm not that knowledgeable in Texas history. Most folks would say this is a good thing. However, I have some questions.
Can you state in the first sentence that it was a battle/skirmish/dustup/froofraw? Was it part of a bigger war or revolution? That's not clear in the lead.
So... 20 people died for grass... what happened to the grass? Does any historian say? And for God's sake, if not, why?? Seriously - I'm wondering this.
How is this event seen in history? A proud moment in the lives of all Texans, or a chuckle-fest and metaphor for misplaced enthusiasm or a consequence of not having well-disciplined and engaged troops? A 19th century Grenada?
If this was part of a larger war or revolution, did it lead to anything other than a surge of faith in the abilities of Texians?
Thank you, Moni, I was afraid that some of this might leave non-Texas a bit lost. Since your list is so short, I'll respond below you, and you can put your comments wherever.
I've reworded the first part of the lead to hopefully be a bit more clear.
Amazingly enough, no historian has remarked on what happened to the grass. I would assume the Texian horses ate it.
Most of the books that I read didn't do much analysis of the battle (a side effect of being a pretty small fight...over grass). I had already included Edmondson's view that it was "a ludicrous affair". Should I make that more prominent (put it in the lead, perhaps)? If you think it would help, I could also include more information on how much of a joke the Texian army really was (seriously, it is a miracle Texas is not still part of Mexico).
I clarified that the Texians agreed to attack Bexar on Dec 5 partly as a result of their Grass Fight victory.
The lead is much clearer now, thanks. Consider it my condemnation of all Texas historians who have not addressed what happened to the grass. If people must die in battle, it should be known what good their deaths did in the grand scheme of human history. It's a silly idea, yet... what a horrifying thought that you had to lay down your life for bushels of grass that no one cared about. --Moni3 (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments.Support. I can write long easily; I'm glad to see someone writing short! But regarding parts of the lead:
Is there a wikilink for the "Mexican Army" of the time, that could be used in the first sentence?
In the first paragraph we have the "members of a volunteer militia", the "volunteer Texian army", and the "smaller number of adventurers from the United States". Are these all one and the same? In that case "militia" and "army" need to be reconciled. Or are only the first and the third the same?
The "pack" wikilink goes to animals, not trains.
Saying "historian Alwyn Barr states that ..." in the lead sounds like a lame. Don't we know enough to say something like, historians believe blah blah, although side X claimed much larger numbers at the time.
This is my first attempt at a short article. I've rewritten the first paragraph of the lead to try for a bit more clarity. I also created an article on the Texian Army today that I've now wikilinked too (maybe that will help). I've switched the link from pack animal to packhorse - this article does explain that packhorses were often used in "trains" of several animals. As for the number of Mexican dead, every source I've found lists a different number and some just don't list a number. Barr is the only historian to write a book focused on the Siege of Bexar and go into detail on this battle, so I chose to highlight his number, hoping it would be the most accurate. Karanacs (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Frustrated, too much childhood experience with pack trains, I guess, but a pack train usually includes horses, mules and burros. Wish we could fix that, although it's not your problem, but worried that non-English-speaking readers will have no idea what the heck it is. Can't we make pack animal discuss pack trains? It's not only horses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Great job creating the Texian Army article ... however, the use of "Mexican Army" and "Texian Army" does not stay consistent in this article ... in "Background" there's a "Texian army" with only Texian wlinked, and later there are a lot of "Mexican army" and "Texian army" mentions with mixed case. I don't know what the MILHIST conventions are with respect to this, but looking at a few FA articles, Something Army and Something Navy usually stay capitalized throughout. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Another comment, on the "Background" section. This is covering the origins of the Texas Revolution and the beginnings of the conflict. Compared to other FA "Battle of ..." articles, this seems too much. Generally these articles just start with some background on a particular campaign, or stage of the conflict, and that leads into the description of the particular battle. In this case, you might just start with the Siege of Bexar. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I've fixed the case issues; thanks for pointing out that oversight. As for the background, I included the first few sentences on why the revolution started primarily because I thought there would be very few readers who knew about it, and since the article was really short it wouldn't hurt to start there. I'd be willing to remove most of the first 3 sentences in the first paragraph, but I think the section does need to start with the Texas Revolution beginning. The way the Texian Army formed really did have an impact on this battle (random gathering of settlers who were highly disorganized and didn't know how to be soldiers). I also think the reasons they were in the Bexar area are important. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Removing the first three sentences makes sense.
Also, I'd argue that the last sentence of "Aftermath" doesn't belong either. You'd have to explain or wikilink what "parole" is (I know, but many readers won't, since it doesn't happen much any more), and in any case, it seems pretty remote from the Grass Fight.
Also, a minor change: in "Although the battle, which historian J.R. Edmondson termed a "ludicrous affair", ...", I'd replace "battle" with "engagement" or somesuch, to avoid a repetition of a few words earlier. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your continued comments. I've removed the first 3 sentences of the Background section adnd made the word change you mentioned. I'm going to keep the last sentence of aftermath as it is somewhat related (win in grass fight convinced troops they could attack Mexican Army, which resulted in Mex. Army surrender and leaving the province), but I have wikilinked parole for more clarity. Karanacs (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"many of the men became sick, and groups of men began to leave, most without permission." - there weren't any female soldiers were there? It may sound awkward without "the men" but I dunno if you need to say it both times. *shrugs*
"scattering the mules" - other than in the lead, this is the first time mules are mentioned... maybe it's just me but until now I had no idea mules were involved.
"Four Texians were wounded in the fighting. One soldier deserted during the battle." - merge these sentences?
Reworded to "many soldiers became sick, and groups of men began to leave"; specified in first paragraph of Battle section that it was a "pack train of horses and mules" (I thought this was a common term but I guess I'm the only one who reads Westerns ;)), and combined the sentences you mentioned. Karanacs (talk) 13:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because I feel that it has finally reached FA level. I haven't submitted an FAC in a month and a bit, so bear with me ;) Editors who have done MAJOR work to this article include Nergaal and Itub, among many others who helped do some copyediting, finding references, and making sure things look nice and tidy. This article is definitely the most technical I have worked on, by far, but I think we have done a great job with this. GaryKing (talk)20:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment as co-nominator. I was hoping to finish filling in a couple of small gaps in the section on occurrence and production before the FAC, but I'll let the reviewers decide whether those gaps are an impediment to promotion or not. These gaps should be filled within a few days, which is well within the usual duration of the FAC process. In the meantime, any comments about the FA-worthiness of the existing content and presentation are of course welcome. Other than that, in my biased opinion, the article is accurate, comprehensive enough, and meets the other FA criteria as far as far as I can tell. The only aspect I can't comment on is the "prose brilliancy" requirement, which is too subjective for me to judge. --Itub (talk) 09:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, I hadn't noticed your question. I filled most of the gaps that I had in mind, but there are a couple left. 1) I'd like to expand a bit the part that describes the method of production. The Ullmann and Kirk-Othmer encyclopedias have very detailed descriptions of the industrial processes, with diagrams and everything. While we don't need such gory details, a couple more sentences would be good IMO. 2) Production figures. The problem here is that the values I've found are either for the USA only, or are too old, or are for helium only. I still haven't decided which ones to use. --Itub (talk) 09:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
2) the most recent figures are perhaps the most useful; separate references may be used for each entry; try SciFinder if you have access to it. Nergaal (talk) 11:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not that you're using citation that is the problem. It's that you're using citation ALONG WITH cite. One or the other, not both. If you want to stick with harvnb, you'll need to remove the cite templates and switch them over. Ealdgyth - Talk12:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Please don't cap my comments for me. Sandy asked me a while back to only cap long commentary. This isn't that long that a strike through won't work. Also, I'll note that somewhere someone left off an end font tag, because you've changed the font on the whole of the FAC page with something missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC) - font issue fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk12:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - the applications section has little on Xenon as an anaesthetic, which phenomenon itself is considered as a major puzzle by some (like Sir Roger Penrose).Shyamal (talk) 01:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - seems comprehensive, well organised, written, cited and illustrated. My only observations below: Shyamal (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
somewhat confusing usage of "discovering" a "synthetic" element (and seems to imply serendipity) in A synthetic member of the group, ununoctium (Uuo), has also been discovered
The abundance of the noble gases in the universe decreases as their atomic numbers increase. I think this should be reworded to explicitly indicate that it is an observed trend rather than something that can be "controlled" - that atomic numbers could be altered.
Still a few unresolved issues at the PR (taking at random the point about Bobrow; second bullet point... plenty more though). You're welcome to reply to the comments on that page or to copy-paste them here and reply. —Giggy02:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment – While the column of elements in the lead looks great, it's not very informative when you consider the lack of a legend to explain the meaning of the colours and border styles used. Can some explanation of these be added? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Infobox is a bit fussy – is the primordial etc bit standard?
Intro –shouldn’t non-metallic be hyphenated?
but very little is known of its properties due to its rarity. Rarity seems odd for a synthetic- isn’t it more the difficulty of making and working with it?
consequently, they are liquids only over a small temperature range. The noble gases show extremely low chemical reactivity; consequently,
isolated a new element, argon, from the Greek word for inactive (αργό(ν)). I thought it was isolated from air, not a word –second para of history needs a good copyedit really
radon fluoride but krypton difluoride.inconsistent
Xenon is the least volatile of the noble gases obtainable from the air, and although it is an unusually safe anesthetic, its compounds are toxic there’s no obvious connection between an element’s properties and those of its compounds – witness NaCl
temps sometimes in K, C and F, sometimes just C and F – inconsistent. Since this is a proper science article, I’d stick to K only (three temp units looks a mess)
The element is still discovered rather than synthesized itself, just in a lab instead of in "the wild".
Consequently has been changed
Good point. Done.
Radon Fluoride is RnF and Radon Difluoride is RnF2, so they are different I might be wrong, but the reason why they simply call it fluoride is because they don't really know the stoechiometric formula. They just know something with Rn and F has formed. Nergaal (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Changed
All in Kelvins now, with C and F conversions which are necessary for most people
Well done, a beautiful, engaging, well-written, comprehensive article. I haven't enjoyed reading a science article so much in a long time, (but I still don't know what exactly helium replaces in breathing gases; perhaps it's just simply used:).
Dhould be more clear now.
Would ''instability be better than unstable nature?
This sentence is a bit odd, Argon is the most plentiful noble gas on Earth, while krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds. There seems to be a false contrast here.
Both issues have been resolved. Thanks for both of your supports! Also, I'd like to see this article on the main page; it'd be a nice change from biographical, sports, and video game articles :) Hopefully it will educate a few aspiring chemists, too! GaryKing (talk)19:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - prose generally looks fine, a few things though:
The first sentence states that being a noble gas is equivalent to being in group 18, but later it says "...but preliminary experiments have shown that it may have similar chemical and physical characteristics to other noble gases, and may therefore be a noble gas without being a member of group 18." Clarification would be appreciated.
"Lord Rayleigh discovered that some samples of nitrogen from the air were of a different density than nitrogen that resulted from chemical reactions"
The first sentence actually states "The noble gases are the nonmetallic, inert elements in group 18", so the "nonmetallic" and "inert" characteristics are required. GaryKing (talk)02:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm being a bit of a devil's advocate, but it can still be misinterpreted as "The noble gases are the elements in group 18, which are inert and nonmetallic", though it's meant to say "The noble gases are those elements in group 18 which are both inert and nonmetallic"? Can we come up with a phrasing that's not ambiguous (and not as awkward as my unambiguous example)? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
How about "the noble gases are elements in group 18 that are both inert and nonmetallic"? —Giggy04:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment – In the last paragraph of the history section, mentions of two superheavy elements are made. It is unclear in this paragraph what the relevances of these discoveries are to noble gases. For example, while Uuq is given as having potentially noble-gas-like properties, it is not commented on that this is not necessarily predicted by its atomic number (it's "eka-lead", not "eka-radon"); nor is it said why the synthesis of Uuo (which is predicted to be a noble gas by its atomic number) is a discovery. It would be helpful to an uninformed reader to understand why these discoveries are significant to the topic at hand. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 02:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Note: I now notice that some of this is described in the lead; nevertheless, can we please have more detail in the relevant section? {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 04:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support A well written article indeed. Some minor comments:
"The abundances of the noble gases in the universe decrease as their atomic numbers increase." This seems a little clunky to me although I am not sure how it could be improved.
"and it is also used as an anesthetic ..." Is the "it" here superfluous? I changed a few like this, then I realised on a technical article this could change meaning. Sorry if there has been any errors made.
"This localization of charge is accommodated by the fact that the fluorine atoms are highly electronegative." I am not a big fan of the use of "by the fact". Would "This localization of charge occurs because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative" or if that implies a causation where none exists, then "This localization of charge is allowed because fluorine atoms are highly electronegative".
Comment—Seems good overall. I just have a few comments:
"They have several important applications..." does this mean just Helium and Radon (as in the prior sentence), or all of the noble gases?
"The melting and boiling points for each noble gas are close together" should include a value to avoid vagueness. For example, "within a range of 10 °C or less."
The statement, "leading them to rarely react with other elements," seems odd somehow. Perhaps it is too anthropormorphic? Something like, "Hence they rarely react with other elements" would be more direct.
Leaning toward support. But I'd like to see after Ruslik's comments are resolved. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
SupportOppose. The article makes lots inaccurate statements, is not comprehensive and and is not well-written. Some examples (from the end of the article):
1) "Krypton is used in lasers by doctors performing eye surgery", While this is formaly true, it fails to mention that NG are used in excimer lasers—one of the most succeseful type of lasers. The ArF and KrF lasers are widely used in optical (or UV) lithography. The majority of modern electronic chips is made with them. This is much more important application of excimer laser than "eye surgery". This type of lasers is widely used in fusion experiment (see for example Nike laser). Neon is also used in helium-neon laser and helium is used as a buffer gas in many gaseous lasers.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea about this field. I could try to cherry pick from the articles you gave, but I am not sure weather that would be enough. Do you know someone who knows enough about the field to add the information there? Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the paragraph about excimer lasers. I'm not an expert, but I tried to summarize the salient points from the introduction and the table of contents of the book I cited. --Itub (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
2) Another paragraph begins with: "In the early 20th century, hydrogen was used ...". However the article is about NG, not about hydrogen. Why not to begin with "Helium is used for ..."? This paragraphs is not well-written in my opinion.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
3) The paragraph about diving is not well-written as well. It begins with "Helium has a low solubility in fluids, ...". Why not to begin with "Helium is used in breathing mixtures ..."? In other words you should state at the begining where helium is used, then explain why it is used, not in reverse order like in the article. In addition this paragraphs is misleading in respect to influence of solubility. It creates an impression that the helium is no better than nitrogen. This is not true, and helium is used instead of nitrogen, partly because of its low solubility (in addition to low narcotic effect). As a result the decompression is accelerated and divers can ascend faster than with nitrogen in their blood. The article, in my opinion, should not go into irrelevant details like "Divers breathing helium mixtures use a modified form of dive tables or software to determine a schedule that allows them to ascend safely".Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
4) From 1)-3) above it is clear that 'Applications' section should be expanded and needs thorough copy-edit.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I've expanded the section a bit, adding more uses in lighting, metallurgy, medicine, cryogenics, and in scientific instruments. The big use that still needs significant expansion is lasers; I don't know that much about lasers so if someone who knows can write that it would be nice. --Itub (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
5) What is "ppm by mass" and "ppm by volume"? I have always thought that ppm refers to "particles per million". I don't see any connection with either volume or mass. The values that are listed in the article are (probably) mass fractions and should be listed as 0.23 etc. In addition, I can not find such values in the ref cited (Anders et al. 1989).Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So I recommend you: a) to use a newer publication (Lodders et al. 2003, for example); b) to cite the values from it accuratly (i.e. ppm is ppm, mass fraction is mass fraction). Also pay attention that such articles usually give two types of abudances: in the Sun's photosphere (around 0.24) and primordial (around 0.27). If you write about abudances in the universe the latter values should be used.
You have been misled about the meaning of ppm. It means parts per million, and is very often used in terms of mass and in terms of volume, just like "percent" can be used as "percent by mass" or "percent by volume". 1 ppm=0.0001%=0.000001, that's all there is to it. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You may be right here. However in literature that I usually read "ppm by mass" is rarely used. Mass fractions or ppm (by number of particles) are much more common. My main concern is about the validity of values themself. Please, use newer refs and cite them accuratly.Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that abudance of Radon is given as 0.00. While correct can this be written better? Why not to say that radon does not (usually) naturally occur?
I've added a table of abundances using the values from the reference Lodders (it turned out that the old values were not from Anders but during the heavy editing someone changed the reference without updating the numbers!). I've also renamed "ppm by volume" to "volume fraction (ppm)" in case that's more agreeable. It needs to be emphasized that it is by volume (or by number of molecules if you wish, assuming that the atmosphere is an ideal gas) because, at least in chemistry, ppm often implies "ppm by mass". --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
6) The second paragraph in 'Occurrence and production' should be moved into the next section. And the sections should be renamed accordinly. It also states that "Helium is typically produced from oil wells". So it implies that it is produced exclusively from oil wells and nothing is produced from gas wells? Strange statement indeed.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Both xenon and helium have those section combined together. And if an element occurs in air, and you only need to distill it, it seems logic to put the distilling part right after saying you can find it in air. Also, a compound/element is produced, and besides being used industrially, it may be used scientifically. Therefore you could also defend the argument that production should be between occurence and chemistry sections. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
7) The same section states "The low abundance of helium on Earth is caused by the total loss of primordial helium from the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom", but I suspect that helium was never abudant in the Earth's atmosphere in the first place. Another sentences reads "The abundance of argon, on the other hand, is increased as a result of the beta decay of potassium-40, also found in the Earth's crust". However argon has several stable isotopes, and only one of them is actually increased. This sentence is misleading.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
How is it misleading? It seems obvious to me that by increasing the abundance of one isotope, you also increase the overall abundance of the element (of course, you also change its isotopic distribution and average atomic mass in the process). Perhaps we could mention that argon-40 is more than 99% of natural argon. --Itub (talk) 10:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It can mislead because a casual read will think that all argon is from decay of potassium. 36 and 38 isotopes are more like other noble gases— they are primodial. This is actually the main reason why their abudances are similar to those of other NG. Ruslik (talk) 11:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I expanded that part a bit to mention that the argon formed is argon-40, and that it is the most abundant isotope on Earth despite not being the most abundant in the solar system. I hope that helps. --Itub (talk) 13:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Where does the statement imply that helium was abundant? I think it only implies that we would have had more now if it wasn't for the low mass of the atom. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I updated that sentence today. The way it was before, it suggested that there used to be primordial helium on Earth, that has since been lost. I rephrased it to "There is no primordial helium in the atmosphere; due to the small mass of the atom, helium cannot be retained by the Earth's gravitational field". --Itub (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
8) In 'Compounds' subsection I read "As of 2007, almost 100 compounds of xenon bonded to other elements have been identified". However the ref cited (Grochala, 2007) says about half a thousand (see page 1632). One hundred value refers only to Ng-C, Ng-N and NG-Cl type compounds (see page 1634). The ref 7 deserves more attention in my opinion.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
9) The HArF is not the only known Ar compound according the same ref 7. Other compounds include ArAgCl, ArCuCl etc.(pages 1638 and 1642).Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
They are not less true than HArF. They were observed in jets, while HArF at extremely low temperature. At least this is my reading of ref 7. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are talking about the same ref, I am not sure that it said those compounds are anything more than interstitial compounds. Nergaal (talk) 11:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
They are not more interstitial than HArF, which is refered in this article to as real and relatively stable compound. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as much as I remember, the paper seemed to imply (in an image around the conclusion section) that HArF is more of a true compound than those with Kr...Cl weak-bond-like compounds. Again, I don't have the paper now to double check. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
11) In addition unstable (short-lived) moleculars (excimers) of NG should be mentiond as well. They are basis of some widely used lasers.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
12) This article is supposed to be scientific, therefore °F should not be used. It is preferrable to use Kelvins for the temperatures in the table. The ionisation energies would be more informative if they were expressed in electronvolts. The abudances (I already discussed them above) should also be moved to the table. While some values (like viscosity and mean free path) can be removed becauses they are not very informative.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
eV vs kJ/mol is just a matter of preference. I included the values in the units that were used in the reference, Greenwood, Norman N.; Earnshaw, Alan (1997). Chemistry of the Elements (2nd ed.). Butterworth-Heinemann. ISBN978-0-08-037941-8.. Although eV might be preferred by physicists, in my opinion kJ/mol is better for this article because it is the SI unit and is better-known. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that viscosity and mean free path can be removed, because they are not discussed in the text, and are just two of many properties that could be included. Regarding the abundances, they used to be in the table but were removed because someone insisted that abundance is not a "physical property"! As far as I'm concerned, I prefer to have them in the table. --Itub (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where did you see °F; °C might be more accessible for regular users than K; also, the table does not use SI strictly, therefore I don't really see the need to use K. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are no °F in the table, but it is used in a couple of places in the text for parenthetical conversion. --Itub (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I hate those fake units that some ignorant parts of the world need to use. Anyways, I have deleted the F part since it does not add anything. Nergaal (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
13) In 'Physical properties' I read " krypton is the lightest noble gas to be converted into chemical compounds.". However this contradicts 'Compounds section'—Ar was forced into a number of compounds.Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The list of issues a bove should not be considered complete as I don't have anough time to review all used references, and the article needs copy-edit by a person not familiar with text. Ruslik (talk) 10:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think of it, I'm not all that good at copyediting, and might cause some problems. I'll call up AndonicO instead. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Just to recap brefly: add about lasers&lithography, more about Ar&Kr compounds (pending on discussion on the reference ), copyedit applications. Correct me if I missed something that still needs to be done. Nergaal (talk) 08:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Good point. I think it is important enough to mention. Perhaps we could have a paragraph in the applications section focusing on "scientific applications" that are interesting and useful to scientist but not necessarily "practical" or "commercial". I would also include there the use of noble gas compounds as oxidizing agents that is currently in the compounds section. --Itub (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I forgot to mention--perhaps it is a bit curious that some noble gas compounds can only be studied under matrix isolation conditions! --Itub (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have added a sentence, but I do not have a reference. I know for sure that cyclobutadiene was first characterized as a monomer in an argon? matrix, but this might be overly detailed for the purpose of the article. Nergaal (talk) 09:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Attention needed; see my edit summaries, mainly WP:NBSP, wikilinking, there are side-by-side images scrolling off of my screen in the "Compounds" and "Applications" sections, incorrect use of quotes vs. italics, incorrect punctuation on image captions per WP:MOS#Images, and inconsistency in page numbering in citations (some use p. others don't). I suggest first fixing the items noted in my edit summaries, and then approaching someone like User:Epbr123 to do a MoS check. I'm always surprised when a nomination gets seven supports with no one apparently having checked on these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
A bit timely—and no, I didn't arrange the announcement of the sale of U.S. Sugar, though I found my timing in writing this series astoundingly coincidental. I must write or call the governor of Florida and express my thanks. This is the next in the series on the Everglades. Here's hoping that people can learn from past mistakes... Thank you for reading it. Article creator, Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I see I have two dead links, both of them recent stories in the Miami Herald. Apparently the URLs in recent stories at the Herald get changed over to their archives, which is by login only. I tried to find them in LexisNexis for the page number, but the latest stories are in mid-May. Any suggestions? --Moni3 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think at the very least, title is required. That's the most important data for finding the article in the first place. GaryKing (talk)21:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the links, and forgot to report it. Had a total brain fart - The Miami Herald does not number pages in LexisNexis. They only include the section the story was in. I've only done two other FAs with the Miami Herald as sources... --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support with a few questions.
Lake Okeechobee, a large and very shallow lake - do you know how shallow? Very is not very helpful. Same for the river.
During the wet season when the lake fills, - is it dry during the dry season?
Exotic animals imported by the pet trade have escaped or been released and later on Several animal species have been introduced to Everglades waterways, many of them released as exotic pets - is this repetition deliberate? GrahamColmTalk11:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Measurements for Lake Okeechobee are included, some new wording in the next sentence, and redundancy removed from the Invasive species section. Thank you, Graham. --Moni3 (talk) 12:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Support'. Moni3 has produced another fabulous article. Well-written, well-referenced. All the best, Cam (Chat) 20:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Not reviewing, but I'd like to help out. "...were discovered in waterways in 1986...": maybe a modifier would be helpful, like "these waterways" or "Everglades waterways" or "South Florida waterways". - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hmains just added 3 commas, and they don't seem to match Moni's style to me, in this article or the other Everglades articles. Most style guides these days allow you to omit the comma after "short" (undefined) introductory phrases, such as "In the 1960s..." Can anyone see a reason we need those 3 commas? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
If the commas will make Hmains happy, they can stay in. If they will cause an oppose, then I guess take them out. --Moni3 (talk) 12:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I'm pulling in my own agenda here; maybe you guys can help me decide what my agenda ought to be. A lot of people, including Moni (I think) and myself, believe that "edit warring over optional styles" is not a good idea. If people make changes to one of my articles, I generally just leave them if I can't come up with some clear grammar rule or style guideline that argues against them...it's not important, and I like democratic editing. FAC ought to be different, though. If I know Moni's style, and I know that her style is acceptable, and I think that making random changes that don't agree with her style is something I would object to if she were submitting this article to a magazine and I really was her copyeditor...isn't FAC the place to say so? Isn't this supposed to be our "very best work"? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. By "agenda" I mean, I have a feeling that if someone sticks up for the nom(s) at FAC, someone who isn't voting and didn't write the article, someone who knows the style of the nom(s), WP's style guidelines, the FAC process, and a little about copyediting in general, then a variety of good things will happen. It's a theory I'd like to test. Apologies to Moni for testing it on her FAC :) - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I find I have to pick my battles on a collaborative encyclopedia where dramatic struggles over hurt feelings take place daily. Three commas does not, at the time, warrant my objection. I dig in primarily where content accuracy is compromised. Were this a peer reviewed paper to be published where I am the primary author and random folks don't have access to edit it at whim or will, I might forbid the three commas. Like I said, if you think they stick out like a sore thumb and don't reflect the best work of the encyclopedia, by all means I will change the commas. --Moni3 (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments - Sources look good, and links check out, except for the Miami Hearld glitch noted above, which is being worked on. Ealdgyth - Talk13:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support (Disclaimer: I have copyedited this article.) Another fascinating (and now timely) article from Moni3 regarding the Everglades. I knew nothing about the restoration of the Everglades before I read this article - the material was presented clearly and concisely and I believe I understand the major issues at play in the debates. The recent information regarding U. S. Sugar has also been integrated well (no recentism here!). Well done! Awadewit (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeSupport Issues resolved. I think the article contains a great many useful facts but it is very incomplete and omits some significant facts and major debate on the issue. Please see this link for an idea of what this article needs to include in order to meet WP:NPOV policy. Big Sugar, as the sugar industry is called in South Florida has been coddled by the US government ever since Castro came to power in Cuba. The Cuban Sugar barons, the Fanjul Family, moved to South Florida in the 60's and created a significant sugar empire with the help of the the US government. It was an effort meant to cripple Cuba's sugar exports and harm their economy. The result was that sugar produced in the Unites States eliminated the crop as one of the main sources of income for the impoverished island of Haiti as well as Cuba. The price of sugar skyrocketed in the US which produced the domino effect of chasing some candy companies out of the US and into Mexico where they were not required to buy US sugar (as all other US consumers were). The sugar barons have a long history of making large payouts to all political parties, they have their own political action committees that raise very large amounts of money (from their own corporations) that are used for political purposes (see this article from Naples News .) The government, according to this article, then pumps 14 billion back to the farmers each year in return. Because of this form of government corruption, any efforts to clean up the Everglades were obstructed for many years. Lawton Chiles broke the deadlock by walking into the courtroom with a vial of polluted everglades water and finally admitted the extent of the problem - effectively ending the long series of court battles over Everglades cleanup. While the current news reports about US Sugar Corp's selling out to the goverment claim that this will help resolve the problem, the fact that the Fanjul Family's many sugar corporations like Okeelanta, Flo-Sun, Inc. and many others remain the largest sugar producer in the Everglades and they have not sold out to the governement remains a significant problem. US agricultural policy that supports Big Sugar like the Fanjul Family, killed the economy of Haiti and results in higher prices for US consumer goods that contain sugar is also the driving force obstructing the restoration of the Everglades according to a significant POV that should have some mention in the article. This New York Times article from 1990 also helps clarify this significant problem .NancyHeise (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Nancy. I'm aware of Big Sugar's role in the restoration process, and there is an article that is related to this one that discusses the surge of power and production of US Sugar, called Draining and development of the Everglades. I tried in this article to give an overview of the problems the Everglades have been facing, and I know the power the Fanjuls have held in the past in local and statewide politics. However, I felt I had to keep this accessible to people who are reading this from other parts of the country, as well as the world, who have no knowledge of the inner-workings of state and local issues. I didn't feel it was appropriate to overwhelm readers with many details of the workings of US Sugar that border on corporate deviance. There are mentions of the strength of the sugar lobbyists in this article, specifically about the battles over phosphorus being pumped into the lower Glades. Governor Chiles' attempts at coming to a resolution about it is also mentioned. Foremost, I wanted the focus of the article to be on the diminished quality of the Everglades, how it has impacted local metropolitan areas, and how state and federal government agencies, and business interests (including Big Sugar) have been unable to agree on the best course of action to be taken. What you are suggesting may be more appropriate for the article on the US Sugar Corporation, which, coincidentally, was created several days ago. --Moni3 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Moni, Thanks. I'm sorry that I could not support your article in its present form. I will reconsider my vote if there is some mention of the significance of US sugar policy in creating the obstacles to Everglades restoration that have existed over the years. You dont need to go into great detail but mention of this fact would make the aritcle complete. Right now, its omission makes the article violate FAC criteria and could be easily remedied by a paragraph or two. Since your article is not too long in its present form you could easily add this information I think. I also ran across this article on the Fanjul's that may also be helpful. . Also, in the archives of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, you will find a whole series of articles they did on the problem of Big Sugar and the Everglades. I can't remember the name of the series but I may have kept one of the articles and may locate for you. NancyHeise (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I will consider the addition of stronger information about the power of the sugar coalition in South Florida. I will do some reading of my sources as well as the ones you suggested. I do not, however, think it should be a smear piece on the Fanjuls—that would indeed make it POV. I am no fan at all of the sugar or real estate industries and I'm willing to think perhaps I'm holding back as not to appear POV against them. I would appreciate input from other editors who have read this article, specifically addressing my question about too much detail on the inner workings of political deals between the government and US Sugar. --Moni3 (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a smear piece would violate FAC criteria. The link I gave you to the Fanjuls actually has more nice than not-nice things to say about them but it gives the reader the fact that they are accused of polluting the Everglades. NancyHeise (talk) 18:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Before I wade into this swamp (!), I should do some research. Beyond the links you have provided, Nancy, is there anything else you would suggest I read? And Moni3, what would you suggest I read? I'll start with those sources. Awadewit (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Where there are government sources, I try to go straight to them, but Washington Post journalist Michael Grunwald wrote what I think will be the standard on political histories of South Florida, in The Swamp: The Everglades, Florida, and the Politics of Paradise. That's where I'm getting most of my infomation about the political battles between the various state and federal agencies, Big Sugar, and real estate interests. It's chronological, and it's a book, so I don't expect you to read all or any of it during this FAC. My pages are dog-eared and marked up, so I can find it quickly. My question was really - how much of these maneuverings should be included? I found the details about what parts should be restored, how, and why to be daunting. For four years the state sued the federal government, countersuits, back and forth, and I summed it up with A costly legal battle took place from 1988 to 1992 between the State of Florida, the U.S. government, and agricultural interests regarding who was responsible for water quality standards, the maintenance of Everglades National Park and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge. I figured people don't really want to read about each suit, who initiated it, how much was at stake, etc, especially since Chiles stepped in to fix it in the end. Though Big Sugar has had their finger in the political pie of South Florida since the 1960s, the issue that they had a clear stake in was the penny-a-pound tax that went to state ballot in 1996, and I summarized it this way: A controversial penny-a-pound (2 cent/kg) tax on sugar was proposed to fund some of the necessary changes to be made to help decrease phosphorus and make other improvements to water. State voters were asked to support the tax, and environmentalists paid $15 million to encourage the issue. Sugar lobbyists responded with $24 million in advertising to discourage it and succeeded; it became the most expensive ballot issue in state history. I'm just trying to find the balance, of course, about what will illustrate what has been at stake and how far it can go.--Moni3 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The best place to find all references government or no on the subject would be the South Florida Sun-Sentinel which has followed the story for decades. Government Accounting Office also has information which was summarized in an editorial several years ago by columnist Stephen Goldstein. You will need to go into the Sentinel's archives by doing an advanced search and you will probably have to pay to view the articles. I personally dont think you need any more than a paragraph (at most two) maybe in a section called "Big Sugar" that gives some overview of the controversy and the role played by Big Sugar in defeating many years of efforts to clean up the pollution. Lawton Chile's walk into the courtroom with a vial of water was a very dramatic and unprecedented gesture. Good luck, if I can find more sources, I will let you know. I personally wrote several letters that were published in both Palm Beach Post and Sun-Sentinel columnist sections (Im not a columnist) because I had audited the sugar farms for several years and wrote a summary of the problem which was then used (without my knowledge or permission) by an anti-sugar subsidy group as evidence in testimony before Congress. NancyHeise (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Reset. Added the following in Water quality:The sugarcane industry, dominated by two companies named U.S. Sugar and Flo-Sun, were responsible for more than half if the crop in the EAA. They were well-represented in state and federal governments by lobbyists who enthusiastically protected their interests. The Audubon Society pointed out that the sugar industry, nicknamed "Big Sugar", donated more money to political parties and candidates than General Motors. The sugar industry attempted to block government-funded studies of polluted water, and when the federal prosecutor in Miami faulted the sugar industry in legal action to protect Everglades National Park, Big Sugar tried to get the lawsuit withdrawn and the prosecutor fired. The sugar industry is mentioned again in Sustainable South Florida, again in Implementation, and once more in Future of Restoration, in a telling quote by one of their own lobbyists. I think this implicated the sugar industry as a major playor in this problem. I hesitate to put any more emphasis on the industry lest the article place the majority of blame upon sugar. While I find sugar is not very nice and is quite harmful, I don't consider them to be the major reason why the Everglades is in the sad state it is in. Real estate, and government indifference and incompetence helps to form one big ball of wrong. --Moni3 (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Big Sugar is not solely responsible for Everglades damage and you have hit on all of the causes in your article nicely, now including Big Sugar as one of the major players. I appreciate your addition and will change my vote to Support. Many thanks for your hard work. NancyHeise (talk) 21:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This article is the first of many in a series on the works of Mary Shelley (I'm hoping for a featured topic - any volunteers?). It covers several sets of biographies that she wrote for Dionysius Lardner's Cabinet Cyclopaedia (Shelley wrote for an encyclopedia, too!). The organization of this article was extremely difficult, but I hope that the article makes the set of texts as clear as possible. For a discussion on whether or not the Cabinet Cyclopaedia should have its own article, see here. I would also like to thank the GA reviewer and the peer reviewers. Awadewit (talk) 19:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
"The Romantic writer Mary Shelley wrote most of them." → "Most of them were written by..." perhaps? Especially since they are discussed in the preceding sentences.
Support. I took part in the peer review and found the article, the likes of which I'm quite sure won't be found anywhere else, excellent. The topic is awkward in the extreme because of the partial, asymmetrical, and quasi-anonymous nature of these volumes, so I commend Awadewit for her feat of organisation. Comprehensive and fully referenced. qp10qp (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. The only comments I have relate to links, otherwise the article is well sourced, written and explained. A very enjoyable article with a lot to recommend it.
Does the Cabinet Cyclopedia not have it's own article? That seems a little unusual, I'd be interested in reading in more detail about how it was put together and more precisely what articles it consisted of.
"Reverend Dr. Dionysius Lardner, a science lecturer at London University," - which London university is meant? University College, London perhaps? The University of London (where the link goes to) is a modern union of major educational institutions in London rather than a single entity.
I certainly can't give you a definitive answer, but it probably is UCL, I've seen this construction before when referring to it. However, one of the other major London universities, King's, opened in 1829, which hazes things a little. All the others seem too small or too late to be in consideration. I think at this stage the best thing to do is actually to delink it since at the moment we can't be sure exactly which university is referred to, although I'll defer to your judgement on this issue.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
As with the Mary Shelley FAC, I'd be interested in reading articles on other people involved who aren't linked (some, like David Brewer, as writers and some as subjects, such as a number of the Italians for example), what are the chances of seeing these articles in future? (not actionable, just curious)
I've redlinked Brewster because he has an entry in the DNB. Someone familiar with Italian literature would need to decide the others. Awadewit (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Tasso goes to a disambiguation page and I wasn't sure which one was meant (probably Torquato but I didn't want to guess).
"An estimated four thousand copies of the first edition of the early volumes were printed, but the print run would probably have fallen to 2,500 since the sales did not pick up after 1835." The "would have" made me expect "... had the sales not picked up". Meaning unclear.
This sentence reflects the source's speculation about what happened - the source doesn't know that the print run fell to 2,500, but the source does know that the sales did not pick up after 1835. How can I make this clearer? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"twelve", "nineteenth". Well, I'd be happier with figures above nine, and so would MOS. But it's no deal breaker.
"They demonstrate her knowledge of multiple languages and historical research covering several centuries"—"Multiple" is not right here—either "many", "several" or "numerous", or give the number demonstrated here.
To avoid another "also", consider turning this: "She was also influenced by the biographical style of her father, William Godwin." into "The biographical style of her father, William Godwin, was a significant influence on her own style", or something like it?
Check tenses: "Shelley was particularly interested in tying private, domestic history to public, political history. She emphasizes ...". Past and present might both be used if logical, but avoid switching if it jolts the reader. Unsure, here.
I believe that this is acceptable because the first sentence is about Shelley, the dead person, so it is in the past, while the rest of the paragraph is about the text, which continues to live, so that is in the present. The "literary present" is tricky sometimes. Do you think this sentence should be in the "literary present"? Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Put "only" as late in a clause as possible: "which only had a print run of several hundred copies"—only had a print run and not silk screenings or public readings: no, "which had a print run of only 700 copies". Hate the spelling-out of large numbers.
Moved "only"; have continued to spell out hundred since it is not a specific number (not 700, "several hundred"). Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is "copyright" linked? There are a lot of links in that bit. The reader of this article should know what "plagiarism" means.
Considering this is an article that refers to the history of these concepts, I think the links can be useful. Awadewit (talk) 18:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
In AmEng and BrEng, although is considered more formal.
Well, I looked at the middle bit there. I think someone else should do the honours and perform a polishing on the text. Needs to be at a high standard for such an important literary figure. I love the topic. Well done indeed. TONY(talk)14:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support, as GA Reviewer. Already mentioned this at the Peer Review, and this is not a criticism just something I found quite interesting - that the analysis/reception normally present as a separate subsection in other Wikipedia articles on literary works is in this article instead worked into the various topical subsections seamlessly, which is really neat and different. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Support. I read this article a few days ago and made some minor amendments. Unlike TONY, I find the recent removal of "also"s a minor hindrance to continuity in some places; the removal of spelled-out numbers arbitrary and, while perhaps fine in a science article, hardly preferred in a humanities article; and the tense example mentioned is not jarring, as Awadewit explained above. Having yet another editor go through the text is hardly productive in light of the review the article has already had, and the couple of million other articles that could use the improvement. (Instead of making FAC a shrubbery delivery service, I, for example, just changed a few things as I read the article. Much simpler, though not as attention-grabbing. The main editor can revert as he or she sees fit.) Isolation booth (talk) 23:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it has been through a number of reviews, including two peer-reviews, a GA and A-Class review, and I believe it to be upto the quality expected of a FA-Class article. Skinny87 (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Use en dashes for page ranges in the references per WP:DASH.
Done
A few references have spaces before them, etc., when they shouldn't, per WP:FOOTNOTE. For instance, "8,000 (est.) " → "8,000 (est.)", "Ardennes. " → "Ardennes.", "Wesel. " → "Wesel.", and "24th , 21" → "24th, 21" (in this last case, references go after punctuation marks).
Cam kindly did that for me, so Done
En dash should also be used for ranges, like "was 3-4 times"
Done as well, I believe
If you're working on Airborne Divisions, 82nd Airborne Division (United States) could always use some help; it's something I've always wanted to get to FA... :)
I'd love to, believe me, and it's on my list. Perhaps a joint collaboration later on?
There are a few more minor MOS issues. For instance, "Eric Bols" and "Matthew B. Ridgway" should have spaces between them and the flag. "16, 870" shouldn't have a space in the number.
A first thought: could you recreate the two maps, so they are higher quality, and preferably using SVG? They stick out rather. Best, Gwernol18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that could fail this FAC, especially since it's not expected that everyone can do this. I do suggest that you ask an image editor to help you with this, though (although I can't think of any off the top of my head at the moment.) GaryKing(talk)18:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I know that User:EyeSerene is capable of helping via request, as he did significant image work for me for BoVR. EnigmaMCMXC is also pretty good at that stuff. Cam (Chat) 18:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I've uploaded a quick attempt at converting this to SVG at Image:OperationVarsity1945.svg. I am not anywhere close to a military expert, so please let me know if this isn't accurate - I have tried to reproduce the contents of the original, just updating to vector format and adding a little color. I'm happy to continue to improve this, if you think its helpful. Best, Gwernol19:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)That looks absolutely smashing, thanks for the help!
In the first quotebox, the one with the Operation Orders for the army, the source of the quote shouldn't be in brackets.
Done!
Refs 33 & 37 need to be combined.
Er, not sure how to do that, need to ask someone.
I'll fix it, you just ref-name the thing and then just work it like you would a "cite book" template. Cam (Chat) 23:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
In the section detailing the aircraft shortages, would it be possible to work in a quote from a historian concerning the aircraft shortage problem during Varsity?
Don't have my books on me, but I should be able to. I did pull some other quote boxes earlier from the article wen one editor commented they looked unbalanced.Skinny87 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Not like a quotebox, but like a <blockquote></blockquote> thing.
I can't find a quote that would be long enough for a block quote. All those I've cited simply say there was a lack of aircraft, preventing the 13th from participating. Devlin says about a sentence, and even Flanagan just says 'Originally, Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, commander of the First Allied Airborne Army, had included the US 13th Airborne Division in the operation, but a lack of aircraft precluded their use.' No-one really goes into any detail. So, I don't know what to do. Skinny87 (talk) 17:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, it's not grounds for an oppose, simply a suggestion. I'm able to take this stuff in stride. Cam (Chat) 18:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Other than that, looks pretty good. Just fix the MoS problems with the footnotes outlined above, and it should be good.
Support. Prose of the article is excellent, very well-referenced, maps are splendid SVG-rendered. Little to no objection from me. Cam (Chat) 03:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC) (DISCLOSURE: I have done significant copyediting on this article from before its GA and onward, so my position concerning this article isn't entirely neutral).
Comments
Footnote 23 the Hagerman article, the article actually appeared in the February 1998 issue of the magazine, the bibliographical reference should reflect that, I would think.
Here's a minor question: is "Drop-Zone" supposed to be capitalized (when not used as a specific title, like "Drop-Zone B") and hyphened? I've only ever seen it as "drop zone".
Changed all instances to 'drop zone', so Done.
I would suggest changing the word "practically" in the line "but by 11:00 hours the Drop-Zone was practically clear of enemy forces" here, it just doesn't sound right to me. Maybe "...was all but completely clear of..."? If you've got a better wording, that's fine too.
Changed it to the suggested wording.
Other than those two relatively minor concerns, I see no other real issues with this article. The prose is very good; it's comprehensive, neutral, and well sourced. The photos are properly licensed, and the maps have been upgraded from the lower-quality versions I had originally uploaded from the US Army War College source. I would support this FAC, but I've been involved with the article for some time, even before Skinny's overhaul of the article beginning in April, and I don't feel that it would be appropriate to do so. Parsecboy (talk) 01:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support A very well written article that is neutral, stable, and well referenced. I think this is featured article quality and deserves the star. JonCatalán (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Notes, consistency in citations, some have p. for plural pages, while others have pp. Please check them all; I fixed the one I saw. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"Lieutenant-Colonel Otway, who wrote an official history of the British airborne forces during the Second World War, stated in the history that Operation Varsity highlighted the vulnerability of glider-borne units" First off, the second "history" is redundant, also you use Second World War here when World War II is used elsewhere, you need to remain consistent.
Unlike Market-Garden, the airborne forces would only be dropped a relatively short distance behind German lines, thereby ensuring that reinforcements in the form of Allied ground forces would be able to link up with them within a short period, and not risking the same type of disaster that had befallen the British 1st Airborne Division when it had been isolated and practically annihilated by German infantry and armour at Arnhem. This sentence seems very long, can it be broken up?
It was also decided by the commander of the 1st Allied Airborne Army, General Lewis Brereton who commanded all Allied airborne forces, including US XVIII Airborne Corps, that the two airborne divisions participating in Operation Varsity would be dropped simultaneously in a single "lift", instead of being dropped several hours apart, which also occurred during Operation Market-Garden. Same with that sentence.
Make sure that dates are consistent within the article. Several of the 23 March are written as March 23, which is inconsistent.
MOS:IMAGE recommends that lead images be no smaller than 300px.
Other than that, I added in a comma. The prose seems to be in good shape, the images are all free, evenly spaced and relevant, from the sources I have read, it seems to be comprehensive and well-referenced. So, fix my problems and I will give it another read-through. Woody (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and switched the one instance of "Second World War" to "World War II" per your suggestion, as well as split the two overly long sentences you pointed out. The dates are now formatted properly, and the infobox image has been expanded to 300px. Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Parsecboy (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I believe this article is properly sourced, uses images appropriately, and covers the subject matter fully, and is ready for FAC. JGHowes 00:17, June 21, 2008
Comments
The ref to Seaboard-Bay Line Company CSX transportation archival records, are those non-published sources? WP:V wants "reliable, third-party, published sources"
Reply:Have addressed the first three, don't see any curly quotes except for the {{cquote}} template - is this what you're referring to? JGHowestalk - 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply:Further citation edits made to article. Because the quotation was more than a sentence or two, and seemed to exemplify the impression a Bay Line trip on the Chesapeake made on passengers of the era, I set it off using {{cquote}} per WP:QUOTE#How to use quotations. But if the consensus frowns on it, I'd be happy to remove the template and integrate the quote in the main body of the paragraph. JGHowestalk - 01:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
CommentRename "The 1940s" to "1940s" to avoid starting it with an article, and to be uniform with the other section titles.GaryKing(talk)06:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Reply: Have made all changes mentioned above by Ealdgyth and GaryKing(talk). Page reference added. The information from the corporate secretary of the CSX Corporation, quoting from their archives, is used as a primary source here, but in all instances it should be noted that the information is also covered by the cited reliable secondary sources.JGHowestalk - 12:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I personally dislike hard-coded image sizes. I would prefer to see them specified only as "thumb" so that user's thumbnail-size preferences are respected
I don't really see the need for a direct quote in the sentence beginning "In October 1961, the company announced…".
The article would benefit from inclusion of information on segregation (as a talk page item mentioned), but without coverage in sources, it's not something to oppose over.
It looks like Baltimore Steam Packet Company was a defendant in a US Supreme Court case involving the sinking of a sailing ship in 1859. Have you considered adding this to the article? (Link)
Disclaimer: I was the GA reviewer for this article, and promoted it. I have also made a few edits here and there. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Reply: Image sizes now unforced, except for 300px Lead and detailed map, per MOS:IMAGES. I've revised the 1961 announcement quotation to make it clearer to the reader that, at the time the company made the announcement, seasonal resumption of service the following year was intended. Also now added is the U.S. Supreme Court case involving the Louisiana sinking of a sailing ship in 1858, with inline cite. JGHowestalk - 22:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
Very nice article overall and obviously well researched. I did find some minor things that should be looked at:
The color of the tables is a bit eye-watering. Dark brown and yellow with light blue and then light green is rather a turn-off at least to me anyway.
In the See also section the mention of the Adelaide should be moved up to the section on the Civil War era and I don't see the relevancy that Baltimore riot of 1861 would have to this article unless it directly involved the company.
The External links section carries a link to a danfs article on Adelaide but if the reader were really interested in seeing more about that ship they should be directed to the WP article which can be done by moving Adelaide as described above. You could reference danfs as you did for the President Warfield. Otherwise if there are no relevant external links for this article then the section can be eliminated along with the See also section
Reply: The eye-watering colors have been eliminated from the charts and the Adelaide content integrated with the article's 1860 section, eliminating separate "See also" and "EL" sections. Thanks for these suggestions, which indeed have resulted in a tighter treatment of the Civil War's impact on the subject. JGHowestalk - 00:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Self-nomination: I'm nominating this article for featured article because I just put a lot more information in, and feel it is ready (and want to know how to make it ready if it isn't). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
*Comments...ok...let's have a look-see..... (I'll add comments below, and may change some obvious no-brainers. Advise or correct if I inadvertently change meaning). Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:28, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd move all the alternate scientific names in the lead to the taxonomy section. They clutter a nice lead and are not essential, except maybe what it was first described as.
I'd put the 3rd sentence of the lead as the 2nd, and place the material about lack of pigment after' that for natural flow (i.e. here's this pretty moth, but it ain't pigment which makes it colourful)
..is produced by the alliance of two optic phenomena: - 'alliance' makes me think of battles. I know what you mean I am trying to think of an alternative.
That is if the insects possess polarization and color vision. - a bit abrupt, presumably you mean 'This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and color vision, which is currently unknown (?).'
I have to continue later fromDistribution and habitatNectar sources. Ok, there's something to go on with anyway. Fairly straightforward fixes. Cheers, Casliber (talk·contribs) 04:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments - a very informative and well-illustrated article. And wonderful to see more representation from the smaller majority
sole herbivore ... - seems a little too strong a claim given that HOSTS database lists Omphalea feeding lepidoptera - Alcides zodiaca, Lyssa menoetius and Urania boisduvalii (from other places)
Well, the sentence does say "It is the sole herbivore (...) in its native Madagascar;" Do you think it should be made clearer that this refers only to Madagascar? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 12:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, are you sure there are no leafhoppers, thrips, beetles and suchlike that feed on various other parts of the plant? Shyamal (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I see what you mean, not I'm not sure. One sentence in the source is "In the absence of other obvious specialist herbivores on these plants (Omphalea)". I thinks the key to make it true is the "specialist". Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It has five pairs of prolegs on the segments 3 to 6 and 10, with its six legs it has a total of sixteen. - I think legs should be specifically declared as thoracic or true legs and the summation leads to "sixteen" what? - summation is perhaps not really needed.
The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, - hardened ? avoids a second deployed
Changed to "The wings are deployed in about ten minutes, by pumping haemolymph into the wing veins. The moth then beats them a few times, waits forty-five minutes to let them harden, then beats them lightly again. The moth finally takes flight one hour and a half to two hours later." I think it clarifies. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 16:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look good. Links all checked out with the link checker tool. I wasn't able to evaluate the non-English sources. Ealdgyth - Talk12:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Question
I added "Although the intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury, it may be from the Latin Montes Rhipheaus, the Ural Mountains." This is borderline to original research, do you think the phrasing is clear enough on the fact that the real etymology is unknown and that this is an educated guess? (A well educated guess I think). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 22:36, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Another possibility is Ripheus, I really don't know. Misspellings point in both directions. And "Rhipheus + a = Rhiphaeus" but "Ripheus + h = Rhipheus"... Do you think removing the whole thing is better? Or just to say the intended etymology isn't known. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments SPECIFIC POINTS DONE Prose tends to jump awkwardly from full-on bio-speak to much less formal registers. Some examples:
"The Madagascan sunset moth, or simply sunset moth (Chrysiridia rhipheus) is a diurnal SPELL IT OUT? moth of the Uraniidae family. It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera, AND has gained an international reputation ODD TERM - BEST DROPPED HERE, is much sought by collectors, and is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera. It is very colourful, but "THOUGH" BETTER the iridescent parts of the wings do not have pigment; the colours originate from refraction instead." Size should be worked in in the lead, which generally should be expanded.
"The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, but highest populations are found from March to August, while the lowest are from October to December. " should be "the" highest poulations, another awkward "but". Better something like: "The moth is present all year long in most parts of Madagascar, with populations highest from March to August, and lowest from October to December."
"Although the biological function of this polarization-dependent change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal among the species. This is dependent on the insects possessing polarization and colour vision, which is currently unknown"
"polarization-dependent" is ugly, and you've just said it, but not explained what it means. An explanation should be added, and the rest would be better something like:
Although the biological function of this change in colour has not been studied, it may work as a visual signal to others of the species. This would require polarization and colour vision abilities in the species, which have not been demonstrated.
"The spectacular moth is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera, and has an international reputation. It is considered to be one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera, rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form. For these reasons it is much sought by collectors. It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially. Using mainly wild collected plants, but also cultivated at a small scale.
It was known by Victorians who used its wings to make jewellery."
- one sentence para, repeats wording in lead, etc. better something like:
This spectacular moth is considered one of the most impressive and beautiful Lepidoptera, rivalling almost any of the butterflies in brilliance of colouring and form. It is featured in most coffee table books on the Lepidoptera, and is much sought by collectors. It is collected in the wild, and raised commercially for the international butterfly trade; in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery. Only one of the four species of host plants, Omphalea oppositifolia, is used to raise the moth commercially, mainly using plants collected in the wild, but also some cultivated for the purpose.
Reworded 'In culture' section with most of your proposition. But I put "its wings were used to make jewellery in the Victorian era." instead of "in the 19th century its wings were used in the West to make jewellery." As I feel Victorian has to be there, else "the West" extends the meaning to the whole Western world, which isn't as precise. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
If it says how long they live I missed it.
It is in fact not included. I haven't found the answer. It might be in the R. Catala reference, as I haven't read all 262 pages, but it might not be there either. Another information I haven't put is the time spent in the egg... Catala explicitly says he doesn't have the information. I know of no source giving either the lifespan of the adult or the time in the egg. I am trying to contact David C. Lees (one of the authors in the references), I'll ask if he has sources for those questions if I get his email. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough - maybe no one has hung around to watch! Obviously nice to include if yiou get the info. Johnbod (talk) 01:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I got David Lees' answer and he said that in fact the lifespan of the adult is "presumably not known", and would require large scale mark-release studies to determine. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Question I've expanded the lead as suggested. Is the size about right now? Per Wikipedia:Lead#Length:
The size itself is fine, imo, but the silk safety rope stuff is unusual (no?) & worth mentioning. The lead is supposed (say some sages) to leave no surprises to come. I still don't quite grasp the importance of Polarization on the scales, & when i followed the link saw the nastiest lead para I've ever seen on WP (for scientific incomprehensibility). There must be a more appropriate article to link to somewhere, and a further sentence of explanation here would be good. Other than that, I think the article needs a quick prose polish all through, then I'm ready to support. Johnbod (talk) 01:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the polarization article isn't clear... the Readability for Polarization says reader age is sometimes 23 and grade 18. Actually I don't grasp it that well either. You are right on the fact it should be clearer (both the section and the article actually), so I'll go learn on polarization (by reading related articles to the one I cited), and I'll rewrite the paragraph after I understand more. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
What I understand now is: Polarization is basically the 'shape' of light, we see it's 'size' (wavelength) but not the way this wave travels (the shape, or polarization). Since light can travel in a line (not polarized), in a circle (circular polarization) or in an ellipse or oval (elliptical polarization). We as humans don't see that, many insects do. For example this helps some butterflies see their polarized mate in the unpolarized forest (nice article in Nature). In this case the light is reflected, changes a bit in wavelength (colour change), but I think not in polarization. No one has ever studied the biological reason for this change. What we know is the reflected polarized light has the potential to carry more or better visual information to other moths. I am relatively certain of this, but I'd really feel better if I had a proofreader with knowledge in optics before I incorporate that to the article. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added the silk use by caterpillars to the lead. The "safety-rope" is kind of unusual, but also found in other moths. The instances I've read more about were to get away from ants (in Lees and Smith, 1991, I think). But silk so the caterpillar won't fall is also found in tent caterpillars, and probably many more moth species. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 17:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Prose 95% of the way. "ssp." should be in italics? Footnote 1 spelt out in superscript? Can't it be signified by just a number? TONY(talk)13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments This is an interesting article, but I think the writing needs a little polishing.
The lead is choppy - sentences do not flow from one topic to the next in an elegant or logical manner.
Once the inaccuracy in Drury’s specimen was found, the moth was placed in the genus Urania, until 1823 when the German entomologist Jacob Hübner placed it in a new genus: Chrysiridia. - Why did Hubner place it in a new genus?
Like any genus it could be for a number of things, including but not limited to monophyly, reasonable compactness, and distinctness in regards of evolutionarily relevant criteria (see Genus#One attempt to define a genus). In this case I think the latter would be case, as the moth is confined to Madagascar, but to add this would be original research. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
There are good chances the information exists, that's why I'd prefer to leave it to that for now. I haven't been able to find an accessible copy (or a German translator) of Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge (1823) by Jacob Hübner, the info should () be on page 289. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't have time to do the translation now, but I might be able to do it in a few weeks, when I return from Wikimania. Leave a note with the link on my talk page. Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok, once I get it I'll let you know. But what I meant is I have neither the text nor the translator (the link says the info is on page 289 in the book, the info isn't on page 289 of the link). I'm trying to get a photocopy of the page through my university library. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 02:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The intended etymology of the specific epithet was not specified by the author Dru Drury. - Is this sentence necessary?
It provides information that isn’t given by any other sentence. I think it is also relevant and interesting. My opinion is that, yes, it is necessary. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 20:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought this information was implied by the other sentences that explained the renaming by other people - what did I miss? Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you missed, but the text has to be corrected so others won't miss it either! What I tried to convey in the sentence is something like this: We don't know what rhipheus stands for, and that is because Dru Drury didn't say why he gave that name. This has very little to do with the other people renaming the moth. The whole sentence could be placed in the footnote, and the "1" placed after "Papilio rhipheus." Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 00:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that meaning is conveyed by the sentence - could you rewrite it? That is an interesting fact! Awadewit (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
The moth also has also been described under other names, including U. crameri by Maassen in 1879 and U. ripheus var. madagascariensis by Lesson in 1831. - Why?
Each synonym probably has it's own reason, put part of the reason is the first specimen described by Drury. Some thought it was another species, while others said it was the same as the complete specimen described later (Rhipheus dasycephalus and Leilus orientalis, the first for a butterfly and the second for a moth). C. riphearia is a misspelling. The other I'm not certain. Question: Do you think this should be specified (that some stem from the fact the first description was of a specimen with clubbed antennae and no tails)? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I would specify this, yes, since the confusion over the species is a crucial part of the taxonomical history. Awadewit (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I specified the two names. But not the misspelling, as I'm not sure of the sentence "Chrysiridia riphearia Hübner, ; Verz. bek. Schmett.(repl. Papilio rhipheus Stoll, 1782) (19): 289, , TL: India ". I think the "repl." may mean its a replicate, and the "" is maybe referring to the "TL:(type location) India" (in ). Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 03:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
The genus is, with Urania, sister taxa to the most basal diurnal uraniine genus Alcides. - I don't understand this sentence - "sister to the most basal diurnal"? Can something be the most basal?
All three genera feed on Omphalea, but Alcides also feeds on Endospermum. - Is the "Taxonomy" section the right place for this sentence?
Since basal is relative, yes, something can be most basal. Since it wasn’t clear I’ve rewritten the subsection: “The genus Chrysiridia is entirely African and the only other species in the genus is the East AfricanC. croesus. Chrysiridia is one of three diurnal uraniine genera. The other two genera are Urania, its sister taxa, and Alcides, the most basal. In the group, the use of Endospermum is an ancestral state (a plesiomorphy). The more basal Alcides feeds on Endospermum and Omphalea, while Urania and Chrysiridia only feed on Omphalea.” The “basal” and “sister taxa” refer to part of the cladogram in Uraniinae phylogeny that looks like this:
(Endospermum and Omphalea)
(Omphalea only)
Urania
Chrysiridia
Alcides
I copyedited the article a bit as I was reading, but it really needs a good once-over by an uninvolved editor.
I made two cladograms (see them in my sandbox), the one with species gives little relevant information not said in the text or the Uraniinae page, and the one with genera would be better in the Uraniinae then in this one. What do you think? Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 18:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because of its GA status for a while, current stability in spite of high traffic and meeting the FAC criteria. Many people have helped this article and it has developed over a much longer time span than many other major animal group articles. This article has had a lot of editing for factual accuracy and style by a number of other editors notably Doug Yanega, User:Stemonitis and more recently User:GameKeeper. Shyamal (talk) 06:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Briefly stated, badly needs a copyedit, and its failure to define terms that would completely baffle laymen.
Image:Ants in amber.jpg is so small on the page that the ants are not visible. A crop or a larger thumbnail would help.
Taxonomy and Evolution "The specimen, trapped in amber from New Jersey, is more than 80 million years old" - is this referring to the first fossil that E. O. Wilson found? I don't think the amber is properly referred to as "from New Jersey", New Jersey didn't exist at that time. In the previous sentence "obtained" is an awkward word, I'd have said "found" or "discovered". likewise "amber fossil remains" is awkward Wouldn't it be easier to say something like "In a 1966 palaeontological dig in New Jersey, E. O. Wilson and his team discovered the first Cretaceous fossil remains of an ant trapped in amber. Dating from over 80 million years ago, this species, Sphecomyrma freyi is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants.
I agree this should be rewritten, but the facts must be preserved. The Ant in amber was found by an amateur fossil hunter in cliffs in New Jersey, he passed it on to Wilson et al. for classification. Some details here Sphecomyrma freyiGameKeeper (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, if I was really picky, that "is an evolutionary link between primitive, non-social wasps and modern ants" is slightly wrong as well - it illustrates the evolutionary link, but evolution is a bush, and so it's far more likely that any species found was not a direct ancestor of the modern group, but a sister group. "illustrates the evolutionary link" is more accurate.
I don't think you say clearly enough that termites are in no way related to ants. They're from a different order. The sentence explaining this also comes from out of left field.
Distribution and diversity Use transitional phrases. Don't say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica. Many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species." say "Ants are found on all continents except Antarctica, although many islands such as Greenland, Iceland, parts of Polynesia and the Hawaiian Islands lack native ant species.
As a whole, this section is not very well written.
Morphology The summary paragraph at the start uses a lot of specialist biological terms. It is far more useful, in a general encyclopaedia, to use layman-friendly terms at first, then go through and explain the proper terms as you go into more detail. However, this section never actually explains many of the difficult terms used in the first paragraph.
Polymorphism Reference does not support statement: You imply that "This polymorphism in morphology and behaviour does not rely on a large or complex genome;" because one species has only one chromosome. It may well be true - in fact, it almost certainly is - but the logic is faulty: The size of the chromosomes matters: an unqualified "one pair of chromosomes" sounds small, but it may, in fact, contain more information than two pairs of much smaller chromosomes. Likewise, you need to demonstrate the jack jumper ant also exhibits substantial polymorphism - if it does not, then the whole implied connection falls apart.
The connections were indeed a little loose, I did some further research and have reworded this and avoided the strong claims made earlier. Shyamal (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Development "Ants are holometabolous, and develop by complete metamorphosis, and pass through larval and pupal stages before they become adults." Explain your terms, this is for laymen.
Give the definition promptly. "The pupa is "exarate", that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa." is far less confusing than "The pupa is "exarate" as in most other apocrita, that is, the appendages are free and not fused to the body as in a butterfly pupa."
"Thus, ants are more K-selected than most insects." - You can't seriously expect laymen to know about r-type and K-type strategies.
Agree with some of the points raised, but should the article have to stand alone without the need for readers visiting links for further information? Explanations of many of the terms would make it enormous apart from duplicating information available from the linked articles. I presume and hope that the "you" in the above refers to "we". Shyamal (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I will apologise if that came out too critical - it is a pretty good article, and I think the problems are eminently fixable, but they do need dealt with. I think it's necessary to explain any terms not covered in high school, GCSE, or similar biology courses. For instance, it can be presumed that they know basic things like head, thorax, and abdomen, but "holometabolous", "metapleural glands", "mesosoma", "petiole", and "haemolymph" - here a brief description, immediately after first use of the word, would make this article much more inviting. Basically, don't write for biologists, write for intelligent laymen, and avoid at all costs any paragraph which would require a reasonably-intelligent layman to read several other articles to understand - instead, summarise for him =)
I'd normally be happy to help, but I'm really ill at the moment and can't do much. If you give me a couple days (and still need them) then my services are at your disposal. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Wishing you a speedy recovery! I can definitely do with any amount of help. While I can and will attempt a few fixes, this is going to be limited by work and travel. Shyamal (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. In the UK GCSE examinations are taken by 15–16 year old children. I am happy to see terms not covered by biology courses at this level linked. Terms not taught to 19 year-olds, on those courses aimed at this age group, may require further explanation. I think it is a bit over the top to say that read several other articles is needed. More often than not on Wikipedia, an adequate definition is given in the first sentence of the article. Having said this, the nominators might want to consider deleting throw-away lines such as the one about r/K selection. Shoemaker is right about this; to me they look a bit like showing -off. GrahamColmTalk20:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Disagree strongly. We can presume most peopl e took a GCSE in biology, or Highschool biology, or some equivalent. We cannot, however, write this for undergraduate biologists - it is on ants. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I have attempted some simplification, but regarding certain linked technical terms I still find it difficult to entirely explain it in the article. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, as before, the prose is far from brilliant, engaging, or professional. Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes:
I actually agree with that assessment, if you call writing the article work on the text. Clearly, a copyedit would be minor compared to actually writing some 80 kilobytes of text, but a copyedit it needs nonetheless. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along with the related families of wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." - "family" is already stated in the description of ants, to restate it in comparing like groups is redundant. In fact, what does "related" mean, anyways, in this context? If "related" means that they belong to the same order, then it too is redundant and "Ants are social insects of the family Formicidae and, along wasps and bees, belong to the order Hymenoptera." would be even more concise. Pardon me if I'm wrong about the latter, though.
I still don't particularly understand how that answers the question. "Family" as a descriptor for the ants already appears in the first part of the sentence, and repeating it is redundant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Dropping the families would lump wasp and bees together, which would be technically incorrect and it is worth noting that these are all sister families within the Hymenoptera. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"They are easily identified by their elbowed antennae and a distinctive node-like structure that forms a slender waist." - really? The structure "forms" a slender waste?
But the structure would be more than just the waist - the waist is not the whole ant. That's why I think that includes would be a better choice. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Redundancy: "Ant colonies also have some fertile males called "drones" and one or more fertile females called "queens"
"some" is clearly being used to indicate a small number. "A few" or "several" would be better, but "some" can correctly express quantity. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"Some" does not indicate an approximation of the value at all in this context. This is a clear-cut case of redundancy - I'm surprised you challenged this one. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Further on in the text, it is noted that drones are transitory and produced in numbers only during swarming - so dropping the some would make it look like they are as common as the workers. Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
No, it wouldn't. How exactly does the supremely vague word "some" make a comparison between how many workers/drones there are? The answer is that it doesn't. Dropping the some would do no such thing, and I'm not sure how what you're saying is even relevant. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
"The colonies are sometimes described as superorganisms because ants appear to operate as an unified entity, collectively working together to support the colony" - "a", not "an" before "unified". Also, the "the" before "colonies" is unnecessary and conflicts with the lack of a similar article before "ants".
"Ants dominate most ecosystems, and form 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass." -> More concisely phrased as: "Ants dominate most ecosystems, forming 15–20% of the terrestrial animal biomass."
"Their success has been attributed to their social structure, ability to modify their habitats, tap resources and defend themselves." - confusing sentence. I had to read it thrice to understand what it meant. It's also most likely grammatically incorrect. Suggest rephrasing as "Their success has been attributed to their ability to modify their habitats, tap resources, and defend themselves, as well as their social structure."
"Ant societies have division of labour, communication between individuals and an ability to solve complex problems" - you use the serial comma elsewhere, why not here?
"Many human cultures make use of ants in cuisine, medication and rituals." - same as above.
"However, the ability to exploit resources brings ants into conflict with humans as they can damage crops and invade buildings." - comma needed before "as".
"Some species, such as the red imported fire ant, are regarded as invasive species, since they can spread rapidly into new areas." -> "Species such as the red imported fire ant are regarded as..."
"Their colours vary; most are red or black, green is less common, some tropical species have a metallic lustre." - "and" before "some".
"Some ants such as Australia's bulldog ant however, have exceptional vision" -> "Ants such as Australia's bulldog ant, however, have exceptional vision."
"(although some species, like army ants have wingless queens)" - comma missing.
Addressing all these points is not enough. I only went thoroughly through the lead and skimmed random paragraphs in the main body of the text. A full copyedit would be appreciated. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a contradiction here. You say thoroughly but above you say Here's what I can find on a casual run-through taking all of five minutes:GrahamColmTalk20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your opposition to the prose. Most of the issues you have raised are minor errors, or debatable phrasing (and several of your suggestions make matters worse, not better). You seem to misunderstand the WP:FACR. The prose does not need to be perfect (or brilliant for that matter), but only engaging and professional. The minor comma errors and the like should be fixed when noticed, but these minor errors should not prevent this article from becoming featured. Lwnf360 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
And I disagree with you and advise you to reread WP:FACR. The prose does not have to be absolutely perfect, sure, but the article is sprinkled with minor errors, which you can hardly call professional. You claim that my changes make the text worse - I see only one that did, the "dominate...forming" point. The rest you are opposed to I stand firm on. Nousernamesleft (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Support This is such a terrificly organized and engaging article - the pictures! Wow! Terrific! This article only needs a little brown star at the top for it to be improved. NancyHeise (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Have removed some red-links, most of the remainder are to species and journals. Not sure about what the general view is but links to unwritten articles such as those for the journals could be removed. Shyamal (talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no need to remove redlinks (they encourage article building); redlinks are not a valid oppose, and they do not need to be removed. 04:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"By the Oligocene and Miocene ants had come to represent 20–40% of all insects found in major fossil deposits" - this is a very weak statment, could this be made a bit more definite?
These estimates are from samples in amber and the variation is best retained as no further accuracy is achievable. Most importantly, even the lower estimate is significant. In the absence of accuracy, the only improvement could be to make it more vague (from a quarter to nearly half). Shyamal (talk) 06:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Of the species that lived in the Eocene epoch, one of approximately ten genera survive to the present. Of the genera, 56% are represented in Baltic amber fossils (early Oligocene), and 92% of the genera represented in Dominican amber fossils (apparently early Miocene) still survive today." - this seems poorly-worded. If this is indeed one out of ten, rather than one in ten, you need to reorder these sentences so you discuss the ancient diversity first, and then end by saying how many of these genera survive today.
Will need User:GameKeeper to look at this in detail. It seems that the first part on diversity is organized by time and then the survival of genera restarts on a time scale. Shyamal (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Why is Distribution and diversity a subheading in taxonomy and evolution? The subjects of current distribution don't seem to be closely-related to taxonomy or evolution.
It is a function of evolutionary history, perhaps some notes linking the two are needed. Promoting it to a section should also work. Promoted section. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"Insects also lack closed blood vessels; instead, they have a long, thin, perforated tube along the top of the body (called the "dorsal aorta") that functions like a heart, and pumps haemolymph towards the head, thus aiding the circulation of the internal fluids." If the dorsal aorta only aids the circulation of fluids, this must mean it is not the sole reason the fluids circulate and that other mechanisms are involved. It would be good to either say what these are, or replace "aids" with "causes" or "drives"
From Borror, Triplehorn, Johnson- The movement of hemolymph is brought about by pulsations of the heart and is aided in other parts of the body, such as the base of the legs and wings, by accessory pulsatile organs. - i am inclined to leave it in the current form. Modified. Shyamal (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
"They are quick to abandon established nests at the first sign of threats." - unclear if this is ants in general, or the species mentioned in the previous sentence.
Self-nominator : I'm nominating this article for featured article because I've been working on this article for a couple of years now and feel that it meets all featured article criteria. It is well written, complete with images, and very well cited. Hopefully you all agree and we can add another FA to the lot! Its my first ever FA nom so User:Risker has been steering it through the riggers of the FA challenge, especially with respect to getting the referencing up to the required level. I am hoping to have it the FA on 21st of June which is Michael's birthday and the date of his next and probably last ever fight. thanks--Vintagekits (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - Because I wasn't terribly familiar with what would be considered a reliable source for an article on a boxer, I asked Ealdgyth to do a pre-FAC check. The results of her review are on the article's talk page. There are "reliability" rationales written up for most of the sites she queried; a few have been eliminated as a result of the copy-edit and her check, and a few more mainstream media sources added. Risker (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
"in knockouts.His" – a space is missing
"round. " – remove extra space
Why is "Family and youth" made up of small, stubby paragraphs?
"head." – place refs in ascending order
"Year". " – remove extra space
There are actually a few times when there are spaces before references. Remove those spaces per WP:FOOTNOTE.
All addressed, I believe, including some rearranging of the "Family and youth" section. Thanks, Gary. Risker (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is no requirement in any guideline for citations to be placed in ascending order; some editors may choose to place the citations in the order of the most relevant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments
I queried http://www.britishboxing.net/ and got a reply of "is owned by Boxing Media Ltd. Writers are credited, and the site has a policy to address questions of accuracy." Who is Boxing Media Ltd? Do they publish other stuff? I don't recognize the company right off the bat.
Looks borderline acceptable to me. I'll leave this out for others to see (since a lot of folks aren't boxing fans and won't know the sites that well). Like Risker said, I checked over the sites before it was nominated, and the replies are on the talk page. Ealdgyth - Talk21:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
OpposeNeutralSupport. Not a bad article by any means, but with serious prose and structural problems that undermine it. I have laid these out below, but be aware that there are only representative problems and the whole article needs to be thoroughly reviewed against these suggestions. Once done, I would be happy to review again.
The lead is difficult to read because it is broken into a number of very short paragraphs. Try merging these paragraphs together to reduce their number to three or four at the most and then copyedit it to reduce the information to the most important facts. Don't try to tell his life story in the lead, just give an overview of the article accessible to a reader with no background information. For this reason, it is not necessary (although I personally don't object one way or another) to have sources in the lead as anything stated there should be presented in greater detail below and thus will be sourced in the body of the article.
Lead is much improved, although as mentioned above the sources are not strictly necessary. The third paragraph is a bit of a mess chronologically and many of the sentences don't really seem to lead on from one another, try connecting them a bit better, "Of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008, 16 ended in knockouts." shoudl really come at the end of the paragraph--Jackyd101 (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
*Prose has major problems. I have listed some of them below, but be aware that these are representative problems rather than a complete listing, and if you miss some other reviewers will swoop on them. Go over the article thoroughly to make sure these are dealt with throughout and look at User:Tony1 for his excellent essays on how to improve prose.
"and continues to live in that city." - This is an example of redundancy - you don't need to say "in that city" as this is clearly only to avoid saying Manchester twice in one sentence. Try simplifying the prose, such as "He moved to Manchester, England with his family at age nine, where he still lives."
"and was the first Irish boxer" - missing word, should be "and he was"
"The first cracks in Gomez's career" - Unless cracks is a technical boxing term, this is a cliche which should be avoided at all costs.
"On 21 June 2008, Gomez is due to fight in what is seen as possibly his last" - his last what? I know it means fight/bout/match etc. but it should say so explicitly for clarity's sake.
"From birth, his upbringing was both turbulent and uncertain." - Cliche and doesn't gel with surrounding sentences. This might be as simple as the insertion of a semi-colon.
"Gomez had hit one of the men," - "the men" doesn't read right, because you haven't explicitly mentioned any men. Try "an assailant" or similar instead.
"After an initially shaky beginning in the professional ranks" - Redundancy, "initially" and "beginning" mean the same thing in this context.
"then went on a" - too simplistic, think of a better way to say it. (i.e. "then began a")
"Gomez handled Jickells" - handled has more than one meaning and is a little colloquial, try using defeated instead.
"crushing left hook" - unless crushing is a technical term (in which case link it), lose it as it is opinion.
"John Munroe, who was sitting ringside, was called over by Ian Darke, at Gomez's request to verify his theory. This turned in to a war of words" - war of words is bad cliche, but the problem here is that the uninitiated have no idea who Munroe (or later Warren) are. Introduce them with their job title (i.e. coach John Munroe) and link them if possible. In fact, that whole sentence is so confusing I can't work out what it is trying to say.
"Although Bognar was shaken Gomez was unable to make his power count." - Short simplistic sentence crying out for a second clause.
"Gomez wanted to rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001, the pair had a rematch" - rematch twice in one sentence?
"in what turned out to be a short and explosive encounter" - Prose is clumsy, and there's that word explosive again.
"to put Bognar down" - like a dog? If its not a technical term, avoid it.
link KO the first time it is used.
"Lear inflicted damage to the nose of Gomez, whose nose began to bleed heavily from the sixth round" - many things wrong here.
"At the end of the eight round" - eighth? check spellings throughout.
"and the manner in which the fight ended," - having asked for more clauses, here there are too many. Try incorporating the first two.
"In what was becoming a predictable pattern in Gomez's career" - unecessary opinion.
"A war of words" - again, unless its a technical term, this is a cliche.
"Behind the scenes, however, all was not well in the Arthur camp." - cliche
I'm going to stop the prose review here. There are plenty of other serious prose problems both before and after the cut off point, but this illustrates the biggest problems ou should watch out for when copyediting and gives you pointers right through the text.
"has often been involved in controversial and explosive fights, with 16 of his 17 fights between February 2001 and March 2008 ending in knockouts." - I don't know a huge amount about boxing, but this sentence seems to indicate that any fight which ends in a knockout is therefore controversial and explosive, which I'm pretty sure isn't true. I think I know what the article is trying to say, but the sentences needs to be revised for clarity.
The whole third paragraph of the lead seems to be something of a prose list, i.e. a disconnected listing of interesting things, rather than a coherent narrative that connects key facts and events. This is one of the issues that I think needs addressing per my first comment above.
The fifth, sixth and seventh paragraphs of the lead go into surprising detail about specific fights. This should be reserved for lower down the article, keeping the lead a brief summary.
"The Armstrong family - Linking to Armstrong has no value unless it is a specific link to that particular family (i.e. like Kennedy family).
If his name was Armstrong, why is he now Gomez? This has to be explained much earlier, and Armstrong used when referring to him before the date he became Gomez.
"His mother had taught him to shoplift as a child and he was involved in petty crime throughout his youth in Manchester." - This is probably sourced by the refs at the end of the paragraph, but just to avoid any BLP problems about a potentially controversial claim, I would give this its own citation.
"Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester." - This is in the wrong place. In fact, throughout the article discussions of his family life and ring persona etc. are rather randomly interspersed with his biography. The article needs reorganisation to give the biographical parts better narrative flow. I suggest moving the other discussions to sections of their own. In addition, there should be no parargraphs this small. Paragraphs should be as long as they need to be, but are rarely less than three sentences. Small paragraphs break flow and look very untidy.
Unless his ring persona was devised in 1995 (in which case you should say so), that section is in the wrong place.
"all-out action style" - Is this a technical term? If so, link it, if not, find something that it can link to to explain what it means exactly.
"In 2007, a film of his life entitled The Michael Gomez Story" - why is this in Background? It belong much, much further down the page.
"Jody Latham, who also plays Lip Gallagher on Shameless and the part of Gomez's best friend and fellow boxer Michael Jennings is played by Emmerdale's Kelvin Fletcher" - Unless the characters they play on those shows has anything to do with their roles in the 2007 film, they should not be mentioned. Simply give the actors names and leave it at that.
Don't begin a section with "Soon after, Gomez relinquished" - Sections should grammatically stand alone, so say soon after what, or just remove the first two words.
"However, others pointed to his well publicised troubles out of the ring." - Who, how and why just for starters.
"Reports also circulated that Gomez was having trouble in his private life and that he had been stabbed in a street fight" - Is this a different stabbing to the one above?
"perceived as having been through" - by who; name them or their publications.
"The match was turning into a" - tense slips out of alignment here.
"Joe Calzaghe pulled out of his arranged fight" - so what? He isn't mentioned earlier as being involved.
"After the McDonagh fight Gomez had retired from boxing" - tense
"Following two comeback fights against journeyman opposition" - overlinking, this is at least the fourth time you've linked journeyman.
"threatened to steamroller" - is this a technical term?
"Soon after referee Mickey Vann stopped the fight" - In whose favour?
This extensive list of problems does not, I'm afraid, come close to dealing with all of the article's problems, which are rooted in its prose and unclear structure. I suggest at least three thorough copyedits by three seperate editors and a restructuring to ensure that the first half of the article has a clear narrative. I think the sourcing is good and I like the images, and with some work this article could come a lot closer to FA standard.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thinking about it, if you want I can give the article a thorough copyedit myself later this week. I'll have to take an axe to certain parts, and I don't know much about boxing so someone will have to check I've not messed up any technical stuff, but if you're interested I'd be willing later in the week (a bit busy the next couple of days). I don't know if he's still around, but I know you were friends with User:One Night In Hackney who is an excellent prose writer, so if he is still here see if you can get him to take a look as well.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, Jackyd101. I agree with much of what you are saying, particularly with respect to the flow and organization. I'll point out that one of the reasons the article is well sourced is that pretty well every descriptive statement comes right out of a reference source; hence, explosive punches and fights, and crushing left hooks and threatened steamrollering. "He threw an explosive punch" is much better prose than "His punch was described as explosive by Joe Blogg, boxing expert." The second sentence tells us more about the reporter than the subject. Referees stop fights, but not in favour of one boxer or the other; that is the decision of the judges. Gomez has been with his childhood sweetheart for about as long as he has been boxing, and they had their first two children before he started his professional career so, chronologically, that sentence is probably in the right place. The article is a BLP of a person who has lived a life full of extraordinary situations (both negative and positive), and my initial focus was on ensuring the claims were thoroughly but not excessively sourced (I reduced the references by about 40%); by the time I'd done that, I suspect my eyes had glazed over and I missed many of the points you have made. I am all in favour of other eyes and copy editors working on this article; as with all articles, however, it must remain true to its reference material, which in the case of this particular sport, tends to be quite descriptive and to use terminology that might otherwise appear hyperbolic. I don't think ONiH is around any longer (at least not officially), but perhaps Vintagekits has a way to inquire directly. I do encourage you to take a crack at it, and I'll give it another pass tonight or tomorrow as well. Risker (talk) 01:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand your point about this article sounding like the references it comes from, but Wikipedia is not part of the sports press and as a result Wikipedia articles need to phrase things differently based on encyclopedic prose. This means that subjective adjectives such as "crushing" should only be used when part of a direct quote or when crushing is a technical term - this does not mean that the article should be boring, such is the fine line on which brilliant prose rests. If you plan to keep the whole article chronological (which is fine), then you have to better integrate details of his personal life into the article. At the moment they seem tacked on. The only BLP I saw as potentially being a problem was that thing about his mother teaching him to shoplift - thats pretty controversial and so should be directly sourced.--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'll have to delay my proposed copyedit to the article, I'm going to be much busier than expected this week. If its still under review here in a weeks time I might be more able to help. I will continue to monitor the article however and if it improves I will be happy to strike through comments and reconsider my !vote. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, "Gomez lives with his childhood sweetheart Alison and their three children in Manchester" - it quoted him in the paper as referring to his "wife and three kids" this morning. If he is married that should be clarified.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh really? I have actually been trying to confirm that, the best I had was an interview in November where he called her his fiancee. Is there a link you could provide?
(deindent) Can't find a link, but the ref would be: Davies, Gareth A. (June 18, 2008). "Kahn contest 'surprises' Gomez". Daily Telegraph Sport, p. 19. He is quoted as saying at the end of the article "... I've got a beautiful wife and three kids." That should be good enough I think. I see you have made big changes to the article, it looks much more impressive. Unfortunately I will be in Dublin until Sunday and am unlikely to have access to a computer. I will however make time re-review the article once I return.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I have completed a copyedit and re-review. I see most of the comments above have been dealt with but for simplicity's sake I have decided to strike them all out and start again below. This new, shorter list covers the problems that the article has, some that were covered above and haven't been adequately addressed and some new ones. I have also done a prose copyedit on the article and it has improved since I last read it but I would recommend further copyedits if they can be obtained. Congratulations on the many improvements in the article and I am much closer to supporting than previously. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
"Gomez won seven straight fights before fighting for his first title belt" - Is there an alternative to one of the "fights/fighting" here?
changed second usage to "challenging for his first title belt"
"was also named "Young Boxer of the Year"" - by whom?
The award is given out at the annual luncheon of the British Boxing Board of Control; however, I cannot find a full list of winners to link to this. Gomez winning the award is mentioned in several sources, including some that aren't used in the article like a 2000 BBC report; it seems the British media regularly refer to the various awards handed out by the BBBC (boxer of the year, overseas boxer of the year, contest of the year, etc) but don't identify who gives it out - perhaps someone more knowledgeable about British boxing can help here. I'll give Vintagekits a poke.
"In the ninth round Gomez was stopped after referee Dave Paris" - presumably the fight was stopped, not Gomez specifically.
good catch, reworded the sentence
"The relationship between Arthur and Gomez would continue to fester, when Gomez attended Arthur's next fight against Ugandan Michael Kizza in Meadowbank, Scotland." How does this indicate their festering relationship? Did Gomez shout rude things at him during the fight or something?
Apparently it is some form of boxing etiquette that is over my head; I've reworked the paragraph to eliminate the emotional level.
"the highly anticipated domestic clash became a war and from round one was a savage brawl" - if war is a boxing term then link it, if not find a better one. Also link brawl to the boxing term.
"brawl" is linked earlier (on "brawling") but I will link it again. I can't find a WP link for "war" but the expression seems to be very common, so I might be able to find it in an online boxing dictionary. Will check, or reword if I can't find it.
"threatened to steamroller Johanneson" - steamroller is still there. This is not an enecylopedic term and needs to be changed.
replaced with "overpower"
The article still goes from the Johanneson fight being stopped straight to Gomez demanding a rematch. Explain that he lost the fight and why, mentioning this business in the following paragraph about Gomez dropping his hands.
"Gomez demanded a rematch and said that Vann had stopped the fight early." - Gomez wasn't complaining that it had been stopped early, but that the referee's actions had (in his opinion) caused him to lose. This should be clarified.
For the above two comments - I've merged the two paragraphs and restructured what was in the last paragraph to juxtapose Gomez's discussion of the referee's actions with the sentence about the referee stopping the fight.
This is better, but I still don't think it is fully clear what the implications of the referee stopping the fight were to a person (like me) who is not knowledgeable about boxing. It could use a sentence explaining that this decision caused Gomez to loose the fight.
"Gomez lives with his wife Alison and their three children in Manchester." - This is in the wrong place, I suggest moving it back up to where his wife is mentioned earlier (as his "lifeliong companion").
Hmm...tough call. It refers to his present situation, and you'd expressed concerns about it being up in the "family and youth" section before because it broke the timeline (which I thought was a good point on your part). It seems to flow better there, right after he is quoted about how boxing has brought him his wife and family; sort of a way to wrap up where his years in the ring have led him.
You are right, this should stay where it is. I would however mention when Alison first appears that she is not just his lifelong companion but also specifically his wife.
The stuff about the film made in 2007 comes after his fight against Kahn in 2008. Obviously this is chronologically incorrect and I suggest moving it to the relevant point in his career.
It's placed at the end because the release of the film is reportedly scheduled for November 2008, which would make it the next (verifiable) significant event in his career, and is comparable with discussions of unreleased films/television programmes in articles about other sportsmen (and actors, for that matter).
You are correct, my mistake.
Summarizing, the following have yet to be addressed:
Seeking some form of confirmation of exactly who names the Young Boxer of the Year
See if an appropriate online boxing dictionary defines "war" and if not, reword that sentence
Nicely done. I've left some comments above and struckout stuff I'm happy with. Good job, the article looks a lot better.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think the only thing remaining in the above list is the "Young Boxer of the Year" thing. Any luck on finding out which body gave him this award?--Jackyd101 (talk) 07:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's taken a lot of reading of boxing articles (I may never recover!) but I have found that it was handed out by the British Boxing Writers' Club in both 1995 and 2007, but nothing specifically for his year. I think it is probably reasonable to assume it was given out by that organization when Gomez won it. My inclination is to add this organisation's name to the article, and place the links in this paragraph into a comment on the talk page of the article. Comments? Would that work for everyone? Risker (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Congratulations, it took a long time to go through all of my comments above, but in the end you have earned my support. Nice job.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Comments
- I will not nitpick that much, however there are a few things that might need tweaking:
In the "Ring persona" subsection there is this statement: "a reference to his Mexican-sounding chosen name", this should be changed to "a reference to his Hispanic-sounding chosen name"; Gomez is actually a very common surname, it is seen throughout Latin America and Spain, it is not more "Mexican-sounding" than "Rodriguez" or "Rivera".
I get a felling that the article may overuse the term "belt", this seems particulary notable in the "Early professional career" section, remember that boxers actually fight for the championship that the belt represents, not the belt itself.
As far as the references go, I would like more newspaper footnotes but most of the pages used are familiar to me, so I'm not going to push that.
Support. I have watched this article grow over a long time; it is the result of long and laborious hard work. It now meets all FA criteria. Probably, the most complete biography of the subject available in print or on the internet. Wikipedia is fortunate to have it. If I have one minor quibble - it's that I would like to see a concluding paragraph outlining his achievements, contributions to the sport and hopes for the future. In my opinion the page does not need further copy editing; I look forward to seeing it on the main page. Giano (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Giano's going to be mad at me, but I don't believe this is ready. I second Jackyd31's concerns about the lead and prose, and add these.
Background, Family and youth: Are links for wheel and lamp post necessary? And why is youth linked?
Trouble outside of the ring: Why is pavement linked? Don't even get me started on heart.
Early professional career: Gomez as a single name doesn't need a link. Jackyd31 complained about an Armstrong link, and this is another example of that.
Move to super featherweight: "walking away with the title on a points victory over 12 rounds." Try mentioned what type of decision it was. These little details are important for any quality article.
In the next sentence, it says that Gomez was undefeated. Clarify that it was during that year, because you don't want confusion with his early-career defeats.
"and a successful defence" is incorrect grammar, since three opponents are named.
Intercontinental or Inter-Continental? Both are used.
Bognar fights: "suffering from flu" Should a or the be added?
Does Wikipedia have a seperate link for flash knockdown? Jargon such as this should be linked if possible, although I don't see a page here.
I also noticed some peacock and POV words, so this is far from a full list. The most important thing is to get some writing help, hopefully in time to benefit this candidacy. Giants2008 (talk) 02:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to all for the copy-edit feedback; I have been working on revising the article in accordance with the many recommendations you have made, and plan to have it out of my userspace and into the article before I go to bed tonight. After I have posted it, I will ask those of you who made comments to please review the (hopefully) improved article. Risker (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment - The article has now undergone a significant rewrite to address the issues that were highlighted by several reviewers, and I will contact those who had concerns or opposes to ask them to take a second look. I will note that there will probably need to be some content added on Sunday or Monday, as Gomez will be in a major boxing match Saturday night. Risker (talk) 06:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Support: I've done minor grammatical tweaks, and I've trimmed a few "purple" passages. I hope my translations from sportswriter to English were accurate, and I hope the author(s) will correct me if they were not. The minor grammatical rough spots I found were mostly due to the evil of footnote codes (people end up with comma splices when they have to type in ref=thisthisthattheother and then close; by that point, they can't remember whether they had an independent or dependent clause back there). I'm not a general fan of living person biographies as FA's, but that doesn't hinder my saying that this fits the criteria. Also, as a complete aside, I wonder if this fellow wasn't the model for "Micky" in Snatch (film): he, too, is a feather weight brawler, and the timing fits pretty well. Just a thought. Geogre (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
After the extensive re-write, I've returned for a second look. Here are more comments.
Ireland is linked in the lead, but England isn't. Either link both or neither.
Done
Is "knock-out" correct. I only ask because knockout is used as one word before this part.
Done
I still think the lead could be improved. The third paragraph is longer than the rest of the lead combined, and the fourth paragraph is a single sentence. I recommend splitting the third paragraph and merging the single sentence into the resulting fourth paragraph.
Fourth para has been extended with an additional sentence on the result of the fight
Background, Family and youth: Is Alison's maiden name known?
It isn't mentioned in any of the references; her given name is mentioned in only two.
Early professional career: "He chose the his ring name".
Oops. Corrected.
Still see "Gomez defeated Jickells with ease", which may be POV to some.
Reworded.
Move to super featherweight: I still would like to know if the Manjarrez fight ended in a unanimous decision.
Can't find the information in any of the reference sources, and have done an online search for anything else, without result. After doing some reading on quite a few fights involving a range of boxers, it seems that news reports tend not to include detailed information on whether the judges' decisions were split or unanimous unless there is a controversy,.
"with another run of six wins and successful defence of the British super featherweight title against Dean Pithie, Carl Greaves and Ian McLeod." Successful defence looks awkward to me, although this could be the British English. Should defence be made plural?
changed to "with another run of six wins, and successfully defended his British super featherweight title..." to improve comprehensibility
"Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired Gomez" Redundant. I would go with "Gomez's trainer Brian Hughes retired his fighter". Also, Hughes' first name should probably be removed from the next paragraph.
Done
"and was convicted of four drink-drive offenses." Is "drink-drive" correct in British English? Perhaps pipe a link to Driving under the influence.
Added the piped link to Drunk driving (United Kingdom), either term is used in British English and I'm inclined to leave it.
The Alex Arthur fight: The is normally not used as the first word of a section header. This should be titled Alex Arthur fight.
Fixed
Hyphen for "highest profile"?
According to my grammar book, it is correct ("two or more words modifying a substantive and used as a single adjective" - McGraw Hill Handbook of English, 4th ed.)
"Gomez proved his critics wrong when on he arrived at the fight".
Fixed
Paragraph five of the section is strangely ordered. The two previous knockdowns should probably go before the KO itself.
Reworked the paragraph
WBU world title: "in his next two fights over" Picky, but I think "over" should be "against"
Yes, I agree. Fixed.
The quote from Gomez here needs an inline citation.
Removed, it wasn't in the references and the one place where I found it wasn't a reliable source
"defense.Alvarez" needs a space after references.
Fixed
"Gomez beat the count" I'm concerned about count being jargon. Do we have a link that illustrates a referee's 10 count?
Still in Return to the ring: Comma after "promised to knock each other out". While on the subject, why are there so many pre-fight predictions and general bragging from all sides? It's not like this is something unusual for boxing; comments like these are made before virtually every big fight. I could understand this treatment for Muhammad Ali but not so much in this case.
Fixed the sentence. As to the number of predictions for this fight particularly, one has to expxlain why this was reportedly a "highly anticipated fight" (according to the reference sources).
Don't needs Carl Johanneson's first name twice in this section.
It was actually there three times, the first time in reference to CJs' fight with someone else (left in place), the second time as part of a list of potential fighters (left in place because the other fighters had their full names, for ease of reading), and the third one removed.
Vital question: Why did Mickey Vann call the fight? Was Gomez considered to be unsteady on his feet or taking punishment? I don't trust having Gomez's opinion alone because no fighter thinks they should be stopped by a referee no matter how hurt he/she is.
Added "unsteady on his feet" as it is described by one of the reference sources.
Amir Khan fight: Refs 52 and 53 have an extra space after punctuation.
Corrected
"and cut Gomez above the eye before the round ended." Which eye? Surely this will be in the post-match report.
Left eye, added
In the second paragraph, something is wrong with the last two sentences. It looks like this is supposed to be two quotes, but only one is given. Why would Khan admit he has a glass jaw? Also, why is certainly needed in the last sentence if not part of a quote?
Ah yes, a little bit of drive-by IP editing that I'd missed. Quote corrected, and the rest of the (unreliably sourced) addition removed.
Shouldn't the pre-fight predictions and quotes by Gomez be moved to the start of the paragraph? It works much better there.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. In this case, the one thing that was consistent in all of Gomez's pre-fight interviews was his discussion about his family; it doesn't take much reading between the lines to see this was intended as his last fight. Hence the placement of this section after the fight itself, so that it can lead into the "what's next" of the film. It also allowed a more logical placement of the statement about his family, which would have been as out of place in a paragraph before the fight—it's a relevant fact but needs an anchor.
Is Gomez's quote about the film cited later in the paragraph?
Yes, one of the later references is where he says it, but I have added a ref for the quote as well.
The final part is a little rough as of this review, but that is predictable after the recent changes. I still don't like the lead and think that part of the third paragraph should be combined with the fourth paragraph to improve balance. That's all from me.Giants2008 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for all of your comments, Giants2008. I've responded to your above points, and have played around with the lede as well. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Note: The lede and final section of the article have been updated to reflect the outcome of the Khan fight. All of the references used are mainstream media, so should not be a concern. Risker (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments on images
Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - The image description for this does not state who is releasing the copyright under the GFDL-CC license. I presume it is the uploader, but this needs to be verified and stated on the article description page. Could someone contact the uploader, please? Awadewit (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Support My son is an amateur boxer (teenager leagues) so I get an education from him on the sport all the time. This article is well written, comprehensive and well sourced. Great job! Just a note - the sentence preceeding reference number 53 does not seem to have the quotation marks in the right place. The reference cited only seems to quote part of that sentence, not the entire thing.NancyHeise (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Image:Allan Stevenson - Gomez.jpg - the license being used is a "self" variant (i.e. {{self}}) and, indeed, states "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses". Typically this is sufficient demonstration that the uploader is indeed the author/copyright holder - especially when there is accompanying camera meta data (as there is here). A full information template and/or an explicit statement, however, would be preferable (WP:IUP is currently only really satisfied in spirit). ЭLСОВВОLДtalk13:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Flag icon removed. As noted above, I have emailed Vintagekits about the photos; he's a little preoccupied right now dealing with an arbitration enforcement issue, but he is aware this needs to be addressed. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"He was forced to change his name by the British Boxing Board of Control (BBBC)" He had to legally change his name, or is more of a "stage name" used only in his career? Please clarify in the prose.
Good question, I don't think it has ever been addressed in any of the reference sources. I will check with Vintagekits, I hope he knows.
"... and he also suffered a reversal to Danny Ruegg." Unsure what this means.
Removed this phrase, it isn't needed and could be confusing to readers.
"During 1999, Gomez won four title belts, was undefeated during the year ..." No need for two "durings".
Reworded.
You don't capitalize some terms consistently.. "WBO Inter-Continental Super Featherweight" and then "WBO Inter-Continental super featherweight"
"... but Bognar recovered from this knockdown and kept Gomez from closing in with his southpaw jab." Confusing.. could be either person's southpaw jab.
Reworked the sentence
"Gomez sought a rematch against Bognar, and five months later in July 2001 the pair met again, this time in Manchester, resulting in a quick victory for Gomez." A quick victory is a fourth-round KO after being knocked down himself?
Removed the word "quick"
You alternately use the possessives "Gomez's" and "Gomez'". The former is correct, please check throughout.
Fixed
You have an unspaced em dash in one place and spaced one in another place.. please make consistent and use either unspaced em dashes or spaced en dashes for pauses in text.
I went through the article twice, and had someone with fresh eyes read through it, and neither of us could find spaced en dashes (although I know at one point another editor went through and put several in). Could you please point out where you saw them, and I would be happy to change them to the unspaced em dash format.
Attention needed to logical punctuation of quotations. If the quote is a full sentence, the period needs to be inside the end quote. --Laser brain(talk)20:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Quotes have been revised, with a couple of sentences reworked to put the quotes at the end. It's not entirely clear to me how logical punctuation deals with the quoting of a full sentence in the middle of another sentence, and this isn't the place to have that discussion.
Responded to everything I could, but need to follow up on the legal name vs. ring name issue. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Risker has done all of the recent work here. If he isn't going to handle these I may take care of them myself. Giants2008 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep going on this. The "indef" is indefinite in the true sense of the word, the current debate is whether or not it will be time served or extended, but I will leave that to other admins to sort out. In the interim, I have been in contact with Vintagekits and have straightened out a few things. In particular, the rights for the images is currently working its way through the OTRS permissions line-up; it may take a few days because it is moving through a circuitous route due to some email problems, but it is coming. I'll get to the rest of the suggestions shortly; just a little occupied right now. Thanks. Risker (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And Giants2008's latest comments are addressed. As well, I have reworked the sentence that referred to a fight as a "war". On reviewing the references, it's pretty clear that he still uses the surname Armstrong, so there is no reason to believe it was a legal name change; I've thus reworked the sentence about him assuming the Gomez surname to indicate it is a professional name. The rights tags on the images are borderline per El Cobbola, but information is en route to OTRS permissions. I think I have covered everything from all the various comments. Risker (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Support - When this first came here I didn't think it had a chance. A lot of work has been put in to keep this going, and I commend Risker for not giving up on this. I do believe this meets standards now. Giants2008 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Overview of one of the three Domains of life, and a companion to the featured article on Bacteria. Of top importance to Wikipedia's coverage of biology and classified as a vital article by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The article used on that website is one of the essays written by named, expert contributors, so I think that passes WP:V, although not all the content of the site would do so.
Although some parts of the site are bare or poorly maintained, other parts have extensive research and references. The project is written and coordinated by leading experts in the field of systematics, with various groups of organisms overseen by their respective specialists. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The link checker tool is showing that the pnas.org links are down, but they are working if I click through.
Odd.
Does that sometimes. Figured I'd point out the oddness, but also point out that the links are working for other reviewers. Ealdgyth - Talk18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Current ref 62 "Based on PDB 1FBB" is lacking publisher and last access date.
All done! Don't expect me to review the prose... biology articles make my head hurt. Give me a nice ancient history article any day... Ealdgyth - Talk18:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments: Wow, what an interesting article! Looks great Tim, but on first read through, I picked up a couple of minor things:
In the lead, there is a sentence (below) I'm stuggling with (my poor language skills, I'm sure!). I'm not sure whether it should mean "archaea carry out photosythesis", or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis" or "no known archaea carry out photosynthesis in addition to fixing carbon and using sunlight"
Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but no known archaea do both and carry out photosynthesis like plants and cyanobacteria.
Reworded to "Salt-tolerant archaea (the Halobacteria) use sunlight as a source of energy, while other species of archaea fix carbon, but unlike plants and cyanobacteria, no species of archaea are known that can do both." - apparently in the specific usage photosynthesis refers only to the use of sunlight to capture carbon - so only if you do both are you technically a photosynthetic organism. It's probably clearer without mentioning this.
In the Origin and early evolution section, last paragraph - is the word analyzes correct? My mind wants to read analyses.
That's me trying too hard to speak American!
I sympathize - welcome to the league of Brits that have forgotten how to spell ;o)
The Cell membranes is a little too technical with some unexplained/unlinked terminology (acyl chains, sn-1, sn-2 etc.) Is there any way of directing the reader to explainations of these terms?
Support So satisfying in every respect, not least because of all those blue archaeal genera. ;) Some technical points are listed below; well done, Tim! :) Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Mention the community aspects of archaea in the lead? You know, all that stuff about biofilms, cannulae, etc.? That seems important to me, that they can do even more complex things by bouncing off of one another. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
The description of their phylogenetic tree could be made clearer? The major phyla come only at the end; we're not seeing the forest for the trees (genera). Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Can you say something more about the word archaebacterium mentioned in the lead? When was it introduced by whom; when did it fall from favour and why? Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
It might be nice to read about the traits that bacteria, archaea and eukaryotes share? For example, is the composition of their cytosols more or less the same, e.g., similar pH, similarly reducing environment, etc.? I'm guessing so, since some of their enzymes are related and maybe would need a similar environment to function similarly? On the other hand, I think I've heard that hyperthermophilic archaea have some characteristic adaptations to their environment, so maybe there aren't many common traits. Willow (talk) 21:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a tricky one, since I can think of a huge lest of chaacteristics that are shared between all forms of life - DNA, protein-based enzymes, reducing cytosols etc.. but can't really see listing these in each article on specific forms of life. For instance, I wouldn't mention in an article on squirrels that tey have a DNA-based genome. However, I do agree that so much is focussed on what divides archaea from other organisms that the similarities are not emphasised. I've added an introductory papragraph to the "Cell biology" section to discuss the similarities before the article launches into the differences. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Under "Significance in technology and industry", I seem to remember hearing that hyperthermophilic archaeal proteins were good for X-ray crystallography and structural genomics, since they're more stable at room temperature? But I'm not sure if that's actually true; I'll try to find a reference. Willow (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments: While the article hits most of the important topics which spring to mind, I'm not sure it is yet at Featured. Some examples: (1) "However, a new approach was proposed in 1965, in which microbiologists examine the sequences of the genes in these organisms and use this genetic information to work out which prokaryotes are genuinely related to each other." and the following sentences seem kind of wordy. Maybe something like, "However, as molecular phylogeny data became available starting in the 1960s, it became clear that the archaea and bacteria formed two distinct lines of prokaryotes". I would trim back all the prose about now-discarded terminology, the history of molecular phylogeny, etc (especially since it appears in many parts of the article, not just one). I know you added some of that in response to feedback on this page, but perhaps there is a way to mention these things without taking so many words (or just snip out some of the more peripheral aspects). (2) Although the text "The Archaea should not be confused with the geological term Archean eon, also known as the Archeozoic era. This refers to the primordial period of earth history when prokaryotes were the only cellular organisms living on the planet" probably should not be removed entirely, it really makes for a poor lead-in to "Probable fossils of these ancient cells". (3) The whole paragraph "The classification of archaea . . . from other such groups" is belaboring points which are tangential. Some of these can be touched on, but it should be more in passing, briefer, and more in the context of what it means for the Archaea. (4) The discussion of the internal classification could be slightly expanded, with at least a few hints of why the classification was made, what distinguishes the phyla ("most Crenarchaeota lack histones" or whatever seems to make sense), and which aspects of the classification seem (relatively) well established. Now, having said all that, there's lots of informative, well-written text here. So this isn't really an Oppose even if some passages didn't read as well for me as it seems like a Featured Article should. Kingdon (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've condensed and tightened the Discovery section.
I've moved the bit about the Archean era to a disambiguation tag at the outset, modelled after the one appearing at the top of the Archean article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've added a sentence on molecular phylogenetics to the classification section, since this is the basis of most of these classifications. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
SupportOppose for now on accessibility and jargon. I was so excited to read this article because I've been a reading a popular science book about cell biology that rhapsodizes over the importance of the discovery of archaea. So, I thought - I'll learn more about them! Yeah! Unfortunately, I did not really learn that much. This article was hard to follow for the layperson. My roommate and I read it aloud during dinner, clicking on things we didn't know and trying to figure out what was being said (and he's even taken some biology classes!). I think that the article assumes a familiarity with biological terms and concepts that most people do not have - it needs to do some more explaining to the rest of us! Here are some examples:
The difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is never described. I'm not sure how common this knowledge this and the lead assumes it from the very first sentence.
A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea? My roommate speculated that this is because we know so little about Archaea, so all we can really do at this point is compare. At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains.
Let me dissect a section and show you what someone like me, a layperson interested in science but not trained in it, gets out of the material (I have inserted my thoughts in red - I hope you find them amusing in a way):
"Archaeal membranes have a distinctive composition. Like bacteria and eukaryotes, archaea possess glycerol-based phospholipids called ether lipids.(lipids are fats, right?; ether is not the outmoded aether theory and not the thing that puts to you sleep, presumably, hmmm - I wonder what it is - ok "some sort of lipid called a lipid") However, three features of archaeal lipids are highly unusual:
The archaeal lipids are unique because the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the reverse of that found in bacterial and eukaryotic lipids - the glycerol components of these lipids are mirror images of each other - they are enantiomers. (I am going to assume "stereochemistry" is "chemistry"; what's glycerol again?; glycerols are mirrors - why is that important? I'm missing something here.) Since most synthetic enzymes (Why are we talking about synthetic enzymes? Is something here an enzyme? Why is it synthetic? I bet that doesn't mean "human-constructed" here! I am so stupid) are stereospecific for one enantiomer, this is strong evidence for a different biosynthetic pathway.(I am now totally lost)
(Breathe, perhaps you will understand point 2) Most bacteria and eukaryotes have membranes composed mainly of glycerol-ester lipids, whereas archaea have membranes composed of glycerol-ether lipids.(ester vs. ether? why does this difference matter?) Even when bacteria have ether-linked lipids, the stereochemistry of the glycerol is the bacterial form.(What?) These differences may be an adaptation on the part of archaea to hyperthermophily. However, it is worth noting that even mesophilic archaea have ether-linked lipids.(Why is that worth noting? Does that mean it may not be an adaptation for heat loving?)Main point: Archaea have membranes composed of a certain type of lipid. This matters for some reason.
(Third time is a charm!) Archaeal lipids are based upon the isoprenoid sidechain.(What's the isoprenoid sidechain?) Only the archaea incorporate these compounds into the straight-chain lipids in the plasma membranes. In some archaea, these isoprenoid side-chains are long enough to span the membrane, forming a monolayer for a cell membrane with glycerol phosphate moieties on both ends.(Eh? I suppose this monolayer is important somehow? Or is it the moieties, whatever those are?) This dramatic adaptation is most common in the extremely thermophilic archaea.(Oh, yes, so dramatic. It is speaking to me right now. Why thermophilic? I have no clue.)
Main point: Archaea have distinctive membrane features. I am not very clear on what those features are, though.
I know how hard it is to make something accessible when it is one's specialty. If you would like me to go over the article section-by-section on the talk page, showing you things I did not understand, I would be more than willing to do so. As you point out, this is a vital article! Awadewit (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I think the section is much improved. However, I still think that the idea of why some of these things are important is getting lost. For example, the ester-ether distinction. Is that interesting because no other life form has that formation and we never knew life could be like that before we discovered archaea? Is it interesting because it shows us how distant the archaea really are from other life forms (they might seem like other teeny-weeny things to people like me, but we should put that out of our heads right now)? Something else entirely related to chemistry that I am missing (I'm only half-way through the MIT opencourseware biology 101 lectures, after all). Awadewit (talk) 20:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I see what you're getting at. We've approached this from an evolutionary viewpoint, but have missed out the physiological relevance of these unusual lipids. I've added some material on how these structures may help archaea live in extreme habitats. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Your points about the density of scientific terminology are valid, and Tim and I (and probably others) will do what we can to make the prose more accessible. However, I'd like to address one comment you made: "A great deal of the article is spent comparing Arachaea to the other two domains - how they are the same and how they are different. Why not just describe the Archaea?"
Simply describing features of the archaea is insufficient. Much of the article is written in a "compare and contrast" style, which is a standard means of presenting distinguishing characteristics. This style is necessary for two reasons:
The importance of the Archaea as a separate branch of life (one of three) requires that the reasons for recognizing them as separate be explained. This separateness is noted several times at the outset of the article. Thus, simply describing them, without making comparisons and contrasts with other forms of life, would not enable a person to understand or appreciate their uniqueness. Consider that the article could say that membrane lipids of the Archaea are ether-linked. OK, so why is that important or relevant? Is that different or the same as other living things? Well, the relevant information must be presented by comparison with the other two major domains of life to provide the answer. In this case, all other life has ester-linked lipids in their membranes.
Archaea are microscopic and beyond the experience of most people, so the additional context of comparison and contrast provides context for mentioning each feature. Diagnosis, by which I mean the recognition of a thing as opposed to other things, of the Archaea requires that one know which characteristics are unique to the thing and which are shared by other things. This then constitutes a definition of the thing. While this is not the only approach possible for presenting a definition, it is the better approach when describing something that is not only beyond the experience of most people, but beyond their ability to perceive directly.
In principle, I agree with you - I use comp/cont all of the time when I teach, too. The problem is that the reader has to understand what is being compared and contrasted. So, for example, the comparison between ester and ether membranes means nothing to me. I understand that they are different, but I have no idea how. It is not an enlightening contrast. I'm afraid that to the layperson, such a difference sounds, um, rather minor. I understand that it may not be at all - I understand that there may be huge ramifications to the ester/ether distinction, but the article doesn't really explain those in terms that I can understand (and I really do want to understand). I don't come away from the article going "wow! it's amazing that archaea have ether-linked membranes! i mean, all other life forms have ester! how did that evolve? I have to go find out! This is fascinating!" Rather, I come away puzzled about why this distinction is so important. Does this help explain the problem with some of the comparisons and contrasts? Awadewit (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Did I misunderstand your question, then? I understood your question to be "Why are comparisons repeatedly being made in the article, instead of just describing the Archaea without making comparisons?" Was this understanding not correct? That was the question I tried to address with my response above. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
That was the first part - the second part stated "At any rate, the comparisons are hard to understand without a firm grounding in the other two domains", which I have tried to expand upon here. Awadewit (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I see your point. In the section on cell walls the old version mentioned that archaea have "S-layers" and that bacteria usually don't, but failed to say what S-layers actually were. In focusing so much on the differnces, thie article sometimes fails to explain the system where the difference is seen. "In archaea, the astebagard is synwise to the bootaleps, while in bacteria this in hubwards to the bootaleps." :) Tim Vickers (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Just a tad?! Nice to know the article has improved that much in your estimation. Tim and I will work on improving the text in that section. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping on going with this Awadewit! We've rewritten this section a bit more so it relies less on the daughter articles and should serve better as an independent summary. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. The article is well-written, comprehensive, and (to me at least) very engaging. I suspect that some reviewers will expect this article to be easy going, given it is about bugs. They will be disappointed. Archae, like bacteria and viruses, are highly evolved and have complex structures and biochemistry. The article uses technical words because this is the only language we have to describe accurately these features. Having said that, the language is easily understood by any reader with a basic grounding in biology and chemistry, (yes, it is the ether that puts you to sleep). The nominator is to be commended for the level of accessibility achieved. I would hate to see the article turned into baby food simply to obtain FA status. GrahamColmTalk17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
It is much easier to write on technical topics using technical terms, but I'm conscious that if you write very carefully it is often possible to avoid them or put them in context so that they are more easily understood. I'm working on doing that at the moment. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Do I get to plug Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible here? On the whole, I think this article does a good job of walking this tightrope. In the example of the cell membranes, I like "which might contribute to the ability of some archaea to survive at extremes of temperature and in very acidic or alkaline environments" because it makes the distinction in a way which makes sense for archaea. Another tack would be something like "basic cellular structures, such as membranes, tend to vary little among organisms and the distinctive archaean membrane makes it more different from a bacterium than an animal is from a plant" (well, that isn't great wording, but something like that). I'm less keen on text like "In ester lipids this is an ester bond, which involves two oxygen atoms (labeled 6 in the Figure), whereas in ether lipids this is an ether bond, involving only one oxygen atom (labeled 2 in the Figure)." If people already know this, it is a distraction. If they don't, then trying to absorb this information at the same time that they try to figure out the significance of the two kinds of bonds for archaea is likely to produce mental overload. But anyway, I thank Awadewit (talk·contribs) for providing reactions (it is always good to hear how first-time readers react to an article, a perspective which it is hard to get if you've worked on an article, even if we/they have only read it a few times). There is only so far we can go to make the article easy for this sort of reader (given other goals, like not watering it down), but we should do what we can. Kingdon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Support, which I've been holding back because the article is still being actively improved :) Top-notch references, good use of images, excellent prose (not quite excellent a couple of days ago, but it is now)... definitely FA level in my humble opinion. I must say you've responded admirably to Awadewit's concerns: the article is much more lay-friendly than it was when I last skimmed through it, and has certainly not been turned into baby food (always a concern of mine as well, Graham :) I do have a couple of nit-picks as usual:
In the lead: "We now know that archaea..."—It is now known, if you please :)
Reworded
In "Morphology": "Recently, even a species of flat, square archaea...has been discovered." When exactly? The reference is to a 2005 article.
Not so recent, I've found the original ref and this is from 1980. Added ref and reworded.
In "Origin and early evolution": "Indeed, the origin of Archaea appears very old indeed..." I am indeed ODing on indeeds.
Not needed, cut.
In "Classification": "These classification systems aim to organize archaea..."—Current classification systems, perhaps?
Done.
I don't suppose Tim can make a PNG version of Image:Bacteriorhodopsin.jpg... JPG really doesn't look too good to me. I'd also place the image directly below the table, right-aligned; image staggering isn't set in stone.
Done.
I'd spotted a somewhat confusing statement regarding phototrophic archaea, but I can't seem to find it now?
Anyway—excellent work. This FAC is also excellent evidence that articles can indeed benefit from some "de-jargoning" every now and then :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Tentative Support—It is not a light read, but if you can get past the jargon and (in places) dense language it seems like a good article. The reader is probably going to spend a lot of time clicking links in order to understand this fully. But I didn't find any major issues with the presentation.—RJH (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through again using the readability link above (those are a great addition to the FA process BTW) and straightened out and broken up some knotty sentences See diff. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Support - Well written article on a notable and complex topic. The section on metabolism is jargon heavy, but all terms are linked and organic chemistry is very complex (at least it appears that way to me!). I will discussion on comprehensiveness etc. to others. I have made some (very) small changes, I hope these are OK. Once again, well done. -- Mattinbgn\talk03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems User:Crum375 protected the page because of persistent anon vandalism on 2008-04-04. I do not know why he chose a protection period of three months (especially when you consider that the page never been protected previously). However, since the protection is due to expire in a few days anyway, I had not bothered to unprotect it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments I enjoyed reading this article and can tell you have put a lot of hard work in it. It is the nature of the beast, however, that what follows does not enumerate all the great things you have done. Overall the article becomes far too often a compare and contrast exercise with Bacteria. I would suggest leaving most all the bits that say "similar to bacteria". However with all the pieces that say "Bacteria do/have it this way and Archaea do/have it that way." I would remove the bacteria bit and instead simply say "unique to Archaea". Also this article needs serious work on flow and cohesion with attention to the article as a whole. It seems to have had sections developed more in isolation than not. It is also a little heavy with parenthetical remarks.
Lead: missing summary of Genetics, Reproduction, and Technology. Too much detail with Carl Woese, 1977 Looking this over again, my biggest issue with the lead is structural.
Carl is only mentioned once and his work is a key event in the history of archaean microbiology, but I cut the date since that isn't critical. I've added some material on genetics and technology.
Discovery: Not sure if this is the vest heading title. Actually I would put call it "Classifaiction" and have the section already named that tacked on to the end of this one. All this really talks about it is the history of changes made in how these organisms are classified rather than how these organisms were "discovered".
That's debatable, see below for discussion.
This powerful approach, known as phylogenetics, is the main method used today The first clause is too peacocky.
Cut "powerful"
Archaea were identified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977 change identified to classified for better accuracy.
Reworded to "Archaea were first classified as a separate group of prokaryotes in 1977"
He later renamed the two groups of prokaryotes Archaea and Bacteria to emphasize this, and argued that together with Eukarya they are three domains of living organisms' A little awkward. Maybe "they compose the the three domains"?
Reworded to "To emphasize this difference, these two domains were later renamed Archaea and Bacteria."
This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came mostly from the use of molecular biology techniques to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone. Can we either enumerate these "molecular biology techniques" or link to somewhere that covers these techniques rather than the general field?
Reworded to "This new appreciation of the importance and ubiquity of archaea came from using the polymerase chain reaction to detect prokaryotes in samples of water or soil from their nucleic acids alone."
Such techniques eliminate the need to culture organisms in the laboratory, which is often difficult I thin "eliminate the need" is a bit strong, considering in the lead you say this sort of detection is not good enough to properly classify archaea.
Reworded to "This allows the detection and identification of organisms that cannot be cultured in the laboratory, which is often difficult."
Morphology: Some images of unusual shapes would be better than the chart that does not even specify archaea. Structure here is good
I'm afraid there are very few pictures available under a free license.
Individual archaeans range from 0.1 micrometers (μm) to over 15 μm in diameter Is the size range distinct from other single-celled organisims or generally equivalent?
Generally equivalent (although 0.1 um is on the small side) for prokaryotes. I could add "like bacteria" here, but I've been trying to remove these!
Origin and early evolution: I don't know that anything in this section covers the origin of archaea, nor that the section restricted to talking of early evolution of archaea. Lack of structure is now biggest concern.
Title renamed to "origin and evolution", since the point where the archaea originated was when they diverged from other forms of life.
Classification: I would merge this with first section as I stated above. I still think the discussion of the classification of archaea as a domain and the classification within that domain should group together in some way. At least as sub-heading under a larger "Classification" section.
populations of archaea show clusters of related cells that can be seen as species and the argument that these species are points within an interconnected net of gene transfer events What this debate is actually about is incomprehensible to me.
Simplified and clarified.
Better, but I still wonder if "groups" can be clarified. They aren't completely arbitrary are they?
That depends on who you ask, some argue that they are indeed arbitrary! This is at best a statistical definition of species. I've tried being a bit more specific on how these groups are being defined. - "The area is contentious; with, for example, some data suggesting that in archaea such as the genus Ferroplasma, individual cells can be grouped into populations that have highly-similar genomes and rarely transfer genes with more divergent groups of cells. These groups of cells are argued to be analogous to species."
Cell structure: This is the first section with any noticeable attempt organization of the writing. Although why cell walls are more distinct from cell membranes than flagella is lost to me. Bullets points really should be avoided when you get to multiple sentences.
Rearranged into paragraphs
Archaea are similar to bacteria in many aspects of their cell structure, but other characteristics set the archaea apart. This has no meaning
Reworded to "Archaea are similar to bacteria in their general cell structure, but the composition and organization of some of these structures set the archaea apart."
These molecules resemble soap molecules Why do you expect soap molecules to be a touch point for readers?
Analogy removed.
(the phosphate "head", shown as green circles, labeled 4 and 8, in the Figure) Direct references to figure in the text body rather than the caption. Yuck!
This was added in response to the review by Awadewit above. :) I've removed it again.
This double sheet of phospholipids is the major structure in cell membranes You lost me right here. How do two phosopholipids become a "sheet"? How is this configured with the life inside and the world outside? Water is likely to be on both sides. There are other structures to cell membranes other than a layer of goo keeping the life inside and the world outside?
Reworded, but this isn't the place for discussing membrane structure in detail. Hopefully the new wording should be a better summary of the article on cell membranes.
Ether bonds are more chemically-resistant then ester bonds and the downside/trade-off to ether bonds is?
I haven't seen any discussion of a downside, so I can't really speculate on that point.
These branched chains may help prevent archaean membranes from becoming leaky at high temperatures. and the downside/trade-off is?
Ditto, I don't think that is known.
In some archaea the typical phospholipid bilayer (labeled 9 at the right) is replaced by a single monolayer (labeled 10 at the right) Well the caption says 9 is bacteria/eukaryote model and 10 an archaea.
Removed and reworded. Poor usage of the word "typical", reworded to "in some archaea the phospholipid bilayer is replaced by a single monolayer."
bacteria possessing cell walls made from peptidoglycan . . . this polymer differs from the peptidoglycan of bacteria since it lacks D-amino acids and N-acetylmuramic acid I followed the S-layer/chain mail description nicely. This peptidoglycan/pseudopeptodoglycan bit however lost me. What is it besides hard to spell?
Not particularly important is what it is, I've cut this sentence.
while they are similar to bacterial flagella in that they are rotatory motors driven by a proton gradient or you could they are similar in operation (and then either offer the details or not).
Question - I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand this comment. Are you wanting more details on how the flagella operate?
I intended to point out that you could say this in more common terms like "they are similar in operation", rather than describing how they operate in a techincal way that some readers might not comprehend. The parenthetical is intended to say I don't have strong feels on including the details or not once a more comprehenable term like "operation" is in there.--BirgitteSB19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Reworded and expanded to "Archaea also have flagella, and these operate in a similar way to bacterial flagella - they are stiff stalks that are driven by rotatory motors at the base of the flagella. These motors are powered by the proton gradient across the membrane. "
The bacterial flagellum is a modified type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from to the bacterial type IV pili. This could be explained in more meaningful terms.
Reworded to "The two types of flagella evolved from different ancestors, the bacterial flagellum evolved from a type III secretion system, while archaeal flagella appear to have evolved from the bacterial type IV pil"
In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, where filament proteins move up a central pore and are added to the tip of the filament, archaeal filaments appear to be synthesized by adding subunits to their base. That is a little hard to grasp, can it link somewhere or be explained in detail.
Reworded to "In contrast to the bacterial flagellum, which is a hollow stalk and is assembled by subunits moving up the central pore and then adding onto the tip of the flagella, archaeal flagella are synthesized by adding subunits onto their base."
Metabolism: This is the weakest section so far. Intro paragraph skips over Hererortrophs. How exactly is that image relevant to this section?
Archaea exhibit a variety of different types of metabolism, obtaining the energy they need from many different chemical reactions As do all organisms; lacks meaning.
Not really, most eukaryotes use a very limited set of nutrients. Reworded to "Archaea exhibit a great variety of chemical reactions in their metabolism and use many different sources of energy."
with archaea that grow on complex organic compounds (the chemoorganotrophs) Kill the parenthetical and just stick with three basic groups. It just is a confusing new term never used again and adds nothing important.
Cut and reworded.
These similarities with other organisms probably reflect the early evolution of carbohydrate metabolism in the history of life Or else this could reflect that there are limited options for metabolizing carbohydrates efficiently
Good point, added.
A common reaction in . . . I don't understand why the details of this chemical reaction should be included.
Question - Do you think it would be better with more equations, or better without this equation?
Actually I was going for a different angle. If this chemistry is a significant point about Archaea, explain the significance explicitly and keep it. If it not or if other other chemistry has equal significance, cut it or add the others. I don't have a strong feeling about equations per se.--BirgitteSB19:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It's an important reaction to methanogens, but no more important to the archaea in general than sulfur reduction or ammonia oxidation. I've removed it.
Methanogenesis involves a range of unique coenzymes, such as coenzyme M and methanofuran Unique to Archaea or to methogens. (I feel the article is losing its focus about now)
Reworded to "Methanogenesis involves a range of coenzymes that are unique to these archaea"
Genetics:
Archaeal plasmids are increasingly important as genetic tools and allow the performance of genetic studies in archaea. This has lost me and it has no links.
Cut.
As with the bacteriophages that infect bacteria, some viruses replicate within archaea Or as with all types of living organisms, archara can be infected with viruses. Similarity to bacteria is only worth noting when it is similarity to bacteria alone (or nearly so).
Good point. Reworded to "Archaea can be infected by viruses."
Archaea are genetically distinct from other organisms As are Bacteria, Jellyfish, Giraffes, and BirgitteSB. That doesn't mean much.
Reworded to "Archaea are genetically distinct from bacteria and eukaryotes"
Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to those in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very similar to their equivalents in eukaryotes. The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function in a similar way to that of eukaryotes Can you not say "similar . . . to eukaryotes" so often in succession?
Cut and reworded. "Transcription and translation in archaea are more similar to these processes in eukaryotes than in bacteria, with archaean RNA polymerase II and ribosomes being very close to their equivalents in eukaryotes. The archaeal RNA polymerase in transcription also seems to function like that of eukaryotes, with similar assemblies of proteins (the general transcription factors) directing the binding of the RNA polymerase to a gene's promoter. However, other archaean transcription factors are closer to those found in bacteria."
Reproduction:
(they have the same karyotype)Kayotype begins "A karyotype is the characteristic chromosome complement of a eukaryote species" One of these articles is wrong.
Reworded to "these will all have the same genetic material", they only have one chromosome anyway.
a complex cell cycle; after the cell's chromosome is replicated and the two daughter chromosomes are separated, the cell divides Seems simple compared to meiosis; what's so complex?
True, "complex" has no real meaning here. Reworded to "Cell division is controlled in the archaea in a cell cycle"
Spores, such as the endospores made by some bacteria, are not formed in any of the known archaea Many things are not formed in archaea, why does this merit inclusion?
Since this is defining characteristic that separates them from both bacteria and eukaryotes. I've reworded this to "Spores are made by both bacteria and eukaryotes, but are not formed in any of the known archaea."
Some species of Haloarchaea undergo phenotypic switching and grow as several different types of cell, including thick-walled structures that are resistant to osmotic shock and allow the archaea to survive in water at low concentrations of salt, but these are not reproductive structures and may instead help them disperse to new habitats Maybe this should be in "cell structure" not "Reproduction".
No, this is the closest they get to spores, so I think this belongs best here.
Ecology: You might want to particularly mention plankton here. Or else take out the image and the mention in the lead. You also might want to move "Interaction with other organisms" before "Role in chemical cycling" so you can explains termites/ruminants and methogens before mentioning them as in aside in the role on global warming.
Added plankton in text. The section on cycling fits well with the habitats section, so I've just removed the mention of termites in this section.
the formate-consuming methanogen What does formate-consuming signify?
I'll try to begin implementing some of these suggestions tomorrow (It's rather late for me locally). I do want to point out two specfic points in your comments that either perhaps should not be made. First, the statements where the text says "Bacteria have"/"Archaea have" cannot be changed to "Unique to archaea" in most cases. Remember that there is a third group, the eukaryotes, and in many of these situations where the comparison was made, archaea actually share their trait with eukaryotes. In other words, revising those passages will be a bit trickier, though some may be changeable.
Second, it is not correct to replace "...were identified" with "...were classified". Those two statements mean entirely different things. Identification is the recognition or discovery of a group; classification is the formal publication of a scientific name and description that places a group in context. The archaea were identified in 1977 as a new group, but were still classified alongside the bacteria as a kingdom. It was not until 1990 that the group was classified as a separate domain. Related to this, the two sections you've identified as pertaining to classification really do separate things. The "Discovery" section discusses the separateness of the group and its recognition as separate, so it treats the group as a cohesive whole distinct from other groups. By contrast, the "Classification" section discusses relationships within the group between different members, treating the members as units of a diverse assemblage. I fear that merging the two sections would blur this important difference in the focus of the two sections. The "Discovery" really has more in common with the "Origin and early evolution section" than with the "Classification" section. There is also the problem that the "Discovery" section is a general read, that introduces what the group is and something of its importance; it must therefore appear early in the article. The "Classification" section covers material that is more specialized, and much harder to explain to the layman, so placing it early in the article may befuddle some readers. I'm not sure that the two sections can be neatly joined because of this. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
First: Perhaps then compare them to eukaruote where they are not unique. Bacteria has 16 instances of the word archaea. This article use "bacteria" 50 times, and I didn't even count things like cyanobacteria.
Second: I am not sure when a few species among a selection of birds that were always regarded as one genus are assigned a brand new genus all there own, that those birds aren't considered to be "discoverd" at that point. But if I am wrong about this maybe you can clarify why in the article a little more so other can't think along the same lines.--BirgitteSB12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying your concern; obviously the article isn't making that (second) point clear. Birds are probably not a good analogy for this situation, nor is a discussion at the level of genus. Imagine rather that you suddenly discover that some of those lights in the sky are actually planets like Earth, or that you suddenly realize that some of the "rocks" around you are actually living things. This would be closer to the magnitutde of Woese's discovery, as it marked a major shift in thinking about life on Earth. What happened in the case of the Archaea was that a few species were known to exist and had previously been classified among bacteria because they were tiny and nucleus-free. Carl Woese discovered the distinctiveness of those few known species, and along with this recognition came the discovery of dozens, then hundreds, of new organisms previously unknown to exist. Even now, microbiologists will take a random sample from a random location and "shotgun" for possible DNA. This often leads to the discovery of new Archaea, which turn out to be ubiquitous on Earth. I guess another analogy would be if we had only ever seen penguins and ostriches, then someone suddenly thought to look upwards and discovered there were birds flying around in the sky. If the enormity of the discovery hasn't been made clear in the article, then we should certainly clarify this point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm nominating this article for featured article because it deals, in what I trust is a comprehensive and balanced way, with a major though neglected contributor to polar science. I stand to be corrected of course, but after a successful GA and a thorough peer review, I think it is ready. Brianboulton (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment "the Weddell Sea – the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition (SNAE)." and "plans—a proposed transcontinental march via the South Pole—were" – I think you need to decide if you want to use em dashes throughout, or spaced en dashes. GaryKing (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I was a peer reviewer and felt it was essentially FA then. It has been imporved since and I feel it meets all of the criteria and is a fascinating read. My only quibble is why the hyphen is in Piper Gilbert Kerr, with penguin, photo-graphed by Bruce.? Well done, Ruhrfisch><>°°00:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I've no idea why it wasn't listed at FAC - I can only assume that I forgot to press the edit button (I often lose stuff that way). Anyway, it's listed now. Thanks for pointing this out. Brianboulton (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Otherwise sources look good. Other links checked out with the link checker tool. I'll try to get back and do a full prose review sooner or later. Ealdgyth - Talk13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
With regard to the section headings, the only instance I found of false capitalization was "First Voyages", and I have dealt with that. I have also added the required citations to quoted material - thanks for pointing these out. Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support. Nicely written, and seems to be a comprehensive biography. Well done. (I have only one comment remaining. The lead could probably be shorter, with fewer details and more general statements, but it's fine.) —SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Support I've been reading on this in bits and pieces since it went up (RL has been hectic!) and have to say I like it and willingly support. Ealdgyth - Talk12:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Support I couldn't resist a little tinkering, , but I am happy for any edit to be reverted. Thanks for an interesting and engaging read. GrahamColmTalk18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
